Re: Road and Rail Funding

[patrick_dunford@caverock.net.nz (Patrick Dunford)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Behold, on Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:14:18 +1200 in
misc.transport.rail.australia-nz:<377712BA.5E75@REMOVEiprolink.co.nz>, David
McLoughlin (davemcl@REMOVEiprolink.co.nz) didst uttereth:

snip

>I support both adequate roads and adequate public transport. Sadly, 95pc
>of the money goes to roads in both Australia and New Zealand. 
>Public transport is seen as a drain on public funds. Roads cost vastly
>more than buses, trains and trams, but apart from those who object to
>paying tolls (IMO the way new roads should be funded), hardly anyone
>objects to the cost of roads.

Trains have to go on railway lines. The construction costs of these lines are
massive. Therefore I am definitely challenging the implication that it is
cheaper to run a train. When was the last time a new railway line was built
in NZ? Tranz Rail will not do it unless they can be sure of getting enough
traffic. Just being able to compete over a route is not necessarily enough.

Last century there were very few private railways in NZ and almost none were
successful (the exception being the Wellington - Palmerston North coastal
railway, which competed with the State-owned route over the Rimutakas, the
latter being anticompetitively subsidised to do so). 

Most of the network that exists today was built by the State (as public
works, etc) and was not compelled to operate profitably. OK so the roads at
present are not compelled to operate profitably either but at least it is
possible to show that the running costs of a railway are not trivial.

- -- 
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/ 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN3ZydJ/ufSMMVdBMEQKb3ACgu45Qgp9GmblvlvfwuxBs2weOaA4AoJ7U
/srRVzMc7uq74sbn9ZLST373
=M2OX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----