How are we paying for light rail in Canberra?

Since 2012 we have seen almost every action and decision of the ACT Government linked to light rail by opponents of better public transport. They see light rail behind every government decision and spending announcement. It’s a deceptive, shallow and misleading campaign that the public is tired of. 

My intention in stepping through the economic arguments in this article is to assure you that the big numbers are not scary numbers, that the Territory is in a position to afford light rail, and that you are paying for light rail in the same way as you pay for any other public service provided by the government, and that your rates are not increasing to pay for light rail.

Neglecting road and public transport in Gungahlin 20 years ago, has had negative impacts on Canberra today. Northbourne Avenue is still Canberra’s most congested road, despite Majura Parkway and the GDE being built.

Stage One of Canberra’s light rail network is now underway. The long suffering residents of Gungahlin and north Canberra that endure road congestion and jam-packed ACTION buses, can travel past light rail construction and know that a better alternative to driving and parking every day, or riding in sardine packed bus (if it doesn’t drive past them already full), is on schedule to commence in 2018. 

Despite this overwhelmingly obvious need for improved public transport, the community has been subjected to increasingly shrill and unbalanced arguments from opponents of public transport. Many of the arguments against light rail are focussed on the economics.

The economic claims fall into several broad categories: that the costs don’t ‘stack up’, light rail is unaffordable, the money could be spent elsewhere (with health and education the key areas), and too much money is being spent in Gungahlin to benefit too few people. Then there is the claim that rates are rising to pay for light rail.

Let’s examine these various claims one by one.

The ACT Budget papers for 2016/2017 show that health, education and disability services are 56% of the total budget, and public transport only 4%. Light rail was allocated 0.4% of the budget, to pay for the Capital Metro Agency. A contract for the construction and operation of light rail stage one was signed in 2016. We now know that the cost of light rail will be $65 million a year for 20 years.

The $65 million a year cost for light rail does ‘stack up’. Public transport is a service delivered by the government in the same way as it delivers health services, educates our children and collects our rubbish. We pay for all these services, even if we don’t use them.

We don’t ask students to pay for their education (although their parents can choose private schools), we don’t ask those who can't pay for money before medical treatment (although they can privately insure or use private medical facilities), and we don’t charge the blind or the elderly the full cost of a bus ride.

The reason we don’t do this is that there are public expectations that the money used by the government on our behalf will be expended equitably. In areas that may never benefit us directly. As Canberra expands and grows to half a million residents, we need to provide support for that growth and manage it so it doesn’t negatively impact us directly or indirectly. Public transport is no different, and light rail is no different.

Why is it important that the costs ‘stack up’? If we want public transport to be profitable, we need to insist the government charge the full cost of every trip to every bus passenger, and dramatically reduce the salaries the ACTION workforce enjoys. It is unlikely that either side of politics would adopt this view.

The real question is – what are the costs of not having public transport? The community accept that public transport needs to be provided as it benefits all sectors of society and the cost of not providing public transport would lead to massive road congestion. Those buses that take your children to school, or ferry you from Floriade and Raiders games, would still need to be provided for in some way.

Privatising ACTION would not bring about any budget joy as the public would still have expectations such as subsidised school fares, concessions for pensioners and health care card holders. 

Political realities would dictate government subsidies to private operators to perform services in areas where the private operator would not be able to profitably operate a route.

Because we demand certain concessions for different sectors of society, public transport may never be profitable. Is this wrong?  The cost of public transport is the same as any other service that we expect the government to deliver. This is the reality of all public transport services across Australia. 

The main focus should be on delivering public transport in the most efficient way, in cost and service delivery.

The fare box of ACTION Buses provides only 20% of its funding, and that amount has been declining as patronage declines. If we want that revenue to increase, it needs to come from full fare paying adult passengers that commute every day. Light rail is a proven way to increase public transport patronage. This has been recently demonstrated by Gold Coast light rail.

Light rail is proven to attract and increase public transport patronage, and is cheaper to operate over the longer term than buses. When a truly integrated public transport system exists, public transport use rises and road congestion decreases. In Canberra public transport use has decreased and road congestion increased.  Buses alone cannot serve our current or future public transport needs.

The other claim of the anti public transport forces is that light rail is unaffordable. They quote the total project cost of $930 million and fulminate about this cost. They invent a fictional cost of $1.8 billion.

They don’t tell you that this will be paid over 20 years. That the actual cost to the ACT is $65 million a year, for twenty years. That this is how most infrastructure assets are paid for. They realise this figure is affordable, and pretend it doesn’t exist.

Paying for light rail over twenty years is the same way that we all pay for a home when we seek a mortgage. Few of us are in the position of paying for a home from the money we earn this year. It is the sensible way to acquire any asset. 

Where is this money coming from then?

The majority of the money to pay for light rail will come from selling assets such as ACTTAB and old public housing stock. These assets aren’t leaving the ACT; they have transferred ownership and the money is being reinvested in the ACT.

New public housing of better quality is being built to house the tenants that are relocating, and this is part of a long-term program to improve public housing stock. No tenant will be homeless as a result, and will certainly be rehoused in better quality housing than the rundown housing along Northbourne Avenue. 

Recycling these assets is a very successful way to fund new public transport infrastructure, spark urban renewal along a tired corridor and rehouse public tenants in better quality housing. The benefits transcend public transport and benefit several areas of our economy such as employment and construction.

The asset recycling program has already raised  $400 million of the expected $930 million before the first payment to the Canberra Metro consortium is required (in 2018, the first year of light rail operations). The Federal Liberal government has also contributed $66 million towards this project, as it is seen as a way to boost productivity.  

The rest of the money for light rail will come from the ACT Government via General Government Service revenue totalling around $5.1 billion in 2016/17. Commonwealth Grants are over 40% of this $5.1 billion, our rates less than 20% at $447 million. Interestingly the amount received from payroll tax was almost identical to the amount received from rates, yet I have never heard anyone complain that payroll tax is increasing to pay for light rail.

If we can’t pay for $65 million a year for 20 years out of $5.1 billion dollars a year (in 2016 terms), we are in bigger trouble than cancelling light rail will solve. It is a small one percent of our annual budget that is entirely manageable and a sound investment in our future. Most people’s car payments are greater than 1 percent of their annual income.

The selfish argument that light rail will only benefit a small percentage of the population is also false. Gungahlin’s population will be at 100 thousand within ten years. Based on ABS statistics from the 2011 census, the corridor for light rail Stage One that takes in much of North Canberra, has 9% of Canberra’s population within one kilometre of the light rail line.

That doesn’t take into account the population of Woden or the Inner South of Canberra that would benefit from the Stage Two extension. That doesn’t take into account the people that would catch one of the more frequent integrated bus services to a light rail station. That doesn’t take into account those that will use the free ‘Park and Ride’ instead of paying around ten dollars a day to park their car in Civic or the Parliamentary Triangle.

It is also selfish and disingenuous to object to public funds being spent in areas that don’t directly benefit the individual. You may never need to use a sewage pipe in Theodore, but the greater public of Canberra benefit from a sewerage system. Public transport and road infrastructure are exactly the same.

Public infrastructure is for the general use and benefit of us all. Schools and hospitals are expensive to construct and staff, but no one objects to publicly funded health service or schools, even if we haven’t used them in years. They may be used by friends or loved ones, or ourselves at some point in the future.

No one uses every road in the ACT. However we all contribute to the funding and construction of these roads. People in Canberra’s north may never use the Monaro Highway, but they appreciate and understand how these roads benefit people in other areas of Canberra, including friends and family. Light rail stage one and stage two are no different. 

Finally, let us look at your rates. The ACT Government went to the 2012 Assembly election with a range of taxation reform measures. It proposed removing stamp duty and inequitable taxes and slowly increasing rates. In the face of a concerted ‘your rates will triple’ campaign from the Canberra Liberals, the public returned the Government.

It was a courageous election policy, so courageous that Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has supported it, and described the political difficulty in securing this type of taxation reform as ‘ten out of ten’. It is a taxation reform that almost all economists recommend other states adopt; yet they lack the political will to attempt it. 

Our taxation reform is designed to ensure a predictable income stream buffered from the stamp duty property boom and bust cycle. Stamp duty has been reduced; eventually it will be removed altogether. There have also been cuts to insurance taxes, car taxes and payroll taxes.

This provides a more predictable stream of income that prevents slashing services in years when stamp duty income suffers from a real estate ‘bust’ period. No one likes paying bills, and no one likes rates increasing, but they would also complain and be materially impacted if services had to be cut if the real estate market collapsed

The ‘triple your rates’ campaign ran in 2012 is again being run by the Opposition, although as the tripling didn’t occur, they are now referring to rates increases as ‘unfair’. Yes our rates will steadily increase. Stamp duty elimination is only a part of that. Rates are also increasing as our home values increase.

Note that the fear campaign doesn’t have a promise of reversing taxation reform and reintroducing the inherently illogical stamp duty grab.

The real issue for this election campaign is this - are the increases in rates related to light rail? No. 

Categorically they are not. As shown earlier, rates are less than 20% of our total budget. Light rail is not being paid for from your rates. To suggest that rates will increase to pay for light rail is a deceptive fear campaign not based on any evidence.

When light rail begins operation, the ACT Government will pay the private operator an annual fee to operate the light rail service and pay the balance of the construction cost. In twenty years, the consortium operating light rail on our behalf will hand the asset back to the ACT government, and we will have a workforce and administration with the experience to manage the network. 

The annual payment to the Canberra Metro consortium will be $65 million or 1% of our current annual budget. In 2036 that $65 million will be a fraction of the annual budget of the ACT. Recall that the Commonwealth Grants totalled $5.1 billion dollars.

Funds used for major projects are usually raised through asset sales, Commonwealth Grants and borrowings. That is what is happening in the ACT. We aren’t paying for light rail from your rates, and they aren’t increasing to pay for light rail.

When you look at all slices of the budget pie, 1% is not much compared to 56%. There may be room for reform and productivity savings in the ACT Health and education sectors; and this would bring about far greater benefits on the front line of services than taking the 1% allocated for light rail and having to endure the future costs associated with road congestion and the drag on productivity that this would result in.

The case stacks up for light rail.

For more frequent updates on Capital Metro and light rail related news, please visit our Facebook page 'Light Rail for Canberra'.  

Can Light Rail work for Canberra?

Proposed Capital Metro light rail

The recent decision taken by the ACT Government to proceed with the development of a light rail system for Canberra has sparked significant controversy within the community, prompting many locals to take to social media and news websites expressing negative view points and dire warnings of committing to this ‘white elephant’.

Notably, the ACT Opposition have made the declaration they will stop the project if they were to win the 2016 local election, evidently sensing enough opposition to leverage a victory based on the contentious issue. One then, is subsequently prompted to ask, is the light rail such a bad idea? Is the project destined to become the ‘white elephant’ some people are convinced it will?

There are numerous examples of light rail projects around the world from which the answers to these questions can be ascertained. Most notably, many examples are provided by projects in North American cities whose urban planning policies have been similarly reflected in Australia since shortly after World War 2, driven largely by the advent of high levels of car ownership, cheap fuel and a strong sense of individualism.

The large dormitory suburb, full of single family houses with the two car garage and large back yard, isolated from all other urban functions, but connected by networks of high speed roadways is a well known urban form on our two continents. The downsides to this type of urban form, i.e. urban sprawl, are manifold, not least of which is the ever-increasing congestion and daily commute for the majority of city dwellers contributing to significant impacts in economic productivity, quality of life and environmental problems.

As a result there has been a recent explosion of interest within North American cities for light rail and redevelopment projects aimed specifically at combating urban sprawl.

ACT light rail commitment will pay major dividends

(published in the Canberra Times, 6 June 2014)

The announcement in Tuesday's ACT budget of $21.3 million for the Capital Metro Agency is yet another positive commitment to light rail and improved public transport from the ACT government.

After a very slow start in staffing the Capital Metro Agency, and months of silence between public announcements, it is clear that behind the scenes the Capital Metro Agency staff are working away on engineering, financing and planning projects.

Into these long silences, the Canberra Liberals have been injecting doubt about the project into the public discussion.

At the last Assembly election both Labor and the Greens had light rail policies and the Canberra public were aware what they would get if the Greens/Labor government was returned. The Canberra Liberals had no public transport policy at that election, and have no public transport policy now.

The main attack on Capital Metro seems to focus on the cost, and whether Canberra really needs better public transport. The other claim is that the light rail project is a form of indulgence to keep Green MLA Shane Rattenbury’s support in the Assembly. Both claims are wrong, and misplaced.

There is strong community support for light rail, and there has been for many years. It is a public transport concept that people realise can improve both public transport patronage and the future shape of Canberra.

There is also broad support for light rail from all three of Canberra’s major political parties; some Canberra Liberals are members of ACT Light Rail, a community group that has been campaigning for improved public transport in the Canberra region for more than a decade. When the Canberra Liberals publicly posture against the project, it is not a true representation of public support – it is naked politics.

Although the focus is on the cost of Capital Metro, little focus has been placed on the costs of not building this first stage of Canberra’s light rail: a continuing decline in public transport patronage, the productivity loss, the cost to families owning multiple cars, and the lost economic opportunity from using open space as car parking for 10 hours a day.

The opportunity to redevelop Northbourne Avenue, decrease congestion and guide higher density along transit corridors are compelling reasons for beginning the network between Gungahlin and Civic. In future, other parts of Canberra will benefit when the network is extended across the lake.

A nagging doubt in some people’s minds is the affordability of the light rail project. That needs to be put into perspective. The ACT has an economy of $4 billion a year and rising. The ACT government
has committed to a territory-wide infrastructure program that will total $2.5 billion over four years. The cost of Capital Metro is around $620 million, spread over three years. The initial phase of Capital Metro will include rolling stock and maintenance and stabling infrastructure – future extensions will be much cheaper.

Public transport is an infrastructure investment, which provides benefits to all sectors of the community. It is not a tired government's vanity project.  However, the model that the ACT
government selects to fund the project must be announced and it must be sold well to the public.  Mishandling this aspect will lead to long-term political headaches for the government.

Although the government has announced that it prefers a public-private partnership, several thought bubbles regarding levies and extra taxes have been floated through the media. The raising and handling of the money for this project will inevitably colour the public’s view of it. It is fair to say the ALP government has a somewhat chequered past when it comes to managing major projects.

Regardless of where the money to build light rail comes from, $600 million over three years is an affordable major project. It is about the same cost that is spent on ACT roads annually. Unlike the construction or repair of an ordinary road, the delivery of Capital Metro will have significant benefits to the Canberra economy and the quality of life of residents.

The Liberal and Labor federal governments have preferred not to invest in ACT public transport infrastructure. The current federal government wants to invest in the "roads of the 21st century". The ACT should seize this opportunity to pay for its own public transport infrastructure and ask the federal government to pay for our roads. That is surely a proposal that would make the Canberra Liberals happy.

This year is a crucial year for the light rail project, as financing and engineering plans must both be finalised in order for construction to begin on schedule in early 2016. If properly managed the project can be delivered on time and on budget. By providing an extra $21 million for Capital Metro in this year's budget at least one tier of government is demonstrating that it is serious about Canberra’s transport requirements.

When we think of Canberra’s future we should think of a sophisticated city that is easy to move around, that offers easy access to our homes and public venues. The trips between the places we work and the places we live should be short and comfortable. Both the private car and better public transport are the key to this, not one or the other.

As declining public transport patronage rates show, we have outgrown the ability of a bus-only public transport system to move us around. The ACT government realises this and is working on a better system, that is scalable, for our future.

Our city is growing and we need to choose whether we are a city designed for people, or the private car. A well-run light rail network will be the backbone of a liveable city. Canberra is not just another town in Australia, it is our nation's capital and it deserves world-class public transport, not five cars in each driveway.

Damien Haas is chairman of ACT Light Rail, the peak public transport lobby group in the Canberra region. Mr Haas is not a member of any party, but assisted Liberal candidate Matt Watts at the last Assembly election.

For more frequent updates on Capital Metro and light rail related news, please visit our Facebook page 'Light Rail for Canberra'.  

Heavy price will be paid if brakes are applied to the push for light rail in Canberra

For those that attended the recent forum at the Assembly where Professor Newman spoke, nothing in this article will surprise you.  Its a very neat summary of the arguments for a light rail, and the way in which it can be paid for.

From the Canberra Times April 21 2013

Tony Trobe talks to Peter Newman, Curtin University professor of sustainability and author of Towards a More Sustainable Canberra.

TT: Does Canberra need a light rail?

PN: Canberra is one of the most car-dependent cities in the world. It has the highest car use per capita of all Australian cities and its public transport is in decline after being one of the best cities in Australia for buses. All cities in Australia that have built rail options in recent years are rapidly growing in public transport patronage. Most cities with rail across the globe are growing rapidly in this option. US cities building light rail have had growth of about 6 per cent per year. Car dependence is increasingly an economic, environmental and social burden. Cities that are heavily car dependent will be less competitive, more vulnerable to oil and carbon constraints and more inequitable.

TT: Does Canberra deserve a light rail?

 

PN: At last count, there were 545 cities with light rail. There are now 118 cities with populations under 150,000 that have light rail or are constructing light rail. It is no longer the case that any city must be large and dense to deserve a rail system. That was said about Perth and was proved wrong. Each of Perth's north and south corridors that have had a rail project constructed were about the size and density of Canberra, each were dramatically successful due to their careful integration with feeder buses and each were bitterly opposed by transport planners stuck in an old paradigm. The recent election was fought almost entirely on which rail options were preferred - in reality, both the Coalition's MAX light rail and the Opposition's Martinet heavy rail will be needed and will eventually be built. All the small cities of Australia are planning light rail including Hobart, Newcastle, Cairns, Darwin, Geelong and even Parramatta.

TT: Can Canberra pull off a light rail?

PN: A Canberra light rail will need to have a good benefit-cost ratio. It will need to be part of an integrated plan with bus feeders and integrated ticketing and it will need a clear land-use plan, showing how it will help create a more productive and sustainable built form in Canberra. The latest tool for enabling this to happen is value capture. It can mean underused land near the train could be sold off or developed as part of the package to fund the line. A more sophisticated version is based on the reality that residential and commercial properties near the new rail service will increase substantially in value. The beneficiaries will be paying more for rates and taxes that are land-value based. Part of this increased return to the government's coffers can be hypothecated to help finance the rail line. It requires a clear plan to help the land development near the rail to be more dense and mixed. . It's certainly worth a try.

Tony Trobe is the Australian Institute of Architects' ACT president.

Canberra Times prints opinion piece from ACT Light Rail

Mondays post in response to Paul Mees' recent paper on Canberra's spectacular transport policy failures has generated considerable interest (and website traffic).

A slightly modified version was published, with our permission, on the Canberra Times Opinion page on 18 Jan 2013 titled Criticism hits the mark but is too simplistic.

Canberra: A spectacular transport policy failure

When an academic titles a chapter in his public transport policy assessment paper ‘Canberra: A spectacular transport policy failure’ don’t expect there to be too much good news in it. Paul Mees is an academic with a particular focus on public transport and has been following the issue in Canberra from a distance for many years.

Many of his assessments on public transport policy in this paper are correct. All governments since self-government have abjectly neglected ACTION and focussed on road construction. The lack of investment has seen the frequency of ACTION services decline, especially outside peak hour and off the major routes. This service failure has led to patronage declines.

In his executive summary, Mees concludes:

Canberra has experienced a sustained decline in public transport, and a steady rise in car driving, for the last two decades (apart from a temporary reversal during 2001-06). The current car driving rate is the highest ever recorded, something that has not occurred in any other capital city except Hobart. Public transport mode share actually declined slightly in the five years to 2011: Canberra was the only one of the seven cities where this occurred. The problems are the result of poor transport policies, which have focussed on road construction, while reversing the successful public transport approach employed in Canberra until the late 1980s.

Mees is also correct that the focus on investment on roads over public transport needs to be addressed, but its not one or the other - that’s a simplistic view which has led to the current public transport system failings. The ACT government needs to consider road and public transport funding as infrastructure. Improve public transport and car drivers may return to the public transport system. The ACTION system can be improved, but its future as a mass transit system is in the past.  

It is important when assessing this paper, to look at previous works from the same author. Mees has written papers critical of ACT Public Transport policy before, his most recent contribution on ACTION bus failure coming in 2012. He views investment in roads as bad, and investment in public transport as good.  

This simplistic approach doesn’t take into account changes in society and employment mobility. Canberra is a spread out city, and the ACTION bus approach has not served that geography well. As it grows, it is likely that employment centres may change from the present focus on Civic and the Parliamentary Triangle. Decreasing service frequencies outside peak hours and long circuitous routes that increase travel times are valid criticisms.

The public has sampled this service and voted with its cars. Arresting this decline in patronage has proved difficult by successive governments, reluctant to invest in changes to a public transport system that they can’t figure out how to improve. As the cost to acquire a car has declined, its become more viable for a person to buy one and bypass poor public transport. 

ACT Light Rail has long argued that the best way to improve public transport in the ACT is to build light rail as a mass transit backbone, increase local bus services to feed passengers to light rail, and properly integrate light rail and buses. Paul Mees’ main objection seems to be that there is only one light rail route planned.

This is not the case. There is only one light rail route under immediate consideration – from Gungahlin to Civic – but there is a plan for light rail to be the territories long term mass transit solution. It’s a massive change in policy direction from the ACT Government and Capital Metro is a plan that needs political and financial support.

If the Capital Metro plan receives funding and construction begins within the current Assembly term, then a future version of this paper may contain a vastly different assessment. Canberra has the potential to lead the way in showing how a medium sized city can reverse car usage and deliver sustainable public transport. 

You cant excuse government policy failure from the past, but credit needs to be given to present policy initiatives - and people need to ensure that these policies move from election platform promises to properly funded projects.

The major failing of Mees paper is that it doesn’t recognize that the policy shift has occurred, and that it requires support. 

Read the Canberra Times article on the paper here. 

Light Rail policy from the parties in the 2012 Assembly election

Who to vote for? If you are concerned about public transport and light rail then read through this post and make your mind up. ACT Light Rail have summarised the policies of the major parties and independents, where they have been made known. 

ACT ALP

After eleven years and several failed pro-bus public transport policies, the ALP  has accepted that light rail with integrated bus services offers the best mass transit option for Canberra's future. The ALP now have a policy that proposes that if they are reelected this year:  

• They will begin an examination of constructing a light rail line with public private partnership options(and we assume funding models), 
• If elected again in 2016, would actually begin construction of the Gungahlin to Civic light rail link with an aim for completion by 2018. 
• They will commit 30 million dollars over the next two years for further work on these proposals. 
• The name of the proposed light rail is Capital Metro. 
• Initial link will run from Gungahlin to Civic along Northbourne Avenue
• This initial link is costed at $614 million dollars

This is an exciting change in policy from a previously pro-bus government. 

There are a few concerns from ACT Light Rail. Firstly - only 30 million has actually been committed and secondly - it must be remembered that the ALP went to the 2008 election campaign with a light rail policy which foundered in silence from Infrastructure Australia who went with Majura Parkway instead. 

Those concerns aside, it appears to be a genuine change in approach and if re-elected, ACT Light Rail will hold them to this proposal.  

More ALP policy details can be found here: Capital Metro Light Rail project

The ABC have a good analysis of the proposal here: Labor backs light rail 

The Greens

The first party to offer a proper light rail policy in the  2012 ACT Assembly election campaign, the ACT Greens fired the opening salvo with an excellent policy proposal.

In summary, the ACT Greens light rail policy is this:

• Commit to building a light rail for Canberra
• $200 million initial Government funding committed to light rail
• An ACT wide light rail master plan, covering existing and developing areas
• Construction on Canberra's first light rail route beginning by 2015
• Independently manage the project through the Canberra Urban Transit Authority, a new independent body to design, cost and manage funding and construction of light rail in Canberra.

When asked by the media what ACT Light Rail thought of this proposal, our response was 'This is the most forward looking public transport policy in Canberra since self government'.

Our only concern is the Greens did not make it a mandatory policy for an agreement to govern contract with whatever party they seek to align with in the next Assembly. 

see: The Greens: Light Rail for Canberra

Canberra Liberals

Disappointingly, the Canberra Liberals have not come out with a new policy on light rail for the 2012 campaign. ACT Light Rail believe they are content to run with their policy from four years ago which committed to an engineering study to determine the costs of a future light rail network in the ACT.

Canberra Liberals leader Zed Seselja advised ACT Light Rail that the Canberra Liberals were not opposed to light rail and remained open minded. They were focussed on getting ACTION working more effectively. 

At a community meeting on 16 October 2012, Liberal MLA Vicki Dunne when asked about light rail policy said that while she was personally in favour of light rail, she had concerns over the cost of the ALP proposal, how it would be paid for and the ability of an ALP Government to deliver it on budget and on time. 

Liberal Candidate for Ginninderra, Matt Watts, is a member of ACT Light Rail. (declaration of vested interest - Damien Haas, ACT Light Rail Chair has been assisting Matt Watts in his campaign). 

Australian Motorists Party

They are not opposed to light rail, but don't consider it viable. Curiously, they did issue a policy proposing a tunnel running underground from the Barton Highway under Civic to Commonwealth Avenue. To confuse matters even further, they would include light rail in this plan. 

see: The cross city Centenary tunnel

The Pirate Party

Pro-bus. They don't even mention light rail in their transport policy. 

see: Rebuild a successful bus transit network

Australian Democrats

Darren Churchill is running as an independent, but is a member of the Australian Democrats. At a community meeting on 16 October 2012, he stated that the Australian Democrats are in favour of light rail, and have been for many years. 

On his website, this can be found:

"Work to build an overarching transport plan that includes a comprehensive bus service with late-night and weekend coverage to get you where you want, when you want and integrates a light rail network;"

see: Darren Churchill's campaign commitments

Marion Le's Social Justice Party

At a community meeting on 16 October 2012, Marion Le stated that she was in favour of light rail. The party does not appear to have an online presence. 

Who to vote for? 

ACT Light Rail make no recommendation to you - we would like you to read this information, seek out information for yourself and form your own opinion. 

Please vote on October 20 and consider the best person and party to represent your interests, beliefs and concerns. We trust that the information on this page can assist you in reaching an informed view.  

Declaration of vested interest - Damien Haas, ACT Light Rail Chair, has been assisting Matt Watts, a Liberal candidate for Ginninderra in his 2012 election campaign. Matt Watts is a member of ACT Light Rail. In any media appearance, or when lobbying to any person or party since August 2012, Mr Haas has declared this. Mr Haas is not a member of the Liberal party. No other member of ACT Light Rail has been involved in Mr Watts campaign. 

ACT Light Rail contains members of all political parties who share a common view that light rail is the best mass transit option for Canberra's future, and work to achieve that aim. 

New 'Transport for a Sustainable City 2012-2031' strategy fails commitment to light rail

A new ACT Transport strategy 'Transport for a Sustainable City 2012-2031' was released by the ACT Government yesterday. Naturally there was a strong focus on the ACTION network, and how this can be improved and attract more patronage. Some of the proposals are quite positive. It is good to see a 7 day network, hopefully this will do away with ridiculous route renumberings on the weekends which confuse even seasoned public transport users. Increased frequency is also positive. The broad plans to improve the ACTION network are welcome. ACT Light rail are pro-public transport. 

You can download the full document here. 

Media release here.

No commitment to light rail

Reading the entire document brings a sense of disappointment. Ultimately the new strategy squibs real commitment to public transport infrastructure. It continues to hedge bets and attempt to mollify public transport advocates by mentioning light rail in association with bus rapid transit. Light Rail as a standalone issue is not mentioned in the document until page 15 - where the abandoned and ill-supported bid to Infrastructure Australia is listed as under 'Transport Highlights 2001-2011'. That the ACT Government regards failure as a highlight in relation to public transport would be funny if it weren't so reflective of this governments approach to public transport. The spin is spun, and you and I ride the results every day. 

While the work on establishing the rapid routes is to be commended, the government is only setting itself up for long term failure in its stated public transport objectives. It continues to use these rapid transport corridors and promised results, in its push to rapidly densify Canberra - especially along the transport corridors. 

Unless a proper mass transit technology - the most logical being light rail - is built simultaneously to the now occurring densification, the resultant road congestion will further clog Canberra's road arteries. The report even states that private car ownership is still rising in percentage terms - defying its 2004 policy projections. 

The strongest 'committment' to light rail in this new policy is the following statement from p.22 

All our infrastructure feasibility studies include assessments of alternative public transport technology. For example, the City to Gungahlin transit corridor study will see the ACT Government work in partnership with the National Capital Authority and the Canberra community and business sector to create a vision for a transit- oriented corridor. Mass public transport will make the most of the development opportunities from existing land use settings and highlight the national significance of this entry to Canberra. The ACT Government will continue to explore funding opportunities for light rail and bus rapid transport with the Australian Government and private sector, and planning for light rail (or bus rapid transit designed for later conversion to light rail) is at the centre of planning for this corridor. 

In other words - the ACT Government want someone else, anybody else really except themselves, to pay for light rail.  The message is clear and consistent from the Stanhope through to the Gallagher government. Road funding is fine - public transport is secondary - make that last.  

While the 2012-2031 Transport Strategy maintains that all future planning must make provision for light rail, the real truth is that there is no financial commitment to this goal. All planning and infrastructure engineering is based on buses and recently on-road cycle paths. There has been no engineering study conducted on a light rail network in Canberra. This has consistently been asked for by ACT Light Rail. 

Infrastructure Australia guidelines required this most basic level of planning for its bids - yet the ACT Government submitted a bid without knowing what they actually needed, or how much it could cost. More has been spent on engineering plans for on-road cycle paths than light rail routes. 

Ring roads - the future of ACT transport infrastructure spending

Roads and road spending have always been a favourite photo opportunity for our local politicians. Who can forget all local ALP politicians standing in front of a scale model of the Infrastructure Australia funded Majura Parkway? Well hang on for the ride because the 2012-2031 Transport Strategy tells us that the future transport infrastructure major spending commitment in Canberra wont be public transport but -  a ring road. 

Ironically, this announcement on p.46 of the 2012 Transport Strategy is on the same page as a long dissertation on the economic detriment that road congestion causes the economy. The ACT Governments own submission on light rail to Infrastructure Australia pointed out that Light Rail would reduce congestion. The solution to road congestion is not to build more roads. Ask anyone using the GDE. 

The increasing densification along the 'transport corridors' will result not only in more road congestion, but also in increased rates as the high-rise building corridors begin to fill with residents. That this ratepayers money will build ring roads, and not public transport infrastructure is a cruel joke. light rail along these transport corridors will reduce road congestion. More roads will not. 

If the government had a serious commitment to reducing road congestion it could start by eliminating the causes of that congestion before it arises. The new Molonglo development is a prime example. This was an opportunity for the Government to show commitment to public transport by either constructing a light rail route linking Molonglo to Civic or a dedicated bus way, that could be converted to light rail at a later stage. 

By providing visible public transport prior to residents populating the new town of Molonglo, the residents would be able to choose this ahead of their private car. Instead the government has decided to go with on-road buses. The investment in public transport in Molonglo is minimal. It follows consistent public transport policy failure in Gungahlin - which despite having buses at capacity - still cant decrease the number of people using their private car for work trips. 

Show leadership by funding public transport not more roads

The ACT Government needs to show real leadership and commitment to Canberra's future transport needs and build Light Rail. It needs to begin by committing to an engineering study, then establishing a method to fund light rail construction, beginning with one route. We do not need more studies, They occur every electoral cycle. 

For more frequent updates on Capital Metro and light rail related news, please visit our Facebook page 'Light Rail for Canberra'.  

Light rail link cheaper option than Majura Rd conversion to a Parkway

The ACT Greens are asking that the true costs and reasons for the Majura Rd upgrade are assessed by the ACT Auditor General. This is a request based upon the reading of the Victorian Auditor Generals report on the over-egged claims by road builders for their efforts over any years on Victorian road projects, and of course comparisons can be directly made locally after the ongoing debacle of the GDE.

Canberra Times article: Light-rail link cheaper option than parkway: Greens

ABC article: Doubt cast over need for new roads

Several Victorian major roads projects were built based on reduced road congestion justifications, which have not eventuated, in fact the congestion has grown. The ACT Greens are now calling for the same scrutiny to be applied to the ACT Governments justifications for the Majura Rd upgrade. They also argue that a light rail solution would be a cheaper, and better solution for Canberra.

I think if we take our political blinders off and look at what the Greens actually said you will find that its actually a quite sensible question to ask. Why do we accept the claims made that are used to justify building more roads? 

Light Rail ACT are not anti-road or anti-car. We are pro-public transport. We believe that a family shouldn't need two cars to carry out its affairs. A well designed road and public transport system should allow this.

From the ABC article:

The ACT Government has allocated $144 million from 2012 to fund the first two years of the project which will link the Monaro and Federal highways.

It is currently pushing for the Commonwealth to put up the same amount to finish the road from 2014.

Ms Bresnan says it may be that the money is better spent on public transport.

"The ACT Government's website on Majura Parkway continues to claim that a new Majura Parkway will 'relieve traffic congestion' and 'reduce greenhouse gases'," she said.

"We can't keep spending ACT taxpayers money on false promises. We have to be realistic about the genuine impacts of any new proposals that are put up as a solution to congestion."

But Chief Minister Katy Gallagher says the Government has thoroughly examined the reasons for building the Majura Parkway.

"One of the important reasons for this road is that it's going to keep freight out of the main areas of Canberra, suburban Canberra," she said.

"That's where I need to press the Commonwealth on the fact that this is not just about Canberrans moving between north and south."

The reasons to convert Majura Road into a parkway have always been spurious, based more on the need for upgraded freight corridors than concern for commuters. The Majura Road upgrade will mainly benefit the trucks carrying freight from the Airport to the Federal Highway – that will be the reason it will receive federal government money.

These other claims regarding reduced road congestion etc are just false. It carries 17,000 cars a day now, do you think that number will decrease when its changed to two lanes each way ?

Logic says it will not.

I am not saying you dont upgrade the road, because I have used it and it needs upgrading, but to thrust this road upgrade forward to Infrastructure Australia as the ACT’s PRIMARY infrastructure project is just bizarre – however totally instep with ACT Govt thinking. Two year ago Light Rail was the primary Infrastructure Australia bid - why the change in priority ? 

The article also quotes the 2004 KBR costs for light rail construction, which were then regarded as 'too expensive'.  The total cost of this road project will exceed what would be required to build light rail from Gungahlin to Civic. What do you think will deliver a greater long term benefit to ACT residents ?  

Most of the passenger cars that fill the Majura Road from Gungahlin are used for commuting. Build a proper public transport system that would let people commute quickly, reliably and comfortably – and they will use it. This will reduce road congestion, and decrease the need to build more major roads.

Lets circle back to the report though. What I use when lobbying for public transport is evidence. Looking at claims made to justify all transport infrastructure investment is important, all claims should be scrutinised. 

Maybe this sort of scrutiny would have delivered light rail in the early 1990's or a properly funded four lane GDE instead of a never ending construction zone which has caused more road congestion than it has ‘solved’. 

Sunday CT Light Rail article

The Canberra Times have their feature on light rail in todays paper. It is called End of the Line and is a reasonable summary of the current status of light rail and public transport issues in Canberra today.

Future of Light Rail in Canberra

The Canberra Times will be running a feature on light rail/public transport in the Sunday June 5th edition. I provided the following article for them to use all or parts of for their feature. 

The future of light rail in Canberra is assured. Although the present government dare not speak its name, light rail is still needed in the nations capital - and not in twenty years, it needs it now. Canberra is a city designed for the car, but not the volume of cars that it now has. A city with proper public transport does not require each household to have two cars or more. That’s a sign of a broken system. Road congestion, a decrease in parking availability, higher urban density – these are factors that will only increase.

The best public transport system for Canberra is a light rail system connecting the major employment and population centres of Canberra, with a linkage to Queanbeyan. With this high speed network in place the ACTION bus fleet would be retasked with an increase in the frequency of buses serving suburban areas and feeding commuters to transport nodes. The transport nodes or stations would also have Park and Ride facilities and bike cages.

This integrated bus/light rail system will offer public transport that is reliable, frequent and attractive.  It also provides a realistic alternative to a private car for more than the 6% of people who choose public transport today. Public transport should be the first option, not the last. A functional public transport system, will also decrease road congestion, travel times and provide a better quality of life for Canberra residents. The governments own studies have shown this.

Despite this being known, the government pretends to address the requirement for better public transport with tentative steps towards a mass transit network with the ‘Rapid’ buses. This is not a proper Bus Rapid Transit system and it never will be. The same investment in expenditure that would be required to make Bus Rapid Transit work is roughly the same investment that would be need to build light rail. This investment in light rail is something the Labour government seems unwilling to make.

There is no shortage of will for light rail in Canberra from every sector except the Government. Despite a bid to Infrastructure Australia for Light Rail two years ago being the primary item, it is now never mentioned and much government effort is being put into finding funding for a new road. The bid failed because there was no engineering study to support it. The cost of this study is less than building a new skate park or marina on the Kingston foreshore.

Since self government, the ACT Government has been unwilling to borrow money for infrastructure – fearful of running a deficit. This is the same as a person buying a home and only being able to pay for it out of that years salary. It’s a tactic that has delivered substandard infrastructure and caused projects like the GDE to run for a decade, when it could have been built in half that time if funded properly from the start.

While the ACT Government has finally decided to borrow money for transport infrastructure, its just a shame its not infrastructure that will benefit the greater community. The investment needed to build the Majura Road upgrade is roughly the same amount required to build light rail from Gungahlin to Civic. What investment will deliver a better return for Canberra over the longer term? Another road or the first part of a light rail network. I know what answer commuters would give.

Although the issue has fallen off the government’s agenda, the requirement for better public transport still exists, and will only grow over time. Despite efforts to improve ACTION, patronage barely grows while road congestion and the number of cars in Canberra does. The only solution is a modal change to light rail. The voters of Canberra do not fear an investment in public transport; they want to know why it hasn’t yet occurred. 

Valley Voice light rail article

The Tuggeranong Community Council have published an article on light rail for Canberra in their magazine 'Valley Voice'. 

You can download the PDF from here.