Queensland UTC +10
Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Links

Author Topic: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?  (Read 1727 times)

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19207
PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« on: October 08, 2010, 07:51:04 PM »
I thought I'd collect some ideas about how to pay for all this infrastructure. Clearly demand for PT is going through the roof, one only needs to look at the TransLink graphs to see patronage rocketing since 2004 and BUZ patronage going skywards.

I'm going to list a few already known, and maybe others can add to it.

Fare box revenue
Government subsidies
Advertising
Transit Oriented Development land deals
More efficient network (removing bus-rail competition/feeding rail system)
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19207
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2010, 08:17:17 PM »
Found something- from the Tourism and Transport Forum! :-w
http://www.apo.org.au/research/meeting-funding-challenges-public-transport  :is-


Revenue increase area
1. Optimised fares- discounted off peak

2. TOD Development
  - higher levels of patronage reduces cost/passenger
  - closer to transit hub, more likely to use PT

3. Congestion charging

4. Growing patronage in the OFF peak (take note QR!!!)

Quote
growing patronage: Growing patronage is a revenue- generating strategy that should not be neglected given its strong support of broader transport objectives. As a net revenue raising measure, it will be most effective if growth can be focused in the off peak. if growth occurs in the peak period, it may require significant capital investment to increase capacity

5. implementing infrastructure levies in the form of additional taxes on new housing and commercial developments, particularly in fringe suburban growth areas, can result in a moderate financial benefit.

Cost savings areas
Improving workforce productivity:
Quote
Labour is a significant proportion of the operating costs of public transport operators, ranging from 60-80% of costs for rail operators to 40-60% for bus operators. improving workforce productivity by ensuring that staff are deployed efficiently can therefore have a significant impact on an operator’s cost position.
... Maybe running lots and lots of buses isn't so efficient. Light Rail?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 08:49:55 PM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline nikko

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2010, 08:59:50 PM »
Probably the most glaring oversight in your list is rent revenue from providing commercial opportunities within PT infrastructure (i.e. KGSBS shopfronts, railway stations, concession stands at interchanges/stations). This is how Hong Kong MTR run at profit - they provide commercial space (including entire shopping centres) on their property to maximise revenue.


Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19207
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2010, 09:01:55 PM »
Those two spaces for rent at King George Square are still empty. What's with that?
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline dwb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1924
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2010, 03:21:43 PM »
property taxes, ie rates or land use levy.

redirection of payroll taxes.... commercial players in CBD are some of the biggest winners from state provided pt, they should help pay for it... they do pay for their executive car parks!

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19207
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2010, 03:43:17 PM »
What do people think about special fare zones? like if a station is fast tracked, that access to that station is, I don't know, 1% more to use it?
In the United States, local areas often have a referendum about a proposal that has both the mode and the size of the tax/rate/levy.
So in effect, they vote to tax themselves. This is how many light rail projects have come about- by a petition, followed by a referendum in the local area
and then a tax of half a cent or 1 cent sales tax. Those half and one cents really do add up!!!

In SEQ, this might be more like a certain levy for a certain area- so something like Kippa Ring could be fast tracked there if the community
supported levying themselves for that specific purpose. The same could be done with CAMCOS and the Gold Coast extension to the Airport.
You can even do this down to the station level- so if there was enough support for Ellen Grove or Springfield Central, then they could come online
much earlier.

The propose-vote-tax idea is also interesting because it assumes nothing- it makes the people themselves do the tradeoff and decide how much service they want/how much they want to pay. The funds would have to be limited to a certain proportion though. The state needs to put in its fair share too for capital works.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19207
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2010, 03:46:21 PM »
Had a mischievous idea--- selling muffins and bottled water on the platform!!!  ;D
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline dwb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1924
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2010, 03:54:30 PM »
Quote
What do people think about special fare zones?

I don't think this would be a good idea, basically because of equity concerns.

Government does however charge new development for infrastructure already, just not rail lines.

Given other areas on the same road for instance may benefit just as much as those where the new station is, I don't think we should charge extra for the new station, especially when they already probably have a lower service than the rest of the community.

What we need is a broad based low level tax, something akin to the ambulance levy. Users and non-users alike should pay it as users and non-users broadly benefit.

Offline ButFli

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2010, 04:42:19 PM »
Users and non-users alike should pay it as users and non-users broadly benefit.

Not all non-users benefit. It would be unfair for a resident of Charleville to be paying a special levy to build light rail in Brisbane.

Offline dwb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1924
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2010, 05:06:32 PM »
Quote
Not all non-users benefit. It would be unfair for a resident of Charleville to be paying a special levy to build light rail in Brisbane.

They already do, to a certain extent, through general revenues.

HOWEVER, a rates based levy would seem to imply you charge the levy in coverage areas... ie levy to TTA in SEQ, levy to QConnect in other regional areas with service.

And yes, I still do think that regional users "gain" if not benefit from the provision of good quality public transport in the state capital, economically, and otherwise.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19207
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2010, 05:16:31 PM »
Quote
I don't think we should charge extra for the new station, especially when they already probably have a lower service than the rest of the community.

Possibly, but if there is no money, there is no station. Which is the most-worst outcome.
Tricky situation, as there may not be a best outcome, but more-worse and less-worse options.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19207
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2010, 05:18:42 PM »
Quote
And yes, I still do think that regional users "gain" if not benefit from the provision of good quality public transport in the state capital, economically, and otherwise.

There might be different degrees of gain, which would justify different degrees of levy.
A local area which taxes itself for a PT project in that area does so because they benefit the most than, say someone living at the other end of the state.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline ButFli

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2010, 09:03:42 PM »
And yes, I still do think that regional users "gain" if not benefit from the provision of good quality public transport in the state capital, economically, and otherwise.

Come on, man. That's about as realistic as Mad Katter saying SEQ would be on it's knees if FNQ became a separate state. (Somehow I don't think he meant we'd be kneeling to thank the Lord we'd been relieved of that burden.)

What possible benefit, economic or otherwise, does Charleville get from public transport in Brisbane?

Offline Jonno

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1937
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2010, 09:18:10 PM »

What possible benefit, economic or otherwise, does Charleville get from public transport in Brisbane?

The only benefit they get is from the savings in wasted money on freeway, tunnel and motorway expenditure which may free up some money for their region but I know that is not what you meant.  IMHO there is ample tax money to invest in PT if we stop wasting billions on expanding roads, building the next missing link/bypass, etc.  And every year we do this we reduce the overall burden on the tax dollar from road trauma, health costs, etc.  Then the moementuem grows.  The key is not to waste another cent on another freeway.  

somebody

  • Guest
Re: PT Financing: Alternative funding models?
« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2010, 04:59:14 PM »
The key is not to waste another cent on another freeway.  
I think the first key is to spend the current budget smarter.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan