Public Transport, Commonwealth Games, real gaming, crazy links

[tcpip]

A couple of weeks ago The Age raised possibility of free public transport (paid through rates) as a means to relieve congestion adn pollution, Prosper Australia have asked me to write a an article on said topic. Anyone have some clever ideas on how to break this proposal? (special kudos to severina_242 for some good ideas). On a related matter I've discovered that two previous articles on a similar theme have made their way to the School of Cooperative Individualism library. Prosper Australia have also approached me to do more public relations work for them.

All systems go for the Ballarat Install Fest. I've written general public and IT literate press releases and have started some modest distributions. This weekend will see it crank up a couple of notches with training on Sunday. The event itself is all happening during the Commonwealth games, which look like they'll be a bit of non-event, with the exception of the graffiti event (hat-tip to adricongirl and the StolenWealth games. Interesting reference to previous paragraph - what will be the net loss of the Commonwealth games? Will it be more than the $340 million required to provide free public transport for a year?

Three gaming events since my last post; Outbreak of Heresy last Sunday has led the party to Wallachia after escaping the castle of the lich of Vlad Tepes (hey, the body was never found!), last night was Dogs in the Vineyard which involved convincing the local Steward to let two "Mountain People" (read: Amerindians) marry and pray with rest of the faithful as his refusual was allowing demonic influences into the town (very cool narrativism), and finally, I've started composing a RuneQuest II module for RetroCon. Adventures continue on Sunday with GURPS Australian Noir. Hell that's a lot of dice-rolling and cooperative storytelling.

Want to go on SBS's Insight program? Register here. Ten worst dictators (hat-tip artbroken. Death of a Liberal Party Nazi. Korea calls for a Linux city. The USA really is going theocratic.

Comments

[cjander.livejournal.com]

A fair price does not refer to comparisons with other cities (though to compare Melbourne and Sydney to systems in Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Canberra is rather unfair), but rather in reference to the economic price. That is, a reflection of true value of the service.

PT fares do not cover the full cost of the system - no where near it. But the proportion of cost fairly accurately - in my view - reflects the private benefit of PT travel. There are huge positive externalities involved in PT use, and that is why it is appropriate that the State subsidises PT.

Private Road transport users do not pay a fair price. The massive externalities of private car use (environmental, pollution, road trauma, health costs etc.) are NOT borne by the private car user. There is some social benefit to private car use (ie improved mobility), but no social benefit to exclusive car dependency. That is why we should be concentrating on making car users pay a fairer price for car based travel through tradition means (petrol taxes) as well as newer methodologies such as car parking taxes, congestion charges etc.

In terms of Local Government rates as a method of collection I fear that while this may work in some LGA's, but many LGA's do not have universal transport choice. For instance in Moreland there are excellent PT services in Brunswick and Coburg, but the rest of the municipality suffers from bad transport choice. A supplementary rate (which I think is allowed under the current Local Govt Act) would disproportionately benefit Brunswick & Coburg - the wealthiest areas of Moreland, compared to the transport poor, and disadvantaged areas of Fawkner and Glenroy. Hence why I continue to be sceptical of its value.

If your interested in PT subsidies provided by the government I strongly suggest you contact Glenyys Romanes. Glenyys is the Upper House MP for Melbourne Province, is on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and is pretty much an expert in this area.

Congestion fees

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Is a terrible implementation of a good idea. It should be charged per sq meter of land-use not per car-parking space.

I may indeed talk to Glenyys about PT issues; I need excuse to drop into the William St office and say hello...

Re: Congestion fees

[cjander.livejournal.com]

Quite possibly. But coming from a position where Bracks would not countenance the idea two years ago to this imperfect implementation is a huge step.

In terms of cultural change the congestion levy on long term car parking spaces is a great leap forward.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

Private Road transport users do not pay a fair price. The massive externalities of private car use (environmental, pollution, road trauma, health costs etc.) are NOT borne by the private car user.

I agree with the first of those sentences. Private transport users pay way more than a fair price, in order to provide tax revenue to other parts of the community, including public transport. Road trauma and health costs ARE borne by the road users, both in terms of the actual effects of the events, as well as massive insurance costs. We get roughly 100% taxation on petrol, large rego charges and ever increasing numbers of taxation cameras on top of that.

Eh?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing. You say you agree and your statements say you disagree.

The relative cost-payment according to the PTUA is as follows;

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml

Re: Eh?

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

I'm agreeing that the burden on cars is unfair, but not in the direction suggested previously.

Roads are a necessity to the whole of our society. We need them for walking, riding bikes, etc, not just driving cars, and many need them in order to earn a living. Using the PTUA's figures alone ignores two major things:

1) How many public necessities are user-funded? Schools are almost 100% tax-funded. Health and public transport are largely tax funded. Roads are already far closer to user-funded than most other public services, so why should it be considered "fair" to make them even moreso, unless you want a user-pays hospital system and a user-pays school system along with it.

2) Roads are used by more than just car drivers, yet there seems to be an effort here to charge car users for everything and charge those who walk, use bikes, etc, nothing at all. We (at least, city-dwellers) are all road users when we go anywhere, including when we catch trams and buses. While some of the costs (eg. pollution) are attributable largely to cars, the majority are shared by all road users.

Re: Eh?

[cjander.livejournal.com]

I agree that the PTUA is a little blinkered in regards to their costings and their attitude to road building.

However, most experts will tell you that economically we do not charge a fair price for single car travel compared to other forms of mass transport (PT, not walking or riding). It goes back to public vs private benefit issue. There is a MUCH smaller public benefit to me driving into the city alone each day, then catching the train into the city. My argument at the moment is that we do not recognise it by building in financial incentives to drive, and financial dis-iocentives to use PT

Re: Eh?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

1) I don't consider relevant to the discussion at hand.

2) I agree there are some positive externalities to roads that have not been taken into account. However, checking the PTUA figures carefully they have been careful to exclude the minimal use of roads by public transport (e.g., in land use values) and have adopted the minimum of estimates.

Where it is not the case, I think it would be relatively easy to calculate the relative costs - simply by counting the number of public versus private vehicles over a period of time on a stretch of road (adjust for tonnage if one likes)! I would be surprised if it was greater that 5%.