Comments on Wang Tao "Troubles with airport expansion in China", 18/03/2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/18/troubles-with-airport-expansion-in-china/
I would urge caution for using railway travel against air travel.
While it is true that a much higher proportion of people travel by train in China than those in the US, a point made by the author of this article, the article does not seem to make it clear why that should that be a limiting factor for further increases in the number of airports in China.
For example, China has more than three times the population of the US. This factor alone would suggest that it is still possible that there could be more air travellers in China even with a lower proportion of air travellers in China.
Secondly, fast train services in China are likely to be making losses, not much better than airports.
Thirdly, a better strategy may be to construct different types of airports with different scales.
Fourthly, if air travel and fast-train travel are competitors, it would be a good thing to increase competition as long as new constructions are by the private sector, or at least the private sector has a strong involvement to avoid public investments to be wasted.
Having said that, I think the main point I am making is that the article has not presented a systematic and thorough picture to be convincing in its arguments. The author may be right, but more analysis is needed, especially since in many places it would be too costly to construct rail tracks.
Showing posts with label transport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transport. Show all posts
2013-04-02
2011-04-05
Congestion tax is fanciful
Comments on John Stanley “Congestion tax – the great traffic jam breaker”, 5/04/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Traffic-congestion-roads-infrastructure-tax-pd20110405-FM3Y9?OpenDocument&src=sph
It is fanciful to have a congestion tax in cities.
While some people talk about such a concept, it is a flawed and impractical approach. It is never clear whether it is the fault of those people who use the road, or it is the failures of government due to poor planning and/or management, that cause or result in congestions.
Congestion itself is already a cost or tax on those people who are caught in congestion.
In the unlikely event such a tax is introduced, it can be perceived not only as a government revenue measure and tax grab but also as government’s disguise or finding an excuse for its poor management. Further, government may deliberately create more congestions or more areas of congestion to simply raise more revenue.
Once that becomes clear, isn't it the case that the fanciful idea of congestion tax dead in the water already?
In summary, congestion tax might be a good theoretic and economic concept, it is a naïve thinking and nonsensical idea after all.
It is fanciful to have a congestion tax in cities.
While some people talk about such a concept, it is a flawed and impractical approach. It is never clear whether it is the fault of those people who use the road, or it is the failures of government due to poor planning and/or management, that cause or result in congestions.
Congestion itself is already a cost or tax on those people who are caught in congestion.
In the unlikely event such a tax is introduced, it can be perceived not only as a government revenue measure and tax grab but also as government’s disguise or finding an excuse for its poor management. Further, government may deliberately create more congestions or more areas of congestion to simply raise more revenue.
Once that becomes clear, isn't it the case that the fanciful idea of congestion tax dead in the water already?
In summary, congestion tax might be a good theoretic and economic concept, it is a naïve thinking and nonsensical idea after all.
2011-04-04
How to get Sydney moving?
Comments on Henry Ergas “Mere money won't get Sydney moving”, 4/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/more-money-wont-get-sydney-moving/story-fn59niix-1226032905744
Only having read the concluding paras without reading the whole article, couldn't it be better both logically and politically, to combine immediate actions with longer term structural design at once?
Given the existence of the problem for so long, surely there must be some no-regret transport projects that can go ahead immediately, no matter what a longer term structural consideration will result in.
NSW/Sydney people are sick and tired of of spins and inactions, or worse wastes of taxpayer's money and expect action.
They have just voted for action and they deserve rightly it.
Of course, Ergas is right, only simple action without a long term best design can only lead to more wastes and more serious jams.
So, O'Farrell should and must combine the two to provide both assurance and best policy, for taxpayer's money and improve people's lives and living standards.
Economists also need to be aware of the real world too and combine long term perspectives with short term actions as well as a dynamic optimal trajectory, I am afraid to say.
Only having read the concluding paras without reading the whole article, couldn't it be better both logically and politically, to combine immediate actions with longer term structural design at once?
Given the existence of the problem for so long, surely there must be some no-regret transport projects that can go ahead immediately, no matter what a longer term structural consideration will result in.
NSW/Sydney people are sick and tired of of spins and inactions, or worse wastes of taxpayer's money and expect action.
They have just voted for action and they deserve rightly it.
Of course, Ergas is right, only simple action without a long term best design can only lead to more wastes and more serious jams.
So, O'Farrell should and must combine the two to provide both assurance and best policy, for taxpayer's money and improve people's lives and living standards.
Economists also need to be aware of the real world too and combine long term perspectives with short term actions as well as a dynamic optimal trajectory, I am afraid to say.
2010-06-10
Very fast train in the eastern states worth considering
Comments on Gary Jones “A Very Fast Train after the election?” 10/06/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-very-fast-train-after-the-election/story-e6frg6zo-1225877645958
VFT should be considered and be studied very carefully.
The government should openly conduct a bidding process to commission two initial studies and if the conclusions are positive then openly commission a feasibility study.
The NBN approach should never be repeated and must be avoided.
Irrespective a VFT or not, it is too important to just rely on some persons opinions even though some of them may be "experts".
Australia has built a rail line between Adelaide and Darwin. A VFT in the eastern densely populated areas should intuitively be more economical than the Adelaide Darwin track, given the population there is less than two million while in the east there are more than half of the nation’s population.
VFT should be considered and be studied very carefully.
The government should openly conduct a bidding process to commission two initial studies and if the conclusions are positive then openly commission a feasibility study.
The NBN approach should never be repeated and must be avoided.
Irrespective a VFT or not, it is too important to just rely on some persons opinions even though some of them may be "experts".
Australia has built a rail line between Adelaide and Darwin. A VFT in the eastern densely populated areas should intuitively be more economical than the Adelaide Darwin track, given the population there is less than two million while in the east there are more than half of the nation’s population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
