Capital Metro can repeat the Gold Coast's light rail success

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

damien haas said :

A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.

No one is blind to the fact that infrastructure is expensive. Its an investment in our future.

Ummm….true. Contractors do bear the cost. Surprisingly, Ratepayers have to repay that + a considerably oncost.

Perhaps it is you who doesn’t understand the structure of a PPP ?

You mean how like most people go to a bank and borrow money to build or buy a house and then over a 25 and more increasingly over 30 years pay that money back at considerable oncost?

If so don’t really see the issue, spreading the lightrail cost over 20 years would therefor make it affordable and a reasonable investment for he future.

Only the users (occupiers) of the house will use it and they alone will be paying for it. If they default on the loan the rest of Canberra don’t have to underwrite the loss.
What you say is an investment is actually a contingent liability around the neck of all Canberra ratepayers but less than 20% will have a practical use for the light rail.
I have seen better analogies from you, JC.

Some quotes fvrom the ACT Gov’ts 1600pg draft environmemntal impact statement on the Light Rail project published by the Canberra Times :

1) “its own analysis finds more cars, increased travel times and longer delays on the drive home from work.”

2) “Traffic signals will give priority to trams along the corridor from Gungahlin to the city, with traffic lights programmed to detect the approach of a tram and change to allow it through.”

3) “The new documents also reveal the planned closure of the London Circuit carpark opposite the Melbourne Building during the four-year construction, when it will be taken over as a construction compound, with the loss of 250 carparks.”

4) My personal fav. “Trams will run every six minutes during the morning and afternoon peaks, with the full journey taking 25 minutes – the same at peak and off-peak times. At the moment buses travel every three minutes at peak times, taking 28 minutes in the morning and 26 minutes in the afternoon.”

5) “The analysis anticipates many more vehicles in the corridor in 2021 as a result of the tram, which brings more apartments and businesses and results in worse delays than if the tram wasn’t built.”

6) “The average morning delay without the tram is pegged at 163 seconds in 2021; with the tram it will be 176 seconds. The average afternoon delay without the tram in 2021 is estimated at 126 seconds; with the tram, 203 seconds.”

7) “Tram replaces trunk and express bus routes on Northbourne Avenue, the Federal Highway and Flemington Road.”

And the list goes on. Of course, the Chief Minister says that the EIS is to identify these issues. So, perhaps it would have been a good idea to do this before going to tender ?

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

damien haas said :

A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.

No one is blind to the fact that infrastructure is expensive. Its an investment in our future.

Ummm….true. Contractors do bear the cost. Surprisingly, Ratepayers have to repay that + a considerably oncost.

Perhaps it is you who doesn’t understand the structure of a PPP ?

You mean how like most people go to a bank and borrow money to build or buy a house and then over a 25 and more increasingly over 30 years pay that money back at considerable oncost?

If so don’t really see the issue, spreading the lightrail cost over 20 years would therefor make it affordable and a reasonable investment for he future.

The question asked in post #7 was “Q2. How much is too much? At what point (if any) would ACT Light Rail concede that the cost of the current route outweighs the possible benefits?”

The answer from Mr Haas on post #34 was “A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.

The answer (A2) in post #34 was not an answer to the original question at all.

Nor is your comment.

JC said :

You mean how like most people go to a bank and borrow money to build or buy a house and then over a 25 and more increasingly over 30 years pay that money back at considerable oncost?

If so don’t really see the issue, spreading the lightrail cost over 20 years would therefor make it affordable and a reasonable investment for he future.

The ‘home loan’ analogy doesn’t stand up;

It’s not a house. We already live beyond our means. We (as a community) have no ‘income’ not already accounted for, and nobody pretends this will make any money. A bank would laugh at us.
You don’t buy a house for about 4% of your family
You don’t spend all your money on one fabulous room that is so expensive you can’t afford to do anything else for a decade or two.

As an aside JC, I know that one of the proposed benefits of the tram will be increased infill down Northbourne, which would be great for this city.
But surely a light rail to Gunghalin is not the best or only way to achieve this.

damien haas said :

justin heywood said :

Q1. What does ACT Light Rail consider the likely eventual cost of the current route?

Q2. How much is too much? At what cost point (if any) would ACT Light Rail concede that the cost of the current route outweighs the possible benefits?

A1 – The bidders are working on their submissions so that question will be answered shortly.
A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.

No one is blind to the fact that infrastructure is expensive. Its an investment in our future.

Regarding the PPP. Govy contracts used to be worded where the contractor could put in a variation to the contract if they found things that were not outlined in the speccy. Like rock or underground water, or a big blue in the speccy itself.
It used to be commonly referred to as a open ended contract, and there are some very wealthy people in Canberra who spent a good deal of time varying contracts when building some of our suburbs; all kosher, and well within their rights as they had to do the extra work they came across to complete the contract.

I just wonder who will pick up the bill for the extra work along this train track when they come across some of the unknown infrastructure hidden under the route. No one is real sure what even lays under the few K’s of Northbourne Avenue.

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

damien haas said :

dungfungus said :

To have a solution one must first have a problem.
A bit of road congestion at peak times isn’t a problem and regarding car parks, well, we used to have plenty of them but apparently our Labor government deemed them unnecessary so we have to live with that.

Road congestion extends outside the peaks. Weekend road congestion is occurring in town centres and on major roads.

As you are in so many things, you are wrong about carparking. There is more carparking in Canberra now than there has ever been before.

There is also a project underway to look at using technology to enhance carparking availability under the ACT Governments ‘Smart parking’ program.

Placing price signals on all forms of transport is the fairest way to approach the problem. Providing better transport options is the right way to encourage a shift to to a more livable city.

“As you are in so many things, you are wrong about carparking. There is more carparking in Canberra now than there has ever been before.

There is also a project underway to look at using technology to enhance carparking availability under the ACT Governments ‘Smart parking’ program.”

The aforementioned claims appear to be contradictory. If parking is “better than ever”, why do we need to waste more money on enhancing it?

What happened to all that carparking that used to be in Marcus Clarke Street?

Now the carpark adjacent to the Magistrates’s Court is to go for a least 4 years in the name of Capital Metro. An alternative will be parking under un-named buildings in Marcus Clarke Street.

Don’t think we will ever see that back as it was earmarked for sale anyway, light rail or no light rail.

rommeldog56 said :

damien haas said :

A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.

No one is blind to the fact that infrastructure is expensive. Its an investment in our future.

Ummm….true. Contractors do bear the cost. Surprisingly, Ratepayers have to repay that + a considerably oncost.

Perhaps it is you who doesn’t understand the structure of a PPP ?

You mean how like most people go to a bank and borrow money to build or buy a house and then over a 25 and more increasingly over 30 years pay that money back at considerable oncost?

If so don’t really see the issue, spreading the lightrail cost over 20 years would therefor make it affordable and a reasonable investment for he future.

dungfungus said :

damien haas said :

dungfungus said :

To have a solution one must first have a problem.
A bit of road congestion at peak times isn’t a problem and regarding car parks, well, we used to have plenty of them but apparently our Labor government deemed them unnecessary so we have to live with that.

Road congestion extends outside the peaks. Weekend road congestion is occurring in town centres and on major roads.

As you are in so many things, you are wrong about carparking. There is more carparking in Canberra now than there has ever been before.

There is also a project underway to look at using technology to enhance carparking availability under the ACT Governments ‘Smart parking’ program.

Placing price signals on all forms of transport is the fairest way to approach the problem. Providing better transport options is the right way to encourage a shift to to a more livable city.

“As you are in so many things, you are wrong about carparking. There is more carparking in Canberra now than there has ever been before.

There is also a project underway to look at using technology to enhance carparking availability under the ACT Governments ‘Smart parking’ program.”

The aforementioned claims appear to be contradictory. If parking is “better than ever”, why do we need to waste more money on enhancing it?

What happened to all that carparking that used to be in Marcus Clarke Street?

Now the carpark adjacent to the Magistrates’s Court is to go for a least 4 years in the name of Capital Metro. An alternative will be parking under un-named buildings in Marcus Clarke Street.

damien haas said :

A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.

No one is blind to the fact that infrastructure is expensive. Its an investment in our future.

Ummm….true. Contractors do bear the cost. Surprisingly, Ratepayers have to repay that + a considerably oncost. Perhaps it is you who doesn’t understand the structure of a PPP ?

gooterz said :

damien haas said :

justin heywood said :

Q1. What does ACT Light Rail consider the likely eventual cost of the current route?

Q2. How much is too much? At what cost point (if any) would ACT Light Rail concede that the cost of the current route outweighs the possible benefits?

A1 – The bidders are working on their submissions so that question will be answered shortly.
A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.

No one is blind to the fact that infrastructure is expensive. Its an investment in our future.

A2 why doesn’t government get these magic PPP’s to pay for everything. Apparently they never have to be repaid.

If the PPP is going to cover the costs why not get Mag lev for all of Canberra. Why isn’t PPP used to fund the bullet train.

So really thru act rate payer/commuter will pay for the full cost of light rail. However if PPP they will also have to pay the pockets of whoever decides to fund it too and then some?

Would you concede that?

The P in PPP that stands for private means the proposal is looked at commercially so a price on anticipated capitalised return can be determined and offered.
Recent history of failed transport PPP’s in Australia reveal the actual usage was about 50% less than what was projected.
The Capital Metro project is undergoing financial scutiny by the shortlisted consortiums at this time.
Don’t be surprised if they walk away from it.
I would be horrrified if some of my superannation ended up funding this folly.
Remember the industry superannuation funds that were badly burned in the Transact debacle?

rubaiyat said :

I looked that up as well. The problem is the $949 million was an obviously earlier estimate, undated and did not include all the substantial supplementary changes that where made to the final project.

Wrong. If you did look it up, you would have seen that the $1.6 billion figure widely quoted as early as 2012.

It is inconceivable that whoever wrote the ‘Full Business Case’ for Capital Metro in 2014 took the trouble to find and quote a lower figure from The Daily Telegraph for the Gold Coast’s tram system yet did not notice numerous references to a cost of $1.6 billion. I’m pretty sure they have Google over at Capital Metro.

This small piece of dodginess in the Full Business Case is not significant in the greater scheme, but we are talking about a billion dollars worth of spending here, which, if spent wisely, could achieve much more than I believe it will.

The route for the light rail is odd. The costings are vague and unconvincing. From a $30 million commitment at the last election the project has ratcheted up to become a Green Left vanity project which will affect the Territory’s finances for decades.

Like so many infrastructure projects in Canberra, it has all come down to pure politics.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/court-bid-to-halt-16-billion-gold-coast-light-rail-project/story-fndo45r1-1226445132901
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/Speeches/spk2012/Ray%20Stevens%20spk%20Mermaid%20Beach%202012_06_19_74.pdf

rommeldog56 said :

Just heard Shane Rattenburry on Mark Partons shows on 1206. Mr Rattenburry said that there was a the ACT Gov’t had a 1500 page report that included advice that becauise of Light Rail, traffic congestion outside peak hours along Northborne Ave would increase and and that traffioc lights would probably need to be rephased to give trans priority.

There is also a 250 space car park in Civic that will be closed during the construction period (and beyond ?).

It just gets better and better…….

Bit of selective quoting. The increased traffic is as a result of increased development along the corridor which the CT has tied directly in with light rail. That is part of the idea increase density.

As for the carpark think you will find that carpark is also earmarked for future development, part of the courthouse expansion and redevelopment. The other side too btw.

rommeldog56 said :

Just heard Shane Rattenburry on Mark Partons shows on 1206. Mr Rattenburry said that there was a the ACT Gov’t had a 1500 page report that included advice that becauise of Light Rail, traffic congestion outside peak hours along Northborne Ave would increase and and that traffioc lights would probably need to be rephased to give trans priority.

There is also a 250 space car park in Civic that will be closed during the construction period (and beyond ?).

It just gets better and better…….

…and the roads keep getting worse and worse as people think they can endlessly pile onto them, one passenger per car at a time.

Good riddance to the awful, ugly and disfunctional car parks.

Actually you haven’t heard the half of it. ACT planning is intending to slow traffic through the City and over Commonwealth Avenue to 50km as it relays out the streets around City Hill in its City to the Lake plans.

gooterz said :

A2 why doesn’t government get these magic PPP’s to pay for everything. Apparently they never have to be repaid.

If the PPP is going to cover the costs why not get Mag lev for all of Canberra. Why isn’t PPP used to fund the bullet train.

So really thru act rate payer/commuter will pay for the full cost of light rail. However if PPP they will also have to pay the pockets of whoever decides to fund it too and then some?

Would you concede that?

The contractor builds the infrastructure then has the rights to run it for a set period of time. Nobody has said they don’t get repaid.

Whilst they are running it they receive income from fares (our expensive freeways don’t pay anyone) supplemented by an annual government payment to the operator. At the end of the contract period the capital equipment is fully paid off and becomes the property, and an asset, of the ACT government which can then decide what to do with it. Either run it itself or have another contractor to tender for the right to operate it. That subsequent contractor has little or no capital costs to pay off, therefore the government subsidy of the system should be dramatically reduced.

Where people get themselves into knots is the fact that this is fully funded.

Unlike roads which are partially funded infrastructure (they are just a cleared route for the vehicles which must be paid for by the users) and have no income, but have ongoing maintenance and replacement costs.

The Light Rail counts the cost up front, which seems to alarm people who never total up the cost of the alternatives, and once in place is extremely durable.

The cost of roads is spread over many years, and gets worse as time goes on and they start to fail. Payments are in dribs and drabs that people don’t add up. The infrastructure that they rarely question, the vehicles, the fuel, the insurance, the licence fees, the parking, the storage, accidents and fatalities. Even the endless wars, refugees and international crises that result from the addiction to imported oil.

There is also the benefit LR has to the local economy. Last time I looked the A.C.T. has no oil nor car manufacturing. All money that goes out of the Territory. The A.C.T. pays for the initial capital items of Light Rail, a good part of which goes to the local construction industry, then the maintenance and fuel (solar/wind/hydro energy) is local.

Cars, roads and drivers consume a large part of our budget, through the personal debt, serious injuries which take up about 20% of our hospitals admissions, the substantial police and legal resources of managing the crime and misdemeanours of drivers, and finally the most significant and unmentioned cost, of the adverse effect overuse of cars is having on our health from childhood on through our whole lives.

My greatest attraction to Light Rail is its ability to bind the urban fabric instead of divide it as roads do. Busy roads are a major barrier to pedestrians and drivers alike. Just open your eyes to what happens to real estate, both commercial and residential along busy, congested roads.

You can see what a a busy road like Northbourne Avenue, does to the office space, retail, and restaurants facing it in the City. Shopfronts abandoned, glass painted over and avoided. The West side of the City struggles because people don’t want to cross a wide multilane, busy, polluted and loud road to get to the other side. Freeways are far worse, even louder and more polluting, with few crossing points and killing most anything that tries to cross them.

This is obvious to anyone with their eyes open, except, because it crept up on people, ignored or treated as inevitable.

Parramatta Road and the Hume Highway in Sydney are practically dead for almost their entire length.

Mona Vale on the Northern Beaches presents a perfect micro example of the deadly effect of roads . Attempts at establishing anything on the “wrong” side of the road of the Mona Vale/Barrenjoey Road intersection are doomed, as elsewhere.

By contrast look at what happens when you run a convenient, clean light rail system through a city. Both sides of the route thrive. Melbourne is a classic case.

My only concern with what the government is trying to do is the chosen route. Running it up the centre of Northbourne Avenue is wrapping it up in the problems of the heavy traffic which is exactly what they should be avoiding. Light Rail should be right in the heart of cities, part of the fabric, both the commercial areas and the residential areas not separated as major roads are. Getting to it should not represent the same problems as crossing Northbourne Ave already does. It should be as handy and close to the people as possible, in narrower streets and really close to where they live and enjoy life in the city.

Just heard Shane Rattenburry on Mark Partons shows on 1206. Mr Rattenburry said that there was a the ACT Gov’t had a 1500 page report that included advice that becauise of Light Rail, traffic congestion outside peak hours along Northborne Ave would increase and and that traffioc lights would probably need to be rephased to give trans priority.

There is also a 250 space car park in Civic that will be closed during the construction period (and beyond ?).

It just gets better and better…….

damien haas said :

justin heywood said :

Q1. What does ACT Light Rail consider the likely eventual cost of the current route?

Q2. How much is too much? At what cost point (if any) would ACT Light Rail concede that the cost of the current route outweighs the possible benefits?

A1 – The bidders are working on their submissions so that question will be answered shortly.
A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.

No one is blind to the fact that infrastructure is expensive. Its an investment in our future.

A2 why doesn’t government get these magic PPP’s to pay for everything. Apparently they never have to be repaid.

If the PPP is going to cover the costs why not get Mag lev for all of Canberra. Why isn’t PPP used to fund the bullet train.

So really thru act rate payer/commuter will pay for the full cost of light rail. However if PPP they will also have to pay the pockets of whoever decides to fund it too and then some?

Would you concede that?

JC said :

gooterz said :

Rolling out light rail is like rolling out a copper telephone network in 2015.

So what is the 2015 solution then? More roads and car parks?

Stop building suburbs out on the edges of Canberra. Infill close to the city, however don’t plan on making the main streets malls of shops and businesses.

If there were no buildings that fronted onto Northbourne Av we wouldn’t have issues with traffic. Much like there is not much on commonwealth avenue, belconnen way…. name any major arterial road in Canberra and note that most of them have no frontage on them… except civic.

So the problem is that we have some congestion of car traffic, so the answer is to make the route more dense and block off lanes of traffic….

Light rail might make the trip better for the 2% of Canberra that catch public transport down it now, however it will guarantee make car traffic worse for everyone.

The benefit of public transport will be massively be outweighed with the inconvenience of traveling around civic by road. Any greenhouse emission savings will be out put by longer more incontinent routes and longer time spent in traffic.

justin heywood said :

Incredibly, the ‘Full Business Case’ for this project claims that it was not able to ascertain the actual cost of the Gold Coast light rail. It quotes various figures, (including the Daily Telegraph!), before settling on the lower figure ($949 million) without comment as to why this figure was chosen.

Five minutes on Google finds numerous references to a cost of $1.6 billion for the Gold Coast’s 13 km track (see links below) but Capital Metro apparently did not see these figures anywhere, choosing only to mention the much lower figures.

If the Gold Coast’s 13 km line did cost $1.6 billion, the equivalent cost for the ACT’s 12 km line would be $1.47 billion.

Perhaps Capital Metro considers that it will be much more efficient than those useless Queenslanders anyway.

Or perhaps they chose to ignore the implications.

http://www.goldcoastlightrail.com.au/gold-coast-light-rail-project/
http://www.moregoldcoast.com.au/invest-gold-coast/major-projects/gold-coast-light-rail/
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/Speeches/spk2012/Ray%20Stevens%20spk%20Mermaid%20Beach%202012_06_19_74.pdf

The fact everyone is ignoring is that for $1.6 billion, the Gold Coast has light rail servicing a population of 500,000 people (plus tourists) and the proposed Capital Metro project estimated cost $1 billion will be available for about 70,000 people (no tourists).
That’s not good value.
That’s why I am a “naysayer”.

Pork Hunt said :

I’ve said it before on here and I’ll say it again. Why can’t you people (I live in NSW) have a T2 lane south bound on Northbourne for morning peak only and a T2 lane northbound on Northbourne for the afternoon peak only? Have the lights give priority to the buses like they do the trams in, say Melbourne.
This will cost almost nothing to implement and the masses will travel to and from in no time at all.

Why?
Because it would work and it is far too simple and too cheap to implement.
ACT Government only deals with vision and vibrancy which costs heaps.

The question still remains, if they don’t build this, what are they going to do with all the cars and the lack of parking? Building bigger roads isn’t the answer. It has not been anywhere in the world.

I’m not fully convinced this is a good idea, but the anti light rail brigade have yet to offer any viable solution.

Didn’t you read Arthur Davies article? It offered at least one option that was cheaper, faster, more flexible and more efficient.

If one individual can research & find one option and check where, when, how much, who, how long etc etc, surely we could have expected our Assembly to have done a bit more than task a group to work out how to justify doing what they already wanted to do, on spurious economic grounds alone.

Looking at the social impacts, not only of putting in that infrastructure, but of the ways in which they aimed to raise the funds, would, I think, have been an appropriate start to any such project. A quick look at the visual impact on Northbourne would also have been helpful – but that was not done either.

Now there is suddenly awareness that major services lines are located under the central corridor. Lots of Canberans knew this.

If Capital Metro or the Assembly did not have this crucial information, I cannot help but wonder why not? If that wasn’t sorted before consigning b$1 of Canberrans’ funds, what else has not been considered that will prove basic to the project? and how can these people be trusted to run such a project?

And while I’m on a roll, why are they so hell bent on getting the contracts signed so that we are stuck with it? If there is a change of government at the next election, that would mean the community had said “No” to the project. If there is no vote to change the government, then clearly, enough of the community says “Yes” & there is no need to hold anyone to ransom. A win, win, I would have thought.

justin heywood said :

Incredibly, the ‘Full Business Case’ for this project claims that it was not able to ascertain the actual cost of the Gold Coast light rail. It quotes various figures, (including the Daily Telegraph!), before settling on the lower figure ($949 million) without comment as to why this figure was chosen.

Five minutes on Google finds numerous references to a cost of $1.6 billion for the Gold Coast’s 13 km track (see links below) but Capital Metro apparently did not see these figures anywhere, choosing only to mention the much lower figures.

If the Gold Coast’s 13 km line did cost $1.6 billion, the equivalent cost for the ACT’s 12 km line would be $1.47 billion.

Perhaps Capital Metro considers that it will be much more efficient than those useless Queenslanders anyway.

Or perhaps they chose to ignore the implications.

http://www.goldcoastlightrail.com.au/gold-coast-light-rail-project/
http://www.moregoldcoast.com.au/invest-gold-coast/major-projects/gold-coast-light-rail/
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/Speeches/spk2012/Ray%20Stevens%20spk%20Mermaid%20Beach%202012_06_19_74.pdf

I looked that up as well. The problem is the $949 million was an obviously earlier estimate, undated and did not include all the substantial supplementary changes that where made to the final project.

Also as I pointed out, and you of course ignored, the ACT light rail will run down a mostly unimpeded right of way, separate from the roads, unlike the Gold Coast LR which had to be built into an extremely busy, unsegregated and functioning main road.

If all the people who so strenuously object to light rail on cost grounds, actually sat down and objectively looked at how much their objections and load-ons that they demand cost, maybe that would shut them up.

The Dulwich Hill extension would have been completed and running almost a decade ago, built by a private company at their expense, at half the cost if it wasn’t for the saboteurs raising the bar and objections at every turn.

There seems no doubt in my mind that that is the tactic used everywhere by the active lobby trying to stop any and all sustainable transport.

I’ve said it before on here and I’ll say it again. Why can’t you people (I live in NSW) have a T2 lane south bound on Northbourne for morning peak only and a T2 lane northbound on Northbourne for the afternoon peak only? Have the lights give priority to the buses like they do the trams in, say Melbourne.
This will cost almost nothing to implement and the masses will travel to and from in no time at all.

Incredibly, the ‘Full Business Case’ for this project claims that it was not able to ascertain the actual cost of the Gold Coast light rail. It quotes various figures, (including the Daily Telegraph!), before settling on the lower figure ($949 million) without comment as to why this figure was chosen.

Five minutes on Google finds numerous references to a cost of $1.6 billion for the Gold Coast’s 13 km track (see links below) but Capital Metro apparently did not see these figures anywhere, choosing only to mention the much lower figures.

If the Gold Coast’s 13 km line did cost $1.6 billion, the equivalent cost for the ACT’s 12 km line would be $1.47 billion.

Perhaps Capital Metro considers that it will be much more efficient than those useless Queenslanders anyway.

Or perhaps they chose to ignore the implications.

http://www.goldcoastlightrail.com.au/gold-coast-light-rail-project/
http://www.moregoldcoast.com.au/invest-gold-coast/major-projects/gold-coast-light-rail/
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/Speeches/spk2012/Ray%20Stevens%20spk%20Mermaid%20Beach%202012_06_19_74.pdf

rubaiyat said :

justin heywood said :

damien haas said :

Q2. How much is too much? At what cost point (if any) would ACT Light Rail concede that the cost of the current route outweighs the possible benefits?

.
A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.
.

Well, that didn’t answer my question Damien.

But you’re right, I don’t understand the nature of the PPP at all. Saying ‘the constructor bears the cost’ implies that ratepayers won’t have to foot the bill, which is a wonderful scenario.

If that is the case, I congratulate Capital Metro on securing such an arrangement and urge them to consider using PPP’s to construct light rail across the city immediately.

The question seems to be an attempt at double counting.

Exaggerating the total cost of the construction and then counting the PPP payments as well.

Like counting both the cost of a building and the rent as well.

It is an Either/Or NOT a plus.

It’s not ‘an attempt’ at anything of the sort. It was a simple question, only requiring a simple answer, which wasn’t forthcoming.

The OP was talking about the Gold Coast light rail.
This line of 13 km is reported to cost $1.6 billion. (Wikipedia, and the links below.)

ACT Government says our tramline of 12 km will cost HALF of that (c. $800 m).

I was asking whether ACT Light Rail would care to hazard a guess as to what the true figure might be. A reasonable request.

rubaiyat said :

rubaiyat said :

One simple step would be to make the existing bus lanes continuous from one town centre to the next with buses running at 100km.

This would have the psychological result of being seen as the actually faster option and would get more passenger movements with the same number of buses and drivers.

Won’t work with the existing ancient stock of buses though.

Oh and keep the buses moving, not loitering at each bus terminus.

Meet that objective of making the inter-township connections basically timetable free because they run so frequently. Which is not happening at the moment, nor are the buses flowing freely. They waste a lot of time looping around, just in the terminals.

Sydneys buses by comparison are quite brisk. In and out because they have to be.

By Sydney buses I assume you mean in the inner areas. Because outside in the burbs they are no better than here. Though have improved with the government taking over once private routes and tendering them out. Though at a cost of greater subsidy of course but money well spent.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

gooterz said :

Rolling out light rail is like rolling out a copper telephone network in 2015.

So what is the 2015 solution then? More roads and car parks?

To have a solution one must first have a problem.
A bit of road congestion at peak times isn’t a problem and regarding car parks, well, we used to have plenty of them but apparently our Labor government deemed them unnecessary so we have to live with that.

There is a problem. Even without selling carpark land the population is growing (especially in Gungahlin) and land is scarce. Improved public transport is the answer what form that is debatable but denying there is a problem well.

Oh as for Act Labor selling land I have no doubt what so ever if the Liebrals has been in power the past how ever many years it has been they would have done the same.

rubaiyat said :

One simple step would be to make the existing bus lanes continuous from one town centre to the next with buses running at 100km.

This would have the psychological result of being seen as the actually faster option and would get more passenger movements with the same number of buses and drivers.

Won’t work with the existing ancient stock of buses though.

Ancient buses? What the? Action has one of the lowest average fleet ages in the country and new buses comes in on average one every two weeks. And our old buses are for the most part out during peaks and school bus time and are very well kept.

rubaiyat said :

One simple step would be to make the existing bus lanes continuous from one town centre to the next with buses running at 100km.

This would have the psychological result of being seen as the actually faster option and would get more passenger movements with the same number of buses and drivers.

Won’t work with the existing ancient stock of buses though.

Oh and keep the buses moving, not loitering at each bus terminus.

Meet that objective of making the inter-township connections basically timetable free because they run so frequently. Which is not happening at the moment, nor are the buses flowing freely. They waste a lot of time looping around, just in the terminals.

Sydneys buses by comparison are quite brisk. In and out because they have to be.

One simple step would be to make the existing bus lanes continuous from one town centre to the next with buses running at 100km.

This would have the psychological result of being seen as the actually faster option and would get more passenger movements with the same number of buses and drivers.

Won’t work with the existing ancient stock of buses though.

Mark of Sydney said :

watto23 said :

ChrisinTurner said :

I suspect that many of the people using the Gold Coast light rail are tourists. Does Gungahlin attract many tourists? I also understand their system cost double the estimated cost and has one third the patronage estimated. Never-the-less I don’t think Gungahlin people will accept a light-rail transit time that takes 15 minutes longer than the current Red-Rapid bus to get to Civic, with only half the chance of having a seat. An ageing population does not want to become strap-hangers.

The light rail is not really about Gungahlin residents. Its about building a high density transit corridor. Yes Gungahlin residents are one group its targeted at but it also targeted at the inner north residents and the high density apartments on Northbourne now and in the future. And if they ever extend it its probably never going to cross the lake.

The question still remains, if they don’t build this, what are they going to do with all the cars and the lack of parking? Building bigger roads isn’t the answer. It has not been anywhere in the world.

I’m not fully convinced this is a good idea, but the anti light rail brigade have yet to offer any viable solution.

Well how about bus rapid transit (BRT)? According to Simon Corbell on 18 April 2012:

‘These cost estimates by URS Australia Pty Ltd, show that Bus Rapid Transit is estimated to cost between $300m-$360 million while light rail transit would require an investment of between $700m-$860 million. These are initial estimates and require further detailed investigation.’

The saving of $400-500 million could be applied to BRT solutions across across Canberra, including routing the City-Woden express service via Barton and the Parliamentary Triangle with a right of way along Commonwealth Avenue.

Sounds like better value to me, and I’m sure to most people south of the lake. BRT has really taken off in Brisbane. Has all the advantages of a public transport right of way with the inherent flexibility of buses (and without the need to come up with a solution for getting overhead powered trams across the lake).

With the rapid development of battery technology, electric-powered buses can’t be far away.

Actually a new BRT network, which improved transit time to the town centres would be a great idea, but the Libs have no plans to build that and I bet the cost would again be the issue. So while I’m lukewarm on the light rail proposal now, I see it as being a step in a better direction than we have now. The old Civic to Belconnen BRT idea was good. I believe cost was the issue there also.

Even a policy to use BRT to some town centres now, with a view to upgrade to light rail if viable would be a good plan. My biggest gripe with the current light rail, is its too slow, however if you live in that transit corridor it will be a great service. It certainly is not IMO designed to be service for Gungahlin residents, although a park and ride at the Gungahlin end would probably increase patronage if it was free parking.

justin heywood said :

damien haas said :

Q2. How much is too much? At what cost point (if any) would ACT Light Rail concede that the cost of the current route outweighs the possible benefits?

.
A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.
.

Well, that didn’t answer my question Damien.

But you’re right, I don’t understand the nature of the PPP at all. Saying ‘the constructor bears the cost’ implies that ratepayers won’t have to foot the bill, which is a wonderful scenario.

If that is the case, I congratulate Capital Metro on securing such an arrangement and urge them to consider using PPP’s to construct light rail across the city immediately.

The question seems to be an attempt at double counting.

Exaggerating the total cost of the construction and then counting the PPP payments as well.

Like counting both the cost of a building and the rent as well.

It is an Either/Or NOT a plus.

damien haas said :

Q2. How much is too much? At what cost point (if any) would ACT Light Rail concede that the cost of the current route outweighs the possible benefits?

.
A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.
.

Well, that didn’t answer my question Damien.

But you’re right, I don’t understand the nature of the PPP at all. Saying ‘the constructor bears the cost’ implies that ratepayers won’t have to foot the bill, which is a wonderful scenario.

If that is the case, I congratulate Capital Metro on securing such an arrangement and urge them to consider using PPP’s to construct light rail across the city immediately.

Mark of Sydney said :

Well how about bus rapid transit (BRT)? According to Simon Corbell on 18 April 2012:

‘These cost estimates by URS Australia Pty Ltd, show that Bus Rapid Transit is estimated to cost between $300m-$360 million while light rail transit would require an investment of between $700m-$860 million. These are initial estimates and require further detailed investigation.’

The saving of $400-500 million could be applied to BRT solutions across across Canberra, including routing the City-Woden express service via Barton and the Parliamentary Triangle with a right of way along Commonwealth Avenue.

Sounds like better value to me, and I’m sure to most people south of the lake. BRT has really taken off in Brisbane. Has all the advantages of a public transport right of way with the inherent flexibility of buses (and without the need to come up with a solution for getting overhead powered trams across the lake).

With the rapid development of battery technology, electric-powered buses can’t be far away.

They would still be buses, which seem to be going both nowhere and all over the map in Canberra for decades now. There is a reason they are ancient, unreliable, slow, uncomfortable, polluting rattle traps and rapidly disappearing off the map. We are down from 3 routes to 1 infrequent service where I am.

They would still need a large number of bus drivers (1 tram = 3.5 buses), and would not have the efficiencies and smooth ride of steel wheels on steel rails. Take the Sydney, Adelaide or Melbourne LR in the peak hours and you will see most people working on their laptops. That is a shortcut to a brown paper bag on a bus.

A rerouted express bus will be even less of an express than currently. The rights of way weave in and out of existing road traffic and do not seem to be doing the job they were supposed to do.

Electric buses do exist, an Adelaide company has developed one, and are worth looking at in that they solve the single problem of the pollution, but nothing else.

BRT is remarkable for being an expensive but still second rate and inconvenient “solution”.

watto23 said :

ChrisinTurner said :

I suspect that many of the people using the Gold Coast light rail are tourists. Does Gungahlin attract many tourists? I also understand their system cost double the estimated cost and has one third the patronage estimated. Never-the-less I don’t think Gungahlin people will accept a light-rail transit time that takes 15 minutes longer than the current Red-Rapid bus to get to Civic, with only half the chance of having a seat. An ageing population does not want to become strap-hangers.

The light rail is not really about Gungahlin residents. Its about building a high density transit corridor. Yes Gungahlin residents are one group its targeted at but it also targeted at the inner north residents and the high density apartments on Northbourne now and in the future. And if they ever extend it its probably never going to cross the lake.

The question still remains, if they don’t build this, what are they going to do with all the cars and the lack of parking? Building bigger roads isn’t the answer. It has not been anywhere in the world.

I’m not fully convinced this is a good idea, but the anti light rail brigade have yet to offer any viable solution.

Well how about bus rapid transit (BRT)? According to Simon Corbell on 18 April 2012:

‘These cost estimates by URS Australia Pty Ltd, show that Bus Rapid Transit is estimated to cost between $300m-$360 million while light rail transit would require an investment of between $700m-$860 million. These are initial estimates and require further detailed investigation.’

The saving of $400-500 million could be applied to BRT solutions across across Canberra, including routing the City-Woden express service via Barton and the Parliamentary Triangle with a right of way along Commonwealth Avenue.

Sounds like better value to me, and I’m sure to most people south of the lake. BRT has really taken off in Brisbane. Has all the advantages of a public transport right of way with the inherent flexibility of buses (and without the need to come up with a solution for getting overhead powered trams across the lake).

With the rapid development of battery technology, electric-powered buses can’t be far away.

Time to do something about this nightmare and ban public transport permanently:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/bus-and-car-collide-at-belconnen-bus-interchange-20150619-ghrzet.html

Perhaps a referendum?

damien haas said :

dungfungus said :

To have a solution one must first have a problem.
A bit of road congestion at peak times isn’t a problem and regarding car parks, well, we used to have plenty of them but apparently our Labor government deemed them unnecessary so we have to live with that.

Road congestion extends outside the peaks. Weekend road congestion is occurring in town centres and on major roads.

As you are in so many things, you are wrong about carparking. There is more carparking in Canberra now than there has ever been before.

There is also a project underway to look at using technology to enhance carparking availability under the ACT Governments ‘Smart parking’ program.

Placing price signals on all forms of transport is the fairest way to approach the problem. Providing better transport options is the right way to encourage a shift to to a more livable city.

“As you are in so many things, you are wrong about carparking. There is more carparking in Canberra now than there has ever been before.

There is also a project underway to look at using technology to enhance carparking availability under the ACT Governments ‘Smart parking’ program.”

The aforementioned claims appear to be contradictory. If parking is “better than ever”, why do we need to waste more money on enhancing it?

What happened to all that carparking that used to be in Marcus Clarke Street?

vintage123 said :

I think one submission will be $899 million and the other $898 million. The eventual cost will blow out to $1.1+ billion.

I think that second word is possibly the problem in that estimate.

btw This is the Federal Government’s “thinking” and “cost cutting” prioritisation:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/plans-to-appoint-wind-farm-commissioner-very-hurtful-says-former-disability-commissioner-graeme-innes-20150619-ghs0io.html

I think one submission will be $899 million and the other $898 million. The eventual cost will blow out to $1.1+ billion.

justin heywood said :

Q1. What does ACT Light Rail consider the likely eventual cost of the current route?

Q2. How much is too much? At what cost point (if any) would ACT Light Rail concede that the cost of the current route outweighs the possible benefits?

A1 – The bidders are working on their submissions so that question will be answered shortly.
A2 – You don’t understand the structure of the PPP, the constructor bears the cost of *construction*.

No one is blind to the fact that infrastructure is expensive. Its an investment in our future.

dungfungus said :

To have a solution one must first have a problem.
A bit of road congestion at peak times isn’t a problem and regarding car parks, well, we used to have plenty of them but apparently our Labor government deemed them unnecessary so we have to live with that.

Road congestion extends outside the peaks. Weekend road congestion is occurring in town centres and on major roads.

As you are in so many things, you are wrong about carparking. There is more carparking in Canberra now than there has ever been before.

There is also a project underway to look at using technology to enhance carparking availability under the ACT Governments ‘Smart parking’ program.

Placing price signals on all forms of transport is the fairest way to approach the problem. Providing better transport options is the right way to encourage a shift to to a more livable city.

JC said :

gooterz said :

Rolling out light rail is like rolling out a copper telephone network in 2015.

So what is the 2015 solution then? More roads and car parks?

To have a solution one must first have a problem.
A bit of road congestion at peak times isn’t a problem and regarding car parks, well, we used to have plenty of them but apparently our Labor government deemed them unnecessary so we have to live with that.

JC said :

gooterz said :

Rolling out light rail is like rolling out a copper telephone network in 2015.

So what is the 2015 solution then? More roads and car parks?

Well scientists have already isolated the particle that give objects their mass, so surely the 2015 solution to moving people over distances involves a large hadron collider.

gooterz said :

Rolling out light rail is like rolling out a copper telephone network in 2015.

So what is the 2015 solution then? More roads and car parks?

ChrisinTurner said :

I suspect that many of the people using the Gold Coast light rail are tourists. Does Gungahlin attract many tourists? I also understand their system cost double the estimated cost and has one third the patronage estimated. Never-the-less I don’t think Gungahlin people will accept a light-rail transit time that takes 15 minutes longer than the current Red-Rapid bus to get to Civic, with only half the chance of having a seat. An ageing population does not want to become strap-hangers.

The light rail is not really about Gungahlin residents. Its about building a high density transit corridor. Yes Gungahlin residents are one group its targeted at but it also targeted at the inner north residents and the high density apartments on Northbourne now and in the future. And if they ever extend it its probably never going to cross the lake.

The question still remains, if they don’t build this, what are they going to do with all the cars and the lack of parking? Building bigger roads isn’t the answer. It has not been anywhere in the world.

I’m not fully convinced this is a good idea, but the anti light rail brigade have yet to offer any viable solution.

rubaiyat said :

Victoria is looking at taxing petrol to fund alternative transport:

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/aaa-backs-petrol-excise-hike-to-fund-rail-20150618-ghr1tj

The ACT may have a problem being an island in NSW but maybe we can work something in co-operation.

Yeah, income from the union movement could be disrupted somewhat in the future.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

That’s the way I read it too.
If the Capital Metro project is abandoned is ACT Labor going to give the money back?
Come on!

If light rail is abandoned it will only be because ACT Labor lost power, meaning ACT Liebral will be in power. So clearly it would be their decision to make. Though I would suggest they would be giving that money to private enterprise as compensation for canceling contracts, contracts that would have been entered into by a Government that took the policy to the electorate and would be done during the general business phase of government as opposed to during a caretaker period.

There are some latent issues re costings yet to surface and these could trigger the escape clause in the Capital Metro agreement.
Have you seen the results of the audit on underground services along Northbourne Avenue yet? This will sink the project entirely when the costs of moving these is calculated. It would also cancel any proposal to build a bus lane on the median strip.

Victoria is looking at taxing petrol to fund alternative transport:

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/aaa-backs-petrol-excise-hike-to-fund-rail-20150618-ghr1tj

The ACT may have a problem being an island in NSW but maybe we can work something in co-operation.

Rolling out light rail is like rolling out a copper telephone network in 2015.

dungfungus said :

That’s the way I read it too.
If the Capital Metro project is abandoned is ACT Labor going to give the money back?
Come on!

If light rail is abandoned it will only be because ACT Labor lost power, meaning ACT Liebral will be in power. So clearly it would be their decision to make. Though I would suggest they would be giving that money to private enterprise as compensation for canceling contracts, contracts that would have been entered into by a Government that took the policy to the electorate and would be done during the general business phase of government as opposed to during a caretaker period.

dungfungus said :

I have no aspirations to be “Minister for Roads” – we need roads for everything including cars, trucks, buses, trams, bikes, horses and camels etc. so you should be grateful for the fact that we some of the best in the world.
Also, you should have some respect for our roads as the revenue that accrues from all things that use the roads (except bikes and trams) will be crucial in getting the Territory to underwrite the massive shortfalls in passenger fares from the tram project.
It’s common sense you know.

People pay GST when they buy a bike, accessories such as helmets, and consumables such as tubes. I believe that would count as revenue.

Interestingly you left out horses and camels, which you count as road users. I would’ve thought they would be the biggest moochers, though again GST may be paid on feed and other goods and services associated with their upkeep and handling, so perhaps you were right to omit them from your exceptions.

Excuse the off-topic interjection.

A quote from the ACT Light Rail page linked to below & in post #3 above : “While pandering to a vocal minority makes for spirited media releases……” :

http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

Minority ???? Maybe that is the case on the planet that ACT Light Rail, the ACT Gov’t & Capital metro are taliking about, but it’s certainly not a minority in Canberra.

I could go on, but that will do. The pro light rail spin and outlandish claims just go on and on…….

A quote from the ACT Light Rail page linked to below & in post #3 above : “Interestingly, the provisions of the federal government scheme mean that the federal contribution can only be spent on projects that will deliver an economic benefit – such as light rail.” :

http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

I’m sure if the ACT Gov’t had of taken off the pro light rail blinkers, they, in consultation with Ratepayers perhaps, could have come up with other projects that will deliver economic benefits far greater than the widely discredited BCR of 1:1.2. The fact is, they only put up light rail.

A quote from the ACT Light Rail page linked to below & in post #3 above : “The agreement signed today between Chief Minister Barr and Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey, answers once and for all the question of how this infrastructure program will be paid for”.

http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

No – it doesn’t answer that “once and for all”. The ACT Gov’t sold off Ratepayer assets to raise m$400. The Feds tipped another m$60 from their assets recycling fund. Thats m$460 of the aprox. m$800+ cost of the 12 Ks of track Gunners-Civic. The real answer is that the remaining m$340+ comes from greatly increased Annual Rates, car rego + other charghes, 6% pa increase in parking fees forever and of course, the revenue from Stamp Duty which the ACt Labor Gov’t said it would abolish in 20 years – but now says it won’t.

i wonder what assets the ACT Gov’t will sell of to help pay for stages 2, 3, 4, etc.

These statements from ACT Rail are misleading spin, to say the least.

A quote from the ACT Light Rail page linked to below & in post #3 above : “The current federal Liberal government have gone out of their way to state repeatedly that they will not spend any money on state public transport.”

http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

This is clearly wrong. The Fed’s contributed significantly to the Gold Coast Light Rail.

Garfield said :

damien haas said :

Garfield said :

damien haas said :

Instead of reading what you want to see, read what I have written.

“The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.”

Federal *liberal* government aka the current government.

They haven’t specifically funded light rail – the funds have come from a general purpose infrastructure fund that is designed to get state governments to dispose of out of date assets and build new ones. The ACT government could have decided to use the money to construct bus rapid transit or a road or new public housing. Saying that the federal government has funded ACT’s light rail is disingenuous.

No, it is accurate.

This is what Joe Hockey, The Treasurer said:

“We will back metropolitan rail through our asset recycling program and the asset recycling program I announced in the last budget, $5 billion, I will reward State Governments that sell their assets and redeploy the capital into new productive infrastructure. The first government to sign up was the Labor Government in the ACT. Selling its TAB, selling public housing and redeploying the money with Commonwealth Government support into a new light rail project in the middle of Canberra.”

If you read the agreement, it cannot be used for any other project.

If the ACT government had decided to invest in some other infrastructure project, they would still be receiving the money – it would just be that the agreement with the Commonwealth would be for X project instead of light rail.

That’s the way I read it too.
If the Capital Metro project is abandoned is ACT Labor going to give the money back?
Come on!

damien haas said :

Instead of reading what you want to see, read what I have written.

“The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.”

Federal *liberal* government aka the current government.

Yes, the Federal government funded it to the tune of $60 million. We read that. Perhaps you can tell me why that fact is so important? I’m a bit dim, you see.

.

Back to the original topic though Damien, perhaps you missed my question to you.

The Gold Coast route (13 km) reportedly cost $1.6 billion.

Canberra’s Metro (12 km) is claimed to cost around $800 million.

Given the political incentive to minimise the expected cost and the long history of cost blow-outs in infrastructure projects,

Q1. What does ACT Light Rail consider the likely eventual cost of the current route?

Q2. How much is too much? At what cost point (if any) would ACT Light Rail concede that the cost of the current route outweighs the possible benefits?

damien haas said :

Garfield said :

damien haas said :

Instead of reading what you want to see, read what I have written.

“The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.”

Federal *liberal* government aka the current government.

They haven’t specifically funded light rail – the funds have come from a general purpose infrastructure fund that is designed to get state governments to dispose of out of date assets and build new ones. The ACT government could have decided to use the money to construct bus rapid transit or a road or new public housing. Saying that the federal government has funded ACT’s light rail is disingenuous.

No, it is accurate.

This is what Joe Hockey, The Treasurer said:

“We will back metropolitan rail through our asset recycling program and the asset recycling program I announced in the last budget, $5 billion, I will reward State Governments that sell their assets and redeploy the capital into new productive infrastructure. The first government to sign up was the Labor Government in the ACT. Selling its TAB, selling public housing and redeploying the money with Commonwealth Government support into a new light rail project in the middle of Canberra.”

If you read the agreement, it cannot be used for any other project.

If the ACT government had decided to invest in some other infrastructure project, they would still be receiving the money – it would just be that the agreement with the Commonwealth would be for X project instead of light rail.

Garfield said :

damien haas said :

Instead of reading what you want to see, read what I have written.

“The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.”

Federal *liberal* government aka the current government.

They haven’t specifically funded light rail – the funds have come from a general purpose infrastructure fund that is designed to get state governments to dispose of out of date assets and build new ones. The ACT government could have decided to use the money to construct bus rapid transit or a road or new public housing. Saying that the federal government has funded ACT’s light rail is disingenuous.

No, it is accurate.

This is what Joe Hockey, The Treasurer said:

“We will back metropolitan rail through our asset recycling program and the asset recycling program I announced in the last budget, $5 billion, I will reward State Governments that sell their assets and redeploy the capital into new productive infrastructure. The first government to sign up was the Labor Government in the ACT. Selling its TAB, selling public housing and redeploying the money with Commonwealth Government support into a new light rail project in the middle of Canberra.”

If you read the agreement, it cannot be used for any other project.

I suspect that many of the people using the Gold Coast light rail are tourists. Does Gungahlin attract many tourists? I also understand their system cost double the estimated cost and has one third the patronage estimated. Never-the-less I don’t think Gungahlin people will accept a light-rail transit time that takes 15 minutes longer than the current Red-Rapid bus to get to Civic, with only half the chance of having a seat. An ageing population does not want to become strap-hangers.

Garfield said :

damien haas said :

Instead of reading what you want to see, read what I have written.

“The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.”

Federal *liberal* government aka the current government.

They haven’t specifically funded light rail – the funds have come from a general purpose infrastructure fund that is designed to get state governments to dispose of out of date assets and build new ones. The ACT government could have decided to use the money to construct bus rapid transit or a road or new public housing. Saying that the federal government has funded ACT’s light rail is disingenuous.

…and as we know the present Federal Government would rather saw off their Right leg than do anything so productive as to fund rail or public transport, which is why they have slashed the funding to next to nothing.

If they had their way they would tear out all the Wind Turbines and solar panels as well. Because they may not be scientists but sure know when they blindly hate something.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

damien haas said :

The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.

Further details here: http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

A quote from the linked to article on the ACT Light Rail site:

“The Canberra Liberals are wedging themselves with their increasingly belligerent anti light rail rhetoric. While pandering to a vocal minority makes for spirited media releases, it does not provide an alternative public transport policy. Whether they like it or not, at the next Assembly election the Canberra Liberals must have a light rail policy.”

You are obviously playing politics, not the issue. ACT Light Rail may as well become a branch of ACT Labor and stand at the upcoming ACT election.

No prizes for guessing who the Minister for Trams will be.

Says the Minister for Roads..

I have no aspirations to be “Minister for Roads” – we need roads for everything including cars, trucks, buses, trams, bikes, horses and camels etc. so you should be grateful for the fact that we some of the best in the world.
Also, you should have some respect for our roads as the revenue that accrues from all things that use the roads (except bikes and trams) will be crucial in getting the Territory to underwrite the massive shortfalls in passenger fares from the tram project.
It’s common sense you know.

damien haas said :

Instead of reading what you want to see, read what I have written.

“The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.”

Federal *liberal* government aka the current government.

They haven’t specifically funded light rail – the funds have come from a general purpose infrastructure fund that is designed to get state governments to dispose of out of date assets and build new ones. The ACT government could have decided to use the money to construct bus rapid transit or a road or new public housing. Saying that the federal government has funded ACT’s light rail is disingenuous.

Instead of reading what you want to see, read what I have written.

“The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.”

Federal *liberal* government aka the current government.

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

damien haas said :

The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.

Further details here: http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

A quote from the linked to article on the ACT Light Rail site:

“The Canberra Liberals are wedging themselves with their increasingly belligerent anti light rail rhetoric. While pandering to a vocal minority makes for spirited media releases, it does not provide an alternative public transport policy. Whether they like it or not, at the next Assembly election the Canberra Liberals must have a light rail policy.”

You are obviously playing politics, not the issue. ACT Light Rail may as well become a branch of ACT Labor and stand at the upcoming ACT election.

No prizes for guessing who the Minister for Trams will be.

Says the Minister for Roads..

rommeldog56 said :

damien haas said :

The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.

Further details here: http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

A quote from the linked to article on the ACT Light Rail site:

“The Canberra Liberals are wedging themselves with their increasingly belligerent anti light rail rhetoric. While pandering to a vocal minority makes for spirited media releases, it does not provide an alternative public transport policy. Whether they like it or not, at the next Assembly election the Canberra Liberals must have a light rail policy.”

You are obviously playing politics, not the issue. ACT Light Rail may as well become a branch of ACT Labor and stand at the upcoming ACT election.

No prizes for guessing who the Minister for Trams will be.

“Traffic volumes on the Gold Coast Highway fell 5 percent since introduction of light rail”

That is a pretty modest reduction, since the tram runs down the Gold Coast Highway for much of its route. The locals avoid it.

“Redesign of the region’s bus network linking to light rail and heavy rail
helped drive 22.6 percent growth in Gold Coast public transport patronage.”

A good result to be sure, but comparing a tram running down the Gold Coast strip to the run from Gunghalin to Civic is a stretch.
The Gold Coast route connects a large hospital, a large university and then runs down a densely packed strip of holiday and entertainment venues. The nearest equivalent for Canberra would be a run from the ANU through Civic and the parliamentary triangle out to Manuka, and even that would be a pale comparison.

But while we’re on the subject of comparisons, Damien, I have two supplementary questions;
The Gold Coast route (13 km) reportedly cost $1.6 billion.
Canberra’s Metro (12 km) is claimed to cost around $800 million. Given the political incentive to minimise the expected cost and the long history of cost blow-outs in infrastructure projects,

Q1. What does ACT Light Rail consider the likely eventual cost?

Q2. How much is too much? At what point (if any) would ACT Light Rail concede that the cost of the current route outweighs the possible benefits?

damien haas said :

The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.

Further details here: http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

A quote from the linked to article on the ACT Light Rail site:

“The Canberra Liberals are wedging themselves with their increasingly belligerent anti light rail rhetoric. While pandering to a vocal minority makes for spirited media releases, it does not provide an alternative public transport policy. Whether they like it or not, at the next Assembly election the Canberra Liberals must have a light rail policy.”

You are obviously playing politics, not the issue. ACT Light Rail may as well become a branch of ACT Labor and stand at the upcoming ACT election.

damien haas said :

The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.

Further details here: http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

Not sure where you get that idea from. The Federal Government has contributed heavily to the Gold Coast light rail project. I don’t have access to up-to-date figures, but according to wikipedia ‘In 2009 the Queensland Government committed $464 million to the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project, supplementing $365 million committed by the Australian Government and $120 million provided by Gold Coast City Council.’

I’ve used the Gold Coast Light Rail, and it’s great. But unlike the proposed light rail here, it doesn’t take people from a dormitory suburb to the edge of the central activities district — a route that means it will only ever get significant patronage in one direction in the morning and the other direction at night.

If the first stage of the Canberra project could run to Barton/Kingston via Russell, and the Federal Government was willing to tip in 40% of the funding (as it did for the Gold Coast), it might just be worth a total project cost of say $1.2 billion. But the political reality means that the ACT will never get that level of support from the Federal Government. And failing that, I suspect it’s not affordable, given the cost of capital alone (@ 5% pa) would be $60 million a year, to which you’d need to add the operating and maintenance and depreciation costs.

damien haas said :

The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.

Further details here: http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

This claim is a distortion of the facts.

1) The ACT Gov’t has sold public assets to help fund Light rail.
2) It was the ACT Gov’t that nominated that the m$60 Fed’s contribution to that sale revenue would go to Light Rail.
3) The Fed’s did not contributte to Light Rail via Infrastructure Australia because the BCR was so weak (1:1.2).
3) The Fed’s tipped lots of $ into the Gold Coast Light Rail instead.

To claim that “The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra’ is simply not so.

And btw, I think the Goald Coast Light Rail cost about $1.4b ? For what ? A 5% reduction in traffic on the Goald Cost Highway (how would they have measured that, I wonder) ? Seems like a lot of $ for such a comparatively small reduction.

I hope all Gunners and North Canberra residents will enjoy having their bus routes “linked” to Light Rail.

The federal liberal government has funded urban public transport in one place only – Canberra.

To the tune of $60 million.

Further details here: http://www.actlightrail.info/2015/02/460-million-down-payment-on-800-million.html

There are hundreds of similarly successful Light Rail developments even though would never know it if you read (and actually believe) any of Rupert’s papers:

This one just came across my desk:

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2015/06/amid-celebration-green-lines-first-year-call-more-light-rail

Typically public transport ridership is dramatically up and the public wants more, more, more!

Interesting that despite the best most cost effective way of improving both overall transport and road congestion is rail, and to cut oil imports to improve our trade deficit, the Abbott government has slashed spending on urban rail projects from $514 million to only $17 million.

As with alternate energy the only thing that drives the conservatives is an irrational hatred that defies common sense or fiscal prudence. Hardly surprising as both are linked in not just their minds but in the minds of many of their followers.

I am following a thread on another website which caught my interest because of some spectacularly false claims “proving climate change is a fraud”. Specifically they claimed no hurricanes had made landfall in the USA in the last decade. That was a surprise to me, because I was in NY and New Jersey whilst they were still cleaning up after Sandy. That also ignored a string of other hurricanes going back all the way to Katrina.

What fascinated me was that despite this was so clearly a lie it went totally unchallenged, which shows the level of skepticism and knowledge of self proclaimed “Climate Change Skeptics”. Since then we have been playing a game of Bash the Shark where the “Skeptics” keep making up more ludicrous “facts”, rarely substantiated, and we track them down only to have them make up even more. Most are so ridiculous that it seems absolutely unbelievable that anyone can actually believe them, but there they are.

It is really scary that our Federal Government is so openly in cahoots with these fraudsters and liars.

…and that it forms their policy.