Re: Brisbane Light Rail Proposals

[fergusor@scanet.com.au]

In article <3501E329.50AB@iprolink.co.nz>,

  Dave McL <davemcl@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:

>

> No, what I was saying was that if private enterprise is not interested in

> funding/operating the proposed system, then the proposal must be

> uneconomic and should not proceed.

>

> Many such systems today proceed with private sector funding so as long as

> the proposal is economically feasible it should not be hard to attract

> private-sector participation.

>

> I just think that the days of taxpayers and ratepayers being forced to

> pay for uneconomic schemes should be put in the past.

>

> Looking at the proposals, I certainly think that the proposed St Lucia to

> New Farm via the city and Valley is economic, and there are other routes

> which ought to be restored, too. Why stop the line at the hospital? The

> Chermside line should be restored.

>

> Dave McLoughlin

> Auckland New Zealand

>



Whilst I certainly share your enthusiasm for private sector involvement in
public transport projects, I find it quite unfair that public transport
projects should only proceed if they are found to be 'economic'. This
criteria is particularly unfair to rail operators, as unlike their road based
counterparts, they are required to maintain their rights of way. Even where
total segregation of operations and perway maintenance exists, such as the
case here in NSW, rail operators have to pay very high access fees to use the
track, unlike road operators who simply have to register their vehicles once
a year.



Furthermore, forcing public transport to be economic does not take into
account that public transport has much fewer negative externalities,
particularly air pollution, than private transport. The benefits to a city
from a public transport project, including less traffic, less pollution,
better access etc, cannot be recovered purely from ticket sales. In short,
these positive externalities, as well as the failure to levy road users for
the full cost of providing their service (including their negative
externalities), means that the market is artificially biased towards private
transport.



Here in New Angeles (Sydney), succesive governments have taken the ostritch
approach to public transport provision. Despite usually being a Labor
supporter, I'd have to say that the current state government would have to be
one of the worst on record. In the Herald last week, there was yet another
article about Sydney's air pollution, from memory this was about the
government's inablity to meet its own air pollution targets. On the same page
there was an article about a private consortium that was wanting to build a
fast train linking Sydney and Parramatta. When asked if the government would
help fund such a project the government pleaded poverty.



Yet whilst Sydney's air quality and traffic congestion are both appalling,
the government still refuses to contribute money to making serious
improvements in public transport. Even the new Olympic Park loop has a fare
surcharge of $2.40 adult return (try it on the TVMs, and see the difference
between Lidcombe or Flemington and Olympic Park). Despite this, the
government is funding road projects such as the Eastern Distributor, and the
relatively short toll-free extension of the M5 whose costs have now blown out
to $800 million and are expected to rise.



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?



Rob

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading