Re: Bankstown- mascot airports

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

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:15:38 GMT, "Dave Proctor"
<daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>"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
>
>
Quite correct and herein lies the most basic problem with all the
above projects.
The charges for using the services arnt revealed until the project is
finished.
The original VFT and the just cancelled one would,nt  reveal what the
fares would be .
All we got were vague estimates .
We have seen with the Sydney Airport line what happens when you get
the charges wrong.
Likewise the ATEC project and the AP to darwin line also wont reveal
their charges,so how on earth can you make any kind of projections
about what usage the project will get without this most basic
information.

To say that its not possible to work out the charges until the
projects finished ,simply means that the promoters havnt the foggiest
idea whether the project will be viable or not , but simply want the
project to go ahead, as long as its paid for by someone else.

As a guide using ARTCs last annual report its total income was $77 M
and total costs $55 M.
None of the costs included the requirement to pay back the capital
cost of building the TAR or the CAR as these costs are considered
sunk.
A private consortium running or owning a new railway line will have to
meet both operational costs plus re payment of the capital costs,so it
will have to charge much higher prices than Artc does or have many
many more trains running over its line. 

Anyone like to guess just how many billion gtk/annum will be needed to
pay for this new line.

MD