Do you want to pay $1000 a year for a tram to Gungahlin?

Share Canberra's trusted news:

tram

AS we eagerly await the release of the Capital Metro business case tomorrow it is intriguing that the treasurer of the Tuggeranong Community Council, Max Flint, has released his own analysis of the project. (Summary available online).

He projects the impact on rates to be “Average increase $684 to $990 per year per household” and concludes:

To date, the Government has understated the pre-operations costs, has not disclosed major capital cost components and has not mentioned through-life operating and logistics costs.

The Government has not addressed cost-risk which could be as high as 50 per cent for capital costs and 20 per cent on net operating and logistics costs.

Who Can You Trust?

In a world beleaguered by spin and confused messages, there's never been more need for diverse, trustworthy, independent journalism in Canberra.

Who can you trust? Well, for more than 25 years, "CityNews" has proudly been an independent, free, family-owned news magazine, serving the national capital with quality, integrity and authority. Through our weekly magazine and daily through our digital platforms, we constantly and reliably deliver high-quality and diverse opinion, news, arts, socials and lifestyle columns.

If you trust our work online and believe in the power of independent voices, I encourage you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support will be invested back into our journalism so we can continue to provide a valuably different view of what's happening around you and keep citynews.com.au free.

Click here to make your donation and you will be supporting the future of journalism and media diversity in the ACT.

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Previous articleCSIRO’s stolen sculpture dumped in Fyshwick
Next articleHalloween concert and other arts

1 COMMENT

  1. What a complete and utter load of bulls***.

    For a start, he couldn’t even push his crappy maths as far as making it to the $1000 in the headline. His maximum number was $990, and his minimum was $684, which is definitely not $1000.
    His numbers are based on the fantasy that it’ll be up to $3b to build, and definitely no less than $2.1b. Maybe it’ll cost more than the Government says, maybe it won’t – but to not at least have the Government’s numbers as the low end is outright dishonest. Even rounding up those numbers to $1b, it’d only come out to $345. And using the government’s actual contingency number of $783m, it comes out to $270. Using the non-contingency number of $610m it’d be $210.
    $210 a year isn’t even close to $1000

    Secondly, he’s simply figured out the amount per year, and assumed that will be 100% financed via rate increases – which is again, total fantasy.

    The headline for this article should be “Resentful Southsider Invents Numbers To Make Other People Hate His Pet Hate Too”.

    If you’re going to argue against something, at least try to base your arguments in reality. I’m sure there’s plenty of actual facts that could be used to argue your point without making stuff up.

Leave a Reply