Subsidy

[somebody]

2008/9 Annual report says:
Fare revenue: $272m
Grants (subsidy): $823m

Payments for bus/ferry: $382m
Contract payments to QR: $97m
Service obligation to QR: $533m

Updating the above to 2011 dollars:
Fare revenue: $290m
Grants (subsidy): $879m

Payments for bus/ferry: $408m
Contract payments to QR: $104m
Service obligation to QR: $569m

Translink Tracker had these approximate service kms for 2008/9:
Train 11.3mil km
Bus 91.5mil km

2010/11 Annual report says:
Fare revenue: $314m
Grants (subsidy): $1051m

Payments for bus/ferry: $483m
Contract payments to QR: $97m
Service obligation to QR: $674m

Translink Tracker had these approximate service kms for 2010/11:
Train 12.3mil km
Bus 96mil km

Source: Translink's annual & Quarterly reports

So rail costs increased by 15% in real (after inflation) terms to do 9% more service while bus/ferry costs blew out by 18% in real terms to do about 5% more service

Every cent is going in to extra services?  Yeah, right!

[#Metro]

So rail costs increased by 15% in real (after inflation) terms to do 9% more service while bus/ferry costs blew out by 18% in real terms to do about 5% more service

Every cent is going in to extra services?  Yeah, right!

Simon, thank you for the in depth analysis of the data. This is excellent investigation and it explains the 15% annual fare rises BEAUTIFULLY.
Increases in fares are going into (a) inflation (i.e. keeping up with costs for fuel, drivers, buses, whatnot) and (b) new services. The services and fare rises and service increases are not going to be exactly 1:1 correspondence because some of that fare rise will have to go into inflation, and whatever is left over and above inflation is what is available to go into new services.

All the more reason to get connections going and cut duplication on the network. High Subsidy (one of the highest in the world), High Fares (one of the highest in the world) and very poor frequency (terrible train frequency, bus is getting there but they need to complete the CFN).

[somebody]

So rail costs increased by 15% in real (after inflation) terms to do 9% more service while bus/ferry costs blew out by 18% in real terms to do about 5% more service

Every cent is going in to extra services?  Yeah, right!

Simon, thank you for the in depth analysis of the data. This is excellent investigation and it explains the 15% annual fare rises BEAUTIFULLY.
Increases in fares are going into (a) inflation (i.e. keeping up with costs for fuel, drivers, buses, whatnot) and (b) new services. The services and fare rises and service increases are not going to be exactly 1:1 correspondence because some of that fare rise will have to go into inflation, and whatever is left over and above inflation is what is available to go into new services.

All the more reason to get connections going and cut duplication on the network. High Subsidy (one of the highest in the world), High Fares (one of the highest in the world) and very poor frequency (terrible train frequency, bus is getting there but they need to complete the CFN).

Err, the point that I was making was that costs are increasing well above what can be explained by the combination of inflation AND new services.

[Jonno]

Question to ask here is "How does this cost compare to global rail/public transport benchmarks and leading practice".  The cost might be rising above inflation AND new services to reflect previus under spending in maintenace or improved customer service.  Not say that this is an excuse nor that massive imprvements cannot be made  but benchmarking is extremely important to identiofy where improvements are required.

[somebody]

It came out today that maintenance has increased by a bit over $30m.  So that is some of it, but obviously not all.