Sydney and Tucson Light Rail experience bodes well for Canberra business

The Canberra Business Chamber are running a Light Rail Business Link program to assist businesses seeking contracts or work associated with Capital Metro Stage One construction. The Canberra Business Chamber issued the following media release on the opportunities that can be realised by businesses during and after the construction of light rail:

Sydney and Tucson Light Rail experience bodes well for Canberra business

Experience from cities where light rail systems have been introduced suggest that rather than being anxious about the impact of construction, local businesses should look for the opportunities that can be created during this period and beyond.

Sydney is about a year ahead of the ACT in introducing light rail. A light rail route is currently under construction through the middle of the very busy Sydney CBD, including construction on the major thoroughfare of George Street.

“Many businesses are located on George Street,” Light Rail Business Link Program Manager, Ben Maguire said. “These businesses were understandably worried about the impact construction would have on them – particularly as it was scheduled to include the busy Christmas period.”

The NSW Government kept business informed about the project and worked with them on activation of the area.

Businesses located in proximity to the light rail construction in Sydney were provided with pop-up spaces where they could market their products to potential customers over the Christmas sales period and help draw them to their shopfront.

In addition, the NSW Government implemented a number of activities to draw people to the area, such as the erection of a large Christmas tree.

“Retailers along the light rail route we have spoken with have indicated construction did not negatively impact on sales in the end, despite their initial fears,” Mr Maguire said.

“Accommodation and hospitality businesses in particular can benefit from light rail. I was recently part of a delegation that travelled to the United States to explore urban renewal projects, particularly transit-oriented development.

“Tucson has had a light rail system running for two years ago. Since the city started planning a light rail system, there has been $1.5 billion worth of investment along the corridor.

“Two hundred new restaurants and bars have opened adjacent to the light rail route and 1,500 new jobs have been created,” Mr Maguire explained. “There are currently five new hotels under construction. Prior to this renewal project, there had not been a new hotel development in Tucson in 20 years.

“Occupancy rates for retail tenancy have increased from 50 per cent to over 90 per cent since light rail commenced operation in Tucson.”

The experience in Tucson highlights how vital it is for businesses to work with programs such as Light Rail Business Link.

Tucson established the Main Street Small Business Assistance Program to provide businesses with assistance to prepare for the impacts of construction.

“Businesses who engaged with the Main Street Program and prepared for impacts prior to construction were the best equipped during the actual construction phase,” City of Tucson Assistant City Manager, Albert Elias said.

Some of the initiatives implemented to assist businesses along the corridor included easing signage regulations so businesses could erect temporary signs to let people know they were open and drive traffic and trade through the door. A series of public service announcements encouraged residents to support businesses in the construction zone.

“By partnering with Canberra Business Chamber to establish the Light Rail Business Link Program, the ACT Government has demonstrated it wants to similarly help address potential impacts on Canberra businesses,” Mr Maguire stated.

“We are aware some local businesses along the proposed corridor are concerned about the effect construction will have, particularly in terms of customer bookings and experience,” Mr Maguire said.

The Light Rail Business Link Program is designed to act as a conduit between local businesses, the ACT Government and the prime contractor to limit and assist in managing any adverse impacts on local businesses from construction.

Business Continuity Workshops are being planned for hospitality and accommodation providers situated along the light rail route to explore concerns and discuss possible ways to minimise anticipated issues.

“We look forward to working with local businesses through the upcoming Business Continuity Workshops to ensure they get similar positive results as we have seen elsewhere and ensure predicted problems do not come to pass,” Mr Maguire said.

Any businesses with questions regarding light rail construction in the ACT can contact the Light Rail Business Link program on 6247 4199.

As well as this website, the facebook group 'Light Rail for Canberra' carries frequent updates on Capital Metro and light rail related news. 

Liberal party support extending Capital Metro across border into Queanbeyan

'Rapid services by 2031' map from 2012 Transport for Canberra report

The Queanbeyan Age has not carried many stories on light rail or Capital Metro that spring readily to mid, but they did carry a report on 18 December 2015 about the keenness that Liberal MP for Eden-Monaro Peter Hendy has for seeing the Capital Metro light rail extended from Canberra across the border into Queanbeyan.

The Transport for Canberra report from 2012 was the first ACT Government policy document to publicly show a Queanbeyan link to any Canberra public transport network.

The NSW Liberal party has a strong track record in recent year on investing in public transport infrastructure and tackling reform in the various workforces, organisations and bureaucracies that comprise that sector. It has proved remarkably successful. Recent heavy and light rail projects are actually being delivered upon, unlike the previous decades in which transport projects would be announced at an election and then promptly ignored until the next elections photo opportunities beckoned.

Light rail in Sydney's CBD and the Dulwich Hill extension are two excellent examples that compare favourably with Capital Metro, and the new rail line into Sydney's west indicates that transport technologies that are scalable will best suit a rapidly expanding city.

Investment in public transport infrastructure is something that the Federal Liberal and NSW Liberal parties understand is important to the community. Could Stage Two of Capital Metro run into NSW? Federal funding could bolster that ambition from NSW representatives.

Federal funding could see light rail cross the border from Canberra into Queanbeyan

By Kimberley Le Lievre   

If CANBERRA’S light rail line proceeds federal funding could be used to expand it’s reach to Queanbeyan, federal member for Eden-Monaro Peter Hendy said.

Dr Hendy said should a “spare line” be available, it should run from the airport through to Queanbeyan.
“It is a major population centre in the region,” Dr Hendy said.
“I intend having further discussions in the future with Andrew Barr about those issues, but we’re a long way from talking about commitment of money on that,” he said.
The idea was floated as part of a federal funding wishlist put forward by the Queanbeyan City Council in the lead up to the next election in 2016.
At December’s Planning and Development Review Committee meeting councillors agreed on the list, to be formally submitted as a wishlist for the community to election candidates.
Dr Hendy said while the Ellerton Drive Extension project was a main priority, having been given $25 million from both federal and state governments, it would not affect other projects put forward for funding.
“There are other road and transport proposals that, in the long run, really do need to be seriously looked at.”
While Dr Hendy stopped short of saying Queanbeyan had been spoilt in the past, he did say he was willing to use his “very good relationship” with the Prime Minister and federal treasurer to help Queanbeyan and the seven councils in the Eden-Monaro electorate.
“I think I’ve got a voice that gets listened to,” he said.

You can read the full story at the Queanbeyan Age website here.

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

PM Tony Abbott supports Capital Metro light rail in Canberra

Prime Minister Tony Abbott provides yet more support for the ACT light rail project in contrast to his Canberra Liberal comrades. When asked a question about whether the federal government would fund an extension to the Gold Coast light rail, Prime Minister Abbott praised the ACT Governments approach to Capital Metro funding by using asset recycling money and the Federal Governments $60 million contribution.

ABC News online reports on it here.

ABC Canberra TV carried a report on its 10 Jul 2015 evening news bulletin.

A full transcript of the interview is here.


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

Melbourne Tram in Civic 1992 - still operating in Melbourne

Back in February of 1992 (23 years ago...) The developers who were about to build Gungahlin proposed building light rail from Gungahlin to Civic - at their cost - for the ACT. They would acquire land alongside the light rail route, and the ACT would receive a light rail line. It was rejected by the Canberra Liberal government.  

Photo by John Mikita

Comeng were then building a new model of articulated light rail vehicle for the Melbourne tram network, and a brand new one was transported from the Dandenong factory and parked in Garema Place for Canberrans to view. 

Thanks to Daniel Bowen for this photo

This model tram is still being used in Melbourne (and was also sold to Hong Kong). In fact the very tram that was parked in Garema Place, is still operating in Melbourne. At the time of day this iPhone screenshot was taken (of an app called TramTracker) it was transporting commuters home down Sydney Road.

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

Expected value for money from Canberra light rail project 'as good as it gets', report says

Professor Derek Scrafton

ABC Online are running a report titled 'Expected value for money from Canberra light rail project as good as it gets' which features the views of Derek Scrafton, the former head of the South Australian Transport Authority, and now a Professor at the University of South Australia. The Canberra Times are running a similar article titled 'ACT Government releases review of Capital Metro business case'.

Professor Scrafton and a university colleague were asked to independently scrutinise the Government's Capital Metro business case. He is quoted as saying:
"We didn't have to have a view about the tram one way or another, we just had to comment on the business case itself,"  "My view was it was fit for purpose. That it would do exactly what [the ACT Government] wanted it to do."
"Some data that might have been useful in interpreting the aspirations for the project is absent or is not readily discernible"."It's always the same, it doesn't matter where you are in the world, there's a load of people who think (light rail) is wonderful and a load of people who think it's a waste of money. "Is there enough material there? I would say for most people there is. But I can understand why somebody with a very specific interest would say 'I want more detail on this'."

"Whether the analysis is realistic will only be determined later, when it can be compared with responses to the [expressions of interest from business consortiums] and the [request for proposal phase], particularly the latter."

"Even if you ignore that, even if you take away 1.2 and work with 1.0, my comment was that if you can get a public transport project that really comes out at 1.0, you're doing pretty well. 

"I worked in the business for 40 years and I've seen plenty of benefit-cost ratios in excess of 1.0 but I don't particularly believe them. In any case, one the best projects that we ever delivered had a benefit-cost of 0.7 and in public transport terms, it is still a good project," he said. 

"You spend a lot of money, and you have low fares, where do you think you are going to get these returns from to get a high benefit-cost?"

"The financial impact on the bus system is uncertain" "So long as the bus system continues to be owned and operated by a government agency, any issues can be internalised. However, if the bus system was to be privatised or contracted out, there could be problems, particularly if the light rail [public-private partnership] included protection clauses that limited competition."

Highlights of the report are:

• Professor Scrafton describes the Capital Metro business case as highly professional.
• Professor Scrafton said the inclusion of wider economic impact to reach a 1.2 benefit-cost ratio was standard international practice. 
• The expected cost and benefit of Canberra's $800 million dollar light rail project is "as good as it gets"
• How accurate the Government's projected cost-benefit return of $1.20 for every $1 invested was wouldn't be known until the two selected consortia chosen to bid for the project return their proposals.
• If proposals come back at say 30 per cent over the ($783 million) estimate, the ACT Government reserves the right to say 'that's the end of the project!'. 
• The government has flagged the possible introduction of private operators on some of the ACTION Bus network. 

Read the full ABC Online article here and the CT article here.

Capital Metro Minister Simon Corbell has issued a press release saying:

“Prior to the public release of the business case, Capital Metro Agency engaged academic reviewer, Professor Derek Scrafton from University of South Australia, who has extensive experience in the public transportation field, to provide independent, high level advice on the appropriateness of the methodology adopted in the document,” Simon said.
“The ACT Government has been committed to openness and transparency throughout the light rail project and while the independent review was primarily undertaken for internal purposes, it seems appropriate to release it publicly now to add to the current conversations about the business case.
“Professor Scrafton’s review confirms that the methodology used in the business case is sound and that the document overall contains sufficient details and makes realistic conclusions and recommendations.
“It concludes that the business case is fit for the purpose for which it was prepared, uses appropriate and realistic methodologies in the analytical sections and follows guidelines which are recommended and approved by national organisations.”
“Professor Derek Scrafton is the Professor of Transport Policy and Planning at the University of South Australia and has 50 years direct experience in transport planning, research, regulation, finance, construction and operation.
“The first stage of Capital Metro has also been approved by the Federal Government, which determined the project was a suitable, productive infrastructure project to receive $60 million dollars from the Commonwealth’s asset recycling scheme.”

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

Canberra Liberals proposed light rail contract 'ripping up' fallout

PM Tony Abbott advising Canberra Liberals to respect contracts

Following on from Wednesdays announcement that in the wake of the Victorian Government settling the East West Link contract fiasco with the consortium for $339 million, the Canberra Liberals would rip up the Capital Metro contracts if they formed government, there has been a great deal of media and commentary on the issue.

None of it more damaging for the Canberra Liberals than the intervention of Prime Minister Tony Abbott. When asked by a reporter about the Canberra Liberals policy of ripping up the light rail contract (if they formed government) he was emphatic:

"The position of this government is that contracts should be honoured."

This isolates the Canberra Liberals politically. The federal government has already promised $60 million for light rail. Now they are lacking federal political support for their position, and lacking support from any sector of the business community, their objection to the Capital Metro project surely needs to be revisited.

Read the ABC Online article "PM Tony Abbott rebukes Canberra Liberals over plan to tear up ACT light rail contract"  here.

ABC Canberra television report with the Prime Minister from Thursday April 16.

WIN Canberra television report from Thursday April 16

ABC Canberra television report from Wednesday April 15

WIN Canberra television report from Wednesday April 15

Canberra Times Stoush over light rail contract reignited by East West Link deal

The ACT opposition has welcomed the Victorian government's agreement to pay $339 million to get out of a controversial road tunnel project, saying it proves Canberra's light rail project could be ditched at a "reasonable" price.
Liberal transport spokesman Alistair Coe said Premier Daniel Andrew's claim the state would pay just 3 per cent of the East West Link's total contract cost in compensation suggested ACT taxpayers could pay less than $30 million if a new government cancelled contracts for the $783 million Gungahlin to the city tram line.
The Liberals have pledged to pay their way out of the deal after the 2016 election but have never specified how much they would be prepared to spend. 
But Capital Metro Minister Simon Corbell dismissed the claims and said a future Liberal government would instead face bills of "hundreds of millions" to exit signed contracts and would risk thousands of jobs. 
Mr Coe's comments also left him at odds with Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Wednesday.

ABC News online Light rail contract will be torn up if the Canberra liberals win the 2016 election

"Should the Canberra Liberals win the October 2016 election we will tear up the contracts if they are signed," he said.
Mr Coe said the Victorian Government's decision set an important precedent
"It goes to show that the Canberra Liberals will be able to stop light rail if we win the next election," he said.
He said in the meantime, his party would do everything it could to try and stop the ACT Government from signing the contracts in the first place.
"But in the event that they do sign them we will cancel them if we're successful at the October election," Mr Coe said.

City News Liberals threaten to tear up light rail contracts if elected

ALISTAIR Coe says the Victorian Labor Government has set an important precedent for cancelling any contract signed by ACT Labor regarding light rail.
“Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews today announced that the signed contracts with the successful East West Link Consortium would be cancelled with a 3 percent penalty of the total contract price,” Alisair said.
“The announcement today includes that compensation for lost revenue will not be paid to the consortium.
“In the event that Andrew Barr and Simon Corbell sign a contract with a consortium regarding light rail, the Victorian decision provides an important precedent for cancelling such contracts.

City News Fighting breaks out over light rail cancellation costs


“The Liberals have highlighted a decision by the Victorian Government to pay $339 million to get out of a contract for Melbourne’s East West Link project as an important precedent in his quest to throw away ACT taxpayers’ money.
“A similar decision in the ACT would cost Canberra its reputation as a good place for private investment in public projects, like a convention centre.
“The successful Capital Metro consortia will also have commenced construction prior to the next ACT election.
“This would increase the amount of any payment needed to cancel that contract without reason.”
“A light rail line from City to Gungahlin delivered as a Public Private Partnership was an election commitment by ACT Labor during the last election.
“How many elections do the opposition want us to take this policy to,” Mr Corbell said.


Canberra Times Editorial ACT Liberals ransom over light rail is a risky business

The ACT Liberals' opposition to light rail and its threats to dismantle are a matter of public record. Mr Coe's preparedness to put a price on how far the Liberals will go to undo what the Labor government maintains is now a fact of life (the choice as to who builds, owns and operates the line has been whittled down to two consortia) is audacious, however. Parties of the centre-right rarely invoke the tactics of their left-wing political opponents as justification for their own plans. That business leaders and senior Coalition politicians have all condemned the Victorian government's "recklessness" in tearing up the toll road contract illustrate the extent to which the ACT Liberals have gone out on a limb. 

Canberra Times ACT Liberals cannot ignore light rail mandate


Complicating this attempt to link the two dissimilar projects is the fact that by the time of the 2016 ACT election, construction on the Capital Metro project will have been under way for some months. Local jobs will have been created and significant investment already made locally by the successful consortium.
That is a far harder situation to reverse, and may make any election rhetoric by the Canberra Liberals quite difficult to walk away from if they do win the 2016 election.
A further complication for the Canberra Liberals is that the Victorian government had the ability to pass an act of parliament to nullify the contract. Capital Metro Minister Simon Corbell points out that the ACT does not have that constitutional power. It is specifically prohibited from passing a law that voids a contract.
This means that even if the Canberra Liberals won the 2016 Assembly election, they may not be able to cancel any contract in place between the ACT government and the successful consortium to build Capital Metro Stage One.
As much as the Canberra Liberals dislike the light rail project, they must have a light rail policy to put to the electorate by October 2016. They have only two choices: offer an alternative public transport policy that incorporates light rail, or explain how they can cancel a contract signed by the ACT government while lacking the legal authority to do so. This second option is electorally weak, and difficult to sell.


Australian Financial Review Liberal threat to scrap light rail escalates sovereign risk

The light rail project has been lauded frequently by federal Treasurer Joe Hockey as an example of the success of his asset recycling policy, in which the states receive extra Commonwealth funds towards projects paid for by the sale of assets.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Kelly O'Dwyer, told The Australian Financial Review that the recent uncertainty surrounding infrastructure in Australia was a bad look given Mr Hockey, who is in the United States, will this week be signing memoranda of understanding with other nations to establish a global infrastructure hub in Sydney. This would complete a deal the Abbott government engineered at the Group of 20 in November.
"Australia has a very good reputation when it comes to infrastructure development," Ms O'Dwyer said.
"It's absolutely ridiculous to think sovereign risk enters into the discussion now when people are thinking about infrastructure and investment.
"Any government that decides it's going to rip up contracts that have been signed by a legitimate government escalates this issue of sovereign risk."




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

Cancelling the light rail contract is not a realistic policy

Published in the Canberra Times as: ACT Liberals cannot ignore light rail mandate

Making sure that a city can grow in a sensible fashion is a difficult task. As much as people love cars and the ease of use they deliver, the reality of road congestion, lengthening car travel times and decreasing and expensive parking, mean that the age of the car dominating Canberra is over. While Canberra families may always need a car, they may not always need two cars (or more) if a reliable, frequent and attractive backbone of light rail supported by a better bus system are in place. 

Urban planning and public transport planning are complex and expensive areas that have many competing goals. Aside from the NCA having final say and planning control over some areas, Canberra is an unusual city state where the territory government is the local and state planning authority in one. The ACT Government can plan, pay for and implement ideas without navigating multiple council agendas, or by having to compulsorily acquire people’s homes for major projects to occur. Largely.

The East West road tunnel contract debacle in Victoria has been closely observed by those interested in both politics and public transport. In short the Liberal Victorian government signed a contract to build a road tunnel months before the election. The Labor opposition said if elected it would cancel the contract. They then formed government and set about cancelling the contract.

Today they announced that they had – at a cost of 339 million dollars. The now Labor government has settled with the consortium that won the contract, and will refocus state investment on a combination of rail and road projects.

The ripples in the ACT have been fairly immediate. Canberra Liberal transport spokesman Alistair Coe has predictably seized upon the announcement as a justification for a Liberal government (if elected in 2016) to cancel any light rail contract that would be signed by the Barr government ahead of the October 2016 Assembly election.

Complicating this attempt to link the two dissimilar projects is a small matter that unlike the Victorian East West project; by the time of the 2016 ACT election, construction on the Capital Metro project will have been underway for some months. Local jobs will have been created and significant investment already made locally by the successful consortium.

That is a far harder situation to reverse, and may make any election focussed rhetoric made by the Canberra Liberals quite difficult to walk away from if they do win the 2016 election.

A further complication for the Canberra Liberals contract cancelling aspirations is that the Victorian government had the ability to pass an act of parliament to nullify the contract. Capital Metro Minister Simon Corbell points out that the ACT does not have that constitutional power. It is specifically prohibited from passing a law that voids a contract.

This means that even if the Canberra Liberals won the 2016 Assembly election, they may not be able to cancel any contract in place between the ACT Government and the successful consortium, to build Capital Metro Stage One.

As much as the Canberra Liberals dislike the light rail project, by October 2016 they must have a light rail policy to put to the electorate. They have only two choices – offer an alternative public transport policy that incorporates light rail, or explain how they can cancel a contract signed by the ACT Government while lacking the legal authority to do so. This second option is electorally weak, and difficult to sell.

Public transport policy and planning is a tough area. Many people with only a passing interest in politics think that the light rail idea came out of nowhere. It did not, a decade of bus-only public transport plans that continued to deliver declining patronage and increased public subsidies led to the ALP and the Greens going to the 2012 Assembly election with light rail as the core of their public transport policies. 

That mandate should be respected. How many elections need to be won before the Canberra Liberals will accept the will of the people?

ACT Light Rail is the Capital Regions peak public transport lobby group.

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

Light Rail v Bullet Trains - Riot Act Face Off

Local blog 'The Riot Act' has a series of 'debates' called 'Face Offs' in which an advocate and an opponent of idea de jeure are pitted against each other, and given 500 words to convince you the public of the merits of their cause.

ACT Light Rail were recently asked to take part in a 'Light Rail v Bullet Train Face Off'. We had reservations, as aside from rails, the two technologies are very different and serve very different needs. Nevertheless, we decided to take part.

The topic: Given the current financial climate, are our municipal funds better spent on light rail or a bullet train?

Here is our contribution below, as posted on their site. Click on the link, and go to the Riot Act site to take part in their debate.

Comparing the two is the classic apples to oranges cliché, as they are very different transport solutions with little in common aside from rails. However, that is what Riot Act has requested.

For the short and long term benefit of the ACT ratepayer, it is better to build Capital Metro from Gungahlin to Civic, and eventually across Canberra, than a bullet train.

Planning and engineering studies for light rail are well underway. Construction costs can be estimated, as building light rail is a standard and routine engineering task in Australia. Aside from conceptual feasibility studies, no similar work has been performed for bullet trains. If it was ever built, it may never come here, instead running directly between Melbourne and Sydney.

Investing in light rail is not the challenge many believe. The ACT will receive 4.4 billion dollars this year from the Federal government, an amount rising incrementally every year. In this context a public transport investment of 600 million over 4 years is fiscally prudent and a sound long-term investment in a growing city.

Light rail has strong electoral support, with the parties taking it to the 2012 Assembly election forming government. Individuals campaigning for bullet trains attracted a handful of votes, as bullet trains provide few clear benefits. Regular polling conducted since consistently shows a majority of Canberrans supporting light rail. Canberrans understand the short and long term benefits.

The use of public money for any project requires careful consideration using triple bottom line analysis – economic, environmental and societal. In each area Capital Metro delivers immediate and long-term benefits to Canberra, that bullet trains can’t match.

Light rail will provide direct economic benefit in the ACT enhancing productivity, freeing families from needing a second car and allowing parking space to be better used. Increased patronage and retasked ACTION buses will lead to a decrease in the public transport subsidy. Many construction jobs will be immediately created.

Transit oriented development will act as an economic growth driver. Businesses will establish themselves along the corridor knowing that parking wont be required for all staff, and that clients can visit them with ease.

Light rail will alleviate road congestion, mitigate future road construction costs and lead to a reversal in falling public transport patronage by attracting new passengers. Tourists visiting the nations capital will no longer get lost on the wrong bus.

Increased density along the corridor will lead to more walking, and a rise in the number of small businesses to service the needs of new residents. As Capital Metro expands across Canberra, this will be repeated.

The longer term benefits of light rail will be seen as its influence in shaping Canberras growth and culture emerge over several decades. Those preferring a suburban house and backyard will still have that option, but people seeking an apartment style of living will have that option in more quantity, and at lower cost. 

Bullet trains may be wonderful technology and one day in the future deserving of finance, however the immediate priority for Canberra’s ratepayers is not visiting Sydney in 30 minutes, but commuting to work in 30 minutes.  

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

A piece of Krupp indeed - anti light rail lies from the land of the long white clod

I think it is important to state that ACT Light Rail are not familiar with Wellington New Zealand, or its public transport requirements. We also do not claim that light rail is the best option for every city. We believe it is the best option for Canberra. We also believe that it is difficult to transpose experiences from one city to another, especially when every city has unique factors that make like for like comparison almost impossible.

We do believe that lessons can be learnt from other cities experiences, but there is a world of difference between learning from another cities experiences and misleadingly using isolated, and mischieviously selective, snippets from news reports to try and push an agenda.

Ignoring the cliche riden and poorly presented arguments, the worst thing about this article 'Light rail off Capital agenda - for now' is that it simply isn't accurate. The author has conducted research by google, and then selectively presented information that only supports his case. This is called confirmation bias. Worse, he presents information he knows not to be true, as the truth.

Lets look at Mr Krupps amusingly misleading piece.

Light rail off Capital agenda - for now  10/06/2014  JASON KRUPP

Economist Edward Glaeser, ranked as one of the profession's top 50 practitioners, summed-up 40 years of transport economics at Harvard University in four words when he was visiting Wellington last year: "Bus good, train bad."

A quick read of Glaesers wikipedia page shows that he  does specialise in urban issues, and his publications page shows a career long interest in cities, urban economics etc.

Glaeser's argument is centred on the risks of bus versus rail. Rail is capital and land intensive as you need to buy the land at market prices in order to put a track on it. Even in the case of light rail, the capital costs are high, have to be paid up front, budget blowouts are frequent, and if passenger usage projections do not pan out - tough, you are stuck with a fixed network.

We don't know if this is Glaesers argument or not. We do know it is Krupp's argument, and that he is using Glaesers reputation to bolster his argument. Even worse, there is no evidence presented to support Krupps argument.

Aside from Krupps claim that Glaeser said 'Bus good, train bad', in Wellington last year,  a fairly extensive google search, and even listening to Glaesers speech in Wellington last year can't find any evidence Glaeser ever made those remarks.

Maybe Krupp just made that up? That's OK, the idea that Glaeser did, bolsters Krupps argument against light rail. You know, all those negative things like tracks and stuff.

Glaeser did say 'Bus good, train bad' - in an article published here called 'Spending Won’t Fix What Ails U.S. Infrastructure'. It was made in the context of a long running joke about transport economics. Krupp has extracted four words, from a well written article on US transport infrastructure, and used these four words as the thread to stitch his argument against light rail together.

Buses, on the other hand, are relatively light on capital expenditure as you do not need to build a rail network for the trains to run on. Buses can also be leased instead of bought, and if passenger usage changes, you can either move the route or hand the buses back (if they were leased in the first place).

Krupp is transparent in presenting only the negatives of one side and only the positives of another. I'm not sure if Krupp is aware that even buses require infrastructure to run on, it's called 'roads' and they have to be built and paid for, just like any other piece of infrastructure.

However, this article isn't the place to list the pros and cons of either transport technology, simply to expose the partisan techniques of Krupp.

That's presumably why Wellington officials walked away from a plan to build a light rail network earlier this year. Even Mayor Celia Wade-Brown, who had previously championed the idea, voted against it.

It is? Presumably? Did the Mayor explain her reasons? Why she did.

Those with an interest in Wellingtons public transport debate can search for them, but they were largely to do with hilly topography and an already extensive bus network. There were also several independent studies pointing to a fairly extensive program of tunnelling. I might just point out that Capital Metro don't plan any tunnelling.

That could be because the topography of Canberra and Wellington are very different. Which would make infrastructure comparisons... fairly pointless perhaps.

I couldn't find the Mayor making any statement about leasing buses. Maybe Krupp just made that up.  

Advertisement

The wisdom behind this decision was recently underscored by a number of press reports coming out of Australia, detailing just what a nightmare the Australian Capital Territory is going through trying to install a 12-kilometer light rail line in the capital city.

The wisdom of the decision? A nightmare? Wow. I live in Canberra, and I'm pretty closely following the light rail project, and I cant recall any party referring to it as a nightmare. Apparently there were 'a number of press reports'. I cant find one. Maybe Krupp just made that up as well.

First, the A$600 million ($660 million) project failed to stack up next other forms of public transport, with buses delivering double the economic return of light rail according to government figures. This was partly because it would only serve two out of Canberra's six town centres.

This isn't true. Krupp has used one report, the Infrastructure Australia report, and then exaggerated its assessment. He hasn't used the more detailed URS report, which assessed all modes and reported that light rail provided the best long term outcome. I also can't find any report where buses provide double the economic return of light rail. I'd be keen to read it too. He deliberately doesn't reference any report, so that he can't be picked up on his sophistry. Maybe Krupp just made that up as well.

Canberra, as noted by Macrobusiness.com.au, is unsuited to a capital intensive project of this nature because the population is too small. The ACT government's own figures show that only 4500 out of a population of 360,000 were likely to use the service, and the density of these commuters was too dispersed for it to ever stack up financially.

Read the macrobusiness article Krupp references. This isn't 'The Economist', it's without serious credibility, with untested claims and abuse. This is the credibility Krupp is relying upon to lend credibility to his views? I can see why he is trying to link to Glaeser.

The ACT population is not stagnant, it is rising, and as it rises road congestion becomes more of an issue. Coupled with this is declining bus patronage. Many cities smaller than Canberra have invested in light rail. Once again, an unsupported statement. Sorry, a statement supported by a website article with no credibility.

Similarly, Krupps claim that the ACT Governments figures show only 4500 people will use Capital Metro, is not supported, because it isn't true. Public transport patronage figures will rise when Capital Metro begins, not only based on ACT Government projections, but contemporary experience in Adelaide and Western Australia. Sadly for Krupp, the existing Red Rapid bus service is at capacity, and already exceeds the 4500 figure.

Second, the project is to be funded by a special land levy, charged on those properties that were judged by planners to receive an uplift in value from the installation of light rail. This quickly drew criticism from the Property Council of Australia who labelled it as yet another tax on an already strained sector.

This isn't true.

With his extensive command of google, or maybe just by reading any of 'a number of press reports coming out of Australia' Krupp should have been aware by June 10, when his article was published, that a full five days earlier the ACT Treasurer, Andrew Barr, had definitively ruled out any levy to fund light rail. This website reported that commitment, as well as the media. Krupp just made this up.

Adding the final insult to injury, even before the first sod had been turned (due in 2016), the project is already expected to see costs blow out significantly, as engineers will have to reposition underground wires and pipes along the route. This comes as ACT battles to rein in A$100m budget shortfall (without the cost impact of light rail).

Ignoring the cliches rife throughout the article, Krupp once again misleads. Capital Metro have budgeted for this relocation of services under the line at 5% of the total cost of construction. Until the engineers come back with detailed plans, he is just as much in the dark as everyone else (except for the catastrophists), and certainly cannot claim that there will be any 'costs blow out'. It is a risk that has been made absolutely clear since the outset, and factored in accordingly.

All in all, there are numerous warning signs suggesting Canberra's light rail vision is going to end in taxpayer tears.

And they have all been definitively demolished as overblown hyperbole and inaccurate without foundation statements, made by a person with no knowledge of the topic on which they are proclaiming deep understanding of.

Bringing it back to Wellington, it is a well-established fact that in politics, ideas don't die - they simply hibernate until someone revives them. Local government officials in Wellington may be turning their attention to buses for now (creating ample material for a future column), but there is no guarantee we won't be seeing light rail in some Franken-form down the track.

At last Krupp makes a statement which may have a basis in fact.

When it does re-appear we need to keep Canberra's light rail experience front of mind, refuse to compromise on anything but the strictest cost-benefit analysis, and outright reject the notion that 'this time it will be different'.

One can only hope that by the time the people of Wellington revisit their public transport infrastructure needs, that Capital Metro will have been completed on time, and on budget, and is delivering the patronage figures that would justify an expansion of the network across the lake. I'm not sure why Krupp wants to reject any notion to do things differently, but trying to divine his intentions has already caused this author existential pain.

After all, smart people learn from their mistakes, smarter people learn from the mistakes of others.

And even smarter people perform research before trying to compare the space shuttle to a fire cracker.

- Jason Krupp is a research fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. 

An organisation that really should peer review, or at the very least have another person edit, any article published using its auspices.

I may appear to have harshly judged Mr Krupps article, but as a person who has been closely following the public transport debate in Canberra, the version of truth that Mr Krupp is presenting to the world cannot be unchallenged. In his rabid attack on Wellingtons public transport debate, he is drawing conclusions that do not exist, from Canberra's public transport debate.

If Mr Krupp responds to this article, it will be published on this website a a right of reply.

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

Infrastructure Australia supports Civic to Gungahlin project

Today's release of the 2013 Infrastructure Australia 'COAG Report on National Infrastructure Plan', contains very good news for Canberra's light rail supporters. In the list of infrastructure projects receiving support, there are at least 10 rail submissions (p.98) and 'City to Gungahlin', or what is now known as 'Capital Metro' is one of them. This is a far better response than the previous light rail submission which was rejected as it did not meet the criteria for support or funding.

Confusingly, there is a reference on p.41 to 'Northbourne Avenue bus lanes', but ACT Light Rail believe this reflects ALP policy up until the ALP/Greens 'agreement to govern' following the Assembly election late last year. ACT Light Rail are keen to hear Minister Corbells response though.

Shadow Transport Minister Alistair Coe has issued a media release titled 'Wheres the Light Rail?'. Instead of searching on the word 'Canberra' in the text, it would perhaps be more profitable to read the full report. Doing this reveals a very different picture that supports light rail in Canberra.

Simply by reading p.34 'Better Use of Urban Networks', you can find the very reasons Canberra needs Light Rail discussed in a broader national context.

Action 1: Better Use of Urban Networks
Capital cities across Australia struggle with under performing, legacy transport and infrastructure networks, many of which were not designed with the needs of a 21st century population and economy in mind.

Better use of urban networks will be critical to lifting infrastructure productivity, optimising network performance, managing limited capital budgets, and deferring costly new investment in ‘mega’ projects.

It recommends actions, that ACT Light Rail support, that can only be achieved with a light rail project, and not a bus only solution. These are:
    ⁃    manage transport demands
    ⁃    integrate bus and light rail
    ⁃    encourage Transit Oriented Development
    ⁃    investment in public transport

P.40 contains even more support for the principles behind the Capital Metro project with an observation about the future uses of government investment in transport being directed toward public transport:

"Although cars are presently the dominant form of private travel, we need to shift the balance of investment and regulation to prioritise higher volume or higher value transport options. This could involve priority for buses, commercial and freight vehicles at peak times and improving the efficiency and convenience of our transport network.

The smarter solutions to our urban transport needs focus on freight, commercial and public transport, and for local trips, cycling and walking.

Public investment in urban transport should focus on public transport, with expansions to the urban road network funded by users, not all taxpayers.

Australia’s cities are growing at different rates. Appropriate public transport solutions depend on the size of our cities.
The national priority list has identified well developed proposals that would support liveability in our cities and benefit growing urban areas."

The report also mentions that 'the project needs to be accompanied by a change in the pricing of parking in Civic and other centers in Canberra.'

By encouraging investment in public transport, Infrastructure Australia send a clear signal to those who would be keen to provide finance to the ACT Governments Capital Metro project, that the Federal Government has a long term plan to invest in public transport infrastructure.

ACT Light Rail are not opposed to further bus lanes in Canberra, we see the full integration of bus and light rail as the only way to service Canberra's public transport needs. We do believe that investment in Capital Metro needs to occur, and the ACT Government has signed an agreement to govern committing to construction commencing prior to the expiry of this current Assembly term.




Northbourne Avenue is Canberra's most congested road, and the Gungahlin to Civic corridor is the first route planned for Capital Metro, as it will alleviate the most urgent road congestion problem in an area that requires urgent attention to public transport infrastructure. 

ACT Light Rail have met with senior ESD staff and are convinced this Government is carefully planning and implementing a program to deliver on that commitment. Avoiding project management debacles such as the GDE are what the Opposition demands, and what the ACT public expect. by proper planning and good management, that can be achieved.

The COAG report sends a clear signal that the project has the support of Infrastructure Australia.



Please follow the Light Rail for Canberra facebook page for more frequent updates.

Benefits of light rail - from the WA MAX project

The WA State Government are proposing to build light rail in Perth. The WA Department of Transport  have placed an excellent website for the Metro Area Express or MAX system online here.

The excerpt below is from the section titled 'Benefits of light rail'. Many of these benefits are directly applicable to the ACT.

Benefits

• Reduced traffic congestion: The estimated economic cost of traffic congestion in Perth was nearly $1 billion in 2009, with costs predicted to more than double by 2020 to $2.1 billion. Initiatives such as light rail to reduce congestion will have a significant impact on both productivity and quality of life.
• Cost-effective solutions: Light rail can be built within existing streets in developed areas unlike heavy rail, which needs significant vacant land or a high-cost tunnel-based design. For areas of medium and high demand, light rail is competitive on cost with buses.
• Large capacity: One light rail vehicle carries the equivalent of three articulated buses, and a light rail system can cater for passenger numbers conventional bus routes can’t handle.
• Environmental benefits: Transport contributes 14 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gases, of which 90 per cent is generated by private vehicles. Light rail will reduce Perth’s reliance on motor vehicles.
• Sustainability: Light rail offers developers and planners the opportunity to reduce urban sprawl by increasing population densities near stations and along routes.
• Infrastructure certainty: Light rail infrastructure provides a sense of permanence, encouraging developers to invest in new commercial, mixed use and residential projects.
• Vibrancy: New development and greater population density can make areas near light rail more vibrant and active. Public transport supports community fitness by encouraging people to walk or cycle to stations or stops. Light rail vehicles will be quiet, both inside and outside.
• Easy access: Navigating a light rail system will be simple, with routes marked by permanent infrastructure in the form of rails and stations.
• Integration: MAX will integrate with the rest of the Transperth network.

Darwin light rail $17 million a kilometre

The Australian Rail Association continue to hold the ACT Governments ludicrous costing of light rail at $870 million to scrutiny. In todays Canberra Times the ARA indicate that Darwin are considering light rail at a cost of $17 million per kilometre.

The full Canberra Times article can be read here. 

From the article:

"The peak rail industry group says Darwin's Lord Mayor, Katrina Fong Lim is pushing for light rail in the Northern Territory with costs of $17 million per kilometre."

The ARA says just like the ACT, land is available in the NT to accommodate light rail which helps keep project costs down. However, the ACT has still priced the potential 13 km light rail line at $66 million per kilometre, more than triple the estimates for Darwin.

"The Northern Territory mayor's announcement means every state and territory in Australia except the ACT has seen the light when it comes to light rail." says Mr Nye.

"One tram line can move 10,000 passengers an hour, while the same space dedicated to road moves only 800 cars or 140 bus services."

"Our local Government should be learning from the experiences in other jurisdictions," says Mr Nye."

“Sydney’s bus ways are creating parking lots throughout the city and after ripping up tram lines years ago, the city is now reinvesting in light rail to ease congestion. 

“Canberrans should be calling light rail as a long-term investment to improve the connectivity of the city,” concluded Mr Nye. 

The Great Rail Infrastructure Rip-off

Eco-Transit, a Sydney based public transport lobby group have made an excellent short video examining the cost blow outs of rail infrastructure in NSW, and comparing these inflated costs to contemporary projects. As is clear from the $870 million figure that Minister Corbell straight facedly quotes for a Gungahlin to Civic light rail project, this disease seems to have crept across the border.

Industry body on ACT Govt light rail costings "Something doesn't add up"

The Australasian Railway Association has come out with yet more figures questioning the ACT Governments inflated costings for the Gungahlin to Civic transit corridor.

"If a city like Sydney can cost light rail at $29 million, claiming it would cost $66 million in Canberra is outrageous. Something doesn't add up."

The estimated cost of the Sydney light rail expansion is in line with industry estimates, such as those provided by the Tourism and Transport Forum, placing the cost of light rail at $20-$40 million per kilometre.

"We have two light rail projects, one which has been costed in line with industry estimates, the other which exceeds industry estimates by $30-$40 million per kilometres," says Mr Nye.

"With such a discrepancy, I have grave doubts as to the accuracy of the ACT costs and urge the ACT Government to release its calculations in full."

Read the full Canberra Times article here.
and another CT article with ACT Greens input here

In the article, Mr Nye, Chair of the ARA states that:

• The O'Farrell Government has costed its six kilometre, inner-west Sydney light rail expansion at $176 million which works out at $29 million per kilometre, less than half the ACT Government's estimate of $66 million per kilometre.
• Despite having to navigate through a significantly more congested urban environment, the Sydney Light Rail expansion will cost less than half that of the Canberra light rail proposal.
• The ACT government's estimates would make Canberra's light rail line one of the most expensive lines in the world on a per kilometre basis.
• We have two light rail projects, one which has been costed in line with industry estimates (at $20-$40 million per kilometre), the other which exceeds industry estimates by $30-$40 million per kilometres. 
• With such a discrepancy, I have grave doubts as to the accuracy of the ACT costs and urge the ACT Government to release its calculations in full.

Monorail not suited for Canberra

The recent news that the Monorail in Sydney is to be closed and dismantled, with the new focus to be on light rail construction, has seen several other cities with public transport problems to look at using the Sydney monorail. 

I cannot comment on the Hobart proposal, but I can comment on the Canberra monorail suggestion. 

Canberra needs to focus on building a proper mass-transit public transport system to act as the backbone of a fully integrated system. Light rail can do the heavy lifting this system needs, with ACTION buses providing the flexibility in urban areas to feed passengers to light rail nodes. 

The Sydney monorail cannot. Its carriage passenger capacity is very low. The carriages are small. I have used the service - it is like siting in a row of old Kombi vans being towed one way around a strange non-relevant route. 

Light rail is a proven, commercial off the shelf technology, with multiple providers and a set of recognised standards. 

Monorails feature largely proprietary systems and technologies, locking users into contracts or using obsolete technologies with little to no service support available if the original supplier goes into liquidation. The same applies to providers of 'guided buses' and other types of proprietary technologies. 

The Sydney monorail track is very short. It runs one direction on a loop. 

Light rail in Canberra needs to link the major urban areas, with the major employment areas. It cannot be at the scale of a small tourist novelty. 

The Sydney Monorail is over twenty years old and maintenance on such an aging asset needs extra attention. Acquiring this system would be fraught with unknown technical challenges that would be expensive to resolve. Technical knowledge and support for this obsolete technology is scant and expensive. 

Building a light rail network would mean new infrastructure with system support from the contracted providers, who are still building this technology. There is a deep pool of this experience in Australia, and multiple vehicle builders and providers. 

While the availability of a cheap monorail system may have initial appeal, it is an impractical suggestion and should be rejected by public transport planners.  The Sydney monorail system has never attracted the patronage expected, and the reason it is being replaced is so that light rail can be extended.

Conversations on alternatives to using diesel buses as Canberra's mass transit public transport system are always welcome, but monorail is not that alternative.