Re: Aftermath of Speedrail decision.

[mauried@tpg.com.au (Maurie Daly)]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:55:33 GMT, James C. <james_ccj@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>
>> Surprisingly / maybe not surprisingly there were more letters
>> congratulating Howard for canning what was widely seen as a
>> "Pie in the Sky Project" which would benefit only a small portion of
>> the population.
>
>I think it's necessary to educate the public the total population does
>not effect the Speedrail feasibility. If you look at the total number
>of passengers travelling between the busy Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne
>corridor(air+land transport) Speedrail can be feasible.
One needs to be very careful using phrases "we must educate the
public".
The public will not take kindly to a bunch of rail fans telling them
that you must have and support speedrail,or indeed any sort of rail
technology.
One must also be careful with arguments like "there are lots of people
travelling between Melb and Brisbane " so therefore Speedrail is
feasible.
Maybe , maybe not.
Simply providing an alternative means of transport doesnt mean that
people will use it, some may , some wont.

Australia is differant in most cases that Europe in that we are far
more car reliant and car dependant , which although its  a bad thing
for rail projects , simply could be because people like driving cars.


>
>Also is spending 375m$ on a useless, misleading GST ads more worthy
>then Speedrail???

Its not really comparable simply because the GST was something that
the Feds wanted , Speedrail isnt something they want.

>
>> The editorials were the same , back again totally pushing Mag lev over
>> what they call outdated rail technology,(steel wheels on rails).
>
>As usual...out of date editorial team...what paper was it Maurie?

Canberra Times, the editorials are simply stupid ,and so are the
editors, but no one is putting a contrary view .
ie why are the papers so anti Speed rail.

>
>> The real problem though is that largely,joe average voter is simply
>> not interested in hi speed rail, and this means that the feds arnt
>> interested in it either, no matter what studies get undertaken.
>> Until petrol for cars is around $2 a litre or more , rail is simply
>> not relevant to most people in this country.
>
>Or unless we get prime minister/Federal transport minister very
>interesting in railway developments, advocate towards railway
>developments.(I'm must be dreaming....)
>
Well we had some in the past , Gough Whitlam was pro rail and so was
Tim Fischer , but neither of them were able to achieve very much.
It will take a hell of a lot more than a few pro rail pollies.
>

MD
>--
s
>
>Railway Rasputin
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/