Re: Bankstown- mascot airports

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"Maurie Daly" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
3a407fb6.40395293@can-news.tpg.com.au">news:3a407fb6.40395293@can-news.tpg.com.au...
>
> Actually I am not that convinced that Rods wrong

Wash your mouth out with soap.

> and here is a
> question that no one on this news group seems to want to ask.
> It basicaklly relates to most new rail projects, but lets consider
> something like a Melb - Sydney VFT.
>
> Currently there are 4 ways of getting from Melb to Sydney.
> 1/ By car.
> 2/ By Airline.
> 3/ By bus.
> 4/ By rail.
>
> Most people rightly dismiss the rail option as being too slow which it
> is .
> Is there any demonstrated problem that exists with the other 3 modes
> that results in people wanting to travel from Melb to Sydney being
> unable to travel because the other 3 modes are simply overflowing with
> people and thus unable to accomodate them.
> If there is , its not obvious to me.

Sydney Airport is near capacity and will reach there sometime soon. The fact
that the federal government is willing to consider pushing regional airlines
out to Bankstown is evidence of this.

So yes, there is a problem, not on the SYD-MEL corridor, but with one
particular node on this corridor.

> Most of the projections relating to VFTs base their profit projections
> on attracting people away from cars,busses and airlines and onto a hi
> speed train, ie there is no suggestion that a hi speed train will
> cause more people to travel , ie people who now dont travel at all.

They do allow for growth in travel, as have the airlines in their travel
projections. If the airlines predicted that patronage would stagnate, there
would be no need for a second airport in the Sydney basin. There is such
growth forecast however, and a VFT would be seeking to capture some of this
growth, as well as luring away some existing passengers.

> In other words we are advocating spending a huge amount of money on
> simply providing yet another way for people to travel between melb and
> Sydney.
> Is this is the nations interest?
> I dont know and I would like someone to demonstrate that it is .

Well, they intend to build another airport in Sydney anyway, and an East
Coast VFT would kill the need for this (based entirely on patronage trends
in similiar circumstances in Europe).

Eliminating the need for the expenditure on a second airport would be in the
national interest, IMNSHO.

> Lets now consider the hi speed freight link between Melb and Brisbane,
> No one has suggested that there is currently freight sitting around
> that cannot be transported between Melb and Brisbane because a hi
> speed freight line doesnt exist,not that the existing methods of
> transporting freight namely existing rail, road and sea cannot handle
> the available freight that has to be moved.
> So again we come up with the scenerio that the hi speed rail line will
> simply divert existing freight modes onto the hi speed rail line.
> Again is this in the national interest given the cost of the hi speed
> line.

Reducing the cost of transporting the freight is in the national interest.
It then comes down to whether the cost of providing the high speed frreight
line is outweighed by the benefits gained in getting the freight there
cheaper, quicker and more efficiently.

But that is one for someone with a B.E. to work out.

Dave