Re: 2 EL's on Patrick's

[Don Allitt <nahgfa@zeta.org.au>]

Well if thats your view how do you respond to truck companys buying into rail companys and promoting
their own equipment on rail?
Don.

Maurie Daly wrote:

> In article <8E7FE6459telstraNews@vic.news.telstra.net> Michael Kurkowski <mk@netstra.com.au> writes:
> >Subject: Re: 2 EL's on Patrick's
> >From: Michael Kurkowski <mk@netstra.com.au>
> >Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:33:03 GMT
>
> >And meanwhile, the truckies are laughing their way to the bank. As has been
> >stated many times before, competition among rail operators will cause the
> >railways eventual demise.
>
> >Do people not realise that interstate trucks are wasteful and dangerous?
>
> >Wasteful I say, because for what one train can pull, you need a huge amount
> >of trucks. More prime movers = more polution. More drivers = more money
> >spent.
>
> >Dangerous I say, because many truck drivers work dangerous hours, and do it
> >illegally, i.e. keeping a second logbook, taking drugs to cope with the
> >long hours, getting very little sleep.
>
> >I bet the trucking companies are sitting there laughing at the railways
> >right now. Pushing to allow bigger trucks into the cities to clog our
> >already congested roads.
>
> >As far as the governments veiw on this goes, where the f*** is the logic?
> >Who else other than the government would sell of your biggest money making
> >asset? (i use Telstra as the example in this case, but the railways
> >certainly count too).
>
> >Regards
> >Michael
>
> Governments traditionally take the easiest option when it comes to solving
> problems of any sort.
> As far as rail goes , all of the recently completed inquiries into rail will
> tell the Govt what it doesnt want to hear , ie that large sums of money need
> to be spent on rail to make it competitive with road and to level the playing
> field.
> There isnt a hope in hell of the Govt spending on rail what it will be
> recommended to spend, given the tight budgetary situation caused by business
> tax reform and the involvement in East Timor.
> In addition , its pretty well known that the federal dept of Transport is pro
> road ,and this is where the feds get most of their advice from.
> Given that the Feds have till now not responded to any of the Rail inquiries
> that they themselves commissioned,dont be surprised if all these reports are
> simply shafted into the bin .
> We will hear some waffly rhetoric about the Feds injecting $250 M into the
> creation of ARTC and that the privatisation of NRC will provide much needed
> private sector investment into the ailing rail network.
> Also we will hear yet again how much money the feds have injected into AP to
> Darwin.
> In my view however, the real blame for the whole mess is primarily one of the
> States, namely WA,NSW and QLD who have resisted implementing any form
> of real rail reform,and who have failed completely to cooperate with the Feds
> on the creation of ARTC as a one stop shop.
> In short , its simply become too hard a problem to fix .
> Its rumoroud that in 2002 , the feds will privatise ARTC , and then will have
> no involvement in rail in this country at all, which means that they wont have
> to worry about it any more , from a funding perspective.
> If rail then goes down the tube , it will be the fault of the States and to a
> lesser extent the fault of the Rail operators themselves for cutting their own
> throats.
> The average man in the street doesnt have a problem with large trucks on the
> roads , at least not in a political sense, and its very unlikely that large
> trucks will ever become a major political issue , at least not large enuf to
> displace a sitting Govt, so if rail completely goes down the drain , so what .
>
> MD