“The continued development of light rail should be based on more than an act of faith in a time of high and increasing debt and unmet community needs, including health, housing, childcare, sport and recreation,” writes planning columnist MIKE QUIRK.

The Barr government believes that light rail (LR) is the appropriate transport choice for shaping Canberra’s future, despite the absence of an assessment demonstrating its superiority to alternatives.

The continued development of the project should be based on more than an act of faith in a time of high and increasing debt and unmet community needs across a wide range of areas including health, housing, childcare, sport and recreation.

Other jurisdictions have or are reassessing LR, primarily in response to its high costs.

In Australia, the Queensland government adopted bus rapid transport (BRT) rather than heavy or LR to meet the public transport demands from the Birtinya heavy rail stop (north of Caloundra) to the Sunshine Coast Airport.

It also cancelled Stage 4 of the Gold Coast LR on financial and environmental grounds.

The Brisbane City Council built the BRT Brisbane Metro after assessing it as a superior option to LR. The Perth Metro Area Express (MAX) LR proposal was cancelled in 2016 and options including the trackless tram are being considered.

Internationally, projects are also being deferred. The Auckland LR was cancelled in 2024 and a review of transport options is being undertaken. LR projects in West Yorkshire, Bristol, Seattle, Copenhagen, Dubai, Delhi and Johannesburg are all being reassessed.

As well as financial considerations, the merits of LR and possible alternatives should be considered in the context of the vision in the ACT Transport and Planning strategies for the development of a compact, sustainable, resilient, accessible and liveable city.

Transport Minister Chris Steel claims LR drives higher housing density, generates construction jobs and business growth, reduces congestion by attracting people from cars, reduces emissions from reduced use of petrol/diesel vehicles, transforms the city by connecting key areas and provides mass transit which buses alone can’t achieve. How valid are such claims?

Higher housing density: The Northbourne Avenue corridor was identified as a key element of the inter-town public transport route in the late 1960s. Because of its accessibility, the Territory Plan identified it as a location for major redevelopment in the early 1990s. The substantial increase in the supply of higher density in Canberra over the last 20 years was underlain by a change in housing preferences and declining affordability. The change is reflected in the surge in supply of housing in the Belconnen, Woden and Tuggeranong town centres and Kingston, developed in the absence of LR. What matters is accessibility.

Construction jobs and business growth: Yes, but using the funds to develop LR on other infrastructure (eg housing, road and bus infrastructure) would also deliver financial and community benefits, at least on par with LR. Auditor-General’s reports on the Gungahlin to Civic and Stage 2A, Civic to Commonwealth Park, found LR to be a poor use of public funds.

Provides mass transit that buses alone can’t achieve: The improved capacity and performance of electric buses and the increase in working from home have reduced the merits of this claim, a claim which may never have had validity in the Canberra context.

Reduces congestion by attracting people from cars: Yes, but other initiatives such as increasing the frequency, coverage and comfort of buses, transit lanes, improved cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, reduced parking supply, increased parking charges and employment dispersal to centres well served by public transport could be as, or more, effective. The billions spent and proposed to be spent on LR may not be as effective as other options in reducing car use. For example, the funds could have been used to develop BRT (much of it on its own right of way) from Civic to Tuggeranong and perhaps to Belconnen. Any merits of LR to Woden will be diminished if it doubles travel time when compared to existing R4 and R5 bus services.

Transforms the city by connecting key areas: Where is the evidence that LR is superior in providing greater connectivity than other transport infrastructure?

LR has had limited success as a marketing strategy with images of a sleek red tram creating an impression of a cool, forward-looking city. However, it fails as a city development strategy as it is based on a limited understanding of factors determining transport and housing choices.

The goal of the transport strategy is to reduce car use from 85 per cent of work trips in 2006 to 70 per cent in 2026. Indications are the car share actually increased. The funds devoted to LR may have contributed to the failure by reducing the resources available to potentially more effective strategies.

It’s unlikely the Assembly can hold the government to account given the Greens past involvement with the project.

Given the extensive evidence of the project’s inadequacy, the government should cease work on the extension and reassess the project as part of a review of the city’s development strategy. 

Mike Quirk is a former NCDC and ACT government planner.