Rail infrastructure projects pay for themselves through ticket prices do they not. I do not believe what you said is entirely true. It is a long term investment that has an initial outlay but that is recouped over a period of time.
No they do not. You've mentioned this before and others corrected you.
With very few exceptions, passenger rail fares in Australia do not come remotely close to giving governments or whoever enough money to pay for the infrastructure, like the tracks, stations and trains.
With very few exceptions, passenger rail fares in Australia do not come remotely close to giving governments or whoever enough money to just operate the service
, let alone pay for infrastructure.
It is a lie to say that trains are unprofitable in cities such as Melbourne and Sydney. In Melbourne 415,000 passengers use the city network each weekday and people pay high-fares. Some train-lines may be unprofitable but mainly outside of city areas that are subsidized by city commuters..
It is not a lie. It is very, very true.
It is so true that I cannot fathom how you think otherwise.
With some difficulty, you can get the relevant numbers out of the PTV and similar annual reports.
Payments to rail and tram operators for providing services (not buying trains or building track) were $1.4 billion in the 12 months to June 2014 and $930 million for bus services. V/Line got $300 million of those payments - leaving $1.1 billion for metropolitan rail and tram.
In the same period across the state about $800 million in fares for all modes were collected, of which about $100 million went to V/Line. That leaves $700 million in fares for metropolitan rail and tram, and buses.
$700 million of fares, even if you pretended that it was all paid by metropolitan rail and tram travellers, is less than $1.1 billion paid for metropolitan rail and tram operations.
And its actually worse than that - the payments to metropolitan rail operators are net
of them now getting 70% of farebox revenue, in addition to the direct payment from the state - based on some DPTLI figures I think that ends up being equivalent to about another $330 million of cost - $700 / (1.1 + 0.93 + 0.33) gives a cost recovery of ~30%, which is what is typically reported.
So take the current "high" fares, and multiply them by three. Then you might be in a position to claim that fares cover the cost of operating the services. But that still
doesn't give you any money left over to actually pay for the upfront cost of building the infrastructure.
There is little justification for the state to own power stations anymore...
Note that the funds being discussed here from electricity privatisation isn't from sale of generators - in NSW they are already mostly private, it is from the sale of the distribution network - the poles and wires down the street. There is a significant difference - it is easy to have competition between generators because you have (and have to have) multiple generators selling into a common grid.
But in a particular area there is only one distribution network. I don't have an issue at all with privatised maintenance and management of a network, but when you have private ownership of a monopoly network I think there are quite a few examples where things don't turn out all that well.