Re: BRIDGE RIDE Critacal Mass Friday 26/11

[amorton@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Anthony Morton)]

(Crossposted to aus.rail from aus.bicycle)

>On 15 Dec 1999 06:26:06 GMT, amorton@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Anthony
>Morton) wrote:

>>No - get _some_ of the trucks off the road and onto the rails (I'm thinking
>>mainly of intercity freight here), and get more of the cars off the road so
>>the other trucks have an easier run.  As I say, I'm not suggesting we ban
>>cars, but as a mere thought experiment you could imagine how much faster the
>>freight would travel if there were no passenger cars getting in the way!

<goofang@geek.com> wrote:

>The problem with rail is that the infrastructure is antiquated and
>inadequate

So what?  If the roads aren't up to scratch we spend money and improve them.
What's the problem with doing the same thing for rail?

>and, more importantly, it involves additional, and
>expensive, handling of goods - onto a truck to get it to the rail head
>- onto the rolling stock - back onto a truck for delivery.

This happens at present with road transport.  The huge semi carries the goods
down the highway to a regional freight depot, where it's loaded onto smaller
trucks for local distribution.  There are only a few roads open to B-double
trucks; for all the rest the contents must be broken down into smaller
vehicles.

>The current infrastructure and rolling stock simply couldn't handle
>the volumes involved and then you still have the problem of rational
>pricing to ensure that no other sectors are subsidizing rail - else
>all you are doing is substituting one beneficiary of subsidization
>with another.

You can start by ensuring that rail isn't subsidising roads - as when the
rail industry paid $150 million in diesel excise to the Federal government,
who then spent $90 million of it on roads.

>Sure, rail is a preferred option, but it's currently simply not viable.

There's an entire industry that would disagree with you on this.  When New
Zealand applied economic rationalist principles to the transport sector, rail
freight transport came out ahead.

>Similar considerations apply to passengers - the bus and rail system
>just doesn't provide sufficient and adequate capacity to make them a
>viable alternative.

There is heaps of underused passenger rail and bus capacity in Australian
cities.  Public transport patronage is a tiny fraction of what it could be.
The challenge is to make public transport attractive, which can be as simple
as running some extra evening and weekend services and ensuring that
different services coordinate with each other.

>>In a user-pays society motorists would have as
>>much infrastructure as they're prepared to pay for and no more (after they'd
>>paid the bill for fifty years' worth of subsidised roads).  Consumers would
>>have as much infrastructure for freight transport as they'd be prepared to
>>pay for through the price of goods.  (And ideally the freight ought to be
>>segregated from other traffic so all the car congestion isn't holding up the
>>trucks - seems like a good argument for rail freight.)
>
>Sounds idealistic - and very rational - and fair - but what's odds do
>you seriously hold out for it's implementation. :)

Very faint odds actually.  Unlike you, I'm not advocating a user-pays utopia.
I'm happy to go on subsidising all forms of transport, as long as there's
some competent planning - like they have in European and Canadian cities.

>Contrast this to a place like Canberra - where planning means you get
>a lot more value for your dollar.

Like others, I'd argue that Canberra is awash in roads that the people don't
really need (and certainly haven't paid for).  This isn't planning, it's
sheer extravagance.

>>>Have you ever wondered how some cities can move twice the number of
>>>cars at twice the speed without problems?
>>
>>I'd say this claim is exaggerated.  Some smaller American (and Australian)
>>cities have fairly high average travel speeds by car, but city size is a
>>limiting factor.  The case of Los Angeles demonstrates that you can build
>>as many freeways as you like and still have horrendous traffic congestion.
>
>And you can go to planned cities like Canberra an piss along at 80 km
>an hour in the slow lane within a block of the CDB.

As I say, Canberra is a small city.  Similarly, places like Mildura, Ballarat
and Morwell have very little traffic congestion, planned or not.  But there's
no way you could achieve a similar feat in a city of 3 million people.

Cheers,
Tony M.