2 May 2024

Light rail stage 1 numbers add up to a problem for Liberals

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
51
light rail

Light rail has been a boon for the inner north. Photo: Jack McCracken.

It hasn’t taken long. The week Transport Minister Chris Steel gets back from leave and a brand new report from Transport Canberra drops on the benefits of light rail.

It won’t be the last.

The Canberra Liberals’ tramless public transport policy has received a fair reception, even from the ACT’s public transport lobby. That’s because many of the proposals on buses mirror theirs.

But the Public Transport Association of Canberra still backs light rail as the big people mover in a multi-modal system. It’s just frustrated by the slow pace of extending the Gungahlin to City line.

READ ALSO ACT Greens’ ‘Big Bus Plan’ promises to deliver 100 more buses, 200 extra drivers, in two years

The new Transport Canberra report – and for some, the agency’s authorship discredits it straight away – lists a bunch of numbers showing how the first stage has been beneficial for commuters, drivers, businesses, developers and, by extension, homeowners and tenants.

The passenger numbers are impressive, especially when you consider the period takes in the pandemic, and even if you argue Gungahlin residents don’t have much choice other than the car or light rail to get to the city, there is no denying the line’s popularity in the inner north.

Customer satisfaction remains very high, and people genuinely like the clean, smooth ride the light rail vehicles offer.

Critics will also challenge the economic data, arguing much of the development would have occurred anyway.

Some development perhaps, but not the scale of what has happened along the corridor.

The increase in land values, the construction pipeline and the growth of businesses fit the pattern associated with building a fixed-line transit corridor.

Of course, Transport Canberra will make the numbers sing for light rail as much as possible, but to argue light rail stage 1 has not been good for the north side of the city is to deny reality.

The Canberra Liberals say light rail has never been just about public transport. They are right. However, the ACT Government has always presented light rail as a mass transit solution and a vehicle for economic development.

Right, show us the business case for stage 2B so Canberrans can make a proper call on the project.

That argument is going nowhere because the government can’t or will not do that ahead of any contract negotiations.

In the meantime, the Liberals can throw around numbers that can’t be confirmed and say to Canberrans we can’t afford this because there is no doubt the bill will have a lot of zeros.

render of light rail

Can light rail do the same for the southern corridor as it has for the north? Image: ACT Government.

The government counters that the ACT can’t afford to put in place plans for a mass transit system for a city that in coming decades will approach 700,000 to a million people on current growth trajectories and a road network groaning with motor vehicles.

Don’t compare the two policies based on what Canberra is today but on what it will become. Remember, this is a project that will benefit generations to come.

The implication of the Transport Canberra analysis is that the south – and that means eventually beyond Woden – should not be denied the benefits that the north now enjoys. Nor other areas of Canberra, such as Belconnen.

But stage 2B is a devilishly more difficult proposition than stage 1 and 2A, not just the engineering challenges but also the multiple approval hurdles.

The government is also juggling other infrastructure projects, financing and sourcing materials and people.

READ ALSO Budget to include more resources to tackle online sexual violence

Discomfort about the cost, extended timeline, and a need for a signature electoral point of difference have reinvigorated the Liberals’ instinctive opposition to light rail. But will voters buy that electric buses alone will do the job, even with an expanded fleet?

And will buses in transit lanes bring the same economic benefits as a light rail line?

The Transport Canberra analysis comes with caveats, but its basic premise can’t be dismissed.

The Canberra Liberals will have to argue that the route through the parliamentary zone and inner south to Woden is a different proposition, and lower voters’ horizons.

People in other areas of Canberra will also have to accept that light rail may never come to their part of town.

Expect more to come from the government.

Join the conversation

51
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
GrumpyGrandpa6:50 pm 05 May 24

I can’t see how LR Gunners to the City is even relevant. The travel time Gunners to the City is equivalent or slightly quicker than a bus, because of traffic light sequencing and LR being able to travel at up to 10km faster than the on-road bus.
LR to Woden gains none of those advantages and as a form of public transport, it represents a slower option for commuters.
The author’s argument is based on the numbers of commuters using LR between Gunners and the City. It must be remembered that the government removed buses from Northbourne and redirected them to feed passengers to LR.
Let’s make no mistake, LR isn’t about public transport, it’s about property sales and the construction of 2 bedroom 75m2 apartments along the train line.
I quite like LR Gunners to the City. I have used it a number of times, however, I live in Tuggeranong and for anyone south of the City, I think the issue is which form of public transport will get me to the City the quickest?
The bus wins.

“Don’t compare the two policies based on what Canberra is today but on what it will become. Remember, this is a project that will benefit generations to come.”

At a time of an unprecedented COL crisis, how out of touch and arrogant are you to ask us to pay for a project that could benefit (probably only) next generations to come?

The sensible thing to do when there is a high and persistent inflation is to cancel any costly projects; it is crazy to start one.

I’m glad our forebears didn’t think like that; we’d have no Commonwealth Ave Bridge, no Parliament House, no Lake Burley Griffin, no Northbourne Ave etc.

astro2 And there were no ACT residents paying through the nose and rates for it. Those were federally funded, weren’t they?

Light rail also has Federal funding commitment. Besides, we pay rates and taxes so either way, infrastructure is paid for by tax and rate payers. Not sure why you’re so upset about less than 1% of the ACT Budget anyway. Perhaps you could have a look at the other 99% to see where savings could be made (including the roads budget).

1% of the budget for one public transport route used by less than 2% of the population daily.

And when compared to the total transport budget which is a far more relevant comparison, it’s a massive impost.

And that’s only for one stage of Light Rail. A stage that was the cheapest and most beneficial to construct and operate. Future stages are going to be significantly more expensive, with far less benefits.

If our “forebears” thought as some here do, the Territory would be in an even worse financial position than we already are.

Those that use these types of “vision” arguments, do so because they know it allows them to put forward fact free positions that never need to be justified. It allows any type of wasteful spending and pork barrelling to greenlit. It is one of the exact reasons why we have structured and objective infrastructure assessment frameworks to minimise wasteful and corrupt practices.

1% of the budget and 16.5 million registered trips. Once you start multiplying that out to future stages it’s a compelling argument not just for future generations but for the existing Canberra population which has voted with their feet on light rail.

LOL what?

At least try to put something remotely like a logical point together.

Multiplying out wasted spending, makes it worse not better.

Try digging up, silly.

Except you can’t multiply that out because it is not comparing apples to apples. ‘past performance does not guarantee future performance’.

Stage 2A just chewed up another 1% of budget for a kilometre extension that will carry just a few passengers.

It’s comparing light rail to light rail and the popularity of light rail as a transport mode.

The “popularity” of light rail that sees patronage not meeting the projected rates used in the business case to justify the project, despite higher than expected population growth in the ACT since its construction.

….and lower due to Covid (they couldn’t factor that one in to the original business case). Still , 16.5 million registered trips easily justifies <1% of the budget.

Yes, the patronage is lower due to COVID which has fundamentally shifted work and transport patterns across Canberra. Whilst they couldn’t factor that into the original business case, they can and should factor it into the assessment of how the system is performing. Along with any plans for expansion.

But good to see you admit that the projected patronage rates have not been met to date.

“Still , 16.5 million registered trips easily justifies <1% of the budget."

Well, that's certainly an opinion for 5 years of usage. But I'd ask what objective metrics you are using to believe it?

16 million trips in 5 years in a city of our population really isn’t anything to boast about.

HiddenDragon8:00 pm 03 May 24

For some months there has been increasing concern expressed by the national economic commentariat about the ballooning debt of the state government of Victoria – driven largely by the costs of grand(iose) infrastructure projects and a very rapid growth in state public sector running costs.

More recently, attention has turned to the fact that the federation has a somewhat smaller scale, but (at least) equally fiscally delinquent jurisdiction – i.e. the place that most Rioters call home –

https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/rein-in-states-spending-to-help-rba-chalmers-told-20240429-p5fnal

The gist of that paywalled article is contained in this Tweet, which includes the chilling observation that “the ACT cannot structurally run a budget surplus” and is on “an unsustainable path and could ultimately require a federal bailout” –

https://twitter.com/cjoye/status/1785210599733071874

The same view of the ACT’s finances has been set out in a series of detailed articles by former Chief Minister Jon Stanhope and former senior ACT Treasury official Khalid Ahmed published by another local media outlet.

The Transport Canberra “analysis” of light rail Stage 1 is a passing sideshow, at best – the truly problematic numbers for light rail Stage 2B and beyond is how a sinking ACT budget can fund it – regardless of how many Canberrans think that it’s a nice idea and that they are entitled to it because we’re the national capital and an affluent city etc. etc.

As a large part of the route for stage 2B runs through Commonwealth land (and will be servicing the cybersecurity precinct which is estimated to have 5000 employees) there will be significant Federal funding for the project. if you’re worried about the transport budget you would also need to include the spending on roads as well as rail.

Yes I’m one of the many Gungahlin residents who when I occasionally have to go to civic will drive and park and catch the tram. I probably wouldn’t do it in a bus though buses are free if you don’t want to pay. The pro light rail fans don’t realise that those of us against it aren’t saying light rail is crap but it’s too expensive and rather than the astronomical rates that we pay, Bus transit lanes would have been more cost effective and affordable.

“The new Transport Canberra report – and for some, the agency’s authorship discredits it straight away”

Yes Ian, because it’s not an impartial analysis, it’s a publicity piece to try and sell their preferred solution. What were you expecting, that they’d say “wow we really stuffed up with that one”?

“and even if you argue Gungahlin residents don’t have much choice other than the car or light rail to get to the city, there is no denying the line’s popularity in the inner north.”

You’re really going to openly admit that all other choice has been removed and people were forced into using the tram and immediately moving onto talking about its popularity in the next sentence?

“Critics will also challenge the economic data, arguing much of the development would have occurred anyway.”

“Some development perhaps, but not the scale of what has happened along the corridor.”

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it wouldn’t? How about comparing the outcome to the implementation of rapid transit bus lanes that cost half the price?

“Right, show us the business case for stage 2B so Canberrans can make a proper call on the project.”

Yes Ian, this is how projects work in the real world. You don’t just throw billions of dollars into a project without finding out if it actually makes financial sense or if there are other, superior solutions.

The “trust us bro” solution to project management would never work anywhere else and the members of our local council would quickly find themselves unemployed if they tried running projects like this outside of their little Canberra government bubble.

The scepticism exhibited to ‘in house’ reports , advice, etc has led to the enormously costly egregious use of consultants (think PWC) and a mistaken belief that any ordinary Joe, equipped with a modicum of relevant knowledge, from somewhere else must be a better expert and ethically sound.
If you think the ‘in house’ report my be too partial, consider that a carefully drafted brief given to consultants is just as capable of producing an equally partial outcome.

Some of the consultants are even half a world away, up in the USA!

“… a carefully drafted brief given to consultants is just as capable of producing an equally partial outcome”

In addition, it’s a rare consultant that will bite the hand that feeds them.

As with RS, I’m sceptical of the supposed inherent value of “independence” when it comes to consultancy. That’s after a career as a consultant. Far better is to look at the methodology, and the quality of both the data and the analysis.

Ian Bushnell writes that the “passenger numbers are very impressive.”

So other than being below expected passenger counts and being one of the lowest passenger carrying light rail services in the entire world at amongst the most expensive per kilometre construction costs, could fanboy Ian please give readers some insight into why the passenger numbers are impressive?

Maybe Ian is actually Chris Steel under a nom de plume.

You’re just making stuff up. With 13,287 average weekday journeys, there are 20 systems with lower ridership in the US alone.

Please provide the data and confirm you comparing like with like and not just boxcar or sightseeing style Light Rail.
I’d imagine those US Cities if similar to Canberra would have concern with their low passenger take up.

Stephen Saunders9:45 am 03 May 24

Love your work, Chewy. ACT Liberals are signing up for their third light-rail election in 12 years. Will they learn anything from the experience? Doubtful…

Stephen,
I think the local Liberals incompetence and dearth of talent is one of the reasons why the government has been able to get away with such clear failures of goverance.

It’s like Dumb and Dumber and we are all paying for it.

Imagine if journalists actually did their job instead of writing puff pieces like this.

No detailed analysis of the paucity of evidence in the Transport Canberra report, you apparently just need to drink the Kool Aid to see how wonderful Light Rail is.

“The passenger numbers are impressive, especially when you consider the period takes in the pandemic”

No they aren’t. They are significantly lower than those used in the business case for light rail. And even then, that transport benefit only accounted for 20% of the total project benefits. So they currently aren’t meeting targets despite population growth being significantly higher than projected.

“Customer satisfaction remains very high, and people genuinely like the clean, smooth ride the light rail vehicles offer.”

Yes, there’s not doubt it works, but at what cost? A door to door Limousine service would also be popular.

“Some development perhaps, but not the scale of what has happened along the corridor.”

And yet, the government nor the author has provided a shred of evidence to support the specific light rail driven development. The government sold off a significant amount of land along the corridor along with enacting planning changes to permit higher development use. Of course development has occurred.

No doubt “some” development has occurred due to light rail, but the business case used this as the predominant benefit. And even then, the cost benefit ratio was barely above 1 and nowhere near what is typically investment grade for this type of project.

“The increase in land values, the construction pipeline and the growth of businesses fit the pattern associated with building a fixed-line transit corridor.”

So we spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for private landholders to benefit from increased land value? And you think this is a good thing?

“Right, show us the business case for stage 2B so Canberrans can make a proper call on the project.
That argument is going nowhere because the government can’t or will not do that ahead of any contract negotiations.”

They most definitely can release the business case (if it exists). The only reason they won’t is due to the fact that politically it will be inconvenient due to the clear and obvious fact that the project is not feasible.

Any objective journalist would be peppering the government to release the supporting evidence.

If only we had some.

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.