Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Transport

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Capital Metro Business Case released

By damien haas - 31 October 2014 105

The long awaited business case for the light rail line from Civic to Gungahlin has been released. At a media only event at the Gallery of Australian Design, the Chief Minister released the Business Case and the EOI simultaneously. Prospective tenderers have until mid December to prepare their bids.

The Capital Metro project has tremendous support from Canberra’s community and will deliver enormous benefits to the city for the next five decades. It is a significant infrastructure investment.

Construction is expected to begin in the first half of 2016 with services expected to start in 2019. Up to 3500 jobs will be created by this project.

In the business case, there was mention that an extension from Civic to Russell could be added to Stage 1.

www.actlightrail.info/2014/10/capital-metro-business-case-released.html

A full report, and a list of relevant documents is available from ACT Light Rails website.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
105 Responses to
Capital Metro Business Case released
1
jgsma 8:10 pm
31 Oct 14
#

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

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

Report this comment

2
Pork Hunt 8:36 pm
31 Oct 14
#

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…

Report this comment

3
rommeldog56 10:48 pm
31 Oct 14
#

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.

Report this comment

4
rommeldog56 6:37 am
01 Nov 14
#

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.

Report this comment

5
dungfungus 8:19 am
01 Nov 14
#

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.

Report this comment

6
switch 9:42 am
01 Nov 14
#

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?

Report this comment

7
rommeldog56 10:16 am
01 Nov 14
#

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 ?

Report this comment

8
urchin 10:35 am
01 Nov 14
#

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…

Report this comment

9
miz 11:10 am
01 Nov 14
#

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.

Report this comment

10
miz 11:25 am
01 Nov 14
#

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.

Report this comment

11
rommeldog56 11:52 am
01 Nov 14
#

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.

Report this comment

12
Ben_Dover 11:56 am
01 Nov 14
#

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.

Report this comment

13
rommeldog56 12:42 pm
01 Nov 14
#

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……..

Report this comment

14
JC 12:47 pm
01 Nov 14
#

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.

Report this comment

15
Masquara 3:30 pm
01 Nov 14
#

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.

Report this comment

1 2 3 7

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site