Re: The Gold Coast light rail project shows that new transport links are worth it | CityMetric
  Prescott

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

>