Re: Overland to continue 4 another 2 years

["Peter Berrett" <pberrett@optushome.com.au>]

Maurie

I do not have the facts and figures at my disposal to produce a detailed
economic costs and benefits analysis as I suspect most readers here would
not.

Your argument as I see it is essentially that if it were 'economic' then it
would turn a profit in which case once would expect the private sector to
fund such a proposal. The is reflects a 'user pays' philosophy - namely that
Government has no place funding infrastructure. There is no doubt that
building high speed train lines is going to be very expensive and that the
private sector is unwilling to fuidn such projects.

My philosophy is that Government has a place in nation building and
infrastructure development and that such development should not necessarily
be viewed solely from the point of view of  whether, all costs taken into
account, the railway would turn a profit.

My argument is simple. Fast railways between capital cities assist in
regional development by opening up regional areas. They provide access for
country people to many services that are only available in the city. They
facilitate tourism in regional areas and provide job opportunities for
people in rural areas. They asssist in dispersing population away from our
larger cities. They help tie a country together and provide extra options
for families wishing to visit families and friends interstate. They also
help reduce global warming.

You can't tie a $ figure to many of these intangible benefits. It is simply
a judgement call as to whether the $$$ spent is worth the benefit.

In terms of the railway itself I would disregard the establishment costs of
the railway when calculating profits. The establishment costs are national
infrastructure costs and can be borne by the public purse. Once built the
railway can be run on a marginal cost basis ie revenue received less costs
of leasing the trains, electricity costs and other variable costs. On this
basis I think you would find that costs woule be reasonable. I find the idea
that the fast train should pay for its inital capital cost & any interest as
unreasonable. It should not necessarily be run by private enterprise
either - better to have a public organisation with a professional management
and a commitment to public service as in France. eg

http://www.railjournal.com/2000-06/scnf.html

'Support a fast train' - what do I mean by this? I mean that if the facility
existed and the prices were competitive with current air travel costs
significant numbers of people would use it. Provided the time taken to get
interstate is not excessive I believe that most people would prefer to
travel by train due to the higher standards of comfort that can be provided
on a train and the fact that only a train can deliver you right to the city
centre without a need to change to a taxi.

If we assess major infrastructure projects purely on their capacity to fund
themselves nothing will ever get built.

cheers Peter






"Maurie Daly" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
3b22c311.1452488@can-news.tpg.com.au">news:3b22c311.1452488@can-news.tpg.com.au...
>
> You keep using this phrase "support a very fast train".
> What exactly do you mean by this.?
> People will support any kind of transport medium if they arre willing
> to pay the fares .
> How about you provide me and the rest of the readers of this newsgroup
> with a full economic anaylsis of a Sydney - Melb VFT.
> You could include such items as
> 1/ The total capital cost of building such a line .
> 2/ The total cost of all the necessary land acquisitions.
> 3/ Types of finance sought.
> 4/ Annual interest payments on the borrowed capital.
> 5/ Capital cost of a fleet of train sets.
> 6/ Estimated monthly passenger counts.
> 7/ Running costs / electricity costs / maintenence costs / salaries.
>
> From all the above , you will be able to come up with some fares .
> I will be fascinated to see the results .
>
> MD
>
>
> .