Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Canberra's experts selling valuables
150,000+ buyers nationally

Ask RiotACT: Toll roads for ACT?

By Mach1ne 23 November 2016 54

Ask RiotACT

Hi Rioters.

Can anyone shed any light on why all the lanes and slip lanes on the Federal Highway at Majura Parkway are having sensor strip installed in the tarmac. Are we going to have a toll to help fund the “tram”?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
54 Responses to
Ask RiotACT: Toll roads for ACT?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
chewy14 11:52 am 03 Dec 16

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

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’

No, I never said they should be 100% equitable, I said if they aren’t delivered equitably you have to explain with good reasoning why. Cross subsidies should be minimised where possible.

The examples of city vs country are representative of my point, country areas receive much lower service levels than city areas due to their population densities but the money spent per person is higher in country areas than city. A balance is sought between cross subsidy and a reasonable service delivery level to minimise the cross subsidy. In an ideal world, country people would pay more but their are good economic and equity reasons why they don’t.

Things like trains in Sydney suffer from their long history starting in the 1800’s but the same principles could and should apply. At least they have the existing population densities to make those systems viable which we don’t and won’t for years. The fact that other places do things inequitably is not a reason for us to start or continue doing them here.

As for hospitals, this is further evidence of my point. You do realise that Canberra Hospital wasn’t the first hospital in Canberra yes? and that they have had a hospital at Calvary for some time and are building a new facility at UC?
Southsiders don’t exclusively or even predominantly benefit from Canberra Hospital and when it was built it was designed to be central to the population of Canberra to allow easy access to the maximum amount of citizens. Hospitals don’t usually massively increase private wealth to those who live around them, in fact they could actually have the opposite effect.

The light rail however is completely different to those things as it almost exclusively benefits people who live along the route or close by, at a cost to every other ratepayer. It is extremely unlikely to be rolled out to other areas within the next few decades without extreme economic vandalism to the territory’s finances. Property owners close by are given massive benefits to their private wealth.

As I’ve asked before, if you think that’s a “good” thing, you’ll have to explain why? Where are the wider benefits?
Why is it good that this level of subsidy should be provided from other, on average, poorer residents?
Why it’s a good thing that instead of minimising public subsidy for private benefit, this project actively increases it.
Why instead of trying to deliver services as equitably as possibly, this project does the opposite?

Re the hospital question you do realise that Calvary is not a public hospital but a private hospital that is paid to provide limited public services? Not even close to being on par to what is provided at Woden hospital. Indeed even something like gestational diabetes that has been under control for the term of a pregnancy means a trip to Woden for Northsiders. Now whilst I agree in a place like Canberra not such a big issue of course but does highlight a north/south infrastructure and service differential that benifits the south.

Oh and the new hospital at Belconnen is a sub acute hospital not an acute care hospital so doesn’t really come into the debate.

Oh and today your claim about light rail benifit if ONLY those that live along the route and thefore should pay a levy is false. On a service level yeah you could say that but as something that benefits the city as a whole it is no more or less a personal benifit compared to those being subsidies to drive on the Majura Parkway for example.

Which again gets back to my original comment in this thread about road based projects having cost benifits beyond the direct cost considered yet light rail in particular no apparently it has to pay for itself and those with a direct benifit doubly so. So again highlights my point about duplicity.

Yes, I know what Calvary does, but the comparison of hospitals still doesn’t fly for all the reasons I mentioned. Canberra hospital simply doesn’t predominantly benefit southsiders in the same way light rail benefits those along the route, the hospital it’s available and accessible to all, the amenities flow to all Canberrans and it is located in a relatively central position in the city, even more so when it was constructed. It’s also more efficient service delivery to do it this way. The idea that light rail along Northbourne benefits all Canberrans in a similar way is just wrong.

With regards to your comparison with Majura parkway, I’ve already said I believe it could be a toll road, although you’re comparing apples and oranges when it comes to cross subsidies and this issue and I’ll explain why.

The light rail project, whilst ostensibly being a transport project has been shown from the government’s own figures to be unviable from that perspective with costs far outweighing benefits. As a transport project there were far cheaper options that delivered almost identical benefits.

It is only when you include a host of other benefits, predominantly the land value uplift along the route that the cost benefit becomes positive (1.2). So this project is more a value capture development project than a transport one, which makes the fact that land holders receive such a huge private benefit almost impossible to justify from a service delivery or wider community benefit perspective because it’s not essential and there were far cheaper options available.

You can’t compare it to a hospital, because the essential service (public transport) could have been achieved more efficiently and you can’t really compare it to Majura Parkway because the cross subsidies are so much smaller, and don’t accrue almost wholly to already well off landholders.

The argument to provide a reasoning for going ahead with this project on wider community benefits that outweighs the equity issues just simply cannot be made at this time.

Point of order but isn’t the cost benifit of light rail 1 to 1.02 in which case it is actually not costing money when all factors are considered.

And your points still doesn’t change the fact that road projects are not subjected to the same scrutiny as light rail for example.

And oh the hospitals there is a massive difference in service levels north/south I have already given one example of maternity but what I didn’t say is I was actaully glad my wife had to go to Woden as the facility there is light years ahead of the same service offered by Calvary. The facilities are brand spanking new compared to Calvary and for the most part benifit southsiders who get priority. Only reason my wife went there was because Calvary won’t accept ‘high risk’ expectant mothers.

And the other thing I didn’t mention is being a Woden patient my wife had access to in-house ultra sound for free but at Calvary you need to pay. In this case my wife benifited but I felt so strongly about it that I wrote to then health/chief minister Katy Gallagher to ask why. The response was Calvary is a private facility so to offer the same service would be too expensive. So in other words northside mothers pay for services Southside mothers CAN get for free.

Then of course there are the other services that can only be found at Woden hospital too bad if a Northside patient dies having to drive past Calvary to get to Woden hey? Though if that were to happen you would be the first to blame the “Labor/Greens” government.

Now yeah I understand fully that in a place the size of Canberra why this is so (but not the maternity issue I raised) so I really don’t have an issue except to point out the key difference. But still doesn’t get away from my main point that road projects are viewed as benefiting the whole (which again I will admit they do) but likewise so does public transport initiatives. Yet we still have this double standard of scrutiny and cost benifit analysis.

Once again, the hospital service differential you’re relying on is orders of magnitudes lower than I’m talking about.

Driving 20 mins to Canberra hospital to access the services instead of 5 is not the same as receiving tens of thousands of dollars gifted by other ratepayers.

I fully agree with you that road projects do not receive the scrutiny they deserve, doesn’t take away from the fact that this project has severe limitations and severe equity issues that cannot simply be brushed aside because you like the idea of light rail or the political party implementing it.

Just because you don’t like the idea of light rail or the political party implementing it doesn’t mean these residents are receiving a gift of 10″s thousands dollars. In fact the mere fact you acknowledge they will get a fiscal gain (through increased land value) surely speaks volumes. Because for every dollar. And goes up so too does the government coffars.

I’d be interested in finding any quote, just one will do, where I’ve said that I don’t like the idea of light rail in general? And the party implementing it is irrelevant to me, a bad idea is a bad idea, whereas it seems to be one of your major reasons for support.

And you can’t have it both ways, either the residents are being given a massive gift of tens of thousands of dollars from public expenditure or the government won’t be making any extra revenue in the future through rates. Which as I’ve already pointed out multiple times is irrelevant to the issue of a tram charge or levy.

You seem to be fine with these types of cross subsidies and inequitable delivery of services, own your position.

JC 1:13 am 03 Dec 16

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

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’

No, I never said they should be 100% equitable, I said if they aren’t delivered equitably you have to explain with good reasoning why. Cross subsidies should be minimised where possible.

The examples of city vs country are representative of my point, country areas receive much lower service levels than city areas due to their population densities but the money spent per person is higher in country areas than city. A balance is sought between cross subsidy and a reasonable service delivery level to minimise the cross subsidy. In an ideal world, country people would pay more but their are good economic and equity reasons why they don’t.

Things like trains in Sydney suffer from their long history starting in the 1800’s but the same principles could and should apply. At least they have the existing population densities to make those systems viable which we don’t and won’t for years. The fact that other places do things inequitably is not a reason for us to start or continue doing them here.

As for hospitals, this is further evidence of my point. You do realise that Canberra Hospital wasn’t the first hospital in Canberra yes? and that they have had a hospital at Calvary for some time and are building a new facility at UC?
Southsiders don’t exclusively or even predominantly benefit from Canberra Hospital and when it was built it was designed to be central to the population of Canberra to allow easy access to the maximum amount of citizens. Hospitals don’t usually massively increase private wealth to those who live around them, in fact they could actually have the opposite effect.

The light rail however is completely different to those things as it almost exclusively benefits people who live along the route or close by, at a cost to every other ratepayer. It is extremely unlikely to be rolled out to other areas within the next few decades without extreme economic vandalism to the territory’s finances. Property owners close by are given massive benefits to their private wealth.

As I’ve asked before, if you think that’s a “good” thing, you’ll have to explain why? Where are the wider benefits?
Why is it good that this level of subsidy should be provided from other, on average, poorer residents?
Why it’s a good thing that instead of minimising public subsidy for private benefit, this project actively increases it.
Why instead of trying to deliver services as equitably as possibly, this project does the opposite?

Re the hospital question you do realise that Calvary is not a public hospital but a private hospital that is paid to provide limited public services? Not even close to being on par to what is provided at Woden hospital. Indeed even something like gestational diabetes that has been under control for the term of a pregnancy means a trip to Woden for Northsiders. Now whilst I agree in a place like Canberra not such a big issue of course but does highlight a north/south infrastructure and service differential that benifits the south.

Oh and the new hospital at Belconnen is a sub acute hospital not an acute care hospital so doesn’t really come into the debate.

Oh and today your claim about light rail benifit if ONLY those that live along the route and thefore should pay a levy is false. On a service level yeah you could say that but as something that benefits the city as a whole it is no more or less a personal benifit compared to those being subsidies to drive on the Majura Parkway for example.

Which again gets back to my original comment in this thread about road based projects having cost benifits beyond the direct cost considered yet light rail in particular no apparently it has to pay for itself and those with a direct benifit doubly so. So again highlights my point about duplicity.

Yes, I know what Calvary does, but the comparison of hospitals still doesn’t fly for all the reasons I mentioned. Canberra hospital simply doesn’t predominantly benefit southsiders in the same way light rail benefits those along the route, the hospital it’s available and accessible to all, the amenities flow to all Canberrans and it is located in a relatively central position in the city, even more so when it was constructed. It’s also more efficient service delivery to do it this way. The idea that light rail along Northbourne benefits all Canberrans in a similar way is just wrong.

With regards to your comparison with Majura parkway, I’ve already said I believe it could be a toll road, although you’re comparing apples and oranges when it comes to cross subsidies and this issue and I’ll explain why.

The light rail project, whilst ostensibly being a transport project has been shown from the government’s own figures to be unviable from that perspective with costs far outweighing benefits. As a transport project there were far cheaper options that delivered almost identical benefits.

It is only when you include a host of other benefits, predominantly the land value uplift along the route that the cost benefit becomes positive (1.2). So this project is more a value capture development project than a transport one, which makes the fact that land holders receive such a huge private benefit almost impossible to justify from a service delivery or wider community benefit perspective because it’s not essential and there were far cheaper options available.

You can’t compare it to a hospital, because the essential service (public transport) could have been achieved more efficiently and you can’t really compare it to Majura Parkway because the cross subsidies are so much smaller, and don’t accrue almost wholly to already well off landholders.

The argument to provide a reasoning for going ahead with this project on wider community benefits that outweighs the equity issues just simply cannot be made at this time.

Point of order but isn’t the cost benifit of light rail 1 to 1.02 in which case it is actually not costing money when all factors are considered.

And your points still doesn’t change the fact that road projects are not subjected to the same scrutiny as light rail for example.

And oh the hospitals there is a massive difference in service levels north/south I have already given one example of maternity but what I didn’t say is I was actaully glad my wife had to go to Woden as the facility there is light years ahead of the same service offered by Calvary. The facilities are brand spanking new compared to Calvary and for the most part benifit southsiders who get priority. Only reason my wife went there was because Calvary won’t accept ‘high risk’ expectant mothers.

And the other thing I didn’t mention is being a Woden patient my wife had access to in-house ultra sound for free but at Calvary you need to pay. In this case my wife benifited but I felt so strongly about it that I wrote to then health/chief minister Katy Gallagher to ask why. The response was Calvary is a private facility so to offer the same service would be too expensive. So in other words northside mothers pay for services Southside mothers CAN get for free.

Then of course there are the other services that can only be found at Woden hospital too bad if a Northside patient dies having to drive past Calvary to get to Woden hey? Though if that were to happen you would be the first to blame the “Labor/Greens” government.

Now yeah I understand fully that in a place the size of Canberra why this is so (but not the maternity issue I raised) so I really don’t have an issue except to point out the key difference. But still doesn’t get away from my main point that road projects are viewed as benefiting the whole (which again I will admit they do) but likewise so does public transport initiatives. Yet we still have this double standard of scrutiny and cost benifit analysis.

Once again, the hospital service differential you’re relying on is orders of magnitudes lower than I’m talking about.

Driving 20 mins to Canberra hospital to access the services instead of 5 is not the same as receiving tens of thousands of dollars gifted by other ratepayers.

I fully agree with you that road projects do not receive the scrutiny they deserve, doesn’t take away from the fact that this project has severe limitations and severe equity issues that cannot simply be brushed aside because you like the idea of light rail or the political party implementing it.

Just because you don’t like the idea of light rail or the political party implementing it doesn’t mean these residents are receiving a gift of 10″s thousands dollars. In fact the mere fact you acknowledge they will get a fiscal gain (through increased land value) surely speaks volumes. Because for every dollar. And goes up so too does the government coffars.

chewy14 8:14 pm 02 Dec 16

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

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’

No, I never said they should be 100% equitable, I said if they aren’t delivered equitably you have to explain with good reasoning why. Cross subsidies should be minimised where possible.

The examples of city vs country are representative of my point, country areas receive much lower service levels than city areas due to their population densities but the money spent per person is higher in country areas than city. A balance is sought between cross subsidy and a reasonable service delivery level to minimise the cross subsidy. In an ideal world, country people would pay more but their are good economic and equity reasons why they don’t.

Things like trains in Sydney suffer from their long history starting in the 1800’s but the same principles could and should apply. At least they have the existing population densities to make those systems viable which we don’t and won’t for years. The fact that other places do things inequitably is not a reason for us to start or continue doing them here.

As for hospitals, this is further evidence of my point. You do realise that Canberra Hospital wasn’t the first hospital in Canberra yes? and that they have had a hospital at Calvary for some time and are building a new facility at UC?
Southsiders don’t exclusively or even predominantly benefit from Canberra Hospital and when it was built it was designed to be central to the population of Canberra to allow easy access to the maximum amount of citizens. Hospitals don’t usually massively increase private wealth to those who live around them, in fact they could actually have the opposite effect.

The light rail however is completely different to those things as it almost exclusively benefits people who live along the route or close by, at a cost to every other ratepayer. It is extremely unlikely to be rolled out to other areas within the next few decades without extreme economic vandalism to the territory’s finances. Property owners close by are given massive benefits to their private wealth.

As I’ve asked before, if you think that’s a “good” thing, you’ll have to explain why? Where are the wider benefits?
Why is it good that this level of subsidy should be provided from other, on average, poorer residents?
Why it’s a good thing that instead of minimising public subsidy for private benefit, this project actively increases it.
Why instead of trying to deliver services as equitably as possibly, this project does the opposite?

Re the hospital question you do realise that Calvary is not a public hospital but a private hospital that is paid to provide limited public services? Not even close to being on par to what is provided at Woden hospital. Indeed even something like gestational diabetes that has been under control for the term of a pregnancy means a trip to Woden for Northsiders. Now whilst I agree in a place like Canberra not such a big issue of course but does highlight a north/south infrastructure and service differential that benifits the south.

Oh and the new hospital at Belconnen is a sub acute hospital not an acute care hospital so doesn’t really come into the debate.

Oh and today your claim about light rail benifit if ONLY those that live along the route and thefore should pay a levy is false. On a service level yeah you could say that but as something that benefits the city as a whole it is no more or less a personal benifit compared to those being subsidies to drive on the Majura Parkway for example.

Which again gets back to my original comment in this thread about road based projects having cost benifits beyond the direct cost considered yet light rail in particular no apparently it has to pay for itself and those with a direct benifit doubly so. So again highlights my point about duplicity.

Yes, I know what Calvary does, but the comparison of hospitals still doesn’t fly for all the reasons I mentioned. Canberra hospital simply doesn’t predominantly benefit southsiders in the same way light rail benefits those along the route, the hospital it’s available and accessible to all, the amenities flow to all Canberrans and it is located in a relatively central position in the city, even more so when it was constructed. It’s also more efficient service delivery to do it this way. The idea that light rail along Northbourne benefits all Canberrans in a similar way is just wrong.

With regards to your comparison with Majura parkway, I’ve already said I believe it could be a toll road, although you’re comparing apples and oranges when it comes to cross subsidies and this issue and I’ll explain why.

The light rail project, whilst ostensibly being a transport project has been shown from the government’s own figures to be unviable from that perspective with costs far outweighing benefits. As a transport project there were far cheaper options that delivered almost identical benefits.

It is only when you include a host of other benefits, predominantly the land value uplift along the route that the cost benefit becomes positive (1.2). So this project is more a value capture development project than a transport one, which makes the fact that land holders receive such a huge private benefit almost impossible to justify from a service delivery or wider community benefit perspective because it’s not essential and there were far cheaper options available.

You can’t compare it to a hospital, because the essential service (public transport) could have been achieved more efficiently and you can’t really compare it to Majura Parkway because the cross subsidies are so much smaller, and don’t accrue almost wholly to already well off landholders.

The argument to provide a reasoning for going ahead with this project on wider community benefits that outweighs the equity issues just simply cannot be made at this time.

Point of order but isn’t the cost benifit of light rail 1 to 1.02 in which case it is actually not costing money when all factors are considered.

And your points still doesn’t change the fact that road projects are not subjected to the same scrutiny as light rail for example.

And oh the hospitals there is a massive difference in service levels north/south I have already given one example of maternity but what I didn’t say is I was actaully glad my wife had to go to Woden as the facility there is light years ahead of the same service offered by Calvary. The facilities are brand spanking new compared to Calvary and for the most part benifit southsiders who get priority. Only reason my wife went there was because Calvary won’t accept ‘high risk’ expectant mothers.

And the other thing I didn’t mention is being a Woden patient my wife had access to in-house ultra sound for free but at Calvary you need to pay. In this case my wife benifited but I felt so strongly about it that I wrote to then health/chief minister Katy Gallagher to ask why. The response was Calvary is a private facility so to offer the same service would be too expensive. So in other words northside mothers pay for services Southside mothers CAN get for free.

Then of course there are the other services that can only be found at Woden hospital too bad if a Northside patient dies having to drive past Calvary to get to Woden hey? Though if that were to happen you would be the first to blame the “Labor/Greens” government.

Now yeah I understand fully that in a place the size of Canberra why this is so (but not the maternity issue I raised) so I really don’t have an issue except to point out the key difference. But still doesn’t get away from my main point that road projects are viewed as benefiting the whole (which again I will admit they do) but likewise so does public transport initiatives. Yet we still have this double standard of scrutiny and cost benifit analysis.

Once again, the hospital service differential you’re relying on is orders of magnitudes lower than I’m talking about.

Driving 20 mins to Canberra hospital to access the services instead of 5 is not the same as receiving tens of thousands of dollars gifted by other ratepayers.

I fully agree with you that road projects do not receive the scrutiny they deserve, doesn’t take away from the fact that this project has severe limitations and severe equity issues that cannot simply be brushed aside because you like the idea of light rail or the political party implementing it.

JC 4:26 pm 02 Dec 16

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Indeed even something like gestational diabetes that has been under control for the term of a pregnancy means a trip to Woden for Northsiders. Now whilst I agree in a place like Canberra not such a big issue of course but does highlight a north/south infrastructure and service differential that benifits the south.

To even up this mythical “service differential”, I reckon that the Mugga Lane tip and the arrival flight paths to/from the airport and the Hume Industrial area be relocated to the Northside.

Only if mugga lane then takes the me fluffy asbestos.

Move Hume? Last time I looked the Northside had Mitchell (and who could forget that polluting fire a few years back now) and the Northside also has the West Belconnen industrial area which includes some fine environmental businesses as well ask parkwood eggs. So thing maybe even Stevens on that front.

As for the airport it runs a north south axis and is on the Northside. Plus most take offs are to the north so in actual fact more noise on the north from airport operations than the south. Of course Queanbeyan and Jerra don’t count as they are west not north south.

Plus surprised you didn’t ask for the jail to go north too, though of course already one of them Northside too so wouldn’t make much sense would it.

But happy to take some more hospital funding for the north to even things up maybe the new UC hospital should have been built as an acute care hospital to save all the redevelopment costs at Woden and to balance things up.

JC 1:46 pm 02 Dec 16

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

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’

No, I never said they should be 100% equitable, I said if they aren’t delivered equitably you have to explain with good reasoning why. Cross subsidies should be minimised where possible.

The examples of city vs country are representative of my point, country areas receive much lower service levels than city areas due to their population densities but the money spent per person is higher in country areas than city. A balance is sought between cross subsidy and a reasonable service delivery level to minimise the cross subsidy. In an ideal world, country people would pay more but their are good economic and equity reasons why they don’t.

Things like trains in Sydney suffer from their long history starting in the 1800’s but the same principles could and should apply. At least they have the existing population densities to make those systems viable which we don’t and won’t for years. The fact that other places do things inequitably is not a reason for us to start or continue doing them here.

As for hospitals, this is further evidence of my point. You do realise that Canberra Hospital wasn’t the first hospital in Canberra yes? and that they have had a hospital at Calvary for some time and are building a new facility at UC?
Southsiders don’t exclusively or even predominantly benefit from Canberra Hospital and when it was built it was designed to be central to the population of Canberra to allow easy access to the maximum amount of citizens. Hospitals don’t usually massively increase private wealth to those who live around them, in fact they could actually have the opposite effect.

The light rail however is completely different to those things as it almost exclusively benefits people who live along the route or close by, at a cost to every other ratepayer. It is extremely unlikely to be rolled out to other areas within the next few decades without extreme economic vandalism to the territory’s finances. Property owners close by are given massive benefits to their private wealth.

As I’ve asked before, if you think that’s a “good” thing, you’ll have to explain why? Where are the wider benefits?
Why is it good that this level of subsidy should be provided from other, on average, poorer residents?
Why it’s a good thing that instead of minimising public subsidy for private benefit, this project actively increases it.
Why instead of trying to deliver services as equitably as possibly, this project does the opposite?

Re the hospital question you do realise that Calvary is not a public hospital but a private hospital that is paid to provide limited public services? Not even close to being on par to what is provided at Woden hospital. Indeed even something like gestational diabetes that has been under control for the term of a pregnancy means a trip to Woden for Northsiders. Now whilst I agree in a place like Canberra not such a big issue of course but does highlight a north/south infrastructure and service differential that benifits the south.

Oh and the new hospital at Belconnen is a sub acute hospital not an acute care hospital so doesn’t really come into the debate.

Oh and today your claim about light rail benifit if ONLY those that live along the route and thefore should pay a levy is false. On a service level yeah you could say that but as something that benefits the city as a whole it is no more or less a personal benifit compared to those being subsidies to drive on the Majura Parkway for example.

Which again gets back to my original comment in this thread about road based projects having cost benifits beyond the direct cost considered yet light rail in particular no apparently it has to pay for itself and those with a direct benifit doubly so. So again highlights my point about duplicity.

Yes, I know what Calvary does, but the comparison of hospitals still doesn’t fly for all the reasons I mentioned. Canberra hospital simply doesn’t predominantly benefit southsiders in the same way light rail benefits those along the route, the hospital it’s available and accessible to all, the amenities flow to all Canberrans and it is located in a relatively central position in the city, even more so when it was constructed. It’s also more efficient service delivery to do it this way. The idea that light rail along Northbourne benefits all Canberrans in a similar way is just wrong.

With regards to your comparison with Majura parkway, I’ve already said I believe it could be a toll road, although you’re comparing apples and oranges when it comes to cross subsidies and this issue and I’ll explain why.

The light rail project, whilst ostensibly being a transport project has been shown from the government’s own figures to be unviable from that perspective with costs far outweighing benefits. As a transport project there were far cheaper options that delivered almost identical benefits.

It is only when you include a host of other benefits, predominantly the land value uplift along the route that the cost benefit becomes positive (1.2). So this project is more a value capture development project than a transport one, which makes the fact that land holders receive such a huge private benefit almost impossible to justify from a service delivery or wider community benefit perspective because it’s not essential and there were far cheaper options available.

You can’t compare it to a hospital, because the essential service (public transport) could have been achieved more efficiently and you can’t really compare it to Majura Parkway because the cross subsidies are so much smaller, and don’t accrue almost wholly to already well off landholders.

The argument to provide a reasoning for going ahead with this project on wider community benefits that outweighs the equity issues just simply cannot be made at this time.

Point of order but isn’t the cost benifit of light rail 1 to 1.02 in which case it is actually not costing money when all factors are considered.

And your points still doesn’t change the fact that road projects are not subjected to the same scrutiny as light rail for example.

And oh the hospitals there is a massive difference in service levels north/south I have already given one example of maternity but what I didn’t say is I was actaully glad my wife had to go to Woden as the facility there is light years ahead of the same service offered by Calvary. The facilities are brand spanking new compared to Calvary and for the most part benifit southsiders who get priority. Only reason my wife went there was because Calvary won’t accept ‘high risk’ expectant mothers.

And the other thing I didn’t mention is being a Woden patient my wife had access to in-house ultra sound for free but at Calvary you need to pay. In this case my wife benifited but I felt so strongly about it that I wrote to then health/chief minister Katy Gallagher to ask why. The response was Calvary is a private facility so to offer the same service would be too expensive. So in other words northside mothers pay for services Southside mothers CAN get for free.

Then of course there are the other services that can only be found at Woden hospital too bad if a Northside patient dies having to drive past Calvary to get to Woden hey? Though if that were to happen you would be the first to blame the “Labor/Greens” government.

Now yeah I understand fully that in a place the size of Canberra why this is so (but not the maternity issue I raised) so I really don’t have an issue except to point out the key difference. But still doesn’t get away from my main point that road projects are viewed as benefiting the whole (which again I will admit they do) but likewise so does public transport initiatives. Yet we still have this double standard of scrutiny and cost benifit analysis.

rommeldog56 7:43 am 02 Dec 16

JC said :

Indeed even something like gestational diabetes that has been under control for the term of a pregnancy means a trip to Woden for Northsiders. Now whilst I agree in a place like Canberra not such a big issue of course but does highlight a north/south infrastructure and service differential that benifits the south.

To even up this mythical “service differential”, I reckon that the Mugga Lane tip and the arrival flight paths to/from the airport and the Hume Industrial area be relocated to the Northside.

chewy14 7:05 am 02 Dec 16

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

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’

No, I never said they should be 100% equitable, I said if they aren’t delivered equitably you have to explain with good reasoning why. Cross subsidies should be minimised where possible.

The examples of city vs country are representative of my point, country areas receive much lower service levels than city areas due to their population densities but the money spent per person is higher in country areas than city. A balance is sought between cross subsidy and a reasonable service delivery level to minimise the cross subsidy. In an ideal world, country people would pay more but their are good economic and equity reasons why they don’t.

Things like trains in Sydney suffer from their long history starting in the 1800’s but the same principles could and should apply. At least they have the existing population densities to make those systems viable which we don’t and won’t for years. The fact that other places do things inequitably is not a reason for us to start or continue doing them here.

As for hospitals, this is further evidence of my point. You do realise that Canberra Hospital wasn’t the first hospital in Canberra yes? and that they have had a hospital at Calvary for some time and are building a new facility at UC?
Southsiders don’t exclusively or even predominantly benefit from Canberra Hospital and when it was built it was designed to be central to the population of Canberra to allow easy access to the maximum amount of citizens. Hospitals don’t usually massively increase private wealth to those who live around them, in fact they could actually have the opposite effect.

The light rail however is completely different to those things as it almost exclusively benefits people who live along the route or close by, at a cost to every other ratepayer. It is extremely unlikely to be rolled out to other areas within the next few decades without extreme economic vandalism to the territory’s finances. Property owners close by are given massive benefits to their private wealth.

As I’ve asked before, if you think that’s a “good” thing, you’ll have to explain why? Where are the wider benefits?
Why is it good that this level of subsidy should be provided from other, on average, poorer residents?
Why it’s a good thing that instead of minimising public subsidy for private benefit, this project actively increases it.
Why instead of trying to deliver services as equitably as possibly, this project does the opposite?

Re the hospital question you do realise that Calvary is not a public hospital but a private hospital that is paid to provide limited public services? Not even close to being on par to what is provided at Woden hospital. Indeed even something like gestational diabetes that has been under control for the term of a pregnancy means a trip to Woden for Northsiders. Now whilst I agree in a place like Canberra not such a big issue of course but does highlight a north/south infrastructure and service differential that benifits the south.

Oh and the new hospital at Belconnen is a sub acute hospital not an acute care hospital so doesn’t really come into the debate.

Oh and today your claim about light rail benifit if ONLY those that live along the route and thefore should pay a levy is false. On a service level yeah you could say that but as something that benefits the city as a whole it is no more or less a personal benifit compared to those being subsidies to drive on the Majura Parkway for example.

Which again gets back to my original comment in this thread about road based projects having cost benifits beyond the direct cost considered yet light rail in particular no apparently it has to pay for itself and those with a direct benifit doubly so. So again highlights my point about duplicity.

Yes, I know what Calvary does, but the comparison of hospitals still doesn’t fly for all the reasons I mentioned. Canberra hospital simply doesn’t predominantly benefit southsiders in the same way light rail benefits those along the route, the hospital it’s available and accessible to all, the amenities flow to all Canberrans and it is located in a relatively central position in the city, even more so when it was constructed. It’s also more efficient service delivery to do it this way. The idea that light rail along Northbourne benefits all Canberrans in a similar way is just wrong.

With regards to your comparison with Majura parkway, I’ve already said I believe it could be a toll road, although you’re comparing apples and oranges when it comes to cross subsidies and this issue and I’ll explain why.

The light rail project, whilst ostensibly being a transport project has been shown from the government’s own figures to be unviable from that perspective with costs far outweighing benefits. As a transport project there were far cheaper options that delivered almost identical benefits.

It is only when you include a host of other benefits, predominantly the land value uplift along the route that the cost benefit becomes positive (1.2). So this project is more a value capture development project than a transport one, which makes the fact that land holders receive such a huge private benefit almost impossible to justify from a service delivery or wider community benefit perspective because it’s not essential and there were far cheaper options available.

You can’t compare it to a hospital, because the essential service (public transport) could have been achieved more efficiently and you can’t really compare it to Majura Parkway because the cross subsidies are so much smaller, and don’t accrue almost wholly to already well off landholders.

The argument to provide a reasoning for going ahead with this project on wider community benefits that outweighs the equity issues just simply cannot be made at this time.

rommeldog56 6:58 am 02 Dec 16

JC said :

Oh and today your claim about light rail benifit if ONLY those that live along the route and thefore should pay a levy is false. On a service level yeah you could say that but as something that benefits the city as a whole it is no more or less a personal benifit compared to those being subsidies to drive on the Majura Parkway for example.

Which again gets back to my original comment in this thread about road based projects having cost benifits beyond the direct cost considered yet light rail in particular no apparently it has to pay for itself and those with a direct benifit doubly so. So again highlights my point about duplicity.

It is laughable to suggest that the Tram “benefits the City as a whole”. Its a commuter line so on a service level, benefits only commuters and those who live along the line. This is different to roads that bring trade, commerce, goods, services, etc. Any benefits to the environment or traffic congestion from the Tram will be minuscule. Even the Benefits Costs Ratios of say the Majura Parkway (which was about 1 : 4.3 as I recall) Vs the Tram (1 : 1.2 – which included many dodgy assumptions) clearly demonstrates that.

In your ongoing efforts to defend ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t decision making, your arguments are nonsensical – I’ll leave you to argue and convince your self of their correctness.

JC 1:03 am 02 Dec 16

chewy14 said :

JC said :

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’

No, I never said they should be 100% equitable, I said if they aren’t delivered equitably you have to explain with good reasoning why. Cross subsidies should be minimised where possible.

The examples of city vs country are representative of my point, country areas receive much lower service levels than city areas due to their population densities but the money spent per person is higher in country areas than city. A balance is sought between cross subsidy and a reasonable service delivery level to minimise the cross subsidy. In an ideal world, country people would pay more but their are good economic and equity reasons why they don’t.

Things like trains in Sydney suffer from their long history starting in the 1800’s but the same principles could and should apply. At least they have the existing population densities to make those systems viable which we don’t and won’t for years. The fact that other places do things inequitably is not a reason for us to start or continue doing them here.

As for hospitals, this is further evidence of my point. You do realise that Canberra Hospital wasn’t the first hospital in Canberra yes? and that they have had a hospital at Calvary for some time and are building a new facility at UC?
Southsiders don’t exclusively or even predominantly benefit from Canberra Hospital and when it was built it was designed to be central to the population of Canberra to allow easy access to the maximum amount of citizens. Hospitals don’t usually massively increase private wealth to those who live around them, in fact they could actually have the opposite effect.

The light rail however is completely different to those things as it almost exclusively benefits people who live along the route or close by, at a cost to every other ratepayer. It is extremely unlikely to be rolled out to other areas within the next few decades without extreme economic vandalism to the territory’s finances. Property owners close by are given massive benefits to their private wealth.

As I’ve asked before, if you think that’s a “good” thing, you’ll have to explain why? Where are the wider benefits?
Why is it good that this level of subsidy should be provided from other, on average, poorer residents?
Why it’s a good thing that instead of minimising public subsidy for private benefit, this project actively increases it.
Why instead of trying to deliver services as equitably as possibly, this project does the opposite?

Re the hospital question you do realise that Calvary is not a public hospital but a private hospital that is paid to provide limited public services? Not even close to being on par to what is provided at Woden hospital. Indeed even something like gestational diabetes that has been under control for the term of a pregnancy means a trip to Woden for Northsiders. Now whilst I agree in a place like Canberra not such a big issue of course but does highlight a north/south infrastructure and service differential that benifits the south.

Oh and the new hospital at Belconnen is a sub acute hospital not an acute care hospital so doesn’t really come into the debate.

Oh and today your claim about light rail benifit if ONLY those that live along the route and thefore should pay a levy is false. On a service level yeah you could say that but as something that benefits the city as a whole it is no more or less a personal benifit compared to those being subsidies to drive on the Majura Parkway for example.

Which again gets back to my original comment in this thread about road based projects having cost benifits beyond the direct cost considered yet light rail in particular no apparently it has to pay for itself and those with a direct benifit doubly so. So again highlights my point about duplicity.

chewy14 9:57 pm 01 Dec 16

JC said :

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’

No, I never said they should be 100% equitable, I said if they aren’t delivered equitably you have to explain with good reasoning why. Cross subsidies should be minimised where possible.

The examples of city vs country are representative of my point, country areas receive much lower service levels than city areas due to their population densities but the money spent per person is higher in country areas than city. A balance is sought between cross subsidy and a reasonable service delivery level to minimise the cross subsidy. In an ideal world, country people would pay more but their are good economic and equity reasons why they don’t.

Things like trains in Sydney suffer from their long history starting in the 1800’s but the same principles could and should apply. At least they have the existing population densities to make those systems viable which we don’t and won’t for years. The fact that other places do things inequitably is not a reason for us to start or continue doing them here.

As for hospitals, this is further evidence of my point. You do realise that Canberra Hospital wasn’t the first hospital in Canberra yes? and that they have had a hospital at Calvary for some time and are building a new facility at UC?
Southsiders don’t exclusively or even predominantly benefit from Canberra Hospital and when it was built it was designed to be central to the population of Canberra to allow easy access to the maximum amount of citizens. Hospitals don’t usually massively increase private wealth to those who live around them, in fact they could actually have the opposite effect.

The light rail however is completely different to those things as it almost exclusively benefits people who live along the route or close by, at a cost to every other ratepayer. It is extremely unlikely to be rolled out to other areas within the next few decades without extreme economic vandalism to the territory’s finances. Property owners close by are given massive benefits to their private wealth.

As I’ve asked before, if you think that’s a “good” thing, you’ll have to explain why? Where are the wider benefits?
Why is it good that this level of subsidy should be provided from other, on average, poorer residents?
Why it’s a good thing that instead of minimising public subsidy for private benefit, this project actively increases it.
Why instead of trying to deliver services as equitably as possibly, this project does the opposite?

JC 6:58 pm 01 Dec 16

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’

chewy14 12:34 pm 01 Dec 16

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.

chewy14 11:12 am 30 Nov 16

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.

JC 1:11 am 30 Nov 16

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.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site