The SA Politics Thread

[rev]

People aren't going to give up their personally owned cars in favour of a driverless taxi. Not in 20 years, not in 40 years.

I think people need to lower their expectations a little..remember, a couple decades ago they were predicting we would have flying cars buzzing around everywhere.

[Nathan]

People aren't going to give up their personally owned cars in favour of a driverless taxi. Not in 20 years, not in 40 years.

I think people need to lower their expectations a little..remember, a couple decades ago they were predicting we would have flying cars buzzing around everywhere.

Some might, but you're right in that many won't give up their primary vehicle. I see carshare and on-demand vehicles making a far bigger dent in multiple car ownership though. People need to use a second (or third or fourth) car far less than the main car — so they can make significant savings by only paying for additional cars on an as-needed basis rather than sitting there requiring purchase + registration + maintenance + fuel + storage.

[claybro]

Labor wants to increase minimum parking requirements for new developments? What happened transit-oriented development?

Seems like a ploy to win favour among nimbys. Doesn't matter though, as their private member's bill won't be passed.

https://indaily.com.au/news/2019/08/07/ ... -industry/

Labor’s planning spokesman Tony Piccolo defended the proposed changes which would see the imposition of a minimum of two off-street carparks for dwellings of two or more bedrooms, and one off-street park for one-bedroom properties.

If on-site car parks could not be provided, the changes would require car parking spaces to be available “at a nearby off-street site”.

Parking shouldn't be dependent on bedroom numbers, it should relate to the local context.

It's a stupid policy. We own a two bedroom / one car park apartment, and have one car with zero desire for a second. Under this, such a setup would be impossible to purchase.

Car parking requires space and more space costs more money. The problem we have at the moment is that the government provides free car storage space in the form of street parking, so people see that they can buy/rent a place with less parking than they need and know that they can stick their car somewhere for nothing. The solution isn't to mandate the number of carparks per property — that removes choice and imposes cost on people who don't need them — but remove the "free" parking as an option. Mandate that all cars must have a provable off-street parking spot, or at the very least, put in parking restrictions that make resident parking impratical.

Sureley it would not be too hard to mandate a percentage of extra optional bays per building? IE, you may only require a 2 bed 1 car dwelling, but if an additional bay was available at additional cost you could purchase it on a separate title if you own property within the building. these could be bought and sold among the building owners as required. -OR, the strata could maintain ownership of the additional bays, and lease them to apartment owners. We need to get more variety of people living in the CBD-not just empty nesters and students. Public transport is nowhere near advanced enough to stop people having a car.

[SRW]

I'm surprised more people, if any even do it here, don't rent out their car parking spaces like they do on the east coast.

They do. There's an app called Parkhound.

Sureley it would not be too hard to mandate a percentage of extra optional bays per building? IE, you may only require a 2 bed 1 car dwelling, but if an additional bay was available at additional cost you could purchase it on a separate title if you own property within the building. these could be bought and sold among the building owners as required. -OR, the strata could maintain ownership of the additional bays, and lease them to apartment owners. We need to get more variety of people living in the CBD-not just empty nesters and students. Public transport is nowhere near advanced enough to stop people having a car.

Well sure, for flats. Pretty sure that's happening already. But not sure how that works with detached or semi-detached housing, which is what this thoughtbubble targets. Not every house with 2 or more bedrooms needs 2 or more carparks, so they shouldn't be forced to because of an arbitrary minimum requirment.

[SBD]

This is a stupid policy.

With the emergence of driverless AI and electric vehicles in the next 10-20 years, it is very likely that the need and demand for both on street and off street carparking spaces will actually be far less, because the newer technology vehicles will be used in a much more efficient manner. Rather than having cars sit in garages and clog up carparks for hours at a time (as this policy promotes) the future is in 'driverless Uber'. In 20 years time, the societal norm will be to call up a car when you need it to transport you (for example) from A (home) to B (shops). When you're out shopping, that 'driverless Uber' car could then go off and service someone else's transport needs while you're shopping, rather than sitting in a carpark the entire time. When you've done your shopping, you'll just simply call up the driverless Uber car again and it'll transport you home, once you've been dropped off, it'll respond to the next service request and the cycle continues. Far more efficient.

We have had self-driving vehicle systems for years - they are called taxis (including the driver as part of the system). I expect there is a segment of the community that considers the price a barrier, and will switch from driving their own vehicle to using a self-driving car pool if or when the price balance shifts far enough. Many people own their own car instead of using taxis for convenience reasons other than price.

Consider for example a hypothetical person who leaves home in the morning, goes to the gym, the office, the supermarket and then out to dinner before going home again. The "uber" model means they have to take their gym clothes to the office, supermarket and dinner rather than leave it in the car to be taken out and washed when they get home. The groceries also had to be carried to dinner. Maybe the next model of self-driving car can be given the house keys and will take the gym clothes home and put it in the washing machine after dropping the human off at work. Or maybe that person will still prefer to own a car.

[rev]

People aren't going to give up their personally owned cars in favour of a driverless taxi. Not in 20 years, not in 40 years.

I think people need to lower their expectations a little..remember, a couple decades ago they were predicting we would have flying cars buzzing around everywhere.

Some might, but you're right in that many won't give up their primary vehicle. I see carshare and on-demand vehicles making a far bigger dent in multiple car ownership though. People need to use a second (or third or fourth) car far less than the main car — so they can make significant savings by only paying for additional cars on an as-needed basis rather than sitting there requiring purchase + registration + maintenance + fuel + storage.

I own multiple vehicles. Personal vehicles and a work vehicle. There's no taxi or uber option that would see me give up any of them.

Uber and such aren't significantly cheaper then a taxi anyway. The only difference is that you know who your driver is going to be, what car he/she is driving, and how much its going to cost before getting in. And of course you don't have to exchange cash with them, the whole rating system, and the map/tracking on the app. All they've done is take an existing service and refined it.
Taxis didn't kill multiple vehicle ownership, why would Uber? Its the same basic service with some needed refinements.

The jet engine didn't kill off shipping, passenger or freight, despite it being much, much quicker, and airports being able to be placed in a variety of environments closer to markets/population centres whereas shipping terminals can only be..obviously...in coastal regions, meaning freight and passengers then need to find another way to be moved to non coastal areas. If you look at how many billions are spent on new ships, you'd be amazed I bet.

[Nathan]

I own multiple vehicles. Personal vehicles and a work vehicle. There's no taxi or uber option that would see me give up any of them.

Why? What would be the tipping point to make you consider giving up any of them?

[rev]

I own multiple vehicles. Personal vehicles and a work vehicle. There's no taxi or uber option that would see me give up any of them.

Why? What would be the tipping point to make you consider giving up any of them?

Taxis and Uber/the rest can not replace peoples work vehicles. I'm not talking about the vehicle I use to travel to work, but the vehicle I use for work.
I use my personal vehicles for a variety of things. From carting the family around, to trips away.
Is Uber or a Taxi going to take me 4wding or camping? Will they take me shooting? Will they drive me on the beach down at Robe and drive over the sand dunes?
Will Uber take me to bunnings and bring back 2m lengths of wood? Would a taxi?
Will they attach my trailer to their vehicle?

Do you think Europcar wants you to hire their 4WD's to go offroading, bringing them back with dents, scrape marks on the paintwork, chips in windows, and excessive mud/dust/dirt in the cabin? If you did that, it'll get very expensive very quickly. And after a few trips with a hired 4WD, you'll realise you would have been better off just buying your own 4WD.

There is no tipping point. Because it's never going to happen. It didn't happen with taxis, and it wont happen with a refined taxi service like Uber.

[rhino]

Well I don't know what's going on here, but I find myself in agreeance with Rev. All these points apply to me, and to my friends, too.

It brings to mind the arguments a few years ago against the 1/4 acre block, and the militants on this site who insist on medium density living. What about those of us who want to own a boat, a trailer, or a caravan, and want to have a few fruit trees and a veggie patch, and want a shed/workshop in their back yard, and want to have space for their kids to play with firends in the back yard, and want to have their mates over for a Barbie?

[Nathan]

I own multiple vehicles. Personal vehicles and a work vehicle. There's no taxi or uber option that would see me give up any of them.

Why? What would be the tipping point to make you consider giving up any of them?

Taxis and Uber/the rest can not replace peoples work vehicles. I'm not talking about the vehicle I use to travel to work, but the vehicle I use for work.
I use my personal vehicles for a variety of things. From carting the family around, to trips away.
Is Uber or a Taxi going to take me 4wding or camping? Will they take me shooting? Will they drive me on the beach down at Robe and drive over the sand dunes?
Will Uber take me to bunnings and bring back 2m lengths of wood? Would a taxi?
Will they attach my trailer to their vehicle?

Do you think Europcar wants you to hire their 4WD's to go offroading, bringing them back with dents, scrape marks on the paintwork, chips in windows, and excessive mud/dust/dirt in the cabin? If you did that, it'll get very expensive very quickly. And after a few trips with a hired 4WD, you'll realise you would have been better off just buying your own 4WD.

There is no tipping point. Because it's never going to happen. It didn't happen with taxis, and it wont happen with a refined taxi service like Uber.

Uber or a Taxi won't, but a carshare could replace some of those trips. Going off-roading yes would be a more specific requirement that such services wouldn't cover, but a carshare ute/van/trailer would be an excellent option for those that might only need to go to Bunnings for large items a couple of times a year.

Some people like yourself might have specific use cases, I get that, but many people could certainly replace a second or third car as on-demand options become more plentiful.

So many people buy a car larger than they need (or an additional car) because they might need it for a trip, or might need it to fit some unspecified large item. If that's something you do on a regular basis, then great, get that car. But everyone else could save a ton of money by buying a smaller car or not buying that extra car and finding other ways to cover those rarer use cases.

[SRW]

Well I don't know what's going on here, but I find myself in agreeance with Rev. All these points apply to me, and to my friends, too.

It brings to mind the arguments a few years ago against the 1/4 acre block, and the militants on this site who insist on medium density living. What about those of us who want to own a boat, a trailer, or a caravan, and want to have a few fruit trees and a veggie patch, and want a shed/workshop in their back yard, and want to have space for their kids to play with firends in the back yard, and want to have their mates over for a Barbie?

Does anyone really suggest that you can't have that? People are always going to have different lifestyles and want different things. The type of housing you describe is already well-catered at about 75% of all available stock. It will continue to be the predominate type into the future. I think the point about medium density housing is to have more of it in the right places to give people a genuine choice (i.e. more than just 8% of the market currently). The urban growth boundary means we can't keep building suburbs with 1/4 acre blocks forever -- but we can reduce demand for the ones we have (and increase affordability for all) by increasing housing supply and choice with higher densities (again, in the right places).

[rhino]

can reduce demand for the ones we have (and increase affordability for all) by increasing housing supply and choice with higher densities (again, in the right places).

Sorry this is off-track for the thread, but have you been to Mount Barker, Littlehampton, Nairne lately? 35-40km from the city and the blocks are 600 sqm on average, some down to 400-odd sqm. It's not just "in the right places". I live in the hills and was in the market for a place last year. It took 6 months for something to come up that had enough land (1000 sqm) - 39km from the city. Not because there isn't a market for it, but because there is more money for the developer when the blocks are smaller, and more money for Council, which supports it.

[Llessur2002]

I think whilst Rev has a valid point, there are certainly many households who undertake none of these activities and a own second car (probably their primary car too) which is only ever used to commute a relatively short distance between one family member's home and place of work. The same trip every single day. One occupant. No equipment.

These are the households which could feasibly be attracted to give up at least one of their existing vehicles in favour of a rideshare - automated or otherwise. As always with these things though, there would have to be a significant cost saving for this to be seen as an attractive option. Convenience probably won't cut it. As said before, the ability to leave your own stuff in your car, listen to your own music, take it wherever you want and know it's parked right outside of your house all of the time are a powerful draw. Cutting costs dramatically will be the only way to convince many people to make the switch - unless congestion gets so bad that peak hour journeys double or triple in time. But then rideshare vehicles would be stuck in that too...

Our family probably sits between the two. We only have one car which is never used for commuting - we both either cycle or take public transport to and from our jobs in the CBD. However, the car gets a lot of use at the weekend - it's full of spare stuff for our toddler in case we need it somewhere or take a random deviation and need a travel cot so that our daughter doesn't miss out on a nap (or more specifically we don't miss out on some 'free' time). We've been renovating our house for the past few years and I have done more trips to and from Bunnings than I can count. I know it fits a 2.7m length of timber without cutting - very useful. It's slightly bigger than we need for most activities but when we do need the extra room it's great. As anyone with kids knows, sometimes you need to take opportunities to nip to the shops etc whenever they spring up, and sometimes you need stuff in an emergency - knowing it's right outside and not 5 minutes away is good. Plus, we plan to buy a camper trailer in the next year or two.

As much as it pains me to say it I'd be reluctant to give that up for a ride share arrangement at this stage in my life. If my kids had grown up, I had no DIY to do and didn't need to use the car for anything other than occasional journeys then I might think differently...

[rev]

To fill up a car, say 50 litres, can range from $59 @ $1.19/L to $84 @ $1.69/L.

Using Uber, from Henley Beach it will cost $24-$32 per trip. $48 a day. $240 a week minimum.
Blair Athol to the CBD - $20-$27. $40 a day. $200 a week minimum.
Brompton to the CBD - $14-$19. $28 a day. $140 a week minimum.
Mile End to the CBD - $12-$17. $24 a day. $120 a week minimum.

Five days a week.

You don't have a car, or access to the only car you have. So you now have to factor in more spending on Uber to get around.

That tank of fuel for between $59 and $84 a week, will get you a lot further for less money then Uber will.
Let's say that your average weekly spend on fuel is $70 a week averaged out for the whole year. That's $3,640 for the year on fuel.
$120 a week Mile End to CBD, is $6,240 a year. Factor in Uber spending of a couple thousand more since you've given up your car.

Lets factor in registration for the year for your car. $600-$800.
Insurance, $500-800.
Servicing every six months, another $500-600 unless you go to a cheap nasty mechanic.

You are still better off financially with your own car, then giving it up for Uber or a taxi.
Not only that, but you are better off because you have more flexibility and convenience available to you.

You guys might have that alternative mindset, alternative living and all that, but the majority of people don't share that. That's why the taxi hasn't replaced mass personal vehicle ownership. And that's why Uber and others wont either.

[Nathan]

To fill up a car, say 50 litres, can range from $59 @ $1.19/L to $84 @ $1.69/L.

Using Uber, from Henley Beach it will cost $24-$32 per trip. $48 a day. $240 a week minimum.
Blair Athol to the CBD - $20-$27. $40 a day. $200 a week minimum.
Brompton to the CBD - $14-$19. $28 a day. $140 a week minimum.
Mile End to the CBD - $12-$17. $24 a day. $120 a week minimum.

Five days a week.

You don't have a car, or access to the only car you have. So you now have to factor in more spending on Uber to get around.

That tank of fuel for between $59 and $84 a week, will get you a lot further for less money then Uber will.
Let's say that your average weekly spend on fuel is $70 a week averaged out for the whole year. That's $3,640 for the year on fuel.
$120 a week Mile End to CBD, is $6,240 a year. Factor in Uber spending of a couple thousand more since you've given up your car.

Lets factor in registration for the year for your car. $600-$800.
Insurance, $500-800.
Servicing every six months, another $500-600 unless you go to a cheap nasty mechanic.

You are still better off financially with your own car, then giving it up for Uber or a taxi.
Not only that, but you are better off because you have more flexibility and convenience available to you.

You guys might have that alternative mindset, alternative living and all that, but the majority of people don't share that. That's why the taxi hasn't replaced mass personal vehicle ownership. And that's why Uber and others wont either.

No one is suggested using an Uber/Taxi every day. Of course that doesn't stack up. The argument is for people who use the additional car more sparingly (or could adapt to using it more sparingly), then it can be cheaper to use those services (and stop ignoring carshare services) instead of having that additional car sitting there and all the costs that involves.