Page 1172 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
A central plank of the Canberra Liberals public transport policy is that we will not proceed with light rail—a system which will not serve all of our community. This week, we have seen yet another expert come out in criticism of the government for going ahead with their light rail project. Marion Terrill is a leading public policy analyst at the Grattan Institute. She has worked on many important reforms, including the Henry tax review. In her report, Roads to riches: better transport spending, Ms Terrill notes that an ACT government submission to Infrastructure Australia showed that light rail will deliver similar benefits to BRT, but at twice the cost.
That same submission noted that BRT would deliver higher economic returns and that light rail was economically marginal. Ms Terrill also notes that, despite the report, the ACT government proceeded with the development of light rail without providing a valid explanation. The report is also critical of the capital metro business case, noting that wider economic impacts and land use benefits are normally excluded from project evaluations because the risk of overestimating them is too high.
With their report, the Grattan Institute joins Infrastructure Australia, the Centre for International Economics and the Productivity Commission in questioning the ACT government’s decision to proceed with light rail. The Grattan Institute’s analysis of the benefit-cost ratio also aligns with the analysis provided by both David Hughes and Leo Dobes, two senior economists with vast experience in project analysis.
The Grattan Institute further confirms what many Canberrans think of the current light rail proposal. Proceeding with light rail is a political decision made by ACT Labor and an ideological position taken by the ACT Greens. Sadly for Canberra, these positions have been taken with very little care or regard for the comprehensive analysis which should have been done. In some parts it has been done and it suggests that the project should not go ahead.
I also note that the government just yesterday released an 18-month-old review from Professor Roger Vickerman. For a start, this independent analysis, commissioned by the government, does not address the underlying problem, which was the government’s decision to go ahead with light rail. It simply reviewed the business case, which in effect had light rail as a done deal. Professor Vickerman also notes in his analysis that he was:
Commissioned to consider the broad approach for the business case … rather than an audit of the detailed data or values used.
Without looking at the underlying assumptions used in the business case, the conclusions of the review can in effect only be limited to the very data which is published in that review. Given the overwhelming view that light rail is a poor spending decision, I must once again call on the government not to sign contracts until the people of Canberra have had their say in October.
The Canberra Liberals recognise that there is a broader transport network outside of public transport in the ACT. A couple of weeks ago, the Canberra Liberals committed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video