Rail vs Roads (was Re: BRIDGE RIDE Critacal Mass Friday 26/11)

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

<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?

>How about money - big bucks are involved here -both in line upgrading
>in rolling stock purchases.

Big bucks are involved with roads too.

>And as rail is currently losing money faster than you can print it,
>you have to have some sort of certainty of being able to recoup your
>dough.

Funny how rail 'loses money' while roads are merely 'subsidised community
assets'.  With the exception of the odd privately funded toll road, every
road in the country loses money - no-one expects these roads to turn a
profit, and any attempt to price roads profitably would result in a massive
political backlash.  Fund roads on the same principles as rail infrastructure,
then rail services might have a chance at being profitable - because people
would abandon road transport like a shot.

>Also, have you noticed the trend towards private sector involvement in
>the construction, ownership (initially at least) and operation of
>major new road works via a system of toll roads?

The revolution has a long way to go before I see tolls on the street I
live in.

>>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.

>And adding an extra level of handling at each end would significantly
>add to the cost.
>
>Moreover, much of the freight is direct door-to-door - the extra
>handling involved would impose a horrendous cost burden.

You've missed my point - at present the extra handling is required anyway,
between the large intercity loads and the smaller trucks that carry goods to
and from the customer.  What's the difference between loading goods onto a
train and loading them onto a B-double or B-triple truck at a freight depot?

Even where additional handling is involved, it's a safe bet that it would
pay for itself in improved fuel efficiency.  Again, the New Zealand
experience says something.

>>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.
>
>These sorts of things make everything messy, eh.
>
>Still, the rest of the community is probably subsidizing the whole
>rail network when it comes down to it.

Just as the community subsidises the road network.  The difference is that
we don't have politicians making a fuss about how unprofitable the roads are.

>>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.
>
>During non-peak periods, yes.
>
>Surprisingly, being crammed in a train during peak periods with
>umpteen million other people with faces pressed up against raised
>armpits is not the preferred form of travel for many people.

On the contrary - the trains wouldn't be so crammed if there weren't many
people prepared to put up with it.

Compare it with the frustration of being stuck in a traffic jam for an hour.

>>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.
>
>Sounds easy, eh.
>
>Don't you think a progression of State Governments have been trying to
>do just that?

No - without exception they pay lip service to better public transport but
take little action, by and large leaving it to rot.  It doesn't help that all
their most senior advisers are road engineers.

Those governments (in Canada and Europe, sadly not Australia) that _have_
acted to produce genuine improvements in public transport services have never
looked back: patronage has gone through the roof, and cost recovery with it.

The Victorian government took one small step in 1991 when it increased the
frequency on one suburban rail line from every 20 minutes to every 15.  The
fares received from the extra passengers more than paid for the extra
services - a win-win situation.  If our politicians had any nous, the same
effect could be replicated on a much larger scale, as in Toronto and Zurich.

>Moreover, the city rail systems are probably all running at a loss -
>so all that is happening is that we are introducing another form of
>subsidized travel into the equation.

Who's to say that if we jacked up the price of petrol enough to reflect the
true cost of roads and road transport, enough people wouldn't shift to public
transport to make it profitable?

>We are just pissing good, hard-earned money down pot holes at the
>moment.

An apt turn of phrase.  :-)

Or as I'd put it: we're squandering hard-earned money on expensive new roads
we don't need, so we can have more pollution and car accidents and a city
landscape reminiscent of LA.

>>>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.
>
>Argue what you will -it works for Canberra - for motorists and
>cyclists.

It works because Canberra has a small population.  Same goes for Darwin and
to some extent Adelaide.  You need a certain number of people in an urban
area before there's even the potential for serious traffic congestion.

And the fact remains that Canberra's road system has been subsidised by all
us other Australian taxpayers.

>>>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.
>
>Of course you could!
>
>Have you no vision?

Enough to see that every city in the world of 3 million people or more has a
problem with traffic congestion - even those that have draconian policies
restricting car use to the very wealthy.

>Canberra's road and cycling infrastructure was largely set down when
>the population was around 50,000 or so. Since then the population has
>grown FIVE fold and the infrastructure is capable of comfortably
>handling more significant growth.

Wait until it gets to a million.  That might just start to test it.

Cheers,
Tony M.