8 October 2016

How are we paying for light rail in Canberra?

| Damien Haas
Join the conversation
126
light rail

Since 2012 we have seen almost every action and decision of the ACT Government linked to light rail by opponents of better public transport. They see light rail behind every government decision and spending announcement. It’s a deceptive, shallow and misleading campaign that the public is tired of.

My intention in stepping through the economic arguments in this article is to assure you that the big numbers are not scary numbers, that the Territory is in a position to afford light rail, that you are paying for light rail in the same way as you pay for any other public service provided by the government, and that your rates are not increasing to pay for light rail.

Neglecting road and public transport in Gungahlin 20 years ago has had negative impacts on Canberra today. Northbourne Avenue is still Canberra’s most congested road, despite Majura Parkway and the GDE being built.

Stage One of Canberra’s light rail network is now underway. The long suffering residents of Gungahlin and north Canberra that endure road congestion and jam-packed ACTION buses can travel past light rail construction and know that a better alternative to driving and parking every day, or riding in sardine packed bus (if it doesn’t drive past them already full), is on schedule to commence in 2018.

Despite this overwhelmingly obvious need for improved public transport, the community has been subjected to increasingly shrill and unbalanced arguments from opponents of public transport. Many of the arguments against light rail are focussed on the economics.

The economic claims fall into several broad categories: that the costs don’t ‘stack up’, light rail is unaffordable, the money could be spent elsewhere (with health and education the key areas), and too much money is being spent in Gungahlin to benefit too few people. Then there is the claim that rates are rising to pay for light rail.

Let’s examine these various claims one by one.

The ACT Budget papers for 2016/2017 show that health, education and disability services are 56% of the total budget, and public transport only 4%. Light rail was allocated 0.4% of the budget, to pay for the Capital Metro Agency. A contract for the construction and operation of light rail stage one was signed in 2016. We now know that the cost of light rail will be $65 million a year for 20 years.

The $65 million a year cost for light rail does ‘stack up’. Public transport is a service delivered by the government in the same way as it delivers health services, educates our children and collects our rubbish. We pay for all these services, even if we don’t use them.

We don’t ask students to pay for their education (although their parents can choose private schools), we don’t ask those who can’t pay for money before medical treatment (although they can privately insure or use private medical facilities), and we don’t charge the blind or the elderly the full cost of a bus ride.

The reason we don’t do this is that there are public expectations that the money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably. In areas that may never benefit us directly. As Canberra expands and grows to half a million residents, we need to provide support for that growth and manage it so it doesn’t negatively impact us directly or indirectly. Public transport is no different, and light rail is no different.

Why is it important that the costs ‘stack up’? If we want public transport to be profitable, we need to insist the government charge the full cost of every trip to every bus passenger, and dramatically reduce the salaries the ACTION workforce enjoys. It is unlikely that either side of politics would adopt this view.

The real question is – what are the costs of not having public transport? The community accept that public transport needs to be provided as it benefits all sectors of society and the cost of not providing public transport would lead to massive road congestion. Those buses that take your children to school, or ferry you from Floriade and Raiders games, would still need to be provided for in some way.

Privatising ACTION would not bring about any budget joy as the public would still have expectations such as subsidised school fares, concessions for pensioners and health care card holders.

Political realities would dictate government subsidies to private operators to perform services in areas where the private operator would not be able to profitably operate a route.

Because we demand certain concessions for different sectors of society, public transport may never be profitable. Is this wrong? The cost of public transport is the same as any other service that we expect the government to deliver. This is the reality of all public transport services across Australia.

The main focus should be on delivering public transport in the most efficient way, in cost and service delivery.

The fare box of ACTION Buses provides only 20% of its funding, and that amount has been declining as patronage declines. If we want that revenue to increase, it needs to come from full fare paying adult passengers that commute every day. Light rail is a proven way to increase public transport patronage. This has been recently demonstrated by Gold Coast light rail.

Light rail is proven to attract and increase public transport patronage, and is cheaper to operate over the longer term than buses. When a truly integrated public transport system exists, public transport use rises and road congestion decreases. In Canberra, public transport use has decreased and road congestion increased. Buses alone cannot serve our current or future public transport needs.

The other claim of the anti public transport forces is that light rail is unaffordable. They quote the total project cost of $930 million and fulminate about this cost. They invent a fictional cost of $1.8 billion.

They don’t tell you that this will be paid over 20 years. That the actual cost to the ACT is $65 million a year, for twenty years. That this is how most infrastructure assets are paid for. They realise this figure is affordable, and pretend it doesn’t exist.

Paying for light rail over twenty years is the same way that we all pay for a home when we seek a mortgage. Few of us are in the position of paying for a home from the money we earn this year. It is the sensible way to acquire any asset.

Where is this money coming from then?

The majority of the money to pay for light rail will come from selling assets such as ACTTAB and old public housing stock. These assets aren’t leaving the ACT; they have transferred ownership and the money is being reinvested in the ACT.

New public housing of better quality is being built to house the tenants that are relocating, and this is part of a long-term program to improve public housing stock. No tenant will be homeless as a result, and they will certainly be rehoused in better quality housing than the rundown housing along Northbourne Avenue.

Recycling these assets is a very successful way to fund new public transport infrastructure, spark urban renewal along a tired corridor and rehouse public tenants in better quality housing. The benefits transcend public transport and benefit several areas of our economy such as employment and construction.

The asset recycling program has already raised $400 million of the expected $930 million before the first payment to the Canberra Metro consortium is required (in 2018, the first year of light rail operations). The Federal Liberal government has also contributed $66 million towards this project, as it is seen as a way to boost productivity.

The rest of the money for light rail will come from the ACT Government via General Government Service revenue, which totals around $5.1 billion in 2016/17. Commonwealth Grants are over 40% of this $5.1 billion, our rates less than 20% at $447 million. Interestingly, the amount received from payroll tax was almost identical to the amount received from rates, yet I have never heard anyone complain that payroll tax is increasing to pay for light rail.

If we can’t pay for $65 million a year for 20 years out of $5.1 billion dollars a year (in 2016 terms), we are in bigger trouble than cancelling light rail will solve. It is a small one percent of our annual budget that is entirely manageable and a sound investment in our future. Most people’s car payments are greater than 1 percent of their annual income.

The selfish argument that light rail will only benefit a small percentage of the population is also false. Gungahlin’s population will be at 100,000 within ten years. Based on ABS statistics from the 2011 census, the corridor for light rail Stage One that takes in much of North Canberra has 9% of Canberra’s population within one kilometre of the light rail line.

That doesn’t take into account the population of Woden or the Inner South of Canberra that would benefit from the Stage Two extension. That doesn’t take into account the people that would catch one of the more frequent integrated bus services to a light rail station. That doesn’t take into account those that will use the free ‘Park and Ride’ instead of paying around ten dollars a day to park their car in Civic or the Parliamentary Triangle.

It is also selfish and disingenuous to object to public funds being spent in areas that don’t directly benefit the individual. You may never need to use a sewage pipe in Theodore, but the greater public of Canberra benefit from a sewerage system. Public transport and road infrastructure are exactly the same.

Public infrastructure is for the general use and benefit of us all. Schools and hospitals are expensive to construct and staff, but no one objects to publicly funded health service or schools, even if we haven’t used them in years. They may be used by friends or loved ones, or ourselves at some point in the future.

No one uses every road in the ACT. However we all contribute to the funding and construction of these roads. People in Canberra’s north may never use the Monaro Highway, but they appreciate and understand how these roads benefit people in other areas of Canberra, including friends and family. Light rail stage one and stage two are no different.

Finally, let us look at your rates. The ACT Government went to the 2012 Assembly election with a range of taxation reform measures. It proposed removing stamp duty and inequitable taxes and slowly increasing rates. In the face of a concerted ‘your rates will triple’ campaign from the Canberra Liberals, the public returned the Government.

It was a courageous election policy, so courageous that Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has supported it, and described the political difficulty in securing this type of taxation reform as ‘ten out of ten’. It is a taxation reform that almost all economists recommend other states adopt; yet they lack the political will to attempt it.

Our taxation reform is designed to ensure a predictable income stream buffered from the stamp duty property boom and bust cycle. Stamp duty has been reduced; eventually it will be removed altogether. There have also been cuts to insurance taxes, car taxes and payroll taxes.

This provides a more predictable stream of income that prevents slashing services in years when stamp duty income suffers from a real estate ‘bust’ period. No one likes paying bills, and no one likes rates increasing, but they would also complain and be materially impacted if services had to be cut if the real estate market collapsed

The ‘triple your rates’ campaign run in 2012 is again being run by the Opposition, although as the tripling didn’t occur, they are now referring to rates increases as ‘unfair’. Yes our rates will steadily increase. Stamp duty elimination is only a part of that. Rates are also increasing as our home values increase.

Note that the fear campaign doesn’t have a promise of reversing taxation reform and reintroducing the inherently illogical stamp duty grab.

The real issue for this election campaign is this – are the increases in rates related to light rail?

The answer is no. Categorically they are not. As shown earlier, rates are less than 20% of our total budget. Light rail is not being paid for from your rates. To suggest that rates will increase to pay for light rail is a deceptive fear campaign not based on any evidence.

When light rail begins operation, the ACT Government will pay the private operator an annual fee to operate the light rail service and pay the balance of the construction cost. In twenty years, the consortium operating light rail on our behalf will hand the asset back to the ACT government, and we will have a workforce and administration with the experience to manage the network.

The annual payment to the Canberra Metro consortium will be $65 million or 1% of our current annual budget. In 2036 that $65 million will be a fraction of the annual budget of the ACT. Recall that the Commonwealth Grants totalled $5.1 billion dollars.

Funds used for major projects are usually raised through asset sales, Commonwealth Grants and borrowings. That is what is happening in the ACT. We aren’t paying for light rail from your rates, and they aren’t increasing to pay for light rail.

When you look at all slices of the budget pie, 1% is not much compared to 56%. There may be room for reform and productivity savings in the ACT Health and education sectors; and this would bring about far greater benefits on the front line of services than taking the 1% allocated for light rail and having to endure the future costs associated with road congestion and the drag on productivity that this would result in.

The case stacks up for light rail.

For more frequent updates on Capital Metro and light rail related news, please visit our Facebook page ‘Light Rail for Canberra‘.

This article was originally published on the ACT Light Rail website here.

Join the conversation

126
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
HiddenDragon5:52 pm 27 Oct 16

chewy14 said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Oh and as a self funded retiree have you looked into the governments deferred payment scheme for people such as yourself to lower the ‘burden’ whilst you are still alive or living in your current home?

Yes – I have looked at “deferment”.

My house will be a leg up into the property market when I pass on. You or any Gov’t has any right to slug them again for my efforts/achievements in life. Socialism gone to extremes.

In your lefty zest to recommend what is in effect a death or inheritance tax, you neglect that I have already paid $23K on the purchase of my house – 6 months before ACT Labor announced the “new tax regime” in the run up to the 2012 ACT election. Its about fairness as well as affordability.

Ah and there it is. Expecting other taxpayers to pay higher and higher amounts for general services to fund your children’s inheritance. One of the actual goals of all this complaining about rate rises, rather than the stated complaints about the actual fairness of the system.

A wish to selfishly ensure the system that has for decades been slanted to deliver such enormous (unearned) capital gains is not changed to a fairer system which will make it easier for your children’s generation to rely less on that “leg up” into the property market in the first place. To ensure that children who don’t have well off parents aren’t locked out.

The irony of expecting people to pay their way being redefined as Socialism.

If relatively asset-rich seniors were the only Canberrans who are currently (or will be in the future), squeezed by this policy, then deferment would be a solution for many – but that is not the case and that will become increasingly apparent in time, particularly when the mortgage interest rate cycle turns.

As for ensuring “that children who don’t have well off parents aren’t locked out” of the property market, a government which truly cared about that would not be working so hard to maximise revenue of all sorts from land, would it?

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

And how far do you think that $23k goes. Therin lie the problem.

Again, Annual Rates also contributed to providing services.

Its not just the $23K Stamp Duty that did.

Which is also not sufficient.

Annual Rates also contribute to provision of municipal services – which have noticeably degraded especially over the past 5 years or so. The reason Annual Rates” isnt sufficient” is that, by the ACT Labor/Greens own admission, they also funds its grandiose, meglamanic vision (which is also shared by so many of the “progressives”/lefty’s who vote for them) and infrastructure projects.

Those things are discretionary expenditure.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

And how far do you think that $23k goes. Therin lie the problem.

Again, Annual Rates also contributed to providing services.

Its not just the $23K Stamp Duty that did.

Which is also not sufficient.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Oh and as a self funded retiree have you looked into the governments deferred payment scheme for people such as yourself to lower the ‘burden’ whilst you are still alive or living in your current home?

Yes – I have looked at “deferment”.

My house will be a leg up into the property market when I pass on. You or any Gov’t has any right to slug them again for my efforts/achievements in life. Socialism gone to extremes.

In your lefty zest to recommend what is in effect a death or inheritance tax, you neglect that I have already paid $23K on the purchase of my house – 6 months before ACT Labor announced the “new tax regime” in the run up to the 2012 ACT election. Its about fairness as well as affordability.

And how far do you think that $23k goes. Therin lie the problem.

Well, it probably paid for one of those mock-up cardboard trams that the politicians were photographed playing with.

Let’s just call it “building receptivity” to the vision.

At least you know the value of something in 2016. Gee looking at what others say you would think you could buy a litre of milk for $1, just like in the 1980’s and that paying $23k in stamp duty negates your obligation to pay rates for life.

I think you are confusing cost with value.

Residents of the ACT are about to learn the value of one dollar.

JC said :

And how far do you think that $23k goes. Therin lie the problem.

Again, Annual Rates also contributed to providing services. Its not just the $23K Stamp Duty that did.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Oh and as a self funded retiree have you looked into the governments deferred payment scheme for people such as yourself to lower the ‘burden’ whilst you are still alive or living in your current home?

Yes – I have looked at “deferment”.

My house will be a leg up into the property market when I pass on. You or any Gov’t has any right to slug them again for my efforts/achievements in life. Socialism gone to extremes.

In your lefty zest to recommend what is in effect a death or inheritance tax, you neglect that I have already paid $23K on the purchase of my house – 6 months before ACT Labor announced the “new tax regime” in the run up to the 2012 ACT election. Its about fairness as well as affordability.

And how far do you think that $23k goes. Therin lie the problem.

Well, it probably paid for one of those mock-up cardboard trams that the politicians were photographed playing with.

Let’s just call it “building receptivity” to the vision.

At least you know the value of something in 2016. Gee looking at what others say you would think you could buy a litre of milk for $1, just like in the 1980’s and that paying $23k in stamp duty negates your obligation to pay rates for life.

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Oh and as a self funded retiree have you looked into the governments deferred payment scheme for people such as yourself to lower the ‘burden’ whilst you are still alive or living in your current home?

Yes – I have looked at “deferment”.

My house will be a leg up into the property market when I pass on. You or any Gov’t has any right to slug them again for my efforts/achievements in life. Socialism gone to extremes.

In your lefty zest to recommend what is in effect a death or inheritance tax, you neglect that I have already paid $23K on the purchase of my house – 6 months before ACT Labor announced the “new tax regime” in the run up to the 2012 ACT election. Its about fairness as well as affordability.

And how far do you think that $23k goes. Therin lie the problem.

Well, it probably paid for one of those mock-up cardboard trams that the politicians were photographed playing with.

Let’s just call it “building receptivity” to the vision.

justin heywood said :

– A reasonable person would assume that money from the sale of public housing would be used to build more public housing.

No no. The Idea is that we sell one asset to fund another. Then of course we still have to have government housing so the government (really us of course) will have to pay market value to rent the new housing from its private owners so we can provide government housing. But that money will come from a different bucket so it doen’t count of course.

Smoke and mirrors

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Oh and as a self funded retiree have you looked into the governments deferred payment scheme for people such as yourself to lower the ‘burden’ whilst you are still alive or living in your current home?

Yes – I have looked at “deferment”.

My house will be a leg up into the property market when I pass on. You or any Gov’t has any right to slug them again for my efforts/achievements in life. Socialism gone to extremes.

In your lefty zest to recommend what is in effect a death or inheritance tax, you neglect that I have already paid $23K on the purchase of my house – 6 months before ACT Labor announced the “new tax regime” in the run up to the 2012 ACT election. Its about fairness as well as affordability.

Ah and there it is. Expecting other taxpayers to pay higher and higher amounts for general services to fund your children’s inheritance. One of the actual goals of all this complaining about rate rises, rather than the stated complaints about the actual fairness of the system.

A wish to selfishly ensure the system that has for decades been slanted to deliver such enormous (unearned) capital gains is not changed to a fairer system which will make it easier for your children’s generation to rely less on that “leg up” into the property market in the first place. To ensure that children who don’t have well off parents aren’t locked out.

The irony of expecting people to pay their way being redefined as Socialism.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Oh and as a self funded retiree have you looked into the governments deferred payment scheme for people such as yourself to lower the ‘burden’ whilst you are still alive or living in your current home?

Yes – I have looked at “deferment”.

My house will be a leg up into the property market when I pass on. You or any Gov’t has any right to slug them again for my efforts/achievements in life. Socialism gone to extremes.

In your lefty zest to recommend what is in effect a death or inheritance tax, you neglect that I have already paid $23K on the purchase of my house – 6 months before ACT Labor announced the “new tax regime” in the run up to the 2012 ACT election. Its about fairness as well as affordability.

And how far do you think that $23k goes. Therin lie the problem.

dungfungus said :

A major problem for tram operators is fare evasion.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/10/24/light-rail-fare-evasion-audit

Evasion exists already in the territory with Action busses but access and egress on a bus is totally different to a tram.

Perhaps JC could tell us how it is going to be contained in Canberra.

Again read the documentation how that is to be tackled is clearly articulated.

A major problem for tram operators is fare evasion.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/10/24/light-rail-fare-evasion-audit

Evasion exists already in the territory with Action busses but access and egress on a bus is totally different to a tram.

Perhaps JC could tell us how it is going to be contained in Canberra.

JC said :

Oh and as a self funded retiree have you looked into the governments deferred payment scheme for people such as yourself to lower the ‘burden’ whilst you are still alive or living in your current home?

Yes – I have looked at “deferment”. My house will be a leg up into the property market when I pass on. You or any Gov’t has any right to slug them again for my efforts/achievements in life. Socialism gone to extremes.

In your lefty zest to recommend what is in effect a death or inheritance tax, you neglect that I have already paid $23K on the purchase of my house – 6 months before ACT Labor announced the “new tax regime” in the run up to the 2012 ACT election. Its about fairness as well as affordability.

wildturkeycanoe said :

JC said :

As to why they have gone up, remember stamp duty has come down, so part of the rise is paying for that, though it does seem thus far, due to raising property values the rates rise is giving slightly more income than the cost of reducing stamp duty.

Plus also, we need to consider the new levies added for other specific things, Safer Families and Fire & Emergency Services. We had bushfires so we need a levy to build more fire stations. We have family violence, so we need a levy to tackle the issue. Surely a massive spend on public transport will require a levy of some sort, especially now that we have four more years during which the government can do what they want and residents can’t touch them.

Don’t forget the “vision” levy.

wildturkeycanoe7:10 am 18 Oct 16

JC said :

As to why they have gone up, remember stamp duty has come down, so part of the rise is paying for that, though it does seem thus far, due to raising property values the rates rise is giving slightly more income than the cost of reducing stamp duty.

Plus also, we need to consider the new levies added for other specific things, Safer Families and Fire & Emergency Services. We had bushfires so we need a levy to build more fire stations. We have family violence, so we need a levy to tackle the issue. Surely a massive spend on public transport will require a levy of some sort, especially now that we have four more years during which the government can do what they want and residents can’t touch them.

wildturkeycanoe said :

gooterz said :

Stampduty savings are good if you are buying or selling. Useless if you are retired and live near the tram. You’ll be taxed out of Canberra. Given Canberra has many many retirees i can’t see the 5000 people increase per year holding.

Not just useless if you live near the tram but also out in the sticks. My property’s unimproved value rose 21% in the last 5 years, but my rates bill rose by 42% in the same time and will apparently continue to increase by 10% every year. Who gets a 10% pay rise a year to compensate for this, apart from politicians? Welfare dependent people, retired pensioners and pretty much every wage earner in Canberra can expect to get maybe a 2 to 4% increase in wages a year. Nothing about this is consistent, expenditure just keeps exceeding income in every aspect of our lives, which drags more and more people into struggle street every year. To say our rates aren’t paying for the tram is just a blatant misconception, why else have they risen so much? Perhaps to pay for all the salaries of our new Legislative Assembly members?

Rates make up 27% of the territory income. So yes part of that (will) pays for the light rail, part of that also contributes to all the other services the government spends money on, including the salaries and extra costs of the expanded legislative assembly!

As to why they have gone up, remember stamp duty has come down, so part of the rise is paying for that, though it does seem thus far, due to raising property values the rates rise is giving slightly more income than the cost of reducing stamp duty.

gooterz said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

gazket said :

My self don’t take home $2000 a fortnight. Rates will skyrocket which will increase rents. I’m only just affording $400 a week rent now. Any increase in that I will be forced to move away from Canberra. Simple as that. People on under average wages won’t be able to live in Canberra simple as that.

I have posted about that here previously. Annual Rates on units went up 20% on 1/7/16 too. I think this is what the ACT Govt calls “affordable housing”, unless u are on avg or below avg wage, elderly, disabled, self funded retirees or other vulnerable renters or home owners. It is inevitable that more and more people will seek ACT Govt housing to escape the increases in Annual Rates. Or be forced out of the ACT (like I am, as a self funded retiree).

I have raised this before on these boards – but if i were u, I wouldn’t expect any sympathy or even understanding in this new, cold, hard, socially re engineered and now unfriendly Canberra.

Offset by a drop in stamp duty.

Still waiting to see any alternative that would work in your eyes? I mean to say how can we justify charging $40k stamp duty just because people want, or in same cases need to move house?

Oh and as a self funded retiree have you looked into the governments deferred payment scheme for people such as yourself to lower the ‘burden’ whilst you are still alive or living in your current home?

Stampduty savings are good if you are buying or selling. Useless if you are retired and live near the tram. You’ll be taxed out of Canberra. Given Canberra has many many retirees i can’t see the 5000 people increase per year holding.

So what is the alternative then and how can stamp duty be a ‘fair’ tax in any way shape or form?

wildturkeycanoe2:41 pm 17 Oct 16

gooterz said :

Stampduty savings are good if you are buying or selling. Useless if you are retired and live near the tram. You’ll be taxed out of Canberra. Given Canberra has many many retirees i can’t see the 5000 people increase per year holding.

Not just useless if you live near the tram but also out in the sticks. My property’s unimproved value rose 21% in the last 5 years, but my rates bill rose by 42% in the same time and will apparently continue to increase by 10% every year. Who gets a 10% pay rise a year to compensate for this, apart from politicians? Welfare dependent people, retired pensioners and pretty much every wage earner in Canberra can expect to get maybe a 2 to 4% increase in wages a year. Nothing about this is consistent, expenditure just keeps exceeding income in every aspect of our lives, which drags more and more people into struggle street every year. To say our rates aren’t paying for the tram is just a blatant misconception, why else have they risen so much? Perhaps to pay for all the salaries of our new Legislative Assembly members?

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

gazket said :

My self don’t take home $2000 a fortnight. Rates will skyrocket which will increase rents. I’m only just affording $400 a week rent now. Any increase in that I will be forced to move away from Canberra. Simple as that. People on under average wages won’t be able to live in Canberra simple as that.

I have posted about that here previously. Annual Rates on units went up 20% on 1/7/16 too. I think this is what the ACT Govt calls “affordable housing”, unless u are on avg or below avg wage, elderly, disabled, self funded retirees or other vulnerable renters or home owners. It is inevitable that more and more people will seek ACT Govt housing to escape the increases in Annual Rates. Or be forced out of the ACT (like I am, as a self funded retiree).

I have raised this before on these boards – but if i were u, I wouldn’t expect any sympathy or even understanding in this new, cold, hard, socially re engineered and now unfriendly Canberra.

Offset by a drop in stamp duty.

Still waiting to see any alternative that would work in your eyes? I mean to say how can we justify charging $40k stamp duty just because people want, or in same cases need to move house?

Oh and as a self funded retiree have you looked into the governments deferred payment scheme for people such as yourself to lower the ‘burden’ whilst you are still alive or living in your current home?

Stampduty savings are good if you are buying or selling. Useless if you are retired and live near the tram. You’ll be taxed out of Canberra. Given Canberra has many many retirees i can’t see the 5000 people increase per year holding.

rommeldog56 said :

gazket said :

My self don’t take home $2000 a fortnight. Rates will skyrocket which will increase rents. I’m only just affording $400 a week rent now. Any increase in that I will be forced to move away from Canberra. Simple as that. People on under average wages won’t be able to live in Canberra simple as that.

I have posted about that here previously. Annual Rates on units went up 20% on 1/7/16 too. I think this is what the ACT Govt calls “affordable housing”, unless u are on avg or below avg wage, elderly, disabled, self funded retirees or other vulnerable renters or home owners. It is inevitable that more and more people will seek ACT Govt housing to escape the increases in Annual Rates. Or be forced out of the ACT (like I am, as a self funded retiree).

I have raised this before on these boards – but if i were u, I wouldn’t expect any sympathy or even understanding in this new, cold, hard, socially re engineered and now unfriendly Canberra.

Offset by a drop in stamp duty.

Still waiting to see any alternative that would work in your eyes? I mean to say how can we justify charging $40k stamp duty just because people want, or in same cases need to move house?

Oh and as a self funded retiree have you looked into the governments deferred payment scheme for people such as yourself to lower the ‘burden’ whilst you are still alive or living in your current home?

chewy14 said :

For an exact example of what I’m talking about see this article today:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-election-2016/braddon-business-owner-stunned-by-overnight-revaluation-of-his-building-20161012-gs0i2c.html

I feel so sorry for these businessmen that their rates have risen so much, they’ll have to dry their tears with $100 bills from the $3 million+ rise in the value of their property, which they can choose to sell or redevelop. It must be so tough for them.

Surely the government should provide them with even more money and concessions because they are clearly struggling?

Yep very good example if people bothered to read past the headline (which you clearly did).

It does beg the question though, if they spent a lazy $70k on having the lease varied to allow residential development on that block why are they not acting on that ‘investment’? And if it isn’t a viable investment at present why spend $70k having the lease varied in the first place?

Looks to me to be crocodile tears over a poor, or maybe more to the point ill timed business decision rather than the government being bastards.

And if am not mistaken increased value due to lease variation is why the Glebe Park land had valuations that ranged from ridiculously low for inner city land to quite reasonable.

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

pink little birdie said :

miz said :

Mr Haas is seeing everything though a pro light rail filter himself, yet accuses those opposed of doing the opposite. He is wrong on every aspect.
I am pro public transport and generally pro-tram and pro-train, but anti THIS tram because it represents clear favouritism to certain areas of Canberra and poor value for our public transport spend. Worse, based on people’s experiences of this present Labor-Green government, many are (cynically but probably realistically) expecting THIS tram to be so funds-prioritised that other areas are likely to miss out on adequate services in multiple areas.
I personally ‘expect money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably.’ Light rail does not meet this test as it is only going to serve 5 per cent of the population. It is unlikely to go anywhere else despite all the big plans – it is just unaffordable. Whereas rapid bus would cover the entire city – a far more equitable proposal, and at a more reasonable cost. This is not about being precious about services one is not personally receiving, but about what is best value for all. Best value for all is certainly not an expensive shiny thing that only serves 5 per cent. You don’t have to be smart to see this – just not be one-eyed about THIS tram.

How do you start building a large project without starting somewhere? where would you start building a tram instead?
Where ever you start it is only going to benefit a small % of the population?
The route has also been planned for a long time to have the light rail down Northbourne. Once there has been the skill development the other links would be
While I agree Tuggeranong has been neglected infrastructure wise I think it’s a much worse place for the tram to start. I also disagree with City to the airport as the first tram link (majority of travellers are business travellers where cabs/parking is paid for, for most people it’s as much effort to get to the city on public transport and then to the tram, most tourists flying in will get cabs or uber to hotels because it takes them directly to the hotel) It’s basically a gift to city residents for a city to airport. I also disagree with city to Parliamentary triangle. It’s not a high residential zone or even a high commercial zone so it would get limited aside from the morning and evening peaks and again it would still only benefit northsiders – southsiders aren’t going into the city to catch a tram back to the otherside of the lake.

How about you start by making the main beneficiaries of the chosen route at least pay for a reasonable % of it commensurate with the private benefit gained by it?

Won’t they be paying for it via higher rates that come from higher land value as a result of light rail?

You’re assuming that the owners will remain owners and that it matters either way. Property owners along the corridor will see their wealth rise by ten’s (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars, all provided by the general Canberra ratepayer.

Public funding, private benefit. As a Labor supporter, I’d have thought you’d be against such (pork) largesse for people who already have significant assets?

For an exact example of what I’m talking about see this article today:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-election-2016/braddon-business-owner-stunned-by-overnight-revaluation-of-his-building-20161012-gs0i2c.html

I feel so sorry for these businessmen that their rates have risen so much, they’ll have to dry their tears with $100 bills from the $3 million+ rise in the value of their property, which they can choose to sell or redevelop. It must be so tough for them.

Surely the government should provide them with even more money and concessions because they are clearly struggling?

Good to see a reasoned explanation of how LR would be funded. But two things…
1. Why wasn’t the LR proposal put forward to the ratepayers as a strategy including solution options and funding methods in the first place? I lost confidence in the proposal because of its backwards approach to strategy.
2. Trams have limitations such as speed, passenger capacity and road sharing. Whilst I can see a pragmatic solution with the Gunghalin line, I don’t see how it would work sufficiently well or better than dedicated bus routes for the longer range city centre routes – especially Tuggeranong.
So for me it is back to the drawing board and lets get a system that answers the needs better such as the Copenhagen unmanned urban train for example.

wildturkeycanoe said :

gazket said :

so far light rail; will cost $80,000 per household in the ACT. How the hell are we to pay that off ? My self don’t take home $2000 a fortnight. Rates will skyrocket which will increase rents.

I’m only just affording $400 a week rent now. Any increase in that I will be forced to move away from Canberra. Simple as that. People on under average wages won’t be able to live in Canberra simple as that.

I wonder how they will get people to move into these value adding high density houses along the corridor, if the prices are going to increase in order to pay for the cost of the tram. Cost of living is an issue in Canberra already, like housing affordability. If the government insists that the properties along the tram routes are going to be how they pay for it, the higher prices and higher rates will deter the same people they are trying to attract. Unit and apartment rates are increasing substantially, forcing up the cost of living in these high density properties. Where is the incentive to move to Canberra?

Where is the incentive to even stay in Canberra?

wildturkeycanoe8:04 am 14 Oct 16

gazket said :

so far light rail; will cost $80,000 per household in the ACT. How the hell are we to pay that off ? My self don’t take home $2000 a fortnight. Rates will skyrocket which will increase rents.

I’m only just affording $400 a week rent now. Any increase in that I will be forced to move away from Canberra. Simple as that. People on under average wages won’t be able to live in Canberra simple as that.

I wonder how they will get people to move into these value adding high density houses along the corridor, if the prices are going to increase in order to pay for the cost of the tram. Cost of living is an issue in Canberra already, like housing affordability. If the government insists that the properties along the tram routes are going to be how they pay for it, the higher prices and higher rates will deter the same people they are trying to attract. Unit and apartment rates are increasing substantially, forcing up the cost of living in these high density properties. Where is the incentive to move to Canberra?

JC said :

Garfield said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Again you have missed the point. Where has that money been committed, or indeed a commitment made to build the whole network? So it is an untruth to say the ACT government is going to spend that money.

Certainly, it is not “committed” in a formal sense as contracts have not been signed.

But, it is “committed” as its the major item in ACT Labor/Greens platforms. They have produced maps of the whole network – but have not released a costing for it.

If you can not see that that is “committed” if ACT Labor/Greens are re elected, then there is no convincing you.

The only stage that has been committed is stage 1. They have committed to a scoping and costing study for stage 2. That is it. But there is no convincing you, you have your $14b in your head and that is it, despite the obvious facts.

No, Labor have committed to signing contracts for stage 2 before the next election and did so in early September. That puts stage 2 on the same footing as every other election promise that needs to be funded should Labor be returned. It is no different to their promise to spend $622m on a new hospital building in 2022 or the Libs $395m to build a new hospital building before then, except for the fact Labor has not released any estimated costings for stage 2. I also encourage you to have a look at some of Labor’s TV advertising, which has been saying they will build the whole network. That’s also an election promise like any other election promise, but again without any costings. When a former deputy director of ACT Treasury puts his reputation on the line and estimates the full network will cost $14bn, I’m going to accept that until such time as Labor or the Greens puts out their own costings and explains the differences. The only way money doesn’t get spent is if there is a change of government or if Labor breaks their election promises.

By your own words they have committed to signing contracts before the next election. Which of course means until such time as that contract is signed they have not committed a thing, and they have especially not committed to a city wide network. That is a long term PLAN. Look at the dictionary to see the difference between a plan and a commitment.

For stage two what they have committed to is a scoping study to determine the cost and the route. Until such time as one is done the cost to be committed is unknown, though they have ESTIMATED it will be much the same as stage 1. Clear enough, or does that not suit the political spin?

So you must be happy for political parties to make promises and then break them after they’re elected. So if Labor is re-elected and goes ahead with the LR network and says oh we can’t afford that expansion to Canberra Hospital so we’ll shelve it, and we can’t afford that extra funding for schools that we promised so we’ll shelve that too, you’ll be happy as Larry? Alternatively if they win off the back of promising stage 2 and then turn around and say its too expensive so we won’t do it you’ll be happy with them?

I on the other hand expect parties to stick to their promises unless there’s some fundamental change in circumstances. The cost of stage 2 and the rest of the network can be very roughly estimated now, and they’re promising to build it now so they should be discussing long term costs with the public now. Labor didn’t let the Federal Libs get away with not discussing the cost of their long term planned business tax cuts, so why should the Canberra Libs and ACT public not hold ACT Labor to account over their long term plans for light rail?

gazket said :

My self don’t take home $2000 a fortnight. Rates will skyrocket which will increase rents. I’m only just affording $400 a week rent now. Any increase in that I will be forced to move away from Canberra. Simple as that. People on under average wages won’t be able to live in Canberra simple as that.

I have posted about that here previously. Annual Rates on units went up 20% on 1/7/16 too. I think this is what the ACT Govt calls “affordable housing”, unless u are on avg or below avg wage, elderly, disabled, self funded retirees or other vulnerable renters or home owners. It is inevitable that more and more people will seek ACT Govt housing to escape the increases in Annual Rates. Or be forced out of the ACT (like I am, as a self funded retiree).

I have raised this before on these boards – but if i were u, I wouldn’t expect any sympathy or even understanding in this new, cold, hard, socially re engineered and now unfriendly Canberra.

gazket said :

so far light rail; will cost $80,000 per household in the ACT. How the hell are we to pay that off ? My self don’t take home $2000 a fortnight. Rates will skyrocket which will increase rents.

I’m only just affording $400 a week rent now. Any increase in that I will be forced to move away from Canberra. Simple as that. People on under average wages won’t be able to live in Canberra simple as that.

Firstly, where did you get $80,000 from? 1st stage is an average of $64m p/a over 20 years. That is closer to $8000 per house hold, spread over 20 years, so $8 per week per household. Compared that to health and education that is costing you $18,000 per year or around $345 per week! Now how do you afford that?

Now the Libs are promising $395m in capital cost to redevelop Canberra hospital, which will cost you $2500 spread over 3 years (someone can correct me as it isn’t actually clear when the Libs will complete the redevelopment and how long). That works out to be $835 per house hold per year of $16 per week (so actually double the weekly cost of light rail). Then of course there is the extra opex cost for the extra nurses and running the place.

Then of course the $200-300m to cancel light rail contracts, which will be a single hit, and I am using the lower cost here of $1290 per household.

So really the libs will cost you $40 per week in the first year and $16 per week for the next 2, compared to Labor at $8.

So which one is cheaper?

wildturkeycanoe said :

JC said :

Not a success? Really. Every spent time in LA? And again, just like here in Canberra the size of the city is not relevant, what is, is the route and the demographics and population along the route and the change in transport patterns with the advent of the light rail line.

The beauty of Google Maps, especially in the case of Los Angeles, is that you can see the area as it was in 2007 and when you cross to the other side of the road you get the same picture but in 2016.
This made “virtually” driving along the light rail route interesting, in that you can see the changes of the last nine years. One thing I noticed on the section I travelled, was that very little had changed in the immediate area adjacent the tram route. It is also partly elevated and not running along or across the road. Near one of the tram stations, there was very little in the way of development, in fact some areas looked even worse after 9 years of tram activity. One side had normal residential backyards, the other some industrial zones, but no high rise apartments and certainly not much in the way of “land value capture”.
I guess there are good and bad rail projects, perhaps this was a bad one.

In your haste to rubbish light rail, and any light rail at that you have missed the point. 43,000 trips are now made on something that didn’t exist (in service) 5 years ago in one of the most car bound cities in the world, through areas that is industrial and suburbia. Hmmm. The fact they don’t live in high rise is totally irrelevant, different city, different situation, but still did I mention 43,000 trips a day? How is that a failure?

And BTW you didn’t look that close. A lot of the Expo route is along road alignments and especially on the downtown side of Culver City. A lot of the rest is on the alignment of an old railway line to Santa Monica. Classic light rail terrirory. Though as mentioned above US light rail tends to be heavier then the Aus/Europe version.

ChrisinTurner11:09 pm 13 Oct 16

One financial problem is that the operating subsidy per boarding on the tram will be at least $12 while on ACTION the subsidy is $6. As the Auditor General has pointed out, the total amount to be handed over to the consortium is $1.78B and this will have to be diverted from other expenditures. Most people I know who are against the tram are staunch public transport advocates, like me, they just want the best system for Canberra and agree with the independent umpire, Infrastructure Australia, that Light Rail is not suitable for Canberra.

“Opponents of better public transport”? Sorry, immediately the author’s attempt to slip a false premise in is exposed and whatever the rest of the article claims is tainted.

Opponents are opposed because light rail is not only costing a lot of money but it’s an inflexible infrastructure that doesn’t solve the problem people want solved.

– It’s 50 years too late,
– it requires the vast majority of commuters to organise and meet connecting services at both ends. Its not door to door.
– services can never be often enough or regular enough city wide to attract and keep patrons.
– it will never go everywhere.
– it locks the city into an essentially linear design around the rail network. Its not flexible.
– it will have become a relic before it achieves ROI.
– in fifteen years or so there will be a system that fixes all of the above.

so far light rail; will cost $80,000 per household in the ACT. How the hell are we to pay that off ? My self don’t take home $2000 a fortnight. Rates will skyrocket which will increase rents. I’m only just affording $400 a week rent now. Any increase in that I will be forced to move away from Canberra. Simple as that. People on under average wages won’t be able to live in Canberra simple as that.

Nice to see President of ACT Light Rail getting space to put his arguments forward. Clearly this is a divisive issue for the community. It is because of the way in which it was presented, the illogic of the Mandate, no real “due diligence, except for the IA report (which said go for more rapid transport-buses) etc. Damian has already seen this comment as it was written personally to him, and City news and CT but not published.

Damian Haas and most Labor-Greens, and pro tram commentators also, overlook the cause of our public transport problems . They would say that CONGESTION is the problem, when it is the symptom of a much bigger issue.

Congestion will happen with or without a bus or driverless cars. For 28 years Canberra motorists have turned their nose up at catching the bus and are unlikely to catch the few trams ultimately available. Patronage is well below 10%-doesn’t that tell you something?

Labor, with its long record of government has not found a way yet to get into the faces of motorists to find out what would greatly encourage a move away from the car. Or if they know, they are not planning their routes and park and rides to suit. eg Feeding buses into the Athlon Drive corridor for example is not what a motorists would do to get to the city quickly. TAMS says there is no extra capacity for extra buses on Tuggeranong Parkway. Of course not-there are too many cars using it. But take 59 cars out of the equation, and replace it with a bus and you suddenly have extra capacity.

Congestion-is not the cause of the problem, but convincing motorists to mode shift to public transport will go a long way to improving Public Transport patronage. Not rocket science! Oh-and by the way, we already have paid for our buses!

Russ Morison
Canberra Public Transport Alliance
(supporting ways to improve patronage)

wildturkeycanoe6:38 pm 13 Oct 16

JC said :

Not a success? Really. Every spent time in LA? And again, just like here in Canberra the size of the city is not relevant, what is, is the route and the demographics and population along the route and the change in transport patterns with the advent of the light rail line.

The beauty of Google Maps, especially in the case of Los Angeles, is that you can see the area as it was in 2007 and when you cross to the other side of the road you get the same picture but in 2016.
This made “virtually” driving along the light rail route interesting, in that you can see the changes of the last nine years. One thing I noticed on the section I travelled, was that very little had changed in the immediate area adjacent the tram route. It is also partly elevated and not running along or across the road. Near one of the tram stations, there was very little in the way of development, in fact some areas looked even worse after 9 years of tram activity. One side had normal residential backyards, the other some industrial zones, but no high rise apartments and certainly not much in the way of “land value capture”.
I guess there are good and bad rail projects, perhaps this was a bad one.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

According to a report in today’s Canberra Times, Capital Metro (they mean Canberra Metro I think as the former ceased to exist 12 months ago) is now doing exploratory excavations on the Northbourne Avenue median strip between Antil Street and Macarthur Avenue to determine what services are there and how they can be relocated.

This sounds very much like the “audit” that was to be done 2 – 3 years ago. Whatever the outcome, this vital part of the project is still unfunded so perhaps JC can explain why it is being done on the eve of the election and what the ramifications are if nasties like asbestos pipes are uncovered.

I won’t hold my breath.

The work is being done as part of the build cost, so funded. If they find asbestos pipes, who knows, maybe they will replace them or leave them where they are. But really considering the amount of new cable that has been laid in Northborne Ave over the years, most of it is a known.

Also FYI “Liberal deputy leader and transport spokesman Alistair Coe said the works on Northbourne Avenue would not be wasted under a Liberal government as trenching and mapping would be needed for their $58 million election plan”

So your issue is?

My issue is what happened to the audit that was done two years ago which was never released?

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

One of Andrew Barr’s many election promises was to deliver two more ambulances.

In view of another collision involving a Melbourne tram I suggest that order be doubled as a contingency for the Canberra light rail.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-13/tram-collides-with-van-melbourne-carrying-students/7927930

Knew you would bring that up. You saying buses and cars don’t have accidents, or that somehow the accident rate tram vs car is higher?

Busses and cars rarely have accidents in Canberra.
What I am saying (as you are well aware) is that there will inevitably be accidents because of the introduction of trams as has happened everywhere that trams have been introduced.

Just because it doesn’t make the news doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Likewise I would suggest even in Melbourne accidents happen between tram/car, car/car, car/bus frequently too, but most don’t reported because they don’t involve a bus full of special needs children.

Pop over to a website called actbus.net and have a look at the thread below. Yes you need to filter through broken down buses and the like but most bus accidents are chronicled.

http://actbus.net/forum/index.php?topic=1362.800

JC said :

chewy14 said :

pink little birdie said :

miz said :

Mr Haas is seeing everything though a pro light rail filter himself, yet accuses those opposed of doing the opposite. He is wrong on every aspect.
I am pro public transport and generally pro-tram and pro-train, but anti THIS tram because it represents clear favouritism to certain areas of Canberra and poor value for our public transport spend. Worse, based on people’s experiences of this present Labor-Green government, many are (cynically but probably realistically) expecting THIS tram to be so funds-prioritised that other areas are likely to miss out on adequate services in multiple areas.
I personally ‘expect money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably.’ Light rail does not meet this test as it is only going to serve 5 per cent of the population. It is unlikely to go anywhere else despite all the big plans – it is just unaffordable. Whereas rapid bus would cover the entire city – a far more equitable proposal, and at a more reasonable cost. This is not about being precious about services one is not personally receiving, but about what is best value for all. Best value for all is certainly not an expensive shiny thing that only serves 5 per cent. You don’t have to be smart to see this – just not be one-eyed about THIS tram.

How do you start building a large project without starting somewhere? where would you start building a tram instead?
Where ever you start it is only going to benefit a small % of the population?
The route has also been planned for a long time to have the light rail down Northbourne. Once there has been the skill development the other links would be
While I agree Tuggeranong has been neglected infrastructure wise I think it’s a much worse place for the tram to start. I also disagree with City to the airport as the first tram link (majority of travellers are business travellers where cabs/parking is paid for, for most people it’s as much effort to get to the city on public transport and then to the tram, most tourists flying in will get cabs or uber to hotels because it takes them directly to the hotel) It’s basically a gift to city residents for a city to airport. I also disagree with city to Parliamentary triangle. It’s not a high residential zone or even a high commercial zone so it would get limited aside from the morning and evening peaks and again it would still only benefit northsiders – southsiders aren’t going into the city to catch a tram back to the otherside of the lake.

How about you start by making the main beneficiaries of the chosen route at least pay for a reasonable % of it commensurate with the private benefit gained by it?

Won’t they be paying for it via higher rates that come from higher land value as a result of light rail?

You’re assuming that the owners will remain owners and that it matters either way. Property owners along the corridor will see their wealth rise by ten’s (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars, all provided by the general Canberra ratepayer.

Public funding, private benefit. As a Labor supporter, I’d have thought you’d be against such (pork) largesse for people who already have significant assets?

dungfungus said :

According to a report in today’s Canberra Times, Capital Metro (they mean Canberra Metro I think as the former ceased to exist 12 months ago) is now doing exploratory excavations on the Northbourne Avenue median strip between Antil Street and Macarthur Avenue to determine what services are there and how they can be relocated.

This sounds very much like the “audit” that was to be done 2 – 3 years ago. Whatever the outcome, this vital part of the project is still unfunded so perhaps JC can explain why it is being done on the eve of the election and what the ramifications are if nasties like asbestos pipes are uncovered.

I won’t hold my breath.

The work is being done as part of the build cost, so funded. If they find asbestos pipes, who knows, maybe they will replace them or leave them where they are. But really considering the amount of new cable that has been laid in Northborne Ave over the years, most of it is a known.

Also FYI “Liberal deputy leader and transport spokesman Alistair Coe said the works on Northbourne Avenue would not be wasted under a Liberal government as trenching and mapping would be needed for their $58 million election plan”

So your issue is?

JC said :

dungfungus said :

One of Andrew Barr’s many election promises was to deliver two more ambulances.

In view of another collision involving a Melbourne tram I suggest that order be doubled as a contingency for the Canberra light rail.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-13/tram-collides-with-van-melbourne-carrying-students/7927930

Knew you would bring that up. You saying buses and cars don’t have accidents, or that somehow the accident rate tram vs car is higher?

Busses and cars rarely have accidents in Canberra.
What I am saying (as you are well aware) is that there will inevitably be accidents because of the introduction of trams as has happened everywhere that trams have been introduced.

dungfungus said :

One of Andrew Barr’s many election promises was to deliver two more ambulances.

In view of another collision involving a Melbourne tram I suggest that order be doubled as a contingency for the Canberra light rail.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-13/tram-collides-with-van-melbourne-carrying-students/7927930

Knew you would bring that up. You saying buses and cars don’t have accidents, or that somehow the accident rate tram vs car is higher?

wildturkeycanoe said :

But that line is 24km long [covering a distance over half the width of the entire metropolis] running through a city of 3.8 million, meaning just over 1% of the city uses this particular line.
Overall, rail patronage across the city is only 10% whilst bus patronage is almost three times that. Not exactly a success, which shows that buses are much more preferable to rail

Not a success? Really. Every spent time in LA? And again, just like here in Canberra the size of the city is not relevant, what is, is the route and the demographics and population along the route and the change in transport patterns with the advent of the light rail line.

I’ve been a regular to LA now (about once every 18 months or so) since about 2003 staying in the Santa Monica/Century City area and the change that this line has made is nothing but positive.

The fact 3 times as many people get buses, clearly shows they need to be putting more money into building more lines, which tada they are actually doing.

One of Andrew Barr’s many election promises was to deliver two more ambulances.

In view of another collision involving a Melbourne tram I suggest that order be doubled as a contingency for the Canberra light rail.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-13/tram-collides-with-van-melbourne-carrying-students/7927930

According to a report in today’s Canberra Times, Capital Metro (they mean Canberra Metro I think as the former ceased to exist 12 months ago) is now doing exploratory excavations on the Northbourne Avenue median strip between Antil Street and Macarthur Avenue to determine what services are there and how they can be relocated.

This sounds very much like the “audit” that was to be done 2 – 3 years ago. Whatever the outcome, this vital part of the project is still unfunded so perhaps JC can explain why it is being done on the eve of the election and what the ramifications are if nasties like asbestos pipes are uncovered.

I won’t hold my breath.

wildturkeycanoe7:07 am 13 Oct 16

creative_canberran said :

Newest light-rail line in LA, which was finished this year has a daily ridership of over 43,000. For the entire system including 4 light and 2 heavy rail lines, it’s over 360,000 on average daily.

But that line is 24km long [covering a distance over half the width of the entire metropolis] running through a city of 3.8 million, meaning just over 1% of the city uses this particular line.
Overall, rail patronage across the city is only 10% whilst bus patronage is almost three times that. Not exactly a success, which shows that buses are much more preferable to rail.

pink little birdie said :

You need to build it before it’s really needed.

So why haven’t the government put in more bus services before population growth exceeds demand? People complain about how few buses there are to service their areas, demanding more frequency. Because it isn’t financially viable the government doesn’t put them out there. Why should we be paying for buses to run almost empty just because they need to be there before they are really needed? Why have fifty buses a day go through Molonglo for instance, when only a few people live there, just because we have to be ready for the future population? Once the demand is there, then you build it. To do so before hand only costs money and can cripple the project before it gets going.
To use the same analogy I have before, why buy a brand new nine seat minivan a decade before you plan to have children, just to be ready. By the time you start trying for kids, your minivan will be half its value and you won’t be able to afford a new one, let alone be financially secure enough to have the large family you planned. Had you saved the money instead and put up with the five seat sedan, you could now buy a new minivan once you had five or six kids. It is called sensible planning and living within your means, whilst saving for the future. We don’t have seven kids yet, that is still a decade or more away. In the meantime we can make do with the bus system [our five seat sedan] even though we might be a little inconvenienced in the meantime.

JC said :

chewy14 said :

No, wrong.

You build it when you need it but plan for it before it’s needed which is what I’m suggesting. It’s far more cost effective and efficient to meet an existing demand, rather than to create one.

Your argument is why we end up with gold plated infrastructure that is underutilised or doesn’t meet the requirements of customers and the public.

Interesting theory. If that is the case why do we have so many people complain when roads get built as a single lane, then duplicated later. The argument is always it would have been cheaper to do it ‘properly’ the first time. But yup roads have different rules and perception compared to public transport.

I thought you were more rational than this.

In some cases, it’s cheaper to construct the full capacity required due to the high mobilisation and rework costs, when you are already required to be building capacity, particularly when the demand is only a few years away, like some local roads of note.

That doesn’t apply here. This project is the equivalent of building a four lane GDE, 10-15 years before development began in Gunghalin.

If we were having this discussion in 15-20 years time, with another 15000 people living in the corridor then you might have a point that it was time for light rail. But we’re nowhere near that point at present.and there are far better options available.

Garfield said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Again you have missed the point. Where has that money been committed, or indeed a commitment made to build the whole network? So it is an untruth to say the ACT government is going to spend that money.

Certainly, it is not “committed” in a formal sense as contracts have not been signed.

But, it is “committed” as its the major item in ACT Labor/Greens platforms. They have produced maps of the whole network – but have not released a costing for it.

If you can not see that that is “committed” if ACT Labor/Greens are re elected, then there is no convincing you.

The only stage that has been committed is stage 1. They have committed to a scoping and costing study for stage 2. That is it. But there is no convincing you, you have your $14b in your head and that is it, despite the obvious facts.

No, Labor have committed to signing contracts for stage 2 before the next election and did so in early September. That puts stage 2 on the same footing as every other election promise that needs to be funded should Labor be returned. It is no different to their promise to spend $622m on a new hospital building in 2022 or the Libs $395m to build a new hospital building before then, except for the fact Labor has not released any estimated costings for stage 2. I also encourage you to have a look at some of Labor’s TV advertising, which has been saying they will build the whole network. That’s also an election promise like any other election promise, but again without any costings. When a former deputy director of ACT Treasury puts his reputation on the line and estimates the full network will cost $14bn, I’m going to accept that until such time as Labor or the Greens puts out their own costings and explains the differences. The only way money doesn’t get spent is if there is a change of government or if Labor breaks their election promises.

By your own words they have committed to signing contracts before the next election. Which of course means until such time as that contract is signed they have not committed a thing, and they have especially not committed to a city wide network. That is a long term PLAN. Look at the dictionary to see the difference between a plan and a commitment.

For stage two what they have committed to is a scoping study to determine the cost and the route. Until such time as one is done the cost to be committed is unknown, though they have ESTIMATED it will be much the same as stage 1. Clear enough, or does that not suit the political spin?

chewy14 said :

pink little birdie said :

miz said :

Mr Haas is seeing everything though a pro light rail filter himself, yet accuses those opposed of doing the opposite. He is wrong on every aspect.
I am pro public transport and generally pro-tram and pro-train, but anti THIS tram because it represents clear favouritism to certain areas of Canberra and poor value for our public transport spend. Worse, based on people’s experiences of this present Labor-Green government, many are (cynically but probably realistically) expecting THIS tram to be so funds-prioritised that other areas are likely to miss out on adequate services in multiple areas.
I personally ‘expect money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably.’ Light rail does not meet this test as it is only going to serve 5 per cent of the population. It is unlikely to go anywhere else despite all the big plans – it is just unaffordable. Whereas rapid bus would cover the entire city – a far more equitable proposal, and at a more reasonable cost. This is not about being precious about services one is not personally receiving, but about what is best value for all. Best value for all is certainly not an expensive shiny thing that only serves 5 per cent. You don’t have to be smart to see this – just not be one-eyed about THIS tram.

How do you start building a large project without starting somewhere? where would you start building a tram instead?
Where ever you start it is only going to benefit a small % of the population?
The route has also been planned for a long time to have the light rail down Northbourne. Once there has been the skill development the other links would be
While I agree Tuggeranong has been neglected infrastructure wise I think it’s a much worse place for the tram to start. I also disagree with City to the airport as the first tram link (majority of travellers are business travellers where cabs/parking is paid for, for most people it’s as much effort to get to the city on public transport and then to the tram, most tourists flying in will get cabs or uber to hotels because it takes them directly to the hotel) It’s basically a gift to city residents for a city to airport. I also disagree with city to Parliamentary triangle. It’s not a high residential zone or even a high commercial zone so it would get limited aside from the morning and evening peaks and again it would still only benefit northsiders – southsiders aren’t going into the city to catch a tram back to the otherside of the lake.

How about you start by making the main beneficiaries of the chosen route at least pay for a reasonable % of it commensurate with the private benefit gained by it?

Won’t they be paying for it via higher rates that come from higher land value as a result of light rail?

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Again you have missed the point. Where has that money been committed, or indeed a commitment made to build the whole network? So it is an untruth to say the ACT government is going to spend that money.

Certainly, it is not “committed” in a formal sense as contracts have not been signed.

But, it is “committed” as its the major item in ACT Labor/Greens platforms. They have produced maps of the whole network – but have not released a costing for it.

If you can not see that that is “committed” if ACT Labor/Greens are re elected, then there is no convincing you.

The only stage that has been committed is stage 1. They have committed to a scoping and costing study for stage 2. That is it. But there is no convincing you, you have your $14b in your head and that is it, despite the obvious facts.

No, Labor have committed to signing contracts for stage 2 before the next election and did so in early September. That puts stage 2 on the same footing as every other election promise that needs to be funded should Labor be returned. It is no different to their promise to spend $622m on a new hospital building in 2022 or the Libs $395m to build a new hospital building before then, except for the fact Labor has not released any estimated costings for stage 2. I also encourage you to have a look at some of Labor’s TV advertising, which has been saying they will build the whole network. That’s also an election promise like any other election promise, but again without any costings. When a former deputy director of ACT Treasury puts his reputation on the line and estimates the full network will cost $14bn, I’m going to accept that until such time as Labor or the Greens puts out their own costings and explains the differences. The only way money doesn’t get spent is if there is a change of government or if Labor breaks their election promises.

chewy14 said :

No, wrong.

You build it when you need it but plan for it before it’s needed which is what I’m suggesting. It’s far more cost effective and efficient to meet an existing demand, rather than to create one.

Your argument is why we end up with gold plated infrastructure that is underutilised or doesn’t meet the requirements of customers and the public.

Interesting theory. If that is the case why do we have so many people complain when roads get built as a single lane, then duplicated later. The argument is always it would have been cheaper to do it ‘properly’ the first time. But yup roads have different rules and perception compared to public transport.

pink little birdie said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

But those things are not going to exist along the stage 1 route from Gungahlin to the City for 20 yrs +. For the stage 2 routes and beyond we’re talking about 50yrs +. Which means that either the project will be a massive unviable drain on our finances or will never get built whilst we’re still alive. A huge private benefit will be accrued from public finances if stage 1 goes ahead, money that is not being equitably funded.

That is where you are wrong. Go down Northborne Ave and Flemmington road today, or look at the territory plan. The density along that corridor is already the highest in the whole of the ACT. Better to do the better job now, rather than waste $300m on paying out contracts, $200m building a BRT, only to then, by your own admission need light rail soon after. That is the kind of narrow mindness that has cost this city in the past.

If Kate Carnell, Tony De Domenico and Bob Winnel had their way light rail would have been running to Gungahlin 20 years ago!

Done all those things and I’m still right. In fact, you even give part of my evidence by saying look at the territory plan which has had to be changed to allow the kinds of densities that make the project even potentially viable after all of the redevelopments are made to those blocks over 20-30 years.

The sensible long term planning option would have been to set out a pathway to the term solution of light rail or something equally capable when the demand has materialised. Improvements to public transport could have been made in stages that would end up far better financially and functionally for the territory and it’s citizens. Unfortunately such detailed and long term planning is not “sexy” enough for politicians who are too often focused on their own inflated self worth and “legacy”.

It’s actually far more narrow minded to think only of the gold plated solution than the way to optimally achieve the best results.

Although I do agree with you now that Labor has made the absolutely gutless and weak minded decision to sign contracts that there is no turning back. But to reward them for doing so by giving them four more years is almost beyond the pale.

The kind of arrogance shown here is that of a party that’s been too long in power. If only there was a decent opposition to replace them.

Your argument is why we have infrastructure deficits and people complain that infrastructure isn’t keeping up with population growth. You need to build it before it’s really needed.

No, wrong.

You build it when you need it but plan for it before it’s needed which is what I’m suggesting. It’s far more cost effective and efficient to meet an existing demand, rather than to create one.

Your argument is why we end up with gold plated infrastructure that is underutilised or doesn’t meet the requirements of customers and the public.

pink little birdie said :

chewy14 said :

pink little birdie said :

miz said :

Mr Haas is seeing everything though a pro light rail filter himself, yet accuses those opposed of doing the opposite. He is wrong on every aspect.
I am pro public transport and generally pro-tram and pro-train, but anti THIS tram because it represents clear favouritism to certain areas of Canberra and poor value for our public transport spend. Worse, based on people’s experiences of this present Labor-Green government, many are (cynically but probably realistically) expecting THIS tram to be so funds-prioritised that other areas are likely to miss out on adequate services in multiple areas.
I personally ‘expect money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably.’ Light rail does not meet this test as it is only going to serve 5 per cent of the population. It is unlikely to go anywhere else despite all the big plans – it is just unaffordable. Whereas rapid bus would cover the entire city – a far more equitable proposal, and at a more reasonable cost. This is not about being precious about services one is not personally receiving, but about what is best value for all. Best value for all is certainly not an expensive shiny thing that only serves 5 per cent. You don’t have to be smart to see this – just not be one-eyed about THIS tram.

How do you start building a large project without starting somewhere? where would you start building a tram instead?
Where ever you start it is only going to benefit a small % of the population?
The route has also been planned for a long time to have the light rail down Northbourne. Once there has been the skill development the other links would be
While I agree Tuggeranong has been neglected infrastructure wise I think it’s a much worse place for the tram to start. I also disagree with City to the airport as the first tram link (majority of travellers are business travellers where cabs/parking is paid for, for most people it’s as much effort to get to the city on public transport and then to the tram, most tourists flying in will get cabs or uber to hotels because it takes them directly to the hotel) It’s basically a gift to city residents for a city to airport. I also disagree with city to Parliamentary triangle. It’s not a high residential zone or even a high commercial zone so it would get limited aside from the morning and evening peaks and again it would still only benefit northsiders – southsiders aren’t going into the city to catch a tram back to the otherside of the lake.

How about you start by making the main beneficiaries of the chosen route at least pay for a reasonable % of it commensurate with the private benefit gained by it?

Because user pays in these situations are inefficient and more expensive to collect. Also I don’t directly benefit… I don’t live on the tram route and I don’t even drive work… but I’m still happy to contribute to the tram. In a few years I’ll have a kid and riding on the tram will be super exciting for them.
The toddler – 8 year old trips will be countless. (I have a small cousin who is obsessed with trains we spend days just riding the trams, trains and buses just for the sake of it when we visit Adelaide.

User pays ensures far more efficient delivery and funding of services in exactly these instances. It isn’t in any way more costly or inefficient, a direct levy to ratepayers along the route would be simple to administer.

This is because to get that funding, they’d have to ensure that the project was the right choice for the needs of those along the route rather than conscripting every ratepayer to cross subsidise those who directly benefit who are going to be much more supportive because of that benefit. If you force users and beneficiaries to pay for it, it actually give a better gauge of their willingness to pay and need for the project.

And once again, the benefits you talk about such as ” the tram will be super exciting for them.” isn’t a reason to spend a billion dollars.

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Again you have missed the point. Where has that money been committed, or indeed a commitment made to build the whole network? So it is an untruth to say the ACT government is going to spend that money.

Certainly, it is not “committed” in a formal sense as contracts have not been signed.

But, it is “committed” as its the major item in ACT Labor/Greens platforms. They have produced maps of the whole network – but have not released a costing for it.

If you can not see that that is “committed” if ACT Labor/Greens are re elected, then there is no convincing you.

The only stage that has been committed is stage 1. They have committed to a scoping and costing study for stage 2. That is it. But there is no convincing you, you have your $14b in your head and that is it, despite the obvious facts.

There are still two days until the election so I am sure the ACT Labor/Green minority government will be able to sign contracts for another few $billion.

Mr Barr could also do a “Baird” and call the whole fiasco off.

Light rail is the right fail. It’s the smart (that’s trams spelt backwards) thing to do.

chewy14 said :

Done all those things and I’m still right. In fact, you even give part of my evidence by saying look at the territory plan which has had to be changed to allow the kinds of densities that make the project even potentially viable after all of the redevelopments are made to those blocks over 20-30 years.

Actually no. Flemmington road as far back as the Carnell days of government, when it was first planned was to be a high density commuter route. The only change to the territory plan was the inclusion of this road. Even Northborne Ave has been high(er) density for quite some time, as evidenced by the flats now planned to be knocked down and replaced.

And in reality it gets back to we need to house people, urban sprawl as planned by NCDC no longer works (anywhere in Aus for that matter), so we need to look at having corridors and or areas of high(er) density. To me very sensible to build in this corridor and provide a transport solution that MIGHT have a hope of actually working. Rather than the same old same old which has been done before.

And you reckon it is going to take 20-30 years before it is viable? Never mind the Flemmington Road corridor is more or less complete, and Northborne Ave already has higher density housing and business along it. Most of it is there NOW. Ride a 200 bus any time from 7am to 8pm and they are always busy, both directions, now.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Again you have missed the point. Where has that money been committed, or indeed a commitment made to build the whole network? So it is an untruth to say the ACT government is going to spend that money.

Certainly, it is not “committed” in a formal sense as contracts have not been signed.

But, it is “committed” as its the major item in ACT Labor/Greens platforms. They have produced maps of the whole network – but have not released a costing for it.

If you can not see that that is “committed” if ACT Labor/Greens are re elected, then there is no convincing you.

The only stage that has been committed is stage 1. They have committed to a scoping and costing study for stage 2. That is it. But there is no convincing you, you have your $14b in your head and that is it, despite the obvious facts.

pink little birdie9:09 am 12 Oct 16

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

But those things are not going to exist along the stage 1 route from Gungahlin to the City for 20 yrs +. For the stage 2 routes and beyond we’re talking about 50yrs +. Which means that either the project will be a massive unviable drain on our finances or will never get built whilst we’re still alive. A huge private benefit will be accrued from public finances if stage 1 goes ahead, money that is not being equitably funded.

That is where you are wrong. Go down Northborne Ave and Flemmington road today, or look at the territory plan. The density along that corridor is already the highest in the whole of the ACT. Better to do the better job now, rather than waste $300m on paying out contracts, $200m building a BRT, only to then, by your own admission need light rail soon after. That is the kind of narrow mindness that has cost this city in the past.

If Kate Carnell, Tony De Domenico and Bob Winnel had their way light rail would have been running to Gungahlin 20 years ago!

Done all those things and I’m still right. In fact, you even give part of my evidence by saying look at the territory plan which has had to be changed to allow the kinds of densities that make the project even potentially viable after all of the redevelopments are made to those blocks over 20-30 years.

The sensible long term planning option would have been to set out a pathway to the term solution of light rail or something equally capable when the demand has materialised. Improvements to public transport could have been made in stages that would end up far better financially and functionally for the territory and it’s citizens. Unfortunately such detailed and long term planning is not “sexy” enough for politicians who are too often focused on their own inflated self worth and “legacy”.

It’s actually far more narrow minded to think only of the gold plated solution than the way to optimally achieve the best results.

Although I do agree with you now that Labor has made the absolutely gutless and weak minded decision to sign contracts that there is no turning back. But to reward them for doing so by giving them four more years is almost beyond the pale.

The kind of arrogance shown here is that of a party that’s been too long in power. If only there was a decent opposition to replace them.

Your argument is why we have infrastructure deficits and people complain that infrastructure isn’t keeping up with population growth. You need to build it before it’s really needed.

JC said :

Again you have missed the point. Where has that money been committed, or indeed a commitment made to build the whole network? So it is an untruth to say the ACT government is going to spend that money.

Certainly, it is not “committed” in a formal sense as contracts have not been signed.

But, it is “committed” as its the major item in ACT Labor/Greens platforms. They have produced maps of the whole network – but have not released a costing for it.

If you can not see that that is “committed” if ACT Labor/Greens are re elected, then there is no convincing you.

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

But those things are not going to exist along the stage 1 route from Gungahlin to the City for 20 yrs +. For the stage 2 routes and beyond we’re talking about 50yrs +. Which means that either the project will be a massive unviable drain on our finances or will never get built whilst we’re still alive. A huge private benefit will be accrued from public finances if stage 1 goes ahead, money that is not being equitably funded.

That is where you are wrong. Go down Northborne Ave and Flemmington road today, or look at the territory plan. The density along that corridor is already the highest in the whole of the ACT. Better to do the better job now, rather than waste $300m on paying out contracts, $200m building a BRT, only to then, by your own admission need light rail soon after. That is the kind of narrow mindness that has cost this city in the past.

If Kate Carnell, Tony De Domenico and Bob Winnel had their way light rail would have been running to Gungahlin 20 years ago!

Done all those things and I’m still right. In fact, you even give part of my evidence by saying look at the territory plan which has had to be changed to allow the kinds of densities that make the project even potentially viable after all of the redevelopments are made to those blocks over 20-30 years.

The sensible long term planning option would have been to set out a pathway to the term solution of light rail or something equally capable when the demand has materialised. Improvements to public transport could have been made in stages that would end up far better financially and functionally for the territory and it’s citizens. Unfortunately such detailed and long term planning is not “sexy” enough for politicians who are too often focused on their own inflated self worth and “legacy”.

It’s actually far more narrow minded to think only of the gold plated solution than the way to optimally achieve the best results.

Although I do agree with you now that Labor has made the absolutely gutless and weak minded decision to sign contracts that there is no turning back. But to reward them for doing so by giving them four more years is almost beyond the pale.

The kind of arrogance shown here is that of a party that’s been too long in power. If only there was a decent opposition to replace them.

Agree with all that.

JC said :

chewy14 said :

But those things are not going to exist along the stage 1 route from Gungahlin to the City for 20 yrs +. For the stage 2 routes and beyond we’re talking about 50yrs +. Which means that either the project will be a massive unviable drain on our finances or will never get built whilst we’re still alive. A huge private benefit will be accrued from public finances if stage 1 goes ahead, money that is not being equitably funded.

That is where you are wrong. Go down Northborne Ave and Flemmington road today, or look at the territory plan. The density along that corridor is already the highest in the whole of the ACT. Better to do the better job now, rather than waste $300m on paying out contracts, $200m building a BRT, only to then, by your own admission need light rail soon after. That is the kind of narrow mindness that has cost this city in the past.

If Kate Carnell, Tony De Domenico and Bob Winnel had their way light rail would have been running to Gungahlin 20 years ago!

Done all those things and I’m still right. In fact, you even give part of my evidence by saying look at the territory plan which has had to be changed to allow the kinds of densities that make the project even potentially viable after all of the redevelopments are made to those blocks over 20-30 years.

The sensible long term planning option would have been to set out a pathway to the term solution of light rail or something equally capable when the demand has materialised. Improvements to public transport could have been made in stages that would end up far better financially and functionally for the territory and it’s citizens. Unfortunately such detailed and long term planning is not “sexy” enough for politicians who are too often focused on their own inflated self worth and “legacy”.

It’s actually far more narrow minded to think only of the gold plated solution than the way to optimally achieve the best results.

Although I do agree with you now that Labor has made the absolutely gutless and weak minded decision to sign contracts that there is no turning back. But to reward them for doing so by giving them four more years is almost beyond the pale.

The kind of arrogance shown here is that of a party that’s been too long in power. If only there was a decent opposition to replace them.

pink little birdie5:12 pm 11 Oct 16

chewy14 said :

pink little birdie said :

miz said :

Mr Haas is seeing everything though a pro light rail filter himself, yet accuses those opposed of doing the opposite. He is wrong on every aspect.
I am pro public transport and generally pro-tram and pro-train, but anti THIS tram because it represents clear favouritism to certain areas of Canberra and poor value for our public transport spend. Worse, based on people’s experiences of this present Labor-Green government, many are (cynically but probably realistically) expecting THIS tram to be so funds-prioritised that other areas are likely to miss out on adequate services in multiple areas.
I personally ‘expect money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably.’ Light rail does not meet this test as it is only going to serve 5 per cent of the population. It is unlikely to go anywhere else despite all the big plans – it is just unaffordable. Whereas rapid bus would cover the entire city – a far more equitable proposal, and at a more reasonable cost. This is not about being precious about services one is not personally receiving, but about what is best value for all. Best value for all is certainly not an expensive shiny thing that only serves 5 per cent. You don’t have to be smart to see this – just not be one-eyed about THIS tram.

How do you start building a large project without starting somewhere? where would you start building a tram instead?
Where ever you start it is only going to benefit a small % of the population?
The route has also been planned for a long time to have the light rail down Northbourne. Once there has been the skill development the other links would be
While I agree Tuggeranong has been neglected infrastructure wise I think it’s a much worse place for the tram to start. I also disagree with City to the airport as the first tram link (majority of travellers are business travellers where cabs/parking is paid for, for most people it’s as much effort to get to the city on public transport and then to the tram, most tourists flying in will get cabs or uber to hotels because it takes them directly to the hotel) It’s basically a gift to city residents for a city to airport. I also disagree with city to Parliamentary triangle. It’s not a high residential zone or even a high commercial zone so it would get limited aside from the morning and evening peaks and again it would still only benefit northsiders – southsiders aren’t going into the city to catch a tram back to the otherside of the lake.

How about you start by making the main beneficiaries of the chosen route at least pay for a reasonable % of it commensurate with the private benefit gained by it?

Because user pays in these situations are inefficient and more expensive to collect. Also I don’t directly benefit… I don’t live on the tram route and I don’t even drive work… but I’m still happy to contribute to the tram. In a few years I’ll have a kid and riding on the tram will be super exciting for them.
The toddler – 8 year old trips will be countless. (I have a small cousin who is obsessed with trains we spend days just riding the trams, trains and buses just for the sake of it when we visit Adelaide.

creative_canberran4:15 pm 11 Oct 16

Masquara said :

Anyone who has commuted in e.g. Los Angeles knows that people are diehard about the convenience of their cars, and will drive at a snail’s pace rather than use public transport.

Newest light-rail line in LA, which was finished this year has a daily ridership of over 43,000. For the entire system including 4 light and 2 heavy rail lines, it’s over 360,000 on average daily.

Not quite the millions who catch the NY Subway, but you wouldn’t call it a failure either.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Because it is an untruth. Show me anywhere that the government has commited the territory to $14b of light rail spending over the next 20 years. One bit, just one bit…

How can it be an “untruth” if its one persons (an ex head of ACT Treasury) estimate. My own back of a postage stamp cost calculation came out at about b$10.5, so if a more knowledgeable person comes up with b$14, that seems to me to be on the right track.

In any event, until the ACT Labor/Greens Govt comes out with their costed estimate of both tram Stage 2 to Woden and indeed, the entire tram network, no one has a right to put forward their own estimate of those projects ??? That those are “untruths” ?? That doesnt sound right to me.

Again you have missed the point. Where has that money been committed, or indeed a commitment made to build the whole network? So it is an untruth to say the ACT government is going to spend that money.

pink little birdie said :

miz said :

Mr Haas is seeing everything though a pro light rail filter himself, yet accuses those opposed of doing the opposite. He is wrong on every aspect.
I am pro public transport and generally pro-tram and pro-train, but anti THIS tram because it represents clear favouritism to certain areas of Canberra and poor value for our public transport spend. Worse, based on people’s experiences of this present Labor-Green government, many are (cynically but probably realistically) expecting THIS tram to be so funds-prioritised that other areas are likely to miss out on adequate services in multiple areas.
I personally ‘expect money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably.’ Light rail does not meet this test as it is only going to serve 5 per cent of the population. It is unlikely to go anywhere else despite all the big plans – it is just unaffordable. Whereas rapid bus would cover the entire city – a far more equitable proposal, and at a more reasonable cost. This is not about being precious about services one is not personally receiving, but about what is best value for all. Best value for all is certainly not an expensive shiny thing that only serves 5 per cent. You don’t have to be smart to see this – just not be one-eyed about THIS tram.

How do you start building a large project without starting somewhere? where would you start building a tram instead?
Where ever you start it is only going to benefit a small % of the population?
The route has also been planned for a long time to have the light rail down Northbourne. Once there has been the skill development the other links would be
While I agree Tuggeranong has been neglected infrastructure wise I think it’s a much worse place for the tram to start. I also disagree with City to the airport as the first tram link (majority of travellers are business travellers where cabs/parking is paid for, for most people it’s as much effort to get to the city on public transport and then to the tram, most tourists flying in will get cabs or uber to hotels because it takes them directly to the hotel) It’s basically a gift to city residents for a city to airport. I also disagree with city to Parliamentary triangle. It’s not a high residential zone or even a high commercial zone so it would get limited aside from the morning and evening peaks and again it would still only benefit northsiders – southsiders aren’t going into the city to catch a tram back to the otherside of the lake.

How about you start by making the main beneficiaries of the chosen route at least pay for a reasonable % of it commensurate with the private benefit gained by it?

JC said :

Because it is an untruth. Show me anywhere that the government has commited the territory to $14b of light rail spending over the next 20 years. One bit, just one bit…

How can it be an “untruth” if its one persons (an ex head of ACT Treasury) estimate. My own back of a postage stamp cost calculation came out at about b$10.5, so if a more knowledgeable person comes up with b$14, that seems to me to be on the right track.

In any event, until the ACT Labor/Greens Govt comes out with their costed estimate of both tram Stage 2 to Woden and indeed, the entire tram network, no one has a right to put forward their own estimate of those projects ??? That those are “untruths” ?? That doesnt sound right to me.

chewy14 said :

But those things are not going to exist along the stage 1 route from Gungahlin to the City for 20 yrs +. For the stage 2 routes and beyond we’re talking about 50yrs +. Which means that either the project will be a massive unviable drain on our finances or will never get built whilst we’re still alive. A huge private benefit will be accrued from public finances if stage 1 goes ahead, money that is not being equitably funded.

That is where you are wrong. Go down Northborne Ave and Flemmington road today, or look at the territory plan. The density along that corridor is already the highest in the whole of the ACT. Better to do the better job now, rather than waste $300m on paying out contracts, $200m building a BRT, only to then, by your own admission need light rail soon after. That is the kind of narrow mindness that has cost this city in the past.

If Kate Carnell, Tony De Domenico and Bob Winnel had their way light rail would have been running to Gungahlin 20 years ago!

K320Scania said :

chewy14 said :

What a ludicrously biased article.

The author assumes that light rail was the only option for public transport when the governments own studies showed that a BRT would provide nearly the same benefits for a far cheaper cost.

The reality is that only a tiny percentage of the population will benefit and be able to regularly utilize this system. The talk of the population of entire districts is just silly. Does the author think everyone that lives in these areas works in the city or Gungahlin centres? Or lives close enough to easilly catch the tram?

And this is not equitable. It is providing a rolled gold solution for one part of the city whilst leaving the others to pay for it. The future stages are almost certain not to happen due to the costs involved. Stage one is only marginally viable if you include all of the development along Northbourne. This will eat all the demand for high density residential for decades, making future stages financially disastrous for the city.

People who have properties along the light rail corridor will see their property values skyrocket paid for by other ratepayers. Public money for private benefit.

If the government wanted to move forward on this project now, they should have instituted a light rail levy for those near the route and gauged how much support they had. Of course they didn’t do that because the answer would have been political poison.

I’m not sure how this BRT-is-better-than-Lightrail argument works, because you have to face reality, and that is that hardly anyone actually catches the bus.
In the short term, I would think BRT would be cheaper than Lightrail, but you have to keep in mind that buses require constant maintenance, new buses every 20 years, road maintenance, and the pollution cost, but a Lightrail vehicle can easily outlast 20 years, and very little maintanence is needed on the line.
I do of course my concerns over the Lightrail, although I’m mostly supportive of it, but I don’t feel BRT would work as well compared to Lightrail. In my experience, I would much rather catch a Lightrail vehicle than a bus.

I would be very interested to know where you get the “BRT is better than trams”, and its supposedly better cost benefit ratio.

MarkE said :

I saw an article in the Canberra Times estimating the finished cost of the light rail system across Canberra to be $14 billion.
That is a big number, a 14 with 9 zeros. $14,000,000,000!

I checked the ABS web site for the number of households in the ACT that that was just less than 155,000.
So how much will the light rail network cost per household?

14,000,000,000 total cost of light rail system
/155.000

Number of households in Canberra
============
$90,323

cost per household
============

That is over $90,000 per household for light rail.
A frighteningly big number.

Talking to people I have noticed a total disconnect between ACT Government expenditure and taxes they will have to pay. There is this vague notion that the revenue will come from big companies, the Federal government and rich people.

Labor and the Greens just lie about it. They repeatedly say it will only be 1% of the ACT budget over the next 20 years.

Let’s examine that claim: The ACT budget is about $5.1B over 20 years that multiplies out to $102B plus inflation. $14B is much more than 1% or $102B + inflation.

The bottom line is that if the light rail system goes ahead then it will cost over $90,000 per household, mostly through indirect taxes to hide it from the public.

That is totally misleading. The ACT is growing so there will me more households to pay, making the amount you pay less.
We’ve also only heard ONE PERSON estimate the cost of a city wide Lightrail network, and you can’t come to a cost based conclusion by just hearing one person’s estimated figure or you are deluding yourself, and misleading other people.
$90,000 per household is a ridiculous figure in itself.

As for you claiming full Lightrail network will be 1% of the ACT budget, that is only for stage 1, not the whole network, which has not been costed.

Where do I get the BRT has a better cost benefit ratio than the light rail option? From the government’s own reports, perhaps you should read them?

And the analysis considers all of the capital, operational and maintenance costs you’ve mentioned.

Which leaves your comment down to the fact that you’d like a light rail system because you personally like light rail more than buses regardless of their functional performance.

I’m not against light rail as a transport option and it has plenty to offer if the population density and needs demand it. It has high capacity and is very efficient.

But those things are not going to exist along the stage 1 route from Gungahlin to the City for 20 yrs +. For the stage 2 routes and beyond we’re talking about 50yrs +. Which means that either the project will be a massive unviable drain on our finances or will never get built whilst we’re still alive. A huge private benefit will be accrued from public finances if stage 1 goes ahead, money that is not being equitably funded.

The reason we’re even talking about this is the political issues around the Greens support for the Labor government and the political legacy of certain people wanting the gold plated solution rather than the best one.

pink little birdie9:50 am 11 Oct 16

miz said :

Mr Haas is seeing everything though a pro light rail filter himself, yet accuses those opposed of doing the opposite. He is wrong on every aspect.
I am pro public transport and generally pro-tram and pro-train, but anti THIS tram because it represents clear favouritism to certain areas of Canberra and poor value for our public transport spend. Worse, based on people’s experiences of this present Labor-Green government, many are (cynically but probably realistically) expecting THIS tram to be so funds-prioritised that other areas are likely to miss out on adequate services in multiple areas.
I personally ‘expect money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably.’ Light rail does not meet this test as it is only going to serve 5 per cent of the population. It is unlikely to go anywhere else despite all the big plans – it is just unaffordable. Whereas rapid bus would cover the entire city – a far more equitable proposal, and at a more reasonable cost. This is not about being precious about services one is not personally receiving, but about what is best value for all. Best value for all is certainly not an expensive shiny thing that only serves 5 per cent. You don’t have to be smart to see this – just not be one-eyed about THIS tram.

How do you start building a large project without starting somewhere? where would you start building a tram instead?
Where ever you start it is only going to benefit a small % of the population?
The route has also been planned for a long time to have the light rail down Northbourne. Once there has been the skill development the other links would be
While I agree Tuggeranong has been neglected infrastructure wise I think it’s a much worse place for the tram to start. I also disagree with City to the airport as the first tram link (majority of travellers are business travellers where cabs/parking is paid for, for most people it’s as much effort to get to the city on public transport and then to the tram, most tourists flying in will get cabs or uber to hotels because it takes them directly to the hotel) It’s basically a gift to city residents for a city to airport. I also disagree with city to Parliamentary triangle. It’s not a high residential zone or even a high commercial zone so it would get limited aside from the morning and evening peaks and again it would still only benefit northsiders – southsiders aren’t going into the city to catch a tram back to the otherside of the lake.

wildturkeycanoe8:19 am 11 Oct 16

K320Scania said :

I’m not sure how this BRT-is-better-than-Lightrail argument works, because you have to face reality, and that is that hardly anyone actually catches the bus.

So if that few people catch the bus, why would they resort to catching a tram that is even slower getting to Civic? This undermines the viability of the project in the most basic sense. If nobody will use it, why do we need it?
Another argument in support of BRT is the flexibility. A tram cannot overtake another tram so there will be no express services from Gungahlin to Civic. The tram must pause at every stop along the way, making the top speed of the tram irrelevant, it will never reach it. If most people on the tram are standing, in order to fit that many on board, you won’t be able to accelerate and decelerate quickly or there is the risk of injuries to them that fall over. This also means never getting to maximum speed.
Also, the A.C.T Light Rail page has the specs for the new tram which reveal passenger capacity at 276, [6P/m²]. So in every square metre you have 6 people crammed in? Now that sounds quite claustrophobic to me and too close for comfort. What about brief cases, satchels, strollers, shopping bags etc. You wouldn’t be able to scratch your backside without elbowing other passengers. Personal space people!

K320Scania said :

In the short term, I would think BRT would be cheaper than Lightrail, but you have to keep in mind that buses require constant maintenance, new buses every 20 years, road maintenance, and the pollution cost, but a Lightrail vehicle can easily outlast 20 years, and very little maintanence is needed on the line.

I am certain trams also need regular maintenance, they do have moving parts after all. Electric motors need bearings, the wear surfaces on the contact points with the cables, the electricity infrastructure powering the tram and also the maintenance of the power source, be it coal, wind, solar or what have you.
Road maintenance will have to be done with or without buses, they aren’t the only vehicles using them.

K320Scania said :

As for you claiming full Lightrail network will be 1% of the ACT budget, that is only for stage 1, not the whole network, which has not been costed.

Waiting for one of the anti cheer squad to say that $64m is greater than 1% of the $5.1b budget. Will get in first. Do remember that $64m is the average over 20 years. The starting figure is $47m which is about 0.92% of the 2016/2017 budget. The assumption is the figure will increase with time and the budget value will increase in time, so in 20 years when the payment is $75m. What percentage of the budget that is then, who knows but with population growth the percentage of the budget should drop every year.

miz said :

Mr Haas is seeing everything though a pro light rail filter himself, yet accuses those opposed of doing the opposite. He is wrong on every aspect.
I am pro public transport and generally pro-tram and pro-train, but anti THIS tram because it represents clear favouritism to certain areas of Canberra and poor value for our public transport spend. Worse, based on people’s experiences of this present Labor-Green government, many are (cynically but probably realistically) expecting THIS tram to be so funds-prioritised that other areas are likely to miss out on adequate services in multiple areas.
I personally ‘expect money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably.’ Light rail does not meet this test as it is only going to serve 5 per cent of the population. It is unlikely to go anywhere else despite all the big plans – it is just unaffordable. Whereas rapid bus would cover the entire city – a far more equitable proposal, and at a more reasonable cost. This is not about being precious about services one is not personally receiving, but about what is best value for all. Best value for all is certainly not an expensive shiny thing that only serves 5 per cent. You don’t have to be smart to see this – just not be one-eyed about THIS tram.

Government spending is NEVER equitable, nor should it be either. New areas ALWAYS get a disproportionate amount of spending, for good reason. Likewise areas that are going through renewal (like Belconnen at present) get disproportionate spending too.

And show me anywhere in the world where spending is proportionate? Take Sydney, lots of money being spent on the light rail extension to the east, but none for a while to the south, inner west. Lots going to the northwest for the metro line, but none to the northern beaches, western suburbs etc. And heaven forbid, what about the rural areas of NSW who all contribute to the coffers of the state of NSW and get hardly anything back on public transport?

Getting back to the ACT investment in the right solution needs to be made where it can be best utilised and I am firmly on record on this boarding in saying I believe the Northborne Ave/Flemmington Road corridor is about the only place in the ACT where light rail makes sense. Nice direct corridor, with plenty of development opportunity directly along the corridor to bring people closer to town (which is what MANY want), reasonable suburban catchment along the corridor for park and ride in Gungahlin plus established ‘North Canberra’ suburbs. This is the kind of route where light rail WORKS elsewhere in the world and should work well here too.

But Woden, no, Belconnen no and Tuggernaong a double no. Why? Because there is no way the roads between the city and these towns will ever get developed sufficiently to generate the demand, and light rail is not really meant for modal change transport from the burbs, for example at an interchange. Hence look at Canberra and what is the one and only one intertown link that has easy access to business and residents along more or less the entire corridor. Yup the corridor to the Gungahlin town centre.

The biggest problem with transport, read buses in the suburbs of Canberra is the low density, an issue repeated around the country too once you get out of the inner areas of the city. It means buses take a fair while to go through the burbs to the collect and drop off sufficient passengers to fill the bus. Putting that into a Canberra perspective it means there is no point having a BRT Belconnen to the City, because the time to be saved would be minuscule compared to the time buses would take in the burbs before even getting to get to the BRT. Same with Woden and more so as one could argue half the route is already BRT.

And Tuggeranong, well sorry, just too far away to be of use, being the only town centre a double hop away from the city. Just compounds matters. And again a BRT would not really save that much time along Athlon Drive or Adelaide Ave.

So really unless we want to raze Belconnen, Woden and Tuggeranong (plus could include the burbs of Gungahlin too) and start again, the best hope for transport in the burbs is to increase suburban density and hope that generates sufficient demand to allow a bus route to service a single suburb, instead of the 3 or 4 many suburban bus routes currently go through on their routes.

rommeldog56 said :

MarkE said :

I saw an article in the Canberra Times estimating the finished cost of the light rail system across Canberra to be $14 billion.
That is a big number, a 14 with 9 zeros. $14,000,000,000!

Labor and the Greens just lie about it. They repeatedly say it will only be 1% of the ACT budget over the next 20 years.

I wouldn’t raise that CT article or the b$14 estimate on here – or else JC will tell you that its an “untruth” (see earlier comment).

Because it is an untruth. Show me anywhere that the government has commited the territory to $14b of light rail spending over the next 20 years. One bit, just one bit…

K320Scania said :

I’m not sure how this BRT-is-better-than-Lightrail argument works, because you have to face reality, and that is that hardly anyone actually catches the bus.

So why does no body catch the bus? A slight decrease in options has led to a massive decrease in use? Bus fairs go up but really its more of a bus Tax because it doesn’t cover the costs. What is the point of paying for a ticketing system on top of 90% of the service.
If we can’t get buses right what chance to do we have of a fixed rail?

K320Scania said :

In the short term, I would think BRT would be cheaper than Lightrail, but you have to keep in mind that buses require constant maintenance, new buses every 20 years, road maintenance, and the pollution cost, but a Lightrail vehicle can easily outlast 20 years, and very little maintanence is needed on the line.

What happens where light rail derails or some foon smashes into the cable. All these things happen all the time on every network. Contributing factors: Ice busy roads, all those conditions that we have here. I’ve asked this question a few times on here: What happens when the network goes down, you can’t ‘drive’ around a broken tram.

K320Scania said :

I do of course my concerns over the Lightrail, although I’m mostly supportive of it, but I don’t feel BRT would work as well compared to Lightrail. In my experience, I would much rather catch a Lightrail vehicle than a bus.

How does one experience this and be subjective? Bus systems work well in many other cities but fail here. Our network is completely covered by government and a tiny amount is returned. Failing to get a bus route to make a profit isn’t a concern of the ACT. Just about every other big city with light rail there are commercial bus companies!

K320Scania said :

I would be very interested to know where you get the “BRT is better than trams”, and its supposedly better cost benefit ratio.[/Quote]
The only fixed cost of BRT is the road, which anyone can use if it doesn’t work. The buses themselves can be redone on other routes, however its unlikely that BRT will fail completely, even lowering the frequency of the bus or changing the route slightly are fairly easy and cheap things to do. Its ultra low risk. Then it fully integrates into the bus network, many routes could have people staying on a bus light rail you add addition change overs on every route.

K320Scania said :

The ACT is growing so there will me more households to pay, making the amount you pay less.

Why should the current ACT householder foot the bill for the rest of everyone else? Wouldn’t the sensible thing for anyone in the ACT to do would just be to leave and come back once everything is paid for?

No city in the history of the world has been built all in one go. Its built incrementally such that if technology or growth changes there is minimal waste.

The current SITA contract is 180 million over 10 years so 18 million a year there about. We send 1.5 trucks out to every premise in the ACT 1 out of 7 days and collect trash to take to landfill. If you only take into account the rubbish and exclude recycling and assume that light rail services 1/7th of Canberra which it doesn’t why is collecting trash much cheaper than collecting people? Rubbish is collected door to door. Light rail you have to walk 400+ metres to a stop.

These pro tram comments are just so depressing…..groan. It does matter anyway, most people have already decided how they will vote and/or have already voted.

On a brighter note, on Sunday I visited the Tulip Top Gardens place just outside Canberra on the Federal Highway. Absolutely fantastic display. Nice place to visit after voting on Saturday (it is closing to the public soon – this weekend I think).

Shame all those people in the tram induced infill areas, who wont need a car anymore, will not be able to get to it easily – unless the tram is extended to there too. LOL

Anyone who has commuted in e.g. Los Angeles knows that people are diehard about the convenience of their cars, and will drive at a snail’s pace rather than use public transport. A very high proportion of Gungahlin residents are likely to resign themselves to a nasty slow drive down Northbourne rather than walk a kilometre to the tram. Which of course will mean that the government will resort to even worse rate rises to compensate for slow tram ticket sales for commuters (and probably pretty much zero sales to tourists, as there is simply nothing for a tourist to travel to on the tram).

Mr Haas is seeing everything though a pro light rail filter himself, yet accuses those opposed of doing the opposite. He is wrong on every aspect.
I am pro public transport and generally pro-tram and pro-train, but anti THIS tram because it represents clear favouritism to certain areas of Canberra and poor value for our public transport spend. Worse, based on people’s experiences of this present Labor-Green government, many are (cynically but probably realistically) expecting THIS tram to be so funds-prioritised that other areas are likely to miss out on adequate services in multiple areas.
I personally ‘expect money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably.’ Light rail does not meet this test as it is only going to serve 5 per cent of the population. It is unlikely to go anywhere else despite all the big plans – it is just unaffordable. Whereas rapid bus would cover the entire city – a far more equitable proposal, and at a more reasonable cost. This is not about being precious about services one is not personally receiving, but about what is best value for all. Best value for all is certainly not an expensive shiny thing that only serves 5 per cent. You don’t have to be smart to see this – just not be one-eyed about THIS tram.

chewy14 said :

What a ludicrously biased article.

The author assumes that light rail was the only option for public transport when the governments own studies showed that a BRT would provide nearly the same benefits for a far cheaper cost.

The reality is that only a tiny percentage of the population will benefit and be able to regularly utilize this system. The talk of the population of entire districts is just silly. Does the author think everyone that lives in these areas works in the city or Gungahlin centres? Or lives close enough to easilly catch the tram?

And this is not equitable. It is providing a rolled gold solution for one part of the city whilst leaving the others to pay for it. The future stages are almost certain not to happen due to the costs involved. Stage one is only marginally viable if you include all of the development along Northbourne. This will eat all the demand for high density residential for decades, making future stages financially disastrous for the city.

People who have properties along the light rail corridor will see their property values skyrocket paid for by other ratepayers. Public money for private benefit.

If the government wanted to move forward on this project now, they should have instituted a light rail levy for those near the route and gauged how much support they had. Of course they didn’t do that because the answer would have been political poison.

I’m not sure how this BRT-is-better-than-Lightrail argument works, because you have to face reality, and that is that hardly anyone actually catches the bus.
In the short term, I would think BRT would be cheaper than Lightrail, but you have to keep in mind that buses require constant maintenance, new buses every 20 years, road maintenance, and the pollution cost, but a Lightrail vehicle can easily outlast 20 years, and very little maintanence is needed on the line.
I do of course my concerns over the Lightrail, although I’m mostly supportive of it, but I don’t feel BRT would work as well compared to Lightrail. In my experience, I would much rather catch a Lightrail vehicle than a bus.

I would be very interested to know where you get the “BRT is better than trams”, and its supposedly better cost benefit ratio.

MarkE said :

I saw an article in the Canberra Times estimating the finished cost of the light rail system across Canberra to be $14 billion.
That is a big number, a 14 with 9 zeros. $14,000,000,000!

I checked the ABS web site for the number of households in the ACT that that was just less than 155,000.
So how much will the light rail network cost per household?

14,000,000,000 total cost of light rail system
/155.000

Number of households in Canberra
============
$90,323

cost per household
============

That is over $90,000 per household for light rail.
A frighteningly big number.

Talking to people I have noticed a total disconnect between ACT Government expenditure and taxes they will have to pay. There is this vague notion that the revenue will come from big companies, the Federal government and rich people.

Labor and the Greens just lie about it. They repeatedly say it will only be 1% of the ACT budget over the next 20 years.

Let’s examine that claim: The ACT budget is about $5.1B over 20 years that multiplies out to $102B plus inflation. $14B is much more than 1% or $102B + inflation.

The bottom line is that if the light rail system goes ahead then it will cost over $90,000 per household, mostly through indirect taxes to hide it from the public.

That is totally misleading. The ACT is growing so there will me more households to pay, making the amount you pay less.
We’ve also only heard ONE PERSON estimate the cost of a city wide Lightrail network, and you can’t come to a cost based conclusion by just hearing one person’s estimated figure or you are deluding yourself, and misleading other people.
$90,000 per household is a ridiculous figure in itself.

As for you claiming full Lightrail network will be 1% of the ACT budget, that is only for stage 1, not the whole network, which has not been costed.

MarkE said :

I saw an article in the Canberra Times estimating the finished cost of the light rail system across Canberra to be $14 billion.
That is a big number, a 14 with 9 zeros. $14,000,000,000!

Labor and the Greens just lie about it. They repeatedly say it will only be 1% of the ACT budget over the next 20 years.

I wouldn’t raise that CT article or the b$14 estimate on here – or else JC will tell you that its an “untruth” (see earlier comment).

MarkE said :

I saw an article in the Canberra Times estimating the finished cost of the light rail system across Canberra to be $14 billion.
That is a big number, a 14 with 9 zeros. $14,000,000,000!

I checked the ABS web site for the number of households in the ACT that that was just less than 155,000.
So how much will the light rail network cost per household?

14,000,000,000 total cost of light rail system
/155.000

Number of households in Canberra
============
$90,323

cost per household
============

That is over $90,000 per household for light rail.
A frighteningly big number.

Talking to people I have noticed a total disconnect between ACT Government expenditure and taxes they will have to pay. There is this vague notion that the revenue will come from big companies, the Federal government and rich people.

Labor and the Greens just lie about it. They repeatedly say it will only be 1% of the ACT budget over the next 20 years.

Let’s examine that claim: The ACT budget is about $5.1B over 20 years that multiplies out to $102B plus inflation. $14B is much more than 1% or $102B + inflation.

The bottom line is that if the light rail system goes ahead then it will cost over $90,000 per household, mostly through indirect taxes to hide it from the public.

But if we put it on our credit card we’d get a lot of rewards points.

One of the problems is perception.
To those with less than acute thinking ability $900 million sounds much more expensive than $1 billion. So think of the upcoming election as an IQ test.

On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?”

creative_canberran4:26 pm 10 Oct 16

MarkE said :

The bottom line is that if the light rail system goes ahead then it will cost over $90,000 per household, mostly through indirect taxes to hide it from the public.

Dubious claims there.

Let’s begin with the Commonwealth. Firstly Australia has one of the lowest tax burdens in the OECD, and it’s well below the OECD average.

Indirect taxation was once above 30%, it’s now below 15% of total tax receipts.

Our percentage of individual direct tax is well above the OECD average, our percentage of indirect tax well below.

Let’s move on to the territory level.

41% of the ACT budget comes from the Commonwealth via grant.
32% comes from taxation (of which the majority comes from rates and payroll tax, both direct taxes.)

Now I know as a Liberal Democrat you want to present taxation in the worst light possible, as some evil. But as a candidate for public office, you should be more honest. And as a former party treasurer of the Liberal Party of Australia, you must surely know you way around financial figures, you should certainly be capable of understanding and publishing the relevant economic figures.

MarkE said :

I saw an article in the Canberra Times estimating the finished cost of the light rail system across Canberra to be $14 billion.
That is a big number, a 14 with 9 zeros. $14,000,000,000!

I checked the ABS web site for the number of households in the ACT that that was just less than 155,000.
So how much will the light rail network cost per household?

14,000,000,000 total cost of light rail system
/155.000

Number of households in Canberra
============
$90,323

cost per household
============

That is over $90,000 per household for light rail.
A frighteningly big number.

Talking to people I have noticed a total disconnect between ACT Government expenditure and taxes they will have to pay. There is this vague notion that the revenue will come from big companies, the Federal government and rich people.

Labor and the Greens just lie about it. They repeatedly say it will only be 1% of the ACT budget over the next 20 years.

Let’s examine that claim: The ACT budget is about $5.1B over 20 years that multiplies out to $102B plus inflation. $14B is much more than 1% or $102B + inflation.

The bottom line is that if the light rail system goes ahead then it will cost over $90,000 per household, mostly through indirect taxes to hide it from the public.

If you are going to make statements like this please do get your facts right.

The less than 1% claim is for the first stage. Which works out to be about $420 per annum for the next 20 years. Compared to health and education which costs $2.8b or $18,000 per annum per household or the $6000 per annum per house hold that goes to housing and other social programs. Roads gets about $300m, or about $2000 per house hold, excluding of course big ticket one off items like say the Majura Parkway. But pay about $350 per vehicle in rego. All worthwhile might I add, just raising this for context.

In actual fact the ACT budget of $5.1b works out to be just shy of $33,000 for every house hold in Canberra. Kind of shows that a good deal of the territories income comes from sources other than rates. But if one were to watch the Liberal advertisements you could be mistaken for thinking that rates were the only source of income. Haven’t noticed any Lib Democrat ads, so not sure what your party is claiming. When in fact they only make up less than 1/11th of the ACT budget, or about $2900 for every household. Which BTW is about the same as payroll tax…

So yeah numbers look big and scary without any context.

Oh and one other flaw in your calculations, IF, and it is a big IF because it hasn’t been announced a full ACT wide lightrail network is build it will be built over 25-30 years. Your figures assume construction as one go now and paid off over 20 years. Whereas reality would be paying off over 45-50 years, with the costs clearly staggered. But as mentioned that is a big if, as only the first stage is certain, the 2nd stage announced and beyond that, who knows.

Additionally you have assumed no growth of population or number of dwellings The ACT grows by about 5000 per year. So in 20 years time you would have about 250,000 dwellings contributing income.

creative_canberran said :

rommeldog56 said :

More shallow and misleading comments in the OP : ” Northbourne Avenue is still Canberra’s most congested road, despite Majura Parkway and the GDE being built.”

And it will probably continue to be so. Its “busy”, as opposed to “congested”.

If you want to fabricate Canberra’s traffic as being “congested”, go compare that to the real congestion that is evident on main arterial roads in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, etc.

That’s some spin. Busy is logically measured by the number of users, congested by the time users take to traverse the path. In peak times, Northbourne is indeed congested. And a trip that now takes around 30mins from Civic to Gunghalin will take over 50mins in a few years based on traffic modelling for travel via Flamington Road.

That Modelling they released showing Civic to Gunghalin will take over 50mins in 15 years was very flawed and far too simplistic.

It did not take into account drivers taking alternative major routes and/or rat-running through suburbs that would occur if the Gunghalin to Civic journey started to take 50 to 60 minutes. Drivers are smart enough (yes we do wonder sometimes if some drivers have any intelligence) but they are smart enough to find the fastest possible alternative route to a destination. The Canberra road network differs to many cities (where off the shelf road network models work better) as Canberra offers a lot of high quality substitute routes to get to a destination (we have very few one-way streets, no grid based roads, no raised major roads with limited access points and very few blocked off intersections).

In short, Canberra drivers will not automatically decide to stop taking their car and to take public transport instead if their car trip becomes slow. Unfortunately for planners and designers the smart folk of Gunghalin will instead use Caswell Drive & Parkes Way to the city or start doing Western side Inner North rat running through streets like Ellenborough, Mouat, Wattle, Forbes and/or Moore St. Or they will cross over to the West Side of Downer, Dickson and Braddon and cut through using streets like Cowper, Majura Ave, Limestone Ave, Torrens st etc etc.

I saw an article in the Canberra Times estimating the finished cost of the light rail system across Canberra to be $14 billion.
That is a big number, a 14 with 9 zeros. $14,000,000,000!

I checked the ABS web site for the number of households in the ACT that that was just less than 155,000.
So how much will the light rail network cost per household?

14,000,000,000 total cost of light rail system
/155.000 Number of households in Canberra
============
$90,323 cost per household
============

That is over $90,000 per household for light rail.
A frighteningly big number.

Talking to people I have noticed a total disconnect between ACT Government expenditure and taxes they will have to pay. There is this vague notion that the revenue will come from big companies, the Federal government and rich people.

Labor and the Greens just lie about it. They repeatedly say it will only be 1% of the ACT budget over the next 20 years.

Let’s examine that claim: The ACT budget is about $5.1B over 20 years that multiplies out to $102B plus inflation. $14B is much more than 1% or $102B + inflation.

The bottom line is that if the light rail system goes ahead then it will cost over $90,000 per household, mostly through indirect taxes to hide it from the public.

creative_canberran said :

The interesting thing is the light-rail plan specifically says that Flemington Road will be kept as a single carriage way, and the bus lanes will be modified for light rail use. Flemington Road is a dog to drive, so the plan basically calls for artificially keeping a road congested to build up demand for light-rail. If up take of light-rail is not what the projected, that could backfire badly.

To be clear only PART of Flemmington Road will be single lane, mainly from Well Station Drive. And must admit it is something that I don’t quite follow, but don’t beleive in the conspiracy theory of it being done to artificially force useage up.

As part of light rail Flemmington Road should be duplicated through to Northborne Ave, and IMO it should be re-routed near EPIC to terminate where it was always planned to go, which is the Phillip Ave intersection. Though a bit hard now with the wine place built on the planned alignment. But could cover the creek and go around, with a new entry to the wine place at the current Flemmington Road intersection.

Moreso as the planned park and ride is near the intersection with Well Station, so the line should cross out of the median strip to be along the side of the road at that point, and continue down to EPIC so people don’t need to cross the road to get to EPIC. And then have a dual lane road on the western side. Additionally the depot will be built on this stretch near total care.

This article should be called “How are we paying for Stage 1 of Light Rail in Canberra” a fairy tale by Damien Haas ghost writing for ACT Labor and the Greens.

It was quite some time ago now that ACT Labor announced their commitment to commence construction of Stage 2 before the 2020 election and they’ve been running TV adds saying they will build the whole network. I also saw Barr on the news last night repeating that. For an analysis of LR to have any validity, it has to factor in the full cost of the network, unless Mr Haas knows that Labor and the Greens are lying to voters and the remainder of the network will never be built. The only estimate of the full cost out there is $14bn, put together by a former deputy director of ACT Treasury. In comparing the relative sizes of the economy, he’s said that building the LR network is like the ACT committing to build 6-12 NBN’s. If Labor or the Greens want to dispute that $14bn figure, they need to release their own estimates.

The business case for Stage 1 is entirely dependant on wider economic benefits that are about 8 times the average for light rail projects. 17% of the transport benefits on average LR projects while our tram is somehow going to generate 140%. The Auditor General rightly called them into question, and if they turn out to be 5.88 times the average or less, the ACT loses on Stage 1 – that means the money the government spends on the project will not result in an equivalent value of benefits accruing to residents of the ACT. In contrast, the ACT Government submission to Infrastructure Australia and internal ACT Government communications FOI’d by the Canberra Times show that BRT would provide an equivalent value at half the cost of LR. That means that Labor and the Greens could have chosen to deliver the same benefits as LR to ACT taxpayers at half the cost and, if so inclined, spend the other half of the money slated for LR on other initiatives to deliver even greater benefits to residents.

The cost benefit of Stage 2 is sure to be even worse than that for Stage 1, and that’s because there’s no way the development along the corridor could match that needed for Stage 1 to be marginally viable. The high density apartments constructed along the Stage 1 route will satisfy our demand for that type of housing well beyond the time when Stage 2 would be completed, meaning there would be limited appetite for developers to build along the Stage 2 route, or they would choose to build there instead of along Stage 1, thus reducing the benefits of that stage. There’s also a large section of that route running through the precinct controlled by the NCA, and they will not allow high density development in that area and have already stated any tram will not be allowed to use overhead wires. That means we’ll need different technology fitted to trams for them to run through Stage 2 as opposed to Stage 1. The fact we’re getting overhead wires on Northbourne says the option without wires must be more expensive or less reliable. Then there’s the cost of getting over the lake, which will require an additional bridge or widening of the existing bridge, both of which would require approval of the NCA which may be withheld. The other option would be to take up existing car lanes for the tram, which may well require strengthening of the bridge anyway and would increase congestion.

I need to go to work, but I also feel the need to respond to Damian’s claims about rates tripling. The only people saying the Liberals were claiming rates would triple from 2012 to 2016 were Labor and the Greens. Anyone who read the Liberal material put out in the 2012 campaign knows they were claiming rates would triple in around 10 years. Damian tries to dismiss the increasing rates as just a piece of good tax reform where we’re saving on stamp duty to compensate. The Quinlan tax review, Quinlan being a former ACT Labor Treasurer of the ACT, said one revenue neutral option would be to triple rates over 10 years and eliminate stamp duty over the same timeframe. As we all know, Labor’s plan was to eliminate stamp duty over 20 years. The rates rises we were subjected to from 2012 through to today have rates on track to triple over roughly 10-12 years for the average resident. That means it was always Labor’s intention to use tax reform to increase overall taxation while claiming they weren’t. We have a slight holiday in the rates rises this year, which is obviously a cynical attempt to mislead voters in an election year as the forward estimates show the rises taking off again next year. We have also recently had Barr say that total elimination of stamp duty is no longer part of the plan, so what started out as tax increases disguised as tax reform will just be tax increases if Labor is re-elected.

creative_canberran2:37 am 10 Oct 16

rommeldog56 said :

More shallow and misleading comments in the OP : ” Northbourne Avenue is still Canberra’s most congested road, despite Majura Parkway and the GDE being built.”

And it will probably continue to be so. Its “busy”, as opposed to “congested”.

If you want to fabricate Canberra’s traffic as being “congested”, go compare that to the real congestion that is evident on main arterial roads in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, etc.

That’s some spin. Busy is logically measured by the number of users, congested by the time users take to traverse the path. In peak times, Northbourne is indeed congested. And a trip that now takes around 30mins from Civic to Gunghalin will take over 50mins in a few years based on traffic modelling for travel via Flamington Road.

The interesting thing is the light-rail plan specifically says that Flemington Road will be kept as a single carriage way, and the bus lanes will be modified for light rail use. Flemington Road is a dog to drive, so the plan basically calls for artificially keeping a road congested to build up demand for light-rail. If up take of light-rail is not what the projected, that could backfire badly.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

From the OP :
No one has committed to the full network so your statement is also very misleading. Likewise the $1.7b is also in itself misleading.

ACT labor has committed to sign stage 2 contract from Civic to Woden prior to the next election in 2020. There has been no costing/$ figure announced nor how it will cross the lake. So, a blank cheque from ACt Ratepayers is being sought by ACt Labor/Greens. Nice.

The b$1.78 for stage 1 is what the Auditor General said it will cost.

Thats a statement of fact, not misleading. If u disagree with that figure, suggest u take it up with the Auditor General.

ACT Labor/Greens have not “formally committed” to anything past stage 2 yet, but they are “committed” to expand the tram further. A cost estimate of that is b$14.

Sorry, but your usual obfuscating will not work.

How is pointing out a simple FACT Obfuscating? To date the government has committed to stage 1 and announced but yet to commit to stage 2 (which for what it is worth I am firmly on record as saying I don’t agree with).

In fact stating an untruth that light rail will cost $14b better fits the meaning which I have copied below:

From Miriam Webster Dictionary:
obfuscate

transitive verb
1
a : darken
b : to make obscure
2
: confuse
intransitive verb
: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

From the Op ” The annual payment to the Canberra Metro consortium will be $65 million or 1% of our current annual budget”.

Thats just for stage 1 so is deliberately misleading, blah, blah, blah.

Thats enough from me – great i hear u say. Fair enough too.

But this OP needs to be pulled apart and discussed piece by piece. I strongly encourage others to read the OP and form their own opinion.

From the OP ” Yes our rates will steadily increase. Stamp duty elimination is only a part of that”.

hahaha……Annual Rates will “steadily” increase ? 10%pa avg is “steady” ?

It has previously been reported that the ACT Labor/Greens Govt has said that conveyancing stamp duty will not be “eliminated”. Rather, that a bottom ceiling of $10K is likely to apply. I myself confirmed that verbally with a ACT Labor MLA recently. Prior written requests to ACT Labor for confirmation of that have not been replied to.

From the OP : ” The ‘triple your rates’ campaign run in 2012 is again being run by the Opposition, although as the tripling didn’t occur”

Another outrageous statement. Of course Annual Rates would never have tripled since the 2012 election. I have never heard anyone say that – ever. Just more spin.

It is however true that even at an increase of 1%pa, Annual Rates will triple – eventually. What is happening is that the tripling is happening much, much faster under the ACT Labor/Greens new taxation program on reducing conveyancing stamp duty and increasing Annual Rates by avg.10% pa (unless its an election year of course !), forever. Some suburbs have already gone up over more than 60% since that policy was implemented. Other commentators on RiotAct have said that the tripling of Annual Rates will occur within 15 years or so. Before they vote in each election, voters need to think about what their life position/finances will be like in 15 years time in order to afford those Annual Rates.

From the OP ” The selfish argument that light rail will only benefit a small percentage of the population is also false. Gungahlin’s population will be at 100,000 within ten years. Based on ABS statistics from the 2011 census, the corridor for light rail Stage One that takes in much of North Canberra has 9% of Canberra’s population within one kilometre of the light rail line.”

Since when will stage 1 “take in much of North Canberra”. Sheezzz.

The ACT Labor/Greens Govt own Benefits Costs Ratio was based on potential passengers coming from within 400 metres of the corridor, not 1 Kilometre.

From the OP ” If we can’t pay for $65 million a year for 20 years out of $5.1 billion dollars a year (in 2016 terms), we are in bigger trouble than cancelling light rail will solve. It is a small one percent of our annual budget “.

Again, this is just for stage 1. And its b$1.78 that will be paid out for tram STAGE 1 over the life of the contract, according to the auditor General.

How many more public assets will be sold to offset the cost of the whole city wide tram network which is estimated to cost b$14 !!

JC said :

So what you are saying is to counter busy or congested roads (see post above) we should just build more roads (of course without any fiscal analysis nor have a user pays system, aka tolls), rather than looking at other ways to transport people for the hour or two a weekday our current roads are busy/congested (take your pick of terminology).

No. Thats not what I said. Try BRT as the real alternative, not the tram.

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

From the OP :
No one has committed to the full network so your statement is also very misleading. Likewise the $1.7b is also in itself misleading.

ACT labor has committed to sign stage 2 contract from Civic to Woden prior to the next election in 2020. There has been no costing/$ figure announced nor how it will cross the lake. So, a blank cheque from ACt Ratepayers is being sought by ACt Labor/Greens. Nice.

The b$1.78 for stage 1 is what the Auditor General said it will cost. Thats a statement of fact, not misleading. If u disagree with that figure, suggest u take it up with the Auditor General.

ACT Labor/Greens have not “formally committed” to anything past stage 2 yet, but they are “committed” to expand the tram further. A cost estimate of that is b$14.

Sorry, but your usual obfuscating will not work.

wildturkeycanoe8:46 pm 09 Oct 16

JC said :

1km is not that far. Along the Flemmington road corridor it covers all the houses in Harrison and Franklin. Not unreasonable and if people are not prepared to walk up to that distance then there is no hope for public transport.

Apparently 1km is way too far to walk for the people of Oaks estate, so I can’t imagine anyone in the affluent Gungahlin suburbs would leave their car at home and walk to the tram stop.

From the OP : ” The real question is – what are the costs of not having public transport”.

Groan. Here u go again. Another straw man argument. You infer that the tram IS “public transport”. It is not. It is an element, as BRT would be.

Again, I don’t think anyone is saying that we shouldn’t have public transport, rather that the tram should not be a preferred option.

From the OP : ” The $65 million a year cost for light rail does ‘stack up’. Public transport is a service delivered by the government in the same way as it delivers health services, educates our children and collects our rubbish. We pay for all these services, even if we don’t use them.”

Thats like comparing apples to eggs. “health services, educates our children and collects our rubbish” are all essential services, so we all pay. Public transport is an essential services, so we all pay. The tram however, is an option for public transport.

No – just look at the Benefits Costs Ratio for tram stage 1 of 1 : 1.2. It does not “stack up”. Even when compared to bus rapid transit. That’s why the Fed’s didn’t put in a contribution to the Canberra tram (preferring to throw heaps of federal $ at the Gold Coast one) – an ultra poor BCR for the Canberra tram.

Plus, the m$65 you quote is for stage 1 only. Will b$14 “stack up” for all the tram network ??

rommeldog56 said :

More shallow and misleading comments in the OP : ” Northbourne Avenue is still Canberra’s most congested road, despite Majura Parkway and the GDE being built.”

And it will probably continue to be so. Its “busy”, as opposed to “congested”.

If you want to fabricate Canberra’s traffic as being “congested”, go compare that to the real congestion that is evident on main arterial roads in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, etc.

Pro tramers say “if we don’t have a tram, just think of how much more “congested” Northborne Ave will be”.

In the same vein then, “if we hadnt of built the GDE and Majura Parkway, just think how much more congested Northborne Ave would be”.

Its just yet another silly comment in the OP. And people actually believe this stuff ???

So what you are saying is to counter busy or congested roads (see post above) we should just build more roads (of course without any fiscal analysis nor have a user pays system, aka tolls), rather than looking at other ways to transport people for the hour or two a weekday our current roads are busy/congested (take your pick of terminology).

rommeldog56 said :

From the OP : ” Northbourne Avenue is still Canberra’s most congested road, despite Majura Parkway and the GDE being built.”

You must know of course, that the ACT Gov’ts own Environmental Impact Statement for Tram stage 1 says that due to the “infill” along the corridor, that congestion will increase further along Northborne Ave and Flemington.

Which is going to occour without light rail too? Don’t believe me look at the Libs website/Facebook page.

So it gets down to how congested it will be. Also did you say in a previous post Northborne ave is busy but not congested, so need to ask what is it busy or congested?

rommeldog56 said :

From the OP : ” If we can’t pay for $65 million a year for 20 years out of $5.1 billion dollars a year (in 2016 terms), we are in bigger trouble than cancelling light rail will solve. “

This statement is again misleading and deceptive. The m$65pa relates to tram stage 1 only, which the auditor General said will cost b$1.78 all up. The full network has been estimated to cost about b$14 by an ex head of ACT Treasury.

No one has committed to the full network so your statement is also very misleading. Likewise the $1.7b is also in itself misleading.

What a ludicrously biased article.

The author assumes that light rail was the only option for public transport when the governments own studies showed that a BRT would provide nearly the same benefits for a far cheaper cost.

The reality is that only a tiny percentage of the population will benefit and be able to regularly utilize this system. The talk of the population of entire districts is just silly. Does the author think everyone that lives in these areas works in the city or Gungahlin centres? Or lives close enough to easilly catch the tram?

And this is not equitable. It is providing a rolled gold solution for one part of the city whilst leaving the others to pay for it. The future stages are almost certain not to happen due to the costs involved. Stage one is only marginally viable if you include all of the development along Northbourne. This will eat all the demand for high density residential for decades, making future stages financially disastrous for the city.

People who have properties along the light rail corridor will see their property values skyrocket paid for by other ratepayers. Public money for private benefit.

If the government wanted to move forward on this project now, they should have instituted a light rail levy for those near the route and gauged how much support they had. Of course they didn’t do that because the answer would have been political poison.

From the OP : ” Northbourne Avenue is still Canberra’s most congested road, despite Majura Parkway and the GDE being built.”

You must know of course, that the ACT Gov’ts own Environmental Impact Statement for Tram stage 1 says that due to the “infill” along the corridor, that congestion will increase further along Northborne Ave and Flemington.

From the OP : ” If we can’t pay for $65 million a year for 20 years out of $5.1 billion dollars a year (in 2016 terms), we are in bigger trouble than cancelling light rail will solve. “

This statement is again misleading and deceptive. The m$65pa relates to tram stage 1 only, which the auditor General said will cost b$1.78 all up. The full network has been estimated to cost about b$14 by an ex head of ACT Treasury.

bigred said :

I cannot recall an issue polarise an electorate as much since the Australia Card issue all those years ago. So am probably inviting feisty feedback by attempting to advance a view. The Haas argument sound fairly reasonable but I suspect he could have included information about the increased employment that will be triggered by the ongoing and certain construction. He also neglects to point out that a lot of households are carrying a second or third vehicle on their balance sheets because current public transport does not work for them (often based on one trip 20 or 30 years ago). This is in effect a direct cost shift.

Carbon tax maybe. To me it is a classic case of wedge politics. The Libs have found a sore point to exploit (like the carbon tax) but in reality matters diddly squat when the big picture is looked at.

I mean to say did anyone here pay $500 more for their energy post carbon tax and more to the point when removed did anyone get it back. Also did roasts go to $100 and is Whyalla still standing.

And getting back to local politics this hospital or tram business is pure nonesense. The Libs don’t plan to build new hospitals they are using the name to describe a glorified walk in centre but using the name hospital to create a sense of emotion and pure wedge politics.

This just so typical of how any dissenting voice is portrayed : ” Despite this overwhelmingly obvious need for improved public transport, the community has been subjected to increasingly shrill and unbalanced arguments from opponents of public transport. Many of the arguments against light rail are focussed on the economics.”

No – Rarely do you hear anyone totally opposing public transport. Thats a straw man argument and deliberately dishonest. People just do not believe or support the tram as a solution.

Funny that – that people would focus on the economics. I wonder why. Checked out your Annual Rates lately or other rapidly rising ACT Labor/Greens Govt charges and levies ?

Another classic misleading assertion the OP : “The long suffering residents of Gungahlin and north Canberra that endure road congestion and jam-packed ACTION buses can travel past light rail construction and know that a better alternative to driving and parking every day, or riding in sardine packed bus”.

In peak hours, the tram passengers will also be packed in like sardines. Many more tram passengers will be standing – more so because there apparently has to be room for push bikes.

More shallow and misleading comments in the OP : ” Northbourne Avenue is still Canberra’s most congested road, despite Majura Parkway and the GDE being built.”

And it will probably continue to be so. Its “busy”, as opposed to “congested”. If you want to fabricate Canberra’s traffic as being “congested”, go compare that to the real congestion that is evident on main arterial roads in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, etc.

Pro tramers say “if we don’t have a tram, just think of how much more “congested” Northborne Ave will be”. In the same vein then, “if we hadnt of built the GDE and Majura Parkway, just think how much more congested Northborne Ave would be”.

Its just yet another silly comment in the OP. And people actually believe this stuff ???

pink little birdie5:01 pm 09 Oct 16

I feel like this is a chicken and egg situation. I have a few friends who don’t drive for whatever reason and they choose houses based on the accessibility to public transport – so close to the main bus routes.
For my friends that commute by bus but also drive they mainly catch the buses because it is again convenient from their houses.
When I lived in Bruce I occasionally caught the bus and it was a 5 minute walk to the stop and another 10 minute walk to get to a stop with more frequent buses. (Used a combination of cycle, bus driven as passenger)
Note now I walk to work most times because we chose a house that we could do that. Now the closest bus stop is a 10 minute walk and more than 1/2 way to work.

The Liberal Party would have us believe that Light Rail will make a significant impact on our rates. Now, very simplistically, let us investigate that claim. Construction of LR has been budgeted to cost the ACT taxpayer some $65m over the next 4 years (without taking into consideration of any income) while education / health is budgeted to cost $3.2b, ie 50 times as much. Some reports from the LP indicate that LR will cost each household $500 per year. Therefore I’m assuming, by that method of calculating the cost of LR, that education / health cost the ACT household some $25k per year .. and adding other costs the average ACT household should be paying approx $35k rates per year! .. hardly so you say yea. Therefore I would assume that the $500 increase in rates suggested by the LP is grossly over-stated.

Just finished my daily walk up/down Northbourne watching the traffic go by and wondering what this will look like in 10 years time.
Gave me time to think about the arguments for and against light rail ..
. Against .. “what’s in it for me ?!”
. For .. “I can look back and tell my grandchildren that the town planners of the time looked to the future and commenced and implemented a system to satisfy the needs of an integrated public transport network for Canberra. We paid for it and you guys are the beneficiaries. Enjoy”.

This article is mostly pure spin. It does not address the economic arguments of various high profile people in the Commonwealth and State treasuries, or that of the Productivity Commission, or Infrastructure Australia and numbers of independent academics. As an economist myself, I haven’t seen independent evidence on costings and so do not support light rail until the independent, rigorous cost benefit analysis convinces me to do otherwise.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

Cerdig said :

One kilometre catchment? Who on earth is going to walk 1km to catch public transport to work?

I live 900m from my closest bus stop in suburban Canberra.

I used to live in Sydney 1km from my local train station and I walked to the station each day and then another 1.5km at the other end to my office (Kings Cross station to Garden Island).

I used to leave home at 730 every morning for a 750 train and always had time to wait on the platform. So about 15 minutes of walking.

1km is not that far. Along the Flemmington road corridor it covers all the houses in Harrison and Franklin. Not unreasonable and if people are not prepared to walk up to that distance then there is no hope for public transport. And if people cannot walk that distance then there are other options like the bus but of course that comes at time penalty. But impossible to please everyone every single time.

So let’s be clear about this JC.

You say you don’t mind walking 900m to the nearest bus stop every day but you don’t actually confirm that you commute by bus.

I would suggest that you commute by car and have a private car park as part of your salary package but I am prepared to be told again that I am wrong..

I am saying that in the past when I lived in another city, namley Sydney I have walked quite happily a distance that was about 1km, over in fact to catch rail based public transport.

Here in Canberra you are part right I don’t get the bus due to the inordinate amount of time it takes to get to my work place where I pay to park. My wife also works nearby so normally two in the car. If my wife works late then I do get the bus home.

However I fail to see how advocacy of something that will hopefully widen choice for others is wrong or otherwise impinged by my choice of abode or choice of work. See unlike others here I care about the greater good of the community and not what is in it for me personally.

If I worked closer to the city, which is on the cards next year then I will consider using light rail to get to the city when it opens. However in my case I would drive to the park and ride near EPIC. And for the record if one existed today on the 200 bus route and I worked in the city or parl riangle I consider useing the bus too to cut down on parking costs. Likewise if I lived in Harrison on Franklin I would happily walk 1km to Flemmington road for light rail or yes the bus again even just to cut down on parking costs.

But from deeper in the burbs the bus does not cut it. The problem being the relative low density means buses meander through to get sufficient passengers. A required evil in a town so spread out like Canberra. Hence why I am am an advocate of higher density housing closer to town and also in the suburbs too. I am also an advocate of choice as not everyone wants and apartment or courtyard townhouse either, like myself.

I gave also lived in London and used PT there too including a 10 minute walk (600-800m) from home to station and similar from station to work. I could have driven to where I worked and parked for free (same when I lived in Sydney too btw) but I made the choice to train it in both locations. And there rather than cost it was convieniance rather than cost that was the driver.

Now know you are going to nit pick and try and find inconsistencies in my posts about public transport and light rail in particular, go ahead but you won’t find many. My position has been clear for sometime now. Doing things the way we have for 40-50 years does not work. The NCDC vision of urban sprawl, massive freeways and free caroarks doesn’t cut it in 2016, in fact probably didn’t cut it in the 70’s either. We need to try something different and the Flemmington road northborne ave corridor is the ideal place. As envisaged by the last ACT liberal government. You do rember Kate Carnell and Tony De Domenico being advocates of Light rail alibg the very route now planned along with a recently retired developer? Hmm

JC said :

Cerdig said :

One kilometre catchment? Who on earth is going to walk 1km to catch public transport to work?

I live 900m from my closest bus stop in suburban Canberra.

I used to live in Sydney 1km from my local train station and I walked to the station each day and then another 1.5km at the other end to my office (Kings Cross station to Garden Island).

I used to leave home at 730 every morning for a 750 train and always had time to wait on the platform. So about 15 minutes of walking.

1km is not that far. Along the Flemmington road corridor it covers all the houses in Harrison and Franklin. Not unreasonable and if people are not prepared to walk up to that distance then there is no hope for public transport. And if people cannot walk that distance then there are other options like the bus but of course that comes at time penalty. But impossible to please everyone every single time.

So let’s be clear about this JC.

You say you don’t mind walking 900m to the nearest bus stop every day but you don’t actually confirm that you commute by bus.

I would suggest that you commute by car and have a private car park as part of your salary package but I am prepared to be told again that I am wrong..

I cannot recall an issue polarise an electorate as much since the Australia Card issue all those years ago. So am probably inviting feisty feedback by attempting to advance a view. The Haas argument sound fairly reasonable but I suspect he could have included information about the increased employment that will be triggered by the ongoing and certain construction. He also neglects to point out that a lot of households are carrying a second or third vehicle on their balance sheets because current public transport does not work for them (often based on one trip 20 or 30 years ago). This is in effect a direct cost shift.

Cerdig said :

One kilometre catchment? Who on earth is going to walk 1km to catch public transport to work?

I live 900m from my closest bus stop in suburban Canberra.

I used to live in Sydney 1km from my local train station and I walked to the station each day and then another 1.5km at the other end to my office (Kings Cross station to Garden Island).

I used to leave home at 730 every morning for a 750 train and always had time to wait on the platform. So about 15 minutes of walking.

1km is not that far. Along the Flemmington road corridor it covers all the houses in Harrison and Franklin. Not unreasonable and if people are not prepared to walk up to that distance then there is no hope for public transport. And if people cannot walk that distance then there are other options like the bus but of course that comes at time penalty. But impossible to please everyone every single time.

justin heywood said :

– A reasonable person would assume that money from the sale of public housing would be used to build more public housing.

Umm it is. The land the inner suburb houses estates are on is worth a motza. So can sell that build new, including expanding public housing and still have money left over. Plus of course reduce maintenance bills by not maintaining ancient housing stock.

creative_canberran7:48 pm 08 Oct 16

Cerdig said :

One kilometre catchment? Who on earth is going to walk 1km to catch public transport to work?

Healthy people.

But really the plan should be for rapid busses to spread out through Gunghalin and link to the light-rail.

I’ve already read Damien’s piece on the Light Rail website recently and I was struck by how unconvincing it was. That’s not to say he didn’t make a lot of good points. He did. But none of it delivered a knock out blow. It didn’t properly address how many are likely to give up cars, and it didn’t set up a case for urgency. Nothing about the argument elevates light-rail from ‘nice to have now, important to have in the future’, to ‘must build now, essential and viable’.

The light rail is going to only cost us 0.4 per cent of the ACT Budget? And as for the “servicing 9 per cent of the population of Canberra” – you’re expecting people in the inner north to walk perpendicularly to Northbourne to get on the tram, rather than head straight into town? NO-ONE in the inner north is going to use it, other than one or two burghers at the very top of Northbourne. Maybe. If there’s a handy tram stop – but that will annoy all the Gungahlin commuters, who won’t want stops all the way down Northbourne! Oh, and Shane Rattenbury’s negatively-geared tenants, if he writes a requirement into their tenancy contract!

@rommeldog56 .. you are correct the OP is only quoting the cost of Stage 1 LR .. much like one would quote only the cost of constructing Tuggeranong Exprsseway or Majura Parkway or Hindmarsh Drive, yea ?
Once Stage 1 is constructed (comprising less than 1% of ACT expenditure) construction of Stage 2 can commence (comprising less than 1% of ACT expenditure).
Now compare expenditure on LR with that we spend on roads, ie half as much. Who will be the winner if LR becomes an attractive form of public transport (as it is everywhere it is introduced) and it has the affect of reducing our necessity for roads.

One kilometre catchment? Who on earth is going to walk 1km to catch public transport to work?

justin heywood12:24 pm 08 Oct 16

Wow. A written Gish gallop, with a bit of pre-emptive abuse thrown in.

I’ll take the first wobbly claim that catches my eye;

“The majority of the money to pay for light rail will come from selling assets such as ACTTAB and old public housing stock…’

– ACTAB, an income producing asset, was sold for just $105 million, and initially to help fund ‘a range’ of infrastructure projects, not just light rail. Yet that is your first claim as a source of ‘majority of the money’.

– A reasonable person would assume that money from the sale of public housing would be used to build more public housing.

” The long suffering residents of Gungahlin and north Canberra that endure road congestion and jam-packed ACTION buses can travel past light rail construction and know that a better alternative to driving and parking every day, or riding in sardine packed bus (if it doesn’t drive past them already full), is on schedule to commence in 2018.”

The tram would have more supporters if only this were true. If the transport benefits of the tram were positive, then we could have a discussion about how much they are worth. But they are not positive.

Capital Metro’s EIS Volume 3, Technical Paper 5: Traffic and Transport unambiguously show:

1) The combined number of intersections at which traffic will exceed capacity more than triples from 2 without light-rail to 7 with light-rail. Further, the combined number of intersections which will be operating at the limits of their capacity doubles from 3 without light-rail to 6 with light-rail. (Table 4.5 to 4.10, pages 41 to 45 )
2) Average combined AM and PM peak period vehicle speed over the road network around the proposed route in 2021 (not just traffic on the direct route) decreases from 27.8 km/hr without light-rail to 23.1 km/hr with light-rail. (Table 4.2, page 38)

[Due to errors in the traffic estimation pointed out by he ACT Government Environment and Planning Directorate, Territory and Municipal Services and others in responses to the EIS, these estimates are overly favourable to the tram scenario, and the most likely outcomes will be considerably worse: http://canberraautonomouscars.info/faq.html#eisapend and http://canberraautonomouscars.info/TramsForCanberra/tramsAndCanberra.html ]

Capital Metro’s own capacity and scheduling plans (6 minute peak headway) show peak period public transport capacity will be less than current bus service, and much less on a “per seats per head of population” basis in 2021.

For example, there are currently 68 bus services running between Gungahlin Town Centre and Civic each weekday morning from 6:30 until 9:00 (Route 56 – 8, Route 57 – 8, Route 58 – 9, Red Rapid 2xx – 43). The average ACTION bus carries 45.4 people seated, 25.5 people standing, and 2 bicycles. That’s around 3080 seated, 4828 in total, providing 51 seats per 1000 Gungahlin residents (based on latest 2015 population estimates).

These buses will all be replaced by 22 or 23 tram services, running on one route down Flemington Dr to Federal Highway, then to Dickson and Civic. They will carry around 1400 people seated in 2021 (4600-4700 in total), just under 19 seats per 1000 Gungahlin residents.

Total (seated and standing) passenger capacity per 1000 residents will fall from 79.9 (now on buses) to 61.8 (in 2021 on trams).

By purchasing more trams, the headway can be reduced to 3 minutes and capacity doubled, but this will cause massive traffic congestion, as every traffic cycle along the route will then be interrupted by a tram.

“They invent a fictional cost of $1.8 billion.”

I guess “they” is the auditor-general:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/captial-metro-light-rail-auditorgeneral-fuels-doubts-about-gungahlin-tram-costbenefit-analysis-20160616-gpkjjs.html : “The auditor clarifies the cost of the project, saying the nominal cost (not discounted to today’s dollars) is $1.78 billion, including the $375 million lump sum, $1.27 billion in annual payments to the consortium over 20 years, and $130 million in government-retained risk, or contingency.”

But I am not arguing that $1.8billion is a fair representation of the cost. From the 20 year payment schedule released in the contract summary, discounting the payments back to 2016 dollars using 2.2% inflation gives a present cost of $950m. Added to this, the $375m 2019 capital payment discounted back to 2016 dollars is $355m, giving a 2016 $ project cost of $1.3billion, for a single 12km tram route which provides a poorer transport outcome.

The government frequently wrings its hands whilst rebuffing requests for worthy spending such as those made by the Public Advocate and Children’s Commissioner with homilies such as “oh, if only we had the resources”. Well, here’s $1.3b of discretionary spending on a tram that doesnt work that could be put to positive outcomes.

From the OP “The other claim of the anti public transport forces is that light rail is unaffordable. They quote the total project cost of $930 million and fulminate about this cost. They invent a fictional cost of $1.8 billion.

They don’t tell you that this will be paid over 20 years. That the actual cost to the ACT is $65 million a year, for twenty years. That this is how most infrastructure assets are paid for. They realise this figure is affordable, and pretend it doesn’t exist.”

The spin just gets better and better. In 2012, ACT Labor said stage 1 would cost m$614. It is now claimed by the ACT Labor/Greens Govt that it has blown out to m$913 but the ACT Auditor General has said that stage 1 will cost ACT Ratepayers b$1.78 (including running costs) over the life of the contract. Thats a long, long way north of the original m$614 !!!

m$65 pa over 20 years is b$1.3. The Auditor General said b$1.78. Sorry, but I think most people would believe the Auditor General.

And I stress yet again, you are quoting figures for STAGE 1 only. There are many more stages to go !!

And you talk about others running a “deceptive, shallow and misleading campaign” . Good grief.

ACT Chairman for Light Rail and a lobbyist for the sector gives one sided view of Light Rail without looking at the low ‘cost benefit ratio’ for the project and he makes no consideration that money from the sale of ACT Government Assets might be put to more effective use on another project. Well blow me down with a feather.

If the project had been better articulated, planned and designed from the start I think the majority of Canberrans would have been more supportive. A design like the Gold Coast light rail that linked Universities, Shopping centres, sporting complexes, entertainment precincts, hospitals, tourist destinations, workplaces and homes would have stood a better chance. A better chance of being funded by Infrastructure Australia and supported by Canberra taxpayers and voters.

I know Gunghalin will probably be 100k population in a decade, but Tuggeranong has had about 90k population for two decades now and its public transport and government facilities remain woeful.

WilliamBourke10:26 am 08 Oct 16

Sustainable Australia strongly supports public transport, but prefers a rapid bus transit system (ideally electric) over Canberra’s proposed light rail system.

Reasons include: The light rail is too expensive and inflexible, benefits too few people relative to its cost (which is double that of the rapid bus transit according to the Grattan Institute), puts significant upward pressure on rates and taxes, and is a Trojan horse for massive overdevelopment along the route.

The last point is the key, and it is stunning that the Greens party is pushing for this rapid population growth-fed Trojan tram, given the huge and increasing ecological footprint that rapid population growth brings. Rapid population growth is not inevitable – it is the result of manufactured high immigration policies supported by the LLG oligopoly. We need manageable and sustainable immigration numbers, not the tripling that has occurred over the last 20 years.

A sustainable ACT will be Better, not bigger.

It’s been a long time since Damien has made a contribution to Riot ACT so for those who are unaware of the fact, Damien is the figurehead of ACT Light Rail who are passionate supporters of the proposed tram from City to Gungahlin.

This article must be re-cycled because it mentions Capital Metro and that entity disappeared almost 12 months ago.

From the OP ” My intention in stepping through the economic arguments in this article is to assure you that the big numbers are not scary numbers, that the Territory is in a position to afford light rail, that you are paying for light rail in the same way as you pay for any other public service provided by the government, and that your rates are not increasing to pay for light rail. “

an ex head of ACT Treasury has said that all stages of light rail will cost about b$14. The Territory budget is deep in deficit and in trouble. Affordable ?? Nice spin. But not based on anything but rusted on speculation :

http://the-riotact.com/the-many-ways-to-present-a-glowing-budget/186263

The b$14 will become Gov’t expenditure. That b$14 has to be raised – and the Territory is already deeply in debt. To claim that Annual Rates will not increase because of the Tram is a nonsense and deceptive spin. All Gov’t revenue raising, including Annual Rates) will have to increase to cover Gov’t expenditures, including that on the tram.

The ACT Labor/Greens Govt admitted that by saying that the avg. 10%pa Annual Rates increases would help it to carry out infrastructure projects – which is what they say the tram is.

From the OP ” Since 2012 we have seen almost every action and decision of the ACT Government linked to light rail by opponents of better public transport. They see light rail behind every government decision and spending announcement. It’s a deceptive, shallow and misleading campaign that the public is tired of. “

No, nice spin though. Its not opponents of public transport, just opponents of the spin that the Tram is a right and sustainably affordable public transport “backbone” for Canberra.

If u want to talk about “deceptive”, what about ACT Labor/Greens announcing that if re elected, they will sign contracts for change tram stage 2 to be from Civic to Woden but not announcing the cost to ACT Ratepayers ? Its a blank cheque being asked of ACt Ratepayers if ACT Labor/Greens are re elected. Nah – that’s not deceptive in the least. Nor is it deceptive to change the destination of stage 2 to be Woden (where they fear loss of votes) instead of the airport – that the same ACT Gov’t is louding as a new era in tourism through International flights at the same airport.

Also, how will the tram cross the Lake ? Cost of that ? Neither have been answered.

Any “deceptive, shallow and misleading”, arguments/comments from opponents of the Tram pail into insignificance compared to those of the ACT Labor/Greens Govt and their proxy, ACT Light Rail and the content in this article.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.