The ACT Government’s light-rail proposal would cost each household in the ACT $1250 over the next three years and fewer than 10 per cent of the population would use it, according to the ACT Opposition. Opposition Leader, Kate Carnell, said yesterday that Labor wanted to spend $120 million of taxpayers’ funds over the next three years to get the first stage of the project running. There would be a minimum 10 per cent extra in parking fees and fines and parking charges would be applied in Tuggeranong and Belconnen Town centres.
The Opposition would not support the light rail proposal because it was economically irresponsible and with a capital cost of $509 million could cripple the ACT economy because the bulk of it would have to be borrowed. The Minister for Urban Services, David Lamont, was talking quite seriously about spending the equivalent of what it would cost to build two new major hospitals. “”All this from a Government which allows our existing bus network to continue to run at a loss of more than $1 million a week,” she said. Last month the Government issued “”Public Transport Options Study _ Stage 3. Canberra Light Rail Implementation Study” by Booz-Allen and Hamilton. It said light rail was feasible for Canberra.
It recommended further detailed environmental and engineering studies. The Government responded by agreeing to $500,000 worth of further study. The Opposition criticised the study’s “”suspect” patronage figures. The study had said Canberra-Queanbeyan would grow to 474,000 by 2016, a growth rate of 2 per cent _ well above current rates. Mrs Carnell said the study had ominously stated that a “”light-rail oriented land-use development plan” would be needed “”to ensure sufficient access is provided with higher density station area development”.
She asked, “”Is that a code for the Kingstonisation of areas served by light rail?” The study had assumed that because the Government subsidised ACTION by 73 per cent it would do so for light rail. But with higher capital servicing costs of $67 million it would mean a $7.92 loss per boarding compared to ACTION’s of $2.83 per boarding. Under the study’s figures there was about $60 million a year which had to be funded from somewhere. Mrs Carnell said that light rail was unsuitable for an increasing number of parents, especially women, who had to take children to childcare or school on the way to or from work.
The proposal has also come under fire from Independent Michael Moore. However, Mr Lamont’s office has pointed out that the Government has not committed itself to light rail. It has done what any responsible government would do: explore the options fully. Mr Lamont says that the ACT would have to learn to make the big decisions now that it was no longer run by a paternalistic Federal Government.