21 August 2023

Light rail or electric buses down the middle of Adelaide Avenue?

| Peter Strong
Join the conversation
43
Light-rail terminal

Would electric buses be a cheaper and lower-emissions alternative to extending light rail? Photo: Damien Larkins.

We don’t know how much Canberra’s light rail has cost so far, nor how much more it will cost in the future. Why is that? We know it’ll be in the billions of dollars but how many billions?

The government says it can’t tell us because it’s ”commercial-in-confidence”. Rubbish – these are ratepayer funds and all Canberrans have a right to know.

We also haven’t seen any figures on the Green House Gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction of the new light rail.

While much is made of the fact operation of the system will be emissions-free, assuming green energy, there are emissions generated as a result of the steel fabrication processes needed for the rails. The same goes for the wires and other supporting infrastructure. To suggest that light rail is GHG emissions-free is nonsense.

We know that for every tonne of steel produced, 1.4 tonnes of CO2 is also produced and thrown into the atmosphere. So that is likely to be more than 5000 tonnes of emission of CO2 for the Gungahlin part of the light rail. Manufacturing electric buses won’t create anywhere near that output.

So, the ACT Greens should be able to explain why light rail is better for the environment when we could use buses.

READ ALSO PODCAST: The Hoot on Matildas mania, Elizabeth Lee and cinema etiquette

On the cost side of things, I believe we can save Canberra taxpayers more than $3 billion by replacing the light rail with electric buses moving down the centre of Adelaide Avenue – and to destinations far beyond Woden Town Centre. There will still be stations but no rails or overhead lines.

This is not my idea. Many people have suggested from the outset that this option was a cheaper and more sensible approach to this secretive light-rail fantasy of the ACT Government. Perhaps back then we didn’t have good quality electric buses, but we definitely do now.

What is going on? Why the secrecy? Why the continued expenditure of funds that could be spent in key areas such as health and education in the Territory? Or not spent at all and used to reduce the increase in our rates?

Some years ago, it was announced that the ACT Government and UnionsACT had an MOU whereby union officials were given access to tenders made for ACT Government work.

We were told it wasn’t a secret – it was just that no-one was told.

READ ALSO New housing agreement not agreeable to everyone

Why would a government secretly give non-public officials access to commercial-in-confidence information from private-sector businesses?

The union officials don’t report to an Assembly committee. They are not bound by rules, checks and balances like public servants.

The whole aim was to give unions power of veto over decisions by the public service so the right big business firms win the contracts.

It wasn’t long after this that a letter emerged from the head of UnionsACT castigating the Government for sending ministers along to a Master Builders annual dinner without first getting permission from them. Further proof that the government tugs its forelock to the unions.

Now there are allegations of union shenanigans with the tender process for work on Campbell Primary School, suggesting that this agreement still exists. Maybe not in writing per se, more likely it’s an ”understanding”.

Have the unions demanded that the government continue to build an expensive and unnecessary light rail that will add to the emissions problem we all face, when they could build a much cheaper, more efficient, more flexible, less-polluting electric bus network?

Our rates and land taxes are the highest in Australia. Is this why?

Join the conversation

43
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Wow, you still think it’s about the environment?!

Light Rail should continue across the capital, however the route down Adelaide Avenue is less than ideal because of how spread out our city currently is. For the Adelaide Avenue alightment to work, there would need to be some serious densification in Deakin, Yarralumla, Curtin and Hughes. Unless the light rail is going to bypass these places like the rapid routes currently does?

Tom Worthington8:32 am 23 Aug 23

Much of the political heat could be taken out of the light rail versus bus issue, by adopting Brisbane’s approach of “trackless trams”. These are battery powered busses, but double articulated, so they are as big as, and look like, a tram. This avoids having to install rails, overhead power, and new bridges.

If you google Brisbane Metro you’ll find that it connects with the Brisbane rail system. So they have both modes of transport. In other words, it’s not a “light rail versus bus issue”.

Astro,
You’re right it’s not a light rail vs bus issue.

Canberra’s issue is a lack of demand and a non existent business case issue.

Numerous public transport modes could work and be implemented if they were shown to stack up. But of course you’d have to complete the investigative work to show that is the case first.

Funny that you mention the Brisbane metro though, a project that was thoroughly assessed, with detailed investigations, options assessments and a robust business case prepared 7 years ago.

With federal funding provided due to that very well documented need and significant economic benefit that justified it being added to Infrastructure Australia’s priority funding list in 2018.

Trackless trams Tom Worthington? Trackless trams are a waste of money. Maybe you can explain how they are superior to light rail. Trackless trams compete with cars, they are expensive to build and operate and their excessive weight results in significant road damage and maintenance costs. They also break down often and are rough and uncomfortable to travel in. These are just a few of the shortcomings associated with trackless trams. France has seen the drawbacks in introducing trackless trams to their cities and has suspended production.
You suggest Brisbane as an example of a good public transport system. Brisbane has an integrated public transport network which consists of trains, buses, trams and ferries. Sydney and Melbourne also have integrated public transport systems. The Queensland and NSW governments have seen the benefits of introducing light rail and are expanding their networks.
Canberra just has an antiquated bus network.
The conservative and backward looking Canberra Liberals, always stuck in the past have no ideas on how to deal with our public transport needs and our expanding city. They are now taking us to to our fourth light rail election in a row.
We all know how that will turn out!

HiddenDragon8:18 pm 22 Aug 23

“While much is made of the fact operation of the system will be emissions-free, assuming green energy….”

With the NSW and Victoria state governments now belatedly facing up to reality over the need to keep Eraring and Loy Yang producing base-load power for much longer than the green fantasists would wish, this assumption will be somewhat further into an indefinite future – even for a little jurisdiction which is very good at kidding itself that it is already running on 100% renewables.

I’m all for good modern public transport but am yet to be convinced how running down the middle of Adelaide Ave and Yarra Glen meet the public transport need. Awkward access from adjoining suburbs and missing the Deakin commercial area completely. Complex problem needing a more complex solution.

In the ACT what the minister wants we get – like it or lump it. By the way there is now an ACT office of the Nation Building Authority located in the Legislative Assembly.

I must say i am amused at some of the comment’s here in favor of light rail. It reminds me of a die hard football team supporter that can’t admit that their team is, well, not that great. What they fail to remember is that given the state of our hospital system, this is a case of life and death. Any person with a fiber of moral standard would see that prioritizing health over trams is quite vital. Anyway, toys for the boys.

@steve manns
I’m amused at the arrogance of people like you, who seem to think that anyone who is in favour of the light rail is giving health a lower priority. As if throwing billions of dollars at it would suddenly cure the ills (pardon the pun) of the ACT health system.
For the record, I don’t believe that light rail was a good solution for our public transport needs – I’ve stated in the past that an Adelaide OBahn style bus system would have achieved a similar outcome at a fraction of the cost.
Nevertheless we have light rail.
You are entitled to your negative opinion on light rail, but to accuse those who support it of lacking moral standards is pretty pathetic.

JackD,
Most of what you just said is complete bunkum.

“Trackless trams compete with cars”

They can easily be given the same right of way provisions as light rail with their own defined corridors/lanes. But even more beneficially are more flexible being able to run on normal roads as well.

“they are expensive to build and operate”

Cheaper than light rail both to build and operate. Own goal for you here.

“their excessive weight results in significant road damage and maintenance costs.”

As above, still cheaper to operate and maintain than light rail.

eg. Buses don’t come with tracks, wires, poles and the significant level of specific electrical infrastructure and maintenance facilities required to support light rail.

“They also break down often and are rough and uncomfortable to travel in.”

They don’t break down “often” and ride comfort is often a function of the road/corridor design. Also noting that the vast majority of light rail patrons must stand, hardly comfortable am hardly worth spending billions of dollars to support.

But hey, that’s just my opinion based on the actual data from interstate and internationally. I wonder if there was a way we could actually objectively investigate and determine the best option for local conditions?

Hey, I’ve got it. The government could actually complete a detailed options study and prepare a robust business case before making a decision. A decision that would then be an actual informed one.

Nah, why bother, Minister Steele freely admits they don’t need to because the light rail ideological position is enough.

Your defence of the partisan political decision to move forward on the wasteful Light Rail project makes your arguments in other spheres contradictory Jack.

The light rail project is sucking so much money out of limited government funds that other services must suffer.

Why should poorer Canberrans who live in outer areas subsidise an unnecessary white elephant to benefit richer inner city residents and particularly landholders?

Not remotely equitable is it and a damning indictment on the so called “progressives” that support it.

Verbal diarrhoea? You’re starting to become shrill chewy!

Jack D,
Is that comment meant to substitute for a point?

To be expected of course, those unable to think logically often resort to ad hominems and vague, yet meaningless terms to support their evidence free positions.

It’s why politicians and governments are able to manipulate them so easily.

Sorry chewy I just get bored when engaging with Tories. I find that they are illogical and lack knowledge.

Sorry about that!

Jack D,
Lucky I’m not a Tory then, whatever you think that means in the local context.

Although perhaps you are getting bored because you share so many traits?

If the light rail was larger as compared to a metro train system that seriously moves large volumes of passengers from town centres and transport hubs. Then it would be justified especially if it could “by pass” inner city road intersections and traffic lights. Perth metro is a great system. Singapore metro is terrific and remote controlled.
I am told the ACT tram system is average at best and a bad experience when it is standing room only. Not to mention it will never service the out rim suburbs.

“I am told” I know several people who use the tram regularly. They don’t mind it. Even though I live southside I’ve used it a few times. It’s better than the bus, even when it’s standing room only.
It was never designed to service the outer suburbs but to replace the major corridor bus routes.

Leon Arundell11:09 am 22 Aug 23

The Audit Office published the government’s official estimate of the combines cost of light rail stages 2A and 2B – $1,173 million – in its 2021 report, “Canberra Light Rail Stage 2A: Economic Analysis.” That did not include the extra cost of converting trams for wire-free operation.
The environmental impact statement for Stage 1 of light rail estimated that its construction would cause 60,854 tonnes of CO2-e emissions.
Transport Canberra’s 454 diesel and CNG buses cause 34,000 tonnes of emissions each year. The government plans to replace them all with electric buses by 2040. One third of them have been in service since 1993, and will need to be replaced soon. Sunday’s Canberra Times reported that the government will spend more than $83 million on 90 new electric buses.
According to the government’s most recent estimate, bus rapid transit would cost 53% less than light rail, and at that cost would generate more than 90% of the benefits of light rail.
For the cost of building light rail from Civic to Woden, we could have bus rapid transit from Civic to Tuggeranong.

Stephen Saunders10:07 am 22 Aug 23

Sure, Barr’s annoying, but voters have voted for this, in 2016 and 2020. They will again, in 2024. The existing line is popular, carrying nearly 1/4 of all our transit.

And yet, the only thing that matters is the armchair edicts of Peter Strong. 400 cities enjoy light rail, but somehow, it causes Canberra to lose its mind.

Except we never “voted for this”, we don’t get a say in single issues at the ballot box.

Although in saying that popularity is a woeful metric for assessing good governance for infrastructure planning regardless. The general population is not equipped to assess the benefits and costs across the entire government and the opportunity costs of inefficient expenditure. People will and do support bad projects, pork barrelling is frowned on as a form of corruption, so it’s nothing to be celebrated or accepted as normal practice.

A billion dollars for a few kilometres is probably why

Source? I seriously doubt this claim and hope to goodness you are not involved in governing the country.

This article uses some poor arguments (emissions, unions) to argue against light rail when it’s far more simple than that.

The government should be engaging in proper planning processes which means they would have robust options assessments and business cases to ensure taxpayer funds are used in the most efficient manner.

But they don’t because this is a political decision that is being continued due to the bloody minded ideology of the ALP/Greens who have become too politically wedded to the idea to even consider alternatives.

If they believe that Light Rail makes sense now, they should do the proper investigations and due diligence to show it to be the case. Their efforts in this space on Stage 1 were woeful, Stage 2 and beyond assessments are almost non existent.

It’s a disgraceful failure of governance and we will all end up paying for it.

It might be worth the OP author brushing up on what a Public Private Partnership (PPP) is.

Light rail in Canberra was built as a PPP and so the upfront build and finance costs are largely paid for by the private partner. The public then pays them back over time via the revenues that the private partner receives for operating the infrastructure. The public isn’t actually the one paying for the upfront build in such a model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%E2%80%93private_partnership

This is a non-sequitur – the OP didnt mention PPP. In any case, whether the ACT issued bonds to finance it or paid some commercial org to build it with a premium-for-laziness over the bond rate to finance it using essentially a hire-purchase arrangement (with $375 million downpayment and the rest on the never-never) isnt the core argument.

BTW, Richard Denniss, who supported light rail but decried how it was going to be funded effectively skewers PPPs: “The modern obsession with public-private partnerships has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with rubbery accounting…. The solution is as simple as it is expensive; you pay someone to hide the debt for you. That is what a public-private partnership really is.” https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6155007/if-we-build-it-they-will-come-and-take-the-profit/

Note also that the ACT spent well over $100m on “agency costs” for Stage 1, and has already spent over $500m in contracts for the many confidential Stage 2 studies, raising London Crt, expanding the tram depot and paying for tram batteries. The real cost beggars belief.

GrumpyGrandpa9:19 am 22 Aug 23

As far as emissions go, the ACCC has given a warning that EVs should not br referred to as Zero Emissions, because it is deceptive to ignore the emissions cost during mining, manufacturing and shipping.

The same has to be said of LR.

I’m not against EVs as such, but it’s horses for courses. Fine for a small around town vehicle, but weight and temperature extremes aren’t the friend of electric batteries. In my opinion, buses fall into that category of being questionable, particularly when the demand for Lithium is outstripping the mining capacity of out largest companies. Source: Rio Tinto.

All of that said, LR along Adelaide Ave as a form of public transport is a poor option as compared to buses, whether diesel or battery. Buses go faster, have route flexibility and don’t require the grossly expensive laying of steel tracks.

Whether LR is about Unions, I question that. I’m sure the TWU, who represent the bus drivers, would argue that LR isn’t in their members interests.

LR is solely about the ACT Government’s 70/30 ideology; apartment living, taking cars off the road and killing the option of families having a backyard.

We live in Ulladulla but have a Unit in Canberra, our EV makes the trip easy and is a very pleasant way to travel. Similarly our trips to Sydney or no problem so not sure what this “small around town vehicle” point is about – it is in all areas a car for traditional use.

GrumpyGrandpa10:34 pm 22 Aug 23

proth57,
I take your point. An EV can with good planning travel outside the cities and this will improve as more charging facilities get established.

I was trying to draw a comparison between a car and a heavy vehicle like a bus or truck.

The ACT Government recently bought an electric firetruck at double the price of a conventional diesel. For the price difference, the government could have given 20,000 homes free solar panels and made a real difference to both our emissions and saved us a few dollars on our power bills.

Wow! An article critical of the Canberra Council on RiotACT!!!! And yes, the whole of the Canberra bus fleet could be electric with much less cost and true flexibility, but the developers who support Andy Barr and his clown show don’t want them. Tiddly little units built by greedy developers need to be right alongside permanent public transport, that is their demand.

100% for more busses on dedicated bus lanes ratger than light rail. It’s significantly cheaper, more flexible and way faster to rollout. That way canberra can actually get properly connected with public transport within our lifetimes

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.