Like too many state assets, the operation of both metro and regional rail was sold to private companies in order to top up the Treasury and to line the pockets of said companies, who, for some ridiculous notion, apparently thought that rail services could be run profitably with little or no maintenance. It must be noted that both Labor and Liberal parties bear the responsibility for the lack of foresight shown.

Since rail services, by themselves, seldom make a profit, the expected bags of money turned out to be nothing but a pipe dream.

What the economists (read "financial astrologers") failed to realise was that it was not the rail services that made money the government Treasury had an income from regional communities kept solvent by the presence of public transport and cheaper bulk freight services.

The communities serviced by rail paid taxes on wages and business profits. However, the companies now running the rail services did not share in the income from regional Victoria so they were left with a rail network that didn't quite pay its way. In a vain attempt to balance the books, they reduced maintenance and reduced services. This, of course, just resulted in an ever-decreasing spiral of neglect and closure.

Inevitably, the result so far is many rail lines have been closed and regional towns have died or are in the process of doing so. Businesses in these towns, manufacturing and even wheat silos, for example, are now forced to rely on more expensive truck freight or move to other locations, producing local unemployment.

The reason rail services must be returned to rural Victoria is that the regional communities in which we live, desperately need long-distance public transport to facilitate employment opportunities when there are insufficient jobs locally.

Using a car to travel 150km a day to get to work effectively and savagely reduces the income for workers forced to commute long distances. Similarly, students who get a university course quite often have the expense of moving to cities because the travel is just not economically viable.

A larger number of employed brings more money into a town which, in turn, allows more local businesses to be financially viable, producing more local employment. It also benefits the state by increasing revenue from GST, assorted taxes and levies. It, therefore, reduces Centrelink payments as well.

On a related issue, the removal of freight services has engendered a massive increase in heavy truck haulage.

We are now experiencing large expenses by rural councils (using our rate money) and the state government (with our taxes) to repair local roads that were often built decades ago to carry trucks of less than 20 tonnes now being ripped to pieces by B doubles and triples weighing over twice that figure. Peter Ryan, in a recent letter to The Courier, has technically admitted this when he claimed kudos for the proposed freight rail from Mildura.

We see that the Napthine government is enamoured by roads and more roads but ponder on this: fuel is not cheap and it will only get dearer and dearer in the near future, so, considering this and the expense of maintaining what is left of our highway system, how is it better (and for whom), to send eight to 10 B-doubles to carry what could be sent on one freight train?