I have often thought of the transport system, and I believe the public transport should be so good it would be an embarrassment to use a car in a major city,. The whole answer on this relies a lot on the results of an intelligent tax system as much as on any thing else. Obviously the rates etc would have to be organised to cope and added to taxes in such a way that country people were not disadvantaged. A system of free public transport properly organised would be a tremendous advantage against the traffic chaos which is very consistent and getting more disastrous in many cities. Brisbane was getting better with the trams on their own right of way, then they were scrapped.

With ONE exception, noted below, ALL public transport users should pay the FULL COST of using the system.

But, and there is a BIIIIGGGGG but, so should MOTORISTS.

An economically sustainable system would have the following features:

ALL roads except strictly local suburban or country roads should be tolled. Certainly ALL “main” roads and arterial roads should be tolled.

The toll would depend on three factors:

--TIME OF USE: If you use St. Kilda Road in Melbourne you should pay more at 8 am on Monday morning than 10 pm on Sunday evening. The amount of the toll should reflect demand at the time. (This is roughly equivalent to peak and off-peak rates for electricity usage)

--AREA of CHASSIS. The bigger the vehicle, the more real estate you occupy, the more you should pay.

--WEIGHT of VEHICLE: Heavier vehicles do more damage to the road surface.

With smart-card wireless technology this scheme is eminently feasible. In fact I would say its introduction is inevitable.

Now for the ONE AND ONLY EXCEPTION. Holders of the seniors card in Melbourne should continue to get their preferential rates.

Full disclosure. I am the possessor of such a card. However I am sure all OLO posters will recognize that this is an eminently sensible exception and that my possessing such a card in no way biases my judgment.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11029#184793

merv09, in theory, maybe you are right, but our trams were destroyed decades ago & the cost of rebuilding it all now would be enormous.

Besides buses have the ability to be just as efficient as trams or trains.

With the technology available today it should be possible to invent a vehicle that is a hybrid of all the above & more efficient than all of them.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11029#184809

stevenlmeyer, yes you are absolutely correct but we already have the perfect "user pays" taxation system. Its called fuel taxes. Doesn't matter what vehicle you are in, who's driving it, where you are going or when, the more kilometers you drive the more tax you pay.

The only problem we have is that governments on both sides of politics & all 3 levels of government have, for the last 50 or so years, been wasting vast amounts of taxes on a bewildering array of spending programs that have little or nothing to do with providing basic government services like a good road or public transport network.

The amount of drama & expense involved in collecting fares is probably more than the fares collected.

Especially when you look at how much money has been wasted on the "Go Card" system or the expensive European system it is replacing.

Translink could save a fortune by scrapping all fares and making all Brisbane's public transport FREE.

Of course public transport should be full cost recovery, with no exceptions.

I can see no reason why a checkout chick, or a pensioner, in a country town, with no public transport, should subsidise the equivalent in a large city. This is particularly so as it only really serves the city centre & the host of bureaucrats that work there.

It is an old world solution, some are attempting to drag into the modern world, they are bound to fail. It is totally unable to service working mothers, who have to get to work via a child care centre, or one or more schools.

No one should be subsidised on public transport. Welfare should be the same for all, a one stop shop. It should not favor those who live on a transport route, or those in the city where public housing is available. One payment, with no other side benefits, is the only fair system.

Now the rubbish about punishing the long suffering motorist, a real lefty cause.

I payed to build the roads, ten times over in fact, with the fuel taxes I have payed for so many years. I am entitled to access those roads at my pleasure. In fact true equity would require that buses should only access MY ROADS when there is excess space for them

If I chose to drive a large vehicle I would pay extra [in excise tax, & GST] every time i filled the thing.

I don't know a single person who chooses to drive in congestion, it is usually forced on them, often by government. The only time I do it is when I have to attend a poorly sited hospital, at a time of the hospitals choosing. I can see no reason for me to pay extra for bad planning by city centric government.

Incidentally, have you ever seen a bike in one of the bike lanes proliferating all over the place. Like bus ways, & other stupid idea, steeling the roads I have payed for.

Fomersnag,

Hasbeen

A fuel tax is not a “TIME OF USE” charge. You will never get rational road use unless you charge for the SCARCE RESOURCE which is real estate on major roads during PEAK HOUR.

I repeat, you have to charge for the SCARCE RESOURCE.

Road space on a major road at midnight is NOT a scarce resource.

Road space on a major road during peak hour IS.

LOL Hasbeen

This is the first time anyone on OLO has ever thought of me as a Leftie. "To the right of Atilla the Hun" is my usual label.

It is not Left wing politics but ECONOMIC RATIONALISM to charge for the SCARCE RESOURCE.

Once we have rational road charges in place we should do away with fuel tax.

I would suggest the best way to make public transport systems more financially viable for governments, would be to have more people using the services, and paying their way.

Now we can continue to subsidise the cost, which is a bit like a dog chasing its tail,or
We can make the alternative less attractive. In other words, punish people for non essential travel in cars, especially where there is a viable public transport option available.

Things like, congestion taxes, huge parking fee excises and tolls when entering congested areas.

Now I understand that most will hate me for suggesting this, but, we must come to the realisation that the days of a 'free ride' must come to an end as we are simply not collecting enough taxes to keep these subsidised schemes running how they are today.

Now of cause there is another option, and that is stop wasting money on wars and failed projects. We simply can no longer afford the waste.

Yes, public transport users should pay their way. The same way that those who used public roads should pay for them.

When cars, trucks and buses pay for the roads, it will be time for public transport users to pay fares that represent the full cost of the service.

Rehctub wrote:

>>…we must come to the realisation that the days of a 'free ride' must come to an end as we are simply not collecting enough taxes to keep these subsidised schemes running how they are today.>>

Not that they’re running that well today.

Rehctub also wrote:

>>Now we can continue to subsidise the cost, which is a bit like a dog chasing its tail,>>

Excellent analogy.

However we are not “punishing” people by asking them to pay the full cost of using a road at peak hour any more than we are punishing someone when we ask them to pay the full cost of, say, a cinema ticket. With few exceptions user pays is the only way to run an economy.

Nope- public-owned fully taxpayer subsidized "free" transport is vastly more beneficial to Australia as a whole- especially city dwellers;

It would ultimately SAVE money (as the income comes from only a single source that requires minimal investigation as opposed to all of the ticketing, concession analyzing, detectives, fee quotas, etc- not to mention employing vendors, machines, repair work for said machines, ensuring no other glitches with machines;

Of course, this only makes sense from the perspective of a road user improving road infrastructure, accessibility and usage- not somebody who would want to make it a source of wealth generation.

Also, WHY does subsidization 'not work'? You never explained, just gave examples of cities that only partly-subsidize a private-owned company.

public-transport..should/be..free
and rego-prices..should-be..reduced

compulsory/third-party..insurance..
is a multinational/cash-cow

[it is little..known/that we pay..a subsidy..[under 20 dollars/each]
that...ensure's..even the unensured-vehicles...who should-be..a greater risk...

yet the..true cost
to insure..their reckless/behaviour
is only..twenty-bucks...!

and responsable..road-users cop hundreds
[were/being..conned]..

besides all/that..should-be built...into..the price/of..fuel

i used my auto..12 times..a year..
yet pay/the same..insurance/as those..using theirs..everyday...

im subsidising..your carelessness..
so i gave-up..the right to easy-travel

now i travel..by bus/train./bike/feet
[and feet/cost the most..shoes only last..a few walks]

if i travelled everyday..buss/would cost more..than a car

bikes need constant attention/servicing..
and are great down-hill
but hell uphill..

and when traveling..beside the road..[the road-grime is horrendouse]..and the parked cars...

[dont mention...diesal/particulate..the highest-cause..of lung-cancer]

dont get/me..started

anyhow..those wanting their..auto-s
should-be paying..for all the costs...via their fuel..

[fix the price..and sell it/for..the same price everyday..

and it wont even..need/to go..up/nor/down]...
just stay-at..the same up-price..

[no price...increases..needed]

by the by...that so-called fuel-parity
with signapure/extra*/standard-blend

is yet another con...its all deciet..

this cost per/barrel..of oil...they are..the futures-prices..
often bought..[orded..but then...cancelled]..

just to move..the price/for today

there is a thing/called..algerithmic-trading..
where so-called..high-frequency/traders...put in orders...
by benifit/of..a three second lag..
ahead of others..ordering theirs...via a 6 second delay

the result is 90..percent/of..all orders are cancelled!

[i think its called herd trading]...

we are being conned

even worse..govts talk's..of infastructure..programs..
ie giving developers/mates..huge contracts..
to build under-passes...tunnels/buss-ways/road/traintracks..electric/gas/water..grids..etc...

that transport..only a few/little
compared to the public road/delivery..system's

recall ire-lands..65 billion bail-out..of the bankers?

that was because/of..only less-than 100 of these..
'developers'..doing their..same/game globally...

its easy..run-it down..
[or bomb it..in war]
..then get the/contract..[off govt/mates]..to re build-it/..own-it

it should-be
free...basic-transport/service dewlivery..for all

then users pay...
and no built-in big business proffit-margin
govts should underwrite..their citisenries/insurance/and basic-needs..

not big business...for ursurous/monopoly..profit-margins

[remember aig?]..the grand insurance/scam
that almost wrecked the global economy...
soon to go..a double-dip?

no more bail-outs..!

its all/been built
now govt/and the people own it..!

the bankers forfeited..any-right..to any of it
read the..secret/bankers manuel

>>>besides all/that..should-be built...into..the price/of..fuel

I could not agree more. Rego, TPI should be minimal, the rest should be a levy. The down side though is it would most likely be wasted on some other project so we would be in the same net position anyway. But it's worth a try.

BTW, I drive a large V8 ford, albeit, only occasionally as my main drive is my work van. I am more than happy to pay my fair share.

King Hazza, Your theory has 'job losses' written all over it.

We should be looking at ways to preserve jobs, not cut them.

I say, if you drive on a road that has adequate public transport services available, then you should pay a toll, or at lease have a justifiable concession.

Sorry rehctub but the city and all other businesses should not be held hostage to people holding a redundant, and overwhelmingly detrimental position upon everyone else in society.

Especially considering that the redundancies could instead be redirected immediately at expanding public transport coverage;
Those desk jobs and ticket jobs could easily fill new driver roles (or another administrative deskjob in short supply). But more importantly, the mechanics, technitians and engineers we employ, normally checking up on the ticket machines could be redirected to checking the buses, trains roads, rail etc (and they're actually desperately needed there).

The problem with tolls because the road is 'commonly used' is very arbitrary, causes a lot of problems for people whenever proximity to destination to said road, and is ultimately just a further kick in the teeth to the broader residents of Sydney;

Quite frankly I would rather pay a one-off to retrain these people and place them in another sector than maintain a negative system.

Did any of you lot ever do math? Flo, the motorists pays 8 times as much in taxes as is spent on roads.

If everyone stopped driving for one week, every state in Oz would collapse, & the national would be close to them. That is how much our governments depend on the money they rip out of the motorists in fuel excise, tax & GST.

The motorists has paid dozens of times over for the miserable roads we have had in return.

You could drop the fuel tax rip off, & charge only for road usage, but that would have to be so high that to replace the motoring taxes that pay for everything but roads, that the rip off would be obvious & bring huge resistance.

Steven I was referring to the idea, not the person. Hope I didn't shock you too much.

The answer is so simple. Old fashioned city centers are no longer viable. Get most of the bureaucrats out of the city, there is no reason for most of them to be there. Put a moratorium on high rise commercial construction within 10 Km of the city, & convert any that are no longer viable to apartments. Over 10 years the congestion would be cured.

Continued

Continued

As an employer on the mid Gold Coast, I could offer 15% lower wages than Brisbane city, & be flooded with applicants of people who wanted to just stop having to drive, or public transport to the city.

Many of these people told me it was not only a much better life style, but they were up to 14% better off, financially, despite the lower wages paid on the coast. We even had staff from the southern suburbs of Brisbane, who found the drive, against the traffic flow was so much quicker, easier, & cost effective, they would never go back to working in the city.

Yes, Cities can strangle on their congestion, & asphyxiate on the fumes, but at least stay there.

Alternatively, they can introduce a congestion charge, & go bankrupt, as more people refuse to be ripped off by such rubbish, & just stay away.

I can not imagine anything that any trader in Brisbane could offer me, to get me to drive into the place, & nothing anyone could offer me would get me on a bus. I did quite like trains, when the station was close enough for my restricted walking to allow me to use them. The Air train to the airport was a favourite, but recent unreliability of QLD rail has put trains off the list for me.

Public transport, like the horse & cart, at least while there is any other option, is a dinosaur, it just has not lay down to die, quite yet.

Just what we do if peak oil is a fact, & alternatives are not found I don't know, although I did like steam trains as a boy. Can you imagine how many horse & carts it would take to transfer the stuff from the nearest railway station to your local supermarket?

Congestion might be a very minor problem.

Fantastic posts Hasbeen, I agree with your proposals.

While this may be a bit out of thoughts, I wonder if you are comparing roads in the UK and the US with what we have got. Understand that the UK is 1/25 of the area of Australia so we may have more road, and it has about 100 times the population, so their ability of financing their roadworks, is at least 2,500 times better than us. If you had been driving on the roads in the '50's and '60's like me and others were, you might appreciate the relatively good roads now. I still think that if the cost of bus transport was taken out of our rates, and would be covering us and our children, I don't think there would be any reason to complain, the busses and the routes they run, makes it available for all on the routes or near obviously, and could be allowed for, and even if you only use it at your convience or not at at all, it is there for you.

Why should public transport be provided on a full cost recovery basis?

It is a public service, it is not a business and we already pay for the service via taxes. People forget that simple fact. What is really needed is a good look at what services the public get for their tax dollar.

Public transport is not one that should be cut while other areas of extraordinary waste go unchecked.

Often it is those concession users who cannot drive cars including the aged, disabled and the poor who depend on public transport.

Public services are just that 'services'. They are not business enterprises and should not be compared with the profit motives of business - this just repeats the mistakes of economic rationalism which led to crucial services being cut at the expense of window dressing or clayton's policies.

Why is there always a cringe factor when the fact is some services will always need to be subsidised to provide an 'efficient' service that actually meets demands.

If people were serious about public transport, space & the impact on the environment then we'd would have a monorail network instead of railway & road transport. Just imagine the low cost due to the simplicity of the infrastructure.

i'd prefer to have a simple, low charge for all public transport - say $2. we could save on administration, collection, ticketing, etc.

public transport is one of the services we pay for with our taxes. isn't that what taxes are for? public transport is meant to run at a "loss", as it is a public service.

just imagine what a wonderful public t'port system we could have here in brisneyland if the billions paid for our dud clem7 tunnel, airportlink, goodwill bridge and other large chunks of car-type infrastructra had never been built, and all the govt money invested in terrific, low cost public transport?

instead, we will have a big, fat new debts for many years. i guess the dud tunnels will serve as shelter places for the growing number of homeless people we are producing here. might also be able to grow some mushrooms in the dark tunnels......any other suggestions?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11029#184959

individual, By that logic, we could also shut down all the railways, have more taxpayers money to build & maintain better road networks & buses on them for public transport.

There might also be more money for coastal shipping, digging a canal linking Spencers Gulf to Lake Eyre with canals leading away from Lake Eyre for river boat/barge transportation of goods to & from central Australia.

There is no reason why, as i said earlier with today's technology we could not develop a vehicle that is a hybrid of trains/trams/b double/triple road trains that could travel more efficiently on high quality freeways, made of reinforced concrete.

Just think how much more simple our infrastructure would be without ANY railroads OR monorails?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11029#184865

Your Majesty, King Hazza, your quite correct on that one about subsidy. This is why Joh Peterson would be turning in his grave about the current Red/green/getup/labour Communist coalition QLD government selling off QR National.

You see the enormous profits they make on the coal transport was subsidising the losses made elsewhere in the railway network.

After the Communist Bligh has sold off QR National to foreign multi nationals, probably Asian & probably the Communist Chinese government.

The financial pressure on treasury to close down the rest of Qrail will be enormous, regardless of who is in power.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11029#184947

Pelican, absolutely correct, but perhaps you missed my earlier comment about WHY there is less money around for basic Public Services like Public Transport.

Progressively over the last 50 years, governments on both sides & all 3 levels, have been pushed by shrieking "minority" groups to throw taxes at a bewildering array of other "thought bubble" ideas that are far removed from providing good old fashioned services like schools, hospitals or public transport.

I believe all welfare should be a one stop shop, & the same for all. It is wrong for some to come from the commonwealth, with top ups for some, & not others in state provided housing, transport, ambulance & other subsidies, then more from councils. If the commonwealth payments are too low, they should be increased.

AS a pensioner, I think the payments are perfectly adequate, & I see no reason why our kids, struggling with huge mortgage payments should be expected to supply further handouts, particularly through their rates.

Those of you in favour of more service would of course except that no increase in expenditure on existing services should occur until a similar level of service is extended to all. Equity would demand this. That being the case, expect to have a large increase in tour taxes.

The nearest public transport to me is 24Km away. I'm sure you would approve that I & the 2499 other people in my village should be entitled to some, before you get more.

We have no problem with the lack of expenditure on us, things remaining equal. However, if through some ideological desire you wish to make it harder for us to cater to our own needs, expect a fight. Self sufficiency is great, but it's about time city slickers stopped expecting us bushies to pay for your facilities, which don't extend to us

It just so happens that the concept of monorail as the original in Nuernberg Germany in the 1890's has always appealed to me. Just visualise the minimal impact to the environment. Then look at the simplicity of bridging. Hardly any clearing of forests would be needed when the rail could be running from support tower to support tower. We could have a freight system from Melbourne to Cape York or to Perth & Darwin. In fact a ring rail right around the continent . You could literally have a parrallel rail with service in either direction at the same time at a fraction of cost & environmental impact. Train collisions too would become a thing of the past. Transport & indeed the public would benefit greatly.

i cant/recall...now if i read it here[or if it was on the news]
but there was a study/of 5 capital cities...
cost of public transport..etc

the main issue to worth raising is..i note there are signs on busses[in brisbane]..saying number[xxx]/of 500 new busses...also many new busses...for a thing called the buz[local inner city/transport]

point being..that cost...has been made
that cost/has distorted the numbers
see those busses will be running for 20/30 years

[so saying they havnt paid..
is an absurdity/they only just been bought]

add/in things like the eastern/bus-way..still under construction
[that also wil-be found in the numbers..used for the 5 cities]
we see some real/spin..is being spun

govt has at all levels..decided to do this
now to say oh....it costs too much
we must sell it..

or increase the price
or whatever...the main/spin-point..for this topic..is
we are yet being conned..its as if [now we built it..we going to sell it..to mates ..of the govt...

just like govt allways does

recall..councils put-in..water/meters
then state govt privatised..the income

sure councils..are getting..a kick-back

but our water/costs have gone-up
and our rates..have gone up..too

dito all the other scam's
we sell an airport...then the airport adds extra value via the contracts..to build other business...

now we are paying for bypasses..
because of all..the extra..traffic-flow

nice nmoney if you can get it

dito the tunnels in nsw
and the rail...infastructure..failing due to privatisations

we are being scammed
again

public transport users are paying their way
[to work/back...thus too busy working..to protest in the streets]

lay-off...you guys that have nothing better to/do
than plan your next grand-scam...
your next[theft of]..public infastructure]

it should be free

you want the conveniance of a car
pay..the true-cost..

all cost paid via fuel..levies
[no tolls][no rego][no insurance]
if you bought..ya fuel...its coverd

and if govt makes ya licene useless..
via its many scams..taking points/cash

then public transport is free
free public/transport..might see the drunks off the roads too

I too have suggested more Monorails in the media for years Individual and to Economists. Their response [along with many OLO contributors last time Monorails or VFTs raised]: Australians and the Government cannot afford these; yet people are content losing family, friends and work colleagues in carnage on our roads each year.

Studies were conducted and found to be positive with the exception of funding.

Our country and the way people think is WAY behind and costing many lives.

mono-rails are old-hat
what we need is a modern/light rail

like the cane-trains..!

lets face-it..they get a return..
simply from cane..season/usage
come in pre-fab..sections...
and carry-stuff..for a cheap infastructure-cost

they only need a reasonable grade/slope
and can generate..their own charge downhill
and glide the rest of the way

only the uphill bits need power
and really only need link up to the current/transport-hubs
computers could design it by guidence of population numbers and a contour map in seconds...

manufacturors could be building its sections..in days...
[fiberglass manufacturors could be making the personal[instant]..[personal/mobility-pods...in days]...outfitters fitting them-out in weeks...

biking has taught me the value of coasting-up hills
with minimul assist...they could glide over/most hills
[as i hear the..electric-bikes do wonderfully..on hills]

Fantastic posts Hasbeen, I agree with your proposals.Posted by King Hazza

Here, here, I like it to.

Hasbeen (and others),

Overall, you make very good points. However,

Consider:

Does it take the 2499 people of your village (plus your good self) 45-60 minutes to travel 10km each morning and each evening?

No.

Are there many more jobs in your village for "city slickers" to take up so they can escape the city crap they have to deal with?

Not enough to alleviate congestion in the cities, I'm guessing.

Is housing unaffordable for 80%* of the population to live anywhere near their place of employment?

Not in comparison to the cities, at least.

The need for improved, adequate public transport in the cities is, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, getting desperate. Yet governments seem intent on wasting tax payer money on roads that simply encourage more road use and greater congestion. This in turn creates a spiral of road maintenance costs etc etc, which in turn takes cash away from rural expenditure, and also pushes up everyone's registration costs, and also leads to, for some strange reason, the desire to build more roads to alleviate congestion.

Therefore, PT use in the cities needs to be encouraged. This can be done by:
A: improving sevices
B: reducing costs to consumers.

(There's the environmental incentive on top of all this)

It is even argued by some number crunchers that free PT would, overall, cost the public purse less. I'm a bit dubious on this one though!

*Manufactured statistic, simply an educated guess. But I reckon a bit conservative

I am surprised that none of the discussion here has taken into account
that we may not be able to afford to drive a car to work in the near future.
The public system will have to cater for a lot of people who now drive
to work as a matter of course. How will that change be funded ?
Can the infrastructure cope with a 30 to 50 % increase in patronage ?
To make things difficult the change over will reduce the fuel tax
income as well.
Remember the charging schemes you are discussing will perhaps be made
redundant in just single digit years.
You are falling into the same trap that the politicians now live in.
ie that is everything will continue in the same straight line as it
has for the last fifty years.
Can we get the discussion on how to manage the change ?

brennie
You are missing the point. The public transport service is not run at a loss - it has already been paid for via the tax dollar. As I said if you read my post properly, it is about working out what is important and what should be funded by revenue and how much. I am not arguing the service should be free (a small charge) but this article talked about ridding of concessions and the like which goes against any principles of public 'service'.

If all public services were run at a profit or break-even we would be individually paying our taxes PLUS a lot more for fire, police and other essential services including hospital on top of revenue allocated to those areas.

There are a lot of hands out for a piece of the pie and it is how the pie is divided that should be the at the forefront of public discourse. Not only how the pie is divided but what should governments be funding

Pelican
I think you've misread the article. It doesn't advocate eliminating concessions at all, quite the reverse. It says that those who can afford it should pay the full cost of public transport, esp CBD workers or their employers.

Claudiecat I just re-read the article and you are right - the author spoke of means testing some concessions not reducing concessions for those least able to pay.