[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Road Cost Recovery.



I wonder where you got the Stalin idea from????  :-)

Anyway,

We can talk all day until we are blue in the face about the "unfair" cost
recovery of road compared to rail and still no-one will give a f*ck.

What needs to be done is good old fashoined Propoganda!!

We need to let the public (we people on this news group are scarcely the
public) know the damage, or the taxes the trucking industry is taking away
from the common people. We need TV ads talking about the fact that each
truck down the Hume Highway costs tax payers $0.10 but the profits are not
returned to the public but private companies like TNT and Fox (I made the
$0.10 figure up as an example). When the public knows the costs (or subsidy)
being offered to trucks, action will be follow.

Politicians could not wipe there own arse without a poll supporting such a
move, and this must not be forgotten.

The road industry has been b*llsh*tting for many years now and it is time
the rail industry told people so.

rfm wrote in message <35606370.20FA@enternet.com.au>...
>David Penna wrote:
>>
>
>> > To level the playing field,(which seems to be the buzzword these days)
between
>> > road and rail means either
>> > 1/ Increasing cost recovery from the trucking industry for the true
cost of
>> > roads. (no chance at all of this happening.)
>> > 2/ Improving the rail right of way to make trains more able to compete
with
>> > the trucks. (no chance of this happening either.)
>> > 3/ Getting rid of completely , the idiotic track access charges that
rail
>> > operators have to pay , and simply charge a registration fee for
locomotives ,
>> > in the same way that trucks are charged.
>> > (This could be done without a great deal of angst,provided that we
could get
>> > rid of the multipliciity of Rail Access Authorities,not impossible ,
but more
>> > likely than 1 or 2.)
>> >
>>
>> What about more road tolls? Or should that be toll roads?
>>
>> We seem to have a mentality that tolls for urban roads are OK, because
>> the improvements they bring, why doesn't the same principles apply to
>> interstate roads?  Especially with axle-based charging.  (Well I guess
>> the main problem is the powerful truck lobby, and of course the many
>> marginal provincial seats - but in theory a toll is good)
>>
>> Rail access charges are just a rail toll.  Perhaps we could see non-toll
>> railtrack (your everyday, poorly maintained track) and toll-railtracks
>> (where the improvement in rail conditions are made equivalent to the
>> recent improvement in in road conditions on the Hume)
>>
>> Just food for thought.
>>
>> Perhaps the govt should get out of rail and road altogether and privatise
>> everything from the Railway Tracks, to the Hume Fwy, to Hoddle St and
>> Parramatta Rd to the laneway that runs behind my house.  After all, the
>> market knows best doesn't it. ;->
>
>Bob McKillop wrote:
>The problem of developing a land transport pricing system that supports
>the most efficient modal split in the national interest (which means
>sustainable in environmental, economic and social terms) is complex and
>politically difficult. Clearer definition of what is involved is the
>first step toward sorting out the present mess. The issues include:
>
>1. Capital investment and maintenance costs: an attractive return to the
>investor in infrastructure. Road tolls are an obvious approach to this
>problem, but are rather crude in their limited differentiation between
>types of vehicle and their damage to roads. NSW rail access charges
>incude both a "flag fall" and a weight-distance charge. Recent land
>transport reforms in New Zealand impose a similar weight-distance based
>charge on road transport. They are also moving to establish road
>companies (but publicly owned) which will be required to charge users for
>the use of roads so that the infrastructure is provided on a commercial
>basis (ie, same as railways, power lines, or communications
>infrastructure)
>
>2. Congestion Costs: This is the big issue for urban transport. Unless we
>find a way to impose charges on traffic entering congested areas at peak
>times (or ban private vehicles from these areas) then gridlock seems the
>inevitable outcome for many of our cities. Estimates of congestion costs
>in major Australian cities are alarming. Electronic road pricing to
>better manage the use of available space is the seen as the most
>effective ansewer to this problem. Strategic use of parking charges can
>also be helpful.
>
>3. Environmental and Social Costs: The issues here are primarily noise
>and air pollution (including greenhouse gases), but some may argue that
>visual pollution is also relevant. Fuel taxes (over normal indirect
>rates) are primarily a mechanism for charging polluters, while
>registration charges are esentially a licencing charge for ensuring that
>vehicles meet emission and noise regulations. The difficulty here is to
>provide effective compensation to those maost affected by the pollution
>(eg, those living next to a major road or a railway). It is generally
>accepted that rising community concern over environmental issues should
>result in policy outcomes that favour environmentally-friendly transport
>modes.
>
>4. Accident Costs: Licence fees (you are supposed to show some sort of
>competence) and insurance are the primary mechanisms for recovering costs
>in this area. Again, the costs incurred by accident-prone drivers tend to
>be born by all.
>
>Rail reforms around the world are putting rail operators and
>infrastructure providers on a better footing to provide sustainable
>transport systems. In contrast, road systems continue to operate as
>Stalin-based command enterprises.
>
>Bob McKillop