Advantage of public transport A new study conducted for the world Bank by Murdoch University’s Institute for Science and Technology Policy (ISTP) has demonstrated that public transport is more efficient than cars. The study compared the proportion of wealth poured into transport by thirty-seven cities around world. This included both the public and private costs of building, maintaining and using a transport system. The system found that Western Australian city of Perth is a good example of a city with minimal public transport. As a result, 17% of its wealth went into transport costs. Some European and Asian cities, on the other hand, spent as little as 5%. Professor Peter Newman, ISTP Director, pointed out that these more efficient cities were able to put the different into attracting industry and jobs or creating a better place to live. According to Professor Newman, the largest Australian city of Melbourne is a rather unusual city in this sort of comparison. He describes it as two cities: A European city surrounded by a car-dependent one. Melbourne’s large tram network has made car use in the inner city much lower, but the outer suburbs have some car-based structure as most other Australian cities. The explosion in demand for accommodation in the inner suburbs of Melbourne suggests a recent change in many people’s preferences as to where they live. Newman says that this is a new, broader way of considering public transport issues. The case for public transport bas been made on the basis of environmental and social justice considerations rather than economics. Newman, however, believes that study demonstrates that auto-dependent city model is inefficient and grossly inadequate in economic as well as environmental terms. Bicycle use was not included in the stud but Newman noted that the two most bicycle friendly cities considered-Copenhagen and Amsterdam- were very efficient, even though their public transport systems were reasonable but not special. It is common for supporters of road networks to reject the model of cities with good public transport by arguing that such systems would not work in their particular city. One objection is climate. Some people say that their city could not make more use of public transport because it either too hot or too cold. Newman rejects this, pointing out of public transport has been successful in both Toronto and Singapore and in fact he checked the use of cars against climate and found zero correlation. When it comes to other physical features, road lobbies are on stronger ground. For example, Newman accepts that it would be hard for a city as hilly as Auckland to develop a really good rail network. However, he points out that both Hong Kong and Zurich have managed to make a success of their rail system, heavy and light respectively, though there are few cities in the world as hilly. In fact, Newman believes the main reason for adopting one sort of transport over another is politics: ”The more democratic the process, the more public transport is favored.” He considers Portland, Oregon, a perfect example of this. Some years ago, federal money was granted to build a new rail road. However, local pressure groups forced a referendum over whether to spend the money on light rail instead. The rail proposal won and the railway worked spectacularly well. In the years that have followed, more and more rail system have been put in, dramatically changing the nature of the city. Newman notes that Portland has about the same population as Perth and had a similar population density at the time. Match each city with correct description (A-F) 2. Auckland