How much should public transport be subsidised? Should we ditch rail and focus on busses?

---

Taxpayers' share of rail fares increases, while CityTrain passengers continue to decline

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/taxpayers-subsidise-every-rail-trip-while-citytrain-passengers-continue-to-decline/story-e6freon6-1225880113638

EACH time a passenger travels on southeast Queensland's beleaguered rail network it costs taxpayers almost $10, despite major hikes in fares.

Six months after big fare rises were introduced, new data casts doubt on State Government plans to reduce the subsidy on the public transport network.

Figures released to The Courier-Mail show the Government will pay about $542 million to subsidise the southeast's CityTrain network this financial year, compared with $501 million last year.

It means that for every passenger trip taken on CityTrain, the State Government pays $9.51, up from $8.25 last year. With an average fare per journey of $2.36, it takes the total true cost of travel to $11.87 a trip.

Patronage of the rail network has dropped from 60.7 million trips in 2008-09 to an expected 57 million this financial year.

TransLink attributed the fall in passengers to a change in the way the number of trips was officially measured.

Journeys on the regional Traveltrain network, which carries significantly fewer people, cost taxpayers an average of $329 per trip, according to Budget papers.

By comparison the subsidy for the southeast's bus network is $2.18 per trip, up from $2.07 last year.

On January 1, the Government introduced up to 40 per cent increases on paper tickets and up to 20 per cent rises in the cost of go card fares, with plans for annual increases of 15 per cent a year from 2011 until 2014.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said on announcing the fare increases, that they would reduce the per-trip subsidy paid out by the Government.

"For every dollar that a passenger spends on a fare, taxpayers spend three in subsidy and that ratio needs to decrease rather than increase in the next five years," she said in October last year.

But the data shows the fare increases have had little impact so far on the State Government's per-trip contribution, with the bus and rail subsidy on the public transport network rising to 74 per cent of the total cost, compared to a Government target of 70 per cent in five years.

"A reduction can be achieved over time and on such a large network – not just in the space of six months," Ms Nolan said yesterday.

She attributed the increase in the subsidy for rail to new rolling stock, extension of services to Varsity Lake and other new services.

"At present we're putting a great deal of energy into providing more services and more seats across the network," Ms Nolan said.

"I don't think anyone is complaining that we're providing more services.

"The alternative is either saving money by cutting services or greatly increasing fares."

Robert Dow, spokesman for commuter advocacy group Rail Back on Track, said the Government should focus on increasing the frequency of train services rather than imposing higher fares to bring the subsidy down.

"We have a massive asset in the rail network but because of poor frequency it is under-utilised," he said. "If you actually increase the train frequency, it becomes a preferred means of transport, you increase the fare box revenue and the subsidy goes down."

Opposition transport spokeswoman Fiona Simpson said the Government should not write a "blank cheque" to cover the cost of Queensland's public transport.

"There has to be transparency in the costing and there currently isn't that," she said.

"There shouldn't be a blank cheque for unlimited subsidy.

"People have to see where that money is being spent and how it can be done better – there is no transparency in the figures that are published by Government."

---

Taxpayers fork out for rural rail services

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/taxpayers-fork-out-for-rural-rail-services/story-e6freoof-1225882454682

TAXPAYERS are being forced to cover a massive blowout in the cost of regional rail services with the subsidy for a single passenger on some services more than a business-class flight to Vanuatu.

Four years after the State Government laid down a "use it or lose it" ultimatum for regional passenger services, new figures released to The Courier-Mail show the cost of the services will reach $145 million this year as patronage falls.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan yesterday raised questions over the viability of the train services.

Three of the eight Traveltrain services cost more than $1500 per person, including the Westlander, which runs between Brisbane and Charleville, and the Gulflander, which runs from Normanton to Croydon.

The subsidy on the most costly service – the Inlander train between Townsville and Mount Isa – will skyrocket more than 40 per cent this year to $2034 a passenger.

Under the subsidies, more than $1 million a week is shelled out to take 2500 passengers between Brisbane and Cairns on the Tilt Train and Sunlander.

Ms Nolan said the costs were concerning. She also said if communities felt money could be better spent elsewhere, then they should consult with the Government.

"I'm concerned about the high rate of subsidy for Traveltrain," she said. "These services are a historical part of Queensland Rail, but such a high subsidy for such small numbers does raise questions of viability."

ALL public transport should be subsidised....

Public transport is, or should be, a SERVICE based industry...not a PROFIT based one....

The old system (in NSW) used to be a thing called Consolidated Revenue...

There was NO 'profit' based system.....which meant that the equipment was better and the number of 'trips, runs and buses' (which I know more about than the trains..because I'm an ex bus driver, but the idea is the same) is not based on whether the trip is profitable or not....it's based purely on 'Do people catch it?'....

The public transport system worked fine for 60 years on the idea that people want to use it...not on 'does it pay enough to cover the costs'.....

If 5 people catch a bus, or train at 5am to go to work.....then that bus or train serves a purpose....it supplies a service to the public.....and THAT is the real basic purpose to 'Public Transport'...not to make money, that's the reason to HAVE Government supplied Transport....

The Inlander runs twice a week in each direction, I believe. Wouldn't it be sensible to offer the service once a week, therefore reducing the cost and number of vacant seats?

I wonder how much money they'd lose from tourism if the service stopped. I guess people would just drive or catch the bus if they really wanted to. Greyhound run a daily service from Townsvillle to Mt Isa.

You are honestly suggesting that it is a good idea for the government to ignore the cost of the services they provide? How about public transport to Vanuatu? I want the taxpayers to cover my next holiday.

Quote:


Fine. Lord Howe Island will have to do. Or how about a free trip to Fraser at least? It's not like it would not be used. Why should people have to pay full price to get their enourmous 4WD's onto that beach when the government could foot the bill for us?

Quote:


So you were joking about ignoring the cost?

Quote:


Because we consider it immoral to let let people die from preventable or treatable illness because they are poor, or to deny children a basic education because their parents are poor, or to let the poor starve in the street. However, I see no moral dillemma in denying poor people a free or discount holiday payed for by taxpayers. The justification for public transport is economic, not moral.

Or to put it more simply, cost does matter.

Quote:


Are you familiar with the concept of competition in economics?

Quote:


But it does cost that much. It is not the cost that is in question, but who pays for it.

Quote:


So you would be happy with the government giving me a free holiday in Melbourne? Once the weather warms up of course.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 7:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 8:24pm:


LOL no, of course not....although the cost of water is, in fact already subisised....just as Electricity USED to be, before the Government privatised Country Energy and AGL...

You do understand that ANY 'socialised' or Government owned/controlled service or company is subsidised???

Public Hospitals, Public Schools, Public Roads etc???

Why should PUBLIC Transport be different???

We, the tax payers, own the public hospitals, so our tax dollars are used to provide cheap, and (supposedly) quality health care at a reduced(subsidised) cost, for the 'poorer' members of society.

We, the tax payers, own the public schools, so our tax dollars are used to provide quality education at a reduced rate, to the families that cannot afford $2000 per term for a 'private' school...

And we , the tax payers, own the public transport system, so our tax dollars  are used to subsidise a mass transport system at a reduced cost, so that it DOESN'T cost $10 to travel from Chatswood to Wynyard, by bus, on a service where there's 1 bus per hour......

Quote:


All goods and services should be left to the private sector unless there is a good reason not to. I already explained why those other services are different.

The one with a per passenger subsidy more than a business class flight to Vanuatu is a regional service. The total may be less than commuter travel, just because there are less passengers.

I thought it was per passenger.

Quote:


Planes don't need tracks.

Have you ever wondered why air travel is so much more common than train travel for any serious distance?

Quote:


90 minutes? Are you sure about that? What about security, early check in, the taxi to and from the CBD?

Quote:


Both roads and tracks need maintenance.

Quote:


Are you making the facts up as you go along, or do you actually know what it costs?

Quote:


Is this your way of saying you have no idea what the costs are?

Quote:


I see. Who needs the facts when you can use logic instead?

For example...
If a 'commerical pilots' licence requires a 12 month training course to get the qualification.....and a 'train-drivers' licence requires a 2 week training course to qualifiy...

Which do YOU think will get the higher wage????

What percentage of the fares do you think go to the pilot/driver?

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 6:25pm:

And do you 'really' think that idea that the over-heads, on an 'airline' would be less than a rail system????