Re: Hume (Canberra) freight terminal

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <7oekba$mgg$1@the-fly.zip.com.au> "Andrew Honan" <ahonan@zipworld.com.au> writes:
>From: "Andrew Honan" <ahonan@zipworld.com.au>
>Subject: Re: Hume (Canberra) freight terminal
>Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 22:23:05 +1000

>I read the transcripts from Judy Stack et al in response to the Productivity
>Commission's draft report on rail reform. This transcript was followed by
>the CEO of FreightCorp. It made very interesting reading, and I would
>commend it to anyone wanting to understand how track access charges are
>meant to work. No doubt the transcripts will be released with the final
>report.


The real problem with RAC and no doubt all other State owned Track Access 
Operators is that they view the provision of Track Access as a business and 
not a public service which is what it really should be .
RAC doesnt in any way consider the costs that competitors of rail namely road 
have to pay ,and therefore operate on the basis that trains are the only way 
of transporting goods , hence the charge what the market will bear approach.
The fact that these charges mean operators operate at a loss when running 
trains in NSW is simply lost.
The other problem is the manner in which RAC calculates its costs and assigns 
ist charges.
Whilst RAC wont release any details of its charges ,there is anecdotal 
evidence of charges as high as 0.8 to 1 c/gtk for interstate freight 
operators.
Compare this with charges like 0.27 c/gtk (ARTCs charges) or the estimate
charge necessary to cover costs for the AustralAsia line (AP to Darwin) of
0.17c/gtk.

The bottom line is that for whatever reasons RAC is charging way too much 
for Track Access in NSW,and the only fix is to abolish RAC.

MD