How government propaganda may kill light rail (and the rest of Canberra)

damien haas said :

poppy said :

When light rail starts, many direct bus services to the city will stop. This will result in longer commute times.

Which ones aside from the rapids will stop?

poppy said :

I would like the ACT govt to publish a list of suburbs that will lose their city bus service.

I would like you to show me the list of suburbs that are losing these services. To the best of my knowledge the plan is to enhance bus service on adjacent suburbs.

Page 34 of this document kindly provided by another poster, proves that Kaleen and Giralang, along with some other suburbs, will lose their city bus service as a result of the tram. Clearly the changeover time will result in longer commute times for these suburbs, and possibly extra cost (payment of two fares instead of one)

Skyring said :

I’ve just found a photo of the overhead wire system for the tram. Interestingly enough, it allows for community participation: http://blog.campanella.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/the-wire.jpg

In some parts of the world that denotes the place where a gang member died, doesn’t it?

dungfungus said :

Some good insight about underground power in Canberra with further links at post #15
http://the-riotact.com/underground-and-overhead-power-whats-the-story/17247

Which proves what exactly. Also note my comment in that very thread.

Arthur Davies said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I think light rail in Canberra is too little too late. The first stage from Gungahlin is years away from completion and even if subsequent stages around Canberra are built, it will be decades before those stages are realised.

I realise that vehicle movements and traffic times from Gungahlin to the City will get more congested unless there is some sort of change but light rail travel times that are similar to current bus travel times are a pretty poor goal.

The big issue between Gungahlin to the City are the intersection designs, the number of intersections, poor synchronisation of traffic lights and lack of a dedicated public transport/multi occupant vehicle lane. These issues are compounded by poorly designed and multiple bus services that duplicate runs and play leapfrog down Northbourne Avenue serving the same purpose.

There should be only about four or five intersections on Northbourne that allow right turning and cross traffic (traffic from all other intersecting roads should turn left on to Northbourne and do U turns at these intersections). Of the four or five intersections allowing cross traffic, these should be traffic light controlled roundabouts allowing multiple directions of moving traffic to enter the intersection simultaneously. All vehicles though could give way to public transport and multi occupant vehicles entering these roundabouts from special dedicated lanes.

I presume that traffic lights along Northbourne, whenever they are “synchronised”, assume a constant vehicle speed of 60km/h from intersection to intersection. This is not practicable in heavy slow moving traffic or for any vehicle that isn’t already maintaiing an average speed of 60km/h at the previous intersection. These lights need to be more intelligent based on the speed of vehicles passing through the previous timed intersection. (Electronic advisory speed signs along Northbourne recommending the average speed needed to reach a green light at the next intersection would stop the significant delays caused by traffic stopping and starting as opposed to constantly moving traffic.)

As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles. Passenger numbers per driver seem to be similar and obviously the infrastructure cost is lower. And now we are entering an era where automated vehicles are probably less than a decade away and which could easily make permanent infrastructure such as light rail obsolete.

I have suggested before that the Government should focus on providing highly regular, fast and direct services along major transport corridors and subsidise private sector public transport between more specific destinations and those corridors. For example, Uber or some other Government regulated provider(s) could easily fill this gap in many suburbs ferrying multiple passengers to the nearest main road and public transport stop. Such a system could even work in conjunction with My Way at no extra cost to passengers. In the not too distant future – and probably long before more light rail sections in Canberra are built – automated vehicles even could be used for these services. (In quiet periods even these private sector vehicles could provide a myriad of other suburb specific services such as grocery, medical, parcel and mail deliveries).

As for Government planning, the idea of boosting construction along public transit corridors seems a good one. However, committing around a billion dollars to light rail on the route from Gungahlin hardly seems necessary to encourage adjacent construction. Surely when zoning sites along these corridors the Government could mandate the minimum ratio of accomodation per building site (or minimum engineering standards for new buildings on those sites that will allow extensions to the heights of those buildings in the future). Given the profit margins and wealth often touted by developers I very much doubt they would baulk at building on these specifically zoned sites.

The fact that the Government has done nothing to reform bus services on main transport routes or experiment with inexpensive changes along Northbourne Avenue suggest that they are trying to make current commutes worse to garner support for their light rail. The classic practice of (draft) Master Plans that are presented and re-presented all seem to be devised to gain support or wear down detractors.

Unfortunately, the contract for light rail will be stitched up before the next election. If there is an unreasonable cost attached to cancelling the light rail contract I won’t be voting Liberal if cancelling the contract at all costs remains their policy. In any event I’m not convinced the ACT Liberals’ modus operandi would be any better. My personal dilemma though these days is that I feel so disillusioned with politicians at all levels I can’t number everyone last on the next ballot paper.

“As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles.”
The simple answer is that no one can tell you why because light rail in a place like Canberra is not needed, unsuitable and not affordable.
There were political imperatives to garner idealistic favour and the salesmen-ship of the Euro-tram lobby is even better than that of the diesel and tyre lobby of the 1960’s. This latter group were the ones that convinced our political leaders to rip up most tram networks already operating in Australia.
Canberra is a planned city and central to that plan was a road system to cater for motor vehicles as the main transport option. Canberra has also gone out of its way to underground electric cables and other pole supported services to provide those wonderful wire-free park vistas. These very successful ideals have delivered outcomes that suit everybody in Canberra but alas, they will be gone very soon, forever, unless some common-sense with a side serving of reality is put prominently on the political menu.

Peddling the same fibs again I see. Canberra was not designed to underground power, a good 2/3rds of Canberra has overhead power.

As for Canberra being designed for cars, will agree to an extent here, the Y plan for Canberra was indeed based on this. But Gungahlin has broken the Y plan rules. We have a main road with housing on, high density housing and Flemmington Road was designed as a transport corridor.

So light rail will work to Gungahlin and the inner parts of Canberra that predate the Y plan, eg those deigned by Burley Griffin, a design that had tramways as part of said design. But to Woden, Belconnen or Tuggeranong, forget it.

PS one thing you have never answered in your constant denigration of light rail as old and outdated technology is what exactly is modern technology? Cars and freeways maybe?

The upcoming transport innovations include those that use small light cars (pods) which travel below a small rail/track supported on poles ABOVE the traffic & intersections. These will be much faster than existing transport systems, cheaper than trams, & importantly will operate “on demand” i.e. there will be no timetables so you just take the next waiting car & go when it suits you 24/7. Heathrow airport has had ULTra pods operating for years on a ground based version, SkyTran is presently putting in systems I believe, taxi 2000 is another in development. I have an article with RiotACT not yet gone to press giving more details on these & their advantages/disadvantages

Arthur

I’ve used the Heathrow system. Kind of ok to get from the carpark to T5, but large scale, you gotta be joking. There would be no way know to man to have enough vehicles to meet demand, especially seeing as the demand will be tidal, but the carpark is more balanced. And people are worried about overhead power lines, imaging having the track coming up crossing every single intersection on a bridge.

Besides it was designed in the 1990’s, (but took until 2010’s to be installed) so as Dunfungus would so last century technology.

I’ve just found a photo of the overhead wire system for the tram. Interestingly enough, it allows for community participation: http://blog.campanella.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/the-wire.jpg

Some good insight about underground power in Canberra with further links at post #15
http://the-riotact.com/underground-and-overhead-power-whats-the-story/17247

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I think light rail in Canberra is too little too late. The first stage from Gungahlin is years away from completion and even if subsequent stages around Canberra are built, it will be decades before those stages are realised.

I realise that vehicle movements and traffic times from Gungahlin to the City will get more congested unless there is some sort of change but light rail travel times that are similar to current bus travel times are a pretty poor goal.

The big issue between Gungahlin to the City are the intersection designs, the number of intersections, poor synchronisation of traffic lights and lack of a dedicated public transport/multi occupant vehicle lane. These issues are compounded by poorly designed and multiple bus services that duplicate runs and play leapfrog down Northbourne Avenue serving the same purpose.

There should be only about four or five intersections on Northbourne that allow right turning and cross traffic (traffic from all other intersecting roads should turn left on to Northbourne and do U turns at these intersections). Of the four or five intersections allowing cross traffic, these should be traffic light controlled roundabouts allowing multiple directions of moving traffic to enter the intersection simultaneously. All vehicles though could give way to public transport and multi occupant vehicles entering these roundabouts from special dedicated lanes.

I presume that traffic lights along Northbourne, whenever they are “synchronised”, assume a constant vehicle speed of 60km/h from intersection to intersection. This is not practicable in heavy slow moving traffic or for any vehicle that isn’t already maintaiing an average speed of 60km/h at the previous intersection. These lights need to be more intelligent based on the speed of vehicles passing through the previous timed intersection. (Electronic advisory speed signs along Northbourne recommending the average speed needed to reach a green light at the next intersection would stop the significant delays caused by traffic stopping and starting as opposed to constantly moving traffic.)

As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles. Passenger numbers per driver seem to be similar and obviously the infrastructure cost is lower. And now we are entering an era where automated vehicles are probably less than a decade away and which could easily make permanent infrastructure such as light rail obsolete.

I have suggested before that the Government should focus on providing highly regular, fast and direct services along major transport corridors and subsidise private sector public transport between more specific destinations and those corridors. For example, Uber or some other Government regulated provider(s) could easily fill this gap in many suburbs ferrying multiple passengers to the nearest main road and public transport stop. Such a system could even work in conjunction with My Way at no extra cost to passengers. In the not too distant future – and probably long before more light rail sections in Canberra are built – automated vehicles even could be used for these services. (In quiet periods even these private sector vehicles could provide a myriad of other suburb specific services such as grocery, medical, parcel and mail deliveries).

As for Government planning, the idea of boosting construction along public transit corridors seems a good one. However, committing around a billion dollars to light rail on the route from Gungahlin hardly seems necessary to encourage adjacent construction. Surely when zoning sites along these corridors the Government could mandate the minimum ratio of accomodation per building site (or minimum engineering standards for new buildings on those sites that will allow extensions to the heights of those buildings in the future). Given the profit margins and wealth often touted by developers I very much doubt they would baulk at building on these specifically zoned sites.

The fact that the Government has done nothing to reform bus services on main transport routes or experiment with inexpensive changes along Northbourne Avenue suggest that they are trying to make current commutes worse to garner support for their light rail. The classic practice of (draft) Master Plans that are presented and re-presented all seem to be devised to gain support or wear down detractors.

Unfortunately, the contract for light rail will be stitched up before the next election. If there is an unreasonable cost attached to cancelling the light rail contract I won’t be voting Liberal if cancelling the contract at all costs remains their policy. In any event I’m not convinced the ACT Liberals’ modus operandi would be any better. My personal dilemma though these days is that I feel so disillusioned with politicians at all levels I can’t number everyone last on the next ballot paper.

“As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles.”
The simple answer is that no one can tell you why because light rail in a place like Canberra is not needed, unsuitable and not affordable.
There were political imperatives to garner idealistic favour and the salesmen-ship of the Euro-tram lobby is even better than that of the diesel and tyre lobby of the 1960’s. This latter group were the ones that convinced our political leaders to rip up most tram networks already operating in Australia.
Canberra is a planned city and central to that plan was a road system to cater for motor vehicles as the main transport option. Canberra has also gone out of its way to underground electric cables and other pole supported services to provide those wonderful wire-free park vistas. These very successful ideals have delivered outcomes that suit everybody in Canberra but alas, they will be gone very soon, forever, unless some common-sense with a side serving of reality is put prominently on the political menu.

Peddling the same fibs again I see. Canberra was not designed to underground power, a good 2/3rds of Canberra has overhead power.

As for Canberra being designed for cars, will agree to an extent here, the Y plan for Canberra was indeed based on this. But Gungahlin has broken the Y plan rules. We have a main road with housing on, high density housing and Flemmington Road was designed as a transport corridor.

So light rail will work to Gungahlin and the inner parts of Canberra that predate the Y plan, eg those deigned by Burley Griffin, a design that had tramways as part of said design. But to Woden, Belconnen or Tuggeranong, forget it.

PS one thing you have never answered in your constant denigration of light rail as old and outdated technology is what exactly is modern technology? Cars and freeways maybe?

The upcoming transport innovations include those that use small light cars (pods) which travel below a small rail/track supported on poles ABOVE the traffic & intersections. These will be much faster than existing transport systems, cheaper than trams, & importantly will operate “on demand” i.e. there will be no timetables so you just take the next waiting car & go when it suits you 24/7. Heathrow airport has had ULTra pods operating for years on a ground based version, SkyTran is presently putting in systems I believe, taxi 2000 is another in development. I have an article with RiotACT not yet gone to press giving more details on these & their advantages/disadvantages

Arthur

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I think light rail in Canberra is too little too late. The first stage from Gungahlin is years away from completion and even if subsequent stages around Canberra are built, it will be decades before those stages are realised.

I realise that vehicle movements and traffic times from Gungahlin to the City will get more congested unless there is some sort of change but light rail travel times that are similar to current bus travel times are a pretty poor goal.

The big issue between Gungahlin to the City are the intersection designs, the number of intersections, poor synchronisation of traffic lights and lack of a dedicated public transport/multi occupant vehicle lane. These issues are compounded by poorly designed and multiple bus services that duplicate runs and play leapfrog down Northbourne Avenue serving the same purpose.

There should be only about four or five intersections on Northbourne that allow right turning and cross traffic (traffic from all other intersecting roads should turn left on to Northbourne and do U turns at these intersections). Of the four or five intersections allowing cross traffic, these should be traffic light controlled roundabouts allowing multiple directions of moving traffic to enter the intersection simultaneously. All vehicles though could give way to public transport and multi occupant vehicles entering these roundabouts from special dedicated lanes.

I presume that traffic lights along Northbourne, whenever they are “synchronised”, assume a constant vehicle speed of 60km/h from intersection to intersection. This is not practicable in heavy slow moving traffic or for any vehicle that isn’t already maintaiing an average speed of 60km/h at the previous intersection. These lights need to be more intelligent based on the speed of vehicles passing through the previous timed intersection. (Electronic advisory speed signs along Northbourne recommending the average speed needed to reach a green light at the next intersection would stop the significant delays caused by traffic stopping and starting as opposed to constantly moving traffic.)

As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles. Passenger numbers per driver seem to be similar and obviously the infrastructure cost is lower. And now we are entering an era where automated vehicles are probably less than a decade away and which could easily make permanent infrastructure such as light rail obsolete.

I have suggested before that the Government should focus on providing highly regular, fast and direct services along major transport corridors and subsidise private sector public transport between more specific destinations and those corridors. For example, Uber or some other Government regulated provider(s) could easily fill this gap in many suburbs ferrying multiple passengers to the nearest main road and public transport stop. Such a system could even work in conjunction with My Way at no extra cost to passengers. In the not too distant future – and probably long before more light rail sections in Canberra are built – automated vehicles even could be used for these services. (In quiet periods even these private sector vehicles could provide a myriad of other suburb specific services such as grocery, medical, parcel and mail deliveries).

As for Government planning, the idea of boosting construction along public transit corridors seems a good one. However, committing around a billion dollars to light rail on the route from Gungahlin hardly seems necessary to encourage adjacent construction. Surely when zoning sites along these corridors the Government could mandate the minimum ratio of accomodation per building site (or minimum engineering standards for new buildings on those sites that will allow extensions to the heights of those buildings in the future). Given the profit margins and wealth often touted by developers I very much doubt they would baulk at building on these specifically zoned sites.

The fact that the Government has done nothing to reform bus services on main transport routes or experiment with inexpensive changes along Northbourne Avenue suggest that they are trying to make current commutes worse to garner support for their light rail. The classic practice of (draft) Master Plans that are presented and re-presented all seem to be devised to gain support or wear down detractors.

Unfortunately, the contract for light rail will be stitched up before the next election. If there is an unreasonable cost attached to cancelling the light rail contract I won’t be voting Liberal if cancelling the contract at all costs remains their policy. In any event I’m not convinced the ACT Liberals’ modus operandi would be any better. My personal dilemma though these days is that I feel so disillusioned with politicians at all levels I can’t number everyone last on the next ballot paper.

“As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles.”
The simple answer is that no one can tell you why because light rail in a place like Canberra is not needed, unsuitable and not affordable.
There were political imperatives to garner idealistic favour and the salesmen-ship of the Euro-tram lobby is even better than that of the diesel and tyre lobby of the 1960’s. This latter group were the ones that convinced our political leaders to rip up most tram networks already operating in Australia.
Canberra is a planned city and central to that plan was a road system to cater for motor vehicles as the main transport option. Canberra has also gone out of its way to underground electric cables and other pole supported services to provide those wonderful wire-free park vistas. These very successful ideals have delivered outcomes that suit everybody in Canberra but alas, they will be gone very soon, forever, unless some common-sense with a side serving of reality is put prominently on the political menu.

Peddling the same fibs again I see. Canberra was not designed to underground power, a good 2/3rds of Canberra has overhead power.

As for Canberra being designed for cars, will agree to an extent here, the Y plan for Canberra was indeed based on this. But Gungahlin has broken the Y plan rules. We have a main road with housing on, high density housing and Flemmington Road was designed as a transport corridor.

So light rail will work to Gungahlin and the inner parts of Canberra that predate the Y plan, eg those deigned by Burley Griffin, a design that had tramways as part of said design. But to Woden, Belconnen or Tuggeranong, forget it.

PS one thing you have never answered in your constant denigration of light rail as old and outdated technology is what exactly is modern technology? Cars and freeways maybe?

I am tiring of you calling me a liar JC. Why don’t you read what I write for a change?
I said Canberra had gone out of it’s way to underground the power – I did not say it was planned.
The biggest beneficiary of “modern technology” in respect of transport has been the motor car. They have become so much more fuel efficient and of course, more reliable and cheaper.
It is nonsense to call the 80 tonne trams that Canberra is planning as part of a “light rail” which was a phrase coined by some social scientists in the USA 50 years ago.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I think light rail in Canberra is too little too late. The first stage from Gungahlin is years away from completion and even if subsequent stages around Canberra are built, it will be decades before those stages are realised.

I realise that vehicle movements and traffic times from Gungahlin to the City will get more congested unless there is some sort of change but light rail travel times that are similar to current bus travel times are a pretty poor goal.

The big issue between Gungahlin to the City are the intersection designs, the number of intersections, poor synchronisation of traffic lights and lack of a dedicated public transport/multi occupant vehicle lane. These issues are compounded by poorly designed and multiple bus services that duplicate runs and play leapfrog down Northbourne Avenue serving the same purpose.

There should be only about four or five intersections on Northbourne that allow right turning and cross traffic (traffic from all other intersecting roads should turn left on to Northbourne and do U turns at these intersections). Of the four or five intersections allowing cross traffic, these should be traffic light controlled roundabouts allowing multiple directions of moving traffic to enter the intersection simultaneously. All vehicles though could give way to public transport and multi occupant vehicles entering these roundabouts from special dedicated lanes.

I presume that traffic lights along Northbourne, whenever they are “synchronised”, assume a constant vehicle speed of 60km/h from intersection to intersection. This is not practicable in heavy slow moving traffic or for any vehicle that isn’t already maintaiing an average speed of 60km/h at the previous intersection. These lights need to be more intelligent based on the speed of vehicles passing through the previous timed intersection. (Electronic advisory speed signs along Northbourne recommending the average speed needed to reach a green light at the next intersection would stop the significant delays caused by traffic stopping and starting as opposed to constantly moving traffic.)

As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles. Passenger numbers per driver seem to be similar and obviously the infrastructure cost is lower. And now we are entering an era where automated vehicles are probably less than a decade away and which could easily make permanent infrastructure such as light rail obsolete.

I have suggested before that the Government should focus on providing highly regular, fast and direct services along major transport corridors and subsidise private sector public transport between more specific destinations and those corridors. For example, Uber or some other Government regulated provider(s) could easily fill this gap in many suburbs ferrying multiple passengers to the nearest main road and public transport stop. Such a system could even work in conjunction with My Way at no extra cost to passengers. In the not too distant future – and probably long before more light rail sections in Canberra are built – automated vehicles even could be used for these services. (In quiet periods even these private sector vehicles could provide a myriad of other suburb specific services such as grocery, medical, parcel and mail deliveries).

As for Government planning, the idea of boosting construction along public transit corridors seems a good one. However, committing around a billion dollars to light rail on the route from Gungahlin hardly seems necessary to encourage adjacent construction. Surely when zoning sites along these corridors the Government could mandate the minimum ratio of accomodation per building site (or minimum engineering standards for new buildings on those sites that will allow extensions to the heights of those buildings in the future). Given the profit margins and wealth often touted by developers I very much doubt they would baulk at building on these specifically zoned sites.

The fact that the Government has done nothing to reform bus services on main transport routes or experiment with inexpensive changes along Northbourne Avenue suggest that they are trying to make current commutes worse to garner support for their light rail. The classic practice of (draft) Master Plans that are presented and re-presented all seem to be devised to gain support or wear down detractors.

Unfortunately, the contract for light rail will be stitched up before the next election. If there is an unreasonable cost attached to cancelling the light rail contract I won’t be voting Liberal if cancelling the contract at all costs remains their policy. In any event I’m not convinced the ACT Liberals’ modus operandi would be any better. My personal dilemma though these days is that I feel so disillusioned with politicians at all levels I can’t number everyone last on the next ballot paper.

“As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles.”
The simple answer is that no one can tell you why because light rail in a place like Canberra is not needed, unsuitable and not affordable.
There were political imperatives to garner idealistic favour and the salesmen-ship of the Euro-tram lobby is even better than that of the diesel and tyre lobby of the 1960’s. This latter group were the ones that convinced our political leaders to rip up most tram networks already operating in Australia.
Canberra is a planned city and central to that plan was a road system to cater for motor vehicles as the main transport option. Canberra has also gone out of its way to underground electric cables and other pole supported services to provide those wonderful wire-free park vistas. These very successful ideals have delivered outcomes that suit everybody in Canberra but alas, they will be gone very soon, forever, unless some common-sense with a side serving of reality is put prominently on the political menu.

Peddling the same fibs again I see. Canberra was not designed to underground power, a good 2/3rds of Canberra has overhead power.

As for Canberra being designed for cars, will agree to an extent here, the Y plan for Canberra was indeed based on this. But Gungahlin has broken the Y plan rules. We have a main road with housing on, high density housing and Flemmington Road was designed as a transport corridor.

So light rail will work to Gungahlin and the inner parts of Canberra that predate the Y plan, eg those deigned by Burley Griffin, a design that had tramways as part of said design. But to Woden, Belconnen or Tuggeranong, forget it.

PS one thing you have never answered in your constant denigration of light rail as old and outdated technology is what exactly is modern technology? Cars and freeways maybe?

I am tiring of you calling me a liar JC. Why don’t you read what I write for a change?
I said Canberra had gone out of it’s way to underground the power – I did not say it was planned.
The biggest beneficiary of “modern technology” in respect of transport has been the motor car. They have become so much more fuel efficient and of course, more reliable and cheaper.
It is nonsense to call the 80 tonne trams that Canberra is planning as part of a “light rail” which was a phrase coined by some social scientists in the USA 50 years ago.

I did read, I read you peddling the line that somehow Canberra has vast amounts of underground power that was done that way to create a wonderful vista and thus having light rail will spoil said vista. That is the general jist isn’t it?

Yet Canberra has vasts amounts of overhead power especially in the inner north. Northborne ave also has vasts amounts of street lights too, but these are ok aern’t they, because they service a road that follows the same design principles as anciant roman roads, so technology that has its basis some 1600 years ago. Yet you are so worried about last centuries light rail. Never mind of course light rail and rail transport in general, like cars have seen vast improvements in technology, comfort and energy efficencies. Take for example traction motors, now mostly 3 phase AC induction motors. These are also significantly smaller, lighter and slung directly on the drive wheels. Then of course there is energy recovery systems, that can more efficently harvest power and either feed it back into the overhead or store for traction, plus computer controlled acceleration which is far more effiecent than old electro mechanical control systems.

So yeah cars have come a long way, but trams stuck in the last century. Clearly not the case.

Heavs said :

cscoxk said :

The ACT government is doing what the critics have asked for. They are putting the construction of the light rail out to private tender where the tenderers take the risk on cost overruns.

If we do not get Light Rail to Gungahlin what is going to handle the increased traffic from the suburbs still to be built in Gungahlin?

If we do not have Light Rail then where is the increase in population for the next ten years going to go? Across the Murrumbidgee with all the bridges, and road congestion that is going to cause?

We have to build extra transport infrastructure to cope with an expanding population to the north of the city both in Gungahlin and in NSW. Light Rail is an inexpensive way to increase the land utilisation along the corridor. The increase in value of the land along the corridor will pay for the capital cost of light rail many times over. Bus transit is another viable solution but would people rather have a road down middle of Northbourne Avenue or a narrower lower impact Light Rail? Buses down the existing roads does not solve the transport problem.

It is a pity the debate does not turn to the way the Light Rail (and other transport infrastructure) is funded. The residents of the ACT cannot invest in the Light Rail (or other infrastructure) even though people are asking for place to invest their superannuation and savings. Giving us secure local investment opportunities in our back yard beats stock market speculation every time.

The other important issue is the integration of the connection of buses with pedestrians. This issue is not being discussed yet it is more important for the functioning of the transport system than whether we have Light Rail or Bus Transit.

In an article about ‘how government propaganda may kill light rail’ this comment is priceless. Clearly written by someone in CMA or one of their consultancies.

Perhaps they meant to say “how light rail propaganda will kill government”?

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I think light rail in Canberra is too little too late. The first stage from Gungahlin is years away from completion and even if subsequent stages around Canberra are built, it will be decades before those stages are realised.

I realise that vehicle movements and traffic times from Gungahlin to the City will get more congested unless there is some sort of change but light rail travel times that are similar to current bus travel times are a pretty poor goal.

The big issue between Gungahlin to the City are the intersection designs, the number of intersections, poor synchronisation of traffic lights and lack of a dedicated public transport/multi occupant vehicle lane. These issues are compounded by poorly designed and multiple bus services that duplicate runs and play leapfrog down Northbourne Avenue serving the same purpose.

There should be only about four or five intersections on Northbourne that allow right turning and cross traffic (traffic from all other intersecting roads should turn left on to Northbourne and do U turns at these intersections). Of the four or five intersections allowing cross traffic, these should be traffic light controlled roundabouts allowing multiple directions of moving traffic to enter the intersection simultaneously. All vehicles though could give way to public transport and multi occupant vehicles entering these roundabouts from special dedicated lanes.

I presume that traffic lights along Northbourne, whenever they are “synchronised”, assume a constant vehicle speed of 60km/h from intersection to intersection. This is not practicable in heavy slow moving traffic or for any vehicle that isn’t already maintaiing an average speed of 60km/h at the previous intersection. These lights need to be more intelligent based on the speed of vehicles passing through the previous timed intersection. (Electronic advisory speed signs along Northbourne recommending the average speed needed to reach a green light at the next intersection would stop the significant delays caused by traffic stopping and starting as opposed to constantly moving traffic.)

As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles. Passenger numbers per driver seem to be similar and obviously the infrastructure cost is lower. And now we are entering an era where automated vehicles are probably less than a decade away and which could easily make permanent infrastructure such as light rail obsolete.

I have suggested before that the Government should focus on providing highly regular, fast and direct services along major transport corridors and subsidise private sector public transport between more specific destinations and those corridors. For example, Uber or some other Government regulated provider(s) could easily fill this gap in many suburbs ferrying multiple passengers to the nearest main road and public transport stop. Such a system could even work in conjunction with My Way at no extra cost to passengers. In the not too distant future – and probably long before more light rail sections in Canberra are built – automated vehicles even could be used for these services. (In quiet periods even these private sector vehicles could provide a myriad of other suburb specific services such as grocery, medical, parcel and mail deliveries).

As for Government planning, the idea of boosting construction along public transit corridors seems a good one. However, committing around a billion dollars to light rail on the route from Gungahlin hardly seems necessary to encourage adjacent construction. Surely when zoning sites along these corridors the Government could mandate the minimum ratio of accomodation per building site (or minimum engineering standards for new buildings on those sites that will allow extensions to the heights of those buildings in the future). Given the profit margins and wealth often touted by developers I very much doubt they would baulk at building on these specifically zoned sites.

The fact that the Government has done nothing to reform bus services on main transport routes or experiment with inexpensive changes along Northbourne Avenue suggest that they are trying to make current commutes worse to garner support for their light rail. The classic practice of (draft) Master Plans that are presented and re-presented all seem to be devised to gain support or wear down detractors.

Unfortunately, the contract for light rail will be stitched up before the next election. If there is an unreasonable cost attached to cancelling the light rail contract I won’t be voting Liberal if cancelling the contract at all costs remains their policy. In any event I’m not convinced the ACT Liberals’ modus operandi would be any better. My personal dilemma though these days is that I feel so disillusioned with politicians at all levels I can’t number everyone last on the next ballot paper.

“As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles.”
The simple answer is that no one can tell you why because light rail in a place like Canberra is not needed, unsuitable and not affordable.
There were political imperatives to garner idealistic favour and the salesmen-ship of the Euro-tram lobby is even better than that of the diesel and tyre lobby of the 1960’s. This latter group were the ones that convinced our political leaders to rip up most tram networks already operating in Australia.
Canberra is a planned city and central to that plan was a road system to cater for motor vehicles as the main transport option. Canberra has also gone out of its way to underground electric cables and other pole supported services to provide those wonderful wire-free park vistas. These very successful ideals have delivered outcomes that suit everybody in Canberra but alas, they will be gone very soon, forever, unless some common-sense with a side serving of reality is put prominently on the political menu.

Peddling the same fibs again I see. Canberra was not designed to underground power, a good 2/3rds of Canberra has overhead power.

As for Canberra being designed for cars, will agree to an extent here, the Y plan for Canberra was indeed based on this. But Gungahlin has broken the Y plan rules. We have a main road with housing on, high density housing and Flemmington Road was designed as a transport corridor.

So light rail will work to Gungahlin and the inner parts of Canberra that predate the Y plan, eg those deigned by Burley Griffin, a design that had tramways as part of said design. But to Woden, Belconnen or Tuggeranong, forget it.

PS one thing you have never answered in your constant denigration of light rail as old and outdated technology is what exactly is modern technology? Cars and freeways maybe?

I am tiring of you calling me a liar JC. Why don’t you read what I write for a change?
I said Canberra had gone out of it’s way to underground the power – I did not say it was planned.
The biggest beneficiary of “modern technology” in respect of transport has been the motor car. They have become so much more fuel efficient and of course, more reliable and cheaper.
It is nonsense to call the 80 tonne trams that Canberra is planning as part of a “light rail” which was a phrase coined by some social scientists in the USA 50 years ago.

Skyring said :

shellcase said :

Paul is correct but lets not forget also the plain-jane corruption here; our toy government is foisting this on us because they will lose power if they don’t cave in to the blackmail of the Greens, (greenmail?).

This is the same bizarre notion that made Gillard’s government so lame. The Greens aren’t going to vote for the Libs in a showdown.

Not unless they want to lose all their voters at the next election.

Gillard didn’t have to introduce the carbon tax, and Katy Gallagher didn’t have to introduce the tram.

Funny how 2 of the 4 prime movers for the tram (Gallagher & Corbell) will be out the picture before the first tracks are laid.
How soon after will Barr and Rattenbury follow?

cscoxk said :

The ACT government is doing what the critics have asked for. They are putting the construction of the light rail out to private tender where the tenderers take the risk on cost overruns.

If we do not get Light Rail to Gungahlin what is going to handle the increased traffic from the suburbs still to be built in Gungahlin?

If we do not have Light Rail then where is the increase in population for the next ten years going to go? Across the Murrumbidgee with all the bridges, and road congestion that is going to cause?

We have to build extra transport infrastructure to cope with an expanding population to the north of the city both in Gungahlin and in NSW. Light Rail is an inexpensive way to increase the land utilisation along the corridor. The increase in value of the land along the corridor will pay for the capital cost of light rail many times over. Bus transit is another viable solution but would people rather have a road down middle of Northbourne Avenue or a narrower lower impact Light Rail? Buses down the existing roads does not solve the transport problem.

It is a pity the debate does not turn to the way the Light Rail (and other transport infrastructure) is funded. The residents of the ACT cannot invest in the Light Rail (or other infrastructure) even though people are asking for place to invest their superannuation and savings. Giving us secure local investment opportunities in our back yard beats stock market speculation every time.

The other important issue is the integration of the connection of buses with pedestrians. This issue is not being discussed yet it is more important for the functioning of the transport system than whether we have Light Rail or Bus Transit.

In an article about ‘how government propaganda may kill light rail’ this comment is priceless. Clearly written by someone in CMA or one of their consultancies.

dungfungus said :

I think light rail in Canberra is too little too late. The first stage from Gungahlin is years away from completion and even if subsequent stages around Canberra are built, it will be decades before those stages are realised.

I realise that vehicle movements and traffic times from Gungahlin to the City will get more congested unless there is some sort of change but light rail travel times that are similar to current bus travel times are a pretty poor goal.

The big issue between Gungahlin to the City are the intersection designs, the number of intersections, poor synchronisation of traffic lights and lack of a dedicated public transport/multi occupant vehicle lane. These issues are compounded by poorly designed and multiple bus services that duplicate runs and play leapfrog down Northbourne Avenue serving the same purpose.

There should be only about four or five intersections on Northbourne that allow right turning and cross traffic (traffic from all other intersecting roads should turn left on to Northbourne and do U turns at these intersections). Of the four or five intersections allowing cross traffic, these should be traffic light controlled roundabouts allowing multiple directions of moving traffic to enter the intersection simultaneously. All vehicles though could give way to public transport and multi occupant vehicles entering these roundabouts from special dedicated lanes.

I presume that traffic lights along Northbourne, whenever they are “synchronised”, assume a constant vehicle speed of 60km/h from intersection to intersection. This is not practicable in heavy slow moving traffic or for any vehicle that isn’t already maintaiing an average speed of 60km/h at the previous intersection. These lights need to be more intelligent based on the speed of vehicles passing through the previous timed intersection. (Electronic advisory speed signs along Northbourne recommending the average speed needed to reach a green light at the next intersection would stop the significant delays caused by traffic stopping and starting as opposed to constantly moving traffic.)

As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles. Passenger numbers per driver seem to be similar and obviously the infrastructure cost is lower. And now we are entering an era where automated vehicles are probably less than a decade away and which could easily make permanent infrastructure such as light rail obsolete.

I have suggested before that the Government should focus on providing highly regular, fast and direct services along major transport corridors and subsidise private sector public transport between more specific destinations and those corridors. For example, Uber or some other Government regulated provider(s) could easily fill this gap in many suburbs ferrying multiple passengers to the nearest main road and public transport stop. Such a system could even work in conjunction with My Way at no extra cost to passengers. In the not too distant future – and probably long before more light rail sections in Canberra are built – automated vehicles even could be used for these services. (In quiet periods even these private sector vehicles could provide a myriad of other suburb specific services such as grocery, medical, parcel and mail deliveries).

As for Government planning, the idea of boosting construction along public transit corridors seems a good one. However, committing around a billion dollars to light rail on the route from Gungahlin hardly seems necessary to encourage adjacent construction. Surely when zoning sites along these corridors the Government could mandate the minimum ratio of accomodation per building site (or minimum engineering standards for new buildings on those sites that will allow extensions to the heights of those buildings in the future). Given the profit margins and wealth often touted by developers I very much doubt they would baulk at building on these specifically zoned sites.

The fact that the Government has done nothing to reform bus services on main transport routes or experiment with inexpensive changes along Northbourne Avenue suggest that they are trying to make current commutes worse to garner support for their light rail. The classic practice of (draft) Master Plans that are presented and re-presented all seem to be devised to gain support or wear down detractors.

Unfortunately, the contract for light rail will be stitched up before the next election. If there is an unreasonable cost attached to cancelling the light rail contract I won’t be voting Liberal if cancelling the contract at all costs remains their policy. In any event I’m not convinced the ACT Liberals’ modus operandi would be any better. My personal dilemma though these days is that I feel so disillusioned with politicians at all levels I can’t number everyone last on the next ballot paper.

“As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles.”
The simple answer is that no one can tell you why because light rail in a place like Canberra is not needed, unsuitable and not affordable.
There were political imperatives to garner idealistic favour and the salesmen-ship of the Euro-tram lobby is even better than that of the diesel and tyre lobby of the 1960’s. This latter group were the ones that convinced our political leaders to rip up most tram networks already operating in Australia.
Canberra is a planned city and central to that plan was a road system to cater for motor vehicles as the main transport option. Canberra has also gone out of its way to underground electric cables and other pole supported services to provide those wonderful wire-free park vistas. These very successful ideals have delivered outcomes that suit everybody in Canberra but alas, they will be gone very soon, forever, unless some common-sense with a side serving of reality is put prominently on the political menu.

Peddling the same fibs again I see. Canberra was not designed to underground power, a good 2/3rds of Canberra has overhead power.

As for Canberra being designed for cars, will agree to an extent here, the Y plan for Canberra was indeed based on this. But Gungahlin has broken the Y plan rules. We have a main road with housing on, high density housing and Flemmington Road was designed as a transport corridor.

So light rail will work to Gungahlin and the inner parts of Canberra that predate the Y plan, eg those deigned by Burley Griffin, a design that had tramways as part of said design. But to Woden, Belconnen or Tuggeranong, forget it.

PS one thing you have never answered in your constant denigration of light rail as old and outdated technology is what exactly is modern technology? Cars and freeways maybe?

dungfungus said :

damien haas said :

poppy said :

When light rail starts, many direct bus services to the city will stop. This will result in longer commute times.

Which ones aside from the rapids will stop?

poppy said :

I would like the ACT govt to publish a list of suburbs that will lose their city bus service.

I would like you to show me the list of suburbs that are losing these services. To the best of my knowledge the plan is to enhance bus service on adjacent suburbs.

Why not go all the way and enhance bus services from Gungahlin to City, as required?

The proposes bus changes, including elimination of all 200 series buses, are detailed in the EIS Transport section page 33
http://www.planning.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/41352/Capital_Metro_Light_Rail_Stage_1_Draft_EIS_Volume_03_Part_5-Traffic_and_Transport.pdf

poppy said :

jgsma said :

Poppy has an excellent point. We live in Kaleen and currently have one bus to Civic – will we be expected to get off the bus at Dickson and get on a tram to go to Civic??

Yes Kaleen and Giralang will lose their city bus service. We will have to change to the tram at Dickson.

Welcome to the last century.

I think light rail in Canberra is too little too late. The first stage from Gungahlin is years away from completion and even if subsequent stages around Canberra are built, it will be decades before those stages are realised.

I realise that vehicle movements and traffic times from Gungahlin to the City will get more congested unless there is some sort of change but light rail travel times that are similar to current bus travel times are a pretty poor goal.

The big issue between Gungahlin to the City are the intersection designs, the number of intersections, poor synchronisation of traffic lights and lack of a dedicated public transport/multi occupant vehicle lane. These issues are compounded by poorly designed and multiple bus services that duplicate runs and play leapfrog down Northbourne Avenue serving the same purpose.

There should be only about four or five intersections on Northbourne that allow right turning and cross traffic (traffic from all other intersecting roads should turn left on to Northbourne and do U turns at these intersections). Of the four or five intersections allowing cross traffic, these should be traffic light controlled roundabouts allowing multiple directions of moving traffic to enter the intersection simultaneously. All vehicles though could give way to public transport and multi occupant vehicles entering these roundabouts from special dedicated lanes.

I presume that traffic lights along Northbourne, whenever they are “synchronised”, assume a constant vehicle speed of 60km/h from intersection to intersection. This is not practicable in heavy slow moving traffic or for any vehicle that isn’t already maintaiing an average speed of 60km/h at the previous intersection. These lights need to be more intelligent based on the speed of vehicles passing through the previous timed intersection. (Electronic advisory speed signs along Northbourne recommending the average speed needed to reach a green light at the next intersection would stop the significant delays caused by traffic stopping and starting as opposed to constantly moving traffic.)

As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles. Passenger numbers per driver seem to be similar and obviously the infrastructure cost is lower. And now we are entering an era where automated vehicles are probably less than a decade away and which could easily make permanent infrastructure such as light rail obsolete.

I have suggested before that the Government should focus on providing highly regular, fast and direct services along major transport corridors and subsidise private sector public transport between more specific destinations and those corridors. For example, Uber or some other Government regulated provider(s) could easily fill this gap in many suburbs ferrying multiple passengers to the nearest main road and public transport stop. Such a system could even work in conjunction with My Way at no extra cost to passengers. In the not too distant future – and probably long before more light rail sections in Canberra are built – automated vehicles even could be used for these services. (In quiet periods even these private sector vehicles could provide a myriad of other suburb specific services such as grocery, medical, parcel and mail deliveries).

As for Government planning, the idea of boosting construction along public transit corridors seems a good one. However, committing around a billion dollars to light rail on the route from Gungahlin hardly seems necessary to encourage adjacent construction. Surely when zoning sites along these corridors the Government could mandate the minimum ratio of accomodation per building site (or minimum engineering standards for new buildings on those sites that will allow extensions to the heights of those buildings in the future). Given the profit margins and wealth often touted by developers I very much doubt they would baulk at building on these specifically zoned sites.

The fact that the Government has done nothing to reform bus services on main transport routes or experiment with inexpensive changes along Northbourne Avenue suggest that they are trying to make current commutes worse to garner support for their light rail. The classic practice of (draft) Master Plans that are presented and re-presented all seem to be devised to gain support or wear down detractors.

Unfortunately, the contract for light rail will be stitched up before the next election. If there is an unreasonable cost attached to cancelling the light rail contract I won’t be voting Liberal if cancelling the contract at all costs remains their policy. In any event I’m not convinced the ACT Liberals’ modus operandi would be any better. My personal dilemma though these days is that I feel so disillusioned with politicians at all levels I can’t number everyone last on the next ballot paper.

“As for light rail, no-one here has ever answered my questions on previous posts as to why light rail was better than other public transport options such as multi articulated vehicles.”
The simple answer is that no one can tell you why because light rail in a place like Canberra is not needed, unsuitable and not affordable.
There were political imperatives to garner idealistic favour and the salesmen-ship of the Euro-tram lobby is even better than that of the diesel and tyre lobby of the 1960’s. This latter group were the ones that convinced our political leaders to rip up most tram networks already operating in Australia.
Canberra is a planned city and central to that plan was a road system to cater for motor vehicles as the main transport option. Canberra has also gone out of its way to underground electric cables and other pole supported services to provide those wonderful wire-free park vistas. These very successful ideals have delivered outcomes that suit everybody in Canberra but alas, they will be gone very soon, forever, unless some common-sense with a side serving of reality is put prominently on the political menu.

jgsma said :

Poppy has an excellent point. We live in Kaleen and currently have one bus to Civic – will we be expected to get off the bus at Dickson and get on a tram to go to Civic??

Yes Kaleen and Giralang will lose their city bus service. We will have to change to the tram at Dickson.

shellcase said :

Paul is correct but lets not forget also the plain-jane corruption here; our toy government is foisting this on us because they will lose power if they don’t cave in to the blackmail of the Greens, (greenmail?).

This is the same bizarre notion that made Gillard’s government so lame. The Greens aren’t going to vote for the Libs in a showdown.

Not unless they want to lose all their voters at the next election.

Gillard didn’t have to introduce the carbon tax, and Katy Gallagher didn’t have to introduce the tram.

Paul is correct but lets not forget also the plain-jane corruption here; our toy government is foisting this on us because they will lose power if they don’t cave in to the blackmail of the Greens, (greenmail?).

jgsma said :

Poppy has an excellent point. We live in Kaleen and currently have one bus to Civic – will we be expected to get off the bus at Dickson and get on a tram to go to Civic??

Nope has never been the plan.

In Gungahlin yes, but for the most part they already need to do that anyway to get on the 200’s or meander through Franklin or Harrison on the 57 or 58. Of course some peak hour direct buses, but they may well stay.

As I’ve said many times before the light rail is there more to server those that live along this corridor which is being developed with high density housing, and park and rides.

As someone who is moving to Gungahlin soon (not my first choice and light rail not the reason), I will probably use the Mitchell park and ride and tram it to the town rather than the express bus anyway.

cbrmale said :

Trams generally use magnetic track brakes which are high consumers of electrical energy. In Melbourne the CO2 emitted by a tram is more than if every tram passenger drove a car for the same journey; one person to a car. I wonder what action has been taken to mitigate the environmental consequences of moving from low CO2-emitting buses to high CO2-emitting trams.

Not true at all. Sure you worked for the Melbourne tramways?

Magnetic track brakes are normally only used for emergency stopping and sometimes as parking brakes when at stops. If they were used every single time a tram stopped the tracks would be buggered in no time flat and passengers would by flying out the front of the trams.

Trams for the most part use dynamic (specifically rheostatic) braking whereby the motors are turned into generators which has a slowing effected, coupled with traditional pad or disk brakes. In the past the energy from regenerative braking would have been burnt off as heat through resistors.

But now days that energy can also be recovered and either feed back into the overhead for use by other vehicles, called regenerative braking. Also now trams can store that energy and use it when they start moving again. Bit like a hybrid car or bus.

Some trams did use a form of track brake, either hydraulic or mechanical but certainly not magnetic for everyday stops.

cbrmale said :

Finally the current government has a dreadful record of managing projects. Look at the Gungahlin Drive Extension which took longer to build than the Sydney Harbour Bridge! the Alexander Machonicie Cnetre now overflowing, the car park overlooking the Psychiatric Hospital resulting in patient violence to staff, as was predticted, the maternity hospital which was too small on opening and many others besides. What will they get wrong with the light rail project? One shudders to think.

Oh my how quickly people forget.

Re Gungahlin Drive, do you not remember the issue there was the NCA, driven by the Federal Lieberals, driven by ACT Lieberals forcing a route change, which a) cost significantly more, and b) put them into dispute with the Save the Ridge group, which lead to protracted and expensive legal costs and delays, which in turn lead to even more expense.

So no wonder when they did start building they didn’t have enough money in the bank and demand had already risen above the initial projections, had the road been built when the Government wanted to.

But yeah blame the local government.

Arthur Davies said :

We have to have a transport system that is suitable for our unique city, one which is far quicker, one which will get people’s imagination, one which we can all use & one will inspire us & make proud to be Canberrans. Tram’s will simply not do it, trams are for Melbourne, if you love them then go there & enjoy, we need a modern Canberra solution not one which is over 130 years old.

Arthur

Thoroughly agree, Arthur. I see public transport systems around the world. Some work well, some not so much. I think the best are underground metro systems. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo. Anyone who thinks the classic London Underground map is hard to navigate should look at Tokyo’s. But it seems to work. Those cities are big and densely populated, quite unlike Canberra. They are also marked by lack of room and infrastructure for private cars. Very few residents of these cities own cars.

Cities like Gothenburg, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Barcelona are closer to Canberra in size, and are all marked by excellent public transport, including tram networks. All four of them are superbly livable cities, easy to get around, rarely crowded, catering to various modes of transport. Barcelona’s Diagonal is a case in point, where buses, trams, bicycles, scooters and cars coexist happily on the one wide thoroughfare. Vasagaten in Gothenburg is similar, where a tree-lined median strip shelters pedestrians and cyclists. However, they are fairly flat in their terrain, and their city centres are relatively cramped and car-unfriendly. Their population densities are between five and thirty times as great as Canberra’s.

Edinburgh is perhaps closest to Canberra in size and terrain. It only has one tram line, built in the past few years at a huge cost. Portland OR is often compared to Canberra as a city where light rail might thrive. Both cities have densities ten times as high as Canberra’s, as well as greater overall.

I honestly cannot see trams as being useful. I know the government wants to build up population density to alarming levels, but that’s a “tacked-on” solution. Canberra is a low-density city marked by large areas of open land, hills and ridges. It’s a city where people have the space to own and operate private cars, and by and large, shy away from public transport.

What excites me about the coming years is the potential for “Google-cars”, shared electric vehicles that can operate on demand, taking people from their homes to shops or workplaces, with detours as required in a way that mass transit systems cannot hope to do. That sort of environmentally-friendly efficiency is (in my opinion) far more worth our time and interest than tram systems.

The ACT government is doing what the critics have asked for. They are putting the construction of the light rail out to private tender where the tenderers take the risk on cost overruns.

If we do not get Light Rail to Gungahlin what is going to handle the increased traffic from the suburbs still to be built in Gungahlin?

If we do not have Light Rail then where is the increase in population for the next ten years going to go? Across the Murrumbidgee with all the bridges, and road congestion that is going to cause?

We have to build extra transport infrastructure to cope with an expanding population to the north of the city both in Gungahlin and in NSW. Light Rail is an inexpensive way to increase the land utilisation along the corridor. The increase in value of the land along the corridor will pay for the capital cost of light rail many times over. Bus transit is another viable solution but would people rather have a road down middle of Northbourne Avenue or a narrower lower impact Light Rail? Buses down the existing roads does not solve the transport problem.

It is a pity the debate does not turn to the way the Light Rail (and other transport infrastructure) is funded. The residents of the ACT cannot invest in the Light Rail (or other infrastructure) even though people are asking for place to invest their superannuation and savings. Giving us secure local investment opportunities in our back yard beats stock market speculation every time.

The other important issue is the integration of the connection of buses with pedestrians. This issue is not being discussed yet it is more important for the functioning of the transport system than whether we have Light Rail or Bus Transit.

‘Reap what yea sow’ Paul.

Our poor Canberra youth can covet future unaffordable luxury apartments lining Northbourne from a bus window for a fraction of the cost.

damien haas said :

poppy said :

When light rail starts, many direct bus services to the city will stop. This will result in longer commute times.

Which ones aside from the rapids will stop?

poppy said :

I would like the ACT govt to publish a list of suburbs that will lose their city bus service.

I would like you to show me the list of suburbs that are losing these services. To the best of my knowledge the plan is to enhance bus service on adjacent suburbs.

Why not go all the way and enhance bus services from Gungahlin to City, as required?

poppy said :

When light rail starts, many direct bus services to the city will stop. This will result in longer commute times.

Which ones aside from the rapids will stop?

poppy said :

I would like the ACT govt to publish a list of suburbs that will lose their city bus service.

I would like you to show me the list of suburbs that are losing these services. To the best of my knowledge the plan is to enhance bus service on adjacent suburbs.

I am not sure what the Capital Metro agency have to do with a tennis court in Barton or the derelict site of a burnt out club in Dickson.

I would say – nothing – which makes the rest of the article little more than a whinge from a person with personal involvement in a consultation process where they didn’t get 100% of their expectations delivered.

A declaration that the author has a personal involvement in one of these campaigns would be appropriate.

Poppy has an excellent point. We live in Kaleen and currently have one bus to Civic – will we be expected to get off the bus at Dickson and get on a tram to go to Civic??

cbrmale said :

As a former resident of Melbourne and a user of public transport there, and formerly working for the Public Transport Corporation as it was then known, I have a couple of observations about the initial light rail line to be constructed in Canberra. The first is that the end to end journey time is what matters, and a bus or car journey to Gungahlin town centre followed by a light rail journey to Civic followed by a walk to a place of work or a further bus journey to another part of the city is going to make for long end to end journey times. When I worked in the CBD of Melbourne the express train part of my journey was 25 minutes, but my door to door journey time was 75 minutes. That was quicker and much cheaper than the same journey by car, but Canberra is different to Melbourne in terms of car journey times and costs. In short the tram may not prove to be the benefit that many give it credit for, and quite possibly the current system of bus from Gungahlin to the city interchange without a change of mode on the way will be quicker. That would not surprise me at all.

The second point is that the tram will run mostly empty most of the day, particularly given lengthy end to end journey times for many travellers, while the electricity consumed to propel and particularly to stop it will be considerable. Trams generally use magnetic track brakes which are high consumers of electrical energy. In Melbourne the CO2 emitted by a tram is more than if every tram passenger drove a car for the same journey; one person to a car. I wonder what action has been taken to mitigate the environmental consequences of moving from low CO2-emitting buses to high CO2-emitting trams.

The difference between light rail and heavy rail is line of sight signalling which limits the maximum speed of a tram to 70km/h. If the traffic light sequencing on Northbourne Avenue is synchronised to trams at 70km/h then the traffic congestion for cars at 60km/h will be impressive. Some years ago the speed limit on Northbourne Avenue was reduced from 70km/h to 60km/h because of bike lanes and the traffic light synchonisation changes for that reduced speed limit were overlooked. The Monday morning traffic jam resulted in journey times of well over an hour from Dickson to Civic. On Tuesday the traffic lights were synchronised for 60km/h and traffic journey times were reduced by three-quarters. I wonder what plans, if any, have been made to deal with this problem of faster trams than cars. Even if the majority in those cars should or could be travelling by tram, we still will have buses, delivery vehicles and tourists newly arriving in our city using that corridor. Five day a week gridlock morning and evening will not be good enough. And gridlock it will be, unless trams are slowed to car speed or cars are sped up to tram speed. That may require separation of traffic lanes and bicycle lanes, so whatever action is taken to deal with traffic light synchronisation needs to be taken now.

Finally the current government has a dreadful record of managing projects. Look at the Gungahlin Drive Extension which took longer to build than the Sydney Harbour Bridge! the Alexander Machonicie Cnetre now overflowing, the car park overlooking the Psychiatric Hospital resulting in patient violence to staff, as was predticted, the maternity hospital which was too small on opening and many others besides. What will they get wrong with the light rail project? One shudders to think.

In the longer term with a speed efficient network to many parts of the city, light rail will be an asset, but in the short term with one single line it won’t be what many think it will be. People will have a choice of 45 minutes in the car or an hour and a half end-to-end journey including a segment by tram, and they will go for their cars and an extra hour and a half a day personal time. Only in the longer term with more lines running in dedicated corridors all across the city will the tram prove to be an asset.

I worked in public transport planning and I am fairly certain I know what will happen.

There are several basic problems with the tram proposal.

Canberra is a unique design, unlike any other Australian city, & most of us love it that way. It has been designed to have its traffic along specific major routes well away from where people live to avoid the pollution, noise, danger etc associated with traffic. This is unlike most other cities & is a very good thing.

Trams cannot fit down suburban streets to their community centres, so they cannot serve (by Metros figures) 90% of Canberrans, although 100% will pay while only 10% benefit, a very serious inequity.

In the shorter term, express buses, bus lanes etc will provide shorter trip times at a far lower price, around half the price depending on the number of buses, the extent of express routes etc.

The safety concerns noted elsewhere in these comments are very well founded indeed. Sydney consultants found that their new line will cause 1.14 additional deaths per year.

The Govt did not do an evaluation of any other transport systems other than trams, & even now many important facts are hidden in their murky swamp that substitutes for open information, a major error. Nor did they publish the evaluation of all the options:- renewable energy, noise, what proportion of the population can be served, capital cost, running cost, trip time etc.

In the longer term there are options appearing which can do the job for around half the price, can reach in from the corridors into suburban centres such as Ainslie, Watson, O’Connor etc & so serve most of the population who have to pay for it. The most interesting options use small vehicles which run on small tracks suspended overhead above the traffic so reducing accidents & dramatically reducing trip times. These run “on demand” so there is no need for time tables, they do not need interchanges, they go directly to the destination, they can transport far more passengers per hour than Metro predicts & passengers CAN ALL SIT unlike trams where most will have to stand during peak hour trips, (how do you put seat belts on standing passengers?).

We have to have a transport system that is suitable for our unique city, one which is far quicker, one which will get people’s imagination, one which we can all use & one will inspire us & make proud to be Canberrans. Tram’s will simply not do it, trams are for Melbourne, if you love them then go there & enjoy, we need a modern Canberra solution not one which is over 130 years old.

Arthur

When light rail starts, many direct bus services to the city will stop. This will result in longer commute times.

I would like the ACT govt to publish a list of suburbs that will lose their city bus service.

ChrisinTurner said :

cbrmale said :

The difference between light rail and heavy rail is line of sight signalling which limits the maximum speed of a tram to 70km/h. If the traffic light sequencing on Northbourne Avenue is synchronised to trams at 70km/h then the traffic congestion for cars at 60km/h will be impressive. Some years ago the speed limit on Northbourne Avenue was reduced from 70km/h to 60km/h because of bike lanes and the traffic light synchonisation changes for that reduced speed limit were overlooked. The Monday morning traffic jam resulted in journey times of well over an hour from Dickson to Civic. On Tuesday the traffic lights were synchronised for 60km/h and traffic journey times were reduced by three-quarters. I wonder what plans, if any, have been made to deal with this problem of faster trams than cars. Even if the majority in those cars should or could be travelling by tram, we still will have buses, delivery vehicles and tourists newly arriving in our city using that corridor. Five day a week gridlock morning and evening will not be good enough. And gridlock it will be, unless trams are slowed to car speed or cars are sped up to tram speed. That may require separation of traffic lanes and bicycle lanes, so whatever action is taken to deal with traffic light synchronisation needs to be taken now.

According to CMA LR trams will travel at 60km/hr on Northbourne. Safety experts say this will require fencing and boom gates to permit this speed in a 60 ton vehicle through intersections. In fact Average Operating Speed down Northbourne will be more like 20 km/hr like existing LR in Melbourne, Sydney and the Gold Coast.

The average speed of a metropolitan Melbourne tram is about 12 kmh.

cbrmale said :

As a former resident of Melbourne and a user of public transport there, and formerly working for the Public Transport Corporation as it was then known, I have a couple of observations about the initial light rail line to be constructed in Canberra. The first is that the end to end journey time is what matters, and a bus or car journey to Gungahlin town centre followed by a light rail journey to Civic followed by a walk to a place of work or a further bus journey to another part of the city is going to make for long end to end journey times. When I worked in the CBD of Melbourne the express train part of my journey was 25 minutes, but my door to door journey time was 75 minutes. That was quicker and much cheaper than the same journey by car, but Canberra is different to Melbourne in terms of car journey times and costs. In short the tram may not prove to be the benefit that many give it credit for, and quite possibly the current system of bus from Gungahlin to the city interchange without a change of mode on the way will be quicker. That would not surprise me at all.

The second point is that the tram will run mostly empty most of the day, particularly given lengthy end to end journey times for many travellers, while the electricity consumed to propel and particularly to stop it will be considerable. Trams generally use magnetic track brakes which are high consumers of electrical energy. In Melbourne the CO2 emitted by a tram is more than if every tram passenger drove a car for the same journey; one person to a car. I wonder what action has been taken to mitigate the environmental consequences of moving from low CO2-emitting buses to high CO2-emitting trams.

The difference between light rail and heavy rail is line of sight signalling which limits the maximum speed of a tram to 70km/h. If the traffic light sequencing on Northbourne Avenue is synchronised to trams at 70km/h then the traffic congestion for cars at 60km/h will be impressive. Some years ago the speed limit on Northbourne Avenue was reduced from 70km/h to 60km/h because of bike lanes and the traffic light synchonisation changes for that reduced speed limit were overlooked. The Monday morning traffic jam resulted in journey times of well over an hour from Dickson to Civic. On Tuesday the traffic lights were synchronised for 60km/h and traffic journey times were reduced by three-quarters. I wonder what plans, if any, have been made to deal with this problem of faster trams than cars. Even if the majority in those cars should or could be travelling by tram, we still will have buses, delivery vehicles and tourists newly arriving in our city using that corridor. Five day a week gridlock morning and evening will not be good enough. And gridlock it will be, unless trams are slowed to car speed or cars are sped up to tram speed. That may require separation of traffic lanes and bicycle lanes, so whatever action is taken to deal with traffic light synchronisation needs to be taken now.

Finally the current government has a dreadful record of managing projects. Look at the Gungahlin Drive Extension which took longer to build than the Sydney Harbour Bridge! the Alexander Machonicie Cnetre now overflowing, the car park overlooking the Psychiatric Hospital resulting in patient violence to staff, as was predticted, the maternity hospital which was too small on opening and many others besides. What will they get wrong with the light rail project? One shudders to think.

In the longer term with a speed efficient network to many parts of the city, light rail will be an asset, but in the short term with one single line it won’t be what many think it will be. People will have a choice of 45 minutes in the car or an hour and a half end-to-end journey including a segment by tram, and they will go for their cars and an extra hour and a half a day personal time. Only in the longer term with more lines running in dedicated corridors all across the city will the tram prove to be an asset.

I worked in public transport planning and I am fairly certain I know what will happen.

Thank goodness, someone with authority at last speaks the truth about trams.
They are not as “green & clean” as everyone has been made to think, for a start.
I hope Messrs Barr & Corbell are reading this thread because they may acknowledge your experience and foresight and offer you complete control of the Capital Metro Agency project.
If you could start there on Monday you should be able to close it down by Friday and become a territorial hero.

I once would have supported the introduction of light rail across Canberra, but I would have been wrong. Canberra’s dependence on the private car comes with a huge cost, not just on roads and the urban environment, but for citizens forced to own and drive cars, and by way of chronic mobility problems for those that cannot.

Simon Corbell’s “flagship” transport statement, “Transport for Canberra: Transport for a sustainable city” ( http://www.transport.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/397245/Pages_from_EDS_ACT_Transport_Policy_FA_final_web.pdf ) was a good plan. At its core was a “rapid network” joining the main centres at a minimum end-to-end (including stops) speed of 40km/hr. Slower than this and the public transport over the inter-town distances is seen as too pokey, too time-consuming, “not rapid”.

Simon Corbell and Capital Metro were confident that the tram could meet this commitment, and the April 2014 version of their web site (archived on NLA’s Pandora) said so: “The service will be a Rapid Service as defined in the Government’s transport policy Transport for Canberra. An average speed of 40 km/hr (including stops) is required for this service.” [ http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/143280/20140408-1315/www.capitalmetro.act.gov.au/news-and-publications/frequently-asked-questions.html ]

This commitment was silently removed with the release of the Business Case a few months later, when a journey time of 25 minutes was the target, at a speed of just under 29km/hr. However, Capital Metro knows this target is unachievable without unacceptable safety and transport collateral-damage: the new Gold Coast light rail averages journey times of 21 km/hr, the new Dulwich Hill extension which is 100% new track, latest rolling-stock, and completely segregated from all other traffic in its own “right of way” manages just 24km/hr. Capital Metro haven’t yet had their speeds accredited by Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator, which will probably put to them a scenario such as this:

So, a tram is travelling down Flemington Rd at 70km/hr. The driver notices a bicycle or pram stuck in the track, or maybe a earphone-wearing-pedestrian texting and heading towards the track, 85m in the distance. The driver engages the emergency brake. Assuming the standard reaction time used in such road-safety calculations of 1.5 sec, good track conditions, and an emergency braking deceleration of 2.7m/s2 (the highest of the likely shortlisted vehicles), when it hits the “obstacle”, the 55-ton tram will still be travelling at 31km/hr, carrying more kinetic energy into the collision than a 2 ton SUV travelling at 160km/hr. Do you guys really want to be travelling that fast? What do you think about lining the route with a 2m high fence and boom-gates?

Capital Metro anticipate this, which is why their Business Case specified 14 trams, with 2 spares and 12 operational during peak. Capital Metro now says they will provide a 6 minute service interval during peak. That implies a round-trip time of 12 x 6 = 72 minutes, or 36 minutes for each leg, including wait time at the terminus. The wait time has to be less than 6 minutes (otherwise the trams will queue up), and will probably be same as Gold Coast’s 2-3 minutes. So, yes, the speed will have been reduced from 40km/hr to around half that – definitely not “rapid”. Travel-time savings, so relied upon in the business case to boost benefit-cost ratio, go negative..

The per-journey cost is another issue: accepting the Business Case’s projections on construction and operating costs and on patronage, and assuming a commercial cost of capital of 10% and a commercial profit requirement of 5% of capital at risk, the commercial cost of each journey on the tram is $22 ( http://www.projectcomputing.com/resources/cacs/faq.html#lrbc ). The apparent subsidy required can be reduced by up-front capital injections by the government, but that just serves to obfuscate, not reduce this cost, by ignoring the opportunity cost of these capital injections on spending for education, health and other community services.

I believe Simon Corbell and Capital Metro are trapped into a tram they now know will be a white elephant, and are hoping a face-saving excuse will come along for abandoning it.

Other jurisdictions are planning for the introduction of universal and egalitarian, on demand, 24×7, door-to-door public transport using shared fleets of autonomous electric vehicles. A simulation of Canberra traffic patterns confirms the results of studies by Columbia University, OECD’s International Transport Forum and Berkeley Labs that a relatively small fleet will, within 10 years, be able to provide transport for all at less than half the cost of current bus and private cars. All major auto-makers are competing to commercialise this technology between 2018 and 2020 and the results will overturn conventional thinking on public and private transport and urban planning ( http://www.projectcomputing.com/resources/cacs/index.html ).

There is nothing Capital Metro could or should do to stop this, but hopefully, rate-payers can be protected from the consequences of decades of payments for a stranded asset.

cbrmale said :

The difference between light rail and heavy rail is line of sight signalling which limits the maximum speed of a tram to 70km/h. If the traffic light sequencing on Northbourne Avenue is synchronised to trams at 70km/h then the traffic congestion for cars at 60km/h will be impressive. Some years ago the speed limit on Northbourne Avenue was reduced from 70km/h to 60km/h because of bike lanes and the traffic light synchonisation changes for that reduced speed limit were overlooked. The Monday morning traffic jam resulted in journey times of well over an hour from Dickson to Civic. On Tuesday the traffic lights were synchronised for 60km/h and traffic journey times were reduced by three-quarters. I wonder what plans, if any, have been made to deal with this problem of faster trams than cars. Even if the majority in those cars should or could be travelling by tram, we still will have buses, delivery vehicles and tourists newly arriving in our city using that corridor. Five day a week gridlock morning and evening will not be good enough. And gridlock it will be, unless trams are slowed to car speed or cars are sped up to tram speed. That may require separation of traffic lanes and bicycle lanes, so whatever action is taken to deal with traffic light synchronisation needs to be taken now.

According to CMA LR trams will travel at 60km/hr on Northbourne. Safety experts say this will require fencing and boom gates to permit this speed in a 60 ton vehicle through intersections. In fact Average Operating Speed down Northbourne will be more like 20 km/hr like existing LR in Melbourne, Sydney and the Gold Coast.

Some of the show-stopper problems with the Light Rail (apart from the $2B cost) are that it will be 15 minutes slower than the existing rapid buses (and this is before we have a bus lane on Northbourne); most people will have to stand (LR provides only half the seats of the existing buses); Gungahlin loses its peak-hour express buses to Defence, Civic, Barton and Belconnen (see EIS Transport p33) and 860 trees have to be removed. No wonder Corbell wants to leave before it hits the fan.

Incidentally, today I caught a bus from Belconnen to Civic in the middle of the day and it was packed. Why has ACTION stopped publishing their patronage statistics?

cbrmale said :

Some years ago the speed limit on Northbourne Avenue was reduced from 70km/h to 60km/h…

It seems to be a feature of this government that speed limits are progressively lowered. The road gets expensively and lethargically upgraded, and the speed limit drops. WTF?
Same with carparks – increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive. Traffic fines, registration charges, and on and on and on.
Owning and using a car becomes increasingly difficult. It’s almost as if drivers are being pushed towards bicycles and buses (and trams), rather than being seduced by their merits.

As a former resident of Melbourne and a user of public transport there, and formerly working for the Public Transport Corporation as it was then known, I have a couple of observations about the initial light rail line to be constructed in Canberra. The first is that the end to end journey time is what matters, and a bus or car journey to Gungahlin town centre followed by a light rail journey to Civic followed by a walk to a place of work or a further bus journey to another part of the city is going to make for long end to end journey times. When I worked in the CBD of Melbourne the express train part of my journey was 25 minutes, but my door to door journey time was 75 minutes. That was quicker and much cheaper than the same journey by car, but Canberra is different to Melbourne in terms of car journey times and costs. In short the tram may not prove to be the benefit that many give it credit for, and quite possibly the current system of bus from Gungahlin to the city interchange without a change of mode on the way will be quicker. That would not surprise me at all.

The second point is that the tram will run mostly empty most of the day, particularly given lengthy end to end journey times for many travellers, while the electricity consumed to propel and particularly to stop it will be considerable. Trams generally use magnetic track brakes which are high consumers of electrical energy. In Melbourne the CO2 emitted by a tram is more than if every tram passenger drove a car for the same journey; one person to a car. I wonder what action has been taken to mitigate the environmental consequences of moving from low CO2-emitting buses to high CO2-emitting trams.

The difference between light rail and heavy rail is line of sight signalling which limits the maximum speed of a tram to 70km/h. If the traffic light sequencing on Northbourne Avenue is synchronised to trams at 70km/h then the traffic congestion for cars at 60km/h will be impressive. Some years ago the speed limit on Northbourne Avenue was reduced from 70km/h to 60km/h because of bike lanes and the traffic light synchonisation changes for that reduced speed limit were overlooked. The Monday morning traffic jam resulted in journey times of well over an hour from Dickson to Civic. On Tuesday the traffic lights were synchronised for 60km/h and traffic journey times were reduced by three-quarters. I wonder what plans, if any, have been made to deal with this problem of faster trams than cars. Even if the majority in those cars should or could be travelling by tram, we still will have buses, delivery vehicles and tourists newly arriving in our city using that corridor. Five day a week gridlock morning and evening will not be good enough. And gridlock it will be, unless trams are slowed to car speed or cars are sped up to tram speed. That may require separation of traffic lanes and bicycle lanes, so whatever action is taken to deal with traffic light synchronisation needs to be taken now.

Finally the current government has a dreadful record of managing projects. Look at the Gungahlin Drive Extension which took longer to build than the Sydney Harbour Bridge! the Alexander Machonicie Cnetre now overflowing, the car park overlooking the Psychiatric Hospital resulting in patient violence to staff, as was predticted, the maternity hospital which was too small on opening and many others besides. What will they get wrong with the light rail project? One shudders to think.

In the longer term with a speed efficient network to many parts of the city, light rail will be an asset, but in the short term with one single line it won’t be what many think it will be. People will have a choice of 45 minutes in the car or an hour and a half end-to-end journey including a segment by tram, and they will go for their cars and an extra hour and a half a day personal time. Only in the longer term with more lines running in dedicated corridors all across the city will the tram prove to be an asset.

I worked in public transport planning and I am fairly certain I know what will happen.

JC said :

rosscoact said :

John Moulis said :

neanderthalsis said :

“Today in Canberra we have the very tragic situation whereby far too many do not trust the government to deliver a great piece of transport infrastructure”

For very good reason. There has not been a single major infrastructure project undertaken by this government that has been delivered on time and on budget. In fact, most of the recent infrastructure projects have been marred by some form of catastrophy, general stuff ups or simply getting the planning completely wrong. We have had bridges collapsing, bridges not being built because the contractor went broke and the gov didn’t bother having someone else complete it, single lane goat tracks as major arterial roads, project plans that change almost weekly and planning Ministers that don’t have any concept of community and business engagement.

Don’t forget bridges which have had to be completely rebuilt because they were so shoddily built and unsafe they couldn’t be used – ie: The Majura Parkway bridge over the Molonglo which was supposed to open with the rest of the Parkway a few months ago but which has had to undergo extensive remediation work which will delay the opening by almost a year.

What happened on the Majura Parkway John? Do you have details as I haven’t seen anything in the paper?

He only got it half right.

The cable ducts in one bridge (and I need to correct my post above it was the first bridge, not the start of the 2nd) have blocked meaning they cannot properly tension the bridge. This has resulted in a delay to the opening of that bridge from AUGUST to November 2015, so a delay of 3 months. Contrary to what he said it wasn’t meant to open when they opened the northern part back in May/June, it was meant to be August, the other section was finished early and opened early.

Now despite the 3 month delay to the first bridge whilst the contractor fixes THEIR stuff up, the overall road project is still very much scheduled to open as originally planned in mid 2016.

So no government stuff up, and the project is very much on time and on budget.

Ah right, the truth is much less exciting than the alternative.

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

John Moulis said :

neanderthalsis said :

“Today in Canberra we have the very tragic situation whereby far too many do not trust the government to deliver a great piece of transport infrastructure”

For very good reason. There has not been a single major infrastructure project undertaken by this government that has been delivered on time and on budget. In fact, most of the recent infrastructure projects have been marred by some form of catastrophy, general stuff ups or simply getting the planning completely wrong. We have had bridges collapsing, bridges not being built because the contractor went broke and the gov didn’t bother having someone else complete it, single lane goat tracks as major arterial roads, project plans that change almost weekly and planning Ministers that don’t have any concept of community and business engagement.

Don’t forget bridges which have had to be completely rebuilt because they were so shoddily built and unsafe they couldn’t be used – ie: The Majura Parkway bridge over the Molonglo which was supposed to open with the rest of the Parkway a few months ago but which has had to undergo extensive remediation work which will delay the opening by almost a year.

What happened on the Majura Parkway John? Do you have details as I haven’t seen anything in the paper?

I heard that the roadway drain holes were blocked.

Before JC tells me I was wrong again, it was the ducts that were blocked:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/blocked-bridge-ducts-emerge-as-latest-problem-for-majura-parkway-20150710-gi9g77.html

What we need is the Leafblower Party.

It makes a whole lot of noise and it’s manifesto is shifting your problems onto everyone else and bitching when they do the same to you.

I can see a LOT of people signing up and voting for that.

rosscoact said :

John Moulis said :

neanderthalsis said :

“Today in Canberra we have the very tragic situation whereby far too many do not trust the government to deliver a great piece of transport infrastructure”

For very good reason. There has not been a single major infrastructure project undertaken by this government that has been delivered on time and on budget. In fact, most of the recent infrastructure projects have been marred by some form of catastrophy, general stuff ups or simply getting the planning completely wrong. We have had bridges collapsing, bridges not being built because the contractor went broke and the gov didn’t bother having someone else complete it, single lane goat tracks as major arterial roads, project plans that change almost weekly and planning Ministers that don’t have any concept of community and business engagement.

Don’t forget bridges which have had to be completely rebuilt because they were so shoddily built and unsafe they couldn’t be used – ie: The Majura Parkway bridge over the Molonglo which was supposed to open with the rest of the Parkway a few months ago but which has had to undergo extensive remediation work which will delay the opening by almost a year.

What happened on the Majura Parkway John? Do you have details as I haven’t seen anything in the paper?

I heard that the roadway drain holes were blocked.

John Moulis said :

neanderthalsis said :

“Today in Canberra we have the very tragic situation whereby far too many do not trust the government to deliver a great piece of transport infrastructure”

For very good reason. There has not been a single major infrastructure project undertaken by this government that has been delivered on time and on budget. In fact, most of the recent infrastructure projects have been marred by some form of catastrophy, general stuff ups or simply getting the planning completely wrong. We have had bridges collapsing, bridges not being built because the contractor went broke and the gov didn’t bother having someone else complete it, single lane goat tracks as major arterial roads, project plans that change almost weekly and planning Ministers that don’t have any concept of community and business engagement.

Don’t forget bridges which have had to be completely rebuilt because they were so shoddily built and unsafe they couldn’t be used – ie: The Majura Parkway bridge over the Molonglo which was supposed to open with the rest of the Parkway a few months ago but which has had to undergo extensive remediation work which will delay the opening by almost a year.

Can you substantiate that?

I hope you are not just making that up because this debate will start decending into what happened with the Kalgoorlie Pipeline project and that really was low.

rosscoact said :

John Moulis said :

neanderthalsis said :

“Today in Canberra we have the very tragic situation whereby far too many do not trust the government to deliver a great piece of transport infrastructure”

For very good reason. There has not been a single major infrastructure project undertaken by this government that has been delivered on time and on budget. In fact, most of the recent infrastructure projects have been marred by some form of catastrophy, general stuff ups or simply getting the planning completely wrong. We have had bridges collapsing, bridges not being built because the contractor went broke and the gov didn’t bother having someone else complete it, single lane goat tracks as major arterial roads, project plans that change almost weekly and planning Ministers that don’t have any concept of community and business engagement.

Don’t forget bridges which have had to be completely rebuilt because they were so shoddily built and unsafe they couldn’t be used – ie: The Majura Parkway bridge over the Molonglo which was supposed to open with the rest of the Parkway a few months ago but which has had to undergo extensive remediation work which will delay the opening by almost a year.

What happened on the Majura Parkway John? Do you have details as I haven’t seen anything in the paper?

He only got it half right.

The cable ducts in one bridge (and I need to correct my post above it was the first bridge, not the start of the 2nd) have blocked meaning they cannot properly tension the bridge. This has resulted in a delay to the opening of that bridge from AUGUST to November 2015, so a delay of 3 months. Contrary to what he said it wasn’t meant to open when they opened the northern part back in May/June, it was meant to be August, the other section was finished early and opened early.

Now despite the 3 month delay to the first bridge whilst the contractor fixes THEIR stuff up, the overall road project is still very much scheduled to open as originally planned in mid 2016.

So no government stuff up, and the project is very much on time and on budget.

JC said :

rubaiyat said :

Spot on Paul.

Like you I can see both the logic and the need for the Light Rail, but the first route is so iffy.

If anything the first route is the only viable route actually.

I would have gone for a City / Lonsdale St / Deakin / Watson line or round the lake loop taking in Barton / Manuka / Kingston / Russell / Campbell / Reid.

Both high value / higher density candidates with tourist attractions/sports and education en route.

The round the lake route would work for tourists and government departments stretching out the daily peaks.

Either way planning designated corridors as part of the larger picture needs to happen now not after the line is built.

JC said :

John Moulis said :

Don’t forget bridges which have had to be completely rebuilt because they were so shoddily built and unsafe they couldn’t be used – ie: The Majura Parkway bridge over the Molonglo which was supposed to open with the rest of the Parkway a few months ago but which has had to undergo extensive remediation work which will delay the opening by almost a year.

Not true at all. Whilst there is an issue with the 2nd bridge that the contractor f’ed up and is fixing, there is NO delay to the Majura Parkway.

The bridge over the Molonglo was NOT meant to open with the rest of it. As I explained to you before the northern part was always meant to open first, the bridge and viaduct in 2016. The reason why these are later is they are more complex to build and require more settling of the land, the viaduct in particular.

Don’t beleive me about the planned opening date? Well here are some links from when the project first kicked off talking about a mid 2016 opening.

http://the-riotact.com/majura-parkway-kicks-off/92314

http://www.katygallagher.net/construction_contract_awarded_for_288_million_majura_parkway

http://www.katygallagher.net/construction_contract_awarded_for_288_million_majura_parkway

Thank you JC, I for one wasn’t sure when the thing was meant to be finished. I have only been interested in the dollars; our 144 mil contribution. Is this still the case ? No over runs ?

John Moulis said :

neanderthalsis said :

“Today in Canberra we have the very tragic situation whereby far too many do not trust the government to deliver a great piece of transport infrastructure”

For very good reason. There has not been a single major infrastructure project undertaken by this government that has been delivered on time and on budget. In fact, most of the recent infrastructure projects have been marred by some form of catastrophy, general stuff ups or simply getting the planning completely wrong. We have had bridges collapsing, bridges not being built because the contractor went broke and the gov didn’t bother having someone else complete it, single lane goat tracks as major arterial roads, project plans that change almost weekly and planning Ministers that don’t have any concept of community and business engagement.

Don’t forget bridges which have had to be completely rebuilt because they were so shoddily built and unsafe they couldn’t be used – ie: The Majura Parkway bridge over the Molonglo which was supposed to open with the rest of the Parkway a few months ago but which has had to undergo extensive remediation work which will delay the opening by almost a year.

What happened on the Majura Parkway John? Do you have details as I haven’t seen anything in the paper?

rubaiyat said :

Spot on Paul.

Like you I can see both the logic and the need for the Light Rail, but the first route is so iffy.

If anything the first route is the only viable route actually.

John Moulis said :

Don’t forget bridges which have had to be completely rebuilt because they were so shoddily built and unsafe they couldn’t be used – ie: The Majura Parkway bridge over the Molonglo which was supposed to open with the rest of the Parkway a few months ago but which has had to undergo extensive remediation work which will delay the opening by almost a year.

Not true at all. Whilst there is an issue with the 2nd bridge that the contractor f’ed up and is fixing, there is NO delay to the Majura Parkway.

The bridge over the Molonglo was NOT meant to open with the rest of it. As I explained to you before the northern part was always meant to open first, the bridge and viaduct in 2016. The reason why these are later is they are more complex to build and require more settling of the land, the viaduct in particular.

Don’t beleive me about the planned opening date? Well here are some links from when the project first kicked off talking about a mid 2016 opening.

http://the-riotact.com/majura-parkway-kicks-off/92314

http://www.katygallagher.net/construction_contract_awarded_for_288_million_majura_parkway

http://www.katygallagher.net/construction_contract_awarded_for_288_million_majura_parkway

Yes to much of what has been said thus far, with the addition of a concern not just about process and competence, but also about the “don’t you worry about that” alacrity with which a very large amount of public money is being committed by a small and already fiscally challenged polity.

If you say it quick enough, it becomes Lie Trail.

Can we not buy into the Government’s propaganda, and call it a “tram”? Isn’t that what it is?

neanderthalsis said :

“Today in Canberra we have the very tragic situation whereby far too many do not trust the government to deliver a great piece of transport infrastructure”

For very good reason. There has not been a single major infrastructure project undertaken by this government that has been delivered on time and on budget. In fact, most of the recent infrastructure projects have been marred by some form of catastrophy, general stuff ups or simply getting the planning completely wrong. We have had bridges collapsing, bridges not being built because the contractor went broke and the gov didn’t bother having someone else complete it, single lane goat tracks as major arterial roads, project plans that change almost weekly and planning Ministers that don’t have any concept of community and business engagement.

Good one Paul. I support the light rail project as a much needed, and future-looking infrastructure investment. However, I also think that planning processes in the ACT are as dodgy as faaark, somewhat akin to a small country town or developing country. Look at the way Civic is being destroyed by the megamall. It is the duty of government to ensure that development serves the people, rather than enslaving them.

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

I’d like the debate to get past the “You’re going to take my car from cold dead hands” …..

The OP correctly observes says “Propaganda that twists facts to suit the message and contains vague generalised data is widely used by particular ACT Government agencies when dealing with residents.

Comments & generalisations like “you’re going to take my car from cold dead hands” perfectly demonstrates what the OP (correctly) observes.

Whether coming from the ACT Government or pro lightrailers or not, as those impede agreement and unnesessarily divides & polarises opinion/support for the project.

Shame on me parodying the “ORL CARS ARE EEEEVILL!!!

Should i have had my caps lock on?

neanderthalsis said :

“Today in Canberra we have the very tragic situation whereby far too many do not trust the government to deliver a great piece of transport infrastructure”

For very good reason. There has not been a single major infrastructure project undertaken by this government that has been delivered on time and on budget. In fact, most of the recent infrastructure projects have been marred by some form of catastrophy, general stuff ups or simply getting the planning completely wrong. We have had bridges collapsing, bridges not being built because the contractor went broke and the gov didn’t bother having someone else complete it, single lane goat tracks as major arterial roads, project plans that change almost weekly and planning Ministers that don’t have any concept of community and business engagement.

The problem is not with just one side of politics, no matter how one eyed you are, both sides are duds.

Kate Carnell still pops up regularly on TV to remind us just why we got rid of her.

I can still remember the Hospital Implosion, Bruce Stadium and other cockups by the previous Liberal government. If anything this government has been moderately less disastrous considering they have been in power longer.

Given our small population and even smaller number willing to put up with the nastiness of politics, the calibre of those in both the Assembly and the bureaucracy is not high.

A reflection of the knowledge, prejudices and ability to think things through of the voters.

rommeldog56 said :

Only ACT voters can change that – by keeping on voting ACT Gov’t out until they get the message – and get it right.

Which is perfectly fine, but don’t expect anything different from the Liberals. They have as many developer mates as Labor does. Now if only the ACT Libs would actually tell us what their plans for Canberra are, they may even win more votes, rather than this current rubbish in politics in Australia of just opposing everything the other party does.

neanderthalsis said :

“Today in Canberra we have the very tragic situation whereby far too many do not trust the government to deliver a great piece of transport infrastructure”

For very good reason. There has not been a single major infrastructure project undertaken by this government that has been delivered on time and on budget. In fact, most of the recent infrastructure projects have been marred by some form of catastrophy, general stuff ups or simply getting the planning completely wrong. We have had bridges collapsing, bridges not being built because the contractor went broke and the gov didn’t bother having someone else complete it, single lane goat tracks as major arterial roads, project plans that change almost weekly and planning Ministers that don’t have any concept of community and business engagement.

Don’t forget bridges which have had to be completely rebuilt because they were so shoddily built and unsafe they couldn’t be used – ie: The Majura Parkway bridge over the Molonglo which was supposed to open with the rest of the Parkway a few months ago but which has had to undergo extensive remediation work which will delay the opening by almost a year.

“Today in Canberra we have the very tragic situation whereby far too many do not trust the government to deliver a great piece of transport infrastructure”

For very good reason. There has not been a single major infrastructure project undertaken by this government that has been delivered on time and on budget. In fact, most of the recent infrastructure projects have been marred by some form of catastrophy, general stuff ups or simply getting the planning completely wrong. We have had bridges collapsing, bridges not being built because the contractor went broke and the gov didn’t bother having someone else complete it, single lane goat tracks as major arterial roads, project plans that change almost weekly and planning Ministers that don’t have any concept of community and business engagement.

Good observations with which I agree. I have nothing against light rail. I do have lots to say about the way this particular initiative is being run, along with the Telopea School land debacle, Mr Fluffy and all the other things we can remember from the recent past.

Personally, I feel that under Andrew Barr this government has become arrogant and short-sighted. I have lived in Canberra for over 10 years and while I think it’s likely that they will remain in government after the next election (with the help of Mayor Rattenbury), it’s the first time that many may question the government on their actual performance and attitude to the people who put them into their positions of power.

I for one don’t think the Libs will do any better job, but a change of government wouldn’t hurt to rid ourselves of some arrogant personalities who think they can walk over voters. Not enough attention is being paid to the things which matter just as much as light rail – the convention centre which will work to bring more people and business into this city, a much needed city upgrade to put life back into a dying centre, the city to lake project, other transport options other than light freaking rail (because we don’t all live in Gungahlin, but who would know?).

BTW – this is a well written & thought out article Paul. Well done.

rubaiyat said :

I’ve spoken to Jim Gentleman and clear as day he thinks the public good has nothing to do with this and the government will simply meet its political imperative of a Gungahlin tram and take a hit at the poles but get away with it.

Agreed. Talking to Mick Gentleman and many others on both sides of ACT politics is like trying to talk logic & common sense to a machine that responds with a pre scripted response. And that won’t change with the influx of new members in the Legislative Assenbly either. Just more of the same – including poor planning & lack of integration of public transport.

Only ACT voters can change that – by keeping on voting ACT Gov’t out until they get the message – and get it right.

rubaiyat said :

I’d like the debate to get past the “You’re going to take my car from cold dead hands” …..

The OP correctly observes says “Propaganda that twists facts to suit the message and contains vague generalised data is widely used by particular ACT Government agencies when dealing with residents.

Comments & generalisations like “you’re going to take my car from cold dead hands” perfectly demonstrates what the OP (correctly) observes. Whether coming from the ACT Government or pro lightrailers or not, as those impede agreement and unnesessarily divides & polarises opinion/support for the project.

Spot on Paul.

Like you I can see both the logic and the need for the Light Rail, but the first route is so iffy.

I’d like the debate to get past the “You’re going to take my car from cold dead hands” to one that most can support which is a broad transport plan, built in stages along dedicated transport corridors, starting from the centre out and with urban planning to match.

I’ve spoken to Jim Gentleman and clear as day he thinks the public good has nothing to do with this and the government will simply meet its political imperative of a Gungahlin tram and take a hit at the poles but get away with it.

Unfortunately urban and transport planning is by the seat of your pants in this town and has been for the last 60 to 80 years. Greased by the real estate Ponzi scheme that is Canberra.

The Telopea link above is to the article, “Andrew Barr keeps redevelopment plan on track for Telopea tennis courts.”

True to form, both the Land Development Agency and Barr, acting for the interests of property developers, were trying to steamroll through another grubby land grab deal while ignoring the local community.

They are still seeking to flatten recreational woodland in Yarralumla to build a complex of multi-storey apartment blocks near the brickworks, which will double the population of the suburb and create an array of other problems for nearby suburbs, while ignoring a 4000+ petition against the development.

Hopefully the successful grassroots campaign initiated by parents of Telopea Park School to save their playing fields can be adopted to stop further LDA/Barr land grabs of other recreational areas, now or in the future, throughout Canberra:

http://www.telopeapnc.org.au/saveourplayingfields/

Yes, the LDA who are “allocated” raw land, develop it and then sell it, announcing a “profit”.
We don’t need a government run land development when the private sector could do a much better job without the bureaucracy that the LDA has.

You’ve hit the nail on the head, Paul. The number of screw-ups that have occurred in major developments like this have lead me to have no faith in the light rail proposal.