The first comment I see when I look at the comments on the article is particularly upsetting:
Meanwhile truck crashes kill an average of one person each week in NSW and seriously injure 5 others. What is most iniquitous about this situation is that the majority of those killed and injured in truck crashes are other road users. For example, of the people killed in fatal truck crashes in 2021, approximately 50 per cent were occupants in a light vehicle, 25 per cent were occupants in the heavy truck and 25 per cent were other road users (pedestrians, motorcyclists or pedal cyclists). Many would regard this situation as unethical. Others would say that such disregard for human suffering is a mortal sin given that a far safer alternative – the railways – already exists but has been largely abandoned in favor of heavily subsidized road freight.
Australian data shows that a high proportion of heavy vehicles exceed speed limits on both open and urban roads. It is estimated that if all heavy vehicles complied with speed limits, there would be a 29% reduction in truck crashes. Australian Design Rule (ADR) 65 — Maximum Road Speed Limiting for Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Omnibuses - specifies the devices or systems used to limit the maximum road speed of heavy vehicles. Unfortunately, there is evidence that speed limiters are frequently disabled. Speed controllers, much more effective at controlling truck speeds, are readily available devices that prevent trucks from exceeding a maximum speed under all road conditions, downhill included.
The problem is not just the roads.
Why we use trucks for freight as much we do is beyond me. Any route that sees more than 2 road trains per day should be served by rail. And maybe we could improve our passenger rail while we’re at it.
Why we use trucks for freight as much we do is beyond me.
Tony Abbott had Lindsay Fox “toys” on his prime ministerial book shelves as an examplw.
Why ? becase we keep.voting for politcans who have little interst in rail or oublic tranzport in general.
Even when we do something belated, like the Inland.Rail project, it doesn’t go to the port in Brisbane, nor carries in to port of Gladstone but ends in teucking depot in Brisbane.
As many people were killed by traffic murders on the day of the Boncli shootings as by gun.
Rail is bloody expensive to build and to maintain. Not to mention that you still need trucks to deliver from train station to the destination. Trucks makes much more sense.
Absolutely untrue. Rail is insanely cheap to maintain, compared to roads. Especially roads taking heavy freight. The amount of damage a car does to the road increases by the 4th power of its weight. Meaning Carey twice the weight, do 16 time the damage to the road.
Plus, they can take much, much higher volumes of cargo. One train can carry as much as 4 road trains and not even be an especially noteworthy freight train. So operation costs are lower.
And they’re safer, since rails are not shared with cars and are a more controlled route.
Yes, upfront costs are higher, but after that it’s literally all wins.
Very often you do not need “higher volumes of cargo.” And you still need trucks to get cargo from train to final destination. Rail is dead for a reason.
The reason road trains exist is to make trucks more efficient than normal trucks by transporting in bulk - instead of carrying the weight of multiple trucks + cargo, it’s only one big truck. More efficient, and therefore cheaper.
Rail is even more efficient than road trains at transporting in bulk from region to region, as they don’t waste energy on friction, and are even better at carrying in bulk. Road trains don’t exist in most countries because they usually have rail to take its place, trucks have their niche in the first and last legs within small regions. After all, moving a truck across regions is less efficient (and therefore more expensive to do).
The only form of transport more efficient than freight trains are cargo ships, which can’t go inland. There’s a reason mining companies often build their own freight railways to transport between mine and port.
Australia is finishing a build of Inland Rail, a rail freight corridor right now. I’d hardly call it dead when we are expanding the rail network. Admittedly the initial build is over budget, but the initial build is always the most expensive part.
The first comment I see when I look at the comments on the article is particularly upsetting:
Why we use trucks for freight as much we do is beyond me. Any route that sees more than 2 road trains per day should be served by rail. And maybe we could improve our passenger rail while we’re at it.
Tony Abbott had Lindsay Fox “toys” on his prime ministerial book shelves as an examplw.
Why ? becase we keep.voting for politcans who have little interst in rail or oublic tranzport in general.
Even when we do something belated, like the Inland.Rail project, it doesn’t go to the port in Brisbane, nor carries in to port of Gladstone but ends in teucking depot in Brisbane.
As many people were killed by traffic murders on the day of the Boncli shootings as by gun.
Fuck that’s a good stat to have. Do you have a good source I can use to point to it?
It won’t be accurate; I found only four across four states. The others won’t have 13 or more.
There will be no source provided, except “Trust me, bro”, because is not true. Unless OP meant globally…
Rail is bloody expensive to build and to maintain. Not to mention that you still need trucks to deliver from train station to the destination. Trucks makes much more sense.
Absolutely untrue. Rail is insanely cheap to maintain, compared to roads. Especially roads taking heavy freight. The amount of damage a car does to the road increases by the 4th power of its weight. Meaning Carey twice the weight, do 16 time the damage to the road.
Plus, they can take much, much higher volumes of cargo. One train can carry as much as 4 road trains and not even be an especially noteworthy freight train. So operation costs are lower.
And they’re safer, since rails are not shared with cars and are a more controlled route.
Yes, upfront costs are higher, but after that it’s literally all wins.
Very often you do not need “higher volumes of cargo.” And you still need trucks to get cargo from train to final destination. Rail is dead for a reason.
The reason is that there is profit to be made by inefficiency.
When rail is used, the people who profit are;
When Trucks are used, the people who profit are;
These are all at the expense of;
The reason road trains exist is to make trucks more efficient than normal trucks by transporting in bulk - instead of carrying the weight of multiple trucks + cargo, it’s only one big truck. More efficient, and therefore cheaper.
Rail is even more efficient than road trains at transporting in bulk from region to region, as they don’t waste energy on friction, and are even better at carrying in bulk. Road trains don’t exist in most countries because they usually have rail to take its place, trucks have their niche in the first and last legs within small regions. After all, moving a truck across regions is less efficient (and therefore more expensive to do).
The only form of transport more efficient than freight trains are cargo ships, which can’t go inland. There’s a reason mining companies often build their own freight railways to transport between mine and port.
Australia is finishing a build of Inland Rail, a rail freight corridor right now. I’d hardly call it dead when we are expanding the rail network. Admittedly the initial build is over budget, but the initial build is always the most expensive part.