First up

It was a practical joke by son no.2 and I won it! He entered me in the draw for one of 150 double passes (from 6,000 applications) for a trip on the Light Rail Community Preview Loop and I won. Strange but true. It was a slightly difficult experience for someone otherwise disparaging of light rail for Canberra. The trip itself was as I expected. The tram was comfortable and quick enough. Most riders were excited and several spoke longingly of a city-wide network. Cost (and forgone alternatives) didn't seem to enter awareness or to be an issue. Mostly I kept quiet and listened. I mentioned my position to staff when asked and we laughed about me being there through a practical joke. The boss later came to talk/confirm/quiz me but otherwise I was left alone like the other elderlies. The only media on our tram (10 trams were running) was KIX106 or suchlike and their interviews were limited. But I enjoyed the trip well enough. It was nothing unexpected. For fun, given various aps, I checked speed (70kph in Gunghalin; 60kph on Northbourne) and noise level (~65db but up to 70db at speed). Not quite like the European fast trains that I downloaded the aps for.

But my issue is cost-benefit and other practicalities rather than trams themselves. So what would I have said if interviewed by mainstream media? "I like trams but I don't want to pay for them" was perhaps my favourite distillation. There are so many reasons why a tram is not optimal. It's expensive for what it does especially given we have no tracks already in place; the network requires frequent changes and has fewer stops; there are up and down tracks but no passing for express trips; it's inflexible. On the other hand, it's more comfortable than buses and it's fairly quiet and is promised to be quite frequent. It promotes density so developers love it and it's a commitment by Labor to the Greens for government. It also merges brilliantly with Hockey's Asset Recycling Fund (I understand our Labor government is the principal beneficiary) which promotes the sell-off of government assets (here, land up and down Northbourne Ave). It's a preparation for climate change (although there are alternatives, eg, electric buses) and a response to manic immigration by Federal government (ever frightened of a possible recession). It's a little like Brexit in the way it's divided the people, so you might like trams even if (or perhaps because) you don't think of the cost. I like trams well enough but the opportunity cost riles me (opportunity cost: what you could otherwise be doing with that money). In that, to my mind, it's like the cars-for-subs swap or the tragically inadequate NBN or the culture-war AWM expansion: bad decisions may be popular but they make us poorer. But many cities are doing it, ie, trams: it seems to me like a contrarian version of the time when most cities pulled out of trams in favour of cars and suburbia. I well remember a generous tram network in '60s Adelaide that's now just a single track to Glenelg. Now Melbourne and Milan are proud that they didn't join in the tram-removal mania. I wonder if we may regret our contrary decision soon enough, too, as I think on new (and often cheaper) technologies like trackless trams and self-drive cars and the rest. I expect we will still need public/mass transport and I fully support it, but I'm yet to be convinced trams are the answer for untracked contemporary Canberra, especially as tech changes over coming years. But a Woden track is in planning (I frequently see surveyors along the route), even part-funded as a Federal ALP election promise and the acolytes dream of a network (presumably into the tens of $bs). Woden alone is costed at ~$1.5b (less ALP's $200m election promise) for a much shorter route, more costly given the need to cross the lake. And it will come undoubtedly with its own tunnel of apartments. Development is never easy to promote, partly given the public (other than direct beneficiaries) has a comfortable preference for stasis, but it would be nice to be convinced. I may never be convinced, but it's a fact-of-life now and the responsibility is others'.

Death wish

The biggest issue in Canberra politics these days is the tram (for those anti) / light rail (for those pro). For this post, I will use lr, at least for now... I have an opinion, but I also have friends with differing opinions, so I decided to test myself by attending an open seminar session on the case for Canberra's light rail convened by the University of Canberra's Institute for Governance an Policy Analysis and chaired by ex-Chief Minister Jon Stanhope. Stanhope was academically neutral, although I read in recent days in the paper that previous plans for light rail in his time had not stacked up. This seminar brought together UCan urban planner Barbara Norman (pro) and economist David Hughes (anti). They are both relevantly knowledgeable, having both held highly relevant senior positions in Canberra's local public service (ACT planning and major project analysis at ACT Treasury). Barbara spoke first, arguing for resilience, integrated "multimodal transport", "doing nothing is not an option", expected growth, "excellent opportunities for innovation" (innovation, in trams?), climate change, healthy cities, social justice, while admitting she is "not an expert on cost/benefit". David argued that lr was a "poor project" with low cost/benefit (0.5) on key measures, low carbon savings ($13m), which "doesn't do much" / "impact is negligible", that core benefits (including transport, health, congestion and environment) are just 40% of total benefits, while 60% is other questionable benefits (the same balance for Sydney's lr is 95%-5%), and that risks are on "just about everything" (budget, disruption, private involvement, patronage, future of planning and technologies).

Questions were primarily themed anti. The first doubted the cost. Barbara responded that "stars aligned" in terms of PM, ACT government, a prepared industry (I might add interest rates). David observed history of government project cost overruns, the enormity (esp of the full plan) against the ACT budget, especially given the Gunghalin line is the easiest to justify. Then climate change, town centre planning in Canberra, experiences with other cities (David argues experience is poor, claiming to use the Government's own numbers and examples - Gold Coast, Perth, Portland, etc; Barbara argues for), Barbara mentioned recent articles in the Canberra Times, including Ross Gittins in support of public transport (but ignored an editorial, perhaps the same day, on dangers of the project), "religious conversions" of tram supporters, input from Gen X/Y (David interestingly noted that Braddon has largely developed without government involvement), implications for transport and other costs and government secrecy, comparisons with Melbourne and the argument over health and activity (I hear the tram will only have 3 stops on Northbourne Ave, so walking is not optional), social equity, pleasantness of tram travel, contracts. The audience responses were sometimes one-sided. Most questions were reasonable and reasoned, although some were of the "I liked using trams on holiday in Europe" variety.

So my summation? I am very concerned about climate change and interested in city development, but I call this a tram. It seems to do little new, have numerous problems (infrequent stops, no ability for passing), will cost lots and divert government monies, is not supported by infrastructure or economic experts, is inflexible (isn't the recent tunnel problem an argument against such an inflexible system?) ... there's more but I can't be bothered writing it all here. It's certainly enough to have me writing letters to Rattenbury, Corbell and Barr. As for the arguments, I found David's detailed and evidence-rich but Barbara's vague and wishful. As I see it, this is a lose-lose situation for this centre-left voting public: Labor/Greens win next year's election and we have an expensive project of little real benefit that that will constrain good spending, or Libs win and cancel lr with significant cost in monies and trashed reputation and readiness to explore future public transport options. So, why death wish? It's the expression used by a guy I sat next to and talked with. He'd been chummy with Stanhope before the meeting and obviously moved in those circles. As he said, and I've been recently thinking, governments reach a used-by date; this looks like Labor's death wish. I reckon he might be right.

Jon Stanhope chaired a session on Canberra light rail under the auspices of the University of Canberra's Institute for Governance an Policy Analysis. UCan urban planner Barbara Norman and economist David Hughes spoke for and against the tram.

Lecture website with recommended reading