Re: Brisbane Light Rail Proposals

[Bob <gioia@fastlink.com.au>]

Garry R. Ford wrote:

> Dave McL wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
> > <snip>
> > 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.
> >
>
> This is the crux of the debate and has been for around 150 years or more.  Roads
> are provided "free", while railways have to  pay for their own right-of-way. In
> theory registration of vehicles pays for the roads, but unfortunately not every one
> uses their vehicle thge same amount. Hence the push for registration based on a per
> kilometre basis.
>
> In addition (I quote from memory here) the Interstate Transport Commission 1987 (?)
> reported that heavy vehicles atre the problems with the roads. All roads have to be
> constructed to take a certain weight vehicle. i.e. heavy trucks. Unfortunately
> their registration costs do not reflect this.  At that time the report quoted
> figures of around $51,000 per year as being the true registration trucks should be
> paying as opposed to the around $1,200 they were then paying. On top of this add
> the damage caused by truckies overloading their vehicles as well. Overloaded cars
> do not cause damage.  Here lies the problem. To suddenly implement true cost
> registratiion would put most trucks off the road, where they belong.
>
> Railways should be used for long distance hauling (except in special case loads)
> while trucks should be used for local distribution.
>
> A similar situation arises with buses. Long distance intercity and intracity should
> use rail/lightrail aand buses should provide the local distribution network from
> regional centres and where rail/light rail is uneconomic (as described in previous
> post)
>
> Unfortunately no government is prepared to bite the bullet and shoot the truckies.
>

Remember the truck blockade in NSW many years age. The truck lobby as well as the BCA
(Bus and Coach Association) are a very loud and powerfull lobby group that keep any
Government on it's toes. Whilst the idea of a milage based resgistation fee would fit
in well with the "user pays" principal , it will never happen. The railways in NSW were
put at an advantage back in 1932 with the then Government Transport Act but it has gone
all down hill from there. Private as well as Govt busses compete with the rail system
in Sydney and the coaches on the longer runs. Try telling Mr Bosenjak , Mr McCaffety or
My Fox  that they will pay more for rego. I don't think so.Bob