Page 3723 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On the cost of the master plan, one word in particular stands out from Dr Bourke’s motion, “affordable”. This of course was the same term used by the Chief Minister yesterday, the man who is also in control of balancing the territory’s books, when he described the government’s plans for transport in Canberra, “affordable”. Perhaps that is what the union polling is telling them, perhaps that is what their polling is telling them, that people have concerns about the cost. So for the next year we are going to see the government try to bang on with the term “affordable”.
Quite frankly, as we all know, this is not affordable, especially when you look at the opportunity cost. It was interesting that the Minister for Planning said in question time yesterday that the master plan has not been costed. As I am sure Dr Bourke and the Chief Minister would agree, we cannot judge whether something is affordable if we have not seen how much it is going to cost.
What is affordable about this network? A best case estimate puts the cost of the proposed network at $5 billion at least. However I would not be surprised if this figure is perhaps even double that. This is primarily due to some of the practicalities involved in building the network such as getting the tram over bridges, through tunnels and around intersections. Navigating the bridges, tunnels, and intersections will not come cheaply. Quite frankly light rail will actually deliver a slower service than the intertown buses.
Of course these additional routes proposed in the master plan will also need to be financed. As we all know, the interest burden becomes larger with every dollar you borrow and spend. Then of course the trams need to be operated and maintained, all of which will come at a substantial cost and, worse still, a substantial opportunity cost.
The fact that the master plan has not been costed also calls into question the legitimacy of the consultation referenced in Dr Bourke’s motion. You cannot expect proper consultation to occur on projects if you do not detail the costs of these projects and what the opportunity cost is. Previous studies commissioned by the ACT government have shown that whilst Canberrans like the idea of light rail they prefer investing in our bus network as a reasonable option for using taxpayers’ money. There is a correlation between the support for light rail and the price of light rail. Unfortunately that correlation is a negative correlation.
Aside from the costs of the project, the practicalities of building the light rail network proposed in the master plan are not sufficiently explained. For example, how is the government proposing to get a tram from London Circuit onto Parkes Way? From looking at the master plan, it appears the government wants to run a tram along Edinburgh Avenue and down a ramp onto Parkes Way. Apart from turning the tram into a bit of rollercoaster—and I have no doubt that modern engineering can find a way to get the tram onto Parkes Way—it would not come cheaply.
Then there are the challenges of getting the trams over both Kings Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue bridges and through the Acton tunnel and the Capital Circle tunnel. Again, I have no doubt that engineers can make this happen but it does not come cheaply.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video