5 July 2011

Would you pay to use the Majura Parkway?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
73

The ABC has the alarming news that Infrastructure Australia is proposing the Majura Parkway be a toll road.

Infrastructure Australia’s annual report to the Council of Australian Governments says the Majura Parkway is a nationally significant project, and should be tolled to ensure a reasonable proportion of building and maintenance costs are recovered.

Michael Deegan from Infrastructure Australia says the road could also accommodate bigger trucks.

“On a new, modern Majura Parkway we’d recommend moving to bigger trucks because they’re more efficient,” he said.

Mr Deegan acknowledges it is a controversial issue, but he says a per kilometre toll is necessary.

Should we have toll roads in the ACT?

UPDATE: The Greens’ Amanda Bresnan has expressed dissatisfaction at this announcement:

Greens transport spokesperson, Amanda Bresnan, said that this potential toll was one of many issues about the road that the Government had failed to tell the public.

“I’d like to see the Government be frank with the public about a whole range of issues surrounding the proposed Majura freeway, including whether it proposes to impose a toll on the road,” said Ms Bresnan.

“We have already seen the Government ignore a number of serious questions such as the impacts the proposed freeway would have on future congestion and transport options. The Government and the Liberals recently denied a Greens’ Assembly motion to ensure scrutiny of these issues. ”

“It is interesting to see a body like Infrastructure Australia suggesting that we can’t keep relying on major road building; today its spokesperson said we need to increase the capacity of our public transport, otherwise be prepared to pay more tolls and taxes for roads”.

“The ACT Government should examine the issue of whether high speed public transport will bring better solutions for commuters than a new Majura Freeway, as well as if the public would prefer public transport over a tolled freeway”.

Join the conversation

73
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

GBT said :

fragge said :

p1 said :

fragge said :

…..my petrol and now the carbon used to make the petrol….

I’m not sure that you understand the concept behind the “carbon tax”.

No? Enlighten me.

Actually, I was more commenting on your choice of words… The increase to the costs of driving from the “Carbon Tax” come from CO2 released into the atmosphere, not the CO2 used to make the petrol…

Fuel suppliers and distributors are excluded from the carbon tax.

GBT said :

fragge said :

p1 said :

fragge said :

…..my petrol and now the carbon used to make the petrol….

I’m not sure that you understand the concept behind the “carbon tax”.

No? Enlighten me.

Fuel suppliers and distributors are excluded from the carbon tax.

Not sure what that has to do with the “concept” of the carbon tax, but thanks for the updated info nonetheless. Please note – Original comment date: 6/7/11. Article date: 7/7/11. As an aside (and back on topic), even without being taxed on CO2 waste production caused by petrol refinery, you are still taxed on CO2 waste production required to power your house (and anything else), so the original point still stands – its just one more link in the never ending chain of taxes you must pay to live in this country. Being asked to contribute to the startup costs of infrastructure (and maintenance) on top of these already exorbitantly high taxes is a slap in the face.

Innovation said :

#68 alaninoz – sounds like today’s announcement might (ideally) make this thread obsolete. However:
1/ my initial point was that there should be better accountability for money received by public transport and infrastructure (such as roads) and the specific purpose within that particular area (eg capital cost, operating costs, inefficient (but necessary) bus routes) for which that money is to be spent.

My apologies – I obviously missed that aspect of your original post. I too am in favour of proper accountability for public monies.

Innovation said :

2/ I’m no expert but I wouldn’t think that the operating costs for a toll road would be particularly expensive given how much it can be automated. Even though that individual toll was small I incur lots of tolls for many other roads also and they mount up (and, if they weren’t paid, become worth pursuing) over time.

So long as collection of the tolls can be fully automated the operating costs of collecting them should, I agree, be small. You still have to recoup the capital costs of setting up the collection infrastructure and processes. The return from the tolls may be so small that it is less than the cost of money for the capital to set up the infrastructure. No figures for this, just a hypothetical.

Innovation said :

3/ Obviously, I use lots of “free” NSW (and occasionally other State) roads but I suspect bordering NSW towns are very very heavy users of ACT roads. None of us will ever agree on what public services should be funded from the “pot” of revenue (Federally and at State/Territory levels) and what services (or part thereof) should be funded on a user pays basis. In this case, if we don’t have to pay tolls at all (because we can still have the new Parkway and funded from existing Federal revenue) then all the better. However, although not the best option for modifying driver behaviour, potentially, tolls do have the added benefit of modifying driver behaviour.

Agreed. The split between general revenue and fee for service is always contentious.

Unfortunately, the modifications to driver behaviour are often not the ones that are desired, hence my original comment about it being to easy to avoid the, now unlikely, tolls on the Majura Parkway.

Queen_of_the_Bun – whoops, my bad. As the saying goes “I should never assume….”

Being an ACT resident though, I’m sure that you contribute to ACT revenue in plenty of other ways in addition to the minor rego fee.

#68 alaninoz – sounds like today’s announcement might (ideally) make this thread obsolete. However:
1/ my initial point was that there should be better accountability for money received by public transport and infrastructure (such as roads) and the specific purpose within that particular area (eg capital cost, operating costs, inefficient (but necessary) bus routes) for which that money is to be spent.
2/ I’m no expert but I wouldn’t think that the operating costs for a toll road would be particularly expensive given how much it can be automated. Even though that individual toll was small I incur lots of tolls for many other roads also and they mount up (and, if they weren’t paid, become worth pursuing) over time.
3/ Obviously, I use lots of “free” NSW (and occasionally other State) roads but I suspect bordering NSW towns are very very heavy users of ACT roads. None of us will ever agree on what public services should be funded from the “pot” of revenue (Federally and at State/Territory levels) and what services (or part thereof) should be funded on a user pays basis. In this case, if we don’t have to pay tolls at all (because we can still have the new Parkway and funded from existing Federal revenue) then all the better. However, although not the best option for modifying driver behaviour, potentially, tolls do have the added benefit of modifying driver behaviour.

BicycleCanberra1:14 pm 07 Jul 11

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Reply
Queen_of_the_Bun1:05 pm 07 Jul 11

fragge said :

p1 said :

fragge said :

…..my petrol and now the carbon used to make the petrol….

I’m not sure that you understand the concept behind the “carbon tax”.

No? Enlighten me.

Fuel suppliers and distributors are excluded from the carbon tax.

p1 said :

fragge said :

…..my petrol and now the carbon used to make the petrol….

I’m not sure that you understand the concept behind the “carbon tax”.

No? Enlighten me.

Innovation said :

#63 alaninoz typed “There’s a difference between capital cost and operating cost. In the proposed light rail system and the existing ACTION bus system the fares cover part of the operating cost, but not the capital cost.”

Are you sure about that? I’ve never trawled through ACTION’s finances but do they show exactly what fares and Gov’t injections/subsidies go towards? Perhaps the fares even cover the operating costs but is it reflected like this or just put into the “pot”?

Nope – life’s too short to delve into ACTION’s finances. The need for government subsidies is a good indicator though. And I won’t get into the hidden subsidies (roads, bus stops, etc) that ACTION receives.

Innovation said :

#63 alaninoz also typed “A government built and operated toll road might (MIGHT) be built and run under a similar arrangement, but tolls to cover the operating cost wouldn’t be high enough to make it worth collecting them.”

Are you sure about this also? Coincidentally, I received my ROAM statement today and it shows one toll for 59 cents. Obviously ROAM doesn’t think that’s too low to bother collecting from me….

Again, nope. The thing hasn’t been built so who knows what the capital or operating costs, or the number of users will be.But your example isn’t a good one. ROAM already has the infrastructure, processes and staff in place to collect fees that are rather larger than yours, and so can afford to collect trivial amounts.

Innovation said :

And incidentally, as per my original point, it would be nice for NSW residents to contribute towards ACT roads (especially the Majura Parkway which will probably get used by many of them). Ironically, if their RA names are any suggestion, Queen_of_the_Bun and QbnGeek might actually contribute to our roads for the first time.

Yes, it would be nice. However, was the toll road for which you paid the ROAM fee the only road in NSW that you used? Did you contribute, other than through federal taxes, to the construction and maintenance of any of the other roads?

Wasn’t broke, didn’t need fixing.

screaming banshee7:48 pm 06 Jul 11

farnarkler said :

Make it really straight and voila; instant dragway parkway.

There I fixed it for you.

fragge said :

…..my petrol and now the carbon used to make the petrol….

I’m not sure that you understand the concept behind the “carbon tax”.

#63 alaninoz typed “There’s a difference between capital cost and operating cost. In the proposed light rail system and the existing ACTION bus system the fares cover part of the operating cost, but not the capital cost.”

Are you sure about that? I’ve never trawled through ACTION’s finances but do they show exactly what fares and Gov’t injections/subsidies go towards? Perhaps the fares even cover the operating costs but is it reflected like this or just put into the “pot”?

#63 alaninoz also typed “A government built and operated toll road might (MIGHT) be built and run under a similar arrangement, but tolls to cover the operating cost wouldn’t be high enough to make it worth collecting them.”

Are you sure about this also? Coincidentally, I received my ROAM statement today and it shows one toll for 59 cents. Obviously ROAM doesn’t think that’s too low to bother collecting from me….

And incidentally, as per my original point, it would be nice for NSW residents to contribute towards ACT roads (especially the Majura Parkway which will probably get used by many of them). Ironically, if their RA names are any suggestion, Queen_of_the_Bun and QbnGeek might actually contribute to our roads for the first time.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Apparently you still believe it’s a good idea to do things just because others do.

No, not just because others do. Because it is the reality of the world, and has been for a long time. I lived in Sydney in the late 80s and early 90s and used to drive along the M4 every day. It didn’t worry me to pay the toll because that toll road cut at least an hour off my Bondi-Penrith commute.

Still just saying that we should do it because others do,

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

But in the end, life is user pays. If a light rail network was built, would it be free to use? No. Are buses free to use? No. So why should a road be free to use?

There’s a difference between capital cost and operating cost. In the proposed light rail system and the existing ACTION bus system the fares cover part of the operating cost, but not the capital cost.

A government built and operated toll road might (MIGHT) be built and run under a similar arrangement, but tolls to cover the operating cost wouldn’t be high enough to make it worth collecting them.

A commercially built and run toll road would be expected to cover both capital and operating costs, and so in this case your analogies are inappropriate.

Make it really straight and voila; instant dragway.

watto23 said :

I have an issue with australian society today that are happy to take tax cuts, happy to receive gov handouts, but then want everything built and paid for.

That’s it. If the governments stopped all this tax collecting only to hand it back to the greedy group du jour (Families are the current one), and instead use the taxes for setting up things and building things and running things that only governments can really do, we’d all be better off.

Not taking the taxes and then paying vast bureacracies to parcel it out to people as cash. While the big things crack and fall, and then we have to buy these things from private providers, and pay again.

Stop wasting our bloody taxes and use them for something useful!

Queen_of_the_Bun3:41 pm 06 Jul 11

alaninoz said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Apparently you still believe it’s a good idea to do things just because others do.

No, not just because others do. Because it is the reality of the world, and has been for a long time. I lived in Sydney in the late 80s and early 90s and used to drive along the M4 every day. It didn’t worry me to pay the toll because that toll road cut at least an hour off my Bondi-Penrith commute.

I agree with other posters that the airport mob should be forced to kick in for part of the funding as they are responsible for some of the congestion. As should the developers who cram as many people in to the Gungahlin area as they can.

But in the end, life is user pays. If a light rail network was built, would it be free to use? No. Are buses free to use? No. So why should a road be free to use?

Absolutely not. You already tax my employer’s income, my employers expenditure, my income, my expenditure, my car, my petrol and now the carbon used to make the petrol, not to mention roads are a critical infrastructure and thus expected to be provided for by the taxes we already pay. Why the fuck would I pay even MORE to drive on flattened rocks through land that I technically own as much as the government? What is this, medieval England? Fuck this system, I want out.

I have an issue with australian society today that are happy to take tax cuts, happy to receive gov handouts, but then want everything built and paid for.

If they build the road, we still pay for it somehow, whether that be in increased rego or rates. The people who get off lightly are NSW and other state taxpayers. So a tollroad make sense in terms of making the user pay particularly as this would serve as the main road to the snow as well.

Maybe they could do a reduced rate or a monthly fee for ACT users of the road and e-toll other users.
The tollroad could be owned by the government also to keep the costs down as a 3rd party operator will be looking to regain the costs and make money.

Maybe we do pay enough taxes, but given the fed and ACT governments are in deficit and given that they pay for the inefficient publis service that we currently have.

Jim Jones said :

Innovation said :

Seriously? People will pay $2 to have their windscreen cleaned but won’t pay a toll to use a road that might save them petrol and 10 to 15 minutes?
.

To be fair, the bulk of people on this forum are too tight and nasty to pay to have someone wash their windscreen, as they’re utterly convinced that windscreen washers are all satanic junkie pedophile communist illegal immigrants who are going to destroy civilisation as we know it.

I think the more accurate assessment is that they’re just not interested in paying for a crappy service that they don’t need or want.

The Frots said :

And do you really think that this particular Government, either Federal or Territory, is any good at spending our tax dollars wisely?

No, I don’t. I’m not a Friedmanite, but his views on the four kinds of spending strike close to home.
.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

There are some conversations that make me realise how out of touch with real life Canberrans can become (I’ve been here 16 years), and toll roads is one of them. Parking is another. Grass mowing. Sigh. When chief minister talkback is dominated by potholes, long grass and disabled parking, you know you’re living in a small town.

We are, though the ACT politicians like to think otherwise.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

First of all, people bitch about the traffic congestion here. Hmmm. Try driving in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. Now that’s congestion. We are hardly the LA of Australia.

However, if the congestion is that bad and we need a new road, how are we supposed to pay for it? The current rego and petrol taxes won’t cover the cost. Imagine if the government proposed raising either of those to pay for the roads. There would be outrage.

Taxes go to pay for a wide range of things, like schools and hospitals and mowing and all the other things people assume the government should pay for.

And a lot of other stuff that the governments, federal and territory, shouldn’t pay for. Though, then again, they don’t pay for it – we, the taxpayers, do.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Why should Canberrans – the wealthiest people in the nation – be the only people living in a major city who don’t have to pay tolls to build their roads? What makes us so special? The talkback on 666 this morning was hilarious. One caller was miffed at the thought of having to pay to travel 11km. Well, it may only be 11km but if it’s going to cut 20 mins of your travel time, isn’t that worth it?

Talk about a handout mentality.

Apparently you still believe it’s a good idea to do things just because others do.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

There are some conversations that make me realise how out of touch with real life Canberrans can become (I’ve been here 16 years), and toll roads is one of them. Parking is another. Grass mowing. Sigh. When chief minister talkback is dominated by potholes, long grass and disabled parking, you know you’re living in a small town.

First of all, people bitch about the traffic congestion here. Hmmm. Try driving in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. Now that’s congestion. We are hardly the LA of Australia.

However, if the congestion is that bad and we need a new road, how are we supposed to pay for it? The current rego and petrol taxes won’t cover the cost. Imagine if the government proposed raising either of those to pay for the roads. There would be outrage.

Taxes go to pay for a wide range of things, like schools and hospitals and mowing and all the other things people assume the government should pay for.

Why should Canberrans – the wealthiest people in the nation – be the only people living in a major city who don’t have to pay tolls to build their roads? What makes us so special? The talkback on 666 this morning was hilarious. One caller was miffed at the thought of having to pay to travel 11km. Well, it may only be 11km but if it’s going to cut 20 mins of your travel time, isn’t that worth it?

Talk about a handout mentality.

Interesting post.

I have driven, and lived, in Melbourne, Sydney and also LA so I can speak from experience when I say that Canberra at the moment does have conjestion – depending where you are driving from and to. For example, from Gungahlin to Civic this morning when I drove to work took me 48mins. The same distance in Sydney from inner North Shore to the CBD took me………………….50mins. And LA is it’s own beast anyway.

The taxes we pay, otherwise labelled as vehicle registration payments, are also inclusive of a $17 (I think its that amount anyway) tax for ……………………………..road repairs? Don’t you think that the registration costs we are forking out should cover something such as this?

And do you really think that this particular Government, either Federal or Territory, is any good at spending our tax dollars wisely?

screaming banshee1:38 pm 06 Jul 11

User pays.

I’m happy for the parkway to become a toll road, provided ALL other roads are tolled also. Is it really fair that someone travelling between G and the airport/fyshwick should pay a toll whereas someone travelling down the GDE / monaro hwy / tugg pkway get to do it free just because their road was built first.

The requirement for a user pays approach to our roads needs to go all the way back to registration. I have before and will again propose a system whereby the act of registration of a vehicle attracts a very minor fee, and the bulk of costs + any future infrastructure costs as determined by the govt are recouped through the petrol excise.

FACT: This will put the price of petrol up.

The benefit will be that it will be more affordable for a family to own a large and small car rather than just a large car so that when the large car is not required the smaller car can be driven which is more fuel efficient. You will also reap much greater reward for the purchase of a fuel efficient vehicle or the use of public transport as the less fuel you use the less you have to contribute to the costs of infrstructure.

User pays – YES!

Queen_of_the_Bun1:14 pm 06 Jul 11

There are some conversations that make me realise how out of touch with real life Canberrans can become (I’ve been here 16 years), and toll roads is one of them. Parking is another. Grass mowing. Sigh. When chief minister talkback is dominated by potholes, long grass and disabled parking, you know you’re living in a small town.

First of all, people bitch about the traffic congestion here. Hmmm. Try driving in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. Now that’s congestion. We are hardly the LA of Australia.

However, if the congestion is that bad and we need a new road, how are we supposed to pay for it? The current rego and petrol taxes won’t cover the cost. Imagine if the government proposed raising either of those to pay for the roads. There would be outrage.

Taxes go to pay for a wide range of things, like schools and hospitals and mowing and all the other things people assume the government should pay for.

Why should Canberrans – the wealthiest people in the nation – be the only people living in a major city who don’t have to pay tolls to build their roads? What makes us so special? The talkback on 666 this morning was hilarious. One caller was miffed at the thought of having to pay to travel 11km. Well, it may only be 11km but if it’s going to cut 20 mins of your travel time, isn’t that worth it?

Talk about a handout mentality.

Innovation said :

Also, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a congestion charge somewhere (which I think has been suggested in the past) and the speed limit from London Circuit to Barry Drive reduced.

Nor would I, but it’ll just be another way of increasing revenue rather than cutting congestion. Canberra isn’t Sydney, let alone London.

To be fair, the bulk of people on this forum are too tight and nasty to pay to have someone wash their windscreen, as they’re utterly convinced that windscreen washers are all satanic junkie pedophile communist illegal immigrants who are going to destroy civilisation as we know it.

And to be really fair, some people don’t want their windscreens cleaned so why should they pay for it?

Fair enough. That’s a much better reason for not paying for it than “they’re tax-dodging junkies with semen-encrusted fists of fury waiting to smash babies in the face” innit?

To be fair, the bulk of people on this forum are too tight and nasty to pay to have someone wash their windscreen, as they’re utterly convinced that windscreen washers are all satanic junkie pedophile communist illegal immigrants who are going to destroy civilisation as we know it.

And to be really fair, some people don’t want their windscreens cleaned so why should they pay for it?

I sure don’t pay the windscreen washers. I’d rather give them a dollar to keep their greasy hands off my shiny new machine.

Jim Jones said :

The Frots said :

Jim Jones said :

Innovation said :

Seriously? People will pay $2 to have their windscreen cleaned but won’t pay a toll to use a road that might save them petrol and 10 to 15 minutes?
.

To be fair, the bulk of people on this forum are too tight and nasty to pay to have someone wash their windscreen, as they’re utterly convinced that windscreen washers are all satanic junkie pedophile communist illegal immigrants who are going to destroy civilisation as we know it.

Oh Jim, it sounds like your all that’s left of a bizarre childhood.

“You’re”

And for the record, check out the threads on window washers – as stupid as my remarks were, they’re pretty much on the money.

Thanks for the grammer/gramer/gramma pick up Jim. And your/you’re/yoar/you’all probably right about the window washer issue actually.

The Frots said :

Jim Jones said :

Innovation said :

Seriously? People will pay $2 to have their windscreen cleaned but won’t pay a toll to use a road that might save them petrol and 10 to 15 minutes?
.

To be fair, the bulk of people on this forum are too tight and nasty to pay to have someone wash their windscreen, as they’re utterly convinced that windscreen washers are all satanic junkie pedophile communist illegal immigrants who are going to destroy civilisation as we know it.

Oh Jim, it sounds like your all that’s left of a bizarre childhood.

“You’re”

And for the record, check out the threads on window washers – as stupid as my remarks were, they’re pretty much on the money.

Thoroughly Smashed9:57 am 06 Jul 11

I’d like to see the economic and driver behaviour modelling that led IA to believe that a toll would work.

Jim Jones said :

Innovation said :

Seriously? People will pay $2 to have their windscreen cleaned but won’t pay a toll to use a road that might save them petrol and 10 to 15 minutes?
.

To be fair, the bulk of people on this forum are too tight and nasty to pay to have someone wash their windscreen, as they’re utterly convinced that windscreen washers are all satanic junkie pedophile communist illegal immigrants who are going to destroy civilisation as we know it.

Oh Jim, it sounds like your all that’s left of a bizarre childhood.

BicycleCanberra said :

damien haas said :

Read through the entire COAG report from IA and its clear that this road is the ONLY request made to IA from the ACT Governent. It certainly puts all the musing about light rail from Civic to Gungahlin into perspective.

IF Gallagher is ruling out a toll, then where does that leave the funding bid ?

Obviously you didn’t read the full document , In Appendix B under ‘Transforming our Cities’ ‘ North east transport corridor – Northbourne Ave Transitway’ ACT Government. Very little detail here as there are a few designs for Northbourne Ave Transitway I understand, which is yet to be shown to the wider community for comment. So maybe it was a another flawed submission.
The only reason that IA has listed this project as ready to go, is that it is a freight road of national significance. Not for another road for private vehicles. Yet the Chief Minister thinks that building more roads will solve congestion. Its time to move out of the 60’s & 70’s mentality.

http://www.pbs.org/e2/movies/education/310_edex.mp4

Good spot – i didnt see that and its on the first line!

I wasnt aware you could lodge a submission before producing a final report.

Innovation said :

Seriously? People will pay $2 to have their windscreen cleaned but won’t pay a toll to use a road that might save them petrol and 10 to 15 minutes?
.

To be fair, the bulk of people on this forum are too tight and nasty to pay to have someone wash their windscreen, as they’re utterly convinced that windscreen washers are all satanic junkie pedophile communist illegal immigrants who are going to destroy civilisation as we know it.

Seriously? People will pay $2 to have their windscreen cleaned but won’t pay a toll to use a road that might save them petrol and 10 to 15 minutes?

And if a toll is the only way the Government will agree to contribute would you rather go without the road altogether? I haven’t bothered reading the report but it would be a pity if none of the money collected from the toll went towards the ACT Gov’t’s contribution for the road. I suppose the ACT Government still has other options to raise the revenue for their contribution – such as tolls on other roads, increased penalties, more “voluntary contributions” or, as many proponents of the Parkway seem to prefer, surreptitiously taking it out of other taxes that are steadily increasing.

As for those who would rather cut their nose off to spite their face by using alternative routes, other options exist but don’t count on being able to use Northbourne Ave for long. I think it will be a safe bet that the review underway for that road will mean that we will probably lose a lane to T2 or public transport only (and isn’t there talk around about buses getting priority at traffic lights which will slow everyone else down). After reading this thread it seems like very large vehicles already can’t use Northbourne and perhaps the road will be weight limited in the future. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a congestion charge somewhere (which I think has been suggested in the past) and the speed limit from London Circuit to Barry Drive reduced.

Of course there are going to be toll roads, why do you think there are point to point cameras and huge steel supporting stands over the main roads now – eTag is coming and there is nothing we can do about it – actgvoco are, and will continue to, deny everything about toll roads up until stresscorb or katydid cuts the ribbon for it – stranghope put the wheels in motion, so to speak, to set it all up.

BicycleCanberra11:51 pm 05 Jul 11

damien haas said :

Read through the entire COAG report from IA and its clear that this road is the ONLY request made to IA from the ACT Governent. It certainly puts all the musing about light rail from Civic to Gungahlin into perspective.

IF Gallagher is ruling out a toll, then where does that leave the funding bid ?

Obviously you didn’t read the full document , In Appendix B under ‘Transforming our Cities’ ‘ North east transport corridor – Northbourne Ave Transitway’ ACT Government. Very little detail here as there are a few designs for Northbourne Ave Transitway I understand, which is yet to be shown to the wider community for comment. So maybe it was a another flawed submission.
The only reason that IA has listed this project as ready to go, is that it is a freight road of national significance. Not for another road for private vehicles. Yet the Chief Minister thinks that building more roads will solve congestion. Its time to move out of the 60’s & 70’s mentality.

http://www.pbs.org/e2/movies/education/310_edex.mp4

fiddlesticks10:54 pm 05 Jul 11

Hmmm a toll road, smells like a safe seat to me…
Perhaps next try the ACT Govt. should suggest to Infrastructure Australia that Majura parkway is a major road for users from Eden-Monaro and see how it goes…

Tollways externalise profits when they operate well, but spread the loss to the public when they fall over.
Though with this government, I’m not sure I have less faith in private industry than the current mob to build a decent road.
What should be a pretty straight forward decision is only blurred by the incompetence of the labor/greenie alliance

creative_canberran7:28 pm 05 Jul 11

Tax the Greens for every time they say “public transport” and “cyclists”. Not only will we have enough to fund the Majura Parkway, but we’ll have surplus to finally duplicate the Kings Hwy complete with gold plated crash barriers and a string quartet for Pooh Bears Corner.

Does Amanda Bresnan catch public transport to work? Or does she cycle?

Does she catch public transport when she goes shopping? Or does she cycle?

damien haas said :

Gungahlin Al said :

Great idea – $1 for every car using the road to access the airport or Brindabella Park – charged directly to the Airport. Let Snowtown pay for the infrastructure expenses of their ill-placed commercial development.

I like this suggestion!

Yeah, I agree. There is no way that we should support an additional ‘tax’ such as this.

Gungahlin Al said :

Great idea – $1 for every car using the road to access the airport or Brindabella Park – charged directly to the Airport. Let Snowtown pay for the infrastructure expenses of their ill-placed commercial development.

And wouldn’t Costco and the new Mega Woolies love that!

Yes.
If the money is put towards building Monash Drive.

“It’s not really a monopoly, it’ll just mean that some people will drive through the city center to avoid the toll and thus needlessly increase congestion in the city…”

TBH, I don’t know the routes under discussion well enough to judge whether driving through the city is a reasonable alternative. It seems fair to assume that truckies will take the fastest route, even if it involves a toll, so building the road will probably get them off city streets. So far, so good.

So, it is not true that the existence of a toll free alternative will increase congestion. If there are any vehicles on the Parkway at all, it has decreased congestion just by being there, toll or no toll.

What State Governments have found is that resistance to unreasonable tolls by ordinary punters can make tollways very expensive options, both politically and economically.

Gungahlin Al said :

Great idea – $1 for every car using the road to access the airport or Brindabella Park – charged directly to the Airport. Let Snowtown pay for the infrastructure expenses of their ill-placed commercial development.

I like this suggestion!

Read through the entire COAG report from IA and its clear that this road is the ONLY request made to IA from the ACT Governent. It certainly puts all the musing about light rail from Civic to Gungahlin into perspective.

IF Gallagher is ruling out a toll, then where does that leave the funding bid ?

alaninoz said :

Toll roads in the ACT would quickly go broke. There isn’t enough traffic to make them pay, and it would be too easy to avoid them.

Nail on the head.

breda said :

Infuriated voters have made their views loudly known when monopoly toll roads have been attempted in the past.

It’s not really a monopoly, it’ll just mean that some people will drive through the city center to avoid the toll and thus needlessly increase congestion in the city…

Ah, the annual ‘infrastructure is going to the dogs and we need eleventy billion dollars asap’ report. It is as predictable as the sun coming up.

I especially like the line about tolls being needed because it is a ‘project of national significance’. Does that mean they want to put tolls on the duplication of the Pacific Highway as well? Somehow, I doubt it.

Toll roads are only tolerated by the public if there are reasonable, non toll alternative routes, as various State Governments have found out. Infuriated voters have made their views loudly known when monopoly toll roads have been attempted in the past.

Gungahlin Al4:44 pm 05 Jul 11

Seriously though…is this the quality of advice that Infrastructure Australia has to draw on???
I’ve been reading their report “Communicating the imperative for action” and it seemed a lot better than this daft announcement.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the various governments stopped funding silly things, and used our money for things that benefit everyone? If they stopped frittering money away on vote-buying and interest-group appeasement, there would be plenty of money for important things.

Gungahlin Al4:42 pm 05 Jul 11

Great idea – $1 for every car using the road to access the airport or Brindabella Park – charged directly to the Airport. Let Snowtown pay for the infrastructure expenses of their ill-placed commercial development.

Captain RAAF4:04 pm 05 Jul 11

I never use it, so I say charge $1000 each way!

Not a chance. I’d drive the long way around.

troll-sniffer said :

I’d be happy to have a couple of cents per litre of my fuel in Canberra added and earmarked specifically for fuel saving road initiatives such as the proposed Majura Parkway. Then again i support the introduction of a carbon pricing scheme so I’m probably at odds with the selfish majority in Australia.

The problem is too many of the NIMBY types who want these problems solved but only insofar that it doesn’t negatively affect them in any way. Thus the reason why it is so hard to get people to vote for a tax, and people wonder why politicians have to bring them in surreptitiously (not that I condone that). Add onto that having to fight the FUD spread by Tony Abbott….

Back to the topic at hand, why support an increased petrol price or increased rego rather than actually having the people who would benefit from the Majura Freeway pay for its construction. As long as it wasn’t too exhorbitant it wouldn’t be too bad. Possibly even just as a temporary measure.

No!

(Hang on Greens. Keep your story straight. Only a few weeks ago the Greens were saying that the new road would encourage additional traffic onto Canberra roads and that this was bad. Surely a toll prevents this?)

troll-sniffer3:29 pm 05 Jul 11

Someone tell this tool that the role of gubmnt is to provide this sort of infrastructure out of the taxes levies and charges that we all pay. IF a few more cents per week has to come out of Canberrans pockets to ensure roads like this are built for the good of all, so be it.

When the F3 and F5 roads were built, they were massively expensive. So expensive that today’s corrupt Macquarie Bank puppet gubmnts would almost certainly designate them as toll roads.

What the halfwits responsible for these short-sighted proposals forget is that overall the community gets more back in saved productivity and fuel than the cost of these roads. For instance I believe that the F5 freeway to Mittagong was assessed as having been ‘paid for’ in fuel savings alone in just three years.

I’d be happy to have a couple of cents per litre of my fuel in Canberra added and earmarked specifically for fuel saving road initiatives such as the proposed Majura Parkway. Then again i support the introduction of a carbon pricing scheme so I’m probably at odds with the selfish majority in Australia.

Diggety said :

Make cyclists pay rego.

Good luck with that.

Make cyclists pay rego.

Pork Hunt said :

I have recently returned home after working in Brisbane for 2 months.
Up there they have nice roads they charge tolls for.
Down here we have crap roads and no tolls.

1. There are always at minimum two alternate routes for each toll road.
2. The latest toll projects; namely CLEM 7- tunnel, and Go-Between-Bridge are both flops, so extra speed cameras have been installed.

I’ve just finished reading this report* (part of a wider money grab for the Federal Government) and there is no chance in hell the public will allow their recommendations.

* http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/files/2011_Report_to_COAG.pdf

Why toll it?

Chances are, it will be built to a dual carriageway standard that would end up with a posted speed limit of 80km/h, with obscure, small speed limit signs placed behind other signs… then enforced with point to point cameras. Plenty of revenue will be made that way 🙂

actroads.org

I have recently returned home after working in Brisbane for 2 months.
Up there they have nice roads they charge tolls for.
Down here we have crap roads and no tolls.

Innovation said :

Personally, I say bring it on!!! More tolls on that road (and even tolls or congestion charges on other existing roads) might help control traffic flow, introduce another source of revenue and, ideally, allow our existing taxes to be spent elsewhere.

Be careful what you wish for. The following is a quote from the Forward Design Study for the soon to be introduced point to point speed cameras:

2.3.1 Road User Charging

Potentially, the ANPR cameras used in a P2P system could, in the future, be used to support road tolling, road user charging, and congestion charging schemes. The ANPR camera is essential to the enforcement role in systems that use electronic transponders (such as toll roads or the Stockholm congestion charge) by capturing images of vehicles that have not paid the charge or have paid an incorrect charge for the type of vehicle.

Alternatively, ANPR may be used as the sole technology in the charging scheme. For instance the central London Congestion Charge relies solely on a ring of ANPR cameras around central London to record the licence plates of vehicles entering, exiting or travelling in the congestion charge zone. These records are then compared against vehicles that have registered to pay the charge.

Since it’s meant to be a freight route to take trucks out of the centre of town, would the freight companies be willing to pay the toll, or would they bypass it ?

Doesn’t it depend on the amount of the possible toll?

Personally, I say bring it on!!! More tolls on that road (and even tolls or congestion charges on other existing roads) might help control traffic flow, introduce another source of revenue and, ideally, allow our existing taxes to be spent elsewhere.

Also, many of us pay tolls in NSW, Victoria and Qld when we are there. Why shouldn’t drivers from those states pay for using our roads – especially all of those NSW drivers that will use Majura Road to get around Canberra?

Toll roads in the ACT would quickly go broke. There isn’t enough traffic to make them pay, and it would be too easy to avoid them.

Tolls must be set before roads are proposed.

And if you are an incompetent Government addicted to reckless spending of other peoples money, you should be removed before doing more damage.

Simple.

One of the nice things about the ACT is we don’t have toll roads…
Personally I’m against toll roads… The way I see it is we’re already charged a toll for using roads, in the form of taxes and registration…

If they want to make roads toll roads I expect to see a discount for my cars rego \ my tax bill…

Let me see – would I like to pay a toll for this?

Okay, I’ve thought about it. No.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.