[U/C] M2 North-South Motorway

[SBD]

I think the fairest way to fund the state component of the N-S Motorway upgrade and CBD rail tunnel is a petrol and diesel levy on metropolitan Adelaide motorists (maybe 5c per litre), with funds raised by this levy to go 100% to funding the construction. This would be enshrined by state legislation that these funds cannot be used for any other purpose.

Once these 2 major transport projects are completed (which might be 15-20 years time), the levy would be removed.

So if I drive a car powered by batteries, hydrogen or LPG, I can be exempt from your levy?

If I live outside of the metro area, and drive through it every day, I am exempt too? Except for the groceries I buy that travelled on a diesel truck, unless the driver had the foresight to fuel up outside of the metro area.

[bits]

All future economic growth that leads to additional tax takes should also be excluded from being spent on those that didn't pay. Eg don't go using North-South Motorway growth money on regional roads or hospitals.
If additional businesses join SA due to the more efficient road network make sure those jobs are only available to those that paid.

[normh]

I think the fairest way to fund the state component of the N-S Motorway upgrade and CBD rail tunnel is a petrol and diesel levy on metropolitan Adelaide motorists (maybe 5c per litre), with funds raised by this levy to go 100% to funding the construction. This would be enshrined by state legislation that these funds cannot be used for any other purpose.

Once these 2 major transport projects are completed (which might be 15-20 years time), the levy would be removed.

The "user pays" model for funding of community infrastructure, a model we are tending to use more frequently in many areas, has problems.

eg - Road, Public Transport, Hospitals, Police, Water etc. Even your local street, only those who live on it pay for it? once the slope starts where does it end?

The problem with all types of "user pays" schemes is there are winners and losers.
Just thinking of roads if we institute
cents/litre - those in electric cars get a free ride
cents/km - those in the country are disadvantaged
toll road - those without a lot of money can't use it

On the flip side there is an argument for at least some contribution by users, to try and avoid abuse, if it is free there are some that will just abuse that to the extreme.

I'm not pretending to know what the answer is, I'm just throwing out my thoughts on the various funding models that we tend to gravitate towards.

You could call me a fence sitter? (swinging voter - devils advocate?) or worse.

[SBD]

All future economic growth that leads to additional tax takes should also be excluded from being spent on those that didn't pay. Eg don't go using North-South Motorway growth money on regional roads or hospitals.
If additional businesses join SA due to the more efficient road network make sure those jobs are only available to those that paid.

Really?

So you want a cut of the tax from the economic benefits of sealing the Strzelecki Track, duplicating Joy Baluch and Swanport Bridges, bypasses of the Adelaide Hills and Truro because they bring widespread economic benefit through improved freight efficiency and reduced time and cost, but you are not prepared to share round the economic benefit of a freeway joining the southern and northern suburbs because the country people don't need it. Did I understand what you said?

Surely there could just be a bucket for "transport infrastructure" that can include all of those including the rest of the North South Motorway and a way of connecting it to the South Eastern Freeway, and maybe even include upgrades to regional railways, and spend where ever it has the greatest economic and social benefit, regardless of whether it is in the Adelaide metro area or not.

[bits]

Really?

So you want a cut of the tax from the economic benefits of sealing the Strzelecki Track, duplicating Joy Baluch and Swanport Bridges, bypasses of the Adelaide Hills and Truro because they bring widespread economic benefit through improved freight efficiency and reduced time and cost, but you are not prepared to share round the economic benefit of a freeway joining the southern and northern suburbs because the country people don't need it. Did I understand what you said?

I think you missed my sarcasm. I think all those projects should be funded by all people as they benefit everyone.
Excluding Strzelecki Track which has a very direct economic improvement for a very select amount of users.

Metro Adelaide people have and should fund regional roads and hospitals.
Regional people have and should fund metro Adelaide projects.
Everyone should pay in to a big pool that is allocated to projects that benefit the state, I think we call it the tax system normally.

[claybro]

I think the fairest way to fund the state component of the N-S Motorway upgrade and CBD rail tunnel is a petrol and diesel levy on metropolitan Adelaide motorists (maybe 5c per litre), with funds raised by this levy to go 100% to funding the construction. This would be enshrined by state legislation that these funds cannot be used for any other purpose.

Once these 2 major transport projects are completed (which might be 15-20 years time), the levy would be removed.

This system was used by the WA government to commence construction of the 3 major freeways in Perth. I believe though, under current tax laws that came into existence with the GST it is now illegal for state governments to charge additional levies on fuel. I would be a strong advocate of this approach again if it also allowed for provision of improved public transport.

[Eurostar]

Tapleys Hill Road needs attention too, the Anzac Highway/Tapleys Hill Road should be grade separated along with the Sir Donald Bradman Drive intersection, a simple bridge could be done quickly and easily

[ml69]

I think the fairest way to fund the state component of the N-S Motorway upgrade and CBD rail tunnel is a petrol and diesel levy on metropolitan Adelaide motorists (maybe 5c per litre), with funds raised by this levy to go 100% to funding the construction. This would be enshrined by state legislation that these funds cannot be used for any other purpose.

Once these 2 major transport projects are completed (which might be 15-20 years time), the levy would be removed.

This system was used by the WA government to commence construction of the 3 major freeways in Perth. I believe though, under current tax laws that came into existence with the GST it is now illegal for state governments to charge additional levies on fuel. I would be a strong advocate of this approach again if it also allowed for provision of improved public transport.

Well ultimately someone has to pay for it .... so it’s all about determining the fairest way that cost burden should be allocated.

You could also do it via a levy on vehicle registrations (meaning metro and country motorists pay) if the fuel levy option wasn’t available, or via an ESL-type levy on properties (as the Gold Coast did to fund its light rail). Maybe a combination of both, I don’t know.

Whichever way, people must be assured that 100% of the funds raised will go directly to funding these key game-changing projects.

[rhino]

people must be assured that 100% of the funds raised will go directly to funding these key game-changing projects.

/\ /\ This. But can we trust them?

[Nort]

people must be assured that 100% of the funds raised will go directly to funding these key game-changing projects.

/\ /\ This. But can we trust them?

You also have the issue that these rules can over time result in no net increase in available funds, as other funding that would have gone towards these projects isn't provided.

It's a common problem in the US for example with states that started lotteries with the PR spin that they would give extra education funds, with the governments subsequently reducing the funds they contribute.

[claybro]

people must be assured that 100% of the funds raised will go directly to funding these key game-changing projects.

/\ /\ This. But can we trust them?

You also have the issue that these rules can over time result in no net increase in available funds, as other funding that would have gone towards these projects isn't provided.

It's a common problem in the US for example with states that started lotteries with the PR spin that they would give extra education funds, with the governments subsequently reducing the funds they contribute.

For these reasons at least with a toll, people can experience what they are paying for, as they are paying for it. As always with government taxes and levies, it gets murky when money gets siphoned off for general revenue-or floods in Qld or whatever the latest political excuse is.

[muzzamo]

Not to many economic purists in this thread.

The other benefit to tolls is that the cost is borne by those who are benefiting from it. All else being equal this is the best way to ensure efficiency and that resources are not wasted, because unnecessary or low value trips won't be taken and the roads wont be required to be built for them.

The problem with a flat toll is
* The cost of building the road is governed by it's maximum capacity, yet those who need it to be at maximum capacity (peak hour commuters) are not paying the same as those who can use it off-peak, so the price is the same but the benefit is different.
* There are plenty of others who benefit from the road (drivers on paralel roads, for example) who benefit but pay nothing at all.

The solution is network wide congestion charging. People pay should pay the most at time when roads are the busiest (i.e. when roads are at their most expensive), and the least when they are not busy.

[muzzamo]

Not to many economic purists in this thread.

The other benefit to tolls is that the cost is borne by those who are benefiting from it. All else being equal this is the best way to ensure efficiency and that resources are not wasted, because unnecessary or low value trips won't be taken and the roads wont be required to be built for them.

The problem with a flat toll is
* The cost of building the road is governed by it's maximum capacity, yet those who need it to be at maximum capacity (peak hour commuters) are not paying the same as those who can use it off-peak, so the price is the same but the benefit is different.
* There are plenty of others who benefit from the road (drivers on paralel roads, for example) who benefit but pay nothing at all.

The solution is network wide congestion charging (with partial or full removal of fuel excise and rego). People pay should pay the most at time when roads are the busiest (i.e. when roads are at their most expensive), and the least when they are not busy.

[NTRabbit]

A friend of mine is senior at one of the places talking to DPTI about this (though not personally on the project), I asked about tolls and they told me it wasn't going to happen at all - none of the toll companies are interested because there's far too little profit to be made due to both volume and usable sidestreets/alternatives, and the state government won't do it because they're not suicidal.

[claybro]

A friend of mine is senior at one of the places talking to DPTI about this (though not personally on the project), I asked about tolls and they told me it wasn't going to happen at all - none of the toll companies are interested because there's far too little profit to be made due to both volume and usable sidestreets/alternatives, and the state government won't do it because they're not suicidal.

I switched off at DPTI. If ever an organisation is holding back the state, its this disfunctional depepartment.