Re: Overland to continue 4 another 2 years

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

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:43:27 GMT, "Peter Berrett"
<pberrett@optushome.com.au> wrote:

>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
>
>

Absolutely correct, and I agree that if a VFT was funded by the
National Govt then it would most likely be successful.
However the National Govt of this country , both Labor and Liberal ,
have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention whatsoever
of funding VFTs , merely stating that they will "support " private
sector proposals as long as such proposals are revenue neutral to the
Govt , ie wont cost any taxpayers money.

This means that any VFTs will have to be totally paid for by the
private sector and in a country like Australia this wont work with our
small populations  and big distances.
The best that can be hoped for is small incremental improvements in
the existing infrastructure .
We have seen some progress in this regard with improvements to running
times between Melb and Adelaide,and things could be improved a little
more .
We arnt however seeing any improvements in Melb - Sydney or Sydney -
Brisbane.
Instead , hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on building
railway lines to Darwin for 1 train a day .

MD


MD

>
>
>
>"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
>>
>>
>> .
>
>