Posts
An average Brisbane suburban family has decided to go car free to save money and improve their health. Not only that, they have decided to record their experiences in an online diary, which you can read regular updates on here. While some of our current political leaders tell us it's "green" to drive a 4WD everywhere it's great to see that Brisbane people are taking our social, environmental and economic challenges seriously and taking genuine action to improve the city.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Family go "car(e)free" in Brisbane
An average Brisbane suburban family has decided to go car free to save money and improve their health. Not only that, they have decided to record their experiences in an online diary, which you can read regular updates on here. While some of our current political leaders tell us it's "green" to drive a 4WD everywhere it's great to see that Brisbane people are taking our social, environmental and economic challenges seriously and taking genuine action to improve the city.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Here's an entry from my diary - and some comments.
Today (Sunday) I took a bus to Toowong. The bus took a detour through seemingly every back-street in the area it detoured through. It wound this way then that way then around and probably in circles. I'd love to see a map of it, but it's not shown on the timetable.
It's not a one-off though - this detour is taken on every second run.
There were only about 4 people on the bus the whole time. Let's work out how that compares with a car in terms of fuel use and emissions.
(I'll add that the area we detoured through is hilly, so the bus did a lot of steep climbing.)
The bus seats about 45 people, so 4 people are sell than one-tenth of it's seating capacity.
A car is about one-sixteenth the size of a bus. A bus is twice as wide, twice as high and about four times the length of a car. 2x2x4=16
A car carries a minimum of one fifth of it's seating capacity - the driver. A car also goes directly from A to B, and by a route which in this case would avoid steep hills
The bus is sixteen times the size of the car and carries half the percentage of it's full seating capacity. So the bus is equivalent, in terms of fuel use and emissions, to 32 cars.
Accounting for the much longer trip, and the steeper hills along that route, that would be more than doubled.
I'll be cruel and point out also that buses stop and accelerate off at short intervals along the route. Cars just stop at intersections. By stopping and pulling away again, buses slow traffic.
In general, the only time the buses ever are full is at peak times, on trips outbound from the City and for only the first part of the trip.
At all other times, they are not even nearly full - but still running on average half-hourly.
So whatever fuel and passenger efficiency advantage buses have at the times and places they are full is far outweighed by the times when they are carrying the same or a smaller fraction of their capacity than cars do.
If we increase the frequency of buses to decrease waiting times and alleviate crowding at busy times, this fuel and passenger inefficiency is made even worse.
So - even if climate change, peak oil and overpopulation are realities, they are still not reasons to use public transport instead of cars. It's the reverse.
"Care free"? Oh, this is going to be so good. It'll be like one of those morbid "reality" TV shows.
Car(e) Free Diary entry, Sat. 26-4-08
A week ago I took my PC and printer to a repair shop in the City. I had to carry both of them to the bus stop and then load them onto a bus.
Thank God I don't have a car - then I would have missed out on some exercise - including weights. What a benefit.
Today I picked them up from the shop. I decided to make two round trips this time and take each item seperately. This meant a relaxing wait for each bus I caught - four waits. This only took up only a couple of hours of my weekend. Mmm.
Again, if I'd had a car, I would have had to rush instead of taking it easy.
Car-free Diary entry 4 May 2008
This will make you laugh. I wanted to go to the Tour Day at the new King George Square northern link centre. I got there just as it closed at about 2:10 pm. I left my home in Auchenflower at about 1:20 pm. It took that long - 50 minuntes - because I travelled by bus. Or would have if it came at the right time. I actually walked.
I didn't know whether the bus had gone five minutes early (which it did do earlier this week - it passed me as I walked to the stop) or it was late or didn't go at all. I didn't see it pass as I walked in, so I guess it didn't.
This is the problem when someone else is doing the driving.
By the way, in the 5 minutes I wait for a bus, I can drive this distance in a car.
If they do manage to schedule all the buses to run every 5 minutes, will we really be waiting 10 - 15 minutes and have two or three turn up at once, which sometimes happens now? A more frequent schedule will give them an excuse to be sloppier with following the schedule.
And if everyone adopted your idea and always used a car, *everybody's* drive time would increase just about exponentially since the roads would be choked. Get a grip and use some logic, Allan.
What is the logic behind your own comment, Leslie? How would everyone travelling by car choke the roads and exponentially increase travel time?
I also am talking about *everybody's* travel time when I talk about public transport.
You are probably thinking that every time new road is laid out people find new reasons and more time to drive in their allotted 16 hours a day; or that the population automatically increases in response. I don't see how either follow.
All we need is enough roads; something our government hasn't provided for twenty years now - which is the reason for the congestion.
Say we make public transport as easy as you think it will be. Wouldn't the same "logic" apply? People would travel "just for the ease of it" - if they can find no other reason - and the buses, trains, bicycle paths and foot paths would become crowded, necessitating thew need for more buses, more roads and bike and foot paths and so on "exponentially".
The trains, buses, footpaths and train stations are choked *now*. What will it be like when everyone starts using them?
Roads don't just keep increasing until there is nothing else left. We still need places - buildings etc - to travel to and from on the roads. If buildings start disappearing to make way for roads, the need for roads decreases.
Get a grip, Leslie.
Note that Lesley doesn't bother to answer my criticisms. That's because this isn't really a topic for community debate. I know of no forum in which it is discussed.
Note also the hostility and ridicule of Lesley's response; his offense at the very idea of disagreement or complaint. His opinion - popular opinion - is right by default. It doesn't need to be discussed.
This by itself raises worrying questions about where it will take us.
Because I'm one of the people who still do "have a grip", I am worried about the rush toward the monopolisation of our means of travel in a communal form.
Post a Comment