If $5 per passenger per year is the operating subsidy, it still has a way
to go with patronage before the cost-benefit kicks in. The Gong Shuttle is
costing $1 per passenger per year and the NSW government (the one that's
blown $1 billion extra on CSELR) is complaining that it's costing too much!
May GCLR continue to be blessed with sympathetic governments with a little
bit of a financial blind eye. I really thought operating costs for an
electric transit system would be a lot lower than that too. What on earth
are they spending the money on?
Tony P
On Friday, 25 May 2018 08:05:59 UTC+10, Richard Youl wrote:
>
>
>
> https://www.citymetric.com/transport/gold-coast-light-rail-project-shows-new-transport-links-are-worth-it-3091
>
> The Gold Coast light rail project shows that new transport links are worth
> it | CityMetric
>
> Gold Coast’s light rail scheme has attracted great interest since the
> streets of Surfers Paradise were torn up and stations and track were built.
> Was it worth spending A$1.5bn on 13km
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-13/gold-coast-light-rail-stage-three-state-and-federal-questions/7411588
> of light rail and more than A$40m a year in subsidies? Are we right to be
> spending another A$420m on an extension
> http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/the-first-sod-has-been-turned-on-420-million-light-rail-stage-2-as-tate-plans-stage-3/news-story/2520cd82de301a34498552b6a6e7dde5
> to Helensvale in time for the Commonwealth Games? Should we be taking it
> all the way down to Gold Coast Airport?
>
> Another question is whether gains in property values served by the project
> could be “captured
> https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-value-capture-and-what-does-it-mean-for-cities-58776”
> to fund such infrastructure. Previous studies of property values in areas
> serviced by the light rail showed only modest gains after it opened. Our
> research
> http://sydney.edu.au/business/research/grants/funding_on_the_line cast
> a wider net back to when we first started planning the system in 1996
> through to the latest data we could get in 2016.
>
> The results were intriguing. We found that prices in the catchment areas
> started to increase in the earliest planning phases. The effects of the
> light rail were to push up property values within 800 metres of the
> stations by more than 30 per cent in total from 1996 to 2016.
>
> This is well above most previous estimates of a light rail system’s
> effects. This is mainly because we looked earlier for the property value
> gains and used a carefully designed control to make the comparison.
> Impact after opening seemed modest
>
> These findings cast a different light on the apparently modest impact of
> the light rail after it opened.
>
> When the first stage from Broadbeach to our university at Parkwood opened
> it was well received. But the behaviour change we all hoped for was rather
> modest at first: after opening in 2014, patronage did not surge compared to
> bus ridership on the route in earlier years.
>
> New passengers got on board, but it was an uphill climb for the new
> system. Fare increases of almost 50 per cent
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/translink-fare-hike-to-make-brisbane-australias-most-expensive-20140103-30910.html from
> 2010 to 2014 pushed passengers off public transport across southeast
> Queensland, especially on rail. Not all passengers enjoyed improved service
> for their particular journeys, either. Those who used to travel through the
> corridor in a bus now had to break their journey at the light rail terminus
> and transfer, adding travel time and annoyance.
>
> In the second year of operation, however, patronage jumped 16 per cent
> http://www.goldlinq.com.au/news-and-media/g-that-s-successful and our
> contacts suggest third-year patronage is tracking well. Subsidies per
> passenger are falling. The decision to add the connection to Helensvale
> looks a sound one.
>
> But, seemingly, other changes everyone expected weren’t there. The Bureau
> of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics analysed property
> values in the corridor from 2000 to 2013
> https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2015/files/is_069.pdf using a coarse
> geography and didn’t find much evidence of any uplift. This gave many cause
> for concern.
>
> Reassuringly, Cameron Murray used valuation data for a similar period
> https://theconversation.com/gold-coast-light-rail-study-helps-put-a-figure-on-value-captures-funding-potential-65084
> using a different geographical scale and found a 10 per cent increase for
> properties within 400 metres of the new stations. But there was still
> uncertainty.
>
> Our new research backs up and expands on Murray’s findings, suggesting
> there was substantial positive impact.
>
> *The Gold Coast light rail under construction at Surfers Paradise in 2013..
> Image: author provided.*
> What did our research look at?
>
> Our research team in the Funding on the Line
> http://sydney.edu.au/business/research/grants/funding_on_the_line
> Australian Research Council Linkage Project took a different approach. In a
> peer-reviewed paper, which will shortly be presented at the World
> Symposium on Transport and Land Use Research, led by Barbara Yen, we used
> sales data for residential properties along the corridor. Our study
> compared areas within 800 metres of the stations with a control area
> containing locations a little further away but still in the same vicinity..
>
> We used a longitudinal methodology to see when the value uplift occurred
> from back in 1996, when planning of the system first started, through to
> the latest 2016 data. Property prices in the catchment areas started to
> increase very early in the planning phase. The property value uplift was
> highest in the locations between 100 and 400 metres from the stations.
>
> Values went up 11.9 per cent in these locations compared to our control
> areas between 1996 and the feasibility study’s announcement in 2002. They
> increased a further 26.3 per cent from 2002 to 2006 over the control areas
> when the feasibility study was completed. Prices rose only 2.3 per
> cent from 2006 to 2011 when the formal funding commitment was made and
> construction began, and then by another 5.4 per cent after the line opened
> to the end of the study period in 2016.
>
> *
> https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/170712/area14mp/file-20170524-5749-1f04vgx.png*
>
> *Timeline of the planning and development of Gold Coast Light Rail Stage
> 1. Image: author provided.*
>
> The areas less than 100 metres from the stations, and between 400 and 800
> metres also recorded strong increases compared to the control areas, though
> not quite as much.
>
> This is to be expected. Sites closest to the stations received some
> nuisance from the light rail and road corridor; sites further away obtain
> fewer advantages in travel time savings for passengers.
> What are the funding implications?
>
> The property value gains attributable to the project from 1996 to 2016 of
> more than 30 per cent are very significant. Yet it’s pretty much only the
> landowners who benefit.
>
> The City of Gold Coast recoups some of its A$120m investment
> http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/rapid-transit-6004.html in the light
> rail through its rates and its public transport levy on urban residents.
> The Queensland government may end up getting a little slice via stamp duty
> as properties are sold. The few pieces of government-owned land likely rose
> in value.
>
> But the state and federal governments generally have no other mechanisms
> to take a small sliver of the increased property value their investment
> generated to help pay for the light rail system or reinvest in public
> transport elsewhere. We’ve written about this previously
> https://theconversation.com/what-brisbanes-ferries-can-teach-us-about-funding-public-transport-30874 and
> suggested ways we could change the system.
>
> A recent federal parliamentary inquiry
> http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/ITC/TransportConnectivity/Report_1
> and moves to set up “value sharing
> http://www.luticonsulting.com.au/projects/value-sharing-mechanisms-review-nsw/”
> units in the Queensland
> http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/infrastructure/value-sharing-in-queensland.html
> and New South Wales https://www.greater.sydney/digital-district-plan/679
> governments suggest we are now getting serious about generating alternative
> funding for public transport. Our study’s results only add more support to
> these initiatives. Get it right and we should be able to deliver more
> metros, busways and light rail to serve our growing population and its
> increasingly urban way of life.
>
> *Matthew Burke https://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-burke-1677
> is associate professor in the Cities Research Institute at Griffith
> University
> http://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828*
>
> *This article was originally published on The Conversation
> http://theconversation.com. Read the original article
> https://theconversation.com/why-gold-coast-light-rail-was-worth-it-its-about-more-than-patronage-78190.*
>
>
> Richard
>