Property Council asks who will plan and pay for light rail Stage 2?

Well said, George. The ACT government – building tomorrow’s slums today.

Lots of incorrect stereotyping in your comment especially about lack of parks in new suburbs and how much space people really have.

But that aside all the issues are common to all Australian cities and are driven by population growth. Happy to hear the solution to the core issue.

Hidden Dragon,
A value capture tax is exactly what should be implemented. Unfortunately, as I’ve said below, that would cost votes, so will never happen.

What you are both alluding to is that the Stage 1 light rail’s claim that value capture along Northbourne Avenue has been a failure.

Capital Retro,
No the light rail has done as expected and massively increased the value of land adjacent to the route.

The problem is that the government did not enact a value capture tax along the route and private land holders have reaped massive windfall gains supported by public funds.

Conveniently, their votes also got the ALP across the line at the last election but I’m sure that the pork had nothing to do with it…….

The real losers are the mugs who bought home units along there.

Next you will be asking that the beneficiaries of the roads pay for it. The amount that comes out of general revenue. Or do you only pick and choose when you suggest who should pay? No such comment for anything that you use.

Trying to compare public light rail transport costs with those of private motor vehicle transport costs is like comparing chalk with cheese. The vast majority of Canberrans have never used (and never will use) public transport so they can hardly be called “beneficiaries” of Barr’s and Rattenbury’s vanity project.

Maya,
The difference being most roads are built to the same level everywhere so we all benefit.

But yes, where a specific road was built that significantly benefitted a group of people beyond the typical amount, they should pay for it.

This is what is usually called a toll road. Perhaps you’ve heard of them?

And no, as I’m not a hypocrite, I’d be perfectly fine with more user pays infrastructure. How about you?

Public transport should be there for all to use, and it should be subsidised as it is now. So it does not depend if one is rich or poor; there is public transport available. It’s a public service. Some of the money used for roads would be better spent on public transport. Not everyone benefits from large roads, as not everyone has a car. Wow, thank you for explaining toll roads. I wondered what my little white thing on my windscreen was for. I agree with your suggestion, that on some roads (in cities, especially in peak hour), tolls are a good thing. It will make more people consider if they really need to drive, and more might make use of public transport (at least after Covid), share ride, cycle or even walk. Yes, I would pay tolls in cities (this would only be practicable on large roads), where alternative ways to travel exist. Country areas, with virtually no public transport and great distances, are different. Not everyone has a car and benefits from a road, or at least ever increasing and larger roads built to accommodate many cars. Those people who walk, cycle and use public transport don’t see the benefit in larger and larger roads (build it and the number of cars using it increases). Some of the money could be used instead to improve and increase public transport and attract more people to that, with more routes and more frequency.

Maya,
Except this isn’t a public transport project, it’s a land development project.

The government’s own justification for the stage 1 route showed that the majority of the benefit related to land redevelopment rather than transport.

I’m perfectly happy to subsidise a reasonable amount of public transport as a general public service but the options analysis for this project showed the same public transport benefit could be delivered for a fraction of the cost with a dedicated busway.

So why do we need light rail?

Public funding, private benefits. Apparently you are fine with massive subsidies for rich land holders, very strange.

On the one hand you claim that stage 1 light rail was about development, which I agree with then also state that the beneficiaries should pay for it but they don’t as would cost votes.

To me that is a bit of a contraction. If as you rightly point out development has benefited then the territory has benefited from higher land sales and ongoing rates which in turn essentially have and paid for light rail.

And should also point out that the bulk of the road infrastructure is also paid for the same way, the cost of the land pays for the cost of the infrastructure that is needed and rates pay for the ongoing maintenance.

Also the claim that there is no benefit to those that don’t use (or any form of public transport) is also incorrect. Whilst they may not use it the indirect benefits benefit all.

JC,
Except the owners can sell their inflated properties and pay nothing for the windfall gain they have received from public funds. The fact that ongoing rates need to be paid on the properties is scant consolation when it’s nowhere near close to the benefit they have gained.

All taxpayers have massively subsidised those owners, who were mostly well off beforehand as well. Only a direct value capture tax before the light rail was built would have been appropriate to make the direct beneficiaries pay at least partially.

“And should also point out that the bulk of the road infrastructure is also paid for the same way,”

Which is why I would support tolls on major roadways for the exact same reason. But roads are usually not built for the potential land development opportunities so it isn’t really comparable.

And the other benefits that we all receive are nowhere near the costs we have paid for it, so it’s clearly an inequitable solution.

It truly astounds me that typically left wing people in Canberra support such a blatant wealth transfer from public funds to wealthy land holders.