2 July 2014

Light Rail - Have your say in our poll

| Canfan
Join the conversation
60

We’ve had no end of opinion and argument over Light Rail in recent weeks/months.

To set a bit more fuel to the fire we have asked John Hargreaves and former Chief Minister Kate Carnell to step into the ring for our first RiotACT Face Off and their first topic will be ‘Light Rail for Canberra’.

Keep an eye out for the Face Off posts on Monday.

But, in the meantime – give them a heads up on your opinion by answering our poll.

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Join the conversation

60
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I live in Banks, work in the City – Why should I be paying for something that I will never use? Fix the buses first. I drive my car as it takes me 3 buses and an hour and a half to get to work.
I will never use the light rail, and I should not be expected to pay for it.

davo101 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Funding/Borrowing – Who Re Pays ?

To quote the FAQS from the Capital Metro people:

Who is paying for Capital Metro?

Project funding to date is by the ACT Government. Future funding is expected from capturing the benefits of the increase in property values along the corridor.

The Capital Metro Agency will explore the potential for Commonwealth Government contribution and the possibility of private-sector investment in the project.

The ACt Gov’t has categorically ruled out a levy or surcharge for those living along the Light Rail corridore. But, it seems inevitable that their Annual Rates will increase in reaction to the increased value of the land. The million dollar question is by how much and will that be in addition to, or included in the avg 10%pa Annual Rates increases over the next 20 years ! The ACT Govt should declare a position on this I would have thought.

The Feds have already once rejected making any contribution. But that may change if the request is resubmitted. Yeah – I wish the ACT Gov’t good luck with that !

Re Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs) and private sector co-funding. Any pvt sector funding would no doubt, need to be undwewritten by the ACT Gov’t such that the pvt sector financier gets a minimum return on investment. This is a common approach for PPPs. So, if it runs at a loss or not to passenger projections (by ACT Gov’t) then ACT Ratepayers will make up the shortfall.

This is what happens in NSW. But, those shortfalls that are made up by the NSW Gov’t, though potentially huge $ in themselves, are met by a much, much larger and diverse evenue base (ie all Ratepayers in NSW) than exists in the ACT.

Will be interesting to see what funding model the ACT Gov’t comes up with – and whether that and its actual/potential impact on ACT Ratepayers is publically disclosed – or will it be “Commercvial-In-Confidence” so not open to public scrutiny ?

HiddenDragon12:23 pm 09 Jul 14

“Who is paying for Capital Metro?

Project funding to date is by the ACT Government. Future funding is expected from capturing the benefits of the increase in property values along the corridor.

The Capital Metro Agency will explore the potential for Commonwealth Government contribution and the possibility of private-sector investment in the project.”

Reading between the lines….

Who is paying for Capital Metro?

Project funding to date is by the ACT Government [i.e. everyone who pays rates and taxes – direct and indirect – in the ACT]. Future funding is expected from capturing the benefits of the increase in property values along the corridor [the “corridor” is Labor/Green heartland – a sufficiently huge jump in rates/land taxes in the corridor will be entertaining – in the highly unlikely event it actually happens].

The Capital Metro Agency will explore the potential for Commonwealth Government contribution [if there were realistic prospects of this, the wording would be somewhat sharper than “explore”] and the possibility of private-sector investment [as happens elsewhere, the private sector will do it if they’re given a legislated licence to print money at the expense of the public] in the project.

In short, we will all pay for it, for ever after.

davo101 said :

“To quote the FAQS from the Capital Metro people:
Who is paying for Capital Metro?
Project funding to date is by the ACT Government. Future funding is expected from capturing the benefits of the increase in property values along the corridor.
The Capital Metro Agency will explore the potential for Commonwealth Government contribution and the possibility of private-sector investment in the project.”

C/W Govt will help fund public infrastructure projects if state/territory governments sell off public assets. So if Barr sells council housing along Northbourne (and other parts of the ACT) and commits that money to this project, there is a sweetener from the C/W Govt.

Additional to that, Barr can borrow money against the projected earnings from all the rates which will be levied against all the high-density flats eventually built along Northbourne.

Then, there are patronage assumptions (projected fare earnings) for the tram which are based on the high-density flats.

They could also announce that they will sell/lease it after a period of time, which would attract massive private sector interest, especially considering that the ACT is apparently the highest usage of cars for commuting (anyone got a stat for this? apparently we’re SOOOOO far ahead of the other states that daylight comes second on the list), meaning that if the private operator could affect a small change in people driving, the increase rate in tram earnings would be massive, turning the tram into a “high-performing asset” which would then boost the portfolio of the operator (this is what operators are really all about).

Lastly, if ACT Govt wanted to be sneaky and take a page out of Sydney’s book (a la Cross City Tunnel), they could worsen the traffic situation along the route so people use the tram.

I still think this risks become a multi-generational debacle. Use the buses. They exist now, can be implemented tomorrow, and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars ($300m to $700m) less.

rommeldog56 said :

Funding/Borrowing – Who Re Pays ?

To quote the FAQS from the Capital Metro people:

Who is paying for Capital Metro?

Project funding to date is by the ACT Government. Future funding is expected from capturing the benefits of the increase in property values along the corridor.

The Capital Metro Agency will explore the potential for Commonwealth Government contribution and the possibility of private-sector investment in the project.

Funding/Borrowing – Who Re Pays ? The ACT Government has stated that the potentially tripling of Annual Rates (ie. due to abolition of stamp duty) will be Revenue “Neutral”.

At the same time, it proposes to borrow up to b$4 to fund it’s infrastructure “stimulus” projects – including the proposed Light Rail.

Now, I’m not an accountant, but by looking at the ACT Budget Papers, I can not see who those borrowings + interest is to be repaid. If the potential tripling of Annual Rates will in fact be revenue neutral is the ACT Gov’t relying on the GST increasing to 12.5% or higher in future years under the Fed’s plans for States/Territories to take over more of the Commonwealth’s responsibilities (the new federalism as Ive heard it termed).

What other sources of revenue are there – apart from the usual ACT Gov’t charges of course ? Or will the potential tripling of Annual Rates accelerate and quadruple ?

So, I suppose what I’m asking of those who have “vision” as the ACT Gov’t calls it – and who support the expenditure on the Light Rail – how is such a debt going to be carried fiscally and repaid in such a relatively small jurisdiction and narrow revenue raising base as the ACT has ? After all, I think there are only about 380,000 (?) residents here……..

Thanks.

Can anyone enlighten me please ?

HiddenDragon said :

dungfungus said :

miz said :

No, dungfungus, privatising is Not the answer – having lived in places in Sydney with private buses they are more inefficient that State-run – both expensive and very infrequent. What we need is to use the money we are willing to spend on good public transport wisely, in a way that maximises the most ‘bang for buck’ (otherwise known as cost-benefit) for the most number of people. Light Rail as proposed (or, for that matter private buses) do not meet that simple test.
Like anything, people are willing to pay taxes if they feel they get good value for what those taxes are spent on. Hospitals, dams, good link roads, for example, meet this test because they are there for everyone. But again, Light Rail does not meet this test, as it is obvious that all the planned routes bar the first leg are only there to placate the remainder of Canberrans who rarely or never go to Civic or Gunners, and the first leg is going to be so expensive that the rest will never happen.
The only solution to genuinely fix public transport in the most cost effective way is to use what we already have as a base on which to expand – i.e., build on ACTION so there are more direct routes, better weekend coverage (so you don’t have two your waits in the freezing cold or 40 degree heat), etc. We have a bus fleet, we have a great road network. Let’s use them.

There is nothing more inneficient than a $700K bus running with no passengers and there are plenty of those all over Canberra.
The same situation would never happen with a private operator.

“…There is nothing more inneficient than a $700K bus running with no passengers ….” – except, of course, an X? million dollar tram doing the same thing.

Right on!

HiddenDragon12:20 pm 08 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

miz said :

No, dungfungus, privatising is Not the answer – having lived in places in Sydney with private buses they are more inefficient that State-run – both expensive and very infrequent. What we need is to use the money we are willing to spend on good public transport wisely, in a way that maximises the most ‘bang for buck’ (otherwise known as cost-benefit) for the most number of people. Light Rail as proposed (or, for that matter private buses) do not meet that simple test.
Like anything, people are willing to pay taxes if they feel they get good value for what those taxes are spent on. Hospitals, dams, good link roads, for example, meet this test because they are there for everyone. But again, Light Rail does not meet this test, as it is obvious that all the planned routes bar the first leg are only there to placate the remainder of Canberrans who rarely or never go to Civic or Gunners, and the first leg is going to be so expensive that the rest will never happen.
The only solution to genuinely fix public transport in the most cost effective way is to use what we already have as a base on which to expand – i.e., build on ACTION so there are more direct routes, better weekend coverage (so you don’t have two your waits in the freezing cold or 40 degree heat), etc. We have a bus fleet, we have a great road network. Let’s use them.

There is nothing more inneficient than a $700K bus running with no passengers and there are plenty of those all over Canberra.
The same situation would never happen with a private operator.

“…There is nothing more inneficient than a $700K bus running with no passengers ….” – except, of course, an X? million dollar tram doing the same thing.

miz said :

No, dungfungus, privatising is Not the answer – having lived in places in Sydney with private buses they are more inefficient that State-run – both expensive and very infrequent. What we need is to use the money we are willing to spend on good public transport wisely, in a way that maximises the most ‘bang for buck’ (otherwise known as cost-benefit) for the most number of people. Light Rail as proposed (or, for that matter private buses) do not meet that simple test.
Like anything, people are willing to pay taxes if they feel they get good value for what those taxes are spent on. Hospitals, dams, good link roads, for example, meet this test because they are there for everyone. But again, Light Rail does not meet this test, as it is obvious that all the planned routes bar the first leg are only there to placate the remainder of Canberrans who rarely or never go to Civic or Gunners, and the first leg is going to be so expensive that the rest will never happen.
The only solution to genuinely fix public transport in the most cost effective way is to use what we already have as a base on which to expand – i.e., build on ACTION so there are more direct routes, better weekend coverage (so you don’t have two your waits in the freezing cold or 40 degree heat), etc. We have a bus fleet, we have a great road network. Let’s use them.

There is nothing more inneficient than a $700K bus running with no passengers and there are plenty of those all over Canberra.
The same situation would never happen with a private operator.

No, dungfungus, privatising is Not the answer – having lived in places in Sydney with private buses they are more inefficient that State-run – both expensive and very infrequent. What we need is to use the money we are willing to spend on good public transport wisely, in a way that maximises the most ‘bang for buck’ (otherwise known as cost-benefit) for the most number of people. Light Rail as proposed (or, for that matter private buses) do not meet that simple test.
Like anything, people are willing to pay taxes if they feel they get good value for what those taxes are spent on. Hospitals, dams, good link roads, for example, meet this test because they are there for everyone. But again, Light Rail does not meet this test, as it is obvious that all the planned routes bar the first leg are only there to placate the remainder of Canberrans who rarely or never go to Civic or Gunners, and the first leg is going to be so expensive that the rest will never happen.
The only solution to genuinely fix public transport in the most cost effective way is to use what we already have as a base on which to expand – i.e., build on ACTION so there are more direct routes, better weekend coverage (so you don’t have two your waits in the freezing cold or 40 degree heat), etc. We have a bus fleet, we have a great road network. Let’s use them.

rommeldog56 said :

rosscoact said :

rommeldog56 said :

Well, I hope NOT RIGHT NOW means stopping all expenditure on this thing untill after the next ACT Legislative Assembly election.

With so much more info on the table now and ongoing discussion, the people should have enough info by then to make a more informed decision.

Oh, and I assume that repaying the borrowings for the capital cost and probable operating loss – will NOT mean that the average 10% increase in Annual Rates won’t become something like 12% in a few years or so. The ACT Gov’t must give an iron clad guarantee about that. Pigs might fly too.

Or perhaps, Not Right Now, no need to shout Romsey, means ‘Yes, I agree that light rail in Canberra is a great idea, and in a couple of years or so I’ll be all for it’. You are very passionate about your hatred for particular forms of public transport and that’s great, everyone needs a hobby.

Hey roscoact. Didn’t realise caps was shouting – just meant it to emphasize. Point taken.

But, i certainly don’t hate “particular” forms of public transport.

Public transport is the way of the future (if not the present) but Canberra’s open plan mitigates against that to a large degree. But, technology will make it more cost effective – probably sooner than later.

I just don’t think that getting locked into an early century tram solution – cosmetically modernised, is a viable, economically sustainable option.

And i have plenty of hobbies, thanks very much……LOL

No worries, that’s a reasonable point of view. I have to watch my tendency towards being patronising, it’s very unattractive and not conducive towards reasoned debate

rosscoact said :

rommeldog56 said :

Well, I hope NOT RIGHT NOW means stopping all expenditure on this thing untill after the next ACT Legislative Assembly election.

With so much more info on the table now and ongoing discussion, the people should have enough info by then to make a more informed decision.

Oh, and I assume that repaying the borrowings for the capital cost and probable operating loss – will NOT mean that the average 10% increase in Annual Rates won’t become something like 12% in a few years or so. The ACT Gov’t must give an iron clad guarantee about that. Pigs might fly too.

Or perhaps, Not Right Now, no need to shout Romsey, means ‘Yes, I agree that light rail in Canberra is a great idea, and in a couple of years or so I’ll be all for it’. You are very passionate about your hatred for particular forms of public transport and that’s great, everyone needs a hobby.

Hey roscoact. Didn’t realise caps was shouting – just meant it to emphasize. Point taken.

But, i certainly don’t hate “particular” forms of public transport. Public transport is the way of the future (if not the present) but Canberra’s open plan mitigates against that to a large degree. But, technology will make it more cost effective – probably sooner than later.

I just don’t think that getting locked into an early century tram solution – cosmetically modernised, is a viable, economically sustainable option.

And i have plenty of hobbies, thanks very much……LOL

wildturkeycanoe said :

What happens if the “On the Fence” party holds balance of power?

Well, they might : STOP the Light Rail, STOP the potential Tripling of Annual Rates, STOP the waste of ACT Ratepayers $, STOP the skyrocketing Territory debt, STOP…….what ever else they feel so inclined to STOP, I suppose !

Labor has been promising this pipe dream at least since Stanhope got elected in 2001. Light rail should have gone in 20 years ago. I suspect I’ll be ticking yes in a poll like this in 2034 as well.

HiddenDragon said :

A_Cog said :

$17m in design work, before anything starts.

Then the ACT Govt finance the $600m project (which could blow out to $1b) by juicing the usage projections (through promising to increase apartment density along Northbourne, although the special precinct powers have since been abandoned), and committing itself to fund $X,000m worth of the deal, as well as having to eat any cost blowout.

Why not just give all that cash to ACTION buses, and upgrade bus stops to be on the shoulder so traffic flow isn’t interrupted? For hundreds of millions of dollars LESS, the buses which exist now could do what the tram (unproven) is alleged as being able to do.

I can see this becoming a multi-generational debacle.

It would be interesting to see a sober assessment of the potential cost of light rail compared to the costs of upgrading ACTION and, perhaps, offering free ACTION services during “peak hours” – which would benefit far more people, far more quickly than the tram fantasy.

The solution is to privatise ACTION with subsidies (school and remote area services). It is not necessary to buy the most expensive buses available as the ones across the border do the same job at half the capital cost.

HiddenDragon12:29 pm 07 Jul 14

A_Cog said :

$17m in design work, before anything starts.

Then the ACT Govt finance the $600m project (which could blow out to $1b) by juicing the usage projections (through promising to increase apartment density along Northbourne, although the special precinct powers have since been abandoned), and committing itself to fund $X,000m worth of the deal, as well as having to eat any cost blowout.

Why not just give all that cash to ACTION buses, and upgrade bus stops to be on the shoulder so traffic flow isn’t interrupted? For hundreds of millions of dollars LESS, the buses which exist now could do what the tram (unproven) is alleged as being able to do.

I can see this becoming a multi-generational debacle.

It would be interesting to see a sober assessment of the potential cost of light rail compared to the costs of upgrading ACTION and, perhaps, offering free ACTION services during “peak hours” – which would benefit far more people, far more quickly than the tram fantasy.

watto23 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Well, at least the Railway Gazette had the honesty and common sense to show the overhead power lines, unlike most of the ACT Govt’s drawings !

So, wouldn’t a Rapid Bus Transit System also “‘improve the connectivity of the city, reduce road congestion and decrease travel times, all in an environmentally-friendly manner” as the Australasian Railway Associated claim a Light Rail will, in the 1st linked article ? For well less than between 1/3 and 1/2 the cost ?

If the Gunners-Civic Light rail did blow out to close to b$1, then the ACT Gov’t could probably introduce a Rapid Bus Transit system to most or all of Canberra for that sort of $. Now, that certainly would reduce road congestion, decrease travel times and improve connectivity – but for all of Canberra.

Yep build dedicated bus roads which bypass traffic light either via an underpass (easier and cheaper to build) or just different routing and these roads in future could be upgraded for lightrail/metro style rail when needed. I just can’t see the need for another slow service added to Canberra.

I’m happy to spend money on a new public transport system that decreases commute times. I’m happy to pay say 50%-75% of parking fees to use it (also less car maintenance and running costs), but when it takes me over an hour to commute on public transport vs 20-25minutes by car, I’m not going to waste my time. Given the number of Canberra drivers who drive a bit too quick, I’d suggest a large number would like a rapid system.

A system of park and ride/bicycle/walk/bus to the towncentres and a rapid link between them, would work. You can then have urban infill at towncentres also to buildup the population near stations.

The cost of building dedicated bus lanes is about the same as light rail. The axle loading of an ACTION bus is similar to a Euro tram set.
It would be a good idea to do what you suggest as sometime in the future battery technology will be mature enough to power trams and that would be the time to switch over. Battery powered buses will also be an option but trams have a lot less rolling resistence. No wires needed either.

rommeldog56 said :

Well, at least the Railway Gazette had the honesty and common sense to show the overhead power lines, unlike most of the ACT Govt’s drawings !

So, wouldn’t a Rapid Bus Transit System also “‘improve the connectivity of the city, reduce road congestion and decrease travel times, all in an environmentally-friendly manner” as the Australasian Railway Associated claim a Light Rail will, in the 1st linked article ? For well less than between 1/3 and 1/2 the cost ?

If the Gunners-Civic Light rail did blow out to close to b$1, then the ACT Gov’t could probably introduce a Rapid Bus Transit system to most or all of Canberra for that sort of $. Now, that certainly would reduce road congestion, decrease travel times and improve connectivity – but for all of Canberra.

Yep build dedicated bus roads which bypass traffic light either via an underpass (easier and cheaper to build) or just different routing and these roads in future could be upgraded for lightrail/metro style rail when needed. I just can’t see the need for another slow service added to Canberra.

I’m happy to spend money on a new public transport system that decreases commute times. I’m happy to pay say 50%-75% of parking fees to use it (also less car maintenance and running costs), but when it takes me over an hour to commute on public transport vs 20-25minutes by car, I’m not going to waste my time. Given the number of Canberra drivers who drive a bit too quick, I’d suggest a large number would like a rapid system.

A system of park and ride/bicycle/walk/bus to the towncentres and a rapid link between them, would work. You can then have urban infill at towncentres also to buildup the population near stations.

Well, at least the Railway Gazette had the honesty and common sense to show the overhead power lines, unlike most of the ACT Govt’s drawings !

So, wouldn’t a Rapid Bus Transit System also “‘improve the connectivity of the city, reduce road congestion and decrease travel times, all in an environmentally-friendly manner” as the Australasian Railway Associated claim a Light Rail will, in the 1st linked article ? For well less than between 1/3 and 1/2 the cost ?

If the Gunners-Civic Light rail did blow out to close to b$1, then the ACT Gov’t could probably introduce a Rapid Bus Transit system to most or all of Canberra for that sort of $. Now, that certainly would reduce road congestion, decrease travel times and improve connectivity – but for all of Canberra.

Yep, here is the link: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/light-rail-plan-included-in-canberra-agreement.html

So the tram option, using untested tech, very capital intensive, is estimated to cost over $600m, But the bus option estimate is $276m.

And as the recent PC Review found, our public infrastructure sector is squeezed dry by the construction oligopoly and frequently blows out… coz once the project starts, govt cannot let it fail to finish. The main companies [unnamed here, but read the PC Report: http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/infrastructure ] know this, and turn the screws.

$17m in design work, before anything starts.

Then the ACT Govt finance the $600m project (which could blow out to $1b) by juicing the usage projections (through promising to increase apartment density along Northbourne, although the special precinct powers have since been abandoned), and committing itself to fund $X,000m worth of the deal, as well as having to eat any cost blowout.

Why not just give all that cash to ACTION buses, and upgrade bus stops to be on the shoulder so traffic flow isn’t interrupted? For hundreds of millions of dollars LESS, the buses which exist now could do what the tram (unproven) is alleged as being able to do.

I can see this becoming a multi-generational debacle.

justin heywood11:12 pm 05 Jul 14

patrick_keogh said :

Hmmm… We don’t have light rail right now, so depending on your bias you can interpret “Not Right Now” as either yes or no.

Survey design is not simple is it?

No, survey design is not simple. I voted ‘Not Right Now’ , interpreting this to mean that at some time in the future light rail might have a part to play in Canberra’s transport options, as might hover boards and teleportation.

I did not mean that I think the current plan should be implemented at anytime in the future. Perhaps I should have thought harder about it, but perhaps Yes/No/On the Fence was sufficient in the first place.

rommeldog56 said :

Well, I hope NOT RIGHT NOW means stopping all expenditure on this thing untill after the next ACT Legislative Assembly election.

With so much more info on the table now and ongoing discussion, the people should have enough info by then to make a more informed decision.

Oh, and I assume that repaying the borrowings for the capital cost and probable operating loss – will NOT mean that the average 10% increase in Annual Rates won’t become something like 12% in a few years or so. The ACT Gov’t must give an iron clad guarantee about that. Pigs might fly too.

Or perhaps, Not Right Now, no need to shout Romsey, means ‘Yes, I agree that light rail in Canberra is a great idea, and in a couple of years or so I’ll be all for it’. You are very passionate about your hatred for particular forms of public transport and that’s great, everyone needs a hobby.

patrick_keogh said :

davo101 said :

patrick_keogh said :

Hmmm… We don’t have light rail right now, so depending on your bias you can interpret “Not Right Now” as either yes or no.

Survey design is not simple is it?

Perhaps that’s why I said “not yet” as in we don’t need it now but, hey, in 2031 it may be a completely different story. I’m guessing “no” means, well, never.

Yes, but what about those who think “Not yet but we’ll need it in 2016” ? That is equivalent to “Yes”. Somewhere between 2016 and 2999 it switches to being an equivalent for “Yes” to an equivalent for “No”.

Well, I hope NOT RIGHT NOW means stopping all expenditure on this thing untill after the next ACT Legislative Assembly election.

With so much more info on the table now and ongoing discussion, the people should have enough info by then to make a more informed decision.

Oh, and I assume that repaying the borrowings for the capital cost and probable operating loss – will NOT mean that the average 10% increase in Annual Rates won’t become something like 12% in a few years or so. The ACT Gov’t must give an iron clad guarantee about that. Pigs might fly too.

HiddenDragon12:19 pm 05 Jul 14

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

rommeldog56 said :

watto23 said :

I’m in favour of a transit system that improves commuter times, but this tram doesn’t even do that, so how is it better than a bus that takes forever!

Agreed.

But it does sound like the decision has already been made by the ACT Gov’t to plough ahead, regardless.

I reckon that it looks like those of us who argue anti Light Rail on a purely economic, common sense and logic basis, will have to suck it up, build a ridge and get over it ?

Not that I think any bridge will be built for the toy train set to be extended to cross the Lake mind you…….

Voting this Govt out at the next election – if that happens – will be too late anyway. Contracts will be signed by 2016 apparently.

The point about contracts being signed by 2016 is sobering, and very depressing (for those of us who care about fiscal sustainability), but if private polling replicates this mini-poll, and remains distinctly negative, hands may tremble somewhat at contract-signing time. Of course, an incredibly rare, endangered moth may be found to have its habitat in one of those Northbourne Avenue trees……

Lots of contacts have already been signed, foremost the “ironclad” one with The Green.
The rest are academic.

I’m having visions of that old American practice of tarring and feathering the culprits, and sending them out of town on a rail (how apt) – although I’d settle for tarring and feathering over lycra, and despatch on a solar-powered cycle.

Pork Hunt said :

bundah said :

I’m in favour of an additional lane being added to Northbourne Ave with a bus only lane.

How about making one lane a bus lane for two hours southbound per day and two hours northbound per day without an additional lane? Make it T2, taxi and motorcycle. Starting as soon as Monday if you like…

I love the way you think porker however given the considerable number of clueless drivers on Camby roads there’d be mayhem. On second thoughts this could be a whole lotta fun…

gooterz said :

Preemption would cost max a million dollars and have a much greater effect.

We’ve already spent that million on some tram study or other, so it’s not available.

gooterz said :

Pork Hunt said :

bundah said :

I’m in favour of an additional lane being added to Northbourne Ave with a bus only lane.

How about making one lane a bus lane for two hours southbound per day and two hours northbound per day without an additional lane? Make it T2, taxi and motorcycle. Starting as soon as Monday if you like…

Or install tracking in all the busses (done) and have the lights magically go green at the right times for the busses just to drive straight down Northborne.

Afterall there is a road directly connecting the two town centres, and lights are controlled by a computer, why not just have that computer talk to a bus tracker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption

Preemption would cost max a million dollars and have a much greater effect.

This sort of solution is a much more common sense, logical and cost effective approach IMHO.

But, I think the hose bolted on alternative solutions when Labor got back into Gov’t in the ACT via the Greens.

Also, given that it’s now ACT Gov’t ideology, the creation of the Canberra Metro Authority (right name ?) who are hardly going to put up viable alternatives when their own jobs might be on the line or hire consultants with alternative solution views and that pro ACT light rail lobby group (with, what I will admit is an impressive Facebook page – just don’t look too closely at their “pro” justifications !), it’s probably a foregone outcome now I’m afraid.

I still believe that, despite the relative closeness of the Riotact poll, the “No” Light Rail view is a significant majority. People are often just too time challenged to articulate that.

But, because that “NO” view is not consolidated (ie it’s put forward by individuals on places like RiotAct, Canberra Times, etc) and not through a coordinated body or anti Light Rail lobby group or through an anti Light Rail Facebook page, then the anti ACT Light Rail voice/view is far more easily dismissed by the ACT Gov’t and their Green overlord.

Pork Hunt said :

bundah said :

I’m in favour of an additional lane being added to Northbourne Ave with a bus only lane.

How about making one lane a bus lane for two hours southbound per day and two hours northbound per day without an additional lane? Make it T2, taxi and motorcycle. Starting as soon as Monday if you like…

Or install tracking in all the busses (done) and have the lights magically go green at the right times for the busses just to drive straight down Northborne.

Afterall there is a road directly connecting the two town centres, and lights are controlled by a computer, why not just have that computer talk to a bus tracker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption

Preemption would cost max a million dollars and have a much greater effect.

bundah said :

I’m in favour of an additional lane being added to Northbourne Ave with a bus only lane.

How about making one lane a bus lane for two hours southbound per day and two hours northbound per day without an additional lane? Make it T2, taxi and motorcycle. Starting as soon as Monday if you like…

HiddenDragon said :

rommeldog56 said :

watto23 said :

I’m in favour of a transit system that improves commuter times, but this tram doesn’t even do that, so how is it better than a bus that takes forever!

Agreed.

But it does sound like the decision has already been made by the ACT Gov’t to plough ahead, regardless.

I reckon that it looks like those of us who argue anti Light Rail on a purely economic, common sense and logic basis, will have to suck it up, build a ridge and get over it ?

Not that I think any bridge will be built for the toy train set to be extended to cross the Lake mind you…….

Voting this Govt out at the next election – if that happens – will be too late anyway. Contracts will be signed by 2016 apparently.

The point about contracts being signed by 2016 is sobering, and very depressing (for those of us who care about fiscal sustainability), but if private polling replicates this mini-poll, and remains distinctly negative, hands may tremble somewhat at contract-signing time. Of course, an incredibly rare, endangered moth may be found to have its habitat in one of those Northbourne Avenue trees……

Lots of contacts have already been signed, foremost the “ironclad” one with The Green.
The rest are academic.

davo101 said :

rosscoact said :

Oh dear, where’s the rolly eyes emoticon when you need one

🙄

😀 that’s the one

So, in the “Face Off”, which party will represent which side ? Presumably there will be a Pro and an Anti ?

Hargreaves : Pro Light Rail ?

Carnell : Anti Light Rail ? (which might seem strange, given her new role now ?).

HiddenDragon12:22 pm 04 Jul 14

rommeldog56 said :

watto23 said :

I’m in favour of a transit system that improves commuter times, but this tram doesn’t even do that, so how is it better than a bus that takes forever!

Agreed.

But it does sound like the decision has already been made by the ACT Gov’t to plough ahead, regardless.

I reckon that it looks like those of us who argue anti Light Rail on a purely economic, common sense and logic basis, will have to suck it up, build a ridge and get over it ?

Not that I think any bridge will be built for the toy train set to be extended to cross the Lake mind you…….

Voting this Govt out at the next election – if that happens – will be too late anyway. Contracts will be signed by 2016 apparently.

The point about contracts being signed by 2016 is sobering, and very depressing (for those of us who care about fiscal sustainability), but if private polling replicates this mini-poll, and remains distinctly negative, hands may tremble somewhat at contract-signing time. Of course, an incredibly rare, endangered moth may be found to have its habitat in one of those Northbourne Avenue trees……

watto23 said :

miz said :

The ‘yes’ vote is still way behind, even after factoring in the urgent twitters amongst green supporters to try and make it look as if light rail actually has a modicum of support . . .

The poll isn’t great though. like the old republic referendum.
I voted no to the proposed light rail because its a waste of money. But I do believe we need light rail, or rapid bus transit. Isn’t the time it takes the #1 reason why people don’t catch public transport, maybe convenience also. The proposed light rail, doesn’t improve on the bus service at all. If it was a rapid Gungahlin-Civic link that took 5-10 minutes with park and ride at Gungahlin, I’d be in favor of it, on the assumption we’d get similar services to the other town centres.

I don’t oppose it on financials like most seem to do, or because its not coming to Tuggeranong. Its because the proposal offers minor improvements over a bus service. In fact build a 2 lane buslane in the middle of northbourne and it would do the same thing.

Have you computer modelled it yet?

rosscoact said :

Oh dear, where’s the rolly eyes emoticon when you need one

🙄

miz said :

The ‘yes’ vote is still way behind, even after factoring in the urgent twitters amongst green supporters to try and make it look as if light rail actually has a modicum of support . . .

Oh dear, where’s the rolly eyes emoticon when you need one

miz said :

The ‘yes’ vote is still way behind, even after factoring in the urgent twitters amongst green supporters to try and make it look as if light rail actually has a modicum of support . . .

The poll isn’t great though. like the old republic referendum.
I voted no to the proposed light rail because its a waste of money. But I do believe we need light rail, or rapid bus transit. Isn’t the time it takes the #1 reason why people don’t catch public transport, maybe convenience also. The proposed light rail, doesn’t improve on the bus service at all. If it was a rapid Gungahlin-Civic link that took 5-10 minutes with park and ride at Gungahlin, I’d be in favor of it, on the assumption we’d get similar services to the other town centres.

I don’t oppose it on financials like most seem to do, or because its not coming to Tuggeranong. Its because the proposal offers minor improvements over a bus service. In fact build a 2 lane buslane in the middle of northbourne and it would do the same thing.

I’m in favour of an additional lane being added to Northbourne Ave with a bus only lane.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back10:07 am 04 Jul 14

Kalliste said :

Sounds like a better idea to throw the money at action to improve the bus services.

If we were smart about it we could probably build some new roads that would be used as busways initially, but when rail (light or heavy) becomes viable at some point in the future these roads could be coverted to assist with the inevitable traffic problems that would exist by then. We could use existing buses, build the new infrastructure bit by bit, and run services that incorporated both new and existing infrastructure.

We hearing about how wonderful the brickworks medium density development will be, wouldn’t that be a great place to start thinking about new public transport between there, Woden and the City? People traveling between Woden and City could also use it.

Weatherman said :

I think heavy rail would be far more effective considering the distances across the city. It would have a wider scope than light rail. It can transport more passengers quicker. Wide corridors already exist around Canberra. There is already a high density area between Queanbeyan and Kingston that could be converted into a commuter rail system due to an unused freight line.

The underutilised (not unused) heavy rail line between Queanbeyan and Kingston via Fyshwick will also carry standard gauge light rail. Self powered railcars could be running a service tomorrow.

watto23 said :

I’m in favour of a transit system that improves commuter times, but this tram doesn’t even do that, so how is it better than a bus that takes forever!

Exactly, as someone that lives in Gungahlin I initially thought the rail would be a good idea, but the time estimates are longer than it takes me to catch the bus currently, and I’d have to walk for an additional 10mins to catch it.

Sounds like a better idea to throw the money at action to improve the bus services.

I think heavy rail would be far more effective considering the distances across the city. It would have a wider scope than light rail. It can transport more passengers quicker. Wide corridors already exist around Canberra. There is already a high density area between Queanbeyan and Kingston that could be converted into a commuter rail system due to an unused freight line.

The ‘yes’ vote is still way behind, even after factoring in the urgent twitters amongst green supporters to try and make it look as if light rail actually has a modicum of support . . .

OpenYourMind6:32 am 04 Jul 14

I just don’t think people really comprehend the impact of an expense like $600-800 million will be on a smallish city like Canberra. That’s $12,000 per family of four (on average working on a 300,000 population) additional total expenditure our city needs to find. To add insult to injury it only services those on the direct route going to/from Gunghalin to City – worse than our current bus network and an absolute insult to the vast majority of Canberrans who don’t live anywhere near the proposed route.

Then to be carrying out this activity at a time when Canberra is in extreme pain with jobs being slashed, taxes rising, property values falling etc. smacks of a local Government completely oblivious to reality.

To top all this off, we are soon to see the revolution of autonomous vehicles which will change the transport landscape forever. Our solution, one hundred year old clunky trams.

watto23 said :

I’m in favour of a transit system that improves commuter times, but this tram doesn’t even do that, so how is it better than a bus that takes forever!

Agreed. But it does sound like the decision has already been made by the ACT Gov’t to plough ahead, regardless.

I reckon that it looks like those of us who argue anti Light Rail on a purely economic, common sense and logic basis, will have to suck it up, build a ridge and get over it ?

Not that I think any bridge will be built for the toy train set to be extended to cross the Lake mind you…….

Voting this Govt out at the next election – if that happens – will be too late anyway. Contracts will be signed by 2016 apparently.

A ~$750,000,000 project is worth a scientific poll.

I’m in favour of a transit system that improves commuter times, but this tram doesn’t even do that, so how is it better than a bus that takes forever!

It’s not very ‘green’ to buy an expensive new thing when you could ‘up cycle’ what you’ve got. We already have perfectly good buses, and loads more people would benefit with better bus coverage. I sometimes wonder at how dumb people are. Think of the huge manufacturing footprint of those carriages and tracks.

dungfungus said :

El_Mariachi said :

davo101 said :

patrick_keogh said :

Survey design is not simple is it?

Perhaps that’s why I said “not yet” as in we don’t need it now but, hey, in 2031 it may be a completely different story. I’m guessing “no” means, well, never.

That’s an interesting point that you raise, because needing it in 2031 realistically means rolling it out now.

Well, if the same tree-huggers that delayed the GDE get organised again it will be 2031 before the tracks are laid.

Nah, they’re all in favour of the tram given how sustainable (sorry, I’ve forgotten the other buzzwords) in will be. And it’s in someone else’s backyard anyway.

El_Mariachi said :

davo101 said :

patrick_keogh said :

Survey design is not simple is it?

Perhaps that’s why I said “not yet” as in we don’t need it now but, hey, in 2031 it may be a completely different story. I’m guessing “no” means, well, never.

That’s an interesting point that you raise, because needing it in 2031 realistically means rolling it out now.

Well, if the same tree-huggers that delayed the GDE get organised again it will be 2031 before the tracks are laid.

davo101 said :

patrick_keogh said :

Survey design is not simple is it?

Perhaps that’s why I said “not yet” as in we don’t need it now but, hey, in 2031 it may be a completely different story. I’m guessing “no” means, well, never.

That’s an interesting point that you raise, because needing it in 2031 realistically means rolling it out now.

davo101 said :

“I thought about it”

“I haven’t thought about it”

D’oh.

patrick_keogh said :

Yes, but what about those who think “Not yet but we’ll need it in 2016” ? That is equivalent to “Yes”. Somewhere between 2016 and 2999 it switches to being an equivalent for “Yes” to an equivalent for “No”.

Yeah..I was having all those thoughts and more while I was typing my reply. In a similar way “undecided” includes “I thought about it” and “the two are so close together I can’t split them”. As you said survey design is hard (especially with one question).

patrick_keogh8:13 am 03 Jul 14

davo101 said :

patrick_keogh said :

Hmmm… We don’t have light rail right now, so depending on your bias you can interpret “Not Right Now” as either yes or no.

Survey design is not simple is it?

Perhaps that’s why I said “not yet” as in we don’t need it now but, hey, in 2031 it may be a completely different story. I’m guessing “no” means, well, never.

Yes, but what about those who think “Not yet but we’ll need it in 2016” ? That is equivalent to “Yes”. Somewhere between 2016 and 2999 it switches to being an equivalent for “Yes” to an equivalent for “No”.

wildturkeycanoe9:11 pm 02 Jul 14

What happens if the “On the Fence” party holds balance of power?

patrick_keogh said :

Hmmm… We don’t have light rail right now, so depending on your bias you can interpret “Not Right Now” as either yes or no.

Survey design is not simple is it?

Perhaps that’s why I said “not yet” as in we don’t need it now but, hey, in 2031 it may be a completely different story. I’m guessing “no” means, well, never.

patrick_keogh4:47 pm 02 Jul 14

Hmmm… We don’t have light rail right now, so depending on your bias you can interpret “Not Right Now” as either yes or no.

Survey design is not simple is it?

Fair point Davo – we’ve added it in.

Hmm, where is the “not yet” option?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.