MORE INDUSTRY NEWS...
most recent
|
most popular
MORE TECHNICAL NEWS...
most recent
|
most popular
RELATED STORIES...
most recent
|
most popular
COMMENTED STORIES...
most recent
|
most popular

main image

By Brad Gardner | January 11, 2010


The New South Wales Government has refused to reinstate a rail fuel subsidy despite Opposition claims it will improve road safety by taking trucks off the road.

A spokesman for Transport Minister David Campbell says there are no plans to restore the 1.2 cent per litre Fuel by Rail Scheme for petrol companies axed in November 2008.

The Opposition called for the scheme to be reintroduced after fatal incidents involving petrol tankers in NSW during the Christmas holiday period.

Coalition leader Barry O’Farrell says the subsidy will cut the need for truck movements, and a spokesman for O’Farrell says the Opposition will keep fighting to have the subsidy re-introduced.

“It’s not an issue that is going to go away,” the spokesman says.

Australasian Railway Association CEO Bryan Nye has backed the Opposition’s move, while the Rail, Tram and Bus Union wants petrol, diesel and gas shifted to rail.

“I think it should be restored,” Nye says.

“Around the world everyone is putting dangerous goods on rail.”

Furthermore, Nye says the demise of the subsidy played a role in Shell’s decision to close rail operations in Dubbo, Canberra and Tamworth.

However Cambpell’s spokesman says Shell informed the Government the decision to turn to road transport was made regardless of whether the subsidy was in place.

Jill Lewis from the NSW branch of the Australian Trucking Association (ATA) has rejected the union’s proposal.

She says it neglects to take into account the need to move fuel from the rail line to petrol stations.

“Petrol stations are located on roads, not on rail lines, so delivery by truck is the only way to get fuel to the outlets,” Lewis says.

“The proposal also doesn’t address the problem that NSW simply does not have the rail infrastructure needed to undertake such a massive shift in how goods are distributed.”

The 1.2 cent subsidy was introduced to encourage companies to transport petrol over the Blue Mountains from Sydney to destinations west of Lithgow.

A petrol tanker collided with a car late last year near Batemans Bay on the Princes Highway, killing the truck driver, two girls and their father.

Another two incidents occurred earlier this month, the first on the Newell Highway at Narrandera and the second on the New England Highway near Muswellbrook.


COMMENTS (7)
Comment by Unknown
posted 7 months ago
Ill say it again and again, Fed Govt has to mandate ABS,EBS brake systems with roll stability and catch up with the world. This will reduce accidents and save lives!
Comment by Unknown
posted 7 months ago
This one accident was just horrific,,absolutely,
how-ever how many accidents have there been involving tankers and little ones.I remeber a few years back a couple of buses colliding killing many..why are buses still on the roads,arent humans a more precious cargo than fuel?
Stop it with the knee jerk reactions.Work out if there is a problem and if need be fix it.Stop trying to win votes by saying what you think the people want to hear!!
Fix the roads NOW and stop it with the bandaids
Comment by 123968
posted 7 months ago
Who will pay for a railway line to every servo in Australia?
Comment by Unknown
posted 7 months ago
there will always be trucks delivering goods, no question. rail is best suited to high volume, long distance transport, not for local delivery. don't confuse which trucks they want to take off the road.
Comment by Unknown
posted 7 months ago
If rail isn't viable, why should it be subsidised?
Comment by Unknown
posted 7 months ago
Whoever made the comment that fuels and the like should go by is offtrack. Can anyone picture a train load of diesel going down the main street in a city to reach a service station?
Anon-Truckies live on
Comment by Unknown
posted 7 months ago
What people have got to understand is that fuel trucks carry approx 35,000 litres and majority of the travel is done on highways that are diverted around towns is if an accident occurs you have a rise of a few lives (regrettably)and blocking a highway but if you fill a train with fuel you will have approx 500,000 litres that go through every county town and if there is a derailment (which does happen without media exposure)you then run a risk of destroying a whole town and its residents. So which method makes common sense

Add Comment
SUBMIT COMMENT
Friday, September 10, 2010