Capital Metro Business Case released

rommeldog56 said :

Errrr…….rather, ACT Ratepayers will pay.

If it comes to that I plan to pay my rates using perceived transport saving dollars. The business case makes out they’re just as good as real dollars.

rommeldog56 said :

watto23 said :

The chit chat of the fair trade agreement with China had me thinking. There is obvious protection for workers such that a chinese company can’t import workers and pay them chinese wages etc. But I was thinking, if this was managed properly, we could have a fantastic light rail network for a fraction of the cost, or even that very fast train for a fraction of the cost. But Australia as a nation is too proud to do such a thing and then there is the union argument of lowering wages and job losses to the Chinese which fires up the rednecks. But for infrastructure projects, with a known cost I don’t have a problem with it. If a Chinese company offered to build the light rails for say 300 million using its own labour then why not I say! As long as the workers are looked after in terms of living arrangements and meals and there is no safety issues then why shouldn’t we use cheap labour from overseas on infrastructure project. We’d at least get infrastructure built then. Not like other countries don’t do it either.

A good point. Not only cheap foreign labour, they could no doubt also supply the tracks (out of Australian iron ore of course !), carriages and other capital infrastructure pre manufactured items.

So, where would that leave the ACT Gov’ts claim that this is an infrastructure project to give the local ACT economy a shot in the arm economically ? Regardless, will be very interesting to see how much of the $ stays in the ACt during construction phase. I hope that is publically reported !

If a private financing/investment company gets the contract, you can bet your bottom $ that they will source the pre manufactured things from somewhere like China, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc, where its cheapest. If the ACT Govt wants some of that sourced locally, they will have to pay for it in the contracted price.

Errrr…….rather, ACT Ratepayers will pay.

It wouldn’t be the first time “cheap” foreign labour had been used in Canberra.
Remember the “88 Restaurants” at several Canberra clubs? The workers lived at the old Commodore Motel in Watson and were transported to and from work in a diplomatic plated Coaster bus, with escort.
PS Nothing about light rail is cheap. Do some research about price fixing and how the loot is shared around.

watto23 said :

The chit chat of the fair trade agreement with China had me thinking. There is obvious protection for workers such that a chinese company can’t import workers and pay them chinese wages etc. But I was thinking, if this was managed properly, we could have a fantastic light rail network for a fraction of the cost, or even that very fast train for a fraction of the cost. But Australia as a nation is too proud to do such a thing and then there is the union argument of lowering wages and job losses to the Chinese which fires up the rednecks. But for infrastructure projects, with a known cost I don’t have a problem with it. If a Chinese company offered to build the light rails for say 300 million using its own labour then why not I say! As long as the workers are looked after in terms of living arrangements and meals and there is no safety issues then why shouldn’t we use cheap labour from overseas on infrastructure project. We’d at least get infrastructure built then. Not like other countries don’t do it either.

A good point. Not only cheap foreign labour, they could no doubt also supply the tracks (out of Australian iron ore of course !), carriages and other capital infrastructure pre manufactured items.

So, where would that leave the ACT Gov’ts claim that this is an infrastructure project to give the local ACT economy a shot in the arm economically ? Regardless, will be very interesting to see how much of the $ stays in the ACt during construction phase. I hope that is publically reported !

If a private financing/investment company gets the contract, you can bet your bottom $ that they will source the pre manufactured things from somewhere like China, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc, where its cheapest. If the ACT Govt wants some of that sourced locally, they will have to pay for it in the contracted price. Errrr…….rather, ACT Ratepayers will pay.

From personal experience, I hate going down Northbourne because there is so many traffic lights with the left lane often taken up by the buses which slows things down even more.

Now living in Gungahlin, I find going down Flemington Road even worse during peak hours with the few lanes available. And then I get to Northbourne which I detest as mentioned before.

I know the new bus system has improved this but with more new housing developments occuring in Gungahlin than anywhere else in Canberra, I fear it’s only going to get worse.

From experience, I also see so many new families moving into Canberra that it’s only to make the traffic worse as population explodes faster there than elsewhere.

I’m not sure what the best way is to fix the Northbourne corridor but whether it’s a new bus system or a light rail system, something should happen as soon as possible. The longer we wait, the worse it’ll become and then we’ll be forced to make a decision.

I’m also worried about the effectiveness of the light rail in meeting our needs as there is a lot of risks and issues involved. At the same time, I think it’s ambitious, good for our future and Northbourne is the best place to fix it into.

I think someone needs to redevelop the public housing and that will have a huge benefit to the light rail system if it goes up.

I’m biased living in Gungahlin of course so I lean towards supporting the development but I think there will be benefits to other areas not just Gungahlin such as DIckson and Belconnen areas. The flow on effects is something that will be hard to estimate and it may just pleasantly surprise alot of people.

watto23 said :

The chit chat of the fair trade agreement with China had me thinking. There is obvious protection for workers such that a chinese company can’t import workers and pay them chinese wages etc. But I was thinking, if this was managed properly, we could have a fantastic light rail network for a fraction of the cost, or even that very fast train for a fraction of the cost. But Australia as a nation is too proud to do such a thing and then there is the union argument of lowering wages and job losses to the Chinese which fires up the rednecks. But for infrastructure projects, with a known cost I don’t have a problem with it. If a Chinese company offered to build the light rails for say 300 million using its own labour then why not I say! As long as the workers are looked after in terms of living arrangements and meals and there is no safety issues then why shouldn’t we use cheap labour from overseas on infrastructure project. We’d at least get infrastructure built then. Not like other countries don’t do it either.

But it will still be a dud project no matter how the t#rd is polished.

The chit chat of the fair trade agreement with China had me thinking. There is obvious protection for workers such that a chinese company can’t import workers and pay them chinese wages etc. But I was thinking, if this was managed properly, we could have a fantastic light rail network for a fraction of the cost, or even that very fast train for a fraction of the cost. But Australia as a nation is too proud to do such a thing and then there is the union argument of lowering wages and job losses to the Chinese which fires up the rednecks. But for infrastructure projects, with a known cost I don’t have a problem with it. If a Chinese company offered to build the light rails for say 300 million using its own labour then why not I say! As long as the workers are looked after in terms of living arrangements and meals and there is no safety issues then why shouldn’t we use cheap labour from overseas on infrastructure project. We’d at least get infrastructure built then. Not like other countries don’t do it either.

drfelonious said :

gooterz said :

If you ignore inflation its costing twice as much as NASA spent on Apollo 11.

If you ignore inflation, you instantly render your comparison completely meaningless.

For example, with those magic words “if you ignore inflation”, then the cost of an apartment in Kingston is the same as the cost of building (and furnishing!) the entire Old Parliament House.

It went straaaiiiiight over your head, you poor thing!

gooterz said :

If you ignore inflation its costing twice as much as NASA spent on Apollo 11.

If you ignore inflation, you instantly render your comparison completely meaningless.

For example, with those magic words “if you ignore inflation”, then the cost of an apartment in Kingston is the same as the cost of building (and furnishing!) the entire Old Parliament House.

gooterz said :

If you ignore inflation its costing twice as much as NASA spent on Apollo 11.

It will transport quite a few more people than Apollo 11 though.

If you took all the cells in your body and laid them in a line along the track route, you would die.

If you ignore inflation its costing twice as much as NASA spent on Apollo 11.

800 million in $1 coins makes a stack 5metres wide and 12km high

rommeldog56 said :

gooterz said :

gooterz said :

It would be cheaper to host an Olympic games than to build the entire network.

Its going to be more than twice the cost of the cotter dam.

If your poured the concrete from cotter dam along the light rail route you’d get a 5mx5m tube of concrete.

Arghhh…..stop it…..stop it……if you don’t stop pointing out these sorts of comparisions, I’ll need even more therapy !

Legos 7939 cargo train has 400cm of track and 88cm of train for the stunning price of $175us
Assuming 1:1aud to USD (or bulk rate)

$800million buys 4.5 million sets, which could go back and forth along the light trail route 750 times. Each track is 7 cm in width compared to light rails 143. So it takes 20 tracks to be as wide.
Assume that each is only 10 cm high the mesh of tracks would be almost 4metres high.

This would envelope the two light rail tracks and trains in height and width in two tracks.

If however you spread them out instead of stacking them your looking at 105 metres wide, of packed Lego rail. If you laid the rolling stock from these train sets nose to tail, you would have leftovers if you followed the highway to Perth.

gooterz said :

gooterz said :

It would be cheaper to host an Olympic games than to build the entire network.

Its going to be more than twice the cost of the cotter dam.

If your poured the concrete from cotter dam along the light rail route you’d get a 5mx5m tube of concrete.

Arghhh…..stop it…..stop it……if you don’t stop pointing out these sorts of comparisions, I’ll need even more therapy !

rosscoact said :

The answer to the ‘would you invest?’ question is completely facile and is like comparing a country’s budget to a credit card bill.

Nobody, unless they were scam-bait, would invest in a concept. Why? Because you do not have all the available information.

If an intelligent investor was to invest in anything new, including infrastructure, they would need to see a prospectus and make up their mind whether or not they believed the information contained in that prospectus. They can then make a decision based on all the available information.

I’d be surprised if any experienced investor would do anything else.

Dungers, your view?

I agree with everything you say.
The question was facile because that is the standard to use when discussing aspects of the proposed Canberra tram project. There is so much information missing it has to be dealt with accordingly.
It was probably a bit unfair to ask Damien as he is a light rail enthusiast who can’t see the sub-stations through the catenary. (you don’t have to answer now, Damien)
When you use the term “intelligent investors”, one would have thought that the highly paid executives at ACTEW (or whatever they are called now) who invested millions in TransACT and A Better Place would fall into that category but they still managed to lose millions of dollars of ratepayers money while retaining their jobs and outrageous salaries and benefits.
Mr Barr and Mr Corbell would like us to believe that as the project will be financed by a PPP there is still a latent risk to ratepayers and also the PPP will only be viable if the agreed subsidy is high enough.

gooterz said :

It would be cheaper to host an Olympic games than to build the entire network.

Bloody Hell!
Don’t give any more sporting promotion ideas to Andrew Barr.
We can’t afford what he has already committed us for.
Just imagine, “The 2040 UC Canberra Olympic Games”

FHW said :

The tram itself might service only a corridor, but if there is unlimited space on the tram for bicycles, this will attract passengers from a much wider area.

I hope bikes can travel for free though! or this benfit will be lost.

Why should bikes travel for free? Just cycle the distance if you don’t want to pay!

rosscoact said :

The answer to the ‘would you invest?’ question is completely facile and is like comparing a country’s budget to a credit card bill.

Nobody, unless they were scam-bait, would invest in a concept. Why? Because you do not have all the available information.

If an intelligent investor was to invest in anything new, including infrastructure, they would need to see a prospectus and make up their mind whether or not they believed the information contained in that prospectus. They can then make a decision based on all the available information.

I’d be surprised if any experienced investor would do anything else.

Dungers, your view?

The available information is in the ACT Gov’t business case/BCR and tender documents.

Any investor will look at the prospectus issued by the company(s) that win the tram tender (assuming it will be publically listed – in Australia ?). Investors will decide to invest in that company(s) – given the overall ROI and the guaranteed ROI by the ACT Ratepayers (which is the way most if not all, PPPs work).

The ACT Govt also has other PPPs in the pipeline – the new court building in the City and the proposed building to house ACT public servants – also in the City. I would assume they will be a build/maintain by a private/investment company and lease back by ACT Gov’t for decades to come.

gooterz said :

It would be cheaper to host an Olympic games than to build the entire network.

Its going to be more than twice the cost of the cotter dam.

If your poured the concrete from cotter dam along the light rail route you’d get a 5mx5m tube of concrete.

It would be cheaper to host an Olympic games than to build the entire network.

The answer to the ‘would you invest?’ question is completely facile and is like comparing a country’s budget to a credit card bill.

Nobody, unless they were scam-bait, would invest in a concept. Why? Because you do not have all the available information.

If an intelligent investor was to invest in anything new, including infrastructure, they would need to see a prospectus and make up their mind whether or not they believed the information contained in that prospectus. They can then make a decision based on all the available information.

I’d be surprised if any experienced investor would do anything else.

Dungers, your view?

rommeldog56 said :

Canberroid said :

Antagonist said :

Canberroid said :

I pay an exorbitant amount of tax, but in return we enjoy a fantastic quality of life. The government’s job is to help make that happen, not to make a profit at every turn.

The government still have a duty to provide value for money to the taxpayer when it spends our money. This project will not do that.

Regardless of whether or not that is true (and I think it is hard to predict either way at this stage compared to the opportunity cost), the question put to Damien as to whether he would personally invest in light rail is still puerile.

I think that the real question is whether a shareholder would invest in the company financial/building/operating the tram.

Given that its a 20 year + contract with a Government, then the answer would almost certainly be “Yes”.

Why ?

Because the capital outlay and an adequate return on in must be enough for the private company to equal or better the return they will get from other investment opportunities/ventures. They are guaranteed to get that return.

They certainly won’t get a decent ROI based on revenues from fares and flogging off a bit of advertising on/in the trams themselves and on the stops.

So, where will the rest come from ? Answer : From all ACT ratepayers because that adequate ROI to the private company will be guranteed in the contract.

Also, the private company will be expecting to get a foot in the door to build/run the other/next stages (if there are any).

I don’t believe that *was* the real question posed to Damien – those posing the question were fishing for a “no” as if it was relevant to this discussion. Anyway, of course any private company would be involved for a profit.

Canberroid said :

Antagonist said :

Canberroid said :

I pay an exorbitant amount of tax, but in return we enjoy a fantastic quality of life. The government’s job is to help make that happen, not to make a profit at every turn.

The government still have a duty to provide value for money to the taxpayer when it spends our money. This project will not do that.

Regardless of whether or not that is true (and I think it is hard to predict either way at this stage compared to the opportunity cost), the question put to Damien as to whether he would personally invest in light rail is still puerile.

I think that the real question is whether a shareholder would invest in the company financial/building/operating the tram.

Given that its a 20 year + contract with a Government, then the answer would almost certainly be “Yes”. Why ? Because the capital outlay and an adequate return on in must be enough for the private company to equal or better the return they will get from other investment opportunities/ventures. They are guaranteed to get that return.

They certainly won’t get a decent ROI based on revenues from fares and flogging off a bit of advertising on/in the trams themselves and on the stops.

So, where will the rest come from ? Answer : From all ACT ratepayers because that adequate ROI to the private company will be guranteed in the contract.

Also, the private company will be expecting to get a foot in the door to build/run the other/next stages (if there are any).

Canberroid said :

Antagonist said :

Canberroid said :

I pay an exorbitant amount of tax, but in return we enjoy a fantastic quality of life. The government’s job is to help make that happen, not to make a profit at every turn.

The government still have a duty to provide value for money to the taxpayer when it spends our money. This project will not do that.

Regardless of whether or not that is true (and I think it is hard to predict either way at this stage compared to the opportunity cost), the question put to Damien as to whether he would personally invest in light rail is still puerile.

That is your opinion.
Still waiting to hear from Damien.

Antagonist said :

Canberroid said :

I pay an exorbitant amount of tax, but in return we enjoy a fantastic quality of life. The government’s job is to help make that happen, not to make a profit at every turn.

The government still have a duty to provide value for money to the taxpayer when it spends our money. This project will not do that.

Regardless of whether or not that is true (and I think it is hard to predict either way at this stage compared to the opportunity cost), the question put to Damien as to whether he would personally invest in light rail is still puerile.

FHW said :

The tram itself might service only a corridor, but if there is unlimited space on the tram for bicycles, this will attract passengers from a much wider area.

I hope bikes can travel for free though! or this benfit will be lost.

My observations of tram commuters in Europe is that they don’t like bikes. It is bad enough to be forced to stand close to a sweaty lycra covered pixie without the pedals tearring into your unprotected calf muscles.
Bike free carriages could be a compromise.

The tram itself might service only a corridor, but if there is unlimited space on the tram for bicycles, this will attract passengers from a much wider area.

I hope bikes can travel for free though! or this benfit will be lost.

As a moderate voter who supports the idea of light rail, I’ve posted on many occasions that I fail to see the benefit that light rail will bring, let along how it is fixing and problem right now. that is the current proposal. However I’ve also said if light rail is going to work then the current proposed route is the most likely route to work. So I’m not one of those Tuggeranong residents bitter we are not getting it.

I think the transit times are not improved enough for a start to justify the expenditure. Yes the transit corridor is likely to attract high density residential areas to help utilise the light rail, so the only real benefit is developers can build some high density accommodation on the route.

I compare this project to the NBN and wonder how in hell the coalition was able to ruin a perfectly good nation building project at the federal level, but let this one go through. I realise there are differences and they didn’t have the power to stop this light rail bu maybe the focus at the last election was too much on the triple the rates campaign instead of focusing on a broader range of issues. Those 3 word slogans don’t always work it seems!

I thought the coalitions business case for their dodgy NBN was rubbish, but just to show political parties are equally as bad this business case gets released!

Canberroid said :

I pay an exorbitant amount of tax, but in return we enjoy a fantastic quality of life. The government’s job is to help make that happen, not to make a profit at every turn.

The government still have a duty to provide value for money to the taxpayer when it spends our money. This project will not do that.

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

Masquara said :

Damian isn’t carrying any risk himself. And he’s earning a wage promoting this thing. So his opinion is neither here nor there.

Ah, so it’s only people with unshakable beliefs whose opinions are worth anything?

Quite the opposite I would have thought.

Damien has been asked twice if he would invest in the light rail and he has failed to answer.
That sort of values his opinions.
Would you invest in it?

I wouldn’t invest in many government subsidised services, but I’m still glad those services exist. Most of the economic benefits of this project flow back to the government through other channels which is not the case for private investors. No one would invest in Action either.

I pay an exorbitant amount of tax, but in return we enjoy a fantastic quality of life. The government’s job is to help make that happen, not to make a profit at every turn.

rosscoact said :

Masquara said :

Damian isn’t carrying any risk himself. And he’s earning a wage promoting this thing. So his opinion is neither here nor there.

Ah, so it’s only people with unshakable beliefs whose opinions are worth anything?

Quite the opposite I would have thought.

Damien has been asked twice if he would invest in the light rail and he has failed to answer.
That sort of values his opinions.
Would you invest in it?

house_husband said :

Aragornerama said :

I agree the business case seems a tad flimsy, but I don’t think it’s something that should be analysed in purely economic terms. As I see it, most of the benefits (social cohesion, urbanisation, civic pride, etc…) are not quantifiable.

We definitely can’t just look at any public transport project in purely economic terms or we’d never build anything. The problem with the way the Greens and, to a slightly lesser degree, Labor look at these things is they fail to go that one step further and plan where the money comes from.

The $823M to build this is real dollars that have to come from somewhere unless we can convince the suppliers, workers and consultants to accept perceived transport benefit offset dollars. Maybe a combination of operational revenue, revenue directly attributable to increased land values, proportional diversion from road/transport/health budgets, consolidated revenue, long term debt? Increased rates, reduced services? Who knows?

The bottom line is that the untried light rail proposed from Canberra City to Gungahlin is replacing an existing, efficient ACTION bus service. It is simply not economically sensible to do it so the other “factors” (social cohesion, urbanisation, civic pride, etc.) are academic.
There is not need for a modal shift on this route especially with the Majura parkway about to be commissioned.
If the first stage of the light rail was to link Canberra city with the airport via Constitution Avenue, Russell, IKEA and the airport retail and business park then it would be useful, well patronised and probably profitable. It would also dramatically reduce road traffic congestion.
The financially competent airport people have already suggested this so the government should look at it confidently.
The last section of any light rail network in Canberra should be the route from Canberra City to Gungahlin.

Aragornerama said :

I agree the business case seems a tad flimsy, but I don’t think it’s something that should be analysed in purely economic terms. As I see it, most of the benefits (social cohesion, urbanisation, civic pride, etc…) are not quantifiable.

We definitely can’t just look at any public transport project in purely economic terms or we’d never build anything. The problem with the way the Greens and, to a slightly lesser degree, Labor look at these things is they fail to go that one step further and plan where the money comes from.

The $823M to build this is real dollars that have to come from somewhere unless we can convince the suppliers, workers and consultants to accept perceived transport benefit offset dollars. Maybe a combination of operational revenue, revenue directly attributable to increased land values, proportional diversion from road/transport/health budgets, consolidated revenue, long term debt? Increased rates, reduced services? Who knows?

Masquara said :

Damian isn’t carrying any risk himself. And he’s earning a wage promoting this thing. So his opinion is neither here nor there.

Ah, so it’s only people with unshakable beliefs whose opinions are worth anything?

Quite the opposite I would have thought.

wildturkeycanoe said :

watto23 said :

Ben_Dover said :

The Capital Metro project has tremendous support from Canberra’s community

Which will be shown in the way we vote out the Labour and Green parties at the next election, and vote for a party which will scrap this lunatic idea.

While it would be interesting if this was the case, you have to remember Labor and the greens got voted back in after they said they were going to do this. Now maybe some facts like real costs will swing some voters, and also the transition to 5 electorates of 5 will also change voting preferences. However the last ACT election was at a time that the federal Labor was at its worst as well.

Also given we’ve had only 1 majority government in the ACT, for the liberals to pull off a majority government in the ACT its going to take a small miracle. There really needs to be a few more high profile non Lab/Lib/Green candidates that get elected for liberals to have a chance.

I might be proven wrong and there are still 2 more years, but a liberal government will most likely cut spending and services, and whether that will be better will remain to be seen.

This is one thing I absolutely hate about the system of government in Australia. Like in the last federal election, I wanted the X party to win, but we had no representation here in the A.C.T.
I do not want the Liberal party to win the next Federal election but I do not want Labor to win locally because of this tram scam. What is a voter to do, vote for the party they hate, the party they hate, the other party they hate, or the party that really is insignificant in the grand scheme of things?
Governance has turned me into a donkey voter because none of them are either a real winning candidate or one that will bring about the changes I desire. Then again, they all back-flip or lie about their promises anyway. There isn’t a majority anymore, people have become so divided….what will we do?

start your own party?

Aragornerama said : “I agree the business case seems a tad flimsy, but I don’t think it’s something that should be analysed in purely economic terms. As I see it, most of the benefits (social cohesion, urbanisation, civic pride, etc…) are not quantifiable.”

A tad flimsy ? All that has to be done is to read the basis for the cost savings to arrive at the 1.2 BCR, to see how flimsy it is. You could drive busses through it (pun intended).

Agreed, that those benefits are valid to quantify, but they mostly should be intangibles or below the line savings. They can really be fudged.

I wonder what greater BCRs would there be from other possible infrastructure stimulus projects. A nice new convention centre perhaps ? What is the opportunity cost of the tram ?

Damian isn’t carrying any risk himself. And he’s earning a wage promoting this thing. So his opinion is neither here nor there.

watto23 said :

Ben_Dover said :

The Capital Metro project has tremendous support from Canberra’s community

Which will be shown in the way we vote out the Labour and Green parties at the next election, and vote for a party which will scrap this lunatic idea.

While it would be interesting if this was the case, you have to remember Labor and the greens got voted back in after they said they were going to do this. Now maybe some facts like real costs will swing some voters, and also the transition to 5 electorates of 5 will also change voting preferences. However the last ACT election was at a time that the federal Labor was at its worst as well.

Also given we’ve had only 1 majority government in the ACT, for the liberals to pull off a majority government in the ACT its going to take a small miracle. There really needs to be a few more high profile non Lab/Lib/Green candidates that get elected for liberals to have a chance.

I might be proven wrong and there are still 2 more years, but a liberal government will most likely cut spending and services, and whether that will be better will remain to be seen.

This is one thing I absolutely hate about the system of government in Australia. Like in the last federal election, I wanted the X party to win, but we had no representation here in the A.C.T.
I do not want the Liberal party to win the next Federal election but I do not want Labor to win locally because of this tram scam. What is a voter to do, vote for the party they hate, the party they hate, the other party they hate, or the party that really is insignificant in the grand scheme of things?
Governance has turned me into a donkey voter because none of them are either a real winning candidate or one that will bring about the changes I desire. Then again, they all back-flip or lie about their promises anyway. There isn’t a majority anymore, people have become so divided….what will we do?

damien haas said :

I don’t visit this forum that often anymore, but thanks for all the positive support for light rail. I have waded through the responses and I think these are legitimate questions, and I shall try and answer them. I am an advocate for public transport and nothing I say is an official Capital Metro/ACT Government statement.

Any other answers I can help with?

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Yes, how can we justify choosing light rail over BRT when LRT costs about 400 million more with only marginal benefits over BRT? Previously released studies showed that BRT was far more likely to be profitable than light rail, with light rail losing money in all but the most optimistic scenarios.

I agree that a long term public transit solution is required. I do not see why light rail should be that option, however, other than “trains are cool” (and i don’t disagree that they are–but hundreds of millions is an awful lot to spend on “cool”)

“the project would likely utilise an overhead 750 volt dc power supply”
Rather specific isn’t it? Tender written for a particular tender?

“The traction system will be designed to enable full service operations with any one substation out of service.”
So if one breaks no one can use the tram as there is no backup if the power is lost?

“overnight storage of all vehicles is proposed to be located in Mitchell”
When planning the storage are we going to have depots all over Canberra or are the trams in the future going to have to cross Canberra in the mornings to pick up all the people in Tuggeranong to take them to work? Wouldn’t it make more sense long term to put the depot somewhere central? (Airport?)

The tram line is to stop people using cars. The solution “A new 350 space facility within Gungahlin town centre” Makes sense?

I find it interesting that Belconnens interchange was replaced with something that directly works with light rail. That civic to the lake is a huge hurdle for getting rail over the lake, Woden and Tuggeranong are trivial to lay rail to as there is ample space left next to each major road with very few crossings.

How high is the overhead line? will it stop trucks and tall things from crossing over Northbourne?
[No more bring your giraffe to work day]

“There will continue to be one car lane in each direction following removal of a ‘bus only’ lane which will no longer be required”
So when creating a new link they’re going to rid of us a bus lane only have it get shot into the wind?
Its the GDE all over again. Single lane…

Page 68 shows exactly where to build light rail. Anywhere new or proposed would be the first start. Then when suburbs are build in the next 10 to 20 years light rail should be kicked off at the time when there is a choice between bus and train. Then design the whole suburb around tram as transport!

dungfungus said :

damien haas said :

I don’t visit this forum that often anymore, but thanks for all the positive support for light rail. I have waded through the responses and I think these are legitimate questions, and I shall try and answer them. I am an advocate for public transport and nothing I say is an official Capital Metro/ACT Government statement.

“By what means shall success or failure be measured?” Pork Hunt

This is a good question. In my mind the measure of success will take some time to be seen, in that public transport patronage will increase (on buses as well as the new patronage light rail will attract), road congestion will decrease, pressure on parking decreased, density focussed along transport corridors and not in our suburbs. Failure – public transport patronage continues to decline, road congestion along Northbourne becomes worse, parking pressure increases.

Ultimately I want the Canberra of 2060 to be a city connected with high speed mass transit using light rail as a backbone, and buses with increased frequency delivering passengers to light rail nodes.

If a Canberra family can have only one car, instead of two, if a person can cross the city in under an hour in peak hour, if they can choose to use public transport as their primary method to commute to work. If Canberra’s increased density is built along transport corridors, and not in the suburbs, that would be success. I could go on…

“Also, is there provision for an IES especially addressing the ugly wirescape that will be created.” dungfungus

There is no requirement that the light rail vehicles be powered by catenary wire. That is up to the successful bidder. The NCA have advised that they wont allow wires on the bridge across LBG. It is almost certain that the light rail vehicles will use a wire, as that is the current off the shelf solution.

“If only the government would wait another 5 years because the advances being made in battery storage will mean that 100% battery powered trams could be operating then and this would reduce the project cost by millions as well as avoiding an ugly wirescape.” dungfungus

Buying off the shelf technology keeps the cost down. There is no reason future tech cant be procured when the need arise, or that the vehicles purchased for Stage One cant be modified. I don’t know what evidence there is that leading edge technology is cheaper than existing technology to power light rail vehicles, but am open to seeing the evidence.

“Also, 15,000 trips a day at estimated $1.35 per trip is only $20,250 a day in revenue. They reckon $5.5 million in the first year for ticket sales. With a capital cost of $783 million and revenue for the first 20 years of only $81 million, how exactly are they going to pay off the debt??” wildturkeycanoe

I am not privy to the ACT Governments thinking on this. I would observe that this year the ACT received $4.5 billion in incoming revenue from the Federal government (GST, state grants etc). That excludes money raised internally from rates, speeding fines etc. An $830 million dollar infrastructure program over a 20 or 30 year period is not the horrendous debt burden that it is made out to be. It is easily managed over that period of time.

There is also a significant difference to borrowing for infrastructure and borrowing for recurring expenditure.

“What about the bus services that will be scrapped because they duplicate the tram route? Less patronage on Action services plus slashing routes means possible redundancies or shall we see increased services elsewhere?” wildturkeycanoe

The Gungahlin-Civic services along Northbourne will go. They will be replaced by light rail.. Increased ACTION services will be provided to suburbs adjacent to the light rail route. Contemporary experience with light rail introduction sees an increase in associated bus services, not a decrease.

The ACT Government have since the commencement of Capital Metro planning talked about ‘integration’ between light rail and buses, as have ACT Light Rail (who are not anti-bus in any way). There will be a major bus/light rail interface at Gungahlin, Dickson and Civic.

“Where will the trams be maintained?” gooterz

In a new depot to be built on ACT Government land in Mitchell, with access to Flemington Rd.

“Alternative views – I would argue that by focussing solely on one form of public transport without having a comprehensive comparative study of all the alternatives, many of those in favour of light rail are themselves ignoring alternative views or options.” house_husband

There has been over a decade of discussions, studies and bus only transport plans that I have been involved in. It is amazing that only after light rail is announced that those opposing it are demanding that we look at the alternatives. Those discussions took place, and decisions are made by those that turn up. Opposing it after the fact, is within your rights, but the decision making period has passed. I would also observe that Two of the three parties went to the 2012 Assembly election with light rail as policy. Light rail will be built in Canberra.

“What I would like some of the advocates to do is explain whether or not they think it is worth committing the Territory to potentially over half a billion dollars in debt.” house_husband

What if I said to you that you could only buy a house from income earned this year and that you would not be allowed to carry half a million dollars in debt to fund your home? It is sound planning to pay off any large expenditure infrastructure item over a long period of time. It applies to a home loan and mortgage, and it applies to public transport infrastructure.

Any other answers I can help with?

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

If the proposed light rail was set up as a public company financed by shares, would you invest in it?
I am not sure if you are a public servant but if you are, would you be happy to see your superannuation trustees invest your superannuation contributions in it?
Remember that an Industry Super Fund lost millions investing in TransACT.

Are you still crunching the numbers on whether you would buy shares?

Antagonist said :

Aragornerama said :

Definitely agree re triggering development – I think that’s something people who oppose light rail tend to neglect. They say it’s not currently sustainable, and that might be correct. However it’s an investment for the future. I’d argue it’s an ‘if you build it they will come’ scenario. Build the light rail and the higher density surrounding the corridor/hubs that are necessary to make it viable will follow.

Perhaps this *might* trigger high-density housing development along *some* sections of the corridor. But does Canberra need/want high-density housing like we see in Sydney and Melbourne? I find the whole idea of high-density housing repugnant. It will be a new Bega/Burnie Court on a grand-scale.

I think the business case being put forward is flimsy at best – and bordering on fraudulent. The rubbery numbers and ‘savings’ figures being thrown around do not stack up.

I guess it’s a matter of personal preference. Personally I’d love to have more high-density housing in Canberra. It would make the city more dynamic, and open up living in central suburbs to people who can’t afford a free-standing house there. There’s never going to be any lack of choice in Canberra for those who’d prefer to live in a more suburban environment, but I’d like to see more options for wannabe city slickers.

I agree the business case seems a tad flimsy, but I don’t think it’s something that should be analysed in purely economic terms. As I see it, most of the benefits (social cohesion, urbanisation, civic pride, etc…) are not quantifiable.

Ben_Dover said :

The Capital Metro project has tremendous support from Canberra’s community

Which will be shown in the way we vote out the Labour and Green parties at the next election, and vote for a party which will scrap this lunatic idea.

While it would be interesting if this was the case, you have to remember Labor and the greens got voted back in after they said they were going to do this. Now maybe some facts like real costs will swing some voters, and also the transition to 5 electorates of 5 will also change voting preferences. However the last ACT election was at a time that the federal Labor was at its worst as well.

Also given we’ve had only 1 majority government in the ACT, for the liberals to pull off a majority government in the ACT its going to take a small miracle. There really needs to be a few more high profile non Lab/Lib/Green candidates that get elected for liberals to have a chance.

I might be proven wrong and there are still 2 more years, but a liberal government will most likely cut spending and services, and whether that will be better will remain to be seen.

Its not like the current federal government is doing anything great right now all pure ideological nonsense especially regarding the NBN. I doubt an ACT lib government would do anything amazing, all the reports and CBAs commissioned are biased towards what they want to get through, just like Labor has done with this business plan. The differences are ideological based, but both major parties are as bad as each other when it comes to pushing their pet projects, or tearing down the oppositions pet project.

damien haas said :

I would invite people to look at the historical transport studies on this page.

http://www.actlightrail.info/p/act-transport-studies.html

To say that there has been no discussion on public transport in this town is not supported by the facts.

Damien, although I disagree with light rail, I applaud your continued engagement and discussion on the topic. Keep it up.

damien haas said :

I would invite people to look at the historical transport studies on this page.

http://www.actlightrail.info/p/act-transport-studies.html

To say that there has been no discussion on public transport in this town is not supported by the facts.

Damien, would it be possible to provide working links to the following items on that page?
2009 – ACT Govt submission to Infrastructure Australia for ACT Light Rail – Price Waterhouse Coopers
2009 – Cost Benefit Analysis of Light Rail in the ACT (part of 2009 IA submission) – Price Waterhouse Coopers
2008 – ACT Government Integrated Transport Framework – ACT Govt
2008 – ACT Government Integrated Transport Framework – ACT Govt
2007 – ACTION Buses and the Sustainable Transport Plan
2004 – Canberra Public Transport Futures Feasibility Study – Kellog Brown Root
1997 – Canberra at the Crossroads: A way out of the transport mess – Conservation Council

I would invite people to look at the historical transport studies on this page.

http://www.actlightrail.info/p/act-transport-studies.html

To say that there has been no discussion on public transport in this town is not supported by the facts.

Antagonist said :

Aragornerama said :

Definitely agree re triggering development – I think that’s something people who oppose light rail tend to neglect. They say it’s not currently sustainable, and that might be correct. However it’s an investment for the future. I’d argue it’s an ‘if you build it they will come’ scenario. Build the light rail and the higher density surrounding the corridor/hubs that are necessary to make it viable will follow.

Perhaps this *might* trigger high-density housing development along *some* sections of the corridor. But does Canberra need/want high-density housing like we see in Sydney and Melbourne? I find the whole idea of high-density housing repugnant. It will be a new Bega/Burnie Court on a grand-scale.

I think the business case being put forward is flimsy at best – and bordering on fraudulent. The rubbery numbers and ‘savings’ figures being thrown around do not stack up.

If high density housing is built along the corridors, Canberra will cease to be the bush capital that we all love.
And where are the people/jobs/etc. coming from to live in the high density housing?

damien haas said :

It is amazing that only after light rail is announced that those opposing it are demanding that we look at the alternatives

We have already looked at the Bus Rapid Transit alternative. The Government’s 2012 sumission to Infrastructure Australia showed that Bus Rapid Transit was much more cost-effective than light rail (cenefit-cost ratio 1.98 to 4.78, compared with light rail 1.02 to 2.34), and would deliver $230 million greater net benefits.

Aragornerama said :

Definitely agree re triggering development – I think that’s something people who oppose light rail tend to neglect. They say it’s not currently sustainable, and that might be correct. However it’s an investment for the future. I’d argue it’s an ‘if you build it they will come’ scenario. Build the light rail and the higher density surrounding the corridor/hubs that are necessary to make it viable will follow.

Perhaps this *might* trigger high-density housing development along *some* sections of the corridor. But does Canberra need/want high-density housing like we see in Sydney and Melbourne? I find the whole idea of high-density housing repugnant. It will be a new Bega/Burnie Court on a grand-scale.

I think the business case being put forward is flimsy at best – and bordering on fraudulent. The rubbery numbers and ‘savings’ figures being thrown around do not stack up.

pajs said :

I suspect people with a positive view towards light rail for Canberra would realise the naysayers here are, in the main, not interested in evidence, alternative views, or rational debate. So why bother?

FWIW, I think light rail can be a trigger for more dense development along key corridors in Canberra, with the initial line just the start. It would be great to see some interesting, diverse, walkable neighbourhoods along that route, counter-balancing some of our sprawl and car-dependence.

Totally agree, I’m another lurker in favour of light rail. I think another factor dissuading supporters from commenting is that light rail seems to be happening no matter what, so people who favour it don’t need to come out and make arguments for it.

Definitely agree re triggering development – I think that’s something people who oppose light rail tend to neglect. They say it’s not currently sustainable, and that might be correct. However it’s an investment for the future. I’d argue it’s an ‘if you build it they will come’ scenario. Build the light rail and the higher density surrounding the corridor/hubs that are necessary to make it viable will follow.

pajs said :

I suspect….. the naysayers here are, in the main, not interested in evidence, alternative views, or rational debate. So why bother?

Good grief. The project is not based on evidence of need. If the project wasn’t required as a political fix, we wouldn’t even be having the conversation.

The idea of light rail came first, the justifications for it have been made up as we go along.

Reply

house_husband said :

damien haas said :

“What I would like some of the advocates to do is explain whether or not they think it is worth committing the Territory to potentially over half a billion dollars in debt.” house_husband

What if I said to you that you could only buy a house from income earned this year and that you would not be allowed to carry half a million dollars in debt to fund your home? It is sound planning to pay off any large expenditure infrastructure item over a long period of time. It applies to a home loan and mortgage, and it applies to public transport infrastructure.

Any other answers I can help with?

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

The difference is that for a half a million mortgage you have to demonstrate a capacity to pay it off over 20+ years as well as pay for your food, electricity, transport, clothing, etc. For light rail we have operational revenue that covers only roughly half the cost of running it with nothing left from operational funds to pay off the capital investment.That means the money needs to come from somewhere and it isn’t quite clear from the business case how this will happen.

Take $406M in transport benefits of which we have $222M in “time savings”, nearly a quarter of the total benefits for the project, that are described as “perceived costs”. How will any of this translate to real dollars to pay off the network? Then there are $54M in transport savings which I assume would be real dollars we would have spent on buses so they can be diverted. Of the remaining $129M (NOTE: Their figure actually add up to $407M not $406M) there are amenity and reliability benefits, vehicle operating costs, accident costs and health benefits. Of these only accident and health are funded directly by government so again how much from these will be diverted to pay for light rail? Even assuming a generous $50M we are left with $300M in “benefits” that are either perceived value or private savings.

Using the mortgage example a bank would hardly give me money for a house if my day to day expense were twice what I was earning and I tried to say that by living on Mugga Way my perceived benefits of living in a posh neighbourhood were $100K per year so that would make up the shortfall.

These are good, economically based, logical points hiouse_husband. I see you can do math ! Additionally, your house mortage is yours – you get the asset + pay with it with your money – not all ACT Ratepayers money. The BCR is a croc – I have never seen such a poor business case – and I’ve seen probably over 100 of them in my time. Never mind, slogans are more important than logic, common sense and math in the tram debate anyway.

damien haas said :

“What I would like some of the advocates to do is explain whether or not they think it is worth committing the Territory to potentially over half a billion dollars in debt.” house_husband

What if I said to you that you could only buy a house from income earned this year and that you would not be allowed to carry half a million dollars in debt to fund your home? It is sound planning to pay off any large expenditure infrastructure item over a long period of time. It applies to a home loan and mortgage, and it applies to public transport infrastructure.

Any other answers I can help with?

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

The difference is that for a half a million mortgage you have to demonstrate a capacity to pay it off over 20+ years as well as pay for your food, electricity, transport, clothing, etc. For light rail we have operational revenue that covers only roughly half the cost of running it with nothing left from operational funds to pay off the capital investment.That means the money needs to come from somewhere and it isn’t quite clear from the business case how this will happen.

Take $406M in transport benefits of which we have $222M in “time savings”, nearly a quarter of the total benefits for the project, that are described as “perceived costs”. How will any of this translate to real dollars to pay off the network? Then there are $54M in transport savings which I assume would be real dollars we would have spent on buses so they can be diverted. Of the remaining $129M (NOTE: Their figure actually add up to $407M not $406M) there are amenity and reliability benefits, vehicle operating costs, accident costs and health benefits. Of these only accident and health are funded directly by government so again how much from these will be diverted to pay for light rail? Even assuming a generous $50M we are left with $300M in “benefits” that are either perceived value or private savings.

Using the mortgage example a bank would hardly give me money for a house if my day to day expense were twice what I was earning and I tried to say that by living on Mugga Way my perceived benefits of living in a posh neighbourhood were $100K per year so that would make up the shortfall.

Postalgeek said :

damien haas said :

Any other answers I can help with?

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

I sincerely hope the rail is an outstanding success, as I hope all policies implemented by all parties have positive outcomes. Taxpayers don’t win if naysayers are proven correct.

I have to ask, one of the recurring arguments against cycling is that people say they have to take kids to and from school.

Do you know if the government is planning to ensure such services line the route, or are serviced by the route? If the school is on one side of the suburb, and the rail is right over on the other side, I cannot envisage a significant change in commuter behaviour if commuters have to take significant detours to schools/daycare. You could probably throw medical centres into that as well.

There is just so much totally wrong with the posting by Mr Haas, above. eg. So, M$840 (like, it wont be that will it Damian – it will be b$1+) is “easily managed” is it ? Thats just blind, unfounded hope Im afraid. Again, another slogan.

So, what happens to the Gunners/City express bus services that run along Northbourne Ave – I think u say they will cease.

As for a decade of information/consultation – it must have been done very quietly because the 1st I heard about the tram was during lead up to the last ACT election. Even if it and the other options were widely discussed/consulted with the community, the business case is a game changer because it has just so much more detail that would not have been available before to inform community opinion.

There is just so much more – if I could work out how to post comments against Mr Hass’s individual comments/ascertions, I would – but Im technologically challenged and it would make the post far too long. So, I’ll do my talking at the ballot box in 2016, as I’m certain so many others will to.

damien haas said :

I don’t visit this forum that often anymore, but thanks for all the positive support for light rail. I have waded through the responses and I think these are legitimate questions, and I shall try and answer them. I am an advocate for public transport and nothing I say is an official Capital Metro/ACT Government statement.

“By what means shall success or failure be measured?” Pork Hunt

This is a good question. In my mind the measure of success will take some time to be seen, in that public transport patronage will increase (on buses as well as the new patronage light rail will attract), road congestion will decrease, pressure on parking decreased, density focussed along transport corridors and not in our suburbs. Failure – public transport patronage continues to decline, road congestion along Northbourne becomes worse, parking pressure increases.

Ultimately I want the Canberra of 2060 to be a city connected with high speed mass transit using light rail as a backbone, and buses with increased frequency delivering passengers to light rail nodes.

If a Canberra family can have only one car, instead of two, if a person can cross the city in under an hour in peak hour, if they can choose to use public transport as their primary method to commute to work. If Canberra’s increased density is built along transport corridors, and not in the suburbs, that would be success. I could go on…

“Also, is there provision for an IES especially addressing the ugly wirescape that will be created.” dungfungus

There is no requirement that the light rail vehicles be powered by catenary wire. That is up to the successful bidder. The NCA have advised that they wont allow wires on the bridge across LBG. It is almost certain that the light rail vehicles will use a wire, as that is the current off the shelf solution.

“If only the government would wait another 5 years because the advances being made in battery storage will mean that 100% battery powered trams could be operating then and this would reduce the project cost by millions as well as avoiding an ugly wirescape.” dungfungus

Buying off the shelf technology keeps the cost down. There is no reason future tech cant be procured when the need arise, or that the vehicles purchased for Stage One cant be modified. I don’t know what evidence there is that leading edge technology is cheaper than existing technology to power light rail vehicles, but am open to seeing the evidence.

“Also, 15,000 trips a day at estimated $1.35 per trip is only $20,250 a day in revenue. They reckon $5.5 million in the first year for ticket sales. With a capital cost of $783 million and revenue for the first 20 years of only $81 million, how exactly are they going to pay off the debt??” wildturkeycanoe

I am not privy to the ACT Governments thinking on this. I would observe that this year the ACT received $4.5 billion in incoming revenue from the Federal government (GST, state grants etc). That excludes money raised internally from rates, speeding fines etc. An $830 million dollar infrastructure program over a 20 or 30 year period is not the horrendous debt burden that it is made out to be. It is easily managed over that period of time.

There is also a significant difference to borrowing for infrastructure and borrowing for recurring expenditure.

“What about the bus services that will be scrapped because they duplicate the tram route? Less patronage on Action services plus slashing routes means possible redundancies or shall we see increased services elsewhere?” wildturkeycanoe

The Gungahlin-Civic services along Northbourne will go. They will be replaced by light rail.. Increased ACTION services will be provided to suburbs adjacent to the light rail route. Contemporary experience with light rail introduction sees an increase in associated bus services, not a decrease.

The ACT Government have since the commencement of Capital Metro planning talked about ‘integration’ between light rail and buses, as have ACT Light Rail (who are not anti-bus in any way). There will be a major bus/light rail interface at Gungahlin, Dickson and Civic.

“Where will the trams be maintained?” gooterz

In a new depot to be built on ACT Government land in Mitchell, with access to Flemington Rd.

“Alternative views – I would argue that by focussing solely on one form of public transport without having a comprehensive comparative study of all the alternatives, many of those in favour of light rail are themselves ignoring alternative views or options.” house_husband

There has been over a decade of discussions, studies and bus only transport plans that I have been involved in. It is amazing that only after light rail is announced that those opposing it are demanding that we look at the alternatives. Those discussions took place, and decisions are made by those that turn up. Opposing it after the fact, is within your rights, but the decision making period has passed. I would also observe that Two of the three parties went to the 2012 Assembly election with light rail as policy. Light rail will be built in Canberra.

“What I would like some of the advocates to do is explain whether or not they think it is worth committing the Territory to potentially over half a billion dollars in debt.” house_husband

What if I said to you that you could only buy a house from income earned this year and that you would not be allowed to carry half a million dollars in debt to fund your home? It is sound planning to pay off any large expenditure infrastructure item over a long period of time. It applies to a home loan and mortgage, and it applies to public transport infrastructure.

Any other answers I can help with?

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

If the proposed light rail was set up as a public company financed by shares, would you invest in it?
I am not sure if you are a public servant but if you are, would you be happy to see your superannuation trustees invest your superannuation contributions in it?
Remember that an Industry Super Fund lost millions investing in TransACT.

damien haas said :

Any other answers I can help with?

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

I sincerely hope the rail is an outstanding success, as I hope all policies implemented by all parties have positive outcomes. Taxpayers don’t win if naysayers are proven correct.

I have to ask, one of the recurring arguments against cycling is that people say they have to take kids to and from school.

Do you know if the government is planning to ensure such services line the route, or are serviced by the route? If the school is on one side of the suburb, and the rail is right over on the other side, I cannot envisage a significant change in commuter behaviour if commuters have to take significant detours to schools/daycare. You could probably throw medical centres into that as well.

I don’t visit this forum that often anymore, but thanks for all the positive support for light rail. I have waded through the responses and I think these are legitimate questions, and I shall try and answer them. I am an advocate for public transport and nothing I say is an official Capital Metro/ACT Government statement.

“By what means shall success or failure be measured?” Pork Hunt

This is a good question. In my mind the measure of success will take some time to be seen, in that public transport patronage will increase (on buses as well as the new patronage light rail will attract), road congestion will decrease, pressure on parking decreased, density focussed along transport corridors and not in our suburbs. Failure – public transport patronage continues to decline, road congestion along Northbourne becomes worse, parking pressure increases.

Ultimately I want the Canberra of 2060 to be a city connected with high speed mass transit using light rail as a backbone, and buses with increased frequency delivering passengers to light rail nodes.

If a Canberra family can have only one car, instead of two, if a person can cross the city in under an hour in peak hour, if they can choose to use public transport as their primary method to commute to work. If Canberra’s increased density is built along transport corridors, and not in the suburbs, that would be success. I could go on…

“Also, is there provision for an IES especially addressing the ugly wirescape that will be created.” dungfungus

There is no requirement that the light rail vehicles be powered by catenary wire. That is up to the successful bidder. The NCA have advised that they wont allow wires on the bridge across LBG. It is almost certain that the light rail vehicles will use a wire, as that is the current off the shelf solution.

“If only the government would wait another 5 years because the advances being made in battery storage will mean that 100% battery powered trams could be operating then and this would reduce the project cost by millions as well as avoiding an ugly wirescape.” dungfungus

Buying off the shelf technology keeps the cost down. There is no reason future tech cant be procured when the need arise, or that the vehicles purchased for Stage One cant be modified. I don’t know what evidence there is that leading edge technology is cheaper than existing technology to power light rail vehicles, but am open to seeing the evidence.

“Also, 15,000 trips a day at estimated $1.35 per trip is only $20,250 a day in revenue. They reckon $5.5 million in the first year for ticket sales. With a capital cost of $783 million and revenue for the first 20 years of only $81 million, how exactly are they going to pay off the debt??” wildturkeycanoe

I am not privy to the ACT Governments thinking on this. I would observe that this year the ACT received $4.5 billion in incoming revenue from the Federal government (GST, state grants etc). That excludes money raised internally from rates, speeding fines etc. An $830 million dollar infrastructure program over a 20 or 30 year period is not the horrendous debt burden that it is made out to be. It is easily managed over that period of time.

There is also a significant difference to borrowing for infrastructure and borrowing for recurring expenditure.

“What about the bus services that will be scrapped because they duplicate the tram route? Less patronage on Action services plus slashing routes means possible redundancies or shall we see increased services elsewhere?” wildturkeycanoe

The Gungahlin-Civic services along Northbourne will go. They will be replaced by light rail.. Increased ACTION services will be provided to suburbs adjacent to the light rail route. Contemporary experience with light rail introduction sees an increase in associated bus services, not a decrease.

The ACT Government have since the commencement of Capital Metro planning talked about ‘integration’ between light rail and buses, as have ACT Light Rail (who are not anti-bus in any way). There will be a major bus/light rail interface at Gungahlin, Dickson and Civic.

“Where will the trams be maintained?” gooterz

In a new depot to be built on ACT Government land in Mitchell, with access to Flemington Rd.

“Alternative views – I would argue that by focussing solely on one form of public transport without having a comprehensive comparative study of all the alternatives, many of those in favour of light rail are themselves ignoring alternative views or options.” house_husband

There has been over a decade of discussions, studies and bus only transport plans that I have been involved in. It is amazing that only after light rail is announced that those opposing it are demanding that we look at the alternatives. Those discussions took place, and decisions are made by those that turn up. Opposing it after the fact, is within your rights, but the decision making period has passed. I would also observe that Two of the three parties went to the 2012 Assembly election with light rail as policy. Light rail will be built in Canberra.

“What I would like some of the advocates to do is explain whether or not they think it is worth committing the Territory to potentially over half a billion dollars in debt.” house_husband

What if I said to you that you could only buy a house from income earned this year and that you would not be allowed to carry half a million dollars in debt to fund your home? It is sound planning to pay off any large expenditure infrastructure item over a long period of time. It applies to a home loan and mortgage, and it applies to public transport infrastructure.

Any other answers I can help with?

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

rommeldog56 said :

HiddenDragon said :

“Up to 3500 jobs will be created by this project. “

How many jobs will be lost, or not created elsewhere, due to the diversion of funds for Shane’s Trains?

Sounds impressive – doesn’t it.

3,500 jobs “created”.

The reality is that few will be sustainable full time jobs on an ongoing basis. Most will be “created” during the construction phase, so comparatively short term jobs.

But, the spin sounds good !

Of course, we’re supposed to be hypnotised by the headline figure, and not ask awkward questions about how many of the claimed jobs will be ongoing, about how many of those jobs might realistically be filled by people currently living here, or about other uses – public or private – for the money which will be sunk into building and subsidising the ongoing operations of the train set.

Whatever the mechanics of financing this project, it is a very substantial commitment of funds for a small jursidiction which is still highly dependent on Commonwealth spending (which, in turn, is going to be under serious pressure for many, many years to come).

pajs said :

I suspect people with a positive view towards light rail for Canberra would realise the naysayers here are, in the main, not interested in evidence, alternative views, or rational debate. So why bother?

FWIW, I think light rail can be a trigger for more dense development along key corridors in Canberra, with the initial line just the start. It would be great to see some interesting, diverse, walkable neighbourhoods along that route, counter-balancing some of our sprawl and car-dependence.

Haha….what “evidence” ? To me, all we hear from the pro tramers is sloganism. Not much is quantifyable and it clearly doesn’t stack up economically. You can not have a “rational debate” against sloganism or the non apples-to-apples comparisions so often trotted out by the pro side. You talk (rightly) about “alternative views”. Where is that argument for considering alternative options/views for what the mass transit system itself should be ? There was none properly assessed. The tram was the chosen solution and is being ram roded through. Now I have to take a Bex and lie down…..

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

I can not wait to hear the bleetings from Gunners/Nth Canberra residents when the bus service is cut back so that they will have to go bus-tram to get into the city ! It will be too late then.

That is not the plan though. The Lightrail is to service the corridor not the whole of the greater Gungahlin area.

Its just not about servicing the corridor though. There will be park and ride stations, busses will be diverted to drop passengers off at tram stations, bus services along Northborne Ave will be significantly reduced because they duplicate the tram tracks, etc.

pajs said :

I suspect people with a positive view towards light rail for Canberra would realise the naysayers here are, in the main, not interested in evidence, alternative views, or rational debate. So why bother?

Evidence – The main piece of evidence for many “naysayers” like myself is that for all the benefits light rail will deliver (of which I agree there are many), operational revenue will cover roughly 15% of the cost of building and maintaining it over 20 years. That is assuming forecast passenger and other numbers are achieved, which doesn’t appear to be the case for many of these type of projects. And the benefits numbers while seeming to be very high are short on real dollars that are guaranteed to be diverted to pay for it all (from future health or road maintenance budgets).

Alternative views – I would argue that by focussing solely on one form of public transport without having a comprehensive comparative study of all the alternatives, many of those in favour of light rail are themselves ignoring alternative views or options.

Rational debate – As I said above I can see both sides to the debate and agree that light rail has some wonderful attributes. But for me they are outweighed by the proposed costs. What I would like some of the advocates to do is explain whether or not they think it is worth committing the Territory to potentially over half a billion dollars in debt. Also why is the one project that will keep Labor in government the one we are moving so quickly on? Simply calling us naysayers isn’t rational debate.

Garfield said :

Antagonist said :

dungfungus said :

I would like Damien Haas to comment on this.

I have to agree. His silence in this debate since the Green pinched his election promise so he could form a minority government with Labor has been deafening.

Considering the government survey on light rail said 55% of residents supported it and only 34% were against, I find it remarkable that not one RiotACT member has commented in favour of it so far on this thread.

Really? What is remarkable about that?

Garfield said :

Antagonist said :

dungfungus said :

I would like Damien Haas to comment on this.

I have to agree. His silence in this debate since the Green pinched his election promise so he could form a minority government with Labor has been deafening.

Considering the government survey on light rail said 55% of residents supported it and only 34% were against, I find it remarkable that not one RiotACT member has commented in favour of it so far on this thread.

Pretty sure i read haas say on riotact it would cost about 250million. But like that figure he’s disappeared

I suspect people with a positive view towards light rail for Canberra would realise the naysayers here are, in the main, not interested in evidence, alternative views, or rational debate. So why bother?

FWIW, I think light rail can be a trigger for more dense development along key corridors in Canberra, with the initial line just the start. It would be great to see some interesting, diverse, walkable neighbourhoods along that route, counter-balancing some of our sprawl and car-dependence.

Antagonist said :

dungfungus said :

I would like Damien Haas to comment on this.

I have to agree. His silence in this debate since the Green pinched his election promise so he could form a minority government with Labor has been deafening.

Considering the government survey on light rail said 55% of residents supported it and only 34% were against, I find it remarkable that not one RiotACT member has commented in favour of it so far on this thread.

HiddenDragon said :

“Up to 3500 jobs will be created by this project. “

How many jobs will be lost, or not created elsewhere, due to the diversion of funds for Shane’s Trains?

Sounds impressive – doesn’t it. 3,500 jobs “created”.

The reality is that few will be sustainable full time jobs on an ongoing basis. Most will be “created” during the construction phase, so comparatively short term jobs.

But, the spin sounds good !

“Up to 3500 jobs will be created by this project. “

How many jobs will be lost, or not created elsewhere, due to the diversion of funds for Shane’s Trains?

dungfungus said :

I would like Damien Haas to comment on this.

I have to agree. His silence in this debate since the Green pinched his election promise so he could form a minority government with Labor has been deafening.

rommeldog56 said :

Page 7 of the Business Case in brief document talks up the tram in Valenciennes in Norther France.

However, a quick google indicates to me that it is part of a wider interconnected network across a geographic area. Not just 12Ks or so. Also, seems that the EU has kicked in some Euro’s too ? See :

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/details_new.cfm?pay=FR&the=60&sto=2931&lan=7&region=ALL&obj=ALL&per=2&defL=FR

The whole network comprises 638Ks of line and 864 stops ?

Maybe my interpretation is incorrect ?

Or is this right ?

I find it hard to compare apples-to-apples.

A lot of the pluses for our vision tram have been cherry-picked.
Even in Melbourne (perhaps where the world largest tram network is) a tram in the city is lucky to cover 12km in an hour.
The big success story in Melbourne and nearby regions are the commuter trains linking the satellite cities to Melbourne at speeds over 100kmh.
The ACT Government unfortunately can’t see the potential to utilise the existing rail link to Bungendore. Even the NSW opposition recognises the congestion on the Kings Highway and is pledging another $50 million over 4 years to improve the road if they are elected.
It would cost about $5 million to establish a commuter train which is peanuts when looking at the money Capital Metro are already spending.
It’s all very sad.

In yesterday’s Canberra Times there was an opinion piece by our Chief Minister covering the proposed (I guess we say approved now) Capital Metro light rail from Gungahlin to Canberra City.
The article was wrapped around the Government’s preferred artist’s impression of a tram; you know, the one with invisible skyhooks holding up two wires (trams only use one) without any poles in sight.
This is as fraudulent as you can get and I am wondering if the Government is either being so arrogant simply doesn’t care what anyone thinks or they haven’t got a clue what they are doing (probably both).
I would like Damien Haas to comment on this.

Page 7 of the Business Case in brief document talks up the tram in Valenciennes in Norther France.

However, a quick google indicates to me that it is part of a wider interconnected network across a geographic area. Not just 12Ks or so. Also, seems that the EU has kicked in some Euro’s too ? See :

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/details_new.cfm?pay=FR&the=60&sto=2931&lan=7&region=ALL&obj=ALL&per=2&defL=FR

The whole network comprises 638Ks of line and 864 stops ?

Maybe my interpretation is incorrect ? Or is this right ? I find it hard to compare apples-to-apples.

rommeldog56 said :

There are only 3 tram stops planned along Northoborne Ave itself before a tram stops in the City.

Its probably going to be a long walk from the tram stop to get to work for comunters and for passangers wanting to do business with private companies/shops along Northborne ave.

Maybe its just mu lack of “vision”, but how will those sort of accessibility for shoppers and workers transform Northborne Avenue ?

I can not see it staying at 3 stops for long.

They’ve only made it three stops for now, so they can count those hypothetical “kilometres walked” at a maximum and put those toward offset benefits.

My guess is that all the agencies that bid will push ppp for a full network only. Where will the trams be maintained? The network should have been belconnen to tuggeranong throufh woden and civic.

rommeldog56 said :

There are only 3 tram stops planned along Northoborne Ave itself before a tram stops in the City.

Its probably going to be a long walk from the tram stop to get to work for comunters and for passangers wanting to do business with private companies/shops along Northborne ave.

Maybe its just mu lack of “vision”, but how will those sort of accessibility for shoppers and workers transform Northborne Avenue ?

I can not see it staying at 3 stops for long.

Your vision is 20:20.
Only a $400K salary package can skew normality.

rommeldog56 said :

From the full report :

” 1.6.1
Capital delivery cost : It is antinicipated the project’s total capital delivery costs will be $783m ($nominal) including rolling stock and contingencies “.

Obviously, the m$610 became “aspirational”, though it was only an estimate.

In my extensive experience with major tender and tender evaluations, if u publish the “budget”, that is what u will end up paying, more or less – usually more though. It becomes “bang for your published budget buck” as opposed to the usual definition of value for money being “cheapest most suitable siolution”.

1. Payments wont start from the ACT Govt to the supplier until the tram is “operational”.
2. Assume cost to be the budgeted m$783 (with contingencies – which I’m sure the provider come come up with !).
3. Contract is for 20 years post going operational.
4. Assuming the ACT Gov’t tips in M$50 pa for 20 years = b$1 in todays $ :

The difference between m$783 and b$1 is “profit” for the private partner out of which they have to manage risk, undertainty, cost blow outs, lack of materialisation of passenger numbers and other projections in the ACT Govt business case, adequate return to shareholders, etc.

That doesn’t sound like a whole lot of “profit” over 20 years to me.

Tipping in m$50pa of ACT Ratepayers $ might be an under or over estimate though – will be intersting to see if the ACT Gov’t publishes what the subsidisation by ACT Ratepayers will be when the contract is awarded.

What ever it is, I hope the ACT Gov’t is skilling up its contract managers in the complexity of managing a PPP – because the private sector will have experts in clawing back the $ they lost through the competitive tendering proocess !

Very few light rail ventures use capital to acquire rolling stock – it is leased. There is something wrong here. A typical 3 car tram costs about $4 million dollars ( a lot more if they have super capacitors for limited “wireless” operation).
Perhaps they have capitalised the cost of leasing for the first 12 months?
Re the PPP, rail industry experts said in 2012 that the Capital Metro proposal would not stack up to make a PPP attractive. This advice has been ignored.

From the full report :

” 1.6.1
Capital delivery cost : It is antinicipated the project’s total capital delivery costs will be $783m ($nominal) including rolling stock and contingencies “.

Obviously, the m$610 became “aspirational”, though it was only an estimate.

In my extensive experience with major tender and tender evaluations, if u publish the “budget”, that is what u will end up paying, more or less – usually more though. It becomes “bang for your published budget buck” as opposed to the usual definition of value for money being “cheapest most suitable siolution”.

1. Payments wont start from the ACT Govt to the supplier until the tram is “operational”.
2. Assume cost to be the budgeted m$783 (with contingencies – which I’m sure the provider come come up with !).
3. Contract is for 20 years post going operational.
4. Assuming the ACT Gov’t tips in M$50 pa for 20 years = b$1 in todays $ :

The difference between m$783 and b$1 is “profit” for the private partner out of which they have to manage risk, undertainty, cost blow outs, lack of materialisation of passenger numbers and other projections in the ACT Govt business case, adequate return to shareholders, etc.

That doesn’t sound like a whole lot of “profit” over 20 years to me. Tipping in m$50pa of ACT Ratepayers $ might be an under or over estimate though – will be intersting to see if the ACT Gov’t publishes what the subsidisation by ACT Ratepayers will be when the contract is awarded.

What ever it is, I hope the ACT Gov’t is skilling up its contract managers in the complexity of managing a PPP – because the private sector will have experts in clawing back the $ they lost through the competitive tendering proocess !

There are only 3 tram stops planned along Northoborne Ave itself before a tram stops in the City.

Its probably going to be a long walk from the tram stop to get to work for comunters and for passangers wanting to do business with private companies/shops along Northborne ave.

Maybe its just mu lack of “vision”, but how will those sort of accessibility for shoppers and workers transform Northborne Avenue ?

I can not see it staying at 3 stops for long.

house_husband said :

This business case read likes one of those Entertainment Books. Pay $50 to buy the book with claims of thousands of dollars in savings and benefits but at the end of the day you’ve still paid for the book and the goods. Or those ads where they tell you their product is now X thousand dollars cheaper so you have lots more to spend on your next holiday or the kids’ Chrissy presents.

The real teller for me is Table 46 that says direct revenues from operation of the network will be $81m over 20 years. Or just more than 10% of the actual cost of building the network not taking into account the annual operating costs from Table 16 that vary between $23m to $63m per annum for the same period.

I haven’t had a chance to closely scrutinise the non-revenue benefits but $222m in time savings? They include things such as reduction in vehicle operating costs which I assume will also mean less people paying tax on fuel, registration, insurance, etc which will have a robbing Peter to pay Paul effect? And what if the projected passenger numbers are 1/2 to 2/3 of what they expect? Do these non-revenue benefits decrease proportionally?

As switch said, if it will be that great let’s build more of them and wipe out the ACT’s debt.

Exactly. With the fewer number of vehicles on the roads, the government will be receiving less revenue from fuel, registration and the never ending stamp duty when vehicles are bought and sold. Fewer people will be parking so the parking revenue will be diminished too. So as well as creating a giant white elephant, they are losing money indirectly. What’s the bet that to compensate, they will increase the fares substantially.

This business case read likes one of those Entertainment Books. Pay $50 to buy the book with claims of thousands of dollars in savings and benefits but at the end of the day you’ve still paid for the book and the goods. Or those ads where they tell you their product is now X thousand dollars cheaper so you have lots more to spend on your next holiday or the kids’ Chrissy presents.

The real teller for me is Table 46 that says direct revenues from operation of the network will be $81m over 20 years. Or just more than 10% of the actual cost of building the network not taking into account the annual operating costs from Table 16 that vary between $23m to $63m per annum for the same period.

I haven’t had a chance to closely scrutinise the non-revenue benefits but $222m in time savings? They include things such as reduction in vehicle operating costs which I assume will also mean less people paying tax on fuel, registration, insurance, etc which will have a robbing Peter to pay Paul effect? And what if the projected passenger numbers are 1/2 to 2/3 of what they expect? Do these non-revenue benefits decrease proportionally?

As switch said, if it will be that great let’s build more of them and wipe out the ACT’s debt.

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

I can not wait to hear the bleetings from Gunners/Nth Canberra residents when the bus service is cut back so that they will have to go bus-tram to get into the city ! It will be too late then.

That is not the plan though. The Lightrail is to service the corridor not the whole of the greater Gungahlin area.

Spot on there. The government’s boasting about how the 80,000 people in Gunners will benefit is totally wrong. The only folks who will use this system are those in Gungahlin [6,100], Harrison [4,150] and Franklin [3,050], a total of just over 13,000 people. What about those living in Palmerston, Crace, Nicholls, Ngunnawal, Casey, Amaroo, Bonner and Forde, not to mention the new up and coming Moncrieff, totaling 42,000 according to projected populations in 2019.
According to the crimes report, M
“Mr Corbell rejected the Liberals’ analysis, describing it as simplistic.
“The population in the Gungahlin to city corridor will grow from around 43,000 people in 2012 to over 61,000 people in 2031,” he said.”
3 km of the 12km route is vacant land and non residential areas and another km is golf course. Those living in the 2 to 3km of the City center will likely walk or ride their bikes to work instead of wasting it on a journey that will take longer and cost more. How can they possibly see patronage figures of 15,000 a day when the population isn’t there?

Also, 15,000 trips a day at estimated $1.35 per trip is only $20,250 a day in revenue. They reckon $5.5 million in the first year for ticket sales. With a capital cost of $783 million and revenue for the first 20 years of only $81 million, how exactly are they going to pay off the debt?? The business case doesn’t explain anywhere how they are going to make enough money to pay off the debt and maintain the running costs of the tram. Value capture is the fancy word they use for the following: Rates, land tax, lease variation charges, direct levies, district levies, congestion tax, transport utility fees, development fees, property sales. So basically, they are going to tax Canberrans to the hill to pay for their toy train set. It is not a money making venture, it is a business that won’t have enough customers, will run at a loss, will inconvenience everyone and we will pay through the nose for it. What about the bus services that will be scrapped because they duplicate the tram route? Less patronage on Action services plus slashing routes means possible redundancies or shall we see increased services elsewhere?
I can’t wait for the first tram vs car incident and see what kind of chaos ensues when there isn’t a backup bus service to take up the slack.

rommeldog56 said :

urchin said :

rommeldog56 said :

I can not wait to hear the bleetings from Gunners/Nth Canberra residents when the bus service is cut back so that they will have to go bus-tram to get into the city ! It will be too late then.

I’m northside and have been bleating for some time already. none of that matters, however, since there was never any intention to take the public’s views seriously during the planning and decision making processes.

the 200 bus route provides *excellent* service during peak hours, particularly after the recently reconfigured time table. One rarely has to wait more than 5-7 minutes and most times you can grab a seat if you are not too far from gungahlin centre. any time savings that the rail provides will be offset by my having to walk 400 metres further to and from tram stops. I suppose they included that as an “economic benefit” however…

while i understand that the light rail project is intended to address (and to spark) future population growth in the region, the gov’ts own studies do not justify it over bus rapid transit. BRT costs substantially less while providing almost exactly the same benefits and has the advantage of being able to be implemented much faster (much shorter construction nightmare times on Northbourne and Flemington).

It is criminal that they have never seriously considered more financially viable, sustainable and convenient options to light rail. light rail will *not* be the boon to those in gungahlin that is being portrayed to be. Bus service will be drastically reduced and tram stops will be much further apart than current bus stops. On top of which, fares will be drastically increased (as well as rates). Furthermore, I doubt very much that the much vaunted property value increases will materialise as the building of the tram will also be accompanied by a vast increase in the amount of housing stock in the area.

The Labor gov’t has shown that it only cares about being in power. That is, i suppose, understandable–they are politicians. What I don’t understand is why the Greens are so fixated on light rail over any/all other options. Especially when Rapid Bus Transit would provide all of the benefits (and bus-generated pollution is negligible when compared to the amount car based pollution, but if it really bothered them, they could get electric busses), while being far more affordable.

None of it makes any sense at all to me. By pushing forward with this plan they will almost certainly lose the next election to the liberals, who will promptly put a stop to the foolishness (and initiate other foolishness of their own). Thus labor will lose power, greens will have lost an opportunity to implement a viable and sustainable improvement in mass transit, and residents will be out millions. The only ones benefitting from this are those with a vested economic interest in light rail and… the liberals. They should be cheering…

According to the Canbera Times, there will be no busses running along Northborne avenue because it duplicates the tram. There you go – proof evident.

In LA there’s a ticker above the busiest commuter road that tells commuters how many Americans have died of cancer so far in the year. The Liberals should book prominent spots along our commuter roads where Tuggeranongites, Wodenites and Belconnenites etc can be kept updated on how much they’ve subsidised Gungahlin; how much Canberra money has been spent so far – and how much there is to go – plus what the interest bill is. There will be all sorts of interesting statistics to impart over the next 10 years.

rommeldog56 said :

I can not wait to hear the bleetings from Gunners/Nth Canberra residents when the bus service is cut back so that they will have to go bus-tram to get into the city ! It will be too late then.

That is not the plan though. The Lightrail is to service the corridor not the whole of the greater Gungahlin area.

Ben_Dover said :

The Capital Metro project has tremendous support from Canberra’s community

Which will be shown in the way we vote out the Labour and Green parties at the next election, and vote for a party which will scrap this lunatic idea.

Contracts will be signed before the next election in 2016 and construction started. If its the much vaunted (but usually failed) Public Private Partnership (PPP) and the ACT Gov’t really wont need to pay up Ratepayers funds till completion/commissioning, then the private sector partner will want protection in the contract to cover their “investment” until its commisioned. ie. they will want to be paid out + some more if it is canned. Labor/Greens will make sure that is agreed to in the contract as they see it as their enduring legacy – like Stanhope’s roadside “art”.

So, despite what they say, I seriously doubt that the ACT Lib’s will be able to scrap it even if they really wanted to.

As i said previously, I see the only option now for Ratepayers is to send a strong message to the current and any aspiring ACT Gov’t not to make decisions such as this, by not voting for ACT Labor/Greens. Where is PUP when u need them – if they held the balance of power in the ACT Assembly, at least when the Territory sinks financially, we can have a good laugh about it……..

The Capital Metro project has tremendous support from Canberra’s community

Which will be shown in the way we vote out the Labour and Green parties at the next election, and vote for a party which will scrap this lunatic idea.

urchin said :

rommeldog56 said :

I can not wait to hear the bleetings from Gunners/Nth Canberra residents when the bus service is cut back so that they will have to go bus-tram to get into the city ! It will be too late then.

I’m northside and have been bleating for some time already. none of that matters, however, since there was never any intention to take the public’s views seriously during the planning and decision making processes.

the 200 bus route provides *excellent* service during peak hours, particularly after the recently reconfigured time table. One rarely has to wait more than 5-7 minutes and most times you can grab a seat if you are not too far from gungahlin centre. any time savings that the rail provides will be offset by my having to walk 400 metres further to and from tram stops. I suppose they included that as an “economic benefit” however…

while i understand that the light rail project is intended to address (and to spark) future population growth in the region, the gov’ts own studies do not justify it over bus rapid transit. BRT costs substantially less while providing almost exactly the same benefits and has the advantage of being able to be implemented much faster (much shorter construction nightmare times on Northbourne and Flemington).

It is criminal that they have never seriously considered more financially viable, sustainable and convenient options to light rail. light rail will *not* be the boon to those in gungahlin that is being portrayed to be. Bus service will be drastically reduced and tram stops will be much further apart than current bus stops. On top of which, fares will be drastically increased (as well as rates). Furthermore, I doubt very much that the much vaunted property value increases will materialise as the building of the tram will also be accompanied by a vast increase in the amount of housing stock in the area.

The Labor gov’t has shown that it only cares about being in power. That is, i suppose, understandable–they are politicians. What I don’t understand is why the Greens are so fixated on light rail over any/all other options. Especially when Rapid Bus Transit would provide all of the benefits (and bus-generated pollution is negligible when compared to the amount car based pollution, but if it really bothered them, they could get electric busses), while being far more affordable.

None of it makes any sense at all to me. By pushing forward with this plan they will almost certainly lose the next election to the liberals, who will promptly put a stop to the foolishness (and initiate other foolishness of their own). Thus labor will lose power, greens will have lost an opportunity to implement a viable and sustainable improvement in mass transit, and residents will be out millions. The only ones benefitting from this are those with a vested economic interest in light rail and… the liberals. They should be cheering…

According to the Canbera Times, there will be no busses running along Northborne avenue because it duplicates the tram. There you go – proof evident.

It also baffles me that a govt purporting to have ‘green’ credentials would not use the basic permaculture principle of using what you already have – i.e., the buses we have and the great roads that cover the entire city – as a starting point, instead of buying something new and flashy that will only serve a small area.
The light rail project also flouts most of the other permaculture principles, including ‘apply self-regulation and accept feedback’, ‘use small and slow solutions,’ ‘integrate rather than segregate,’ and the general principle to share resources fairly (given it is not going to cover the rest of the city for years, but everyone is expected to pay).
Further, it is disingenuous to count ‘getting cars off the road’ as an environmental benefit of light rail, given that that would occur with any efficient transport system including rapid bus transit.
The only genuine environmental benefit ‘about light rail is the govt’s aim to use solar power to run it. However, this should actually be weighed up against the fact that the bus fleet, which we already own, is progressively ‘greening’ (the new buses being EU standard low emission), and all the other factors above.
The govt’s political gymnastics is like trying to convince someone to trade in a perfectly good car solely because the new model is slightly more fuel efficient, without taking into account the expense and manufacturing footprint of something you don’t really need.

From what I can see, the ‘benefits’ for light rail would similarly be available with rapid bus transit, but would be far greater as they would apply across a greater geographical area, sooner . . . so,basically, the govt are being complete d!cks and commissioning an inferior transit scheme, at ratepayers’ expense.

rommeldog56 said :

I can not wait to hear the bleetings from Gunners/Nth Canberra residents when the bus service is cut back so that they will have to go bus-tram to get into the city ! It will be too late then.

I’m northside and have been bleating for some time already. none of that matters, however, since there was never any intention to take the public’s views seriously during the planning and decision making processes.

the 200 bus route provides *excellent* service during peak hours, particularly after the recently reconfigured time table. One rarely has to wait more than 5-7 minutes and most times you can grab a seat if you are not too far from gungahlin centre. any time savings that the rail provides will be offset by my having to walk 400 metres further to and from tram stops. I suppose they included that as an “economic benefit” however…

while i understand that the light rail project is intended to address (and to spark) future population growth in the region, the gov’ts own studies do not justify it over bus rapid transit. BRT costs substantially less while providing almost exactly the same benefits and has the advantage of being able to be implemented much faster (much shorter construction nightmare times on Northbourne and Flemington).

It is criminal that they have never seriously considered more financially viable, sustainable and convenient options to light rail. light rail will *not* be the boon to those in gungahlin that is being portrayed to be. Bus service will be drastically reduced and tram stops will be much further apart than current bus stops. On top of which, fares will be drastically increased (as well as rates). Furthermore, I doubt very much that the much vaunted property value increases will materialise as the building of the tram will also be accompanied by a vast increase in the amount of housing stock in the area.

The Labor gov’t has shown that it only cares about being in power. That is, i suppose, understandable–they are politicians. What I don’t understand is why the Greens are so fixated on light rail over any/all other options. Especially when Rapid Bus Transit would provide all of the benefits (and bus-generated pollution is negligible when compared to the amount car based pollution, but if it really bothered them, they could get electric busses), while being far more affordable.

None of it makes any sense at all to me. By pushing forward with this plan they will almost certainly lose the next election to the liberals, who will promptly put a stop to the foolishness (and initiate other foolishness of their own). Thus labor will lose power, greens will have lost an opportunity to implement a viable and sustainable improvement in mass transit, and residents will be out millions. The only ones benefitting from this are those with a vested economic interest in light rail and… the liberals. They should be cheering…

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

its a lot to read and digest for the average punter.

The BCR should not include benefits that can not be realised “economically”.

Unless the savings that make up the BCR can be harnessed in $ terms, then the shortfall in cold hard cash will have to be made up by every Ratepayer in Canberra I assume.

eg. Including m$222 in ‘transport time savings’ seems to me to be a joke really. The passenger trip numbers seem slightly unbelieveable too.

I can not wait to hear the bleetings from Gunners/Nth Canberra residents when the bus service is cut back so that they will have to go bus-tram to get into the city ! It will be too late then.

Also, i wonder if the 1 : 1.2 BCR is based on expenditure of m$610 or m$780.

Surely the more it costs, the more the BCR will decrease ?

Still, I dont suppose one can expect much more of such a report that was overseen by ACT Govt and Canberra Metro people.

They are hardly going to produce a report that writes themselves out of a job are they ! And citing that bodgy survey as demonstrating support for the Light Rail – you could see that set up coming ! Some of the statements/claims about transforming the gateway into Canberra (Northborne ave) are cringe worthy and read like something out of a propaganda campaign.

As this is the document that tenders are to be based on, I dont really see any pint in analysing it in too much depth. Its clearly a done deal.

The thing I intend to do is to send a clear and loud message to ACT Labour/Greens and the Libs at the 2016 election that this sort of economic madness, and other fiscally irresponsible decisions by this ACT Gov’t will not be tolerated, by not voting Labor/Greens.

That may make future ACT Gov’ts stop and think a bit more and focus on tangible $ benefits ratherf than intangible/below the line $ benefits.

I haven’t had time to look at in detail so can you tell me if the costs for supplying electricity to the substations has been included or will this be “off balance sheet” (to be funded separately by ACTEW for no benefit to the wider community).
Also, is there provision for an IES especially addressing the ugly wirescape that will be created.
We have this ridiculous situation where the years of planning by former administrations to keep all cabling (power and communications) underground are going to be cast aside by the idealogical aspirations of a few aesthetic vandals who fraudulently publish artists impressions of 100 year old electric, “catenary free” trams.
If only the government would wait another 5 years because the advances being made in battery storage will mean that 100% battery powered trams could be operating then and this would reduce the project cost by millions as well as avoiding an ugly wirescape.

Dear Dung : I dunno. Im not qualified or smart enough to ascertain these things from the BCR document. Maybe that something that will be teased out in the tender process ? In which case, where does that leave the BCR of 1.2 ?

I’m a simple sole, so perhaps Mr Haas – the OP and Chair of ACT Light Rail and verhment supporter of the Light Rail – can answer questions raised by posters here – citing page/reference numbers in the published document of course ?

rommeldog56 said :

So, to realise these “savings” used to show a positive Benefits Costs Ratio (BCR) of 1.2 (ie. for every $1 spent, a benefit of $1.20 matures)

I hate this sort of “analysis.” If the things are so good at generating money, why don’t we build them all (Civic to Tuggers, Civic to Belco, and the only one that might actually be useful, Civic to the airport) and magically create enough money to wipe out the territory’s debt?

rommeldog56 said :

its a lot to read and digest for the average punter.

The BCR should not include benefits that can not be realised “economically”.

Unless the savings that make up the BCR can be harnessed in $ terms, then the shortfall in cold hard cash will have to be made up by every Ratepayer in Canberra I assume.

eg. Including m$222 in ‘transport time savings’ seems to me to be a joke really. The passenger trip numbers seem slightly unbelieveable too.

I can not wait to hear the bleetings from Gunners/Nth Canberra residents when the bus service is cut back so that they will have to go bus-tram to get into the city ! It will be too late then.

Also, i wonder if the 1 : 1.2 BCR is based on expenditure of m$610 or m$780.

Surely the more it costs, the more the BCR will decrease ?

Still, I dont suppose one can expect much more of such a report that was overseen by ACT Govt and Canberra Metro people.

They are hardly going to produce a report that writes themselves out of a job are they ! And citing that bodgy survey as demonstrating support for the Light Rail – you could see that set up coming ! Some of the statements/claims about transforming the gateway into Canberra (Northborne ave) are cringe worthy and read like something out of a propaganda campaign.

As this is the document that tenders are to be based on, I dont really see any pint in analysing it in too much depth. Its clearly a done deal.

The thing I intend to do is to send a clear and loud message to ACT Labour/Greens and the Libs at the 2016 election that this sort of economic madness, and other fiscally irresponsible decisions by this ACT Gov’t will not be tolerated, by not voting Labor/Greens.

That may make future ACT Gov’ts stop and think a bit more and focus on tangible $ benefits ratherf than intangible/below the line $ benefits.

I haven’t had time to look at in detail so can you tell me if the costs for supplying electricity to the substations has been included or will this be “off balance sheet” (to be funded separately by ACTEW for no benefit to the wider community).
Also, is there provision for an IES especially addressing the ugly wirescape that will be created.
We have this ridiculous situation where the years of planning by former administrations to keep all cabling (power and communications) underground are going to be cast aside by the idealogical aspirations of a few aesthetic vandals who fraudulently publish artists impressions of 100 year old electric, “catenary free” trams.
If only the government would wait another 5 years because the advances being made in battery storage will mean that 100% battery powered trams could be operating then and this would reduce the project cost by millions as well as avoiding an ugly wirescape.

Other interesting “savings” that seem to have been factored in to arrive at a Benefits Cost Ratio of 1.2, include:

m$5 in “Walking & cycling benefits”.
m$198 in “wider economic benefits” (to who ? This is also over 30 years !).
m$222 in “transport time savings”.
M$13 in “environmental & other benefits”.

So, to realise these “savings” used to show a positive Benefits Costs Ratio (BCR) of 1.2 (ie. for every $1 spent, a benefit of $1.20 matures), will those enjoying the benefits be taxed or levied to raise those savings in cold hard cash to offset the cost to all ACT Ratepayers ? Answer : No.

Also, would a private sector company spend up to m$750 or so if they would get a return on investment of 20% ? Answer : No. Such a return on investment is not nearly enough to cover the risks and opportunity costs. I accept that Governments are different, that they have to consider social costs too, but when those swing a BCR to be “positive”, it’s a bit much.

To my way of perhaps uneducated thinking, not working for EY, the ACT Govt or Capital Metro, non economic costs that can not be harnessed to offset the capital outlay, should not be included as primary cost savings.

This is just like writing a blank cheque for the PPP provider – and probably a huge financial impost on the ACT territory budget (which is already deep in the red) and so, on all ACT Ratepayers. The risk is far too high IMHO.

its a lot to read and digest for the average punter. The BCR should not include benefits that can not be realised “economically”. Unless the savings that make up the BCR can be harnessed in $ terms, then the shortfall in cold hard cash will have to be made up by every Ratepayer in Canberra I assume.

eg. Including m$222 in ‘transport time savings’ seems to me to be a joke really. The passenger trip numbers seem slightly unbelieveable too. I can not wait to hear the bleetings from Gunners/Nth Canberra residents when the bus service is cut back so that they will have to go bus-tram to get into the city ! It will be too late then.

Also, i wonder if the 1 : 1.2 BCR is based on expenditure of m$610 or m$780. Surely the more it costs, the more the BCR will decrease ?

Still, I dont suppose one can expect much more of such a report that was overseen by ACT Govt and Canberra Metro people. They are hardly going to produce a report that writes themselves out of a job are they ! And citing that bodgy survey as demonstrating support for the Light Rail – you could see that set up coming ! Some of the statements/claims about transforming the gateway into Canberra (Northborne ave) are cringe worthy and read like something out of a propaganda campaign.

As this is the document that tenders are to be based on, I dont really see any pint in analysing it in too much depth. Its clearly a done deal.

The thing I intend to do is to send a clear and loud message to ACT Labour/Greens and the Libs at the 2016 election that this sort of economic madness, and other fiscally irresponsible decisions by this ACT Gov’t will not be tolerated, by not voting Labor/Greens. That may make future ACT Gov’ts stop and think a bit more and focus on tangible $ benefits ratherf than intangible/below the line $ benefits.

By what means shall success or failure be measured? Those on either side of the fence or indeed, those sitting on it will need to know so that they can crow “See, I told you so” from the rooftops…

Quote:
“The Capital Metro project has tremendous support from Canberra’s community”

??????????????????????