Berejiklian draws a surprising and tenuous link between Sydney buses and Gorbachev

This is one transport connection I never expected anyone, let alone Gladys Berejiklian, would make: The million-kilometre-plus buses date back to the Cold War era. "Some of the buses on the roads today were commissioned before Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union," she said.

Mikhail must be on her mind. Of course Ms Berejiklian needn't have made a FOI application to get similar info, as Wikipedia tells us all about these dogged diesels in detail. And she can sate her newfound bus interest at the Bus and Truck Museum, too. Admittedly the world has moved on since Gorby was in power, but I don't think he had much to do with the purchase of the long-lasting diesel Mercedes buses in question. Perhaps we should have stuck with Leylands instead? Now I wonder how long we hung onto those green and cream Leyland and AEC single and double deckers way back when? Anyone like to hazard a guess around the 20 year mark?

When good ideas go bad...free public transport? Imagine the chaos! #transport

Here we go, another speculative old-media story that will test run another half-baked idea.

In short, it's a good idea that surely would get plenty more people off the roads and into trains, buses and ferries (but presumably not onto Sydney's private light rail, which would have to be compensated). And it's also a bad idea that would suddenly flood an already strained system with more frustrated commuters... imagine the queues, the packed trains and buses... potentially driving many of these new public transport users back into their cars. If you think the public (and the old media) complain about the lack of on-time running now, imagine what will happen with thousands of extra 'customers'!

Every trip will take longer as these extra travellers get on an off, so timetables will go out the window. (OTOH buses will have less overall traffic congestion to deal with, so that will compensate to some degree.) The current so-called 'peak hour' won't double, but it will extend by perhaps 30% or so. People with a disability will find it harder to get on and off at these times, and perhaps the aged, kids and pregnant women will be deterred, too. Perhaps some public transport will become more of a shuttle service to cope, but with many services converging on the CBD and a limited range of terminals that just won't work... it will clog up, logjam, and shut down.

Here's the story that got me onto this topic: PREMIER Nathan Rees is being urged from within his own government to make public transport free for everybody as part of a radical bid to win the next election.

As the article says, fares don't cover the cost of public transport - they simply add to the pricing mechanism (which includes the queue and the uncomfortable seats) and assist with matching demand with a limited supply. If you take away the cost of a ticket many more people will jump onto the system and - unless someone waves a magic wand to up the capacity - break it. The deterrant to use - and perhaps over-use - will be extended queuing or the next (uncomfortably packed) bus or train.

The cost of running the system will also rise - even without adding any new services, the extra loadings will cause additional regular maintenance and add more wear and tear to roads and track. So the real cost to the community will not be just fares foregone but the extra maintenance plus more frequent replacement of components and complete vehicles/rolling stock; and probably extra labour to deal both with the extended queues and the safety requirements of packed station platforms. And so on. It won't be cheap.

On the other hand, whilst not everyone can use public transport - sometimes it just doesn't go where you want to go - it will remove lost of private vehicles from the roads. And that can't be a bad thing. Some savings will also be made by removing ticket sellers and inspectors, plus the back-end systems that must manage and account for the cash (won't the unions love that). But they will be re-assigned to other work. Perhaps.

If we are to offer free - or even much cheaper - public transport then we need to plan and do this properly. We need to build a system that can cope with the extra users. Which has been the sticking point for the last decade at least. Exactly how do you make these sorts of massive investments in, for example, new trainlines, when you are under pressure to "fix" hospitals and education and all the rest? Successive state treasurers have been unable to do it. What will it take?

Of course we could just trim the fares gradually whilst we phase in new infrastructure. And won't the media love that - another bright new shiny public transport plan doomed for the dustbin as we realise just how expensive that new trainset will be.

Cars, gasoline, transport and the future #futurism #cars

It's easy to say that the car market is changing - there are some obvious forces at play. Most clearly we see the pending collapse of the US-owned auto-makers, GM, Ford and Chrysler. In truth it's been a long-time coming and, indeed, it hasn't happened yet. They may be rescued, for example. FIAT may indeed buy Chrysler, or some other deal may arise. GM may cut/sell-off enough arms and legs that it can scrape by, as could Ford. And various governments around the world may stump up more direct cash or indirect subsidies to keep these dinosaurs and their local offshoots alive.

But there's more afoot here - even Toyota reports bad times in the car trade. So let's dig deeper. What is happening here and what can we expect in the future?

• Fuel prices have demonstrated greater volatility, scaring the market out of larger, heavier, faster or potentially riskier purchases
• Awareness has risen in the marketplace, of peak oil and climate change especially, dampening enthusiasm for cars in general and larger, thirstier cars especially
• Global financial collapse has threatened the ongoing provision of capital for the makers and dampened the desire and available cash flow of the consumer
• The rise of developing nations and their car makers has shifted the global focus towards low-impact, affordable cars

It's the last point that really grabs my thoughts right now. In some ways it answers, at least partially, some of the other points, too. By shifting production to smaller, less complex vehicles we not only meet the demand for personal transportation and open up economic possibilities for people in developing countries, we provide renewed competition for established makers in the developed world. It shakes things up and creates hope for greater innovation in addressing both alternative fuel sources and climate change. The fact that lower-cost cars use fewer resources will be an important change in an industry that has arguably become fat, lazy and complacent on a long-term diet of cheap oil. However the downside to opening up new markets is that any growth in manufacturing will increase pressure on our available resources and potentially lead to additional pollution, be it carbon or other wastes. It will also put pressure on public transport to offer effective competition, or to decline, as it has in much of the developed world.

The negatives are obvious, but we also have some positive forces at work here, including a push towards smaller cars with less impact overall, and more flexibility in fuel options. So what have we got in terms of lower-impact, lower-cost cars in the pipeline? The Indian Tata Nano is an obvious one, and from the same locale is the petrol/LPG Suzuki-Maruti 800. We also have the Romanian Renault, the Dacia Logan; the Fiat 178 project's offshoot, produced in several countries - the Palio, with an electric version mooted; and offerings from Russia's Lada. Plus there's Renault-Nissan working with Bajaj on a Tata Nano competitor, and further developments in China.

The flavour here is small, efficient cars with flexible powertrains. Some with the backing of existing large auto-makers such as Renault, FIAT and Suzuki, others based on what has been learnt from previous licensing deals and/or the production of so-called "legacy" or obsolete cars.

Paramount in meeting the developing world's demand for cars is low cost. The consumer will expect - and probably can only afford - a low purchase price with equally low running costs. That means manufacturers will need to scale up volume whilst driving down costs. Margins will be small. There's little room here for complacent "old school" car makers. Yes, they can continue to feast on the wealthy nations and their taste for over-large, over-insulated and overweight vehicles, but not joining in and competing will see these lower-cost makers taking more and more market-share over time. Eventually the penny will drop.

What can we expect to see over the next 10-15 years? There are no guarantees, but there is clearly an emerging market for smaller cars with flexible engine and fuel options, and it's an opportunity that will be addressed by the companies most eager to adapt. Lower-cost cars will gain traction and spread, with exports likely from countries such as China, India and Brazil, to name but 3. A second wave may come from other Asian and South American countries with African production ramping up as well. As these producers gain share existing small-car makers such as Hyundai and Suzuki will join in, as will the more agile of the "old school" makers such as VW, FIAT and Toyota. However many of these companies, and certainly the less flexible makers such as GM and Ford, will find it tough to adapt to this ultra-low-cost environment and will look to premium brands for salvation. Whether there will be enough room on that shrinking island remains to be seen.

We also cannot discount other disruptive entrants into the market. As cars are forced into a better balance with public transport and electric cars gain momentum there is an opportunity also for companies outside of the car-making game to come into play. Whilst hydrogen and fuel cells are largely discounted as power sources in the immediate future, they too may well gain ground as new possibilities emerge. And the very concept of personal transport could be threatened by new forms of flexible, lower-cost public transport. Both heavy and light rail solutions may continue to decline and be replaced by loosely-coupled personal transport modules that forsake some of their "freedom" for a degree of shared infrastructure and scheduling. Combined with electronic control of roadways (using GPS and RFIDs, for example) personal cars of the future may offer a new form of "train" that services wider areas by road rather than inflexible fixed rail. Whilst it may be difficult to imagine the current car owner giving up some of their current freedom to move at will, the sheer volume of cars on the roads and the likelihood of traffic gridlock will compel governments to consider a transition of some sort.