Canberra's light rail deal shonky

It is assumed that the yearly fee will cover the private partner's capital costs plus a guaranteed "profit".

Such "no risk" capital venture for the private parties should have consortiums queuing up for a piece of the pie and demanding that they be allowed to contribute 100 per cent of the development and operating costs.

ACT tax and ratepayers would be interested to know the interest being paid on capital borrowings and the "profit" margin being offered to the private partners, in particular the duration of the capital borrowings.

Given Chief Minister Andrew Barr's economic background, it is difficult to understand how he would be party to such a shonky business arrangement.

In addition, it would be interesting to know the estimates of the rolling stocks acquisition, replacement, maintenance and operating costs which will also be guaranteed and paid by the government to the private partners.

Ed Dobson, Hughes

Congratulations Paul Malone. Your piece on the light rail project makes a strong case for abandoning it before it's too late. Paul does refer to the annual fee the PPP contractor will be paid for 20 years but he couldn't tell us how much it would be because the government won't tell us

They say we'll have to wait until tenders are submitted. I have repeatedly asked them (Corbell and Rattenbury), will they tell us when they know and will this be before or after the construction contract is signed?

They refuse to answer these questions. I have estimated the annual payment will be about $100 million so $2 billion after 20 years. This is a lot of money, especially given the parlous state of ACT's finances.

This totally unnecessary and extremely high cost project should be scrapped now before this government commits ACT ratepayers to more debt for so little in return.

Eric Traise, President, TCC

Paul Malone is right to point-out recent failures of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) as solutions for public transport in Sydney and Brisbane.

He could well have added two recent PPP bolt-on solutions to Sydney Rail - the much maligned Darling Harbour Monorail (pulled down after 20 years) and the AirPort Rail Link, opened for the 2000 Olympics and declared bankrupt in 2006 (leaving the NSW government exposed to costs of $800 million). The Gungahlin light rail proposal is slower (by up to six minutes than the existing Red Rapid buses), less frequent (in fact one third the frequency of commuter buses serving Northbourne Avenue), and without the flexibility of express services being able to overtake "milk run buses" and share the same transport corridor, especially for those commuters with destinations "beyond Civic".

The enforcement of paid-parking is the single most effective reason to get commuters out of their cars, and into buses (or onto bikes) since ACT self government.

It's time therefore to improve ACTION's efficiency, not impose a bolt-on "PPP solution" that ACT ratepayers have not had the chance to vote on - but will be left to pick up the tab for.

David Dickson, Kaleen

Paul Malone, resident of Ocean Grove Victoria, argues against Private Public Partnerships for light rail because PPPs for road tollways have failed.

In the short term usage charges for transport connections be they airports, cycleways, walkways, roads, light rail or buses rarely cover the capital cost of construction plus operating costs. The failure of past PPPs based around usage income is hardly surprising.

The capital cost of transport connections are economically justified by the increase in capital value along the routes and the value of connecting residents. Malone says he wants public transport and opts for Bus Rapid Transit because, he says, the capital cost is lower.

However, we know that the operating costs of light rail are lower than BRT systems and we know the ACTION buses without light rail already lose about $100 million each year. We know that the increase in the capital value of land along a corridor is higher with light rail and will offset any lower capital cost of BRT.

Let us wait for the PPP consortium proposals before making a judgment on whether light rail is economically sound and will benefit Canberra.

Kevin Cox, Ngunnawal

When can the citizens of NSW have a peaceful Christmas and New Year without the antisocial element in our society letting off, in NSW, these illegal fireworks?

The ACT is the only state or territory where you can buy them legally. Why?

Each festive season I have to go to the vet and buy sedatives for my two girls, who are frightened of the noise and explosions these things make. From 10pm till after midnight all we hear, in Punchbowl, is the noise these things make, they are dangerous to the user and the environment, so whoever your Chief Minister is, now, make it your priority to ban them.

So next Christmas will be peaceful and we will not be disturbed by those hoons who go to Canberra to purchase these antisocial devices.

Robert Pallister, Punchbowl

I would like to think my reply here to the comment in the Sunday Canberra Times "No rest for Barr as he seeks top sport" (p46, December 28) will get a guernsey I as sure as the lord made little fishes I live in doubt.

I have found it quite difficult with first Mr Quinlan and ACT motor sport icon Mr Gentleman and their apparent disdain for major events and facilities and now Mr Barr re his top sport chase for his yuppy, trendy ACT friends when they know he now continually ignores the tourism and economic advantages of major motor sport to the ACT.

While major motor sport - not car festivals but major motor sport - seemingly continues to increase in leaps and bounds across this great nation in capital cities and country locations, the ACT government continually sit on their collective hands in absolutely nothing short of ignorance and arrogance of the plethora of ACT, national and international advantages major motor sport and its adjunct activities offer the nation's capital, affectionately known as Dullandboringville , to serious motor sport communities Australia-wide.

Michael Attwell, Dunlop

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).