Re: Brisbane Light Rail Proposals

[Dave McL <davemcl@iprolink.co.nz>]

fergusor@scanet.com.au wrote:

> 
> Requiring that new public transport projects only proceed if they are found
> to be economic as measured by cost recovery oversimplifies the whole
> equation. Even *if* the federal government and private enterprise showed no
> interest in projects such as Briztram, the benefits that such a project could
> bring may well outweigh its costs. If roads are provided as a service, then
> why shouldn't efficient public transport also be provided as a service?


Hi... you have widened the issue from the Briztram proposal. That's good!

I should say here that I am a firm supporter of roads also being 
economic. I believe in user-pays roads. What we have in much of the world 
are socialist roads, taxpayer-funded, ever-expanding, while public 
transport is increasingly required to pay its way.  Your comments about 
the iniquity of roads being provided "free" while railways have to 
maintain their own rights-of-way is particularly pertinent.


Here in NZ, public transport is now more or less uder pays, and the bus 
companies in our main cities now make profits. They have done this by 
improving services and vehicles while keeping fares low and it by and 
large is working.

Tranzrail, the private sector owner of the former NZ Railways, is also a 
very profitable organisation despite having to maintain its own 
rights-of-way.

I assure you I am campaigning constantly here for roads to be put on the 
same basis as public transport. 
 
Dave McLoughlin
Auckland New Zealand