Re: Federal Budget- Nothing for the Nation's Railways!

["Bradley Torr" <truenorth@one.net.au.SPAMTRAP>]

Maurie Daly <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in article
<3b0c504b.1067408@can-news.tpg.com.au>...

> The problem is AFAIK not RIC per se , but the fact that it is Govt
> owned corporation , but not an incorporated company.
> Govts like turning their agencies into Corporations because they can
> then pretend that the Corporations are more efficient as they have to
> operate in a businesslike manner,and MAKE PROFITS , which then means
> paying dividends to the shareholders , and guess in the case of RIC
> who the shareholders are .?

That's the reason why I said in my post to which you replied, "No wonder
Bob Carr and the NSW ALP mafia don't want to turn over any railway control
to the Feds!" Because RIC and its outrageous track access charges are
nothing more than a nice big fat cash cow for the NSW state government.

> There have been several instances in NSW where the Minister has
> directed RIC to operate in a certain way which has increased their
> costs .

I'm interested in examples, do you have any? Not to contradict what you're
saying, I'm just interested in the political and economic arrangements of
railways.

> Also , the dividends are usually set by the NSW Treasury and dont
> reflect any concern about what impact higher dividends (means higher
> track access charges) will have on the rail industry as a whole .

I think NSW Transport Minister Carl Scully doesn't know whether the
railways are Martha or Arthur - i.e. should they be a much need
government-controlled social service, or a for-profit trading enterprise?
NSW at the moment seems to be a bizarre mixture of the two.

Personally, I think the RIC should be controlled by a semi-independent
chartered board, much like the ABC or the old M&MTB. The charter should
state the goals and parameters for the operation of the RIC - safe,
efficient rail transport worked for the general benefit of the people of
the State while being fiscally responsible. Charges set by the RIC for
usage of its infrastructure should be reasonable and prudent, and there
should be provisions for revenues to be re-invested into improving the rail
infrastructure of NSW.

> In other words , the NSW Govt is simply using RIC as a tax collection
> agency,and this is one reason why the Feds wont put any money into
> rail which is under State control ,as its simply an indirect form of
> additional payment to the State .

Exactly.

BTW, you're probably aware of the National Highway Act 1974, brought about
by Gough Whitlam, which allows the Government to select various roads
(namely, roads that serve as direct links between capital cities) as part
of the National Highway to be entirely funded by the Federal Government.
Did Gough Whitlam have any such plans for the railways? I think the Federal
Government should have a 'National Railway' network controlled by the ARTC
or some such body, which shall be entirely funded and controlled by that
federal body and consist of standard-guage links between the capital
cities. But there's probably some Constitutional clause against such a
thing.

> In my view track access charges should be completely abolished.

Well I think it's fair for train operators to be charged for the track they
use, as long as their charges contribute to the upkeep, maintenace and
re-alignments for that track.

> Road users dont have to pay road user charges, 

Apart from registration costs, and petrol excise - petrol excise being
directly linked with the distance you drive (the more you drive, the more
excise you pay), and linked to weight of the vehicle (the heavier the
vehicle, the more petrol you use per kilometre, the more excise you pay per
kilometre, and also the more wear and tear the vehicle does to the road
because of heavier axle loadings).

> the shipping industry
> doesnt pay water usage charges

Berthing fees? 'Water' also doesn't require maintenace and new construction
projects. Railways and roads do.

> and the aviation industry doesnt pay
> air usage charges .

Airlines pay Air Services Australia for the right to use a particular
flight path, am I correct? Again, 'air' doesn't need to employ thousands of
people to keep it maintained, and new 'air' doesn't need to be constructed
to facilitate air travel. Only airports and traffic control needs to be
staffed and maintained, and they're paid for by landing/take-off fees.

> Its fair to charge for Terminal use where the terminals are provided
> by 3rd parties .

The only problem with that is, say my Bradley Railway Company wants to take
two trains hauling 30 containers full of dog food from a dog food factory
to two supermarket distribution warehouses. One terminal at the supermarket
warehouse is 100km away from the dog food factory; the other terminal is
1,000km away. Yet the two terminals charge the same, and apart from loco
crewing and diesel and loco maintenance, my out-of-pocket expenses to third
parties are the same - despite the fact that I used ten times as much track
with one train than the other. How would the track owners between the dog
food factory and the two warehouses be able to recoup the costs of track
maintenance and new infrastructure if they can't charge Bradley Railway
Company any track access fees? I think it's fair that Bradley Railway
Company contribute to the maintenace of the track which BRC used.

> Ive said it before ,and Ill say it again, there will be NO federal
> funding for rail whilst State Govts continue to insist on control of
> their railways , but want the Feds to pay for them.

Then it's time the Federal Government wrested control of mainline railways
from the States, like the National Highway Act 1974 did with major roads.
But I recall something in the Constitution meaning the Federal Govt can
only take control of State railways with the permission of the State, so
this might be difficult.

Regards
BT