Former ACT Chief Minister, Kate Carnell, has joined the growing chorus of people against the ACT Light Rail Project, arguing that the population density along the proposed rail route linking Gungahlin in the North and Civic is far too low to make the project viable. From The Canberra Times:
[Carnell said] a price tag of $614 million for the project risked detracting from other infrastructure development in the capital…
“I think it’s a great idea but we just couldn’t make it work 10 or 15 years ago, and I give you Canberra is a bit bigger now but it’s not bigger all along that route,” she said…
“If what it means is the ACT government literally shoveling money into this project forever and a day, that would be very concerning,” she said.
It is important to once again remind readers that the ACT Light Rail Project only came to fruition because Labor lacked the numbers to form government and needed to gain support from the Greens sole MLA, Shane Rattenbury, who held the balance of power.
As argued previously, the light rail project is a textbook case of infrastructure pork barreling, and is exactly the kind of project that Australia does not need if is to alleviate its infrastructure deficit and raise overall productivity and living standards.
Canberra lacks the density to make light rail viable from either an economic or social perspective. The city is highly decentralised, with its small population spread-out around six primary centres: Civic (the tiny CBD), the Parliamentary Triangle, Belconnen, Woden, Tuggeranong, and Gungahlin (where the rail line is proposed to travel to).
If the Government was truly concerned about improving public transport options across the capital, rather than only along this narrow 12 kilometre strip, then it would expand the existing bus service across the entire city. Such an option would also be far more equitable than forcing taxpayers everywhere, other than along the Gungahlin to Civic corridor, to subsidise a dubious project to which they gain little benefit (either directly or indirectly).
The Productivity Commission made similar arguments in its recently released report into the provision of public infrastructure:
The ACT Government’s decision to proceed with a light rail project appears to be an example of where the results of cost–benefit analysis have been ignored without a valid explanation…
In a submission to Infrastructure Australia in 2012, the ACT Government analysed a number of options including bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail rapid transit (LRT). The analysis estimated that the upfront capital costs for the BRT and LRT would be $276 million and $614 million respectively (on an undiscounted basis) (ACT Government 2012).
In its economic appraisal (which is essentially a cost–benefit analysis), the ACT Government found net present values of $243.3 million for BRT and $10.8 million for LRT. The benefit–cost ratio for BRT was estimated at 1.98, with 1.02 for LRT. In the assessment, the benefits of BRT and LRT were similar ($491.8 million against $534.9 million respectively), but the cost of BRT was less than half that of LRT ($248.5 million against $524.1 million, when discounted by 7 per cent). The cost–benefit analysis took into account a range of factors including journey times, and avoided environmental impacts and accidents (ACT Government 2012)…
In summary, a cost–benefit analysis showed BRT to be a greatly superior option than LRT…
While it won’t admit it publicly, the ACT Government knows that light rail is an uneconomic dud, which is why it is attempting to force people to relocate along the rail corridor in order to boost the Project’s viability, thus putting the cart before the horse:
“Spot rezoning” will be used as the ACT government plans for at least another 45,000 residents along Northbourne Avenue while land and buildings will be sold to increase density and commercialise the corridor, alongside works for the 13-stop tram line.
ACT Light Rail is a classic example of what happens when political motivations are placed ahead of the public interest. If the Government had any decency, it would cut its losses and abandon the project before more taxpayer funds are wasted.
