Article: Developers offered land in return for train station upgrades

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Developers offered land in return for train station upgrades

About time ....

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 8m

Before the 7am news on @612brisbane chat about ' value capture ' around rail/transit see http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/developers-offered-land-in-return-for-train-station-upgrades/story-fnihsrf2-1226666497126 ... some background - hot topic

[ozbob]

612 ABC Brisbane Breakfast with Spencer Howson

Land near train lines could be sold to pay for disability compliance

20 June 2013 , 7:57 AM by Spencer Howson

Queensland Rail need cash . It faces a $2 billion bill to make stations disability compliant, and there are compensation claims for allegedly ignoring the needs of people with disabilities.

To raise the money State Government-owned land around Brisbanes train stations could be sold to private investors for development. The cash raised from the sales would be used to upgrade stations to meet disability compliance standards.

So around Brisbane, where is there land that could be developed and how much revenue could it raise. Robert Dow is from Rail Back on Track - Public Transport Advocacy Group

Click --> here!

[Fares_Fair]

Good interview by Robert Dow.

Nambour DDA upgrade gets a mention, Indooroopilly, Melbourne, etc.

[ozbob]

Good interview by Robert Dow.

Nambour DDA upgrade gets a mention, Indooroopilly, Melbourne, etc.

Thanks ... we push on ...   

[Old Northern Road]

Bowen Hills doesn't have a public car park. Not much land around Auchenflower either unless they are talking about the small car park. Actually not much land around most stations in Brisbane that hasn't been turned into a car park.

[mufreight]

The options are there either build over the car park and air rights over the tracks or put the car parking over the tracks as an air rights development and use the existing car employee and departmental car parking space as the base levels for a high rise development, at Bowen Hills if the developer also took up the current light industrial/retail strip bordering Abbortsford Road on the railway side a quite significant high value, high density residential and commercial development could be carried out, one the government could make more out of than some of the other proposals.
Some of the strip between the railway line and Abbortsford Road the railways already own and I understand some of the remainder is also government owned.

[Jonno]

Or we could look at leading practice from around the globe ...and develop with little to no parking!!!

[BrizCommuter]

Any development needs to allow for future proofing for track amplification, platform extensions, etc.

[Golliwog]

I'd still like to see some of the developments remain government owned to get an ongoing revenue stream for QR that will hopefully grow over time.

[somebody]

Or we could look at leading practice from around the globe ...and develop with little to no parking!!!

I understand where you are coming from, and this is fine for inner Brisbane, but a mistake we will live to regret after about 4-6 stations from Central. Also its not world leading practice to build suburban railways without car parks. Not in Europe or Nth America.

That may be fair enough at Ormeau, but not at Indooroopilly which is 6 stations from Central.  Toombul probably not either.  I lean towards Jonno at Alderley, Fairfield and Norman Park too.

[SurfRail]

TransLink's 10km exclusion rule was fairly solid.

[ozbob]

Yes, agree.  And agree with Simon.  Park n' ride is not needed inner sub  (some disabled spaces notwithstanding), certainly is a case though for the middle outer regions though.

[Jonno]

Or we could look at leading practice from around the globe ...and develop with little to no parking!!!

I understand where you are coming from, and this is fine for inner Brisbane, but a mistake we will live to regret after about 4-6 stations from Central. Also its not world leading practice to build suburban railways without car parks. Not in Europe or Nth America.

Every urban design and town planning discussion is firmly focused on the significant benefits of walkability, mixed use suburbs, place creation and cycling. E.g. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/06/transit-might-not-be-essential-transit-oriented-development/5851/

Certainly the  close to centre (not just the CBD) and major station should be first but eventually all suburbs need to transition into walkable mixed use neighbourhoods.

[Golliwog]

I'd still like to see some of the developments remain government owned to get an ongoing revenue stream for QR that will hopefully grow over time.

The one way to make these ghetto's that become a place the working family works to avoid along with the adjacent station is to make them govt owned. Perhaps retain the land and 99 year lease. But the govt needs the capital now to fix the station now, so maybe not.

What about South Bank? Seems to be a fairly popular destination. Done by a QLD Government Statutory Corporation. http://www.southbankcorporation.com.au/our-heritage-and-milestones

I agree, the government needs the money now, so sell some to developers, but others should be retained and developed and rented out by the state.

Always remember to take whatever the government spiel is with a bit of salt, for instance, despite their constant carping about "Debt is bad" the current availability PPP (as far as I can see anyway) is basically getting the private sector to do the loan, and then we guarantee we will pay them money over time so that in the long run, they make their money back. So in effect, it's exactly the same as if we borrowed the money ourselves, but at commercial rather than government rates. So yes, I'm willing to accept that our finances are not in a good position, but are they as dire as the government likes to keep saying they are? I don't think so.

[johnnigh]

Not dire at all, no matter all the Chicken-Lickens cluck and squawk. As long as the borrowed money is returning a good rate, the money will be well spent, just as your mortgage is probably well spent. The problem is sinking funds into bad investments, such as Legacy Way, Melbourne's East-West link and most other large scale road projects, which have benefit ratios less than one. Almost all PT and active transport investments have rates of return far above unity, mainly because we haven't used up the best opportunities, due to political stupidity and crass populism.

The so-called ratings agencies are simply as corrupted by false thinking about rates of return (ignoring social or non-direct economic benefits, such as less health costs to name one). So govts and super funds swallow the nonsense and pay/demand higher interest rates where they should be paying less for investments in PT etc.

And in the present environment, a govt can borrow at extraordinarily low rates, so they should be borrowing up all they can swallow and investing in good projects of which there is no shortage. Why don't they? Populism fanned extravagantly by the financiers who really haven't got a clue, simple-minded harrumphers locked onto their unfortunate rules, most of which are wrong.

[mufreight]

I'd still like to see some of the developments remain government owned to get an ongoing revenue stream for QR that will hopefully grow over time.

The one way to make these ghetto's that become a place the working family works to avoid along with the adjacent station is to make them govt owned. Perhaps retain the land and 99 year lease. But the govt needs the capital now to fix the station now, so maybe not.

What about South Bank? Seems to be a fairly popular destination. Done by a QLD Government Statutory Corporation. http://www.southbankcorporation.com.au/our-heritage-and-milestones

I agree, the government needs the money now, so sell some to developers, but others should be retained and developed and rented out by the state.

Always remember to take whatever the government spiel is with a bit of salt, for instance, despite their constant carping about "Debt is bad" the current availability PPP (as far as I can see anyway) is basically getting the private sector to do the loan, and then we guarantee we will pay them money over time so that in the long run, they make their money back. So in effect, it's exactly the same as if we borrowed the money ourselves, but at commercial rather than government rates. So yes, I'm willing to accept that our finances are not in a good position, but are they as dire as the government likes to keep saying they are? I don't think so.

The repayment of the PPP means that over time not only is a higher rate of interest paid on the initial borrowing/investment, commercial rates as against government rates but there is a profit factor added in for the PPP and the repayment period would be longer therefor the total cost of the project is greater and who pays, YEP you got it, the Taxpayer

[#Metro]

The repayment of the PPP means that over time not only is a higher rate of interest paid on the initial borrowing/investment, commercial rates as against government rates but there is a profit factor added in for the PPP and the repayment period would be longer therefor the total cost of the project is greater and who pays, YEP you got it, the Taxpayer

Governments seem to do a good job of announcing and building projects but a pretty bad job of maintenance and asset planning over long timeframes and lifecycles of infrastructure (30-40 years).

This is a bit like those rentals you get for whitegoods. You convert a large capital cost into a stream of small payments that stretch out over a long period of time. It is almost a bit like renting or buying a house. Which one is "right" doesn't have a defined answer IMHO.

[somebody]

1) What is the difference between interest rates charged to a multi-national with a string credit rating compared to Australian state govt?

It's a few full per cent p.a. I'm sure.  Not nothing.