9 April 2009

Fresh meat for the light rail nerds

| johnboy
Join the conversation
67

Chief Minister John Stanhope has announced that he’s releasing the PricewaterhouseCoopers produced business case for light rail in the ACT.

Apparently the findings included:

    — Light rail could potentially decrease Canberra’s traffic congestion and commuting time and as a result reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution;
    — The project would cost approximately $2 billion; and
    — The project has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.62.

Enthusiasts can check out the whole thing on the TAMS website.

Join the conversation

67
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

As the PWC report says:

“Infrastructure investment for the development of a bus rapid transit system,
with exclusive right of way arrangements for buses, is considered a viable
alternative given the lower capital expenditure costs than light rail.
Consequently, bus rapid transit would warrant a comparative cost benefit
analysis study with light rail to determine the most effective use of economic
resources. Due to the time constraints on this project, such a comparison has
not been included in this analysis.”

However, while ACT light rail has repeatedly called for a cost benefit analysis for light rail, they don’t want one for bus rapid transit.

Light rail route #1 to Belconnen has been already planned for.

At PM:
Is that a government bridge bound to blow out in price or a ACTLightrail one that is way under costed? 😉

VYB – I want better public transport in the ACT and capital region. As the PWC report shows, buses are not meeting that need and costing the economy.

The reason that buses alone will not satisfy ACT public transport requirements, is that buses are being directed to a task they are not best suited to meet once certain capacity/distance figures are exceeded. The solution is to use a mass transit backbone to link the major population and employment centres in the ACT (and QBN) and retask buses to deliver passengers to hubs.

This uses lightrail capacity and speed to move higher volumes of passengers from one part of canberra to another, and then the bus takes you to your part of the town (or you walk, ride or collect your car from the park and ride).

Sadly, the CM thinks that the light rail business case is an indication he needs to spend more on buses. Im not sure exactly what that means, but im cynical. By all means spend more money on buses, but begin planning how to implement light rail route no 1.

Buses and light rail will deliver integrated public transport. buses alone will leave the ACT in exactly the same situation it is in today.

Pandy said :

#41 does not answer why ACTlight rail likes to use a lower cost figure from the PWC report to indicate capital costs while everyone else use 2 billion. Plus the CBA seems rubbery.

Bridge. Build one.

#41 does not answer why ACTlight rail likes to use a lower cost figure from the PWC report to indicate capital costs while everyone else use 2 billion. Plus the CBA seems rubbery.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy3:33 pm 16 Apr 09

Damien – is it that you want better ACT transport, or light rail in particular? Any particular reason?

Many components (maps, costings, other figures) of the PWC report come straight from the 2004 KBR report. I was wondering why the airport/BBP and Molonglo were not included, and this appears to be the reason.

I am preparing a long form response to the PWC business case, but briefly, i’m pleased that the report has been released. It supports the case for light rail and integrated transport in the ACT.

Pandy said :

At PM. The PWC report specifically indicates that time was short and the CBA for bus transit like the O-Bahn was not done. This should be done before money is handed over.

Pity Molonglo was not included in the network.

I would have studied all the options years ago. Speak to the government if you’re that interested, or get involved some other way. I’d have thought it would be nice for those future residents of Molonglo to have somewhere to go on their light rail 🙂 But, yes, I take the point that the govt should have directed the consultants to look at the proposed development of Molonglo. Too much work of the bureaucracy is short-term and piecemeal.

As for your quotes re cost, please look at comment #41.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy8:42 am 16 Apr 09

If someone has a crummy wood heater, and you want them to have instant gas, you don’t keep on improving and improving the wood heater til it is nearly as good as the gas, and then give them the gas heater.

Lets continue with idea a bit. The reality is that the wood heater does the job ok, but you could see some improvements. Would you personally be willing to spend several thousand dollars our of your own pocket to buy the new gas heater, knowing it would be only a little more effective, and you would still have to keep the wood heater going anyway?

It’s easy when you don’t think about it as your money. People also forget about the opportunity cost – what else could the money be spent on to benefit us? (Education, health, etc)

Ah yes, another $2bn project – this time to reduce greenhouse gases, to off-set the bucket-load of emissions to come from that other “$2bn” project the gas-fired power station & data centre.

Good to see they’re aiming to get back to square-1.

For the obvious responses that will result in cries of NIMBY – wake up and smell the coffee. Greenhouse gases = backyard, city, territory, country and world-wide.

At PM. The PWC report specifically indicates that time was short and the CBA for bus transit like the O-Bahn was not done. This should be done before money is handed over.

The total capital cost of just over 2 billion has been ignored by ACT Light Rail and they like to use the figure of 1.65 billion from the PWC report (9/4/2009). But then they confuse me and state that their estimate is 1.7 billion (CT 11/4/2009)to build the network. I wish they could substantiate this. Still it is a big back down for them and a sign of enconomic sanity when only on 9/7/2008 Damian Haas spokeperson for ACT Light Rail was quoted as saying “he
believes the $1 billion price tag is exaggerated” to build the network.

Pity Molonglo was not included in the network.

#50
“Isn’t a tram basically a bus that is limited to super-expensive tracks? Wouldn’t it be better to have more busses, going more places more often? Wouldn’t that be a more flexible system with less embodied energy/cost?”

It’s not like that. Light rail is far more able to handle heavy loads of passengers; that’s why there’s no proposal for carriages to go down every street like Melbourne and why the proposal is for between the town centres.

In fact, light rail between town centres would free up buses to be more flexible within their regions. At the moment, the juggling of buses between northside and southside etc is tremendous – there are empty routes or out-of-service buses going from one place to another because the interchange timetables and the suburban crawl aren’t separated, and clearly during the week if you move a bus to one side of canberra it needs to get back to where it started in preparation for the next day.

The next point is a bit pie in the sky but, who knows as there’ve been experiments with it – in the future there may not need to be a proper timetable around the suburbs per se at all times of the day, as the bus might be able to act like a Club Members’Mini-Bus when appropriate eg off-peak. That means the bus service could reach potentially everyone at certain times of the day whereas there’s no way that could happen now.

But that aside, and back to reality, when it comes to routes, residents and businesses have much greater certainty over access to light rail than buses. Some think that’s a small thing. I don’t.

Cities around the world, comparable to Canberra in size in both geography and population, have light rail. There are always nay-sayers. Why don’t they get over the fact that finally some economists have supported this? These economists were employed by, quite obviously, a government which is anti-light rail. Think about that.

Nobody is stopping the existence of the car or the bus. In fact, the car or bus experience would be improved! Sure, details need to be worked out with any project – I mean, look at the GDE. But what’s the alternative? Undertake no more projects ever?! With the mentality of some I suspect they’d be happier being Amish.

Less cars on the road ……… who is going to keep up the dusk and dawn roo cull on William Hovell if we take the cars off the road.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy6:55 am 13 Apr 09

What a top idea. We should be thinking more about this…

nota, thats the coolest thing ive seen all year.

dvaey said :

That O-Bahn looks like a brilliant idea, …

Yes, a cost effective mass-transit solution offering ‘your local street’ passenger pickup/delivery!

It appears far superior to what myopic light rail ‘visionaries’ keep proposing, and may well suit our city.

Apologies for not finding it earlier but here is a very informative SA-govt promotional video, aimed towards other governments, which explains and details all aspects of the O-Bahn system. It’s available to view on youtube and comprised of three short videos (with ongoing ‘Related Videos’ links to part2 and part3 presented at right-of -screen).

Well worth the time to look imho, and easily found by googling these keywords below:

youtube The Adelaide 0-Bahn Part1

youtube The Adelaide 0-Bahn Part2

youtube The Adelaide 0-Bahn Part3

dvaey said :

On a semi related note, I noticed the busway in Belconnen has been closed and barricaded off, anyone know the story?

Belconnen Town Centre is being done up, all the information can be found at http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/significant_projects/infrastructure_works/belconnen_town_centre. To answer your question in short, Westfield Belconnen is being extended over the busway & all buses will use 3 bus stations along Cohen Street at Belconnen Bus Depot, Westfield & the current bus station which will be renamed Australian Beau of Statistics Bus Station. So this means that the busway will no longer be of any use. The busway has been closed since the February 2009 timetable changes.

That O-Bahn looks like a brilliant idea, it makes one wonder why such a system isnt built for traffic other than buses though. They seem to go to great lengths to ensure no other traffic uses their accident-proof shortcuts through the city. Maybe they could get rid of the new bike lanes they painted down since no-one uses them and convert them into guided bus lanes, along arterial routes anyway.

On a semi related note, I noticed the busway in Belconnen has been closed and barricaded off, anyone know the story?

Light rail is slightly different to trams.

One benefit is that if the route is busy, another carriage can be attached to the first, doubling passenger capacity, but still only needing one driver.

Other benefits over buses include that the light rail can’t get stuck in traffic, and the routes are fixed so everyone knows where the light rail will go, enabling people to catch it infrequently without working out a new timetable system each time. People can also choose to live near light rail hubs, without fear they will be abolished (aka my local bus).

ricketyclik said :

I’m not anti-light rail BUT…

Isn’t a tram basically a bus that is limited to super-expensive tracks? Wouldn’t it be better to have more busses, going more places more often? Wouldn’t that be a more flexible system with less embodied energy/cost?

Agreed, and your observances are ‘on the money’ imo.

Speaking of applicational flexibilty, I wonder if Adelaide’s O-Bahn system could be of benefit here in Canberra?

http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/guides/obahn.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAsjgE2-stg

As an aside, any cyclist who grew up in Melbourne will remember the perils posed by slick metal tram tracks (crashing out in the rain or getting your wheels stuck within, etc) and to motorists too.

I am surprised that Rioter Jonathon Reynolds hasn’t put his oar into this thread. Perhaps getting his photo in the paper has gone to his head.

#46 posted by sepi

sepi said :

And the argument that we need to improve on the cr$p bus system we have now, to encourage people to use public transport, before we offer them a better system in light rail – it doesn’t make sense to me.

If someone has a crummy wood heater, and you want them to have instant gas, you don’t keep on improving and improving the wood heater til it is nearly as good as the gas, and then give them the gas heater.

You just give them the new improved thing, and that of itself convinces people to use it.

I’m not anti-light rail BUT…

Isn’t a tram basically a bus that is limited to super-expensive tracks? Wouldn’t it be better to have more busses, going more places more often? Wouldn’t that be a more flexible system with less embodied energy/cost?

Improve the buses while building the light rail system, then integrate them so that the nearest rail station is either a short walk or short bus trip away (ie less than 15 minutes on the bus). Have only major stops on the rail network so trip times are short.

Gungahlin Al9:39 pm 10 Apr 09

What Sepi said.

Gungahlin Al9:38 pm 10 Apr 09

imhotep said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

(VY)”The problem is that there isn’t enough people who would use it to justify the expenditure, when there are more needy projects elsewhere. Canberra just isn’t that big.”

Yes, we aren’t that big, but if the claim above -that we’re prepared to spend $183m for 9 km of the GDE (say it ain’t so!) – then light rail begins to look pretty cheap. Maybe the problem is that building bigger roads is simply the safest option politically, not necessarily the cheapest in the long run.

And that seems to be the approach being touted by Zed, according to the journo called me today – build more roads.

It is a blinkered, short-sighted approach. Roads are the insatiable beast. As long as you keep building roads, you will always keep building roads, and the costs (as you’ve pointed out) are as high or higher than better options. EG: $240M for Majura Parkway coming up soon.

We clearly need some more elected representatives with vision.

And the argument that we need to improve on the cr$p bus system we have now, to encourage people to use public transport, before we offer them a better system in light rail – it doesn’t make sense to me.

If someone has a crummy wood heater, and you want them to have instant gas, you don’t keep on improving and improving the wood heater til it is nearly as good as the gas, and then give them the gas heater.

You just give them the new improved thing, and that of itself convinces people to use it.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

(VY)”The problem is that there isn’t enough people who would use it to justify the expenditure, when there are more needy projects elsewhere. Canberra just isn’t that big.”

Yes, we aren’t that big, but if the claim above -that we’re prepared to spend $183m for 9 km of the GDE (say it ain’t so!) – then light rail begins to look pretty cheap. Maybe the problem is that building bigger roads is simply the safest option politically, not necessarily the cheapest in the long run.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy9:02 pm 10 Apr 09

The problem is that there isn’t enough people who would use it to justify the expenditure, when there are more needy projects elsewhere. Canberra just isn’t that big.

There’s also the same problem as we have with buses, in that if you don’t live right next to an interchange, or on an interchange route, it takes so long to get anywhere that for most full time it just isn’t viable. There’s also the issue that it often doesn’t go where people need to be.

Ramp up the buses and get people used to decent public transport first, then think about the transport medium.

Al, I’m sorry to say I think light rail will never happen. Even tho it clearly should.

For about 2 decades people talked as if the Very Fast Train to Sydney was about to happen any day now, and nothing ever happened at all.

These large projects just don’t get off the ground in Canberra – noone wants to make these kind of big decisions.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers must have thought it was christmas when they won the tender or however it was they got to do the business case. Charge a fortune for something that won’t see the light of day.

Gungahlin Al7:51 pm 10 Apr 09

On the cost-benefit return rate, the following extract from ACT Light Rail’s media release explains that simply:

In the cost benefit analysis results PWC predict that for an outlay of $1.65 billion on the entire network and its operating costs, this will produce benefits to the Territory in the order of $2.66 billion through increases in amenity and significant reductions in costs the Territory would otherwise have to bear in to the future.

So the cost for the TOTAL network (not that it would ever be all built in one hit) about HALF of Jon Stanhope’s latest invented number of $3B.

And a net BENEFIT to the ACT community of $1 billion.

Not a net cost – a profit.

This is where I say “I told you so, again and again.”

So what this also means is that the longer this government takes to get this project going, the less savings/profit it will make – because land on the north side is being sold up very quickly.

Infill is not the answer to everything. The more units there are, the more we really need to have suburban parks and open space. And some of those green corridors are where light rail would go. You can’t do light rail once a city is completely full to bursting – that’s why now is a good time to start.

monomania said :

(monomania)”The first alternative is to infill with a vengence not increase the boundaries. Get rid of nature corridors and horse paddocks…”

I kind of agree that one of Canberra’s biggest problems (from an environmental standpoint) is its very low density housing, but then if we did ‘infill’, we would lose the social and ecosystem services provided AND become just a mini-Los Angeles, without the beaches. I think higher density around the existing towns is a good compromise though.

monomania said :

“I reckon it (the arboretum) has far more support than light rail”

It’s a bit hard to judge how much support there is for the arboretum. I wasn’t asked, were you? (I’m not against the arboretum, just some of the politics that have gone into its structure -imagine the true environmental cost of carting treated water around in trucks, just so we can say that ‘it’s recycled water’)

hax said :

Less congestion.. I’ll be cruising around freely in my electric sports car by then 🙂

Pfft ! That’s confident. I think we’ll all be buzzing around Jetsons style in our own individual spaceships before anything “real” happens about the light rail.

Lets improve the bus system first.

imhotep said :

The alternative is to keep building more roads, and who knows where the money for that will come from.
It’s a matter of political will.

The first alternative is to infill with a vengence not increase the boundaries. Get rid of nature corridors and horse paddocks to ensure that the land there is used for higher density development with dwellings set to a price that makes them an attractive alternative to larger outer suburbs. A small light rail system might work then?

imhotep said :

If we can find a lazy $24m for the arboretum…

The arboretum is like the light rail you support infrastructure for the future. I reckon it has far more support than light rail

old canberran said :

(Old Canberran)”Where do you suppose the $2 billion is going to come from?”

The alternative is to keep building more roads, and who knows where the money for that will come from. I’m no accountant but surely an additional benefit of light rail is a reduced need for new road construction -especially in light of our experience with the GDE.

Do we see ourselves as a modern city? Or will we just become another Los Angeles, without the beaches. It’s a matter of political will. If we can find a lazy $24m for the arboretum…

old canberran4:18 pm 10 Apr 09

Where do you suppose the $2 billion is going to come from? I would have thought you people were paying enough in rates now without adding the cost of light rail.

Believe it or not light rail was in the minds of the planners 50 years ago. Yarra Glen for instance allows for it along the middle, as does Northbourne Avenue. One problem is that you still need suburban buses to get people from their homes to the rail stations or sizeable car parks.

Starting costs will probably be less, but they decided to add the running late fee. I think the most expensive bit till be the Northbourne Avenue underpass.

arescarti42 said :

$2 billion doesn’t seem that much for the benefits that a city wide rail system will bring, compared with the costs of constructing new roads.

The GDE isn’t exactly a shining example to compare cost per km.

Besides, going by track-record, is $2B really going to be the final/actual cost?

I just thought I’d add that at $2 billion for 54km of track, that is about $37 million per kilometre for the entire project. For comparison, the GDE was (please correct me if I’m wrong) about 100 million for the initial construction, and will be an additional 83 million for duplication to 2 lanes. $183 million over 9km of road is $20 million per km total for the GDE.

$2 billion doesn’t seem that much for the benefits that a city wide rail system will bring, compared with the costs of constructing new roads.

Forgot to add, has anyone else noticed how Molonglo Valley has been left out of this plan. But by 2015, it should be fairly established.

After reading the report & seeing how they mention that light rail was in Walter Burley’s Griffins original plan for Canberra & with the knowledge that all Government projects take 90 years of talk, 5 years of planing & 5 years working. Canberra may get the light rail by at least 2013.

But I missed in the report how many trams will $500 million get the ACT?

sepi said :

(sepi)”I think it is particularly suitable for Canberra, with the distances between our urban centres.”

I agree Sepi. Canberra is not a conventional city -we are structured more like a group of large towns. We are trying to run an urban-style commuter network in a non-urban environment. It doesn’t work.

Light rail is partly about planning for the future.

I think it is particularly suitable for Canberra, with the distances between our urban centres.

canberra bureaucrat10:12 pm 09 Apr 09

Has light rail worked in other cities with the same population, area and existing road capacity? I would be pleasantly surprised if it has.

You would probably get a pretty good benefit:cost ratio investing in teleportation (with the right assumptions of course).

Light rail works like a dream in many other cities world wide.
Hardly any really big cities exist with just buses alone.
And it is easier to put it in before the city gets too big.

You don’t have to use it – but you should be happy that it would get plenty of other cars off the road.

It would be quicker, simpler and more pleasant than buses. I am confident people would use it.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy7:28 pm 09 Apr 09

Exactly. The buses run reasonably well, even though the routes aren’t great. Surely we’d be better taking advantage of the public transport already in place by improving it and getting more people onto it first.

I am not a fan of the whole ‘if you build it they will come’ concept.

aa said :

if you live in Tuggeranong and work in Belconnen, there’s no direct bus.

http://www.action.act.gov.au/Weekday-2008Network/Route_705.html

RayP – yes, I suppose the ones I’ve done have been for projects we’re trying to turn a decent profit on.

Still I think many of the benefits are quite fanciful/optimistic, and that any project in Canberra is almost certain to rank behind spending the money in a big city, or on major economic infrastructure.

I hope we get it. I think it would be fantastic!

creative_canberran5:24 pm 09 Apr 09

Oh why can’t light rail just go away. How about the ACT spends 2 billion of fast tracking fibre broadband in the ACT… that way we can all telecommute. In the mean time, I like my car and will continues to drive it.

Steady Eddie5:24 pm 09 Apr 09

The Canberra Light Rail network will be opening just after the Very Fast Train and the Multifunction Polis.

Ian,

The problem with using much higher discount rates is that they introduce a short term perspective when light rail advocates are working from a long term perspective.

They don’t think that the benefits of having a light rail sytem in place in 10, 20 or 50 years time should be discounted away to zero.

nexus6 said :

i would like them to spend a bit more on the bike paths though. riding to an interchange, getting on the train with your bike would be great!

As if enough hasn’t been spent already for bike lanes. Put some oil on those squeaking wheels.

If they run them frequently and all night (at least on weekends) and don’t charge too much then it should be good.

It is needed though. According to that report 81% of people in Canberra travel by car with only 7.9% by public transport. If we managed to reduce cars usage by 5% and most of those went to publc transport then you would have about 50% more people using public transport, do you think the current bus network woudl be able to handle that ?

I agree with it. But in the mean time, make buses cheaper and put some proper routes on it. eg if you live in Tuggeranong and work in Belconnen, there’s no direct bus. You have to go to Woden, then Civic then Belco. 90 minutes later, you’ll be there (if you’re lucky that is). Plus it’s way too expensive. It’s cheaper to drive to work and back than it is to catch the bus. If you’re driving say 10km to work (a lot of people drive that far to work), you’ll spend less on petrol than the bus fare.

Oh look, I was right:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/light-rail-not-factored-into-new-bus-hub-design/1477483.aspx

The CM did use a $3.5 billion figure, yet the report states $2 billion.

They can’t even get the numbers right!

if you had a light rail system that just serviced the town centers and didnt stop every 50m like the buses do, i think it would be great. it could even eliminate the need for any buses to run the direct routs between interchanges and free them up to service the actual suburbs more? sounds like a good idea.

i would like them to spend a bit more on the bike paths though. riding to an interchange, getting on the train with your bike would be great!

I’m in favour of it.

As Canberra grows we are going to desperately need something more than Action busses.

And in the meantime – put on more busses, and make them a bit cheaper.

About bloody time.

Although didn’t the CM originally suggest the figure was $3.5 billion, or am I imagining things?

The original VHST from Sydney to Canberra idea from the 90s had a BCR of 1.5, and DoTARS never went ahead with it, eventually scrapping the scope back in 2002.

So what kind of discounting was this calculated on?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy11:34 am 09 Apr 09

I’d think that the money would be much better spent on numerous other things, before even entertaining the idea of spending $2B on a train set for Canberra.

Agreed. We’d be better to widen some roads and put on more buses. And subsidise ticket prices further.

Woody Mann-Caruso11:21 am 09 Apr 09

It means that for every unit of cost you put into it, you’ll get 1.62 times as much back as a benefit. For example, if you give me $1 and I give you $1.62 back, that’s good.

Well, it is until you give me a dollar and I hold on to it for a year, then two years, then five, then hand you back 5c and mutter something about ‘project management issues’ and ‘budget slippage’ and ‘unforseen delays and expenses’.

Just from a quick look – some of the benefits are highly subjective/fanciful, and I know from doing BCAs at work we use much higher discount rates than this analysis has used. Assuming a discount rate of say 15-20% would quickly reduce the BCR below 1.

The fundamental problem for Canberra is that no matter what we do here, it is completely insignificant compared to spending similar money in a major city. eg if we reduced greenhouse gas emissions here by 100% it would be insignificant compared to what could be gained spending the money in say Sydney.

I’d think that the money would be much better spent on numerous other things, before even entertaining the idea of spending $2B on a train set for Canberra.

it’s better than .8 or 1. It means you are getting more than you put into it.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy10:55 am 09 Apr 09

No. The higher the number the greater benefit per cost unit.

Whether 1.62 is good or not, who the hell knows?

Holden Caulfield10:50 am 09 Apr 09

1.62 is that good? Is it better than 42, for example?

Less congestion.. I’ll be cruising around freely in my electric sports car by then 🙂

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.