The ACT Government should not proceed with light rail stage 2B, and instead adopt alternative solutions such as electric buses or a trackless tram system, a paper published today argues.

“In comparison with alternative solutions, Light Rail Stage 2B will be slower, less flexible in its routing, have greater environmental impacts, be far more expensive, and will impose a substantial financial burden on Canberrans for many decades to come,” the paper, 21^st Century Public Transport Solutions for Canberra, warns.

In response, the ACT Government said that it was “focused on future proofing our growing city by building an integrated transport network that includes a light rail network and electric bus fleet”, while the Public Transport Association of Canberra (formerly the ACT Light Rail Coalition) criticised the paper’s findings.

The report’s authors include experts in public service, town planning, transport issues, technology, travel and alternative fuels, and finance and economics. They are Leon Arundell, a former public servant and transport and climate economist; Dr John Bell, former Chief Science Adviser in the Commonwealth Industry Department; Russ Morison, retired from Defence; computer programmer Kent Fitch; Mike Quirk, former NCA and ACT government planner; and Anthony Senti, former public servant.

The authors say they have “grave concerns” about both the future of public transport in Canberra and the ACT’s financial position, due to “the excessive and the disproportionate amount of money” the government is spending on light rail.

That excessive spending, they say, contributed to a downgrade in the ACT’s credit rating, from AAA to AA+ for the first time since 2003; the debt-to-operating revenue ratio is predicted to reach 154 per cent by 2026; debt is growing and interest charges increasing; and public services will be more expensive or even cut back.

“This substantial re-allocation of Canberrans’ money is depriving the other public services such as public housing, hospitals, schools, policing, women’s refuges, and roads,” the paper states. “The increasing Light Rail debt will directly and indirectly impact on the lives of families in Canberra, who are already under enormous stress, further increasing costs of living and housing.”

The authors criticise the government’s decision-making process: in 2012, the government chose to build a light rail line between Gungahlin and the CBD that would generate minimal net benefits of only $11 million, rather than bus rapid transit that would produce net benefits worth $243 million.

Estimated costs for Stage 2A, the report observes, exceeded initial projections: in 2019, the government, without reviewing the costs and benefits of other options, concluded Stage 2A would cost only $268 million, with a net cost of $138 million; the estimated cost is now expected to exceed $1.2 billion. Stage 2B, they say, was proposed without a thorough review of costs and benefits of other options.

Instead, the paper proposes Bus Rapid Transit (requires fewer transfers, costs half as much, can be built more quickly, is twice as cost-effective, and at least 10 minutes faster); trackless trams (faster and more flexible, cost half as much, can be deployed quickly, and are twice as cost-effective); autonomous electric cars; or high occupancy vehicle lanes (can be configured in weeks, at a small fraction of the cost of bus rapid transit or light rail).

The paper recommends that the government complete Light Rail Stage 2A ground works only, and evaluate the adoption of a trackless tram system to replace light rail; take no further action on Light Rail Stage 2B and cancel or amend contracts to provide for bus rapid transit as soon as possible; accelerate the acquisition of electric buses to complete the transition to zero emissions public transport by 2030; and extend T2 lanes to Civic and Woden.

The paper also notes that the construction of Stage 2B would require new bridges between the Commonwealth Avenue bridges, and seven other bridges on Adelaide Avenue and Yamba Drive; lifts and escalators for commuters to access tram stops in the middle of Adelaide Avenue; and complex intersections so trams could cross lines of traffic.

Canberra Liberals MLA Mark Parton, Shadow Minister for Transport, said the report highlights many of the issues the Canberra Liberals have raised about the tram, and why if elected the Canberra Liberals will not proceed with stage 2B that is anticipated to cost over $4 billion.

“It paints a very bleak picture about the future of public transport in the ACT if we proceed with the tram that will significantly increase travel times for Canberrans from the south,” Mr Parton said.

Mr Parton said the information provided in the report emphasises why Chief Minister Andrew Barr and the Labor-Greens government refuse to be upfront with Canberrans about stage 2B of the tram.

“Despite repeated calls by the Canberra Liberals, Andrew Barr refuses to tell Canberrans how much this significant project will cost taxpayers, how they plan to overcome the engineering challenges and even the route between Commonwealth Park and Woden.

“The Canberra Liberals will put forward a transport policy that will focus on getting Canberrans where they want to go when they want to get there that will be faster, greener, better connect and cheaper.”

However, Ryan Hemsley, Chair of the Public Transport Association of Canberra, said: “This report is a mish-mash of mistruths and half-baked proposals. Its key claims lack solid evidence, and it fails to engage seriously with the question of how Canberra manages its transport needs now and into the future.

“PTCBR welcomes robust debate about transport in Canberra, but we insist that this debate must be based on facts and a basic understanding of what actually works. We can’t rely on unproven technology or waste money on trying it out – we need solutions we can implement today.

“It’s concerning to see the Canberra Liberals supporting a document which doesn’t stand up to basic scrutiny. We certainly hope they won’t be relying on it in developing their 2024 transport policy.”