Light rail: Forget Stage 2 if Kings Avenue route required, ACT tells Feds

Garfield, agree that Belconnen to Airport via educational institutions (where viable) would be an important however that doesn’t make the Gungahin to City via Northbourne route any less viable. Gungahlin is a very fast-growing and large area and needs connection to the City.
However, concerning Stage 2, there is an obvious balance between north and south sides of the city to go for the Woden route, albeit Belconnen is having obvious transport issues with the inevitable growth of more densely populated areas around the town centre. What puzzles me is opposition to a light rail carriage appearing in the Parliamentary Triangle by people who don’t seem to mind motor cars in the Parliamentary Triangle, Some people have odd aesthetic tastes.

I’m not going to argue that public transport between Gungahlin and the city didn’t need to improve, but when more than 90% of the benefits could have been provided for less than half the cost according to the governments own analysis of BRT vs LR, then the current stage 1 of the tram never should have received a green light. In contrast a Belco to the airport LR route would most likely have much higher passenger numbers outside the morning & evening peaks and may have come out ahead of a comparable BRT option. But we’ll never know because the decisions have been made based on politics rather than business cases.

No, Belconnen being important doesn’t make Stage 1 not viable as a public transport project, the government’s own business case does that for them. A transport cost benefit ratio of 0.3.

Ironically you are right Belconnen does have higher numbers off peak due to what it passes on the way.

Why is it ironic? As I’ve said before but one thing people object to with the Woden route is the Barton detour which will add up to 10 minutes to the trip. But go back in time and the City to Belconnen bus, the old 333 used to be more direct and much quicker.

Then they diverted it via College Street which added 5 minutes to the trip which with traffic congestion is now closer to 10 minutes. That diversion added UC, Radord, CIT and Calvary hospital to the route which generates a lot of traffic so well worth while.

But appreantly that is ok because it provides an extra service (at a time cost of course) but doing the same to the Woden route is the end of the world as we know it.

Oh and for what it is worth the current 200 bus is often reasonably full off peak too, not quite as much as Belco but full none the less. And during peak it is not uncommon to see his full signs, something I’ve not seen elsewhere in Canberra and there about 14 buses an hour Gungahlin to city in the peak so no shortage. But still often full to capacity. I actually think a couple more LRV’s will be required for Gungahlin or add in an extra two modules to each (which is easily done with the Urbos 3 LRV’s).

Increasing the LRVs by 33% will delay the cross traffic wherever there are traffic lights.

Business case (at 1.6.3) has benefit:cost ratio at 1:2. ‘As the total BCR is greater than one, the economic analysis anticipates the project will deliver a net benefit to the ACT community.’ Business case therefore appear to support the project, as has the ACT electorate. Not much more to see here other that sorting out the order of the next stages and exact routes they will take.

Really? Delay by 33% by being longer. Have you had a look at the plans for light rail and in particular the traffic light phasing plans?

Google then they make an interesting read.

So chewy you agree the benifit is positive? Not by much of course. If it were a commercial project you wouldn’t invest in it, but for a not for profit government that is well worth while.

Pity most don’t understand that.

JC,
Well done in promoting the flexibility of buses again, that change in the 333 route shows how bus routes are far more easily changed to match demand.

Astro, once again you’re completely ignoring opportunity cost.

The fact that the ratio is bigger than 1 doesn’t mean the project should go ahead unless you assess it against other options and projects. It’s the reason why Infrastructure Australia didn’t see it as a project for funding because usually those numbers are far higher. So the analysis doesn’t show the project is viable or preferred.

Particularly when the transport benefits are only 0.3 of the total benefit and the CBA itself was panned by the productivity commission as per Kent Fitch’s comment above.

And even then, all of that ignores the equity of the project with everyone paying but the benefits accruing to a much smaller group of residents and land holders.

Not much more to see except how quickly the government can work out the excuses to drop future stages because they’ll clearly not be viable.

JC,
no I wouldn’t invest in it and at those rates, the government shouldn’t either.

If the benefits accrued were mainly around public transport, you could make an argument (barely) that the not for profit government could reasonably spend money on it for the social aspects of the project but the main benefits on the government’s own figures are related to land development. It is predominantly a land redevelopment project, not a transport one.

So the opportunity costs of such a project are crucial and there’s no way in the world that this is the best use of limited government resources for the benefit received. It’s a pure vanity project that is valuing politics and “legacy” over proper infrastructure and transport planning.

Chewy sometimes flexibility is not needed. And look at Woden where some flexibility is being proposed adding the same time as the Belconnen bus diversion all those years ago and people are up in arms about it.

Go figure no one can ever be pleased in this town.

You keep harping on about opportunity cost. As you point out stage 1 is for the most part an urban renewal project (which is why I support that but an in record many times saying I don’t support Woden). So using the opportunity cost let’s say they didn’t do stage one and the urban renewal what happens with all those decaying flats down Northborne and where exactly do we build and fund new estates to put the people who need to be housed.

Hi, i’m not ignoring opportunity costs, just quoting the actual business case which shows a net benefit. There are always a number of ways to spend on infrastructure projects. I’d also call out wishful thinking if the anti-light railers are hoping that there will only be one stage of a major transport project. The benefits of the full project, including all the future stages, accrue to pretty much the whole of Canberra. I wouldn’t hold much weight to Infrastructure Australia not co-funding as they’re probably aware that Canberra can do this themselves. It still doesn’t support the supposed “unviability” of the Light Rail Project. There’s a lot of other projects they don’t co-fund.

“Hi, i’m not ignoring opportunity costs, just quoting the actual business case which shows a net benefit.”

The same business case that showed that BRT could provide 90% of the benefits for one third of the cost?

But yet, you claim to not be ignoring opportunity costs? OK….

“The benefits of the full project, including all the future stages, accrue to pretty much the whole of Canberra”

Yet no such benefits have even been identified and quantified in any business case and you can provide no evidence to back up such a bold statement other than emotional platitudes and political soundbites.

Hmmm, yes it’s the “anti-light railers” who are thinking wishfully right.

“I wouldn’t hold much weight to Infrastructure Australia not co-funding as they’re probably aware that Canberra can do this themselves.”

To paraphrase:
“Yes, I don’t like what the peak experts in this area said when assessing the project, so I’ll ignore them”

” There’s a lot of other projects they don’t co-fund.”

Yes, a lot of non-viable ones.

This level of illogical thinking is just embarrassing.

JC,
Who said they shouldn’t do the urban renewal?

This is the problem, you’re taking the light rail and urban renewal as a package when they can easily be split.

The transport requirements and benefits could have been easily achieved with a bus system and provision for a rail system (or newer technology) when/if the demand for such extra capacity is needed in 20-30 years due to the urban development increase in population.

So they could have delivered almost exactly the same benefits for a fraction of the cost, which is why opportunity cost is so important and why no decent infrastructure body would have gone near funding the project in a fit.

If they wanted to rush the project and do it now, they should have funded it through a direct levy on landholders along the route who are the main beneficiaries of such unjustified government largesse.

You seem to be OK with the government wasting money on vanity projects to build a legacy, I’d prefer good long term infrastructure planning and the most efficient use of our tax dollars.

Forget Google, and you don’t need a slide rule to tell you that something that increases in length by one third will take one third more in elapsed time to pass a fixed point.

No the actual business case, not your interpretation. A direct quote, not with an overlay of opinion. i’m not sure if you quite understand opportunity cost from what you expressed about buses. Also, you’ve not factored in the fact that buses use roads which have already been built whereas light rail hasn’t been built yet so obviously there’s a cost involved in that. It’s called infrastructure building. Perhaps it is worth mentioning here that almost all capital cities in Australia (excepting Darwin and possibly Hobart) have more than one type of public transport to service their urban environment. Canberra is following suit. In regards to Infrastructure Australia funding you may wish to read up a bit more on the process that is undertaken. It isn’t simply an equation of ‘viable = we’ll co-fund’ & ‘not viable = we won’t’. Getting back to what this article was about (and, no, it wasn’t about whether or not we should have light rail, that’s already been decided) it is difficult to put forward a sound case for a City to Woden via Kings Ave bridge route. Doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t appear likely at this stage that the Inquiry would try to mandate such a proposal.

See the demand for rail is there now not in 20 or 30 years time. And besides I want a government who looks and provides for the future not one who does things half arsed after the fact.

No, a Kings Avenue crossing makes perfect sense, you just don’t have the vision to see the benefits that would flow from such a forward thinking, bold and innovative approach to infrastructure planning and delivery by spending vastly more money to achieve the transport benefits that this route would unlock.

Your rejection of this route just shows the shallow thinking of the anti Kings Avenue brigade, costs and benefits are too hard to fully quantify for such a futuristic project and I’m not sure if you truly understand the city building effect this route would have.

It’s hard to make a case that this wouldn’t be a wonderful addition to this detailed and well planned project and I don’t need to back my statements up with evidemce because it’s really irrelevant to the discussion.

The demand is clearly not there based on the government’s own figures and it’s completely misleading to say it is. This information is in the business case.

Light rail’s viability demands a high population density that does not exist yet and won’t for a few decades.

“And besides I want a government who looks and provides for the future “

This is the trap that many people fall into when considering infrastructure, that they believe doing something is always better than nothing, when often the opposite is true. Good planning involves investing the right amounts in the right solutions at the right time. Your way of thinking is why we end up with massive gold plated white elephants.

The choice isn’t between a gold plated solution or doing something “half arsed after the fact”, its between wasting hundreds of millions of dollars now or engaging in proper long term planning to allow structured and flexible implementation of the right solutions when they are needed.