Re: Lateline Article on hi speed trains

[David Goll <golldm@nabaus.com.au>]

> If the ABC and others pursued railways like they do
> with minority issues such as "sorry days", greens and
> the environment, females, indigenous "issues", gays,
> and dare I say Pauline Hanson, maybe just maybe the
> importance of a unified national rail network for the
> future might make an impact on the voters.

Tell,

Perhaps because such issues have a wider relevance to the voting
community and impact directly (on a personal level) on individuals
(aboriginals, environmentalists, gays, women, Asians, little green men
from Mars, etc) -- ie: the people who actually VOTE (Martians
excepted!). The railways (in Australia) have been mismananged for years
and are frankly a joke -- this has resulted in a greater emphasis on
road transport for goods/freight over the years, largely a result of
government inaction, and the fact that freight operators have more
control over their destiny by using this distribution channel.

To accuse the ABC, as you have implied, of not "doing its bit" to
influence voters on the virtues of a unified rail network seems a bit
harsh, particularly given that rail, as an issue, is of little or no
consequence to most voters. If one were to accuse the ABC, then one
could equally accuse the commercial networks. News is News. What's BIG
news mkes the headlines. Unfortunately for rail, as it were in
Australia, it frankly isnt big news, hence the level of attention from
the media that it attracts.

Rather than hone in on the media for not promoting rail (which isnt
their job anyhow), perhaps we could address a less often considered
angle and question why the railways, and the rail industry, has seen fit
to roll over and play dead, or lay back and think of England in the face
of the road network lobby. Rather than expect others to do their
publicity work, they should get out there and actively lobby the
relevant corners of society.

Frankly, I am disgusted with the level of effort and commitment that the
railways (govt & private) and their supplier industry put into lobbying
their cause to governments, industry and the public. From an outsiders
perspective, there seems to be an expectation by these people that
railways are essential to our lives - they aren't. What they are
"potentially" is a more efficient means of freight transport than the
existing road system. The sooner the rail community gets off its
collective butts, lobbies relevant parties, and basically fends for
itself, rather than relying on their "indespensible position" of the
1890's the better. Perhaps then we'll see a greater investment in rail
infrastructure, particularly for goods transport which would result in
more effecient cartage of goods/produce, and would be better for the
environment all-round.

These views are my own, but I dont claim their unique.

Cheers


David