Planning Canberra’s Light Rail
R J Nairn BE, Bec, FIEAust
Feasibility Planning
•
•
•
•
Understand your objectives
Define the problem (if there is one)
Understand the cause
Can we fix the cause? If not can we fix the
Symptom?
• Derive all options for the fix
• Option design and feasibility testing
• Economic and financial testing
Planning objectives
People choose to live in urban areas so that they
can enjoy proximity to employment, education,
health services, shopping, sporting and
entertainment facilities and community
functions.
The frequency with which they travel is an indicator
of their participation and enjoyment and the
social & economic “health” of the city.
The transport planners objective is to help them
travel and thus participate at minimum travel
cost.
The Urban Plan
• Canberra is planned as an “Urban Village” with an
Hierarchy to provide easy access to frequently visited
destinations and greater variety further away.
• Local centres have IGA or Coles or Woolworths, a Post
Office, Baker, Church and a Restaurant.
• Group Centres have several convenience stores (Coles,
Woolworths and ALDI), Banks, Travel Agent and some
speciality stores.
• Regional Centres have comparative stores (Myers and
David Jones), theatres and all the above.
• The Central Business District has Government and
Head Office Employment with all the above.
Urban Planning Influence on Travel
• There is ample concrete evidence that this
hierarchy, which closely integrates travel
destinations with residential areas, reduces
travel costs and increases urban participation.
• The problem is that Gungahlin has the least
proportion of jobs to population of all districts
in Canberra and it is planned to get worse.
• This generates excess costly travel out of
Gungahlin.
The Planning Problem
Future Change in Regional Employment/Population Ratios
Source: TaMS
District
Gungahlin
Belconnen
North Canberra
South Canberra
Woden
Tuggeranong
Molonglo
All Canberra
Employment/Population Ratio
2011
2016
2021
26.1%
19.8%
20.2%
29.8%
30.3%
30.9%
145.6%
149.2%
147.5%
191.6%
187.8%
176.8%
49.3%
50.8%
51.8%
21.0%
23.2%
24.5%
16.0%
23.6%
57.1%
56.6%
56.1%
The same is true of Regional Retailing and Education /Population Ratios
despite the younger population in Gungahlin
The real problem is in Land-use Planning
The Stated Problem
It is stated that the main arterials roads from
Gungahlin are heavily congested in the peak
hours.
All queues at the two busiest intersections on
Northbourne Avenue clear every cycle (except
right turns) which is an acceptable Level-ofService.
In fact Gundaroo Drive has greater delays.
Why is there a land-use problem?
Probably the greatest single factor is the rapid
unplanned growth of employment and
retailing at the Airport. The ACT Government
cannot control this or match the incentives –
free land.
Gradual loss of impetus in professional planning
probably due to lack of understanding and
emphasis on basic planning principles
(embedded in the Y plan) in favor of shortterm political needs.
What options?
Create incentives to reduce travel or increase
costs
This contradicts basic planning principles.
Adjust the future land-use planning.
This presents a series of problems of its own.
1. Governments have limited control to implement
planning decisions; and
2. Short-term financial issues tend to overshadow
effective investment policies. It is easier to sell
developable land than attract employment industry,
which costs incentives.
Increase transport system capacity.
Adjust the future land-use planning
The districts most in need of employment and
other planning reinforcement are Gungahlin,
Molonglo and Tuggeranong.
The districts most in need of population are
North and South Canberra.
Governments can raise money by building and
selling shopping centres (Belconnen Mall)
Adding more high-rise residential to
Northbourne Avenue will increase congestion.
Increase transport system capacity
.Options
Increase ACTION capacity and operations;
Improve road capacity;
Introduce Light Rail; or
Investigate other Mode options.
Increase ACTION capacity
ACTION’s capacity can be improved by more
frequent services but this is costly.
Criterion
ACTION Bus
Car
Passengers per Vehicle
9.774
1.236
Expenditure per Passenger-Km
$0.395
$0.316
Fuel per Passenger-Km (Litres)
0.195
0.081
Buses in Canberra cost more than cars on an all-day basis
and use more fuel per passenger-Km so the justification for
subsidizing bus travel is based on social not on efficiency or
environmental issues.
It is questionable whether added services are useful but
improving existing services is a preferred priority.
Increase ACTION capacity
ACTION services can be improved by the provision
of exclusive lanes on Canberra’s streets, which
can be implemented in several ways as follows:– Providing exclusive lanes for buses, taxis and
emergency vehicles, particularly at intersections; or
– Limiting existing lanes for buses and High Occupancy
Vehicles (HOV).
These can be implemented either by:
– Changing existing lanes by line marking and signs, or
– Road or intersection widening.
These measures reduce time and help reliability
Increase road capacity
Part of Flemington Road
needs to be completed to
4 lanes.
Northbourne Avenue
intersections can be
improved at relatively
little cost.
There are many other areas
in Canberra where road or
intersection
improvements could
improve bus services.
They improve car travel as
well.
Introduce Light Rail
Light rail services carry more people
than buses if the demand is
present and use electric power
rather than fossil fuels. We do
not yet know the source of this
electric power in Canberra.
If implemented in their own rightof-way they are less influenced
by street congestion than buses
but still need to stop at
intersections.
They cost more to operate than
buses.
Investigate other Mode options
Elevated modes do not have to stop
at intersections and are therefore
faster but stop less frequently and
require bigger stations which
usually develop as commercial
opportunities and can be used to
pay for the service and to reinforce
planning objectives.
Track costs are comparable with Light
Rail but do not need land
resumption or service relocation.
They are usually quieter than Light
Rail and much safer.
Feasibility testing
Option definition
– Preliminary alignment & service relocation
– Preliminary costing
– Preliminary environmental check
(Above depends on mode selection as an Elevated mode avoids
service relocation but possibly higher track and station cost)
Estimate patronage, rolling stock requirements
and other impacts using simulative modeling
Feasibility testing
Gungahlin
Line
Belconnen
Line
Triangle
Loop
Airport
Line
Woden
Line
Tuggeranong
Line
Queanbeyan
Line
As any first transit line is
unlikely to be viable
economically, but further
line additions add to its
viability, it is necessary to
establish how large a
network needs to be to be
viable if at all.
Testing needs to build up this
minimum network stage by
stage and then establish
which stage should come
first to optimize the
outcome.
Feasibility testing
The travel simulation model
consists of:
• a suite of software, that
controls operations of
the model and performs
calculations;
• a network database,
describing the road and
public transport
infrastructure and its
characteristics;
• land-use files, containing
forecasts of travel-related
land use variables; and,
• a set of files describing
the travel characteristics
of Canberra residents
obtained from household
interviews
Economic Criteria
• Benefit-to-Cost Ratio – this needs to be well
over 1.0 and usually needs to be about 2.5 to
be funded.
• Net Present Value – is the net value of the
project discounted over 30 years (usually).
• Internal Rate of Return – This is the
investment yield rate of the project. It should
be well over 5% and nearer 12% to 15%.
Economic feasibility testing
Detailed results
for the
Gungahlin line
System
Mass Transit
System
Item
Track & Station
Rolling Stock
Op Cost
Construction
Maintenance
Highway system Accidents
savings
Veh Op Cost
Parking
Time cost
Fleet
ACTION savings Op cost
Time
Property
Benefits
Environment
Consumer
Net Present Value @ 5%
Gungahlin
$ 767.99
$ 21.09
$ 270.89
$
3.19
$
3.39
$ 23.75
$ 121.16
$
0.99
$ 51.14
$
2.03
$ 47.03
$ 354.56
$ 13.22
$
0.56
$ 48.44
-$ 340.13
Include Induced development?
• Most economists will not accept induced landuse development as a benefit. Northbourne
Avenue redevelopment should not be
attributed to Light Rail.
• Property price effects do occur but they are
small.
• However, there is research which shows a
probable causal relationship between access
and density not just a tautology.
Economic feasibility testing
Economic result of each line
Road improvement
Benefit to Cost Ratio
projects in Canberra
Transit Line
@ 5%
usually have a
Gungahlin-City
0.57
Benefit/Cost Ratio of at
Belconnen-City
0.85
least 2.5 and this is an
Woden-City
0.47
investment cut-off level
Tuggeranong-City
required by most Road
0.26
Authorities.
Airport-City
0.38
Queanbeyan-City
0.45
This allows for risk and
National Triangle Loop
0.27
that many of the
All lines
benefits are intangibles.
1.85
Staging sequence
Testing various staging options
Option
1
2
3
4
5
6
Transit Lines
8
Belconnen-City-Gungahlin
Belconnen-City-Woden
Gungahlin-City-Woden
Belconnen-City-Airport
Gungahlin-City-Airport
Belconnen-City-Airport
Plus City-Tuggeranong
Gungahlin-City-Airport
Plus City-Tuggeranong
Belconnen-City-Airport + Gungahlin-City-Tuggeranong
9
All lines combined
7
Discount Rate
5%
1.28
0.51
0.41
1.60
0.68
1.64
1.60
1.75
1.85
The optimal staging sequence
Discount Rate
Stage
Transit Lines
5%
1
Belconnen-City
0.85
2
City-Airport
0.90
3
City-Tuggeranong
1.64
4
Gungahlin-City
1.75
5
City-Loop-Queanbeyan
1.85
Effect of Improved land-use
Effect on travel
Criteria
Trip Participation rate
Mode Split
Highway trip cost
Transit trip cost
Road accident costs
Year
2021
0.36%
0.69%
-6.20%
-5.53%
-0.32%
Effect on economic results
Stage
1
2
3
4
5
Transit Lines
Belconnen-City
City-Airport
City-Tuggeranong
Gungahlin-City
City-Loop-Queanbeyan
No Land-use With LandChange
use Change
0.85
0.93
0.90
1.13
1.64
1.82
1.75
1.88
1.85
1.94
Results for the Elevated mode
Effect on network peak patronage
System Type
Surface
Elevated
2021
9,784
10,733
2031
20,639
23,634
Effect on economic result
Transit Line
Land-use
Gungahlin-City
Belconnen-City
Woden-City
Tuggeranong-City
Airport-City
Queanbeyan-City
National Triangle Loop
All lines
Surface System Elevated System
No
Change
No
Change
change
change
0.57
0.81
0.63
0.99
0.85
0.93
0.86
1.24
0.47
0.83
0.73
1.17
0.26
0.37
0.56
0.79
0.38
0.73
0.42
0.88
0.45
0.61
0.39
0.43
0.27
0.41
0.30
0.79
1.85
1.94
2.43
2.64
Sensitivity & Risk assessment
Sensitivity testing
Sensitivity Test
No Change
20% increase in Track/Station Costs
20% increase in Vehicle Costs
Double Operating Costs
Half savings in ACTION Op Cost
Half savings in ACTION fleet
Half improved Mode Choice
No Land-use Change
20% Increase in MTS fares
Internal Rate of Return
Surface Elevated
14.5%
23.2%
11.8%
18.9%
14.3%
23.0%
13.5%
22.3%
14.4%
23.1%
13.0%
22.1%
14.2%
22.3%
13.6%
19.8%
13.8%
17.7%
Risk assessment
System
Probable Risk-adapted IRR
Probable Maximum Range
Surface
10.5%
7.7% to 13.3%
Elevated
17.0%
12.4% to 21.6%
Financial assessment
The financial evaluation differs from the economic
evaluation in that the latter concerns the national
economy as a whole, not the individual affairs of
a particular identity, in this case the ACT
Government.
The financial analysis assumed that the ACT
Government will borrow all funds needed to
provide the track, stations and rolling stock at 5%
interest and repay the loan funds over 15 years.
The analysis is for a period of 30 years
Financial assessment
The financial analysis shows that the project
is not viable on these assumptions at
current fare levels returning an Internal
Rate of Return of -4.41%.
• The ACT Government would need to
contribute 39% of the Capital costs, or $156
millions each year, from annual revenue.
• A higher fare sufficiently reduced the
patronage and fare revenue and the savings
from the ACTION system, that the financial
result was worse with an Internal Rate of
Return of -4.78%.
Financial assessment - Elevated
With an elevated mode the result was improved
with an IRR of -0.18% but the ACT Government
would still need to contribute 16% of the Capital
costs, or $64 millions, from annual revenue. The
higher fare test produced an IRR of -1.46%.
With a risk-sharing PPP arrangement, and the
private partner expecting a return of 9% on
capital invested, ACT Government would have to
contribute 48% of the capital from revenue or
$192 millions from annual revenue (and 28%
from loan funds) to achieve an IRR of 0.02%.
Conclusions
• The land-use system is the problem but is hard to
fix.
• The transport system is adequate - not the
problem.
• There has been inadequate planning so far
leading to the Gungahlin Light Rail project.
• A mass transit system for Canberra can be
economically viable eventually.
• Gungahlin is not the right place to start.
• Light Rail is not the best mode.
• Further development must take place before a
Mass Transport System can be financially viable
and attractive for a PPP partner to invest.