Re: Alice Springs to Darwin line, but wait, there is more.!

["Richo" <richardc@tpg.com.au>]

Why make it that hard - most of the real culprits are driving in competition
with rail on freeways between major cities. Tolling systems despite the
technical probs in Melbourne, aren;t such a bad idea. IIRC the abandoned
motorway proposal from Sydney to Brisbane wanted $100 toll for cars, and
some significantly greater figure for trucks. At those sort of prices (and
doing nothing about rail) people would start considering rail more.

I'm not convinced that all this playing field leveling will actually achieve
a lot - just better to take the QR and AN approach - invest in appropriate
infrastructure and market share will soon follow. Of course these operations
were/are vertically integrated.

--
Riccardo finally emerged from the dark and musty den where he had been
hiding, blinked in the blinding light and declared...
Maurie Daly <mauried@commslab.gov.au> wrote in message
mauried.441.37FC2BDC@commslab.gov.au">news:mauried.441.37FC2BDC@commslab.gov.au...
> In article <INRK3.7317$lE.33460@ozemail.com.au> "Ray McDermott"
<raymcd@ozemail.com.au> writes:
> >From: "Ray McDermott" <raymcd@ozemail.com.au>
> >Subject: Re: Alice Springs to Darwin line, but wait, there is more.!
> >Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:17:02 +1000
>
>
>
> >--
> >Ray McDermott   raymcd@ozemail.com.au
> >< Tell > <telljb@OZozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >TLf6N9iWe+zVZzItZZDjNs4rc6wV@4ax.com">news:TLf6N9iWe+zVZzItZZDjNs4rc6wV@4ax.com...
> >> "Exnarc" <gwrly@netspace.net.au> wrote in reply to
> >> Terry who said thus:
> >> > >
> >> > > Cost recovery, well seeing that only a *fraction* of
> >> > > the taxes paid by Australian motorists and trucks
> >> > > actually finds its way back into the roads.  I am not
> >> > > sure what your point is.
> >> > > Railways pay stuff all taxes when compared with
> >> > > cars/trucks.  Keating, remember him, he slapped an
> >> > > excise on fuel for railways which has now been revoked
> >> > > by those terrible Torys.!  It was peanuts compared with
> >> > > the road impositions.
> >>
> >> [Bob]
> >> > Terry there you go again, what have you been drinking???<g>
> >> >
> >> > Tell us all so we can join in.
> >>
> >> [Terry}
> >> OK, the total taxes (Fed & State) collected from ALL
> >> road users including fuel excise, sales tax, rego,
> >> stamp duties, parts etc amount to a staggering $15.5
> >> BILLION annually, and these figures are a couple of
> >> years old.
> >>
> >> The spending on roads is just under $2 BILLION.!
> >>
> >(snip)------
>
>
> >This tirade was obviously lifted straight from a trucking magazine as
found
> >in one of those dreadful road-houses that abound in NT.  It is illogical
> >that all taxes raised through the motor transport industry must be spent
on
> >roads.  (Corollary: All liquor taxes spent on vineyards??)
> >  Consider:
> >  (1)  Sales and excise taxes are a legitimate method of raising taxes.
The
> >GST is an extension of this principle.  The motor industry must make its
> >contribution.
> >  (2)  Road user charges are a separate issue over and above basic tax.
> >  (3)  Private motorists carry too much tax burden vis-a-vis road
transport
> >industry.
> >  (4)  Infrastructure and maintenance costs for truck-carrying roads are
> >much higher than required for cars alone.  The trucking industry should
bear
> >the total differential.
> > (5)  There is a much greater cost to the community for roading than the
> >provision of roads.  The cost of road deaths and injuries,
administration,
> >policing etc must be included.
>
> >Ray
>
> All above is absolutely correct , but what do you do about No 4.
> If we choose to build car carrying roads only , ie ban all trucks then the
> whole transport industry stops , including unfortunately all businesses
that
> rely on road transport for their goods,(just about all,)
> We need trucks, rail, cannot deliver door to door.
> If we accept that trucks are needed then we must build roads that can
carry
> trucks,no point in building sub standard roads that are continuously
damaged
> by the passage of trucks.
> Noone questions the fact that heavy trucks dont pay their way,the problem
is
> how do you make them.
> Mass / Distance charging is often talked about and would be a good idea if
it
> could be practically implemented, but how do you do it ?
> ie one would have to accurately measure the annual gtk of every truck in
the
> country and levy an appropriate fee.
> This would need a mass of weighbridges on every major highway at every
major
> turnoff, plus a huge administration to make it all work.
> Even if one could get all the above to work,the you would have to deal
with
> S92A of the constitution of this country which guarantees free trade
between
> the states.
> In the past, the High Court has found this section to mean that taxing
trucks
> carrying interstate goods is unconstitutional.
> Even if all the above could be implemented, the trucking industry would
simply
> pass the additional taxes onto the end user, we havnt achieved anything.
>
> A far far simpler solution to level the unlevel playing field , which
could be
> done with the stroke of a pen overnight,is to simply abolish track access
> charges for rail.
> Of course since just about all rail tracks in this country are owned by
the
> Govt and Govts use track access as still another method of raising
revenue,
> dont hold your breath waiting for this to happen.
>
> MD
>
>
>




  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including  Dedicated  Binaries Servers ==-----