Evo, I'm disappointed, I thought you were we'll aware of the seen and unseen aspects of public infrastructure.evo said:
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Melbourne Publiic Transport Infrastructure
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
Not a cent spent on state's planned Metro rail project
The state government has yet to spend one cent of the $50 million it included in last year's budget to plan and develop its landmark Melbourne Metro rail project.
While Premier Denis Napthine defended the decision to put off the rail project by saying the business case for it was not yet ready, Tuesday's budget papers suggest this is because his own government has spent no money on it.
Rather, the $40 million spent so far to prepare plans for the nine-kilometre underground line has been funded by the Gillard government, which has paid the state to develop the idea to the point at which decisions can be made.
In last year's budget, the state added $49.7 million of its own money to speed up the planning work, of which $11.4 million was to be spent in 2012-13. The money was saved instead, and just $10.2 million has been allocated for the same job in 2013-14.
Advertisement
Budget Paper 4 reveals that the state intends to take another three years to develop plans for the project. It says planning will not be completed until mid-2016.
A spokeswoman for Transport Minister Terry Mulder said the 2012-13 funding had been held in contingency, to be used only if ''the project had a justifiable need to intervene in any planning matters''.
While the project was expected to go to consultants in mid-2012, she said it had been delayed, with work now expected to start in mid-2013.
The government in fact had completed a conceptual business case for the project, which Infrastructure Australia assessed as having ''real potential''.
The business case for the east-west road link, however, will not be completed until June 30 - too late to be evaluated in Infrastructure Australia's current round.
The budget proposes to spend $224 million in 2013-14 to develop plans for the road link - more than 20 times the amount it plans to spend to develop the rail link.
A comparison of budget papers for the two years shows this is part of a pattern. In 2012-13, the government underspent on nine of the 10 biggest rail projects for which it set spending targets.
The budget papers show it planned to spend $186 million in 2012-13 to buy new trams, but now expects to spend $56.5 million by June 30.
It planned to invest $53.5 million on new works to improve the efficiency of train operations, but spent only $12.7 million.
Overall the government now expects to fall $400 million short of its infrastructure spending target. A year ago, it promised to invest $5.8 billion of its own money on new infrastructure. The budget papers say that will now be $5.4 billion.
It is the second year in a row that it promised record infrastructure funding, but failed to deliver it. In 2011-12, the budget foreshadowed $6.1 billion of new infrastructure spending, but delivered $5.4 billion.
Undeterred, new Treasurer Michael O'Brien is again forecasting record infrastructure investment. His budget earmarks $6.1 billion in 2013-14, and $6.6 billion in 2014-15.
But after the 2014 election, infrastructure spending would fall to $4 billion in 2014-15 and $3.5 billion in 2016-17. As a share of gross state output, that is barely half the amount the Brumby government was spending when it lost office.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/not-a-cent-spent-on-states-planned-metro-rail-project-20130508-2j851.html#ixzz2SlGTNFUG
The state government has yet to spend one cent of the $50 million it included in last year's budget to plan and develop its landmark Melbourne Metro rail project.
While Premier Denis Napthine defended the decision to put off the rail project by saying the business case for it was not yet ready, Tuesday's budget papers suggest this is because his own government has spent no money on it.
Rather, the $40 million spent so far to prepare plans for the nine-kilometre underground line has been funded by the Gillard government, which has paid the state to develop the idea to the point at which decisions can be made.
In last year's budget, the state added $49.7 million of its own money to speed up the planning work, of which $11.4 million was to be spent in 2012-13. The money was saved instead, and just $10.2 million has been allocated for the same job in 2013-14.
Advertisement
Budget Paper 4 reveals that the state intends to take another three years to develop plans for the project. It says planning will not be completed until mid-2016.
A spokeswoman for Transport Minister Terry Mulder said the 2012-13 funding had been held in contingency, to be used only if ''the project had a justifiable need to intervene in any planning matters''.
While the project was expected to go to consultants in mid-2012, she said it had been delayed, with work now expected to start in mid-2013.
The government in fact had completed a conceptual business case for the project, which Infrastructure Australia assessed as having ''real potential''.
The business case for the east-west road link, however, will not be completed until June 30 - too late to be evaluated in Infrastructure Australia's current round.
The budget proposes to spend $224 million in 2013-14 to develop plans for the road link - more than 20 times the amount it plans to spend to develop the rail link.
A comparison of budget papers for the two years shows this is part of a pattern. In 2012-13, the government underspent on nine of the 10 biggest rail projects for which it set spending targets.
The budget papers show it planned to spend $186 million in 2012-13 to buy new trams, but now expects to spend $56.5 million by June 30.
It planned to invest $53.5 million on new works to improve the efficiency of train operations, but spent only $12.7 million.
Overall the government now expects to fall $400 million short of its infrastructure spending target. A year ago, it promised to invest $5.8 billion of its own money on new infrastructure. The budget papers say that will now be $5.4 billion.
It is the second year in a row that it promised record infrastructure funding, but failed to deliver it. In 2011-12, the budget foreshadowed $6.1 billion of new infrastructure spending, but delivered $5.4 billion.
Undeterred, new Treasurer Michael O'Brien is again forecasting record infrastructure investment. His budget earmarks $6.1 billion in 2013-14, and $6.6 billion in 2014-15.
But after the 2014 election, infrastructure spending would fall to $4 billion in 2014-15 and $3.5 billion in 2016-17. As a share of gross state output, that is barely half the amount the Brumby government was spending when it lost office.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/not-a-cent-spent-on-states-planned-metro-rail-project-20130508-2j851.html#ixzz2SlGTNFUG
Liverpool said:
Can't begin to describe how backwards this comment is..but I'll give it go. "UNTIL the infrastructure is capable" supposes something is being done to make it capable surely? Except that is patently not the case. The problem is not the population and in any case the State Government's responsibility is service delivery not population control. The population will continue to grow and all predictions have Melbourne passing Sydney in the next decade. The time for talk is over. Under-investment in public transport is endemic in Victorian politics. The system is already inadequate how does waiting and talking about population improve the situation?
x2.
In the perfect world of the planned economy (the Soviet Union says hello) infrastructure could be built ahead of time based on projected population growth.
I always find it amusing when conservatives who profess their love of free markets, small governments get all interventionist when it suits their anti-immigration arguments.
In the perfect world of the planned economy (the Soviet Union says hello) infrastructure could be built ahead of time based on projected population growth.
I always find it amusing when conservatives who profess their love of free markets, small governments get all interventionist when it suits their anti-immigration arguments.
KnightersRevenge said:
top post, but the reality is that we are stuck in this situation due to the neglect of the past. slowing population growth down has to be an option until infrastructure catches up. not gonna happen though. the closer melbourne's population gets to sydney's, the more obsessed local bureaucrats will get about overtaking them :
KnightersRevenge said:
Of course its inadequate...I am not arguing there.
But if the infrastructure is already inadequate, as you admit to, for the population we currently have....then why encourage population growth?
Investment has not matched the population growth over the last 20-30 years and because no Government is going to risk a triple-A rating and put their own head on the electoral chopping block by investing the amount needed to build infrastructure for the expected population growth into the future....then in the meantime we need to limit population growth and allow Government's to take baby-steps to at least get what we need to service the people and population we already have.
Once we reach that level, then we can start investing for the future but at the moment, we are trying to coerce the Government to build infrastructure to be able to service us NOW....why get them to build for now and encourage population growth?
All this means is we never get ahead. We'll be having the same argument in 20 years time.
antman said:
On the flipside though one could also argue that it's equally amusing when progressives suddenly seem unconcerned about natural resources, the environment and the obvious extra pressure they would be placed under due to population expansion as that might be seen to be at odds with their pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism stances.
Liverpool said:
This is a novel approach Livers. Successive failures of government should be forgiven and population control attempted to cover for said failure? Any chance we should as citizens simply hold our government responsible for their failures? Isn't that democracy?
Liverpool said:
Liverpool, if that argument is to apply, then for our current infrastructure to be adequate, we'd need to revert back to our population in the 70s.
I'd probably suggest he opposite is more applicable. We need more people to provide the resources for the infrastructure we want.
Liverpool said:
The Western Ring Road has been playing chasey for ages. Might have to have a population cull going by that theory.
Edit- Considering you support the Libs paid parental leave designed to reward and encourage breeding, especially for women of calibre, how do you propose population growth could be limited?
Brodders17 said:
It doesn't, it has to start at a Federal level.
Do you think Melbourne is alone with infrastructure issues?
Its not just metropolitan cities but also regional links as well.
KnightersRevenge said:
So which Government would you like to hold responsible for 20-30 years of transport infrastructure decline then?
The current Government?
Easy then....lets vote them out next election and let the ALP take care of it....then we do the same again 4 years later
Both parties have let it slide while under their watch and no Government moving forward, (whatever your political persuasion) is going to invest so heavily that we go from our current system thats only capable of carrying half our population, to a system that will be able to carry a forecasted population.
Its too big of a jump and would probably financially cripple the state.
The only way is baby steps and unfortunately, when we get new train stations, trains, trams, or extra services to try and cope with the current demand....our population grows again and we end up with what Rosy says:
rosy23 said:
Liverpool said:So which Government would you like to hold responsible for 20-30 years of transport infrastructure decline then?
The current Government?
Easy then....lets vote them out next election and let the ALP take care of it....then we do the same again 4 years later
Both parties have let it slide while under their watch and no Government moving forward, (whatever your political persuasion) is going to invest so heavily that we go from our current system thats only capable of carrying half our population, to a system that will be able to carry a forecasted population.
Its too big of a jump and would probably financially cripple the state.
The only way is baby steps and unfortunately, when we get new train stations, trains, trams, or extra services to try and cope with the current demand....our population grows again...
So hang on trams not storks bring babies? What brings babies of calibre? Mercs? I have consistently been critical of ALL parties on this issue. This isn't a party political issue IMO. It is about the shift to economic rationalism across politics that makes it impossible to deliver the big infrastructure that I think ought to be the business of government.
KnightersRevenge said:
I never said it was a party political issue.
I clearly put in bold and underline, BOTH parties are to blame for the current predicament.
However, no Government will risk putting their heads on the electoral chopping block by investing so much money to not only build enough infrastructure to carry the current population but to actually be able to carry the forecasted population growth.
Its never going to happen as it would financially cripple the state and guarantee their Government would be crushed at the following election, no matter the good intentions.
Governments have been and will continue to take baby-steps regarding improving transport infrastructure compared to the giant leaps in population growth.
Therefore, if we aren't going to build enough infrastructure to not only appease our current population but to actually build for the future growth, then we need to look at slowing population growth so the Government's baby steps start to catch up.
Whats your realistic idea then to the situation if you disagree with slowing the population growing?
