Australian Politics Forum - What will replace the trucking jobs?

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39592

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #30 - Nov 16^th, 2017 at 9:52pm

Rider wrote on Nov 16^th, 2017 at 8:37pm:

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2017 at 5:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 15^th, 2017 at 5:17pm:

How far apart are the cities?

You mean East-West positioned across America or North South? You are going to need some type of grid structure. Or maybe let the railroads snake all over the country; although that wouldn't appear to be a cost effective option.

USA - 2680 miles E-W. 1582 miles N-S

At 100miles apart you would need about 26 lines E-W and 15 lines N-S.

And then truck to smaller towns not on the rail route.

Dumd meets dumber. Cheaper to just put it on one truck and go. How may times you wanna handle this sh1te?

Your idea ends up with more trucks than now.....6 little trucks or one big one......duh!

This is why you drive a keyboard and not a kenworth.

Yes, it is cheaper. Why is it cheaper?

The railways subsidise the road haulers through the Dieso excise.

The road haulers don't have to pay the real cost for their insurance, their damage to the roads, their destruction of the infrastructure of Australia.

Reverse those two things and railways would become, once more, profitable for the haulage of goods over long distances in Australia. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16438
Gender: male

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #31 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 11:01am

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

The railways subsidise the road haulers through the Dieso excise.

Really? How do they do that?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

The road haulers don't have to pay the real cost for their insurance

The insurance companies give them reduced rates based on the fact they are trucks?

You still haven't answered the question of how you "tax trucks out of the long distance business".

Which infrastructure do they damage? You have already mentioned roads.

BTW- you don't think trucking licences have inbuilt charges to cover roads?

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39592

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #32 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 11:01am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

The railways subsidise the road haulers through the Dieso excise.

Really? How do they do that?

By paying it of course. A large proportion goes towards road maintenance. How does that benefit the railways? Roll Eyes

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

The road haulers don't have to pay the real cost for their insurance

The insurance companies give them reduced rates based on the fact they are trucks?
[/quote]

The insurance companies do not force them to pay the full value require to recompense Australian society for the real damage that they do.

Quote:

You still haven't answered the question of how you "tax trucks out of the long distance business".

You make them pay the real cost of them hauling goods across Australia where a railway would do it more efficiently.

Quote:

Which infrastructure do they damage? You have already mentioned roads.

Roads, bridges, etc.

Quote:

BTW- you don't think trucking licences have inbuilt charges to cover roads?

Nope. Do you think so? Do you think they are proportional to the damage that long road haulage truckers cause? How many pot-holes have you driven over today?

In Melbourne, trucks regularly hit railway bridges. Do you think trucks should be allowed to do that and not pay for the resulting damage?

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16438
Gender: male

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #33 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:32pm

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

By paying it of course. A large proportion goes towards road maintenance. How does that benefit the railways?

Do you think Aurizon would lower prices or increase prices with no competition?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

The insurance companies do not force them to pay the full value require to recompense Australian society for the real damage that they do.

The insurance companies are in business to make a profit. Who would receive this extra money in the event of a payout?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

You make them pay the real cost of them hauling goods across Australia where a railway would do it more efficiently.

if you have already "tax trucks out of the long distance business", and there is no railway; how do remote towns get their goods?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

Roads, bridges, etc.

So sorry. You had already included roads, I included bridges etc, because without a road bridges are superfluous.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

Nope. Do you think so? Do you think they are proportional to the damage that long road haulage truckers cause? How many pot-holes have you driven over today?

Do you know it is not only trucks cause potholes?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

In Melbourne, trucks regularly hit railway bridges. Do you think trucks should be allowed to do that and not pay for the resulting damage?

That is driver negligence. In WA the driver or company responsible has to pay. Sounds like Victoria has poor policies.

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39592

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #34 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

By paying it of course. A large proportion goes towards road maintenance. How does that benefit the railways?

Do you think Aurizon would lower prices or increase prices with no competition?

The railways should be nationalised, not privatised. Who gives a rat's arse what Aurizon does when the Government owns the railways? Roll Eyes

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

You make them pay the real cost of them hauling goods across Australia where a railway would do it more efficiently.

if you have already "tax trucks out of the long distance business", and there is no railway; how do remote towns get their goods?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. I've already addressed that. Roll Eyes

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

Nope. Do you think so? Do you think they are proportional to the damage that long road haulage truckers cause? How many pot-holes have you driven over today?

Do you know it is not only trucks cause potholes?

Trucks are the major cause of pot-holes. Roll Eyes

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

In Melbourne, trucks regularly hit railway bridges. Do you think trucks should be allowed to do that and not pay for the resulting damage?

That is driver negligence. In WA the driver or company responsible has to pay. Sounds like Victoria has poor policies.

They don't have railway bridges like they have in Melbourne in WA 'cause the state government under the Tories in WA shut down all the branchlines. I say, re-open the branchlines and get rid of the trucks. Much more sensible.

You seem to assume that all towns would be, could be serviced by railways. At no point have I suggested that. Railway lines to the major centres. Trucks outwards from there, to the minor centres. Some towns would only be serviced by trucks, most would however draw from their regional centres, which in turn would be serviced by trains. Trains carry larger loads, cheaper than trucks. They use less fuel and would employ more people. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16438
Gender: male

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #35 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:12pm

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

The railways should be nationalised, not privatised. Who gives a rat's arse what Aurizon does when the Government owns the railways?

Because the railways are already privatised. Thay's another expense on the top of your new tracks. the bills keep going up. Or perhaps you mean the Government couldn't operate the railways at a profit.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. I've already addressed that.

Nope. you haven't said how you would discriminate. If it's a Fed law it would apply federally.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

Trucks are the major cause of pot-holes.

Can you cite the study that proved that?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

They don't have railway bridges like they have in Melbourne in WA 'cause the state government under the Tories in WA shut down all the branchlines. I say, re-open the branchlines and get rid of the trucks. Much more sensible.

You still haven't addressed the shortfall in Victorian government policy.

But while some rail lines still exist in WA others are completely gone.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

You seem to assume that all towns would be, could be serviced by railways. At no point have I suggested that. Railway lines to the major centres. Trucks outwards from there, to the minor centres. Some towns would only be serviced by trucks, most would however draw from their regional centres, which in turn would be serviced by trains.

But you have gotten rid of long haul trucks. Perhaps you could enlighten us on your version of long haul? In Victoria it wouldn't be much more than 200km.

What size is a major centre?

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39592

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #36 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

The railways should be nationalised, not privatised. Who gives a rat's arse what Aurizon does when the Government owns the railways?

Because the railways are already privatised. Thay's another expense on the top of your new tracks. the bills keep going up. Or perhaps you mean the Government couldn't operate the railways at a profit.

It is all accounting magic. Profit? Loss? All just numbers on a page. A little addition here, a little subtraction there and hey, presto-chango! Suddenly what was red is now black! Roll Eyes

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. I've already addressed that.

Nope. you haven't said how you would discriminate. If it's a Fed law it would apply federally.

Exactly. It would overcome the resistance from the Tory states. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

Trucks are the major cause of pot-holes.

Can you cite the study that proved that?

Can you cite evidence to refute it?

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

They don't have railway bridges like they have in Melbourne in WA 'cause the state government under the Tories in WA shut down all the branchlines. I say, re-open the branchlines and get rid of the trucks. Much more sensible.

You still haven't addressed the shortfall in Victorian government policy.

Why should I? That is a Victorian problem. Care to explain why they are now putting in place Laser warning systems rather than just removing the trucks from the roads which the Bridge crosses? Much easier, much more sensible and it'd stop all the accidents.

Quote:

But while some rail lines still exist in WA others are completely gone.

Most have.

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

You seem to assume that all towns would be, could be serviced by railways. At no point have I suggested that. Railway lines to the major centres. Trucks outwards from there, to the minor centres. Some towns would only be serviced by trucks, most would however draw from their regional centres, which in turn would be serviced by trains.

But you have gotten rid of long haul trucks. Perhaps you could enlighten us on your version of long haul? In Victoria it wouldn't be much more than 200km.

What size is a major centre?

I am sure the Geographers could help there. Why don't you approach them? Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16438
Gender: male

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #37 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:56pm

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

It is all accounting magic. Profit? Loss? All just numbers on a page. A little addition here, a little subtraction there and hey, presto-chango! Suddenly what was red is now black! Roll Eyes

Except of course the lines would have to be purchased from the companies. Unless you favour compulsory acquisition without funding.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

Exactly. It would overcome the resistance from the Tory states. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

And yet it would do damage to the other states outside your south east corner, which is where you envisage this will be centred. That is federally a no-no.

So you would damage those states that do not have the railway in the other states, as long as your beloved south east is catered for.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

Can you cite evidence to refute it?

So an assertion without evidence. Thank you. You are the one making the claim.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

Care to explain why they are now putting in place Laser warning systems rather than just removing the trucks from the roads which the Bridge crosses? Much easier, much more sensible and it'd stop all the accidents.

Don't know anything about it.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

Most have.

Yes.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

I am sure the Geographers could help there. Why don't you approach them?

You're the one saying it would only be feasible for the south east corner, because of population density.

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39592

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #38 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 7:45pm

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

It is all accounting magic. Profit? Loss? All just numbers on a page. A little addition here, a little subtraction there and hey, presto-chango! Suddenly what was red is now black! Roll Eyes

Except of course the lines would have to be purchased from the companies. Unless you favour compulsory acquisition without funding.

Oh, no, no. Of course they would be compensated...eventually. Cool

Quote:

[quote author=Brian_Ross link=1510721866/36#36 date=1510908098]Exactly. It would overcome the resistance from the Tory states. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

And yet it would do damage to the other states outside your south east corner, which is where you envisage this will be centred. That is federally a no-no.

So you would damage those states that do not have the railway in the other states, as long as your beloved south east is catered for.

The other states would be compensated and encouraged to build railways... Roll Eyes

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

Can you cite evidence to refute it?

So an assertion without evidence. Thank you. You are the one making the claim.

Oh, no, no, I have evidence. I just choose to ask you provide yours first. Roll Eyes

You seem to be assuming that trucking is a legitimate use of the roads for some reason. It is heavily subsidised by society, we need to level the playing field.

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

Care to explain why they are now putting in place Laser warning systems rather than just removing the trucks from the roads which the Bridge crosses? Much easier, much more sensible and it'd stop all the accidents.

Don't know anything about it.

Yet you appear to believe that the Government which is doing this to prevent accidents because of dozy drivers is doing it out of the goodness of their hearts... Roll Eyes

Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

I am sure the Geographers could help there. Why don't you approach them?

You're the one saying it would only be feasible for the south east corner, because of population density.

Yes, it would. Cool

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16438 Gender:	Re: What will replace the trucking jobs? Reply #39 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 7:50pm Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 7:45pm: The other states would be compensated and encouraged to build railways.. And tet another cost on your utopian dream.
Back to top	IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #40 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 8:51pm

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

Rider wrote on Nov 16^th, 2017 at 8:37pm:

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2017 at 5:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 15^th, 2017 at 5:17pm:

How far apart are the cities?

You mean East-West positioned across America or North South? You are going to need some type of grid structure. Or maybe let the railroads snake all over the country; although that wouldn't appear to be a cost effective option.

USA - 2680 miles E-W. 1582 miles N-S

At 100miles apart you would need about 26 lines E-W and 15 lines N-S.

And then truck to smaller towns not on the rail route.

Dumd meets dumber. Cheaper to just put it on one truck and go. How may times you wanna handle this sh1te?

Your idea ends up with more trucks than now.....6 little trucks or one big one......duh!

This is why you drive a keyboard and not a kenworth.

Yes, it is cheaper. Why is it cheaper?

The railways subsidise the road haulers through the Dieso excise.

The road haulers don't have to pay the real cost for their insurance, their damage to the roads, their destruction of the infrastructure of Australia.

Reverse those two things and railways would become, once more, profitable for the haulage of goods over long distances in Australia. Roll Eyes

1. Wrong.
2. You have no idea. Many transport operators self insure. ie they cannot buy insurance.
3. Oh f6ch you are dumb. Do you have any idea of the costs of running trucks?
4. Yes, rail can transport bulk commodities to sigle port/destination very well. You gonna build a train line into every Woolies and every Aldi....muppet.
5. I cannot believe someone is so ferkhng stupid. Do you live in a bubble? Do you have any concept of the transport and logistics industry in this country?
6. You best stick to big issues like poofs and marriage. Leave the real work to people who do it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39592

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #41 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 10:55pm

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 7:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 7:45pm:

The other states would be compensated and encouraged to build railways..

And tet another cost on your utopian dream.

And what is wrong with having a dream? Are you so soulless that you'd rather just have polluting trucks tearing up the roads and bridges? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Online

Representative of me

Posts: 39592

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #42 - Nov 17^th, 2017 at 10:57pm

Rider wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

Rider wrote on Nov 16^th, 2017 at 8:37pm:

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2017 at 5:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 15^th, 2017 at 5:17pm:

How far apart are the cities?

You mean East-West positioned across America or North South? You are going to need some type of grid structure. Or maybe let the railroads snake all over the country; although that wouldn't appear to be a cost effective option.

USA - 2680 miles E-W. 1582 miles N-S

At 100miles apart you would need about 26 lines E-W and 15 lines N-S.

And then truck to smaller towns not on the rail route.

Dumd meets dumber. Cheaper to just put it on one truck and go. How may times you wanna handle this sh1te?

Your idea ends up with more trucks than now.....6 little trucks or one big one......duh!

This is why you drive a keyboard and not a kenworth.

Yes, it is cheaper. Why is it cheaper?

The railways subsidise the road haulers through the Dieso excise.

The road haulers don't have to pay the real cost for their insurance, their damage to the roads, their destruction of the infrastructure of Australia.

Reverse those two things and railways would become, once more, profitable for the haulage of goods over long distances in Australia. Roll Eyes

1. Wrong.
2. You have no idea. Many transport operators self insure. ie they cannot buy insurance.
3. Oh f6ch you are dumb. Do you have any idea of the costs of running trucks?
4. Yes, rail can transport bulk commodities to sigle port/destination very well. You gonna build a train line into every Woolies and every Aldi....muppet.
5. I cannot believe someone is so ferkhng stupid. Do you live in a bubble? Do you have any concept of the transport and logistics industry in this country?
6. You best stick to big issues like poofs and marriage. Leave the real work to people who do it.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk, another poster who has not read not understood the whole thread. If it is wrong, prove it is wrong, don't just claim it is wrong. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: What will replace the trucking jobs?
Reply #43 - Nov 18^th, 2017 at 7:10am

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 10:55pm:

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 7:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 7:45pm:

The other states would be compensated and encouraged to build railways..

And tet another cost on your utopian dream.

And what is wrong with having a dream? Are you so soulless that you'd rather just have polluting trucks tearing up the roads and bridges? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Yeah freight trains are sooooo clean and beautiful....powered by prancing white horses, floating in the sky using fluffy clouds as rails, delivering goods and commodities by silk and lace parachutes.....

Reality check in aisle 1 please, we are surrounded by brainless gumbies.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16438 Gender:	Re: What will replace the trucking jobs? Reply #44 - Nov 18^th, 2017 at 11:56am Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 10:55pm: And what is wrong with having a dream? Are you so soulless that you'd rather just have polluting trucks tearing up the roads and bridges? I'll let you set up the Go Fund Me page. What will be the power source for these trains? Solar panels on the roof?
Back to top	IP Logged