Now that light rail has made its way into the draft Hobart City Deal in early 2019, and council has committed ten million dollars as seed money, we must take a closer look at “light rail”.

There is clearly considerable support for the idea of light rail. Many can recall using passenger trains in their younger days and wonder why they cannot be revived. And many others have walked or ridden along the cycle path, seen a slowly rusting railway line, and thought “What a waste! Why not make it useful? How hard can it be?”

So when the Mercury Newspaper (November 16, 2016) in a public survey asks voters the leading question “Do you think that Hobart needs a light rail system?“, it is not at all surprising that 62 percent said yes. On the other hand, almost 40 percent said no or didn’t care.

Even 30 percent of respondents in Burnie and Launceston answered yes to the question! What do they know of the Hobart/Glenorchy transport situation? They clearly support the idea of light rail. The idea! It is the idea that is emotionally appealing.

Suppose now that the survey provided the information that the light rail is likely to cost at least 200 million dollars. That was the value of a light rail project the state government submitted in 2017 to Infrastructure Australia for inclusion in it’s Priority List. By the way, it didn’t make it.

This number of dollars should focus the mind. It raises thoughts of money, how the project might affect you. The amount to build it, to run it, to travel on it. It raises questions of whether the light rail is worth that amount of money, whether fares should cover the cost of operation, whether there will be sufficient demand to achieve financial objectives.

The Hobart Northern Suburbs Railway Rail Action Group has played a leading role advocating for light rail. Ben Johnston, president of that group since its inception, has just resigned from that position due to work commitments. In his resignation post on the group’s Facebook page he laments about “politicians apparently passionate about the rail project prior to election, only to find they’re less enthusiastic once in Government.” That may simply be a result of being confronted by the difficulty of justifying the expense of construction and operation when you are in a position to actually make a decision.

What makes current discussions about light rail more frustrating is the secrecy behind the Hobart City Deal. The public has not seen the deal. The public has not seen any detail on the transport link proposal included in the deal.

Since we have yet to see any detailed design for an actual project, let me try to imagine some basic requirements assuming the current rail track is used and railway stations from the past are used again. These are my thoughts. If you imagine differently, share your thoughts by commenting on this post.

1. It will take a service of at least four trains an hour each way to persuade people to use it and the service must run seven days a week and run well into the night to allow people to use it for sporting or social activities.

2. To make sure the rail service can stick to its timetable, automatic traffic lights and boom gates will be required at every railway crossing giving priority to the rail service. They will stop the traffic for a minute every eight minutes. Imagine that at high volume thoroughfares such as Albert Road, Hopkins Street, Derwent Park Road, Lampton Avenue, and, worst of all, Elwick Road.

3. There will be a “station” at each stop with a platform on each side of the line. Absolute minimum facilities might be seating, all-weather shelter, good lighting, and a panic button to use in an emergency.

4. Some new tracks will be laid in passing loops located to allow trains to pass and allow a two-way service.

5. A service to Hobart will require a terminus in the Hobart CBD so people don’t need to walk far.

Council must think strategically and plan for the long-term. But it must also bring city residents along. It must show residents how they will benefit from their plans.

It must explain to residents why light rail will not follow the same path as the Derwent Entertainment Centre, why it will not become a service never making a profit and requiring a permanent subsidy. All the studies I’ve read use modelling to try to predict how many passengers we can expect. That modelling is based on a large number of debatable assumptions.

A final note on funding. It may be easy for the Glenorchy City Council to lobby for light rail. The high capital cost of construction will almost certainly be borne by the Federal Government, The cost of operation and maintenance, assuming that Metro Tasmania becomes the operator, will be largely borne by the State Government. The Council hopes to reap the benefits of an increased rate base resulting from infill development in the rail corridor at minimal cost to itself.

The light rail proposal is a risky proposal involving a very large investment. We need to be shown why we should accept that risk.

References

Many reports have been produced over the years. The list below does not include every report. It is a collection of the most significant (in my opinion).

1. “Hobart to Northern Suburbs Light Rail Business Case”, Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources, July 2011

2. “Glenorchy to Hobart CBD Transit Corridor – High level review of corridor options”; Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources; November 2011

3. “Hobart Northern Suburbs Light Rail – Business Case Peer Review”; AECOM (for Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources); Dec 2012

3. Price Waterhouse Coopers Reports on Hobart Light Rail Proposal; 2013

4. Stage 1 Light Rail Business Case (Hobart to Glenorchy), Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources; May 2013.

5. “Riverline – Hobart Light Rail Strategic Assessment”; Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources; March 2014

6. “Review of a proposed light rail system in Hobart (final advisory report)”, Infrastructure Tasmania; January 2016