And how useful are those to the average traveller?  There is no sense in restricting benefits to certain groups.
*Concession fares should be abolished (increase welfare spending)
*Minor fares should be free in metro areas, about half price for regional
*Fares should be set to enable cost recovery, with a distance based pricing structure

Eliminating concession fares and moving the benefit to welfare is the fairest way of doing things, that does not discriminate against those with no PT access.

The complete lack of coverage of opex (only 25-30%) and capex (nothing) from PT revenue is why it is ignored by government.

Road revenue covers both opex and capex of new roads, hence it is not a money pit, and this is why government is more willing to invest.

At the risk of sounding a little bit "socialist", V/Line is necessarily subsidized because if it didn't exist, then the economic burden on the state would be far higher than it is now.  You would find that V/Line's subsidy is very much worth it.  The benefits outweigh the (relatively minor) taxpayer burden.

The fact that it is essentially a "subsidized public service" at present does tend to mean that investment in V/Line is sketchy because successive governments have failed to see the wider value that it is to this state.  I suspect that customer service and employee pride in the organization (along with patronage) would also be far better than now if its benefits were more widely recognized.  Don't get me wrong - many of V/Line's employees are doing their absolute best with a rundown fleet and deaf governments, and yet there are some who take the attitude that (and I quote an actual conductor - not Bendigo line btw): "if you don't like what we (V/Line) are doing then you shouldn't catch the train".  And that's a lose-lose scenario.

And how useful are those to the average traveller? There is no sense in restricting benefits to certain groups.
*Concession fares should be abolished (increase welfare spending)
*Minor fares should be free in metro areas, about half price for regional
*Fares should be set to enable cost recovery, with a distance based pricing structure

Eliminating concession fares and moving the benefit to welfare is the fairest way of doing things, that does not discriminate against those with no PT access.

I think it might it be better just to transfer the concession responsibilities to the federal government, since not everyone is eligible for welfare payments.

EDIT: I suppose you could change the eligibility requirements...

"*Fares should be set to enable cost recovery, with a distance based pricing structure"


I absolutely concur. And they should do EXACTLY the same thing for roads. Charge each user for EVERY KM used.


The government in Vic saw fit to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on the MYKI system to ensure that they could work out exactly where and when each traveller was going. Maybe in the future they will use this technology to charge each user for each specific trip.


So how about a KaRKI system for roads? You would swipe on when you left your driveway and swipe off when you arrived at your destination. If you failed to swipe off you would be charged the maximum fare as if you had driven to the top of Cape York!

The trams and buses to Deakin and Latrobe have subsidised fares as well. Some bus lines have a lower rate of cost recovery than rail.

Agreed...moreover I no longer engage in discussion with [color=#333333][size=3][font='Open Sans', Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ZH836301[/font][/size][/color] due to the bile as can be seen in many of that contributors previous posts.

Agreed...moreover I no longer engage in discussion with [color=#333333][size=3][font='Open Sans', Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ZH836301[/font][/size][/color] due to the bile as can be seen in many of that contributors previous posts.

He is our resident grumpy but not so old man. He is so much against everything he is rather quaint.

May I ask this question.  After the additional services to Eaglehawk and Epsom are added and are operating  what would be the next expansion for vline passenger rail in Bendigo?

I vote for a new station at California Gully.

I vote for a new station at California Gully.

Has there ever been a station at this location?

I was going to say more frequent services to Echuca, but they should extend the platform at Eaglehawk first since that's part of the Epsom project.

At the risk of sounding a little bit "socialist", V/Line is necessarily subsidized because if it didn't exist, then the economic burden on the state would be far higher than it is now.  You would find that V/Line's subsidy is very much worth it.  The benefits outweigh the (relatively minor) taxpayer burden.

Rubbish.

We're talking about removing the subsidy, not Vline itself - there is no reason fares cannot be increased.

I absolutely concur. And they should do EXACTLY the same thing for roads. Charge each user for EVERY KM used.

They do.  It's called fuel excise.  Roads already pay their way, that's why PT must step up and do so or it will continue to be ignored.

He is so much against everything he is rather quaint.

You'll find it has more to do with the limited thought capacity of many on this site.

May I ask this question.  After the additional services to Eaglehawk and Epsom are added and are operating  what would be the next expansion for vline passenger rail in Bendigo?

How about worrying about getting the new stations up to a decent service level before wasting even more funds on more pointless extensions.

Has there ever been a station at this location?

A siding, but I don't think there was ever a passenger stop.

At the risk of sounding a little bit "socialist", V/Line is necessarily subsidized because if it didn't exist, then the economic burden on the state would be far higher than it is now. You would find that V/Line's subsidy is very much worth it. The benefits outweigh the (relatively minor) taxpayer burden.

The fact that it is essentially a "subsidized public service" at present does tend to mean that investment in V/Line is sketchy because successive governments have failed to see the wider value that it is to this state. I suspect that customer service and employee pride in the organization (along with patronage) would also be far better than now if its benefits were more widely recognized. Don't get me wrong - many of V/Line's employees are doing their absolute best with a rundown fleet and deaf governments, and yet there are some who take the attitude that (and I quote an actual conductor - not Bendigo line btw): "if you don't like what we (V/Line) are doing then you shouldn't catch the train". And that's a lose-lose scenario.

No I disagree. If you think that subsidizing to the tune of $15 per trip is a relatively minor burden then I am missing something. That level of subsidy is quite frankly unsustainable. If you want a modern system, either Taxes are going to be raised or more revenue must be raised from the fare box. It is quite simple really. Almost all Governments throughout the Western World are reducing subsidies for Operating Expenses and Increasing Capital Spending so that signals can be renewed, modern trains bought and Stations and Track updated.  You can raise fares in line with inflation but Governments are not going to increase subsidies in line with inflation so in effect the system is going backwards, i.e. less money to meet expenses. Insisting that we continue to pay very low fares is going to consign the V/Line Infrastructure to Mediocrity for Years to come.

Michael

"They do.  It's called fuel excise.  Roads already pay their way, that's why PT must step up and do so or it will continue to be ignored"


Rubbish. "According to Budget papers 2013-2014, this excise raised $16.924 billion in the 2011/12 financial year, rising to $17.76 billion in 2012/13, and expected to be $18.570 billion this year. This is offset by rebates under the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme. According to Australian Tax Office statistics (2011/12), this amounted to $5.527 billion across the various industry sectors including the farming and resources sector." So about 11 to 12 Billion raised per annum give or take

Total roads spending in 2014 is expected to be around 17-18 billion. And that doesn't include the cost of road trauma, policing etc to the budgets of the various state governments. There is quite a bit of discussion amongst Government and Industry about how the current situation re road funding is not sustainable in Aus.

Add to that East-West link - stage 1 alone is slated to cost 6.8 billion with the total around $17-18 billion although this will be spread over a few years.

Rubbish.

We're talking about removing the subsidy, not Vline itself - there is no reason fares cannot be increased.

Cheapest way of going about it. I'd much rather see discounts and the cost per passenger fall, than overall fares increased. I have no doubt that this would be a far more effective cost recovery method.

They do. It's called fuel excise. Roads already pay their way, that's why PT must step up and do so or it will continue to be ignored.

Got any evidence? I find it quite hard to believe.

How about worrying about getting the new stations up to a decent service level before wasting even more funds on more pointless extensions.

Not a bad idea.

Nice try, but no. You see, people repeat things so often they think they're true, but it isn't supported by the evidence.

The following from the Commonwealth Dept of Infrastructure and Transport gives you an feel for it:

BITRE - Public Road Related Expenditure and Revenue in Australia 2008

---------------------Expenditure:------------Expenditure----------------Revenue:
---------------------(2010 prices)---------(constant prices)-----------(2010 prices)
2000/01:-----------$8.2 billion-------------$11.5 billion---------------$13.8 billion
2001/02:-----------$8.2 billion-------------$11.1 billion---------------$14.3 billion
2002/03:-----------$8.4 billion-------------$11.0 billion---------------$15.0 billion
2003/04:-----------$8.5 billion-------------$10.4 billion---------------$15.8 billion
2004/05:-----------$9.5 billion-------------$11.2 billion---------------$16.4 billion
2005/06:-----------$9.7 billion-------------$11.0 billion---------------$16.4 billion
2006/07:-----------$11.5 billion------------$12.5 billion--------------$16.4 billion
2007/08:-----------$14.2 billion------------$14.4 billion--------------$16.6 billion
2008/09:-----------$15.8 billion------------$15.8 billion--------------$15.6 billion

Get the idea?

The '2010 prices' is simply the expenditure figure based on 2010 prices, whilst the 'constant prices' is the same data with a construction cost index applied, which gives you an idea of how increases in construction costs have affected these figures (eg. much of the increase in expenditure is due to increasing construction costs, not due to increased road building activity. The jump from 07/08 to 08/09 is due to Nation Building work.

Note these figures a NET of the diesel tax rebates (excise accounted for about 56% of revenue in 05/06). You could remove a few hundred million from both expenditure and revenue due to private sector expenditure and private sector tolls. Auslink / Nation Building began in 2004, which is responsible for the increase in expenditure from 2004/05 onward (note, this also included many rail projects), but this filled the gap in spending compared to receipts.

edit-formatting

Is that directed at me? If it is, I think you're missing the point.

Is that directed at me? If it is, I think you're missing the point.

No I think it is directed at me.

ZH, you seem to like reports, have you read this one?
http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/files/ifwg_report_final.pdf

Amongst other interesting things you may like to check out the cost of congestion graphs (which are not factored into either your road funding argument or your rail pax subsidy argument ((whilst I agree the subsidy for rail is too high the alternative is to create more congestion which costs more to business in lost time and productivity))

Also has a heap of references to the challenge in funding the infrastructure deficit and the need for more user-pays charging for infrastructure use - just as my mythical KaRKI card would do!

Would more people use the bendigo train if 2 PSOs rode every train from southern cross and clarksfield to get it through the western suburbs as i think maybe some ppl dont use the train because they dont feel safe going throught he west??

Would more people use the bendigo train if 2 PSOs rode every train from southern cross and clarksfield to get it through the western suburbs as i think maybe some ppl dont use the train because they dont feel safe going throught he west??

I don't think so. Most trains are already quite busy as it is.

Would more people use the bendigo train if 2 PSOs rode every train from southern cross and clarksfield to get it through the western suburbs as i think maybe some ppl dont use the train because they dont feel safe going throught he west??

This is a ridiculous comment...do you think the west of Melbourne is some kind of no-mans-land


I think you've been watching too many Hollywood end of life as we know it movies...

Mike.

Would more people use the bendigo train if 2 PSOs rode every train from southern cross and clarksfield to get it through the western suburbs as i think maybe some ppl dont use the train because they dont feel safe going throught he west??

Where's the LOL button on this thing

And how useful are those to the average traveller? There is no sense in restricting benefits to certain groups.
*Concession fares should be abolished (increase welfare spending)
*Minor fares should be free in metro areas, about half price for regional
*Fares should be set to enable cost recovery, with a distance based pricing structure

Eliminating concession fares and moving the benefit to welfare is the fairest way of doing things, that does not discriminate against those with no PT access.

The complete lack of coverage of opex (only 25-30%) and capex (nothing) from PT revenue is why it is ignored by government.

Road revenue covers both opex and capex of new roads, hence it is not a money pit, and this is why government is more willing to invest.

With V/Line - Full fare users (64%) get the biggest government subsidised fares compare to Concession users (34%).



Concession users do not get the biggest government subsidised fares - here is an example:

Melbourne to Bendigo = $11.80 a day if buy a 70 days pass or which equals to $82.60 a week

Let say a person only travel 5 days a week - Melbourne to Bendigo $82.60 / 5 =$16.52 a day = $8.26 for one trip - not bad

compare to a concession user - normally can't buy a 28 pass, let alone a 70 day pass because of financial hardship pays:

myki money - Peak
Cost of a single Fare----------$13.80
Cost of a Daily Fare-----------$27.60

myki money - Off Peak *
Cost of a single Fare------$9.66
Cost of a Daily Fare-------$19.32


Most people on the V/Line trains in peak time - will have a pass and which get biggest government subsidized of all the fares in Victoria.

Worst case is this commuter club and which get a discount on a discount.

If you want to be fair and then state government must end this - before takeaway concession fares.

Agreed...moreover I no longer engage in discussion with [color=#333333][size=3][font='Open Sans', Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ZH836301[/font][/size][/color] due to the bile as can be seen in many of that contributors previous posts.

He might get some traction if a) he offered ideas, etc on how to improve VLine and/or Metro services and b) resisted the urge to bag many ideas that are posted (even though some of them are foam covered). Sticking to the economic dry viewpoint ignores the fact that the State of Victoria is not a business but a community (with all its good and not-so-good points).

May I ask this question. After the additional services to Eaglehawk and Epsom are added and are operating what would be the next expansion for vline passenger rail in Bendigo?

adding services by way of extensions will by default provide more services to existing stations.  why is this not a good thing?