Ask RiotACT: Toll roads for ACT?

Mach1ne 22 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
Order
1 2 3 Next »
Grail Grail 10:33 am 23 Nov 16

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

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

JC JC 10:44 pm 23 Nov 16

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?

rommeldog56 rommeldog56 8:05 am 24 Nov 16

JC said :

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC JC 9:49 am 24 Nov 16

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyyco Tyyco 12:20 pm 24 Nov 16

Shhhhhhhsh.

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

tuffmouse tuffmouse 5:38 pm 24 Nov 16

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.

JC JC 7:18 pm 24 Nov 16

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.

KentFitch KentFitch 7:43 pm 24 Nov 16

JC said :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dungfungus dungfungus 8:53 pm 24 Nov 16

tuffmouse said :

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

Licence and registration fees for cyclists at the same time.

rommeldog56 rommeldog56 9:19 am 25 Nov 16

JC said :

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

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

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

tuffmouse tuffmouse 10:33 am 25 Nov 16

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.

KentFitch KentFitch 12:16 pm 25 Nov 16

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

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

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

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

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

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

JC JC 1:42 pm 25 Nov 16

KentFitch said :

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

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

KentFitch said :

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

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

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

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

tuffmouse tuffmouse 8:55 pm 25 Nov 16

KentFitch said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

chewy14 chewy14 1:05 pm 26 Nov 16

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.

dungfungus dungfungus 5:15 pm 26 Nov 16

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?

ungruntled ungruntled 5:30 pm 26 Nov 16

KentFitch said :

JC said :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bj_ACT bj_ACT 1:06 pm 27 Nov 16

tuffmouse said :

KentFitch said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC JC 2:28 pm 27 Nov 16

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.

JC JC 2:33 pm 27 Nov 16

tuffmouse said :

KentFitch said :

JC said :

tuffmouse said :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 2 3 Next »

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site