ACT faces third light rail election after Libs throw doubt on Stage 2

Shhh, we’ll have none of those “facts”.

It’s almost like even the ALP know that the 2nd stage isn’t viable but obviously can’t freely admit it due to their irrational rhetoric for the last few years. Kicking the can down the road a few years is much easier.

And the Libs are now backing it.

Assuming the intent is for a PPP like Stage 1, there won’t be too much on Budget yet, given they are talking about 2024 for start of services aren’t they? They aren’t going to have a massive pile of $$$ from selling stuff this time to make a contribution upfront like they did for stage 1, so a large majority will get paid off through the PPP over whatever length contract. So its not entirely suprising there isn’t a whole lot on Budget. Will probably start to appear from the next Budget to be released as the equivalent of availability payments.

Firstly, light rail wasn’t clearly backed by voters at the last election. You could probably claim general support in the areas most likely to benefit from (Gungahlin and Inner North) it but it would be a massive stretch to say that support existed elsewhere. Vote bribes often do work like that.

And the Federal Libs haven’t undermined anything, the appropriate national planning authority have simply made reasonable design requests such that it fits in with the overall planning of the designated areas.

And why would the federal government make it a priority?

The local government are free to apply for it to be included in the national priority infrastructure plan where it would be objectively assessed for viability and potential funding.

But everyone knows why the ACT government won’t see a cent from the independent assessment process, because just like the first stage, the business case doesn’t remotely stand up as in investment grade project.

Objectively assessed? Like sports grants on a colour coded spreadsheet of which electorates needed shoring you prior to an election?

And the NCA has form on this kinda thing too. Heading back to GDE.

JC,
Funny that you bring up the sports rorts, is that the type of assessment you’d prefer?

I mean people voted for the Federal Libs after it right? As Stephen Saunders would say, the vote buying was clearly backed by voters, just like the light rail pork barreling.

Lucky for us though, that Infrastructure Australia’s assessment criteria for priority funding is published and far more rigorously objective. If you’ve got any specific issues with their methodology, I’d love to hear it.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of Infrastructure knows why the ACT Light rail project has so far garnered zero federal funding. Because it’s not remotely an investment grade project that meets any major identified need.

And yes, once again the GDE is another perfect example of the NCA acting appropriately to fulfill their role as the appropriate planning authority. In that case to rein in an ACT government trying to act outside of their powers. Good point.

And in both cases a liberal (federal) government playing politics which is all they seem to know how to do. Not that it has helped their local counterparts as intended.

JC,
Politics had nothing to do with either decision which had extremely solid planning reasons behind the decisions.

If you neighbour proposed to build something on their land that didn’t comply with the planning regulations, I’m sure you would want the planning authority to reject it too.

That is all that happened.

Neither had any solid ground except politics. Though the act had benefited from the decision as it has allowed them to develop housing on the eastern side of Bruce where the road would have went.

JC,
Sorry but that’s just ridiculous.

With the light rail, the NCA requirements have been known since day dot and is completely consistent with every other planning requirement and decision in the parliamentary triangle.

You can’t build on any of the hills around Canberra in view of the parliamentary triangle, you cant put up billboards or other advertising. Why would you think they’d now allow catenary wires right through the guts of it? And the route selection was already on existing planning documents, it was the ACT government trying to change the preselected route.

And with Bruce, the national requirements and issues were well known. The local government simply thought they could jam through their preference despite it clearly being unfavourable.

Zero to do with politics. Well except for the local ACT politicians trying to operate outside of their lane (pardon the pun).

Care to point us all to a link where these known requirements are located?

You mentioned some that I will agree are very well known high level things which the NCA rightly has a say in, but where does it say the act government cannot propose to run a road to the west of the AIS or where the specific requirements about light rail in the parl triangle can be found?

About the only document I know of with light rail is this document that says capital circle is a designated inter town transport route, but begs the question why does such a document even exist? Why does the NCA dictate where an elected government runs their public transport?

The only day the NCA should have is about a aesthetics, speaking of which, no overhead in the triangle was a known even back in the stage 1 days which is fair enough. And that’s one of the reasons the operator of stage 1 got up as their trams can be basically have a battery or supercapacitor pack dropped in.

JC,
The requirements are outlined in the National Capital Plan and both supporting documentation and the legislation. This also provides clear delineation of roles, responsibilities and governance for planning in these areas.

What you seem to be arguing against is the fact that the NCA has these roles at all.

But the ACT is not an autonomous body, we aren’t a state. The local government only exists because the Federal government decides it to be so. And as we’ve seen, they still have the power to overturn local laws, if they want to.

The NCA has been clear on its requirements for these projects as the responsible planning authority in control for these matters. Of course the ACT government can propose things in these areas, but why would they possibly think they would get approved when the NCA has outlined that they aren’t acceptable and why they aren’t in line with their planning strategy?

Just like I don’t get free rein to build whatever I want on my block of land, neither does the ACT government. You can rail against that as unfair if you want but it is reality and has very little to do with politics.

Roads cannot be justified on transport benefit alone either.

That’s why ALL benefits are taken into account when projects are assessed.

JC,
Firstly, I said it cost too much for too little public transport benefit. I didn’t say it needed to be solely justified by that public transport benefit.

And you can freely read the ACT auditor’s report on light rail to see the criticism of the cost benefit analysis methodology used. The major one beong that they included benefits that are typically excluded from the assessment because they are typically too difficult to quantify adequately.

Considering the overall very low cost benefit ratio and the fact that such a small amount of it was related to a public transport benefit, my comment stands. It’s a land development project, and a poor one at that.

And as for roads projects, I would strongly disagree with your opinion. Unless there is something like a large safety risk, most major road upgrade projects are justified by the transport benefit alone through increased economic efficiency.

I won’t reply to much of what you wrote, but will comment on your last line.

You say roads can be justified on transport benefit alone through increase economic efficiency.

Sorry but that’s a bit of a contradiction. Transport benefit and economic efficiency are two seperate benefits.

I would agree wholeheartedly that most road projects are fully justified through economic efficiency but that is seperate from transport benefit.

Which gets back to the point about using transport benefit to judge public transport projects as they are about all benefits not just transport. Like roads.

JC,
Convenient that you won’t reply to the detail, it’s understandable when you’re backing something so logically indefensible.

But regarding road projects, the transport benefit IS the economic efficiency it provides. And they are typically justified almost solely on that transport benefit, without the need for wider benefits.

Now public transport projects are slightly different in that there are often significant social benefits that also can be derived outside of the pure direct economic benefit. But even including those, the light rail didn’t remotely stack up.

The majority of the claimed benefit for light rail comes from land re-development and a large portion of those types of benefits would normally be excluded from such an assessment. And then, even with the dodgy methodology it barely breaks even. The sunk opportunity costs of such a project are enormous.

And if that wasnt enough to horrify people, because the majority of the project benefits are land development ones, it raises serious equity issues of how the project is funded. All residents are paying, not for a public transport project but for large windfall property gains accrued to mostly well off owners along the route. Good for some who live in those areas. Not so good for everyone else.

All delivered by a supposedly progressive ALP-Greens government.

Again transport and economic benefit are two different things.

Basic stuff really and is why I am not going to debate every sentence you wrote. This point says it all really

JC,
Of course you won’t debate it.

And yes, it is basic stuff, which is why I’m surprised you can’t grasp the concept.

The benefits of major road projects are usually grouped in a few areas, namely reduced travel time benefits, vehicle operating cost benefits and reductions in accidents.

These are the transport benefits im talking about, and almost exclusively are used to justify major road projects without the need for the inclusion of wider economic, social or environmental factors.

I’m not sure what you think the transport benefits of a major road upgrade is beyond that?