Canberra Liberals' light rail opposition must include a better alternative

Should the Liberals win the next ACT election, there'll be no extension of light rail any further south.

It appears the Liberals are taking a bold gamble with this strategy. While Labor has been coy on its estimates of the cost of extending light rail to Woden in stage 2B (the Liberals think it is a $3 billion-plus project), many Canberrans are still firmly in the camp of supporting light rail.

But why is this so, and do the Liberals have a chance to change public opinion between now and the 2024 election?

Firstly, the savings presented by not proceeding with stage 2B present a significant opportunity.

Granted, those savings would manifest over the 10 years or more it would otherwise have taken to build stage 2B, and the Liberals have already announced some or most of that money can be spent on other community services and infrastructure, such as hospitals, roads and schools.

But the further opportunity to the Liberals is to make the light rail issue about public transport, not just about cost and lack of transparency.

This is where light rail can be confronted head-on.

Labor likes to suggest the tram is a modern solution to Canberra's public transport issues, and opposing light rail is the same as failing to support public transport.

Similarly, ACT government surveys apparently demonstrate "most Canberrans" support the tram.

But what do these things really mean? There are many reasons the tram is generally popular, but few of these have anything much to do with the business of getting people who actually use it from A to B.

Much of the community support for extending light rail is from people who have never been on a Canberra Metro tram, and never plan to.

For these people, trams might seem more modern and appealing than buses: they don't spew diesel emissions, they're quiet, and their presence gives Canberra the feel of a grown-up city.

Many supporters assume light rail is very fast (it isn't; it's only marginally faster than regular traffic, including buses), or it's "mass transit" (it's not - the capacity of a fully loaded tram is less than two articulated buses).

This confusion is perhaps in part because in other cities, the terms "mass transit" and "rapid transit" are used where genuinely fast and high-capacity rail services exist, but those services are delivered by heavy rail, whether above ground or under it.

Such cities almost always have significant traffic congestion, high population densities, and limited parking in the business districts, all of which make heavy rail a realistic and preferable option.

For people in Gungahlin, those for whom public transport is essential to get around or to get to work, and for those where public transport is a viable alternative to a car (in households where one car is shared, for example), light rail has been far from a perfect public transport solution.

The cost and effort of constructing light rail has resulted in constriction in other parts of the public transport network, including the loss of direct buses (where they offered competition to light rail journeys), fewer bus routes, greater walking distances to bus stops and less frequent bus services.

These changes have had greatest impact in the suburbs where light rail does not, and never will travel. The loss of public transport utility means people who could catch a convenient bus at a stop near where they live, and travel where they want to go at a time that suits them are first to reconsider their options once any of these things becomes less satisfactory.

So, one-car households might become two-car households as people switch away from less suitable public transport.

But the most pain is felt by those without the choice, ability or desire to switch to car travel.

For those, emphasis on a light rail network has meant a real loss of transport capability.

These effects are almost certain to be replicated elsewhere in Canberra once the light rail network is extended. For example, bus routes 57 and 58 that service Hughes, Deakin, Yarralumla and Curtin between Woden and the city would threaten city-bound light rail patronage.

These services would be unlikely to survive in their present form once light rail to Woden is operational.

This isn't scaremongering. This exact impact was felt by residents of Palmerston when the previous route 50 service that travelled between that suburb and the city was cancelled at the same time as light rail was introduced.

To get to the city now, Palmerston residents must catch a bus to the Gungahlin town centre - travelling in the opposite direction to their destination - to change to a tram.

For the Canberra Liberals, opposition to light rail does not have to mean opposition to public transport.

By directly addressing public transport network shortcomings, some of which have been caused by light rail, the Liberals have the opportunity at the next election to offer Canberrans a choice for a more effective public transport system overall.

Building such a system would cost a fraction of the expense of stage 2B of light rail.

Here are some options the Canberra Liberals could adopt that would result in a better public transport system in Canberra without light rail to Woden.

Most Canberrans - even those who rarely used ACTION buses - knew and understood the old 333 intertown express service that connected Belconnen, City, Woden and Tuggeranong up until the late-1990s.

At peak times there was an articulated bus every three minutes (or roughly twice as frequently as the Gungahlin to City tram), and every bus was fully loaded. With Canberra Metro light rail now taking care of Gungahlin-City services, this is a perfect opportunity for the Liberals to recapture the demand for public transport the old 333 met.

By reinstating a frequent 333 service, it's possible to arrive at a bus interchange and be on an express service in almost no time at all.

Further, connection and wait times between intertown services and local buses would become a non-issue. In the longer term, 333 services could be provided by electric buses, giving the intertown express much the same environmental footprint as light rail.

Some of the savings from not building stage 2B can be spent on local public transport needs instead.

Getting more buses out in the suburbs more frequently will work better for public transport than any number of trams.

People need frequency of services (so they know they won't have to wait long), shorter walking distances to their bus stop (buses have this advantage over trams for almost every public transport user not in close walking distance to the light rail route), and services that travel where they want to go.

At times of low demand, particularly evenings when fewer people use public transport, subsidise ride-sharing services such as Uber instead of running empty or near-empty local buses.

Link ride-sharing to 333 services (and existing light rail services) to give patrons a personalised, almost door-to-door service without the cost of buses and drivers on the road, while keeping the total fare low for users, even if they travel the length of Canberra.

READ MORE A.C.T. TRANSPORT NEWS:

Winning the hearts and minds of Canberrans on the cessation of light rail development will take a concerted effort by the Canberra Liberals ahead of the 2024 election.

The Liberals have already pointed to the high cost, lack of business case transparency, roadwork disruptions and long timeframes of stage 2B, and further inroads are possible if they can demonstrate light rail is not the solution for public transport in Canberra when it is actually driving some of the problems.

Offering Canberrans an alternative public transport future is one way they might get there.