Sensational-Adelaide.com

Vee wrote:Great Southern Rail (GSR) will reduce services on the Ghan and Indian Pacific as Federal Government subsidies have been chopped. Fare rises will result in reduced demand, thus reduced services.

This has serious implications for the GSR workforce, especially in SA, and will impact on regional tourism.

Concession fares will rise and services on The Ghan and Indian Pacific trains will be halved as Great Southern Rail (GSR) prepares for an expected 20 per cent downturn in passenger numbers.

GSR chief executive Chris Tallent said $9 million in funding from the Federal Government that subsidised the travel costs of pensioners, veterans and seniors taking the train journeys would end by July next year.

Although the company would still offer a 20 per cent discount to concession passengers, Mr Tallent said the company was expecting fewer people to take the rail journey.
A company spokesman confirmed the drop in demand was expected to be 20 per cent.

ABC News:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-06/g ... ic/6676174

It's a shame Abbott and Co. hate rail and simply don't care.

ChillyPhilly wrote:It's a shame Abbott and Co. don't care.

Fixed that for you.

Alyx wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:It's a shame Abbott and Co. don't care.

Fixed that for you.

I should have been less specific. Cheers!

I don't see why this is Abbotts fault or any federal governments fault.

This is a state issue, we seem so quick to remove responsibility from the State for everything, why even have them.

Waewick wrote:I don't see why this is Abbotts fault or any federal governments fault.

This is a state issue, we seem so quick to remove responsibility from the State for everything, why even have them.

Surely the federal government has some responsibility on interstate rail. We're not talking about a metro network.

Nathan wrote:

Waewick wrote:I don't see why this is Abbotts fault or any federal governments fault.

This is a state issue, we seem so quick to remove responsibility from the State for everything, why even have them.

Surely the federal government has some responsibility on interstate rail. We're not talking about a metro network.

Maybe some, but heck out isn't like SA had just been going it alone.

It's a bit like blaming the umps for a loss which you didn't score a goal.

Waewick wrote:I don't see why this is Abbotts fault or any federal governments fault.

This is a state issue, we seem so quick to remove responsibility from the State for everything, why even have them.

The trouble is that states don't have the money. It's called vertical fiscal imbalance.

So, if Canberra, which does have the money, drops something, then it stays dropped.

Of course, the answer is for states to increase their taxes drastically to cover shortfalls.

There's a good argument for increases in land tax and perhaps GST, in conjunction with the Commonwealth reducing its taxes so that income and responsibilities are more nearly aligned, but that's another forum.

rubberman wrote:

Waewick wrote:I don't see why this is Abbotts fault or any federal governments fault.

This is a state issue, we seem so quick to remove responsibility from the State for everything, why even have them.

The trouble is that states don't have the money. It's called vertical fiscal imbalance.

So, if Canberra, which does have the money, drops something, then it stays dropped.

Of course, the answer is for states to increase their taxes drastically to cover shortfalls.

There's a good argument for increases in land tax and perhaps GST, in conjunction with the Commonwealth reducing its taxes so that income and responsibilities are more nearly aligned, but that's another forum.

SA doesn't have money because SA has had its head in sand for a over 20 years.

screw everything else! Olympic Dam is coming!!!

Waewick wrote:

rubberman wrote:

Waewick wrote:I don't see why this is Abbotts fault or any federal governments fault.

This is a state issue, we seem so quick to remove responsibility from the State for everything, why even have them.

The trouble is that states don't have the money. It's called vertical fiscal imbalance.

So, if Canberra, which does have the money, drops something, then it stays dropped.

Of course, the answer is for states to increase their taxes drastically to cover shortfalls.

There's a good argument for increases in land tax and perhaps GST, in conjunction with the Commonwealth reducing its taxes so that income and responsibilities are more nearly aligned, but that's another forum.

SA doesn't have money because SA has had its head in sand for a over 20 years.

screw everything else! Olympic Dam is coming!!!

Why does the federal government fund infrastructure projects in the eastern states? Have they had their heads in the sand as well for the last 20 years?
If not, then surely they have the money no? If they have the money, since they haven't had their heads in the sand for 20 years, why are the feds providing funding?

rev wrote:

Waewick wrote:

rubberman wrote: The trouble is that states don't have the money. It's called vertical fiscal imbalance.

So, if Canberra, which does have the money, drops something, then it stays dropped.

Of course, the answer is for states to increase their taxes drastically to cover shortfalls.

There's a good argument for increases in land tax and perhaps GST, in conjunction with the Commonwealth reducing its taxes so that income and responsibilities are more nearly aligned, but that's another forum.

SA doesn't have money because SA has had its head in sand for a over 20 years.

screw everything else! Olympic Dam is coming!!!

Why does the federal government fund infrastructure projects in the eastern states? Have they had their heads in the sand as well for the last 20 years?
If not, then surely they have the money no? If they have the money, since they haven't had their heads in the sand for 20 years, why are the feds providing funding?

It's being matched that's why. They've accepted tolls that's why. They've developed and economy that's why.

Waewick wrote: It's being matched that's why. They've accepted tolls that's why. They've developed and economy that's why.

If you look at most of those projects, they are grossly overpriced, grossly.

So what happens is that the State governments chip in, and state taxpayers pay, then road users pay again via tolls, and then taxpayers pay yet again via Federal taxes. That is, the prices are three times (or more) what they should be, taxpayers pay three times what they should, and that money goes to super profits for a very select group of companies with excellent connections to NSW and Federal politics.

Those companies then offshore their profits to minimise tax (legally), and cry about how poor they are because their Australian operations are barely profitable. Their Singapore entities on the other hand are massively lucrative.

That is, the choice facing governments at the moment is: Pay a very small group of mates a hugely overpriced amount and screw the taxpayer to the point where there is nil economic benefit (as was the case in the recent Melbourne tunnel saga), or do stuff bit by bit on a smaller scale that can be managed locally, and is small enough for local contractors to become principal contractors.

The first option involves selling out taxpayers to profit mates, but we get infrastructure. The second option involves us only getting small infrastructure grants, but saves the taxpayer in the long run. (Because infrastructure costs are so high, we can never get ahead).

Point is, neither option is any good.

Of course, this is exactly what used to happen in England in the 1700s and before. It's why they developed the Civil Service. But we'll reach that conclusion soon enough. We've just got to get sick enough of being told it's a choice of being ripped off or doing without what we need in infrastructure.

It's being matched that's why. They've accepted tolls that's why. They've developed and economy that's why.

So if the federal gov. won't fund projects here unless the state gov gives in to blackmail why should we pay taxes to Canberra?

That's a rather simplistic view you've got there. They developed an economy. Care to give us an in depth analysis comparing the state of affairs of say Victoria and South Australia over the last 20 years, and include the level of funding from the feds for infrastructure projects?
I'd very much like to see where they've developed an economy and SA hasn't and what factors contributed to both situations.

Why has there been almost no public comment about the fact that, as of right now, GW has ceased operating trains to Loxton and Pinaroo. As of Aug 2015 all wheat will transported by road to Tailem Bend then reloaded and railed to Port Adelaide. How can this be more efficient? GW then expects the local Council in the Malee to pay to upgrade the Roads!

EBG wrote:Why has there been almost no public comment about the fact that, as of right now, GW has ceased operating trains to Loxton and Pinaroo. As of Aug 2015 all wheat will transported by road to Tailem Bend then reloaded and railed to Port Adelaide. How can this be more efficient? GW then expects the local Council in the Malee to pay to upgrade the Roads!

Who is GW?
If it's a private company, then it's their problem how they transport their products. You can't force them to use a specific mode of transportation.

EBG wrote:Why has there been almost no public comment about the fact that, as of right now, GW has ceased operating trains to Loxton and Pinaroo. As of Aug 2015 all wheat will transported by road to Tailem Bend then reloaded and railed to Port Adelaide. How can this be more efficient? GW then expects the local Council in the Malee to pay to upgrade the Roads!

As far as I know, it was Viterra's decision to switch from rail to road. I don't imagine Genesee & Wyoming had much say in the matter.