The case for light rail

The project, if not the most controversial pursued by an ACT government, can be argued credibly to be so. The Barr/Rattenbury government's support for the project is based on analysis which is widely rejected by experts as flawed, most recently by the Gratton Institute, the director of the Institute of Transport and Logistic Studies, and the deputy director of the Urban Research Program at Griffith University.

Even Professor Vickerman, who "independently" reviewed the government's business case, judged the government's benefit cost ratio of 1.2 to be "still fairly marginal": a self-commissioned survey of public opinion so biased as to render any conclusions meaningless.

The government's use of the Vickerman Review to support the project is just another deception.The Canberra Times' coverage of the Gratton Report was instrumental in Minister Simon Corbell's release of the Vickerman Review. A concerted high-profile media campaign is essential if the project is to be put in perspective in terms of priorities not only for public transport in the ACT but other significant sectors.

The Canberra Times editorial concludes: "The ACT government will only truly know whether Canberrans are behind the project come election day". That may well be true, but if Mr Barr is relying on rusted-on Labor voters to return his government, he should be aware that rust can very easily flake off.

A sordid deal to gain power in 2012 may prove Mr Barr's undoing in 2016. Political expediency is one thing; political deception to support it is another.

Ken Brazel, Weston

The CT editorial on April 10 states there are flaws in the light rail business case. There are flaws but the most serious flaw is the high discount rate (or interest rate) used in the cost benefit calculations.

The discount rate used in the light rail business case is about 6 per cent. The Reserve Bank lends money to the banks at 2 per cent. The USA, Japan, China and England lend money to their banks at zero per cent.

Changing the percentage from 6 per cent to 2 per cent halves the total cost of capital works that last for 50 years. It doubles the value of the benefits where the benefits occur evenly across the life of the capital works. The value of light rail comes from being an exclusive right of way. Once established, the right of way will last more than 50 years.

Let us redo the business case for light rail but this time let us use the actual interest rate of 2 per cent and lock it in.

If a bank, including foreign banks, can get money at this rate, so should the ACT government.

This is one way our governments can be innovative and finance capital works responsibly.

Kevin Cox, Ngunnawal

The CT editorial regarding the business case for light rail was timely.

There is an Alice in Wonderland quality about our government's push for light rail. They propose eventually to have a network of light rail. This network would be at a minimum 12 times the length of the present option. This would cost at least $12billion to construct and a further $10billion to service over a 20-year contract. At a return of 50 cents for every dollar spent, it would put our economy so much in the red that it would take many years and taxpayers' dollars to recover.

To make matters worse, every dollar earned by the tram network would be a dollar lost by ACTION which already operates at a loss.

I can understand the utter lack of sense by our elected politicians but I cannot forgive the lack of backbone of their public service advisors who go along with the folly of light rail for Canberra.

Howard Carew, Isaacs

It is a pity that there is so much negativity towards the light rail proposal. The business case for light rail has not helped to stem the criticism.

I believe that light rail is good for Canberra. It does have many benefits that can be justified economically and politically.

What is wrong, however, is that the proposed route from Gungahlin to Civic is misguided. The light rail proposal and its construction should have been a unifying infrastructure proposal for Canberrans on both sides of Lake Burley Griffin.

My suggestion is that the tram line should be constructed from Dickson to Woden via a circle line around the parliamentary triangle which would include the city and Russell Hill locations.

These routes alone would provide financial benefits from the fare box with a high cost-recovery factor. Importantly, it could remove cars from both the triangle and Russell Hill environs. At different times of the year there is also an added bonus of capturing substantial tourist usage. Land valuations along these routes would also rise.

Sadly the current proposal is really "a tram from nowhere to nowhere". It is fair to say it has lost the overall support of the general populace simply because it appears to favour one particular area on the north side of Canberra with no benefits for residents on the other side who will be expected to pay high rates for no real benefit.

Finally, unlike the Gold Coast tramway, the current ACT proposal has no "string of pearls" benefits. I believe mine does. It is not too late for the ACT government to go to the October territory election with an amended proposal.

Kevin Connor, Kaleen

Congratulations to Jack Batter, the year 9 student at Alfred Deakin High School, who won the international University of NSW First Light Project by suggesting the first image to be taken by the new Falcon Telescope Network (Sunday Canberra Times, April 10, p5).

His submission included supporting calculations for the image to be taken. Wow! Will Jack Baker be the next Brian Schmidt?

Dianne Peacock, Isaacs

If Colliss Parrett (Letters, April 10) is unable to distinguish between the harms caused by drugs directly and those caused by the enforcement of prohibitionist policies, or is unaware of the success of Portugal and Sweden in nearly eliminating these deaths by approaching the problem from a health rather than legal perspective, then he/she has no business advising anybody on illicit drugs policy.

James Allan, Narrabundah

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).