Re: Alice to Darwin Railway > not looking so rosy.

["Bill Miller" <backtran@optusnet.com.au>]

1. Most of those BILLIONS have been spent on urban passenger rail. A
completely different market that exists for completely different reasons. IF
we are going to talk AS to Darwin then we should restrict our comments to
freight and compare the cost to the community for each transport mode. Urban
rail vs private cars has zip to do with long distance freight vs long
distance truck, though the truck lobby loves to quote those Billions without
any qualification whatsoever.

2. The fact is the long distance RT industry do get a subsidy. The sooner
the needed support and costs (incl externals) are brought into the open the
better for both modes. If this subsidy did not exist, then perhaps no
support would be required for AS-Darwin?

3. In the case of AS to Darwin rail we have private industry coughing up 60%
of the cost. Did the RT industry cough 60% of the capex required for
stronger bridges, pavement thickness etc to run 50T trucks over and above
that needed for cars and only needed by them? Of course not the gov't (ie
taxpayers) provided it.

< Tell > wrote in message <1p889sor5347ni0mt2u7codrd265ibtbom@4ax.com>...
>"Bill Miller" <backtran@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> They do get a subsidy, the pavement they drive on, studies have shown
this -
>> that long distance trucking is subsidised by the shorter distance variety
>> and the taxpayer. In addition to this I don't see these "unsibsidised"
>> outfits coughing up a red cent for any capital upgrades they currently
get
>> fro free - what they do pay may go partway to maintenance.
>
>
>//Rose tinted glasses off.
>
>What, no mention of the fact that untold BILLIONS in
>"subs" have been spent on rail by the States.
>
>----Terry Burton