A few more points:
-For traffic congestion- just increase the strictness of applying for a full licence- less idiots on the road, the remaining road users are safer and can get around faster (we might even be able to push the speed limit back up), and less jams.
And to further build on it, everyone in the nation must re-sit a driver's competence test measuring their judgement and perception skills, control of their own vehicles and logic when approaching road circumstances- and be immediately banned if they cut across multiple lanes at the last minute for a turnoff, try to make a right turn into a driveway on a busy street when there is a roundabout only meters ahead, or drive slower than 20km under the speed limit in a camera zone- and will be given no explanation why as to not already know painfully outlines why they should not be allowed to control a car.
Do that, and watch situations GREATLY improve!

For planning- absolutely, positively MUST be the government entirely behind it. Private companies, accountable to NOBODY except shareholders, must not under any circumstances be allowed to get any input on public infrastructure at all, outside a single contract to construct it per government regulations. Unless you expect to tell me a private company will build the (expensive) roads and similar alterations, out of the kindness of their hearts with the broad public in mind, I will remain skeptical and be thinking about the Lane Cove Tunnel, Telstra and Qantas as examples of the 'success' of previous attempts (considering the people running Telstra and MacBank are the richest in the country, I might add). Face it, companies expect to make a profit, which means that the input will always cost us more- for essentially the same thing minus the broader wellbeing of the public when drawing up the plans.
Pay more peanuts, you just get a gorilla.

Peter Hume wrote commenting on my quote:

"We are not going to be free, autonomous individuals, and government planning may be good or bad depending on how it is done."

It is not for you to tell other people they are not going to be free, or should not be free. The question is, what force is justified to prevent them doing what they want, provided that are not aggressing against others?

Dear Peter,

I recognise reality. We are not going to be free, autonomous individuals because nobody can be and live in society. We have many constraints put on us. I am just recognising the existence of forces that prevent us from being free, autonomous individuals.

You also wrote:

Government's attempted planning of society is not ethical, because it alone exercises a monopoly of force and threats, and there is no reason why force or threats should be the basis of social co-operation unless it is to prevent aggression, which does not qualify urban planning.

Dear Peter,

Government does have a monopoly of force but not of threats. Private individuals or corporations have many threats at their disposal. Groups or individuals can shut up less well-resourced opponents by threats of defamation suits for one example.

It would be good if nobody, including the government, used force. However, I prefer government to have a monopoly of force and protect me against criminals who use force illegally. I feel safer in a democratic country ruled by law.

The fact is that there is great planning in our society. The corporations could not exist and remain profitable entities if they did not plan their activities. However, their planning may not be in the interest of the general public. Democratic government represents the interests of the general public. That justifies planning.

You also wrote: "As to whether government planning 'may be good or bad, depending how it is done', how would you prove that?"

By examples of good and bad results from planning. Effective planning must consider both benefits and costs.

Real estate developers should be kept off government boards which control planning

Quite apart from their accountability to shareholders, private businesses are also far more accountable to the public than governments are.

This is because a) every payment is voluntary, b) you know how much you paid, c) for which service, d) for whom. Even those who didn't buy from the business have an accurate account: they know they paid nothing and were not forced to consume or to pay for others to consume the service.

By contrast, most taxes are hidden. When did any government ever give you an account of how much of your money they have taken? And spent on what? For whom? What corporations got handouts and subsidies taken from your pay packet?

There is no evidence for the common assumption that government represents society. For starters, voting is compulsory. You can't build any theory of consent on that. Then, you only get a vote once every three years. Then, you don't get to vote for any policy, but only for a person. If he lies, you have no remedy in fraud. Then, there is no way to distinguish policies you want, from policies you don't: you only get to vote on a bundle. Then, there is no way of knowing whether a majority in fact voted for a given policy, or not. There is no way of knowing what back-room deal was done with party factions to bribe vocal minorities in marginal seats.

Every dollar is a vote in the market democracy, and everyone votes multiple times per day - directly. Profit is a direct result of the behaviour of the masses in preferring a given service because it satisfies their most urgently-felt wants.

The market is far more representative of society's will than any government ever has been, or ever can be. If it is true that government planning is beneficial, then there is no need to use force to fund it, is there?

The problems of the Lane Cove Tunnel and Telstra are problems of government planning, not markets:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/009796.asp

King Hazza
I will give you three examples of how useless our QLD gov is when it comes to planning and doing things.

1. Suncorp stadium redevelopment.
The gov called for tenders, then paid in excess of three times the original price (I think), yet, if that had been a public company paying the bill, the contractor would have been told to 'suck eggs' when they presented such an inflated bill.

2. The goodwill bridge.
Original tender quote, about $13.5 millon. End price $63 million.

3. Northbank develpoment.
I recall it was 'Watpac' who was the succesfull applicant, yet, once they won the tender it was then put to public comment and rejected and, concequently, 'canned'. No doubt it will be a 'law suit' in waiting for the 'tax payer' to once again fund.

How can any government approve any project, then pay double, tripple or even quodruple for the job simply because they hold the 'public cheque book'?

Private enterprise would simply not allow it's self to be 'walked over' like our government or the shareholders would simply dump the stock.

What a load of hopeless twaddle this article is!!

Come Prime Minister, what we need from you is an explanation as to why continuous massive expansion is in our best interests.

Fifteen years ago there was a major national Federally funded exercise to try and determine Australia's carrying capacity and hence optimum balance between quality of life and environmental wellbeing.

The results were pretty profoundly conclusive; that we should stabilise out population at about 24 million and steer away from the continuous expansionist paradigm and towards a dynamic steady-state economy. One of the major contributors to this finding was the Federal Government's scientific arm - the CSIRO.

Crikey, what sort of drug is Rudd on? He's rabbling on about healthy cities while doing his damnedest to stress out our already highly stressed cities by pushing more and more people into them at a record rate! And he's got absolutely no mandate to do this!!

Our highly unillustrious PM absolutely MUST tell us why the Carrying Capacity Inquiry finding no longer applies or why he has chosen to go directly against it.

I'm looking forward to seeing a follow-up article on OLO next week!!

Problem with government/private contracting is that both groups mostly pay another (usually the same) company to construct the infrastructure (hence why toll boths tend to be installed on the finished highway or tunnel).

The major problem is post-construction ethics and responsibilities.
The government simply pays the cost of construction and maintenance- a private company expects to make a profit (as lets face it, no private company would spend hundreds of millions, reaching billions on something they will get no return over).

As a result, these infrastructural projects intend to get the maximum charge out of public users they can get away with, and because of shareholder interests being the primary concern for the company, there is a greater incentive to charge more, and cut corners for services.

Public-owned infrastructure only charges to cover costs (unless the government is corrupt and greedy- although in a more precarious position if the public didn't like it. A private company really has no choice but to try to get additional money out of it any way they can, with the only consideration being if the people they're ripping off have much other choice but to use these roads.
For NEW roads, it would mean little change has made to traffic jams, and if EXISTING roads are acquired, it makes traffic WORSE as it creates an incentive to use others.

Initial construction of the project can be outsourced by either party with little difference- but the ownership and running is a different story.