Ask RiotACT: Toll roads for ACT?

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

I don’t know how many times this gets brought up but higher rates do not equate to those residents paying for the tram (that’s not what general rates are for) and regardless those residents can take their massive capital gain by selling their properties and not pay a cent.

I’m talking about a dedicated levy on top of rates payable by existing owners to pay for the huge private benefit they will receive from public funds. A public subsidy far in excess of any road subsidy you could name.

Correct higher rates don’t pay for the light rail or what ever thing gets built.

However if there is a personal gain from being near said items then that will be reflected in land value which in turn will be reflected in their rates which is what you were suggesting. So they are paying for the benifit not for the infrastructure.

If the residents choose to stay, they will be paying for the future benefit of having access to the higher level of services and amenity that is supposed to be captured by their land value.

They are not paying one cent of the massive one off increase in their land value due to the huge public expenditure on increasing those service levels. It is in effect a public gift paid by all ratepayers of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of dollars in increased land value that they are free to pocket at any time by selling.

I know that you know what I’m talking about, so there’s no point in trying to derail the point with irrelevant arguments about increased rates that they don’t have to pay if they choose not to.

If the government was truly serious that this project is a net positive to these communities, they should have proposed that they pay directly (at least partly) for it and then gauged the support come election time. But we both know that doing so would have cost them thousands of votes and potentially government which is why they didn’t.

Maybe when the government starts doing that for all projects you might be onto something.

Now what was the point I was making early on in this threat? Yep different rules for and scrutiny public transport, lightrail in particular and different for road projects.

Perhaps you missed the part where I support toll roads and congestion taxes where appropriate? Particularly where these types of large cross subsidies exist that result in large private gains.

Although, I’d be interested to know what other projects you think such a levy could be applied to when this is far above any other public subsidy given to private land owners. If you name these other projects in the ACT with massive cross subsidies, then I’ll tell you if I support applying the same type of levy to pay for them.

If the government provides similar services across the ACT in a timely manner then the subsidy is minimised/eliminated and a tax or levy isn’t necessary. But as you’ve even admitted, further stages of the light rail are not viable, you don’t support them and they are unlikely to be rolled out for many, many years if ever. So this benefit will be a one off for those residents along the first stage route.

You seem to be twisting and turning to avoid the issue, you either support the principle or you don’t.

If you don’t, you have to explain why you think giving these residents tens of thousands of dollars in public subsidy is a good thing. Also remember, that we’re already talking about inner city residents who on average have large asset bases that will now be increased even more by their poorer, outer suburb fellow ratepayers. Ah, the equity.

So what you are saying is because the government cannot provide this to everyone right now all at once then they shouldn’t even bother starting?

Seems my last post hasn’t made it through moderation.

The answer to your question is no and nothing like it is stated anywhere in my comments.

What I said is that if the government provides equal levels of services to residents in a reasonable timeframe, then cross subsidies are limited negating the need for any levy or tax.

That is clearly not the case with light rail in Canberra because future stages are unlikely to be viable as you’ve already agreed and even if they were constructed it would be over a timeframe of decades, which is well above what could be considered reasonable for service delivery and assessing public subsidies to private citizens.

This doesn’t relate at all to starting or not starting infrastructure projects, it’s all about how you pay for them.

I’ll repeat my argument to you again, perhaps you can answer:

“You either support the principle (of user charges) or you don’t.

If you don’t, you’ll have to explain why you think giving these residents tens of thousands of dollars in public subsidy is a good thing. Also remember, that we’re already talking about inner city residents who on average have large asset bases that will now be increased even more by their poorer, outer suburb fellow ratepayers. “

PS. You also didn’t list any other projects that we could apply the same sort of charge to because of the large public subsidies. I thought this level of subsidy must be happening everywhere from your previous comment.

You are making an assumption one which I reckon is wrong that somehow government services should be 100% equitable. When reality is that is just simply not possible. Maybe in the sheltered Canberra environment it may seem that way but go interstate and look at the differing levels of services that the city receives compared to the country or indeed parts of cities receive. Not every suburb in Sydney has a train station for example but using your argument if they get convenience from living near one compared to someone that doesn’t they should be paying a levy of some sort.

And closer to home how about the Canberra hospital. Massive amounts of money being spent that (like light rail) that has the potential to benifit all Canberrans yet those in the south for whom this their primary hospital get more of a benifit compared to northsiders. So maybe south side people should be paying a levy for that benifit. Or again does it only apply to public transport and not to all government ‘projects’

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

I don’t know how many times this gets brought up but higher rates do not equate to those residents paying for the tram (that’s not what general rates are for) and regardless those residents can take their massive capital gain by selling their properties and not pay a cent.

I’m talking about a dedicated levy on top of rates payable by existing owners to pay for the huge private benefit they will receive from public funds. A public subsidy far in excess of any road subsidy you could name.

Correct higher rates don’t pay for the light rail or what ever thing gets built.

However if there is a personal gain from being near said items then that will be reflected in land value which in turn will be reflected in their rates which is what you were suggesting. So they are paying for the benifit not for the infrastructure.

If the residents choose to stay, they will be paying for the future benefit of having access to the higher level of services and amenity that is supposed to be captured by their land value.

They are not paying one cent of the massive one off increase in their land value due to the huge public expenditure on increasing those service levels. It is in effect a public gift paid by all ratepayers of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of dollars in increased land value that they are free to pocket at any time by selling.

I know that you know what I’m talking about, so there’s no point in trying to derail the point with irrelevant arguments about increased rates that they don’t have to pay if they choose not to.

If the government was truly serious that this project is a net positive to these communities, they should have proposed that they pay directly (at least partly) for it and then gauged the support come election time. But we both know that doing so would have cost them thousands of votes and potentially government which is why they didn’t.

Maybe when the government starts doing that for all projects you might be onto something.

Now what was the point I was making early on in this threat? Yep different rules for and scrutiny public transport, lightrail in particular and different for road projects.

Perhaps you missed the part where I support toll roads and congestion taxes where appropriate? Particularly where these types of large cross subsidies exist that result in large private gains.

Although, I’d be interested to know what other projects you think such a levy could be applied to when this is far above any other public subsidy given to private land owners. If you name these other projects in the ACT with massive cross subsidies, then I’ll tell you if I support applying the same type of levy to pay for them.

If the government provides similar services across the ACT in a timely manner then the subsidy is minimised/eliminated and a tax or levy isn’t necessary. But as you’ve even admitted, further stages of the light rail are not viable, you don’t support them and they are unlikely to be rolled out for many, many years if ever. So this benefit will be a one off for those residents along the first stage route.

You seem to be twisting and turning to avoid the issue, you either support the principle or you don’t.

If you don’t, you have to explain why you think giving these residents tens of thousands of dollars in public subsidy is a good thing. Also remember, that we’re already talking about inner city residents who on average have large asset bases that will now be increased even more by their poorer, outer suburb fellow ratepayers. Ah, the equity.

So what you are saying is because the government cannot provide this to everyone right now all at once then they shouldn’t even bother starting?

Seems my last post hasn’t made it through moderation.

The answer to your question is no and nothing like it is stated anywhere in my comments.

What I said is that if the government provides equal levels of services to residents in a reasonable timeframe, then cross subsidies are limited negating the need for any levy or tax.

That is clearly not the case with light rail in Canberra because future stages are unlikely to be viable as you’ve already agreed and even if they were constructed it would be over a timeframe of decades, which is well above what could be considered reasonable for service delivery and assessing public subsidies to private citizens.

This doesn’t relate at all to starting or not starting infrastructure projects, it’s all about how you pay for them.

I’ll repeat my argument to you again, perhaps you can answer:

“You either support the principle (of user charges) or you don’t.

If you don’t, you’ll have to explain why you think giving these residents tens of thousands of dollars in public subsidy is a good thing. Also remember, that we’re already talking about inner city residents who on average have large asset bases that will now be increased even more by their poorer, outer suburb fellow ratepayers. “

PS. You also didn’t list any other projects that we could apply the same sort of charge to because of the large public subsidies. I thought this level of subsidy must be happening everywhere from your previous comment.

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

I don’t know how many times this gets brought up but higher rates do not equate to those residents paying for the tram (that’s not what general rates are for) and regardless those residents can take their massive capital gain by selling their properties and not pay a cent.

I’m talking about a dedicated levy on top of rates payable by existing owners to pay for the huge private benefit they will receive from public funds. A public subsidy far in excess of any road subsidy you could name.

Correct higher rates don’t pay for the light rail or what ever thing gets built.

However if there is a personal gain from being near said items then that will be reflected in land value which in turn will be reflected in their rates which is what you were suggesting. So they are paying for the benifit not for the infrastructure.

If the residents choose to stay, they will be paying for the future benefit of having access to the higher level of services and amenity that is supposed to be captured by their land value.

They are not paying one cent of the massive one off increase in their land value due to the huge public expenditure on increasing those service levels. It is in effect a public gift paid by all ratepayers of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of dollars in increased land value that they are free to pocket at any time by selling.

I know that you know what I’m talking about, so there’s no point in trying to derail the point with irrelevant arguments about increased rates that they don’t have to pay if they choose not to.

If the government was truly serious that this project is a net positive to these communities, they should have proposed that they pay directly (at least partly) for it and then gauged the support come election time. But we both know that doing so would have cost them thousands of votes and potentially government which is why they didn’t.

Maybe when the government starts doing that for all projects you might be onto something.

Now what was the point I was making early on in this threat? Yep different rules for and scrutiny public transport, lightrail in particular and different for road projects.

Perhaps you missed the part where I support toll roads and congestion taxes where appropriate? Particularly where these types of large cross subsidies exist that result in large private gains.

Although, I’d be interested to know what other projects you think such a levy could be applied to when this is far above any other public subsidy given to private land owners. If you name these other projects in the ACT with massive cross subsidies, then I’ll tell you if I support applying the same type of levy to pay for them.

If the government provides similar services across the ACT in a timely manner then the subsidy is minimised/eliminated and a tax or levy isn’t necessary. But as you’ve even admitted, further stages of the light rail are not viable, you don’t support them and they are unlikely to be rolled out for many, many years if ever. So this benefit will be a one off for those residents along the first stage route.

You seem to be twisting and turning to avoid the issue, you either support the principle or you don’t.

If you don’t, you have to explain why you think giving these residents tens of thousands of dollars in public subsidy is a good thing. Also remember, that we’re already talking about inner city residents who on average have large asset bases that will now be increased even more by their poorer, outer suburb fellow ratepayers. Ah, the equity.

So what you are saying is because the government cannot provide this to everyone right now all at once then they shouldn’t even bother starting?

What I actually said is if the government is providing services at an equal level across the community in a reasonable timeframe then cross subsidies are minimised or eliminated and so charging a tax or levy to reduce public spending on private benefits is not necessary.

In this case, there is no chance of that happening and you personally have even agreed that future stages are not viable. The likely rollout of a light rail scheme across the territory is decades, if ever. Far beyond what could be considered equal services in a reasonable timeframe. This has absolutely zero to do with starting an infrastructure project or not.

I’ll repeat, and perhaps you might finally answer”

“You seem to be twisting and turning to avoid the issue, you either support the principle (of user charges) or you don’t.

If you don’t, you have to explain why you think giving these residents tens of thousands of dollars in public subsidy is a good thing. Also remember, that we’re already talking about inner city residents who on average have large asset bases that will now be increased even more by their poorer, outer suburb fellow ratepayers. “

PS. You also didn’t list any other projects that we could apply the same sort of charge to because of the large public subsidies. I thought this level of subsidy must be happening everywhere from your previous comment.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

tuffmouse said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route. A toll tax on each fare would be a great way for the government to cover the light rail cost.

“Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route”

Why?

What benefit will there be in having a noisy tram outside the front window that travels to, well, nowhere?

Well isn’t it good we are getting a light rail line then and not tram.

Do you know the main difference? Trams generally run on the road and light rail mostly its own right of way. That means trams tracks are usually constructed differently to light rail tracks.

The point go to Melbourne and the tram tracks are laid on a bed of concrete sometimes with a rubber membrane underneath and then concreted into place. This construction technique is quick but tends to be noisier.

But gonto Sydney and the street sections of light rail here they later channels in the concrete then embedded the tracks in a layer of liquid rubber light product which doesn’t generate the same vibration noise. Takes longer to do.

On top of that noise from any rail system is usually on curves, the only two on the Gungahlin line will be into the depot at Mitchell and the turn off Flemmington road onto Northborne ave neither of which is anywhere near residential areas.

Also modern light rail vehicles (and trams) use 3 phases ac traction motors which are quieter than their DC GTO drive or resister shunt brethern so also much more quieter when acceleration and braking. Though next you will be complaining they are too quiet and are a saftey risk and need to be speed limited to walking pace with a person waving a red flag walking in front. That way your fears will be fully justified.

As to the line from nowhere to nowhere we’ll if you lived along the route, then the line would be from your home to either Gungahlin or the city and in the future it seems Woden. Maybe others with a little more vision can see the benefit of that.

I know that light rail is supposed to mean an exclusive thoroughfare for the “railcars” that travel on their rubber rail-beds but they are still the same railcars that morph into the same street running trams that will be used in Canberra.

They also will stop and start regularly to pick up and drop off passengers and they have to cross shared roadways. No one really believes that they will have green lights all the way either.
I’ve travelled on the same trams that alternate between dedicated tracks and street running in Europe and when they start to approach 70 kmh they become very noisy and uncomfortable for the passengers who will be standing as they do in trams.

Why do you always make puerile comments, this time about red flags and you still haven’t explained why the value of property on the tram (sorry, light rail) route will increase.

Like so many others who are totally besotted by this experiment you say it is all about “vision”.

Try using vision as collateral to get a bank loan and see how far you get.

All well and good re noise except the noise comes from the tracks which as I pointed out in light rail generally differs to that of traditional tramways. Light rail tracks are quieter without a doubt and modern light rail/tram vehicles are also significantly quieter than their predecessors. Take for example the noise the Melbourne Z3 trams make, that high pitched whine caused by having very early designed GTO drive system and compare that to Sydneys old Variotrams or the CAF replacements which are the exact model we are getting. Chalk and cheese.

As for my ‘puerile’ red flag comment I said that as your idea of what light rail is, going by your comments on this very board are based very much on ancient history not modern design and practice. So to me the same fears that those that opposed the first motor vehicles and forced people to walk in front with red flags. Same same in my book.

So, why does the the value of property increase, (for the third time).

Because people happily pay more to live near transport links. Or in the case of freeways pay more to live away from them.

Indeed, some people may.

That is until they find out there is nowhere to park their car in the new complex.

That’s why the build roads.

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

I don’t know how many times this gets brought up but higher rates do not equate to those residents paying for the tram (that’s not what general rates are for) and regardless those residents can take their massive capital gain by selling their properties and not pay a cent.

I’m talking about a dedicated levy on top of rates payable by existing owners to pay for the huge private benefit they will receive from public funds. A public subsidy far in excess of any road subsidy you could name.

Correct higher rates don’t pay for the light rail or what ever thing gets built.

However if there is a personal gain from being near said items then that will be reflected in land value which in turn will be reflected in their rates which is what you were suggesting. So they are paying for the benifit not for the infrastructure.

If the residents choose to stay, they will be paying for the future benefit of having access to the higher level of services and amenity that is supposed to be captured by their land value.

They are not paying one cent of the massive one off increase in their land value due to the huge public expenditure on increasing those service levels. It is in effect a public gift paid by all ratepayers of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of dollars in increased land value that they are free to pocket at any time by selling.

I know that you know what I’m talking about, so there’s no point in trying to derail the point with irrelevant arguments about increased rates that they don’t have to pay if they choose not to.

If the government was truly serious that this project is a net positive to these communities, they should have proposed that they pay directly (at least partly) for it and then gauged the support come election time. But we both know that doing so would have cost them thousands of votes and potentially government which is why they didn’t.

Maybe when the government starts doing that for all projects you might be onto something.

Now what was the point I was making early on in this threat? Yep different rules for and scrutiny public transport, lightrail in particular and different for road projects.

Perhaps you missed the part where I support toll roads and congestion taxes where appropriate? Particularly where these types of large cross subsidies exist that result in large private gains.

Although, I’d be interested to know what other projects you think such a levy could be applied to when this is far above any other public subsidy given to private land owners. If you name these other projects in the ACT with massive cross subsidies, then I’ll tell you if I support applying the same type of levy to pay for them.

If the government provides similar services across the ACT in a timely manner then the subsidy is minimised/eliminated and a tax or levy isn’t necessary. But as you’ve even admitted, further stages of the light rail are not viable, you don’t support them and they are unlikely to be rolled out for many, many years if ever. So this benefit will be a one off for those residents along the first stage route.

You seem to be twisting and turning to avoid the issue, you either support the principle or you don’t.

If you don’t, you have to explain why you think giving these residents tens of thousands of dollars in public subsidy is a good thing. Also remember, that we’re already talking about inner city residents who on average have large asset bases that will now be increased even more by their poorer, outer suburb fellow ratepayers. Ah, the equity.

So what you are saying is because the government cannot provide this to everyone right now all at once then they shouldn’t even bother starting?

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

I don’t know how many times this gets brought up but higher rates do not equate to those residents paying for the tram (that’s not what general rates are for) and regardless those residents can take their massive capital gain by selling their properties and not pay a cent.

I’m talking about a dedicated levy on top of rates payable by existing owners to pay for the huge private benefit they will receive from public funds. A public subsidy far in excess of any road subsidy you could name.

Correct higher rates don’t pay for the light rail or what ever thing gets built.

However if there is a personal gain from being near said items then that will be reflected in land value which in turn will be reflected in their rates which is what you were suggesting. So they are paying for the benifit not for the infrastructure.

If the residents choose to stay, they will be paying for the future benefit of having access to the higher level of services and amenity that is supposed to be captured by their land value.

They are not paying one cent of the massive one off increase in their land value due to the huge public expenditure on increasing those service levels. It is in effect a public gift paid by all ratepayers of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of dollars in increased land value that they are free to pocket at any time by selling.

I know that you know what I’m talking about, so there’s no point in trying to derail the point with irrelevant arguments about increased rates that they don’t have to pay if they choose not to.

If the government was truly serious that this project is a net positive to these communities, they should have proposed that they pay directly (at least partly) for it and then gauged the support come election time. But we both know that doing so would have cost them thousands of votes and potentially government which is why they didn’t.

Maybe when the government starts doing that for all projects you might be onto something.

Now what was the point I was making early on in this threat? Yep different rules for and scrutiny public transport, lightrail in particular and different for road projects.

Perhaps you missed the part where I support toll roads and congestion taxes where appropriate? Particularly where these types of large cross subsidies exist that result in large private gains.

Although, I’d be interested to know what other projects you think such a levy could be applied to when this is far above any other public subsidy given to private land owners. If you name these other projects in the ACT with massive cross subsidies, then I’ll tell you if I support applying the same type of levy to pay for them.

If the government provides similar services across the ACT in a timely manner then the subsidy is minimised/eliminated and a tax or levy isn’t necessary. But as you’ve even admitted, further stages of the light rail are not viable, you don’t support them and they are unlikely to be rolled out for many, many years if ever. So this benefit will be a one off for those residents along the first stage route.

You seem to be twisting and turning to avoid the issue, you either support the principle or you don’t.

If you don’t, you have to explain why you think giving these residents tens of thousands of dollars in public subsidy is a good thing. Also remember, that we’re already talking about inner city residents who on average have large asset bases that will now be increased even more by their poorer, outer suburb fellow ratepayers. Ah, the equity.

JC said :

KentFitch said :

JC said :

Don’t confuse well thought out with a paid for comment. Don’t quite understand what I mean Google the posters name and autonomous vehicles.

You seem to be asserting, JC, that I was paid to make this comment, or that I stand to benefit financially from advocating the benefits of autonomous vehicles? I do not hide behind an alias. I have neither any pecuniary motivations nor party-political loyalties or affiliations. I have never worked for a transport company – for the last 15 years, I have worked for universities and the Commonwealth government departments. I am a computer programmer, specialising in large databases and computer modelling. I have no investments in any transport businesses, although my industry super fund (shared with millions of others) may well have.

Time and time again, you, JC, make false assertions (such as this, such as the “subsidy” on roads), and then Trump-like, ignore the rebuttal and switch to personal attacks. That may work in your circles, but in mine, it destroys all credibility.

I acknowledge you are a partisan, but again, unless you are striving to silence the exchange of ideas with unfounded personal attacks on the motives and integrity of other, you are doing your cause an embarrassing injustice.

In my response to your original post, I drew your attention to very strong evidence that Australian roads are not financially subsidised. I invited you to make the argument that the health and safety costs, however (north of $30bn annually) outweighed the wider economic and social benefits of road transport. Perhaps that argument could be made. I think the health and safety costs, and the land-use costs are so high that as a society, we need to consider alternatives. We need alternatives not just because of health and safety and land-use, but because universal access to efficient, cheap, 24×7, door-to-door transport is an equity issue, perhaps not so comprehensible to well-off middle-class Canberrans with a driving licence, but it is to people such as this: http://canberraautonomouscars.info/#motivation

The tram is not an alternative (even its smarter advocates, well aware of Capital Metro’s modelling, now prefer it to be framed as a “urban-form” rather than as a “transport” initiative), but I (and many others) believe a shared fleet of electric cars is very likely to be. The web site at http://canberraautonomouscars.info grew out of my attempt to replicate the modelling done by Columbia Uni’s Earth Institute and others: it seemed “too good to be true”, too dependent on the characteristics of some of the cities in their models. Hence, I modelled the transport characteristics of Canberra. As a society, we can either attempt to shape this technology to suit us, or have others shape it to suit them.

I understand that as a partisan, you’re immune to merits of an argument, and I frankly doubt you have the character to admit you are wrong and apologise for your assertion that my evidence disproving your speculation on road subsidies was motivated by personal gain.

Re your very first comment. Correct me if I am wrong but you are a co-owner of a computer software company that has development simulations and made representations to the government on autonomous vehicles? Correct?

Then forgive me for thinking you somehow stand to benifit financially from promoting autonomous vehicles and anti anything else.

Though I do take my hat off to you for not being anonymous but for clarity as your business would appear to be a benifactor in the transport discussion such a disclosure would to me seem appropriate to save any confusion as to where your opinion lies. It took me a little to work it out and then Cha ching it made sense.

I think anyone who has skin in the game should make such disclosures. Just like how Damian Hass makes no secret of who he represents.

I personally keep my identity private because contrary to popular belief I don’t have skin in either the transport or political games. I do however as you point out have strong and do tend to agree mostly partisan opinions. As do many on this board.

Though I am firmly on record on this board that when it comes to light rail I support only the Gungahlin line (and parl triangle extensions) in Canberra. I don’t think it will work anywhere else.

“Correct me if I’m wrong” you say! JC, you are quite the jester. Your confirmation bias has caused you to selectively interpret a subset of information to minimise cognitive dissonance rather than maximise likelihood. Since 1982 I have been a partner in Project Computing, a 3 person IT business, which does not develop transport simulations and does not make representations to government. That is something I have done and clearly labelled as having done privately, as an engaged citizen interested in making transport in Canberra more equitable and less polluting and expensive, The only “skin in the game”, as you put it, I have is as a private citizen, wanting to do something about the day-to-day difficulties caused to family and friends from poor access to transport. Are you surprised that a software developer does software in his spare time?

You can see a list of other fun things my partners and I do in our spare time – colouring maps, simulations of coupled oscillators and particle swarm, on old Apache Filter FAQ: http://www.projectcomputing.com/ . Sure, we’re fun guys!

So, for clarity, the business in which I am a partner is not and never will be a beneficiary from promoting autonomous vehicles. The model and simulation on my personally-run website, is, as you can see from the page footer, licensed under Creative Commons non-commercial license – it is open source: http://canberraautonomouscars.info/ . One PhD student asked if they could add a congestion model and I encouraged them (but they didn’t need my permission). Some start-up asked if they could use the code gratis, and I had no hesitation in saying “of course”. The world is awash in such models, open source autonomous software, even free online courses. A slightly interesting aspect of mine is that its open source, the model is transparent, it is documented and of course, it is customised for Canberra. I assume the commercial value is zero, but if you think otherwise, you have my blessing (not Project Computing’s – they have nothing to do with it) to make your fortune from it.

There are very good reasons for keeping identity secret, such as being a whistleblower, or just knowing you’re going to embarrass yourself and your family. And JC, I havent heard you blowing any whistles yet.. (“You know how to whistle, don’t you?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MheNUWyROv8 )

But just as climate deniers attack climate scientists for having vested interest in climate research rather than examine and debate their arguments on their merits, those bereft of arguments take that lowest of low roads, the ad hominem attack, reinvigorated so breath-takingly by Trump. When you can’t play the ball, play the man. Bravo, JC, bravo. If I were you, I’d stay anonymous.

So, tell me, do you accept the BITRE analysis of road funding, or are they in on the conspiracy? And what do you think the ACT Government should be doing to encourage clean, efficient, universal mobility? Or are you just a troll I should stop feeding lines to?

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

tuffmouse said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route. A toll tax on each fare would be a great way for the government to cover the light rail cost.

“Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route”

Why?

What benefit will there be in having a noisy tram outside the front window that travels to, well, nowhere?

Well isn’t it good we are getting a light rail line then and not tram.

Do you know the main difference? Trams generally run on the road and light rail mostly its own right of way. That means trams tracks are usually constructed differently to light rail tracks.

The point go to Melbourne and the tram tracks are laid on a bed of concrete sometimes with a rubber membrane underneath and then concreted into place. This construction technique is quick but tends to be noisier.

But gonto Sydney and the street sections of light rail here they later channels in the concrete then embedded the tracks in a layer of liquid rubber light product which doesn’t generate the same vibration noise. Takes longer to do.

On top of that noise from any rail system is usually on curves, the only two on the Gungahlin line will be into the depot at Mitchell and the turn off Flemmington road onto Northborne ave neither of which is anywhere near residential areas.

Also modern light rail vehicles (and trams) use 3 phases ac traction motors which are quieter than their DC GTO drive or resister shunt brethern so also much more quieter when acceleration and braking. Though next you will be complaining they are too quiet and are a saftey risk and need to be speed limited to walking pace with a person waving a red flag walking in front. That way your fears will be fully justified.

As to the line from nowhere to nowhere we’ll if you lived along the route, then the line would be from your home to either Gungahlin or the city and in the future it seems Woden. Maybe others with a little more vision can see the benefit of that.

I know that light rail is supposed to mean an exclusive thoroughfare for the “railcars” that travel on their rubber rail-beds but they are still the same railcars that morph into the same street running trams that will be used in Canberra.

They also will stop and start regularly to pick up and drop off passengers and they have to cross shared roadways. No one really believes that they will have green lights all the way either.
I’ve travelled on the same trams that alternate between dedicated tracks and street running in Europe and when they start to approach 70 kmh they become very noisy and uncomfortable for the passengers who will be standing as they do in trams.

Why do you always make puerile comments, this time about red flags and you still haven’t explained why the value of property on the tram (sorry, light rail) route will increase.

Like so many others who are totally besotted by this experiment you say it is all about “vision”.

Try using vision as collateral to get a bank loan and see how far you get.

All well and good re noise except the noise comes from the tracks which as I pointed out in light rail generally differs to that of traditional tramways. Light rail tracks are quieter without a doubt and modern light rail/tram vehicles are also significantly quieter than their predecessors. Take for example the noise the Melbourne Z3 trams make, that high pitched whine caused by having very early designed GTO drive system and compare that to Sydneys old Variotrams or the CAF replacements which are the exact model we are getting. Chalk and cheese.

As for my ‘puerile’ red flag comment I said that as your idea of what light rail is, going by your comments on this very board are based very much on ancient history not modern design and practice. So to me the same fears that those that opposed the first motor vehicles and forced people to walk in front with red flags. Same same in my book.

So, why does the the value of property increase, (for the third time).

Because people happily pay more to live near transport links. Or in the case of freeways pay more to live away from them.

Indeed, some people may.

That is until they find out there is nowhere to park their car in the new complex.

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

I don’t know how many times this gets brought up but higher rates do not equate to those residents paying for the tram (that’s not what general rates are for) and regardless those residents can take their massive capital gain by selling their properties and not pay a cent.

I’m talking about a dedicated levy on top of rates payable by existing owners to pay for the huge private benefit they will receive from public funds. A public subsidy far in excess of any road subsidy you could name.

Correct higher rates don’t pay for the light rail or what ever thing gets built.

However if there is a personal gain from being near said items then that will be reflected in land value which in turn will be reflected in their rates which is what you were suggesting. So they are paying for the benifit not for the infrastructure.

If the residents choose to stay, they will be paying for the future benefit of having access to the higher level of services and amenity that is supposed to be captured by their land value.

They are not paying one cent of the massive one off increase in their land value due to the huge public expenditure on increasing those service levels. It is in effect a public gift paid by all ratepayers of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of dollars in increased land value that they are free to pocket at any time by selling.

I know that you know what I’m talking about, so there’s no point in trying to derail the point with irrelevant arguments about increased rates that they don’t have to pay if they choose not to.

If the government was truly serious that this project is a net positive to these communities, they should have proposed that they pay directly (at least partly) for it and then gauged the support come election time. But we both know that doing so would have cost them thousands of votes and potentially government which is why they didn’t.

Maybe when the government starts doing that for all projects you might be onto something.

Now what was the point I was making early on in this threat? Yep different rules for and scrutiny public transport, lightrail in particular and different for road projects.

KentFitch said :

JC said :

Don’t confuse well thought out with a paid for comment. Don’t quite understand what I mean Google the posters name and autonomous vehicles.

You seem to be asserting, JC, that I was paid to make this comment, or that I stand to benefit financially from advocating the benefits of autonomous vehicles? I do not hide behind an alias. I have neither any pecuniary motivations nor party-political loyalties or affiliations. I have never worked for a transport company – for the last 15 years, I have worked for universities and the Commonwealth government departments. I am a computer programmer, specialising in large databases and computer modelling. I have no investments in any transport businesses, although my industry super fund (shared with millions of others) may well have.

Time and time again, you, JC, make false assertions (such as this, such as the “subsidy” on roads), and then Trump-like, ignore the rebuttal and switch to personal attacks. That may work in your circles, but in mine, it destroys all credibility.

I acknowledge you are a partisan, but again, unless you are striving to silence the exchange of ideas with unfounded personal attacks on the motives and integrity of other, you are doing your cause an embarrassing injustice.

In my response to your original post, I drew your attention to very strong evidence that Australian roads are not financially subsidised. I invited you to make the argument that the health and safety costs, however (north of $30bn annually) outweighed the wider economic and social benefits of road transport. Perhaps that argument could be made. I think the health and safety costs, and the land-use costs are so high that as a society, we need to consider alternatives. We need alternatives not just because of health and safety and land-use, but because universal access to efficient, cheap, 24×7, door-to-door transport is an equity issue, perhaps not so comprehensible to well-off middle-class Canberrans with a driving licence, but it is to people such as this: http://canberraautonomouscars.info/#motivation

The tram is not an alternative (even its smarter advocates, well aware of Capital Metro’s modelling, now prefer it to be framed as a “urban-form” rather than as a “transport” initiative), but I (and many others) believe a shared fleet of electric cars is very likely to be. The web site at http://canberraautonomouscars.info grew out of my attempt to replicate the modelling done by Columbia Uni’s Earth Institute and others: it seemed “too good to be true”, too dependent on the characteristics of some of the cities in their models. Hence, I modelled the transport characteristics of Canberra. As a society, we can either attempt to shape this technology to suit us, or have others shape it to suit them.

I understand that as a partisan, you’re immune to merits of an argument, and I frankly doubt you have the character to admit you are wrong and apologise for your assertion that my evidence disproving your speculation on road subsidies was motivated by personal gain.

Re your very first comment. Correct me if I am wrong but you are a co-owner of a computer software company that has development simulations and made representations to the government on autonomous vehicles? Correct?

Then forgive me for thinking you somehow stand to benifit financially from promoting autonomous vehicles and anti anything else.

Though I do take my hat off to you for not being anonymous but for clarity as your business would appear to be a benifactor in the transport discussion such a disclosure would to me seem appropriate to save any confusion as to where your opinion lies. It took me a little to work it out and then Cha ching it made sense.

I think anyone who has skin in the game should make such disclosures. Just like how Damian Hass makes no secret of who he represents.

I personally keep my identity private because contrary to popular belief I don’t have skin in either the transport or political games. I do however as you point out have strong and do tend to agree mostly partisan opinions. As do many on this board.

Though I am firmly on record on this board that when it comes to light rail I support only the Gungahlin line (and parl triangle extensions) in Canberra. I don’t think it will work anywhere else.

JC said :

Don’t confuse well thought out with a paid for comment. Don’t quite understand what I mean Google the posters name and autonomous vehicles.

You seem to be asserting, JC, that I was paid to make this comment, or that I stand to benefit financially from advocating the benefits of autonomous vehicles? I do not hide behind an alias. I have neither any pecuniary motivations nor party-political loyalties or affiliations. I have never worked for a transport company – for the last 15 years, I have worked for universities and the Commonwealth government departments. I am a computer programmer, specialising in large databases and computer modelling. I have no investments in any transport businesses, although my industry super fund (shared with millions of others) may well have.

Time and time again, you, JC, make false assertions (such as this, such as the “subsidy” on roads), and then Trump-like, ignore the rebuttal and switch to personal attacks. That may work in your circles, but in mine, it destroys all credibility.

I acknowledge you are a partisan, but again, unless you are striving to silence the exchange of ideas with unfounded personal attacks on the motives and integrity of other, you are doing your cause an embarrassing injustice.

In my response to your original post, I drew your attention to very strong evidence that Australian roads are not financially subsidised. I invited you to make the argument that the health and safety costs, however (north of $30bn annually) outweighed the wider economic and social benefits of road transport. Perhaps that argument could be made. I think the health and safety costs, and the land-use costs are so high that as a society, we need to consider alternatives. We need alternatives not just because of health and safety and land-use, but because universal access to efficient, cheap, 24×7, door-to-door transport is an equity issue, perhaps not so comprehensible to well-off middle-class Canberrans with a driving licence, but it is to people such as this: http://canberraautonomouscars.info/#motivation

The tram is not an alternative (even its smarter advocates, well aware of Capital Metro’s modelling, now prefer it to be framed as a “urban-form” rather than as a “transport” initiative), but I (and many others) believe a shared fleet of electric cars is very likely to be. The web site at http://canberraautonomouscars.info grew out of my attempt to replicate the modelling done by Columbia Uni’s Earth Institute and others: it seemed “too good to be true”, too dependent on the characteristics of some of the cities in their models. Hence, I modelled the transport characteristics of Canberra. As a society, we can either attempt to shape this technology to suit us, or have others shape it to suit them.

I understand that as a partisan, you’re immune to merits of an argument, and I frankly doubt you have the character to admit you are wrong and apologise for your assertion that my evidence disproving your speculation on road subsidies was motivated by personal gain.

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

I don’t know how many times this gets brought up but higher rates do not equate to those residents paying for the tram (that’s not what general rates are for) and regardless those residents can take their massive capital gain by selling their properties and not pay a cent.

I’m talking about a dedicated levy on top of rates payable by existing owners to pay for the huge private benefit they will receive from public funds. A public subsidy far in excess of any road subsidy you could name.

Correct higher rates don’t pay for the light rail or what ever thing gets built.

However if there is a personal gain from being near said items then that will be reflected in land value which in turn will be reflected in their rates which is what you were suggesting. So they are paying for the benifit not for the infrastructure.

If the residents choose to stay, they will be paying for the future benefit of having access to the higher level of services and amenity that is supposed to be captured by their land value.

They are not paying one cent of the massive one off increase in their land value due to the huge public expenditure on increasing those service levels. It is in effect a public gift paid by all ratepayers of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of dollars in increased land value that they are free to pocket at any time by selling.

I know that you know what I’m talking about, so there’s no point in trying to derail the point with irrelevant arguments about increased rates that they don’t have to pay if they choose not to.

If the government was truly serious that this project is a net positive to these communities, they should have proposed that they pay directly (at least partly) for it and then gauged the support come election time. But we both know that doing so would have cost them thousands of votes and potentially government which is why they didn’t.

Start a tax now for light rail areas. All properties within 1km of the light rail line pay an amount for the next 10 years.

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

I don’t know how many times this gets brought up but higher rates do not equate to those residents paying for the tram (that’s not what general rates are for) and regardless those residents can take their massive capital gain by selling their properties and not pay a cent.

I’m talking about a dedicated levy on top of rates payable by existing owners to pay for the huge private benefit they will receive from public funds. A public subsidy far in excess of any road subsidy you could name.

Correct higher rates don’t pay for the light rail or what ever thing gets built.

However if there is a personal gain from being near said items then that will be reflected in land value which in turn will be reflected in their rates which is what you were suggesting. So they are paying for the benifit not for the infrastructure.

If the residents choose to stay, they will be paying for the future benefit of having access to the higher level of services and amenity that is supposed to be captured by their land value.

They are not paying one cent of the massive one off increase in their land value due to the huge public expenditure on increasing those service levels. It is in effect a public gift paid by all ratepayers of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of dollars in increased land value that they are free to pocket at any time by selling.

I know that you know what I’m talking about, so there’s no point in trying to derail the point with irrelevant arguments about increased rates that they don’t have to pay if they choose not to.

If the government was truly serious that this project is a net positive to these communities, they should have proposed that they pay directly (at least partly) for it and then gauged the support come election time. But we both know that doing so would have cost them thousands of votes and potentially government which is why they didn’t.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

tuffmouse said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route. A toll tax on each fare would be a great way for the government to cover the light rail cost.

“Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route”

Why?

What benefit will there be in having a noisy tram outside the front window that travels to, well, nowhere?

Well isn’t it good we are getting a light rail line then and not tram.

Do you know the main difference? Trams generally run on the road and light rail mostly its own right of way. That means trams tracks are usually constructed differently to light rail tracks.

The point go to Melbourne and the tram tracks are laid on a bed of concrete sometimes with a rubber membrane underneath and then concreted into place. This construction technique is quick but tends to be noisier.

But gonto Sydney and the street sections of light rail here they later channels in the concrete then embedded the tracks in a layer of liquid rubber light product which doesn’t generate the same vibration noise. Takes longer to do.

On top of that noise from any rail system is usually on curves, the only two on the Gungahlin line will be into the depot at Mitchell and the turn off Flemmington road onto Northborne ave neither of which is anywhere near residential areas.

Also modern light rail vehicles (and trams) use 3 phases ac traction motors which are quieter than their DC GTO drive or resister shunt brethern so also much more quieter when acceleration and braking. Though next you will be complaining they are too quiet and are a saftey risk and need to be speed limited to walking pace with a person waving a red flag walking in front. That way your fears will be fully justified.

As to the line from nowhere to nowhere we’ll if you lived along the route, then the line would be from your home to either Gungahlin or the city and in the future it seems Woden. Maybe others with a little more vision can see the benefit of that.

I know that light rail is supposed to mean an exclusive thoroughfare for the “railcars” that travel on their rubber rail-beds but they are still the same railcars that morph into the same street running trams that will be used in Canberra.

They also will stop and start regularly to pick up and drop off passengers and they have to cross shared roadways. No one really believes that they will have green lights all the way either.
I’ve travelled on the same trams that alternate between dedicated tracks and street running in Europe and when they start to approach 70 kmh they become very noisy and uncomfortable for the passengers who will be standing as they do in trams.

Why do you always make puerile comments, this time about red flags and you still haven’t explained why the value of property on the tram (sorry, light rail) route will increase.

Like so many others who are totally besotted by this experiment you say it is all about “vision”.

Try using vision as collateral to get a bank loan and see how far you get.

All well and good re noise except the noise comes from the tracks which as I pointed out in light rail generally differs to that of traditional tramways. Light rail tracks are quieter without a doubt and modern light rail/tram vehicles are also significantly quieter than their predecessors. Take for example the noise the Melbourne Z3 trams make, that high pitched whine caused by having very early designed GTO drive system and compare that to Sydneys old Variotrams or the CAF replacements which are the exact model we are getting. Chalk and cheese.

As for my ‘puerile’ red flag comment I said that as your idea of what light rail is, going by your comments on this very board are based very much on ancient history not modern design and practice. So to me the same fears that those that opposed the first motor vehicles and forced people to walk in front with red flags. Same same in my book.

So, why does the the value of property increase, (for the third time).

Because people happily pay more to live near transport links. Or in the case of freeways pay more to live away from them.

tuffmouse said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

KentFitch said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Rego alone does not cover roads expenditure, nor licensing, fines, stamp duty etc. But add in fuel excise, FBT, GST on vehicles, parts, repairs and it more than covers expenditure: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx Hence, your implication that roads are subsidized in state/federal budgets is unsupported by evidence.

If your argument is that the productivity and social benefits are roads is outweighed by the indirect costs (accidents: about $30bn, health/pollution, between $2-$4bn, dependence on imported oil, …), then please attempt to make that argument.

Public transport fares in Canberra cover less than 20% of running ACTION. Not only do I have no problem with that, I would much prefer public transport to be both improved and made free for people on below average income, because social benefits would outweigh the costs.

Reducing the cost of public transport so that more services can be provided without reducing funding of other priorities is the logical goal. The problem many people advocating for high quality public transport (including me) have with the tram is that its “bang for buck” is very low, based on the ACT Government’s own reports, and it is inevitable that the cost of the tram will be one of the many factors which will (not perhaps) cause such severe budgetary problems that per-capita public spending on education, health and public housing transport will be reduced.

Free public transport is interesting. Some cities have low cost daily tickets for low income people. Is a daily ticket of $2 is okay for low income people? Or should it be free?

Action already has that. Though it is $4.50 on a weekday and a bit over $2.02 on weekends for concession card holders.

Does that work all day long, for unlimited travel? Or one return trip? Some cities have them for the whole day, unlimited trips on trains and buses. I think people aged over 70 travel free in Canberra. Why not make all day concession tickets $2.50?

It is a daily cap. So once you go over you pay no more. You do need to be using a myway of course. As for the cost I don’t know why it is the price it is but why do you say $2.50? Why not $2 or $3?

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

tuffmouse said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route. A toll tax on each fare would be a great way for the government to cover the light rail cost.

“Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route”

Why?

What benefit will there be in having a noisy tram outside the front window that travels to, well, nowhere?

Well isn’t it good we are getting a light rail line then and not tram.

Do you know the main difference? Trams generally run on the road and light rail mostly its own right of way. That means trams tracks are usually constructed differently to light rail tracks.

The point go to Melbourne and the tram tracks are laid on a bed of concrete sometimes with a rubber membrane underneath and then concreted into place. This construction technique is quick but tends to be noisier.

But gonto Sydney and the street sections of light rail here they later channels in the concrete then embedded the tracks in a layer of liquid rubber light product which doesn’t generate the same vibration noise. Takes longer to do.

On top of that noise from any rail system is usually on curves, the only two on the Gungahlin line will be into the depot at Mitchell and the turn off Flemmington road onto Northborne ave neither of which is anywhere near residential areas.

Also modern light rail vehicles (and trams) use 3 phases ac traction motors which are quieter than their DC GTO drive or resister shunt brethern so also much more quieter when acceleration and braking. Though next you will be complaining they are too quiet and are a saftey risk and need to be speed limited to walking pace with a person waving a red flag walking in front. That way your fears will be fully justified.

As to the line from nowhere to nowhere we’ll if you lived along the route, then the line would be from your home to either Gungahlin or the city and in the future it seems Woden. Maybe others with a little more vision can see the benefit of that.

I know that light rail is supposed to mean an exclusive thoroughfare for the “railcars” that travel on their rubber rail-beds but they are still the same railcars that morph into the same street running trams that will be used in Canberra.

They also will stop and start regularly to pick up and drop off passengers and they have to cross shared roadways. No one really believes that they will have green lights all the way either.
I’ve travelled on the same trams that alternate between dedicated tracks and street running in Europe and when they start to approach 70 kmh they become very noisy and uncomfortable for the passengers who will be standing as they do in trams.

Why do you always make puerile comments, this time about red flags and you still haven’t explained why the value of property on the tram (sorry, light rail) route will increase.

Like so many others who are totally besotted by this experiment you say it is all about “vision”.

Try using vision as collateral to get a bank loan and see how far you get.

All well and good re noise except the noise comes from the tracks which as I pointed out in light rail generally differs to that of traditional tramways. Light rail tracks are quieter without a doubt and modern light rail/tram vehicles are also significantly quieter than their predecessors. Take for example the noise the Melbourne Z3 trams make, that high pitched whine caused by having very early designed GTO drive system and compare that to Sydneys old Variotrams or the CAF replacements which are the exact model we are getting. Chalk and cheese.

As for my ‘puerile’ red flag comment I said that as your idea of what light rail is, going by your comments on this very board are based very much on ancient history not modern design and practice. So to me the same fears that those that opposed the first motor vehicles and forced people to walk in front with red flags. Same same in my book.

So, why does the the value of property increase, (for the third time).

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

tuffmouse said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route. A toll tax on each fare would be a great way for the government to cover the light rail cost.

“Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route”

Why?

What benefit will there be in having a noisy tram outside the front window that travels to, well, nowhere?

Well isn’t it good we are getting a light rail line then and not tram.

Do you know the main difference? Trams generally run on the road and light rail mostly its own right of way. That means trams tracks are usually constructed differently to light rail tracks.

The point go to Melbourne and the tram tracks are laid on a bed of concrete sometimes with a rubber membrane underneath and then concreted into place. This construction technique is quick but tends to be noisier.

But gonto Sydney and the street sections of light rail here they later channels in the concrete then embedded the tracks in a layer of liquid rubber light product which doesn’t generate the same vibration noise. Takes longer to do.

On top of that noise from any rail system is usually on curves, the only two on the Gungahlin line will be into the depot at Mitchell and the turn off Flemmington road onto Northborne ave neither of which is anywhere near residential areas.

Also modern light rail vehicles (and trams) use 3 phases ac traction motors which are quieter than their DC GTO drive or resister shunt brethern so also much more quieter when acceleration and braking. Though next you will be complaining they are too quiet and are a saftey risk and need to be speed limited to walking pace with a person waving a red flag walking in front. That way your fears will be fully justified.

As to the line from nowhere to nowhere we’ll if you lived along the route, then the line would be from your home to either Gungahlin or the city and in the future it seems Woden. Maybe others with a little more vision can see the benefit of that.

I know that light rail is supposed to mean an exclusive thoroughfare for the “railcars” that travel on their rubber rail-beds but they are still the same railcars that morph into the same street running trams that will be used in Canberra.

They also will stop and start regularly to pick up and drop off passengers and they have to cross shared roadways. No one really believes that they will have green lights all the way either.
I’ve travelled on the same trams that alternate between dedicated tracks and street running in Europe and when they start to approach 70 kmh they become very noisy and uncomfortable for the passengers who will be standing as they do in trams.

Why do you always make puerile comments, this time about red flags and you still haven’t explained why the value of property on the tram (sorry, light rail) route will increase.

Like so many others who are totally besotted by this experiment you say it is all about “vision”.

Try using vision as collateral to get a bank loan and see how far you get.

All well and good re noise except the noise comes from the tracks which as I pointed out in light rail generally differs to that of traditional tramways. Light rail tracks are quieter without a doubt and modern light rail/tram vehicles are also significantly quieter than their predecessors. Take for example the noise the Melbourne Z3 trams make, that high pitched whine caused by having very early designed GTO drive system and compare that to Sydneys old Variotrams or the CAF replacements which are the exact model we are getting. Chalk and cheese.

As for my ‘puerile’ red flag comment I said that as your idea of what light rail is, going by your comments on this very board are based very much on ancient history not modern design and practice. So to me the same fears that those that opposed the first motor vehicles and forced people to walk in front with red flags. Same same in my book.

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

I don’t know how many times this gets brought up but higher rates do not equate to those residents paying for the tram (that’s not what general rates are for) and regardless those residents can take their massive capital gain by selling their properties and not pay a cent.

I’m talking about a dedicated levy on top of rates payable by existing owners to pay for the huge private benefit they will receive from public funds. A public subsidy far in excess of any road subsidy you could name.

Correct higher rates don’t pay for the light rail or what ever thing gets built.

However if there is a personal gain from being near said items then that will be reflected in land value which in turn will be reflected in their rates which is what you were suggesting. So they are paying for the benifit not for the infrastructure.

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

KentFitch said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Rego alone does not cover roads expenditure, nor licensing, fines, stamp duty etc. But add in fuel excise, FBT, GST on vehicles, parts, repairs and it more than covers expenditure: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx Hence, your implication that roads are subsidized in state/federal budgets is unsupported by evidence.

If your argument is that the productivity and social benefits are roads is outweighed by the indirect costs (accidents: about $30bn, health/pollution, between $2-$4bn, dependence on imported oil, …), then please attempt to make that argument.

Public transport fares in Canberra cover less than 20% of running ACTION. Not only do I have no problem with that, I would much prefer public transport to be both improved and made free for people on below average income, because social benefits would outweigh the costs.

Reducing the cost of public transport so that more services can be provided without reducing funding of other priorities is the logical goal. The problem many people advocating for high quality public transport (including me) have with the tram is that its “bang for buck” is very low, based on the ACT Government’s own reports, and it is inevitable that the cost of the tram will be one of the many factors which will (not perhaps) cause such severe budgetary problems that per-capita public spending on education, health and public housing transport will be reduced.

Free public transport is interesting. Some cities have low cost daily tickets for low income people. Is a daily ticket of $2 is okay for low income people? Or should it be free?

Action already has that. Though it is $4.50 on a weekday and a bit over $2.02 on weekends for concession card holders.

Does that work all day long, for unlimited travel? Or one return trip? Some cities have them for the whole day, unlimited trips on trains and buses. I think people aged over 70 travel free in Canberra. Why not make all day concession tickets $2.50?

bj_ACT said :

tuffmouse said :

KentFitch said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Rego alone does not cover roads expenditure, nor licensing, fines, stamp duty etc. But add in fuel excise, FBT, GST on vehicles, parts, repairs and it more than covers expenditure: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx Hence, your implication that roads are subsidized in state/federal budgets is unsupported by evidence.

If your argument is that the productivity and social benefits are roads is outweighed by the indirect costs (accidents: about $30bn, health/pollution, between $2-$4bn, dependence on imported oil, …), then please attempt to make that argument.

Public transport fares in Canberra cover less than 20% of running ACTION. Not only do I have no problem with that, I would much prefer public transport to be both improved and made free for people on below average income, because social benefits would outweigh the costs.

Reducing the cost of public transport so that more services can be provided without reducing funding of other priorities is the logical goal. The problem many people advocating for high quality public transport (including me) have with the tram is that its “bang for buck” is very low, based on the ACT Government’s own reports, and it is inevitable that the cost of the tram will be one of the many factors which will (not perhaps) cause such severe budgetary problems that per-capita public spending on education, health and public housing transport will be reduced.

Free public transport is interesting. Some cities have low cost daily tickets for low income people. Is a daily ticket of $2 is okay for low income people? Or should it be free?

It’s a tough call on setting a price for low income residents of canberra. Many working poor in outer canberra sacrifice in other areas well before getting rid of their car. You can’t get kids to sporting venues or to plenty of other places via canberra public transport.

I think your suggestion would be worth a try but the free bus around Civic is empty almost every time I see it go past Manhattan coffee shop and also near the ANU.

Cost of public transport is rarely an issue for 90% of canberra residents. These people would gladly pay $15 per journey for fuel and parking for the additional convenience a car provides.

The free Civic bus is a whole free bus. Free travel for one person on a low income does not require a whole bus. There are many vacant seats on regular buses.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

tuffmouse said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route. A toll tax on each fare would be a great way for the government to cover the light rail cost.

“Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route”

Why?

What benefit will there be in having a noisy tram outside the front window that travels to, well, nowhere?

Well isn’t it good we are getting a light rail line then and not tram.

Do you know the main difference? Trams generally run on the road and light rail mostly its own right of way. That means trams tracks are usually constructed differently to light rail tracks.

The point go to Melbourne and the tram tracks are laid on a bed of concrete sometimes with a rubber membrane underneath and then concreted into place. This construction technique is quick but tends to be noisier.

But gonto Sydney and the street sections of light rail here they later channels in the concrete then embedded the tracks in a layer of liquid rubber light product which doesn’t generate the same vibration noise. Takes longer to do.

On top of that noise from any rail system is usually on curves, the only two on the Gungahlin line will be into the depot at Mitchell and the turn off Flemmington road onto Northborne ave neither of which is anywhere near residential areas.

Also modern light rail vehicles (and trams) use 3 phases ac traction motors which are quieter than their DC GTO drive or resister shunt brethern so also much more quieter when acceleration and braking. Though next you will be complaining they are too quiet and are a saftey risk and need to be speed limited to walking pace with a person waving a red flag walking in front. That way your fears will be fully justified.

As to the line from nowhere to nowhere we’ll if you lived along the route, then the line would be from your home to either Gungahlin or the city and in the future it seems Woden. Maybe others with a little more vision can see the benefit of that.

I know that light rail is supposed to mean an exclusive thoroughfare for the “railcars” that travel on their rubber rail-beds but they are still the same railcars that morph into the same street running trams that will be used in Canberra.

They also will stop and start regularly to pick up and drop off passengers and they have to cross shared roadways. No one really believes that they will have green lights all the way either.
I’ve travelled on the same trams that alternate between dedicated tracks and street running in Europe and when they start to approach 70 kmh they become very noisy and uncomfortable for the passengers who will be standing as they do in trams.

Why do you always make puerile comments, this time about red flags and you still haven’t explained why the value of property on the tram (sorry, light rail) route will increase.

Like so many others who are totally besotted by this experiment you say it is all about “vision”.

Try using vision as collateral to get a bank loan and see how far you get.

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

I don’t know how many times this gets brought up but higher rates do not equate to those residents paying for the tram (that’s not what general rates are for) and regardless those residents can take their massive capital gain by selling their properties and not pay a cent.

I’m talking about a dedicated levy on top of rates payable by existing owners to pay for the huge private benefit they will receive from public funds. A public subsidy far in excess of any road subsidy you could name.

ungruntled said :

KentFitch said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Is your assertion that roads are subsidised in the sense that in aggregate, expenditure on roads is higher than income from road-related taxes ?

If so, https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx will help.

A wider view would consider that the costs road accidents dwarf direct expenditure ( https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/ – $27billion/yr ), and add in another $2-$4 billion for pollution related morbidity: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2005/files/wp_063.pdf .

A wider view would also consider the massive productivity and social benefits of efficient road transport.

Attendees at today’s seminar organised by UC’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis ( http://www.governanceinstitute.edu.au/events/canberra-conversation-lecture-series/422/prospects-for-the-acts-economy-and-its-finances previewed here: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/senior-economist-stephen-anthony-warns-of-risks-facing-act-economy-20161115-gsqau1.html ) heard Jon Stanhope and fellow speaker Dr Stephen Anthony introduce Dr Kahild Ahmed in the most glowing terms for his recent experience and efforts with ACT Treasury, and then heard Dr Ahmed lay bare the fantasy in the current ACT Government’s budget projections. If you don’t understand the implications of the ACT’s budget problems now, you certainly will in a few years when they will be undisguisable.

The problem with the tram is simply that it is poor policy: it makes public transport worse (slower, fewer seats, longer walks to stops, more “mode changes”), it increases congestion and travel times for other transport (including buses crossing its route). In contrast, Majura Parkway is a good example of public investment improving productivity.

Road usage charges (based on aggregate distance driven and perhaps weight of vehicle and time and place of travel) as envisaged by the Henry Report are a good idea, replacing fuel excise and rego as a source of road funding. And a tax on petrol to encourage movement to electric vehicles is a tax on pollution which our children will thank us for.

Thank you Kent Fitch. This is a very accurate, well researched & informative article.
What used to be an equitable way to pay for the road infrastructure is no longer so & some changes need to be made. Unfortunately, this will require some creative thinking and we have elected a government without a creative bone in it’s collective body . . . we are in deep yoghurt!!

Don’t confuse well thought out with a paid for comment. Don’t quite understand what I mean Google the posters name and autonomous vehicles.

chewy14 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

In essence they have a levy. The increased land value from this public benifit will be reflected in their rates charge which will be higher.

Just like those that live elsewhere in the territory and receive a benifit of higher land value through being closer to government (and private) services.

tuffmouse said :

KentFitch said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Rego alone does not cover roads expenditure, nor licensing, fines, stamp duty etc. But add in fuel excise, FBT, GST on vehicles, parts, repairs and it more than covers expenditure: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx Hence, your implication that roads are subsidized in state/federal budgets is unsupported by evidence.

If your argument is that the productivity and social benefits are roads is outweighed by the indirect costs (accidents: about $30bn, health/pollution, between $2-$4bn, dependence on imported oil, …), then please attempt to make that argument.

Public transport fares in Canberra cover less than 20% of running ACTION. Not only do I have no problem with that, I would much prefer public transport to be both improved and made free for people on below average income, because social benefits would outweigh the costs.

Reducing the cost of public transport so that more services can be provided without reducing funding of other priorities is the logical goal. The problem many people advocating for high quality public transport (including me) have with the tram is that its “bang for buck” is very low, based on the ACT Government’s own reports, and it is inevitable that the cost of the tram will be one of the many factors which will (not perhaps) cause such severe budgetary problems that per-capita public spending on education, health and public housing transport will be reduced.

Free public transport is interesting. Some cities have low cost daily tickets for low income people. Is a daily ticket of $2 is okay for low income people? Or should it be free?

Action already has that. Though it is $4.50 on a weekday and a bit over $2.02 on weekends for concession card holders.

dungfungus said :

tuffmouse said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route. A toll tax on each fare would be a great way for the government to cover the light rail cost.

“Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route”

Why?

What benefit will there be in having a noisy tram outside the front window that travels to, well, nowhere?

Well isn’t it good we are getting a light rail line then and not tram.

Do you know the main difference? Trams generally run on the road and light rail mostly its own right of way. That means trams tracks are usually constructed differently to light rail tracks.

The point go to Melbourne and the tram tracks are laid on a bed of concrete sometimes with a rubber membrane underneath and then concreted into place. This construction technique is quick but tends to be noisier.

But gonto Sydney and the street sections of light rail here they later channels in the concrete then embedded the tracks in a layer of liquid rubber light product which doesn’t generate the same vibration noise. Takes longer to do.

On top of that noise from any rail system is usually on curves, the only two on the Gungahlin line will be into the depot at Mitchell and the turn off Flemmington road onto Northborne ave neither of which is anywhere near residential areas.

Also modern light rail vehicles (and trams) use 3 phases ac traction motors which are quieter than their DC GTO drive or resister shunt brethern so also much more quieter when acceleration and braking. Though next you will be complaining they are too quiet and are a saftey risk and need to be speed limited to walking pace with a person waving a red flag walking in front. That way your fears will be fully justified.

As to the line from nowhere to nowhere we’ll if you lived along the route, then the line would be from your home to either Gungahlin or the city and in the future it seems Woden. Maybe others with a little more vision can see the benefit of that.

tuffmouse said :

KentFitch said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Rego alone does not cover roads expenditure, nor licensing, fines, stamp duty etc. But add in fuel excise, FBT, GST on vehicles, parts, repairs and it more than covers expenditure: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx Hence, your implication that roads are subsidized in state/federal budgets is unsupported by evidence.

If your argument is that the productivity and social benefits are roads is outweighed by the indirect costs (accidents: about $30bn, health/pollution, between $2-$4bn, dependence on imported oil, …), then please attempt to make that argument.

Public transport fares in Canberra cover less than 20% of running ACTION. Not only do I have no problem with that, I would much prefer public transport to be both improved and made free for people on below average income, because social benefits would outweigh the costs.

Reducing the cost of public transport so that more services can be provided without reducing funding of other priorities is the logical goal. The problem many people advocating for high quality public transport (including me) have with the tram is that its “bang for buck” is very low, based on the ACT Government’s own reports, and it is inevitable that the cost of the tram will be one of the many factors which will (not perhaps) cause such severe budgetary problems that per-capita public spending on education, health and public housing transport will be reduced.

Free public transport is interesting. Some cities have low cost daily tickets for low income people. Is a daily ticket of $2 is okay for low income people? Or should it be free?

It’s a tough call on setting a price for low income residents of canberra. Many working poor in outer canberra sacrifice in other areas well before getting rid of their car. You can’t get kids to sporting venues or to plenty of other places via canberra public transport.

I think your suggestion would be worth a try but the free bus around Civic is empty almost every time I see it go past Manhattan coffee shop and also near the ANU.

Cost of public transport is rarely an issue for 90% of canberra residents. These people would gladly pay $15 per journey for fuel and parking for the additional convenience a car provides.

KentFitch said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Is your assertion that roads are subsidised in the sense that in aggregate, expenditure on roads is higher than income from road-related taxes ?

If so, https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx will help.

A wider view would consider that the costs road accidents dwarf direct expenditure ( https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/ – $27billion/yr ), and add in another $2-$4 billion for pollution related morbidity: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2005/files/wp_063.pdf .

A wider view would also consider the massive productivity and social benefits of efficient road transport.

Attendees at today’s seminar organised by UC’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis ( http://www.governanceinstitute.edu.au/events/canberra-conversation-lecture-series/422/prospects-for-the-acts-economy-and-its-finances previewed here: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/senior-economist-stephen-anthony-warns-of-risks-facing-act-economy-20161115-gsqau1.html ) heard Jon Stanhope and fellow speaker Dr Stephen Anthony introduce Dr Kahild Ahmed in the most glowing terms for his recent experience and efforts with ACT Treasury, and then heard Dr Ahmed lay bare the fantasy in the current ACT Government’s budget projections. If you don’t understand the implications of the ACT’s budget problems now, you certainly will in a few years when they will be undisguisable.

The problem with the tram is simply that it is poor policy: it makes public transport worse (slower, fewer seats, longer walks to stops, more “mode changes”), it increases congestion and travel times for other transport (including buses crossing its route). In contrast, Majura Parkway is a good example of public investment improving productivity.

Road usage charges (based on aggregate distance driven and perhaps weight of vehicle and time and place of travel) as envisaged by the Henry Report are a good idea, replacing fuel excise and rego as a source of road funding. And a tax on petrol to encourage movement to electric vehicles is a tax on pollution which our children will thank us for.

Thank you Kent Fitch. This is a very accurate, well researched & informative article.
What used to be an equitable way to pay for the road infrastructure is no longer so & some changes need to be made. Unfortunately, this will require some creative thinking and we have elected a government without a creative bone in it’s collective body . . . we are in deep yoghurt!!

tuffmouse said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route. A toll tax on each fare would be a great way for the government to cover the light rail cost.

“Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route”

Why?

What benefit will there be in having a noisy tram outside the front window that travels to, well, nowhere?

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Yep, they should have made it a toll road.

The same as they should have instituted a tram levy for property owners near the light rail line to cover the massive private benefit they will receive from public funds.

Good to have you on board.

KentFitch said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Rego alone does not cover roads expenditure, nor licensing, fines, stamp duty etc. But add in fuel excise, FBT, GST on vehicles, parts, repairs and it more than covers expenditure: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx Hence, your implication that roads are subsidized in state/federal budgets is unsupported by evidence.

If your argument is that the productivity and social benefits are roads is outweighed by the indirect costs (accidents: about $30bn, health/pollution, between $2-$4bn, dependence on imported oil, …), then please attempt to make that argument.

Public transport fares in Canberra cover less than 20% of running ACTION. Not only do I have no problem with that, I would much prefer public transport to be both improved and made free for people on below average income, because social benefits would outweigh the costs.

Reducing the cost of public transport so that more services can be provided without reducing funding of other priorities is the logical goal. The problem many people advocating for high quality public transport (including me) have with the tram is that its “bang for buck” is very low, based on the ACT Government’s own reports, and it is inevitable that the cost of the tram will be one of the many factors which will (not perhaps) cause such severe budgetary problems that per-capita public spending on education, health and public housing transport will be reduced.

Free public transport is interesting. Some cities have low cost daily tickets for low income people. Is a daily ticket of $2 is okay for low income people? Or should it be free?

KentFitch said :

Rego alone does not cover roads expenditure, nor licensing, fines, stamp duty etc. But add in fuel excise, FBT, GST on vehicles, parts, repairs and it more than covers expenditure: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx Hence, your implication that roads are subsidized in state/federal budgets is unsupported by evidence.

Except that money goes into consolidated revenue to help pay for things like Defence, welfare and keeping asylum seekers out of the country. Just because it was earned on vehicle running costs doesn’t mean that money has to go into such running costs.

KentFitch said :

If your argument is that the productivity and social benefits are roads is outweighed by the indirect costs (accidents: about $30bn, health/pollution, between $2-$4bn, dependence on imported oil, …), then please attempt to make that argument.

Public transport fares in Canberra cover less than 20% of running ACTION. Not only do I have no problem with that, I would much prefer public transport to be both improved and made free for people on below average income, because social benefits would outweigh the costs.

Reducing the cost of public transport so that more services can be provided without reducing funding of other priorities is the logical goal. The problem many people advocating for high quality public transport (including me) have with the tram is that its “bang for buck” is very low, based on the ACT Government’s own reports, and it is inevitable that the cost of the tram will be one of the many factors which will (not perhaps) cause such severe budgetary problems that per-capita public spending on education, health and public housing transport will be reduced.

Anyway only argument I am making is that road projects do not get the same level of scrutiny as public transport projects and we as a society accept that as the norm. And my evidence of that is this very thread and the multitudes of others on this very board and elsewhere along a similar vane. So thanks for helping me prove my point, much appreciated.

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Rego alone does not cover roads expenditure, nor licensing, fines, stamp duty etc. But add in fuel excise, FBT, GST on vehicles, parts, repairs and it more than covers expenditure: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx Hence, your implication that roads are subsidized in state/federal budgets is unsupported by evidence.

If your argument is that the productivity and social benefits are roads is outweighed by the indirect costs (accidents: about $30bn, health/pollution, between $2-$4bn, dependence on imported oil, …), then please attempt to make that argument.

Public transport fares in Canberra cover less than 20% of running ACTION. Not only do I have no problem with that, I would much prefer public transport to be both improved and made free for people on below average income, because social benefits would outweigh the costs. Reducing the cost of public transport so that more services can be provided without reducing funding of other priorities is the logical goal. The problem many people advocating for high quality public transport (including me) have with the tram is that its “bang for buck” is very low, based on the ACT Government’s own reports, and it is inevitable that the cost of the tram will be one of the many factors which will (not perhaps) cause such severe budgetary problems that per-capita public spending on education, health and public housing transport will be reduced.

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Housing is expected to increase in value along the light rail route. A toll tax on each fare would be a great way for the government to cover the light rail cost.

JC said :

Clearly not over the election result. How is you hard labor going?
But you only care about that for political point scoring.

Hard labor ? Yes – every time I look at my Annual Rates Notice or any other charge from the ACT Labor/Greens Govt. And its going to get worse too – see post by KentFitch on 24/11 above”. Stanhope and fellow speaker Dr Stephen Anthony introduce Dr Kahild Ahmed in the most glowing terms for his recent experience and efforts with ACT Treasury, and then heard Dr Ahmed lay bare the fantasy in the current ACT Government’s budget projections. If you don’t understand the implications of the ACT’s budget problems now, you certainly will in a few years when they will be undisguisable.” That would be John Stanhope, ex ACT Labor Chief Minister.

Its not about political point scoring as you claim. Its about being realistic and not accepting 2nd or 3rd best when it comes to fiscal priorities, infrastructure spending and ACT Govt induced excessive increases in cost of living here to fund those.

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

Licence and registration fees for cyclists at the same time.

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

Is your assertion that roads are subsidised in the sense that in aggregate, expenditure on roads is higher than income from road-related taxes ? If so, https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/is_040.aspx will help.

A wider view would consider that the costs road accidents dwarf direct expenditure ( https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/ – $27billion/yr ), and add in another $2-$4 billion for pollution related morbidity: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2005/files/wp_063.pdf .

A wider view would also consider the massive productivity and social benefits of efficient road transport.

Attendees at today’s seminar organised by UC’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis ( http://www.governanceinstitute.edu.au/events/canberra-conversation-lecture-series/422/prospects-for-the-acts-economy-and-its-finances previewed here: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/senior-economist-stephen-anthony-warns-of-risks-facing-act-economy-20161115-gsqau1.html ) heard Jon Stanhope and fellow speaker Dr Stephen Anthony introduce Dr Kahild Ahmed in the most glowing terms for his recent experience and efforts with ACT Treasury, and then heard Dr Ahmed lay bare the fantasy in the current ACT Government’s budget projections. If you don’t understand the implications of the ACT’s budget problems now, you certainly will in a few years when they will be undisguisable.

The problem with the tram is simply that it is poor policy: it makes public transport worse (slower, fewer seats, longer walks to stops, more “mode changes”), it increases congestion and travel times for other transport (including buses crossing its route). In contrast, Majura Parkway is a good example of public investment improving productivity.

Road usage charges (based on aggregate distance driven and perhaps weight of vehicle and time and place of travel) as envisaged by the Henry Report are a good idea, replacing fuel excise and rego as a source of road funding. And a tax on petrol to encourage movement to electric vehicles is a tax on pollution which our children will thank us for.

tuffmouse said :

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

They are paying this thing called a fare. Sure doesn’t cover the costs, then again nor does rego. But roads we are happy for ‘other’ funding to pay for them, as pointed out above, but public transport, nope, meant to stand on it’s own. So again thank you for proving the point I was making.

Put a $1 toll tax on every light rail trip, added onto each light rail ticket price. Make the local users pay not all ratepayers of this city. I can see the Greens voters getting upset about that one.

Shhhhhhhsh.

Don’t plant a seed for a tree you don’t want.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

ACT Labor/Greens were looking at toll roads a few years ago.

If toll roads are introduced (and the ACT Labor/Greens Govt can do what it wants now, thanks ACT voters/Ratepayers !) then public transport users – including on the Tram, should also have a toll imposed (as well as the non cost recovery fare fare) imposed. What about the worst performing Hospital in the country ?

A toll on the front door and on entry to the Emergency Dept perhaps ? In my view, u are not comparing apples-to-apples.

The Tram is not even going along the route of the Majura Parkway and spending more and more $ on improving roads for most of Canberra, is inevitable – despite what Tram supporters claim.

Besides, vehicle rego is not the only source of roads funding. With the increases in Annual Rates that ACT voters/Ratepayers taxed themselves with the re election of ACT Labor/Greens, all roads should be gold plated here.

Also, the Feds often heavily contribute financially to roads infrastructure in the ACT, unlike to the TRAM or ACTION.

No wait, “what would the ACT Lib’s have done…..”. There, justification for introducing road tolls, done.

Talk about an off tangent rant. Clearly not over the election result. How is you hard labor going?

As for comparing apples to apples think you have in your haste to attack me missed the point I was making.

Apparently if a toll was being built (which it isn’t btw) it is to pay for light rail but apparently not for the very road the OP was talking about.

To me, and again I know the comment was in jest, it shows the double standards that exits between comparing public transport with roads.

Same too with cost benefits etc. I am firmly on record as supporting Majura Parkway for the cost benifits and other savings it brings, but again public transport needs to pay for itself out of the fare box let alone any consideration for other cost benifits or savings and certainly no mention of any social benifits either.

Gee the latter would be hard for many to garner, except of course unless one were to attack the government or as you constantly remind us Labor/Greens over lack of Action buses to Oaks Estate. But you only care about that for political point scoring.

JC said :

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

ACT Labor/Greens were looking at toll roads a few years ago.

If toll roads are introduced (and the ACT Labor/Greens Govt can do what it wants now, thanks ACT voters/Ratepayers !) then public transport users – including on the Tram, should also have a toll imposed (as well as the non cost recovery fare fare) imposed. What about the worst performing Hospital in the country ? A toll on the front door and on entry to the Emergency Dept perhaps ? In my view, u are not comparing apples-to-apples. The Tram is not even going along the route of the Majura Parkway and spending more and more $ on improving roads for most of Canberra, is inevitable – despite what Tram supporters claim.

Besides, vehicle rego is not the only source of roads funding. With the increases in Annual Rates that ACT voters/Ratepayers taxed themselves with the re election of ACT Labor/Greens, all roads should be gold plated here.

Also, the Feds often heavily contribute financially to roads infrastructure in the ACT, unlike to the TRAM or ACTION.

No wait, “what would the ACT Lib’s have done…..”. There, justification for introducing road tolls, done.

A toll isn’t a bad idea but should it not be used to pay for the Majura Parkway itself? That’s right roads good, affordable yadda yadda yadda, public transport bad need to pay themselves etc.

FYI every trip on the Majura Parkway is being subsidised to the tune of at least 83c. I say at least because I am using 2030 traffic projections (40000 trips per day) as opposed to today’s figures increasing to 2030 projections meaning now would be higher about $1.50. And assuming no finance costs on top of the construction. Then to compare with light rail spreading the ‘investment’ over 20 years. Oh that’s right the piddly $300 per year of actual rego pays for it all plus maintenance etx. Right?

No. Toll points would be well lit gantries carrying RFID or high resolution cameras.

Those sensors in the road are to count vehicles to give the traffic management folks some idea of how heavy the traffic is and justify spending on maintenance.