Letter writer RON EDGECOMBE says there is so much for the ACT to learn from the Tasmanian Planning Commission report on the Hobart stadium proposal.

The Tasmanian Planning Commission Hobart Stadium Review report, released on September 15, should be considered by those interested in assessing the real economic and social costs of the ACT light rail project.

The stadium’s estimated project (proponent) cost of about $750 million has blown out to around $1.3billion; however, the commission has actually assessed the total cost, including on the basis of the criteria below, as more than $1.8 billion.

The report’s Summary and Conclusions included the following relevant points:

• The Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) was estimated at a low 0.45

• The cost benefit assessment provided by the proponent does not include any social costs or costs of associated area works

• The low BCR with downside risks infers that there is a significant social cost for the project.

The report found that in terms of the extent of public funding required for the project relative to the state’s small population, economic and taxation base, the project would result in a substantial cost burden to the community relative to the benefit the community would receive.

There is so much in the commission’s report that could be usefully parsed, specifically now, in terms of the proposed ACT light rail stage 2b, to assess the real cost of this ill-conceived public project; and in hindsight, phase 2a (particularly the road works costs and social impacts).

In this context, I also note that the NCA has just announced the two-year Commonwealth Avenue Bridge road works, to restore its structural integrity.

Surely the ACT government would not be even considering further extended closures after this two-year period, to provide a new bridge for the light rail service extension to Woden.

Ron Edgecombe, Evatt

Will ‘light rail leopards’ keep spending on trams?

Will the Labor and Greens light rail leopards spend another billion dollars on light rail, to reduce Canberra’s public transport travel by five per cent?

The ACT Light Rail Coalition (ALRC) changed its name to Public Transport Association of Canberra (PTCBR). That light rail leopard cannot change its spots. 

The ACT Government’s 2012 submission to Infrastructure Australia concluded that bus rapid transit to Gungahlin would increase the Territory’s public transport travel by 17 per cent. The light rail alternative would increase public transport travel by 18 per cent. But we could have 24 kilometres of bus rapid transit for less than the cost of 12 kilometres of light rail. 

For 10 years ALRC/PTCBR denied the existence of that submission. When the Conservation Council discussed it last year, ALRC/PTCBR committee member Damien Haas falsely claimed that it concluded that light rail would generate the best overall outcome.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for light rail stage 2b must assess alternatives to the project.

The draft EIS failed to refer to the government’s 2012 submission, or to government business cases that concluded that light rail stage 2 would cause a 5 per cent fall in network-wide public transport travel and was not economically justifiable.

The ALRC/PTCBR submission on the draft EIS makes no mention of that important but missing information. Instead it says, “PTCBR is highly supportive of this project.”

Leon Arundell, Downer

Civilian sitting in judgment of a warrior

Re Hugh Selby’s column “National embarrassment: take medals back now” (CN October 9): Ben Roberts-Smith hasn’t been convicted of anything. The opinion of a civilian sitting in judgment of a warrior carries no weight.

Our country sent the SAS into battle, the very tip of the spear.

You want to condemn a soldier for doing his job? Shame on you.

Peter Nagel, via email

Coe’s Liberal promises fell on deaf ears

Dr Andrew Hughes in his column “Not easy being brand blue “ (CN October 2) advises the ACT Liberals to get back to core values such as law and order and cost of living.

The only Liberal leader that I recall who embraced these core values was Alistair Coe.

He promised to freeze rates for 12 months if elected, but it fell on the deaf ears of the affluent elites and bourgeois upper class. 

At the time he was criticised not just by his opponents but by the likes of Kate Carnell and Gary Humphries for being too far to the right.

Coe finally left politics after 12 years of banging his head against a brick wall. It’s not easy being brand blue as many Liberals have discovered during the past 24 years of the ACT Labor government.

Paul Temby, via email

With sun and wind, we are the lucky country

Ian Pilsner’s statement that half of Australia’s current energy mix comes from coal and gas (letters, CN October 2) is correct, but it’s clear Fiona Colin was talking only about electricity generation (letters, CN September 18).

Our current energy mix is 41 per cent oil, 25 per cent coal, 24 per cent gas and 9 per cent renewables. Electricity is 45 per cent coal, 13 per cent gas, 21 per cent solar, 14 per cent wind, 5 per cent hydro and 2 per cent oil and biofuels.

Clearly, we have a long way to go to clean up our act and reduce our emissions.

Oil, in the form of petrol and diesel, powers our vehicles, ships, and machinery. These can all be electrified. There are now nearly 40 different types of EVs to choose from.

The world’s largest electric ferries, built in Tasmania by Incat, are operating in South America and Denmark. And BHP, Rio Tinto and Fortescue are investing in electric trucks and machinery.

With plenty of sun and wind to drive this transition, Australia is indeed the lucky country. As former chief scientist Alan Finkel said: “So even if we wanted to have nuclear in Australia before about 2040, by which time I am quite confident we won’t need it.”

Ray Peck, Hawthorn