Despite these facts, revealed in the government's own analysis, I and other opponents of the Capital Metro as proposed have apparently failed to persuade a significant majority of ACT residents of the folly and inequity of this project. If an automated poll of 1446 residents commissioned by Unions ACT is to be believed, only 46 per cent opposed light rail for Canberra.

If balanced against the government's failure to provide good public transport over its 15 years in office, the exorbitant amount of money proposed to be spent on what is now one bus route should have almost total opposition. Claims Capital Metro is the beginning of a city-wide rail network are fanciful, as are claims it is or will be of benefit to the environment. Because as proposed, it is likely to drive more people away from public transport.

The government has now effectively confirmed what I wrote about six months ago: that many people who can travel to Civic and beyond without changing buses will have to change on to the tram to reach Civic and change to another bus to go further. No planner with a realistic understanding of the effect multiple changes have on commuters would foist this on to travellers, particularly in Canberra where the private motor vehicle is a relatively easy alternative.

In his presentation to the ACT Planning and Land Authorities Sustainable Communities Program Transport Workshop of September 2008, the director of research (Transport Engineering) at Monash University, Professor Graham Curry, highlighted that 30 per cent of ACTION patronage was lost due to enforced transfers. There is no sound reason to believe this has changed.

Yet the proposed Capital Metro will introduce one or two forced changes for many commuters who can now catch one bus per journey.

Some supporters and opponents of the proposed Gungahlin-Civic light rail mistakenly cite successful and unsuccessful light rail projects respectively to support their cases. The question is not whether light rail itself provides effective transport, but whether it is the most appropriate for this route at this time. Some supporters of this project correctly argue Canberra must reduce its dependence on private motor vehicles. But with its plan to boost tram patronage by forcing people to change from a bus for part of their journey, the government is more likely to increase private vehicle use.

Other supporters argue that with extra capacity for bicycles, trams will encourage increased cycling. But with four bike racks at half the frequency of buses which have two bike racks, the capacity would be similar. Further, non-stop travel between Gungahlin and Civic, already a popular option with buses, will not be possible with trams without a considerable gap between services. Frequency, not long delays, is an important key to use of public transport of any sort.

Before the 2012 election, Canberra Liberals, without specifying when, said rates would increase threefold under Labor. In the three years since, rates alone, though not yet tripled, have increased by about 25 per cent including about 11 per cent this year. Citing the need to raise money for the light rail project – though of course there are many other needs – Canberra Liberals point to this year's increases for: vehicle registration, six per cent; utilities tax, five per cent; drivers' licences, five per cent; parking fees, 11 per cent; traffic infringement fines, 16 per cent; and parking fines, 29 per cent.

This city is becoming unaffordable, particularly for many people who live in older areas and not least those who the government asserts will benefit by a tram along Northbourne Avenue. Justifying extending parking charges to 10.30pm, the government suggested this would encourage greater use of public transport. This insults those who use the service who are well aware that to help to pay for Capital Metro, departures of most suburban weekday bus services were recently cut to 9.30pm.

Then there is Chief Minister Andrew Barr's estimate in May last year that the value of homes in the rail corridor was expected to increase by 25 per cent. He probably meant the value of land. The government effectively sets the unimproved capital value of land on which rates are based. It seems redevelopment, not public transport, is a key component of the Capital Metro project. So many people who would never use the tram will have to sell their homes, probably to developers, to pay artificially-inflated rates bills.

On top of these increases there remains the spectre of a levy on households within a kilometre of the rail to help pay for it. Indeed, the government has not ruled out a city-wide levy.

The money proposed to be spent on the project would, in the words of TAMS staff, give all of Canberra a gold-plated public transport system. So why is the government not given this advice officially? Because that would be a very poor career move.

Capital Metro Minister Simon Corbell reasons that to provide a busway on Northbourne Avenue would occupy an existing traffic lane, thus causing greater delays to private vehicles. True enough, but it would give bus commuters a faster journey than proposed under Capital Metro and for a fraction of the cost. This would not preclude a bus or tramway on the medium in the future, but at present for a quite modest cost, reserving the outside lanes for buses, emergency vehicles and perhaps taxis, makes the most economic and practical sense at present.

The initial capital cost of the project was initially estimated at $614 million. Even at that price it was not supported by Infrastructure Australia. The cost is now touted at about $800 million and, based on similar-sized projects, interstate could be reasonably expected to increase to at least $1 billion – perhaps more.

Add to this Capital Metro's estimated average annual operating cost of about $37 million to run what is only one Canberra bus route. ACTION's annual operating budget for its entire network is about $140 million, arguably 30 per cent inefficient when benchmarked against other Australian capital city bus operators.

The government's first priority should be – indeed, should have been for many years – to address this inefficiency and to provide an effective public transport system for all Canberra. Instead, its primary focus is on a grossly expensive, 13-kilometre tram line with the most obvious major benefit flowing to the government through increased rates and other charges. Yet those who raise a voice against it are effectively branded luddites with no vision for the future. Much of this criticism comes from people who are obviously not public transport users but support this project by dint of political allegiance.

Graham Downie is a Canberra writer.