Published data shows that 20 of the 25-member EIS team of ‘independent consultants’ are or were employees of the company that holds a financial stake in the extension of the light rail, reveals BEATRICE BODART-BAILEY.

“Crooked thinking buckles tram track to Woden” was the heading to a column by Jon Stanhope and Khalid Ahmed (CN August 7).

The same figurative buckling, plus the hazard of real tram tracks buckling, appear in the light rail Stage 2b Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) about which Canberrans are asked to have “Your Say” by midnight, September 5.

An EIS is regulated by a scoping document issued by the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate of the ACT for a particular project, here the 2b extension of the tram to Woden. 

It prescribes: “The Authority requires that the proponent engage a suitable qualified independent consultant to prepare an EIS, OR the proponent submits, with the draft EIS, an independent review of the draft EIS undertaken by a suitably qualified consultant.”

The draft EIS for the 2b extension of the light rail does not fulfill either of these requirements. 

It bears the name of a company that has been awarded a $93 million design contract for stage 2 of the light rail and describes its duties under this contract as “providing the Technical Advisory (TA) services to Major Projects Canberra (MPC) for the engineering design and environmental approvals for Light Rail Stage 2.  As the TA we will form a single integrated team with MPC staff and advisors, to deliver co-ordinated, progressively assured design and outcomes.” 

Obviously, the above company is not an “independent consultant” and therefore “an independent review of the draft EIS” is required. 

Enquiring at the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate where this independent review could be found, I was directed to Appendix G of the draft EIS. 

Here the 25 members of an “EIS delivery team” claimed to consist of independent consultants, are listed and, it was argued, that made the independent review unnecessary.

Published data shows that 20 of the 25-member team are or were employees of the above company, which holds a financial stake in the extension of the light rail. 

Perhaps this occurrence should be added to the breaches of guidelines that caused Stanhope and Ahmed to refer to the figuratively buckling of the tram tracks.

The less-than-independent mindset of team members is evident when the future benefits of the tram network’s “transport connectivity” are touted (Technical Report 6, Socioeconomic Impact Assessment, table 3-1) while ignoring that this is already provided by our rapid buses.

Thus, the R4 bus connects Tuggeranong, Woden, Civic and Belconnen with stops at the ANU, North Canberra Hospital, CIT Bruce and Canberra University. Re-instating bus 333 along Tuggeranong Parkway would make the connection even faster.

The planned tram between Belconnen and Civic with change at Civic for Woden would be considerably slower than either of these two buses.

Technical Report 7 – Climate change risk, starts with a robust statement of the hazards we can expect in future, such as: “Extreme heat events – projected to increase in intensity and frequency, which can result in impacts to track, pavements and surfaces, as well as health and safety risks to both customers and staff.” And similar warnings about fires, storms and flooding.

Climate change hazards for the construction of the infrastructure and operation of the tram before and after mediation are examined in detail.

Not mentioned is the fact that the majority would not occur or could easily be coped with if the tram were replaced by bus rapid transit (BRT), such as emergency evacuations where buses could transport evacuees to a safe location, electricity outages overcome by buses moving to an alternative location for recharging, or buses driving around obstacles when trees and other objects have fallen over tracks and roads.

After suggestions of mediation, the original 39 hazards are reduced to 26 medium and 15 low risks up to year 2045 and 11 high risks, 24 medium risks and 4 low risks up to year 2090. Several of these remaining risks are of concern.

Buckling of light rail tracks is called a moderate risk considered possible by 2045 and likely a high risk by 2090. The result usually is stoppage until the rails are replaced if discovered early, and derailment, if not. 

Roads also buckle with extreme heat, but if shaded by trees, temperatures decrease by up to 16C (consequently, cutting down trees along Commonwealth Avenue and behind Parliament house for the tram tracks will considerably heat up the area.) Also, roads can be cooled with a water-based white emulsion lowering temperatures by 8C on unshaded roads.

A so-called medium risk where possible fatal consequences lack mention is “Closure of the surrounding road network, impacting emergency access or rescue as well as maintenance needs”. 

To provide space for light rail tracks, segments of roads running parallel to the 2a and 2b extensions will be reduced to one lane each way on either side of the track. 

Unable to move into the light rail track without risking collision with trams, cars cannot make room for emergency vehicles. With the loss of life and property depending on how fast fire brigades reach the outbreak, this ought to be a serious concern. The solution is bus rapid transit lanes on all major roads.

Emergency vehicles could proceed unhindered with one phone call instructing bus drivers along the route to vacate their lane. 

Not recognised as a risk in the EIS are the high-voltage overhead wires of the tram expanding in extreme heat, causing sagging between poles. Moreover, in December 2020, heavy storms brought down overhead tram wires in Melbourne. Canberra Metro warns: “The overhead wire is LIVE and carries 750 volts” and “cause fatal injuries if touched”.

Branches and objects blown against the wires in heavy storms can cause fires. Also, the smoke and heat of even a small blaze below the wires, such as one caused by the reflection of the sun on a discarded soda can, through electrical arcing can result in a major conflagration.

Future generations will be faced by unprecedented extreme weather events. Why are we adding to the problem by constructing a transport system that is not climate resilient and will burden them with a heavy financial debt? 

Now it’s over to you, to have Your Say. 

Historian Beatrice Bodart-Bailey is an honorary professor at the ANU School of Culture, History and Language and an emeritus professor of the Department of Comparative Culture, Otsuma Women’s University, Tokyo.