Today Tonight on Melbourne PT

[Dimitri0809]

You would prefer traffic congestion than train congestion, they are both practically the same!

[Romerjon17]

0:35 That guy at the background is late for the train :)

[Beanseventeen]

Thats bull crap wat she says at the begginin.. Melbournes train fares are cheap compared to Sydney.. its almost as cheap as Perth where i am

[YotJoey]

Try compare the train fares in Melbourne to train fares in Singapore or Hong Kong

[carlohilton]

@Beanseventeen Really depends where in the Cities you live. Overall Sydney is cheaper but in turn you don't get to switch modes.

[WantToBeAmerican1]

Maybe they should go to Tokyo.

[3aw77]

Get rid of all State Government's and Today tonight , Then Melbourne mite be the place to be

[vrgunzel]

So if a train has defective brakes, do you want it in service?

[whosonfirst88]

As much as I hate Today Tonight, there is a point to be made about public transport in Melbourne. Services on train, bus and tram are not run often enough, and routes do not often serve purposes needed by users. Investment must be made NOW or the problems will cripple Melbourne's already unhealthy system

[TheMemberForHiggins]

Yeah, that's a pretty solid summary of the long-standing misconceptions that abound. I don't say it often, but congratulations Today Tonight for busting some popular myths on prime-time commercial television.

[xtrapolis777]

How many cars were registered in Victoria in 1945?? Answer to your riddle of why more people used public transport then. Because public transport was the only feasible form of commuting back then.

[chopstickles2]

haha... when are TT ever accurate anyway?

Wouldn't employing more trains mean having to GET more trains? That'd surely cost hundreds of millions too. As if any system would leave such a large amount of trains out of service such they they'd be able to double the network capacity...

[TheMemberForHiggins]

Of course more trains would cost money. But buying more trains and carefully adjusting timetables to achieve greater throughput is considerably less expensive than, for example, building extra, unecessary tunnels. Unfortunately governments tend to focus on these latter hideously expensive infrastructure projects, get scared by the costs and then give up on doing anything at all. Meanwhile the EXISTING network of tracks, including the city loop, are still left with unused capacity.

[AsianDeJay]

You obviously misunderstood what I said. In terms of passenger kilometres, more are being delivered now compared to ever, and thats even before removing Port Melbourne and St Kilda from the equation. Hence Seven's article is flawed.

Asks another question: Is user patronage a good way of measurement?

[Maxmouse922]

i wish today tonight would give up on the huge text and "stamping" effects

[alaman321]

i agree, i hate today tonight. They over react and blow things out of proportion.

[AsianDeJay]

This is rather flawed in its argument.

We do have more people using P.T now, once you take into consideration that the St. Kilda and Port Melbourne lines are not in operation, and more people are taking LONGER trips. It would be considered rare for someone to catch a train from Pakenham to Flinders Street, when many people are now making the long journey. And where would we get the trains from? They do take time to build you know. You can't just "borrow" trains from Sydney. They won't work here.

[sueglossy]

So are you justifying government inaction and spin?

So where do you propose people from Pakenham go? Should they mope around in their bedroom community without employment. You don't have to be a transport planner to realise that most people commute to the city because of jobs there.

I don't think the argument is flawed. We were catching more trains back then and the fact remains that we have an invertebrate with the planning foresight of an eggplant.