[COM] South Road Superway | $842m | 3km

[Dog]

Should just start at either end and just keep going till finished there is a huge cost/waste in stopping and starting. Look at all the expertise and equipment now working at each end, dismantling, all this, re tendering, and procrastination would be a disaster. If its built efficiently it doesn't matter if its funded by tax or toll, still costs us just as much, but much more if we stuff around.

[Amused]

I'm all for toll roads that parallel existing roads as an alternative to traffic but not so much replacing existing backlogged roads such as South Road with a toll road as it is taking away tax payer funded (already paid for) roads and replacing it with a user pay system. So, to my current value system, a toll on the Northern Connector would be a good use of tolling. Having said that, pragmatically, I've used the northern expressway on a number of occasions and I just do not see the traffic volume to make a toll road (Northern Connector) justifiable. The few cars that could potentially utilise the connector would just use Port Wakefield instead to avoid the toll. Trucks on the other hand might continue through but one wouldn't make enough money off of heavy transport alone to justify a 1.1 billion dollar road.
I think in this case, we just need to hope making a free Northern Connector will go some way to making back some value in improved thoroughfare and thus increased productivity.

In summary I think the reason I feel that toll roads on any part of the north/south road corridor is dirty is thus; we require these roads not because of positive or bonus growth requiring new infrastructure for the future, but rather that s hithouse planning over the years completely hamstrung positive growth of any kind. The taxpayers have paid countless monies to inept Government and shocking planning, the taxpayers should not have to suffer further to buy leadership out of their poor previous planning.

[Aidan]

I'm all for toll roads that parallel existing roads as an alternative to traffic but not so much replacing existing backlogged roads such as South Road with a toll road as it is taking away tax payer funded (already paid for) roads and replacing it with a user pay system. So, to my current value system, a toll on the Northern Connector would be a good use of tolling. Having said that, pragmatically, I've used the northern expressway on a number of occasions and I just do not see the traffic volume to make a toll road (Northern Connector) justifiable. The few cars that could potentially utilise the connector would just use Port Wakefield instead to avoid the toll. Trucks on the other hand might continue through but one wouldn't make enough money off of heavy transport alone to justify a 1.1 billion dollar road.

How much money per year would you say was needed to justify it?

I think in this case, we just need to hope making a free Northern Connector will go some way to making back some value in improved thoroughfare and thus increased productivity.

Would a tolled Northern Connector not also do so?

[Dog]

Australians now pay $4,480 per minute or $9bn over the next 4 years in diesel fuel subsidies. Maybe we would be better spending this on the roads to reduce the amount of fuel we actually use. Taking off the fuel subsidies may also encourage more hybrid Diesel/electric trucks. (Just starting to be used in Europe) and also make rail more viable.

[Aidan]

Australians now pay $4,480 per minute or $9bn over the next 4 years in diesel fuel subsidies. Maybe we would be better spending this on the roads to reduce the amount of fuel we actually use. Taking off the fuel subsidies may also encourage more hybrid Diesel/electric trucks. (Just starting to be used in Europe) and also make rail more viable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that we don't actually pay any diesel fuel subsidies at all. Diesel used on public roads and railways is taxed to fund public roads and railways, whereas diesel used by farmers and miners is exempt from that tax because it's not being used in a way that directly benefits from that tax.

[Dog]

I just came across that $9,000,000,000 figure recently and was blown away. but thinking about it I thinking you are right is just for farmers and miners. But we do actually pay for it!

[Aidan]

I just came across that $9,000,000,000 figure recently and was blown away.

I think that was the intention - why else would whoever's website you found it on have expressed it as a 4 year figure?

but thinking about it I thinking you are right is just for farmers and miners. But we do actually pay for it!

That's disputable. Most people would not regard an exemption from a levy as a subsidy.

[Dog]

Aidan, yes the $9bn figure was from the conservation foundation of Australia, but just did some googling and according to the financial review all off road fuel tax rebates are closer to $5bn per year or $20bn over 4 years this covers aviation as well.

I guess technically a tax rebates is not a subsidy, but still a loss to general revenue that has to be made up elsewhere.

But the more interesting fact was that of the fuel taxes the rest of us do pay only 25% are returned to spend on roads.

[claybro]

The current Liberal government over here in the west isn't too keen on toll roads over here either. It's less of an issue here though than SA while the resources dollars keep flowing in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the situation in Perth is different in that decades ago, the WA state government placed a separate levy on fuel which was quarantined specifically for the construction of Perths extensive freeway system. So in reality all Perth motorists have been paying a hidden toll for decades. Not sure if the levy still applies, but given Perth is light years ahead in road infrastructure, they do not have the backlog we have to contend with here, and yes, the mining royalties are currently helping. The reluctance of various state governments in SA to even acknowledge our road requirements let alone figure out how to fund them and a population completely spooked by freeways/tollways is why we are in the mess we are. It seems many motorists in SA would prefer to trundle along on sub standard goat tracks than pay tolls for a modern road network. I do believe whoever wins the Federal election, and which ever state government is in power here, this state will be dragged kicking and screaming into the toll funding of road financing.

[drsmith]

I don't know the specifics of any state based fuel levy in WA, but state based fuel levies might date back to this,

The states used to levy fuel franchise fees, but after Ha v New South Wales these were seen as unconstitutional, so the federal government introduced an excise and gave the revenue to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_Australia

I do remember hearing about fuel being cheaper in Queensland than elsewhere. Their state based subsidy that operated till 2009 may have been in response to the to the feds taking over fuel levies as described in the above article. IIRC, they didn't have a state based fuel levy when the other states did.

[Amused]

I'm all for toll roads that parallel existing roads as an alternative to traffic but not so much replacing existing backlogged roads such as South Road with a toll road as it is taking away tax payer funded (already paid for) roads and replacing it with a user pay system. So, to my current value system, a toll on the Northern Connector would be a good use of tolling. Having said that, pragmatically, I've used the northern expressway on a number of occasions and I just do not see the traffic volume to make a toll road (Northern Connector) justifiable. The few cars that could potentially utilise the connector would just use Port Wakefield instead to avoid the toll. Trucks on the other hand might continue through but one wouldn't make enough money off of heavy transport alone to justify a 1.1 billion dollar road.

How much money per year would you say was needed to justify it?

I think in this case, we just need to hope making a free Northern Connector will go some way to making back some value in improved thoroughfare and thus increased productivity.

Would a tolled Northern Connector not also do so?

I'm happy to be proved wrong but I just don't think so. I would hesitate to put a value on how much one would need to derive from a toll road to justify building it AND making it into a toll road.
I suppose the first question we'd need to ask ourselves is how many vehicles will be travelling from near Virginia who are going to be travelling all of the way past town and further down south? The second question is, are the suburbs that the Northern Connector will fringe really the 'opulent' suburbs that are likely going to house people with the financial capacity to use a tollway regularly? Otherwise we're going to have one beautiful, empty road.

Having said that. Induced demand. With improved access we might see more middle class families moving further north...

I dunno, I'm not playing expert, just playing devil's advocate.

[rubberman]

One of the problems with making South Road a toll road is that traditionally people have the choice of using the new you beaut tollway, or the existing road system. The reason for this is that the government can say that people are no worse off if they don't want to pay a toll, but if they are prepared to pay a toll, they get the faster option. ie the traditional model would have a new tollway in parallel with the existing South Road. One could then decide whether or not to pay the toll and travel fast, or use the existing South Road and live with the delays. This is not possible for South Road. If you make South Road a toll road, you will cut off existing free infrastructure. ie people can argue they are worse off. When you cut off the existing infrastructure, you get some major public push back for that reason. This happened in Sydney where the Government tried to close local roads to force people onto the tollway. Not pretty.

[Waewick]

I'm all for toll roads that parallel existing roads as an alternative to traffic but not so much replacing existing backlogged roads such as South Road with a toll road as it is taking away tax payer funded (already paid for) roads and replacing it with a user pay system. So, to my current value system, a toll on the Northern Connector would be a good use of tolling. Having said that, pragmatically, I've used the northern expressway on a number of occasions and I just do not see the traffic volume to make a toll road (Northern Connector) justifiable. The few cars that could potentially utilise the connector would just use Port Wakefield instead to avoid the toll. Trucks on the other hand might continue through but one wouldn't make enough money off of heavy transport alone to justify a 1.1 billion dollar road.

How much money per year would you say was needed to justify it?

I think in this case, we just need to hope making a free Northern Connector will go some way to making back some value in improved thoroughfare and thus increased productivity.

Would a tolled Northern Connector not also do so?

to justify 1.1 Billion dollars of investment, you'd be wanting to return about 60-70m per annum - so around 6-7% return.

otherwise there is little point investing. That being said, I'm not sure on the accounting standards and depreciation allowed on a roadway, so that 60-70M might drop a bit to allow for that.

I take the Northern Connector occasionally, can't say I have ever been on there when there is more than 20 or so cars.

[Aidan]

I'm all for toll roads that parallel existing roads as an alternative to traffic but not so much replacing existing backlogged roads such as South Road with a toll road as it is taking away tax payer funded (already paid for) roads and replacing it with a user pay system. So, to my current value system, a toll on the Northern Connector would be a good use of tolling. Having said that, pragmatically, I've used the northern expressway on a number of occasions and I just do not see the traffic volume to make a toll road (Northern Connector) justifiable. The few cars that could potentially utilise the connector would just use Port Wakefield instead to avoid the toll. Trucks on the other hand might continue through but one wouldn't make enough money off of heavy transport alone to justify a 1.1 billion dollar road.

How much money per year would you say was needed to justify it?

I think in this case, we just need to hope making a free Northern Connector will go some way to making back some value in improved thoroughfare and thus increased productivity.

Would a tolled Northern Connector not also do so?

to justify 1.1 Billion dollars of investment, you'd be wanting to return about 60-70m per annum - so around 6-7% return.

otherwise there is little point investing. That being said, I'm not sure on the accounting standards and depreciation allowed on a roadway, so that 60-70M might drop a bit to allow for that.

That might be the amount needed to justify building it as a fully commercial project by the private sector, but why should that be the standard we use? The public sector could probably finance it at about half the cost, and direct return on investment was never one of the reasons to build it anyway; merely mitigation of one of the reasons not to build it.

I take the Northern Connector occasionally, can't say I have ever been on there when there is more than 20 or so cars.

How can you take it when it hasn't been built yet?

[Waewick]

sorry I meant the Northern Expressway

you are right thought, Governments should been pouring money into infrastructure - but they won't and they can't.

Our big hope is Abbott getting superfunds to invest in it.