Transport (of passengers and general freight) uses
excessive resources because of the apparent, but false,
economy of highways. Highway usage is very attractive
because most road space is provided by governments with little
expectation of financial return while the costs of significant harm and
losses due to traffic are borne by the wider community, rather than the
users.
|
Transport tasks (passenger-km and general freight tonne-km) are continuing to
grow. They will double and double again within the 70 to 100 year time-frame.
Under present policies, transport-related resource usage will be
unsustainable, despite most governments now being more positive
about rail. |
|
Thanks to this improved government attitude, rail now seems likely to maintain
its share of the growing task, thus reaching four times its present traffic
within that time-frame. But if that is the case, society will also see four times
the road traffic task around that time. Is this prospect acceptable to
society? |
|
The role that only rail can play in these coming decades is to absorb
that growth, leaving highway traffic around the present level. Every
increment of task (e.g. million person-km of travel) on road uses more energy
and more land and causes more damage than the same increment absorbed by rail.
| |
Absorbing passenger and freight task growth onto rail will permit the continuing
improvement in accident rates (e.g. per million vehicle-km) to be realised
as an absolute reduction in trauma - impossible if road traffic keeps on
growing. |
|
This role for rail will save substantial outlays by governments and
relieve pressure on land, energy and societal resources. If governments
will commit to identifying and sharing these savings, industry will gladly
make the needed investments. Thus railways will be rewarded for reducing the
rate of growth of road traffic - their ultimate role. |
|
Our finite highway capacity will be better utilised by ensuring that
it is kept available for tasks which really must use the road and
which warrant the greater use of resources. This is not about reducing road
traffic and road capacity - it is about not increasing it over the decades.
| |
To achieve this kind of outcome, rail capacity must grow not to four
times but (typically) twenty times its present level. |
|
OUR AGENDA is to put this challenge on YOUR agenda ! |
|
|
|
Balance Research.
FOR MORE DESCRIPTION, SCROLL DOWN |
|
Balance Research
Balance Research, a voluntary organisation, is based in Melbourne,
Australia. We study and write on policy issues relating to
Transport and Telecommunications.
Our Director is Michael Isaachsen, who has many years' experience
in researching and debating transport issues, and who worked for
nearly 30 years with Australia's telephone company (now Telstra).
|
|
The main thrust of Balance Research's transport work is to place certain
issues about the usage of resources by transport onto the public agenda.
If society is to avoid a blow-out in resources used by transport, public
transport and rail freight must grow much faster than now contemplated
despite the new-found zeal of most governments for rail expansion.
By the time when total transport tasks reach four times today's
level, if society wishes to avoid four times today's road
traffic, infrastructure and financial incentives must be in
place for the rail industry to carry not four times but perhaps
twenty times the rail traffic.
The result of ensuring rail capacity and limiting road growth, compared
to continuation of present policy, will include reduced road
trauma and lower use of resources (energy, land and quiet enjoyment
as well as billions of government money). When Governments find ways of
quantifying and sharing these savings with those who make them possible,
financiers will be keen to invest.
Beneficiaries will include those with a continuing need to use the
roads, as the less critical tasks will be attracted away by rail's
improved service and its subsidy equalised with that of road. At
present, governments and society are giving more subsidy to the mode
which uses more resources. Without these changes, the road system
will become unworkable: industry and travel will be stifled.
Our telecommunications work mainly relates to Australia's official
scheme for numbering of telephone services. Telephone number
schemes previously indicated, by their first two or three digits,
the geographic locality where each service is located. This is
important socially and for understanding the likely charge for calling.
This meaning in numbers has been eroded by the current scheme,
introduced by the ACA's predecessor in 1996. The present scheme makes
no provision for expanding local number-ranges in a contiguous fashion.
TRANSPORT POLICY
TRANSPORT OVERVIEW PAGE
INCLUDING LINKS TO PAPERS AND FURTHER PAGES
INDEX OF PAPERS AND SUBMISSIONS
BY-PASSING THE OVERVIEW PAGE
TRANSPORT HIGHLIGHTS PAGE
A PAGE OF TRANSPORT PHILOSOPHY IN POINT FORM
TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY
Click Here for our Telecoms Intro
- TELEPHONE NUMBERS CAN BE AND SHOULD BE GEOGRAPHICALLY MEANINGFUL
- AUSTRALIAN COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY NUMBERING PLAN IS DEFICIENT
and is leading to number chaos
- BALANCE RESEARCH DEVISES NUMBERING RULES TO PROVIDE FOR GROWTH
WITHOUT LOSS OF MEANING
- DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE SERVICE - VALUE FOR MONEY?
- OPERATOR ASSISTANCE WHEN THE NETWORK IS IN TROUBLE
Volunteering at Balance Research
Some of this interesting work can be done at home.
Read our Volunteers Page.
Where to Contact Balance Research :
See our about page.