Each new service loses money, they don't 'entrench extra funding to allow more trains to operate'.

ZH is right on this. If you’re talking about expanding public transport services anywhere in this state - train, tram, bus or flying pushbike - you have to accept you are doing so at a continuing cost to the taxpayer.

Now, the Victorian electorate have demonstrated pretty clearly at the ballot box over the last 20 years that they are prepared to accept this, but that doesn’t mean you have free rein to lumber the state with untrammeled ongoing expenses - any additional expenditure needs to be justified on economic and/or social grounds.

Roads lose money and are also paid for by the taxpayer...

ALL PT services also lose money...

however they induce travel AND because of this, there is less traffic on the freeways, so extra money doesn't have to be found quite so regularly to ENTRENCH expansion of freeways funding to create more lanes etc, as the traffic isn't growing as fast as would be the case if the hundreds travelling on peak & off-peak trains were reduced to driving as the ONLY means of getting from Point A to Point B.

The increasing patronage on trains induces more patronage and as is the case on my line, expanded infrastructure is being undertaken to allow for extra trains to operate due to the increasing patronage.

This is hardly rocket science...

Mike.

Each new service loses money, they don't 'entrench extra funding to allow more trains to operate'.

ZH is right on this. If you’re talking about expanding public transport services anywhere in this state - train, tram, bus or flying pushbike - you have to accept you are doing so at a continuing cost to the taxpayer.

Now, the Victorian electorate have demonstrated pretty clearly at the ballot box over the last 20 years that they are prepared to accept this, but that doesn’t mean you have free rein to lumber the state with untrammeled ongoing expenses - any additional expenditure needs to be justified on economic and/or social grounds.

Roads lose money and are also paid for by the taxpayer...

ALL PT services also lose money...

however they induce travel AND because of this, there is less traffic on the freeways, so extra money doesn't have to be found quite so regularly to ENTRENCH expansion of freeways funding to create more lanes etc, as the traffic isn't growing as fast as would be the case if the hundreds travelling on peak & off-peak trains were reduced to driving as the ONLY means of getting from Point A to Point B.

The increasing patronage on trains induces more patronage and as is the case on my line, expanded infrastructure is being undertaken to allow for extra trains to operate due to the increasing patronage.

This is hardly rocket science...

Mike.

Roads loose money, but its generally less and they are more essential than rail and carry the vast bulk of freight and passenger movements, especially away from the big smoke and hence reducing road funding considering so many people consider our road system substandard is politically and physically difficult.

To improve rail funding it needs to improve its own productivity and innovation to capture more people and freight without increasing costs.

Each new service loses money, they don't 'entrench extra funding to allow more trains to operate'.

ZH is right on this. If you’re talking about expanding public transport services anywhere in this state - train, tram, bus or flying pushbike - you have to accept you are doing so at a continuing cost to the taxpayer.

Now, the Victorian electorate have demonstrated pretty clearly at the ballot box over the last 20 years that they are prepared to accept this, but that doesn’t mean you have free rein to lumber the state with untrammeled ongoing expenses - any additional expenditure needs to be justified on economic and/or social grounds.

Roads lose money and are also paid for by the taxpayer...

ALL PT services also lose money...

however they induce travel AND because of this, there is less traffic on the freeways, so extra money doesn't have to be found quite so regularly to ENTRENCH expansion of freeways funding to create more lanes etc, as the traffic isn't growing as fast as would be the case if the hundreds travelling on peak & off-peak trains were reduced to driving as the ONLY means of getting from Point A to Point B.

The increasing patronage on trains induces more patronage and as is the case on my line, expanded infrastructure is being undertaken to allow for extra trains to operate due to the increasing patronage.

This is hardly rocket science...

Mike.

Roads loose money, but its generally less and they are more essential than rail and carry the vast bulk of freight and passenger movements, especially away from the big smoke and hence reducing road funding considering so many people consider our road system substandard is politically and physically difficult.

To improve rail funding it needs to improve its own productivity and innovation to capture more people and freight without increasing costs.

OR...as is the case with Dan, our green and self professed 'socialist' Premier...he is providing public transport for the people....what an interesting concept.

https://thesocialist.org.au/daniel-andrews-different-type-labor-leader/

M.

Each new service loses money, they don't 'entrench extra funding to allow more trains to operate'.

ZH is right on this. If you’re talking about expanding public transport services anywhere in this state - train, tram, bus or flying pushbike - you have to accept you are doing so at a continuing cost to the taxpayer.

Now, the Victorian electorate have demonstrated pretty clearly at the ballot box over the last 20 years that they are prepared to accept this, but that doesn’t mean you have free rein to lumber the state with untrammeled ongoing expenses - any additional expenditure needs to be justified on economic and/or social grounds.

Roads lose money and are also paid for by the taxpayer...

ALL PT services also lose money...

however they induce travel AND because of this, there is less traffic on the freeways, so extra money doesn't have to be found quite so regularly to ENTRENCH expansion of freeways funding to create more lanes etc, as the traffic isn't growing as fast as would be the case if the hundreds travelling on peak & off-peak trains were reduced to driving as the ONLY means of getting from Point A to Point B.

The increasing patronage on trains induces more patronage and as is the case on my line, expanded infrastructure is being undertaken to allow for extra trains to operate due to the increasing patronage.

This is hardly rocket science...

Mike.

Roads loose money, but its generally less and they are more essential than rail and carry the vast bulk of freight and passenger movements, especially away from the big smoke and hence reducing road funding considering so many people consider our road system substandard is politically and physically difficult.

To improve rail funding it needs to improve its own productivity and innovation to capture more people and freight without increasing costs.

OR...as is the case with Dan, our green and self professed 'socialist' Premier...he is providing public transport for the people....what an interesting concept.

https://thesocialist.org.au/daniel-andrews-different-type-labor-leader/

M.

He's No a Red I'll tell you that much

...nor is he a royal blue...

OR...as is the case with Dan, our green and self professed 'socialist' Premier...he is providing public transport for the people....what an interesting concept.

https://thesocialist.org.au/daniel-andrews-different-type-labor-leader/

M.

Do what you like when YOU have the money for it, unfortunately the left typically does what it likes and to hell where the money actually comes from. Your article seems to indicate the economy is on the edge, yet the 'socalist premier' is again borrowing rather than improving the position of the budget bottom line to prevent a Kennet type repair required in a few years.

Back to Vic RFR, Vic did a great job improving the standard and comfort of its lightly used regional services and more heavily but still moderately used interurban commuter services, however lets not pretend a few 4 car sets an hour have a significant impact on the 4 lane highway running parallel, long way to go yet. The next step is to provide these services with their own pathways into Southern Cross and separate them from the sparks. This is required long before sparking the interurban corridors or building even better regional corridors.

OR...as is the case with Dan, our green and self professed 'socialist' Premier...he is providing public transport for the people....what an interesting concept.

https://thesocialist.org.au/daniel-andrews-different-type-labor-leader/

M.Do what you like when YOU have the money for it, unfortunately the left typically does what it likes and to hell where the money actually comes from. Your article seems to indicate the economy is on the edge, yet the 'socalist premier' is again borrowing rather than improving the position of the budget bottom line to prevent a Kennet type repair required in a few years.

Back to Vic RFR, Vic did a great job improving the standard and comfort of its lightly used regional services and more heavily but still moderately used interurban commuter services, however lets not pretend a few 4 car sets an hour have a significant impact on the 4 lane highway running parallel, long way to go yet. The next step is to provide these services with their own pathways into Southern Cross and separate them from the sparks. This is required long before sparking the interurban corridors or building even better regional corridors.

There is a fringe but growing economic viewpoint that governments do not need to tax and then spend from the traditional perspective, but rather that governments spend (print money) at will and then tax to control inflation. Not sure I'm persuaded yet but it's certainly interesting - look up Modern Monetary Theory if you're interested.

Even if you don't subscribe to that, the infrastructure is needed and I'm quite content if prudent borrowing at low interest rates is used to do that.

Freeway capacity is roughly 2000 cars/hour, obviously less when you introduce heavy vehicles into the equation. 8tph using decent sized trains is all you need to meet the capacity of a four-lane highway. Rail scales much, much better than road on high-volume direct routes. (Not disagreeing with what you say at all just providing some context.)

There is a fringe but growing economic viewpoint that governments do not need to tax and then spend from the traditional perspective, but rather that governments spend (print money) at will and then tax to control inflation. Not sure I'm persuaded yet but it's certainly interesting - look up Modern Monetary Theory if you're interested.

Even if you don't subscribe to that, the infrastructure is needed and I'm quite content if prudent borrowing at low interest rates is used to do that.

Freeway capacity is roughly 2000 cars/hour, obviously less when you introduce heavy vehicles into the equation. 8tph using decent sized trains is all you need to meet the capacity of a four-lane highway. Rail scales much, much better than road on high-volume direct routes. (Not disagreeing with what you say at all just providing some context.)

I believe the whole tax system has started change and will continue to change as the govt has access to more live data and influence of technology on the economy. Case in point, the influence of the service related income sources from the likes of Airbnb, Uber and small online busineses etc

Ok, thanks I'll give that a read when time avails.

Totally agree with you on the capacity of rail, in the case of interurban services, need to understand why they cannot attract more off the roads, part of the problem will be the workers not in the CBD or other major centres which the railway is set up for.

Vic debt is currently $15B (3.5% GSP), planned to rise to $30B (6% GSP) within a few years. The current surplus is $1.5B and planned to rise to $2.5B. Typically govt forecasts of budget health are optimistic and fail to acknowledge potential economy slow downs. Note, this includes spending the $2.1B from Snowy Hydro sale, which should have been used to retire debt.

While there would be some 10 years of minor pain, the better position (I believe), is to sustain the surplus, maybe between $1B to 1.5B as the debt is paid off and use the excess to fund any investment, once the debt is paid off the govt will have even more money each year to fund investment without debt. Remember its not as if the infrastructure and other projects are a once off? Expansion of the rail network will be ongoing for decades to come.

Yet you advocate increasing fares to castrate what the Victorian government has worked so hard to achieve thus far.

Why should road users pay their way whilst PT users get a free ride?

Roads lose money and are also paid for by the taxpayer...

Wrong.  Roads are largely paid for through fuel taxes, amongst other revenue sources.

The increasing patronage on trains induces more patronage and as is the case on my line, expanded infrastructure is being undertaken to allow for extra trains to operate due to the increasing patronage.

This is hardly rocket science...

You don't even seem to know what the word induce means.

OR...as is the case with Dan, our green and self professed 'socialist' Premier...he is providing public transport for the people....what an interesting concept.

https://thesocialist.org.au/daniel-andrews-different-type-labor-leader/

M.Do what you like when YOU have the money for it, unfortunately the left typically does what it likes and to hell where the money actually comes from. Your article seems to indicate the economy is on the edge, yet the 'socalist premier' is again borrowing rather than improving the position of the budget bottom line to prevent a Kennet type repair required in a few years.

Back to Vic RFR, Vic did a great job improving the standard and comfort of its lightly used regional services and more heavily but still moderately used interurban commuter services, however lets not pretend a few 4 car sets an hour have a significant impact on the 4 lane highway running parallel, long way to go yet. The next step is to provide these services with their own pathways into Southern Cross and separate them from the sparks. This is required long before sparking the interurban corridors or building even better regional corridors.

I'm with PIMM's comments above...We are about to borrow $25Billion at locked in low interest rates to keep the infrastructure humming along, just as it has been on my line nearby 24 hours a day during the shutdown.

Moreover, they are 6 car V'Locity's not 4 and I'm certain that during the peaks in particular, tradies and interstate trucks notwithstanding...the majority of the Ballarat to Melbourne traffic is sitting in a V/Line V'Locity.

Mike.

For what its worth here is an article for PTUA on the cost of road transport. THe article goes in considerable detail of the problems of finding road transports true cost.

One of the main problems in this argument is that in our society road transport is so widely used most people will go to significant lengths to minimise its cost.

Its widely believed though that road transport costs are considerably than the funds raised from fuel taxes.

https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax/

woodford

Thanks woodford, I was in the middle of pulling together some of those numbers myself from BITRE data but the PTUA has saved me the work.

There is one piece of empirical evidence which shows beyond reasonable doubt that roads do not and cannot pay for themselves, and that is the fact that nowhere in the developed world has the funding of road building and maintenance been transferred wholesale to the private sector. If in the 30-odd years since Thatcher and Reagan rewrote public economic policy, no one has managed to do that, you can comfortably conclude there is no feasible way to profit off it.

Road use pricing offers a solution for a more sustainable funding model that also creates micro-economic incentives to reduce road use, but only when used in conjunction with subsidies of alternative transport like freight rail.

Do any of the studies include the opportunity cost to the economy of private vehicle ownership? Large chunks of money tied up in depreciating assets which are used for short periods of time and otherwise stored at additional cost. And now all sourced from overseas meaning an even greater drain on the economy.

Bring on car sharing EVs I say. That transformation will see a complete change in mindset where the car is no longer such a status symbol, vehicles may even be made locally again and a mindset change towards PT with cars used for first and last mile will hopefully follow.

The result? Less need for road spending, parking spaces, less capital drain out of the country and consumers with more dollars in their pockets to spend on other things with hopefully more benefits for our economy .

BG

Roads lose money and are also paid for by the taxpayer...

Wrong.  Roads are largely paid for through fuel taxes, amongst other revenue sources.

Except that as cars become more efficient and other technology types such as electric and hybrid cars come into the mix, it is actually raising less revenue than before. In 2013-14, Fuel taxes only contributed about 39% of road funding.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/FundingRoads

https://theconversation.com/road-users-must-pay-sooner-rather-than-later-43259

Do any of the studies include the opportunity cost to the economy of private vehicle ownership? Large chunks of money tied up in depreciating assets which are used for short periods of time and otherwise stored at additional cost. And now all sourced from overseas meaning an even greater drain on the economy.

Bring on car sharing EVs I say. That transformation will see a complete change in mindset where the car is no longer such a status symbol, vehicles may even be made locally again and a mindset change towards PT with cars used for first and last mile will hopefully follow.

The result? Less need for road spending, parking spaces, less capital drain out of the country and consumers with more dollars in their pockets to spend on other things with hopefully more benefits for our economy .

BG

This is a nice summary of the economic costs of vehicle ownership and the potential for AV technology to reduce them.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt5hhwgz.9

OR...as is the case with Dan, our green and self professed 'socialist' Premier...he is providing public transport for the people....what an interesting concept.

https://thesocialist.org.au/daniel-andrews-different-type-labor-leader/

M.Do what you like when YOU have the money for it, unfortunately the left typically does what it likes and to hell where the money actually comes from. Your article seems to indicate the economy is on the edge, yet the 'socalist premier' is again borrowing rather than improving the position of the budget bottom line to prevent a Kennet type repair required in a few years.

Back to Vic RFR, Vic did a great job improving the standard and comfort of its lightly used regional services and more heavily but still moderately used interurban commuter services, however lets not pretend a few 4 car sets an hour have a significant impact on the 4 lane highway running parallel, long way to go yet. The next step is to provide these services with their own pathways into Southern Cross and separate them from the sparks. This is required long before sparking the interurban corridors or building even better regional corridors.
I'm with PIMM's comments above...We are about to borrow $25Billion at locked in low interest rates to keep the infrastructure humming along, just as it has been on my line nearby 24 hours a day during the shutdown.

Moreover, they are 6 car V'Locity's not 4 and I'm certain that during the peaks in particular, tradies and interstate trucks notwithstanding...the majority of the Ballarat to Melbourne traffic is sitting in a V/Line V'Locity.

Mike.

What about the next project? Its not a house where you borrow once then repay and live in until you die.

Even interest of a few percent on $10B over 20 years is alot of money. It takes 5 years to build, just fund it from consolidated revenue.

Roads lose money and are also paid for by the taxpayer...

Wrong.  Roads are largely paid for through fuel taxes, amongst other revenue sources.
Except that as cars become more efficient and other technology types such as electric and hybrid cars come into the mix, it is actually raising less revenue than before. In 2013-14, Fuel taxes only contributed about 39% of road funding.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/FundingRoads

https://theconversation.com/road-users-must-pay-sooner-rather-than-later-43259

Even ignoring them, declining fuel consumption per vehicle km is reducing revenue. Fuel tax as a source of road revenue needs to change soon!


Overall we need a basic road infrastructure, ie a street to every house, doesn't matter how its funded, we need it, EV, PT what ever will not change that. The roads that we can argue against is higher cost highways a commuting corridors where PT or rail for freight maybe a viable option.

OR...as is the case with Dan, our green and self professed 'socialist' Premier...he is providing public transport for the people....what an interesting concept.

https://thesocialist.org.au/daniel-andrews-different-type-labor-leader/

M.Do what you like when YOU have the money for it, unfortunately the left typically does what it likes and to hell where the money actually comes from. Your article seems to indicate the economy is on the edge, yet the 'socalist premier' is again borrowing rather than improving the position of the budget bottom line to prevent a Kennet type repair required in a few years.

Back to Vic RFR, Vic did a great job improving the standard and comfort of its lightly used regional services and more heavily but still moderately used interurban commuter services, however lets not pretend a few 4 car sets an hour have a significant impact on the 4 lane highway running parallel, long way to go yet. The next step is to provide these services with their own pathways into Southern Cross and separate them from the sparks. This is required long before sparking the interurban corridors or building even better regional corridors.
I'm with PIMM's comments above...We are about to borrow $25Billion at locked in low interest rates to keep the infrastructure humming along, just as it has been on my line nearby 24 hours a day during the shutdown.

Moreover, they are 6 car V'Locity's not 4 and I'm certain that during the peaks in particular, tradies and interstate trucks notwithstanding...the majority of the Ballarat to Melbourne traffic is sitting in a V/Line V'Locity.

Mike.What about the next project? Its not a house where you borrow once then repay and live in until you die.

Even interest of a few percent on $10B over 20 years is alot of money. It takes 5 years to build, just fund it from consolidated revenue.

A couple of points,

Australia is very large country with a small population, and due to VERY poor water resources , its almost certain it will never reach the population density of the USA and do not even think about the population densities of the europen countries. One of the problems this creates is its a comparatively expensive country to run and after all expeneses there's not enough genera; revenue around.

A lot of infastructure projects are going to be very expensive and beyond the country/organisations ability to drum up the immediate funds. Such projects have always been funded by long term loans. This is why its VERY important the project stacks up well.
In 1710 The Liverpool (Britian) Corperation (ie the town council) borrowed 11000 pounds (around 2 billion pounds now), to build the worlds first wet dock, this was an enormouse success and quickly propelled Liverpool into one of the worlds leading cities. AN example of a long term infrastucture project that paid off.

woodford

A third point to the above post, Australia has let its infrastructure deteriorate (both road and rail)  badly since the 1960's, UNLESS we start to spending big bucks on such infrastructure SOON our life style is going to is going to go WAY down.

woodford

For what its worth here is an article for PTUA on the cost of road transport. THe article goes in considerable detail of the problems of finding road transports true cost.

One of the main problems in this argument is that in our society road transport is so widely used most people will go to significant lengths to minimise its cost.

Its widely believed though that road transport costs are considerably than the funds raised from fuel taxes.

The reality is that roads are paid for by users, as reflected in BITRE statistics.

Additionally, one needs to considers that local roads (eg. council funded) exist for purposes beyond transport (eg. access) and are required regardless of road use, and those statistics do not include any revenue from municipal sources.

By comparison, rail does not pay it's way - revenue need not meet expenditure (since the benefit of public transport use is reduced road expenditure), but even considering that, passenger contributions fall far short of necessary.  Rail cost recovery in Melbourne is only about 20%, in London it is closer to 90%.

What needs to change is the manner in which that revenue is collected, since at the moment expenses like registration unfairly favour those that use their cars more often, whilst fuel taxes advantage the wealthier who can afford more fuel efficient vehicles, whilst particularly disadvantaging those who may need to travel longer distances, but contribute in a limited manner to congestion (eg. regional and outer suburban users).

The reality is that roads are paid for by users, as reflected in BITRE statistics.

Additionally, one needs to considers that local roads (eg. council funded) exist for purposes beyond transport (eg. access) and are required regardless of road use, and those statistics do not include any revenue from municipal sources.

By comparison, rail does not pay it's way - revenue need not meet expenditure (since the benefit of public transport use is reduced road expenditure), but even considering that, passenger contributions fall far short of necessary.  Rail cost recovery in Melbourne is only about 20%, in London it is closer to 90%.

What needs to change is the manner in which that revenue is collected, since at the moment expenses like registration unfairly favour those that use their cars more often, whilst fuel taxes advantage the wealthier who can afford more fuel efficient vehicles, whilst particularly disadvantaging those who may need to travel longer distances, but contribute in a limited manner to congestion (eg. regional and outer suburban users).

Linking a 400 page PDF without any warning or guidance as to which part is relevant should be illegal!

It's also 3 years out of date. Here's the 2018 version.

For anyone who can't be bothered trawling through (it's on page 40) total government road-related expenditure in 2016-17 was $28.08 billion.

Total government road-related income was $25.35 billion. GST, fringe benefits tax and luxury car tax added about another $5.5 billion.

Of course those numbers ignore broader economic costs of the road system. These are included in the PTUA's analysis, but that's probably questionable without also analysing the broader economic benefits of the road system.

By way of comparison, rail expenditure was about $20 billion with revenues not reported.

A couple of points,

Australia is very large country with a small population, and due to VERY poor water resources , its almost certain it will never reach the population density of the USA and do not even think about the population densities of the europen countries. One of the problems this creates is its a comparatively expensive country to run and after all expeneses there's not enough genera; revenue around.

A lot of infastructure projects are going to be very expensive and beyond the country/organisations ability to drum up the immediate funds. Such projects have always been funded by long term loans. This is why its VERY important the project stacks up well.Get
In 1710 The Liverpool (Britian) Corperation (ie the town council) borrowed 11000 pounds (around 2 billion pounds now), to build the worlds first wet dock, this was an enormouse success and quickly propelled Liverpool into one of the worlds leading cities. AN example of a long term infrastucture project that paid off.

woodford

I understand and see your point, however a few more from me.

The fact that its a large country is irrelevant, the project is what it is and in the case of suburban infrastructure is less relevant.

If the project is more than once in a generation, ie SNOWY Power, Sydney Harbour Bridge, I tend to agree. But urban railway expansion far less so because the construction is basically ongoing, ie build this one, then the next, then the next....

For example lets look at Sydney, Built the NWRL, now doing the Sydney Metro and in a few years will start the Western Metro, a total of $40-50B plus everything else its also doing. If this money was borrowed by the end of 2020's we'd have $30-40B or so in debt and the job would still not be finished as this is only a drop in the bucket, only now we have also a $2-3B interest bill to fund as well.

Go to Brisbane, $70B in debt, interest bill of $2.5-3.5B of interest. Yet its repeatedly gone on bended knee to the feds to fund the majority of the $5B Cross River Railway, 5 year construction. if it had no debt it could easily fund the project internally and build 3 x CRR projects at the same time. Currently when the CRR is done, the the next railway project such as the Northern Suburbs Trouts road project and/or the Greenbank line will come up, borrowing ontop of borrowing. How about get the budget into the black and fund the project out of recurring revenue. As it turns out, the feds, both sides, refused to lend the money as Qld govt could not be trusted and its now funding the project itself. When done, no extra debt, fund Trouts Road or Greenbank, probably both at the same time from revenue, not debt.

Regards to Mel, the Metro Project is a major deal, but could be funded from the surplus with minimal borrowing during the projects construction, when means once complete, Metro 2 which seems to be thrown about in RP is able to be started almost immediately without adding red to the budget.

BTW 46 mins, 80km, 2 intermediate stops and ascending to 500 meters above sea level is impressive in any ones language.

Mike.

Half ya luck! 46 minutes barely gets me from the city to Dandenong! But you already knew that, and I didn't write it to whinge.

I wrote it to remind everyone that many of the services provided by V-Line are predominately for commuters from/to existing communities that lie outside of the 'wires'. Why fund the expensive necessary infrastructure for fanciful 200 km/h 'flagship' commuter trains from, say, Bendigo if a future 15 minute frequency from, say, a Kyneton that could be allowed to grow to 100,000 people, utilising existing track and rolling stock, eventuates instead? In other words, why push the boundary of the commuter belt out further and further if the existing semi-dormitory towns aren't anywhere near being fully developed yet, and can be well served by the existing infrastructure? No-one tree changing to 'Wonderful Warragul' is not aware of PT commute times if that is their bent.

Same with Ballan. With careful planning, it might be home to 30,000 instead of 3,000 in the not too distant future. 200 km/h trains would make bugger all difference to commute times and be a total waste of resources, I'm sure you'd agree. Same with Garfield-Bunyip etc., same with Kilmore-Broadford-Seymour if they are eventually served with peak service existing V-Locities on upgraded track, etc etc.

Foamers besotted with the idea of bullet trains picking up villagers and transporting them exclusively to the CBD deserve to continue being disappointed. Frequency and punctuality rules!

The reality is that roads are paid for by users, as reflected in BITRE statistics.

Additionally, one needs to considers that local roads (eg. council funded) exist for purposes beyond transport (eg. access) and are required regardless of road use, and those statistics do not include any revenue from municipal sources.

By comparison, rail does not pay it's way - revenue need not meet expenditure (since the benefit of public transport use is reduced road expenditure), but even considering that, passenger contributions fall far short of necessary.  Rail cost recovery in Melbourne is only about 20%, in London it is closer to 90%.

What needs to change is the manner in which that revenue is collected, since at the moment expenses like registration unfairly favour those that use their cars more often, whilst fuel taxes advantage the wealthier who can afford more fuel efficient vehicles, whilst particularly disadvantaging those who may need to travel longer distances, but contribute in a limited manner to congestion (eg. regional and outer suburban users).

The bulk of the not just the new more fuel efficient vehicles not end up in the more affluent, but rather also the bulk of hybrids and EV's and future EV's are mostly targeting the upper middle income earners. So we could be in a situation by 2025 where the top half of the income earners are contributing very little to road funding via fuel related taxes, the system has to change and be more fare to the lower income working class driving older cars.

PT stats from UK Its interesting to see that rail still fairs poorly in the UK for commuting compared to car, so copying and pasting the UK standards will not automatically see major changes here, ie we still need to maintain road funding.

It's also 3 years out of date. Here's the 2018 version.

For anyone who can't be bothered trawling through (it's on page 40) total government road-related expenditure in 2016-17 was $28.08 billion.

Total government road-related income was $25.35 billion. GST, fringe benefits tax and luxury car tax added about another $5.5 billion.

Of course those numbers ignore broader economic costs of the road system. These are included in the PTUA's analysis, but that's probably questionable without also analysing the broader economic benefits of the road system.

By way of comparison, rail expenditure was about $20 billion with revenues not reported.

Page 33 is very interesting, comparison of coastal shipping, road and rail over time, assume rails boom is all red or black rocks from Qld, NSW and WA.