19 April 2016

Light rail to arrive sooner, cost less and bring more trees to Northbourne

| Charlotte
Join the conversation
271
light rail model

The consortium chosen to develop Canberra’s light rail project says it will complete the project more cheaply and quickly than the Government’s estimates, and will replace trees along Northbourne in a staged manner and with 4m-tall plantings so that no section of the corridor is without trees for more than four months.

There will, in fact, be more trees on Northbourne after the light rail is built than there are now, according to ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr.

The Government anticipates signing contracts with the Canberra Metro consortium by the end of June, with construction to commence the following month.

The successful consortium consists of Pacific Partnerships, CPB Contractors, John Holland, Mitsubishi Corporation, Aberdeen Infrastructure Investments, Deutsche Bahn International and CAF, and won out over the second shortlisted consortium, ACTivate, consisting of Keolis Downer, Keolis SA, Downer EDI Works, Bombardier Transportation, Plenary Origination, Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia, Aurecon Australasia, Cox Architecture, Itochu Australia and Partners Group AG.

The RiotACT understands that the consortia each spent some tens of millions of dollars on their bids after being shortlisted in March last year, committing large teams of dozens of staff to the project. Four consortia originally submitted expressions of interest in building and operating the light rail network in late 2014.

The bid from Canberra Metro (not to be confused with Capital Metro, the government’s name for the project which pre-dates the consortium’s) included a capital cost of $698 million, with a 5 per cent variance depending on negotiations and changes in market conditions between now and contract closure.

The Government updated 2012 estimates of a capital cost of $610 million to $783,000 in September 2014, with the latter figure consisting of $610 million plus a contingency of $173 million.

Canberra Metro intends to complete construction in late 2018 and begin operations in early 2019, around a year earlier than previous estimates.

Corbell, Barr, Lynch

Minister for Capital Metro Simon Corbell said the earlier delivery would mean less disruption for Canberrans.

“Critics of light rail have said that we wouldn’t be able to deliver this project for less than a billion dollars but by selecting a bid that will deliver the project under our projected budget and ahead of our projected timeframes we have proven that our business case was conservative in its estimates,” Mr Corbell said.

He said that Canberra Metro’s strategy for a staged removal and replacement of trees would minimize the visual impact along the important entry corridor to the capital.

“The staged approach will mean that as sections of trees are removed, and replaced with 4m-tall plantings, there will only be periods 3-4 months where each section will be without trees.”

Chief Minister Andrew Barr said a decision on stage two of the light rail project, a possible extension to Russell, would be made this year after further discussions with the Federal Government.

“I met with the Prime Minister late last year and following the meeting he has invited the ACT Government to seek federal funding for the Russell extension,” Mr Barr said.

Stage one will consist of 12km of light rail track, 13 stops, 14 light rail vehicles, a depot and 20 years of operation and maintenance. It will operate from as early as 6am and up to 1am with services every six minutes during peak times.

Opposition transport spokesman Alistair Coe said this afternoon that the Government was committing to a light rail tenderer without a mandate.

“I again call on the Barr government to do the right thing and delay the light project until after the 2016 Election so Canberrans can decide how their money is spent,” he said.

However, the then Labor Chief Minister Katy Gallagher announced in September 2012, the month before the last ACT election, that if re-elected, her Government would develop light rail between Gungahlin and Civic. The policy document included this line: “Capital Metro Stage 1 is anticipated to be completed by 2018, with construction estimated to commence in 2016.”

Read Ms Gallagher’s full policy statement on the matter, as published on September 21, 2012, here: www.actlabor.org.au/2012_election_light_rail_policy

The ACT Greens announced their own commitment to light rail in August 2012. See their full policy document here: act.greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/Light%20Rail.pdf

Immediately after the October 2012 ACT election, then Liberal leader Zed Seselja said his party had “never ruled out light rail”, and that he was “very happy for the work to be done to figure out whether it can work and is achievable”.

Join the conversation

271
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
OpenYourMind10:13 pm 03 Mar 16

rubaiyat said :

Masquara said :

Something that hasn’t occurred to Labor but is occurring to more and more voters is that, of course, people who want light rail AND are sick of Labor’s grand entitlement syndrome and would like a change of government, can safely vote a fiscal responsible Liberal government in to get that change of government, while still securing the tram thanks to Labor’s watertight legacy plans … win win!

The same “fiscally responsible” Liberals that threaten to renege on the contract at any cost and were told to pull their heads in by Tony Abbott?

The fiscal irresponsibility will be if Labor/Greens lock us into expensive contracts for this white elephant so close to an election they know may reverse those contracts. As for Abbott, I think it would feel a little worse being swished by a wet hanky than being told off by that miserable forgotten poor excuse for an ex Prime Minister.

Masquara said :

Something that hasn’t occurred to Labor but is occurring to more and more voters is that, of course, people who want light rail AND are sick of Labor’s grand entitlement syndrome and would like a change of government, can safely vote a fiscal responsible Liberal government in to get that change of government, while still securing the tram thanks to Labor’s watertight legacy plans … win win!

The same “fiscally responsible” Liberals that threaten to renege on the contract at any cost and were told to pull their heads in by Tony Abbott?

justin heywood said :

JC said :

Re light rail costs, impossible to compare on a per km basis. Both Sydney and the Gold Coast for example have lengths of running on existing roads, Canberra does not. So massive cost difference there. For starters.

Of course Gold Coast and Sydney are not direct comparisons to Canberra.
But Capital Metro’s ‘Business Case’ makes the comparison, and claims (erroneously) that Gold Coast’s cost were $949 million. They then float a few vague ideas on why they are going to be cheaper in Canberra. You should have a look at it, none of it is very convincing. (They quote figures from The Daily Telegraph FFS).
To claim that costs won’t blow out flies in the face of evidence and history.

The submitted bid by the corporation that has to build and run the Light Rail is quite compelling and there is ample contingency in the contract.

I am amazed at the constant refrain that only Light Rail should not be built because of the constant lie that it will cost a billion plus. No basis in fact anywhere.

If your contention is that ALL government contracts exceed estimates, that is in the face of all those that don’t and is ridiculous because you are really saying no major projects should go ahead, full stop…

…but mysteriously do not go apoplectic at the thought of all major road projects.

rubaiyat said :

Let’s return to that natural source of levity and buffoonery, the “Forever” Deluge of Conservative Hypocrisy (DCH).

Just passed that bastion of “Fiscal Responsibility”, the Department of Finance, witnessing the eternal renovations being done to their Evil Genius Lair at enormous taxpayers’ expense and which never seeming to be completed.

Let’s see Parliamentary Triangle = Federal Liberal Party government.

Where are the cries of Incompetence, Grand Theft Taxman, Waste, and Imminent Bankruptcy, all at the hands of the fiscally incoherent self indulgent conservatives?

“The intelligentsia keeps gibbering in the parliament, but we, the proletariat are acting” (Lenin)

Masquara said :

Something that hasn’t occurred to Labor but is occurring to more and more voters is that, of course, people who want light rail AND are sick of Labor’s grand entitlement syndrome and would like a change of government, can safely vote a fiscal responsible Liberal government in to get that change of government, while still securing the tram thanks to Labor’s watertight legacy plans … win win!

After the Gallagher/Barr minority Labor government is consigned to the dustbin of ACT political history, the light rail will grind to a halt and rust.
This must not be allowed to happen! The light rail must be preserved as a reminder to the achievement/failure of the government of the people that made it happen.
It can become our own Trabant 601, just like the one remembered in Budapest. http://www.mementopark.hu/

Something that hasn’t occurred to Labor but is occurring to more and more voters is that, of course, people who want light rail AND are sick of Labor’s grand entitlement syndrome and would like a change of government, can safely vote a fiscal responsible Liberal government in to get that change of government, while still securing the tram thanks to Labor’s watertight legacy plans … win win!

OpenYourMind7:15 pm 02 Mar 16

And Rubaiyat, you must hate systems like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ujd4wutddE

Sure it’s not scaled up, but it makes a tram look delightfully old hat.

OpenYourMind6:07 pm 02 Mar 16

rubaiyat said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Here are details of another light rail project being considered in Michigan USA:
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/02/public_will_help_shape_vision.html
In many ways it is similar to Canberra’s Capital metro Agency’s dream and they even have the local university as leading cheerleaders.
The pricing is similar but the anticipated daily use by 30,000 + passengers is where Canberra’s proposal gets left alone like the proverbial shag on a rock.
Why doesn’t Barr and Corbell bite the bullet and can the tram before they bankrupt the Territory?

Because the point of the tram is to build high density along the route, providing a place for people to live and not need to own a car. You will never ever understand this because you are stuck in your views and opinions. You would be the first to complain if something of moderate density got built somewhere near where you live.

I agree its expensive. I also think there is no way all of Canberra will ever get light rail. It will take 10-20 years to build up along the route. But it gives people options of where to live and the type of living they wish to do.

I’m just sick of whingers who can’t offer any positive contributions and are happy to believe all sorts of non factual rubbish from right wing media sources, turn once off events into large scale dramas and then somehow convert it to an undisputable fact.

Worse still, if the liberals were not emulating Abbotts Dr No persona and supported light rail, you instantly find a larger portion of Canberra change their minds, all because of politics rather than facts. Instead the liberals have Tuggeranong residents fooled into thinking they are going to build them infrastructure galore. I’m 99% sure we’ll get either a Labor government or another one term liberal government. I’ve voted liberals many times in the past, but this negativity and divisiveness that has crept into Australian politics is ridiculous. Then all the sheep do their bidding in forums!

It is not all Liberals, just the dinosaur wannabe Tea Party Liberals.

The NSW Liberals are full bore on Light Rail. Rather than argue about Light Rail as such the argument should have always been about good transport planning, which is what we are (still) missing.

Fantasies of returning to endless polluting and mythically uncongested freeways and unlimited free/cheap parking are just that, fantasies mostly by older men who associate cars with their first happy sexual experience, in the company of someone else. The association has stuck.

Riiiighht. You do realise that Canberra is seeing a year on year decrease in use of public transport (1996 it was 11.4% and by 2006 7.9% ABS). Even in the ‘tram city’ of Melbourne, trams represent a small percentage of travel and most travel is by private motor vehicle. Why on Earth would the average gunghinite travel (probably by car) to tram station, catch a tram all squished up standing with everyone coughing and sneezing around them, then potentially catch more transport from the city? Just as in other cities, the tram will represent a very small percentage of transport at a disproportionate cost.

The next local election is so close now. It would be unforgivable of our current local government to sign us up to anything. There is very clearly STRONG opposition to the tram in Canberra. Most letters to the Canberra Times are anti tram, most of this post is anti tram (except Rubaiyat, who by his own admission says the tram route is a poor choice, who owns(ed) a ski chalet and has children at Canberra Grammar) never mind CanTheTram and its very strong and reasoned voice opposing the Tram.

Never mind that despite what Rubaiyat may say, autonomous cars are a very likely reality. Most major car companies are investing, tech companies are investing and cities the world over are beginning to plan and embrace trials – the race is on. While we have simulations of the huge benefits autonomous may offer, the paradigm shift of autonomous is simply not fully understood yet. This would make a long term investment in trams a dreadful proposition. This is doubly so for Canberra where our declining public transport use, loss making bus system and car oriented design all mean the tram would white elephant even without autonomous.

justin heywood5:30 pm 02 Mar 16

JC said :

Re light rail costs, impossible to compare on a per km basis. Both Sydney and the Gold Coast for example have lengths of running on existing roads, Canberra does not. So massive cost difference there. For starters.

Of course Gold Coast and Sydney are not direct comparisons to Canberra.
But Capital Metro’s ‘Business Case’ makes the comparison, and claims (erroneously) that Gold Coast’s cost were $949 million. They then float a few vague ideas on why they are going to be cheaper in Canberra. You should have a look at it, none of it is very convincing. (They quote figures from The Daily Telegraph FFS).
To claim that costs won’t blow out flies in the face of evidence and history.

Let’s return to that natural source of levity and buffoonery, the “Forever” Deluge of Conservative Hypocrisy (DCH).

Just passed that bastion of “Fiscal Responsibility”, the Department of Finance, witnessing the eternal renovations being done to their Evil Genius Lair at enormous taxpayers’ expense and which never seeming to be completed.

Let’s see Parliamentary Triangle = Federal Liberal Party government.

Where are the cries of Incompetence, Grand Theft Taxman, Waste, and Imminent Bankruptcy, all at the hands of the fiscally incoherent self indulgent conservatives?

dungfungus said :

It’s like that other fantasy where “the science is settled”.
With light rail it’s “the seance is settled”.

See you lose credibility there. The science is pretty damn clear. You refuse to acknowledge it.

Light rail I can accept people have differing views and opinions. Its not a clear cut project with regards to its actual benefits. I can accept its expensive and people feel there are better uses for the money. we can argue on that point as both sides have facts to support them.

But climate science is far less disputable and those that do, raise alarm bells with me as someone who will believe something only if its what they want to believe rather than what the actual facts say and not the made up facts that you seem to find with a bit of confirmation bias. If I wanted to argue the way you argue about climate science I could easily draw a line and say climate change deniers are terrorism supporters because they don’t care about fossil fuels, most of which we buy from the middle east to fuel our cars with. Saudis love funding terrorism yet are a US ally. Now if that sounds ridiculous to you, that is how climate denial theories sound to me or anyone else who is capable of rational, logical and scientific thought.

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Fantasies of returning to endless polluting and mythically uncongested freeways and unlimited free/cheap parking are just that, fantasies mostly by older men who associate cars with their first happy sexual experience, in the company of someone else. The association has stuck.

Hmm. Now those old movies with shots of trains going into tunnels make sense. Thanks Doc!

There is nothing here that I have said so please alter your post accordingly.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Here are details of another light rail project being considered in Michigan USA:
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/02/public_will_help_shape_vision.html
In many ways it is similar to Canberra’s Capital metro Agency’s dream and they even have the local university as leading cheerleaders.
The pricing is similar but the anticipated daily use by 30,000 + passengers is where Canberra’s proposal gets left alone like the proverbial shag on a rock.
Why doesn’t Barr and Corbell bite the bullet and can the tram before they bankrupt the Territory?

Because the point of the tram is to build high density along the route, providing a place for people to live and not need to own a car. You will never ever understand this because you are stuck in your views and opinions. You would be the first to complain if something of moderate density got built somewhere near where you live.

I agree its expensive. I also think there is no way all of Canberra will ever get light rail. It will take 10-20 years to build up along the route. But it gives people options of where to live and the type of living they wish to do.

I’m just sick of whingers who can’t offer any positive contributions and are happy to believe all sorts of non factual rubbish from right wing media sources, turn once off events into large scale dramas and then somehow convert it to an undisputable fact.

Worse still, if the liberals were not emulating Abbotts Dr No persona and supported light rail, you instantly find a larger portion of Canberra change their minds, all because of politics rather than facts. Instead the liberals have Tuggeranong residents fooled into thinking they are going to build them infrastructure galore. I’m 99% sure we’ll get either a Labor government or another one term liberal government. I’ve voted liberals many times in the past, but this negativity and divisiveness that has crept into Australian politics is ridiculous. Then all the sheep do their bidding in forums!

If you read the other most recent posts I have made about light rail you will realize that I am not against it altogether so to call me a right wing whinger gives you no credibility to make any comments about the subject matter at all.
There is absolutely nothing positive for the betterment of Canberra in the plan to introduce light rail no matter what spin you or any of your apologist mates put on it. If there was, I would be out there campaigning for it too.
It’s interesting to note that some of the high profile supporters of light rail have gone very quiet recently.

No, just bored with having to repeat the bleeding obvious, when it’s in progress anyway.

The next point of discussion will be when we have the full details of the winning consortium’s submission.

It’s like that other fantasy where “the science is settled”.
With light rail it’s “the seance is settled”.

rubaiyat said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Fantasies of returning to endless polluting and mythically uncongested freeways and unlimited free/cheap parking are just that, fantasies mostly by older men who associate cars with their first happy sexual experience, in the company of someone else. The association has stuck.

Hmm. Now those old movies with shots of trains going into tunnels make sense. Thanks Doc!

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Here are details of another light rail project being considered in Michigan USA:
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/02/public_will_help_shape_vision.html
In many ways it is similar to Canberra’s Capital metro Agency’s dream and they even have the local university as leading cheerleaders.
The pricing is similar but the anticipated daily use by 30,000 + passengers is where Canberra’s proposal gets left alone like the proverbial shag on a rock.
Why doesn’t Barr and Corbell bite the bullet and can the tram before they bankrupt the Territory?

Because the point of the tram is to build high density along the route, providing a place for people to live and not need to own a car. You will never ever understand this because you are stuck in your views and opinions. You would be the first to complain if something of moderate density got built somewhere near where you live.

I agree its expensive. I also think there is no way all of Canberra will ever get light rail. It will take 10-20 years to build up along the route. But it gives people options of where to live and the type of living they wish to do.

I’m just sick of whingers who can’t offer any positive contributions and are happy to believe all sorts of non factual rubbish from right wing media sources, turn once off events into large scale dramas and then somehow convert it to an undisputable fact.

Worse still, if the liberals were not emulating Abbotts Dr No persona and supported light rail, you instantly find a larger portion of Canberra change their minds, all because of politics rather than facts. Instead the liberals have Tuggeranong residents fooled into thinking they are going to build them infrastructure galore. I’m 99% sure we’ll get either a Labor government or another one term liberal government. I’ve voted liberals many times in the past, but this negativity and divisiveness that has crept into Australian politics is ridiculous. Then all the sheep do their bidding in forums!

It is not all Liberals, just the dinosaur wannabe Tea Party Liberals.

The NSW Liberals are full bore on Light Rail. Rather than argue about Light Rail as such the argument should have always been about good transport planning, which is what we are (still) missing.

Fantasies of returning to endless polluting and mythically uncongested freeways and unlimited free/cheap parking are just that, fantasies mostly by older men who associate cars with their first happy sexual experience, in the company of someone else. The association has stuck.

Masquara said :

dungfungus said :

There are places that light rail can work but Canberra is not one of them and it will never be.

It does beg the question: with Gungahlinites having a history of being hardcore drivers, to the extent that traffic plans that previously expected them to embrace public transport were a complete failure, will they hop on the train rather than take the SUV to wherever they want to go? You’d wonder. This project should have commenced (if at all) with light rail from the airport with a loop around the Parliamentary Triangle and then to Defence and to the city. Paid for largely by the Snows, thanks!

The Airport is a furphy.

Airport usage is falling, the existing shuttle bus gets little usage (not that you’d know it existed) and there is little development or possible development along the only two difficult 7.5km routes into the City, and no further possibilities beyond the Airport to provide passengers.

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Here are details of another light rail project being considered in Michigan USA:
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/02/public_will_help_shape_vision.html
In many ways it is similar to Canberra’s Capital metro Agency’s dream and they even have the local university as leading cheerleaders.
The pricing is similar but the anticipated daily use by 30,000 + passengers is where Canberra’s proposal gets left alone like the proverbial shag on a rock.
Why doesn’t Barr and Corbell bite the bullet and can the tram before they bankrupt the Territory?

Because the point of the tram is to build high density along the route, providing a place for people to live and not need to own a car. You will never ever understand this because you are stuck in your views and opinions. You would be the first to complain if something of moderate density got built somewhere near where you live.

I agree its expensive. I also think there is no way all of Canberra will ever get light rail. It will take 10-20 years to build up along the route. But it gives people options of where to live and the type of living they wish to do.

I’m just sick of whingers who can’t offer any positive contributions and are happy to believe all sorts of non factual rubbish from right wing media sources, turn once off events into large scale dramas and then somehow convert it to an undisputable fact.

Worse still, if the liberals were not emulating Abbotts Dr No persona and supported light rail, you instantly find a larger portion of Canberra change their minds, all because of politics rather than facts. Instead the liberals have Tuggeranong residents fooled into thinking they are going to build them infrastructure galore. I’m 99% sure we’ll get either a Labor government or another one term liberal government. I’ve voted liberals many times in the past, but this negativity and divisiveness that has crept into Australian politics is ridiculous. Then all the sheep do their bidding in forums!

If you read the other most recent posts I have made about light rail you will realize that I am not against it altogether so to call me a right wing whinger gives you no credibility to make any comments about the subject matter at all.
There is absolutely nothing positive for the betterment of Canberra in the plan to introduce light rail no matter what spin you or any of your apologist mates put on it. If there was, I would be out there campaigning for it too.
It’s interesting to note that some of the high profile supporters of light rail have gone very quiet recently.

No, just bored with having to repeat the bleeding obvious, when it’s in progress anyway.

The next point of discussion will be when we have the full details of the winning consortium’s submission.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Here are details of another light rail project being considered in Michigan USA:
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/02/public_will_help_shape_vision.html
In many ways it is similar to Canberra’s Capital metro Agency’s dream and they even have the local university as leading cheerleaders.
The pricing is similar but the anticipated daily use by 30,000 + passengers is where Canberra’s proposal gets left alone like the proverbial shag on a rock.
Why doesn’t Barr and Corbell bite the bullet and can the tram before they bankrupt the Territory?

Because the point of the tram is to build high density along the route, providing a place for people to live and not need to own a car. You will never ever understand this because you are stuck in your views and opinions. You would be the first to complain if something of moderate density got built somewhere near where you live.

I agree its expensive. I also think there is no way all of Canberra will ever get light rail. It will take 10-20 years to build up along the route. But it gives people options of where to live and the type of living they wish to do.

I’m just sick of whingers who can’t offer any positive contributions and are happy to believe all sorts of non factual rubbish from right wing media sources, turn once off events into large scale dramas and then somehow convert it to an undisputable fact.

Worse still, if the liberals were not emulating Abbotts Dr No persona and supported light rail, you instantly find a larger portion of Canberra change their minds, all because of politics rather than facts. Instead the liberals have Tuggeranong residents fooled into thinking they are going to build them infrastructure galore. I’m 99% sure we’ll get either a Labor government or another one term liberal government. I’ve voted liberals many times in the past, but this negativity and divisiveness that has crept into Australian politics is ridiculous. Then all the sheep do their bidding in forums!

If you read the other most recent posts I have made about light rail you will realize that I am not against it altogether so to call me a right wing whinger gives you no credibility to make any comments about the subject matter at all.
There is absolutely nothing positive for the betterment of Canberra in the plan to introduce light rail no matter what spin you or any of your apologist mates put on it. If there was, I would be out there campaigning for it too.
It’s interesting to note that some of the high profile supporters of light rail have gone very quiet recently.

dungfungus said :

There are places that light rail can work but Canberra is not one of them and it will never be.

It does beg the question: with Gungahlinites having a history of being hardcore drivers, to the extent that traffic plans that previously expected them to embrace public transport were a complete failure, will they hop on the train rather than take the SUV to wherever they want to go? You’d wonder. This project should have commenced (if at all) with light rail from the airport with a loop around the Parliamentary Triangle and then to Defence and to the city. Paid for largely by the Snows, thanks!

dungfungus said :

Here are details of another light rail project being considered in Michigan USA:
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/02/public_will_help_shape_vision.html
In many ways it is similar to Canberra’s Capital metro Agency’s dream and they even have the local university as leading cheerleaders.
The pricing is similar but the anticipated daily use by 30,000 + passengers is where Canberra’s proposal gets left alone like the proverbial shag on a rock.
Why doesn’t Barr and Corbell bite the bullet and can the tram before they bankrupt the Territory?

Because the point of the tram is to build high density along the route, providing a place for people to live and not need to own a car. You will never ever understand this because you are stuck in your views and opinions. You would be the first to complain if something of moderate density got built somewhere near where you live.

I agree its expensive. I also think there is no way all of Canberra will ever get light rail. It will take 10-20 years to build up along the route. But it gives people options of where to live and the type of living they wish to do.

I’m just sick of whingers who can’t offer any positive contributions and are happy to believe all sorts of non factual rubbish from right wing media sources, turn once off events into large scale dramas and then somehow convert it to an undisputable fact.

Worse still, if the liberals were not emulating Abbotts Dr No persona and supported light rail, you instantly find a larger portion of Canberra change their minds, all because of politics rather than facts. Instead the liberals have Tuggeranong residents fooled into thinking they are going to build them infrastructure galore. I’m 99% sure we’ll get either a Labor government or another one term liberal government. I’ve voted liberals many times in the past, but this negativity and divisiveness that has crept into Australian politics is ridiculous. Then all the sheep do their bidding in forums!

Here are details of another light rail project being considered in Michigan USA:
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/02/public_will_help_shape_vision.html
In many ways it is similar to Canberra’s Capital metro Agency’s dream and they even have the local university as leading cheerleaders.
The pricing is similar but the anticipated daily use by 30,000 + passengers is where Canberra’s proposal gets left alone like the proverbial shag on a rock.
Why doesn’t Barr and Corbell bite the bullet and can the tram before they bankrupt the Territory?

Southmouth said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

tuco said :

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

I heard they were calling mass transit system there “the palindrome”.

Borrowed from the Glenelg tram

I wasn’t aware of that but good one!
I last travelled on the Glenelg tram in the 1970s. I think it was the only tram in Adelaide then.

I spend a lot of time in both palindrome towns. The Glenelg tram is well utilized at the city end where it is free and to a lesser extent at the Glenelg end where it is also free but the commuter section in the middle not so much and not free. There is always the really drunk guy though and only half of the commuters on the not free section pay anyway as it isn’t policed.

From memory there are no stations between the city and Glenelg. The tram was a novelty in the 1970’s – as the Canberra one will be in 2010’s.
I think serious commuters use the Bus Bahn thing.

It is a true Light Rail between the City and Glenelg with mostly overpasses over roads and 15 suburban stations at regular intervals between the Genelg and City stops.

The O-bahn is at the other end of town heading out to Tea Tree Junction. They are nowhere near each other.

2.9 million passengers per year and growing steadily. Took a 13% increase in patronage after the extension to the Entertainment Centre. The only shame is that they haven’t extended it further.

2.9m. Wow. How much in ticket sales?

Interesting report here about the Perth airport rail link: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/isle-of-wight-light-rail-conversion-proposed.html
Note the cost of $2bn (main works) is for 8.5km but includes twin bore tunnels under the Swan River. Also, the project is to be fully funded by the WA State government rather than a PPP.
With a projected daily 20,000 passenger journeys (over 7 million a year) it certainly stacks up.
There are places that light rail can work but Canberra is not one of them and it will never be.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

tuco said :

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

I heard they were calling mass transit system there “the palindrome”.

Borrowed from the Glenelg tram

I wasn’t aware of that but good one!
I last travelled on the Glenelg tram in the 1970s. I think it was the only tram in Adelaide then.

I spend a lot of time in both palindrome towns. The Glenelg tram is well utilized at the city end where it is free and to a lesser extent at the Glenelg end where it is also free but the commuter section in the middle not so much and not free. There is always the really drunk guy though and only half of the commuters on the not free section pay anyway as it isn’t policed.

From memory there are no stations between the city and Glenelg. The tram was a novelty in the 1970’s – as the Canberra one will be in 2010’s.
I think serious commuters use the Bus Bahn thing.

It is a true Light Rail between the City and Glenelg with mostly overpasses over roads and 15 suburban stations at regular intervals between the Genelg and City stops.

The O-bahn is at the other end of town heading out to Tea Tree Junction. They are nowhere near each other.

2.9 million passengers per year and growing steadily. Took a 13% increase in patronage after the extension to the Entertainment Centre. The only shame is that they haven’t extended it further.

2.9m. Wow. How much in ticket sales?

rubaiyat said :

Southmouth said :

I spend a lot of time in both palindrome towns. The Glenelg tram is well utilized at the city end where it is free and to a lesser extent at the Glenelg end where it is also free but the commuter section in the middle not so much and not free. There is always the really drunk guy though and only half of the commuters on the not free section pay anyway as it isn’t policed.

Do you have anything to substantiate “only half of the commuters on the not free section pay anyway” or is that just you saying that? I observed most people were tapping on when I travelled on it, although there is plenty of fudge room at either end. It is not expensive, so

The Glenelg tram suffers from a few bad decisions.

1. It has no right of way or even priority at traffic lights

2. Quite a few stops are on the wrong, awkward side of intersections

3. It was stopped from going through Adelaide and up to Tea Tree Plaza back in the 80’s so never did the job it was meant to do, nor covered anything but the west end (least fun part) of the city

4. It does not integrate well with the railway, which in turn is a mess, being largely divorced from the city, still largely unelectrified, and at one point had 3 different gauges.

5. Most of the money was blown on freeways

Still all the times I have been there the tram was well used.

I ride it once or twice a month, mainly for the novelty and those are my observations. I pay $9.90 for the day ticket as i recall that was the cheapest way to get into Rundle Mall and back. It goes all the way to the entertainment centre these days which seems like a great idea, if you don’t mind the frottage

OpenYourMind12:52 pm 20 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

Despite the lack of investment and very little expansion of Light Rail network in Australia, ridership grew a remarkable 46% between 2001 and 2011, well in advance of any other form of transportation.

Given a break from the strident anti-tram lobby, Light Rail could really clean up most of our cities once the networks are put back in place.

It’s starting from a VERY low base. Even if trams increased public transport patronage by and indeed remarkable 46%, it’s still 46% of diddly squat. Even in Melbourne, a city that lends itself to trams, the CBD commutes by tram only represent a tiny 11%. http://chartingtransport.com/2011/01/23/a-look-at-melbourne-cbd-transport/

I had a chat with a senior citizen called Bob while in Tumut. Hannah, and a rather grim-faced dog, joined us shortly after. They don’t have any opinion about phone reception, other than the trucks going past can sometimes make it hard to hear when you are on the phone to the daughters and what not.

Based on our discussions, I learned that the Tumut tram suffers from a few bad decisions.

1. It has no right of way or even priority at traffic lights.

2. Quite a few stops are on the wrong, awkward side of intersections.

3. It was stopped from going through to Melbourne back in the 70s. It never ran to the fun part of the town. It seems a man (who may have been hatless at the time) had something to do with this decision.

4. I also learned Bob gets easily confused after about 2pm.

Despite the lack of investment and very little expansion of Light Rail network in Australia, ridership grew a remarkable 46% between 2001 and 2011, well in advance of any other form of transportation.

Given a break from the strident anti-tram lobby, Light Rail could really clean up most of our cities once the networks are put back in place.

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

tuco said :

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

I heard they were calling mass transit system there “the palindrome”.

Borrowed from the Glenelg tram

I wasn’t aware of that but good one!
I last travelled on the Glenelg tram in the 1970s. I think it was the only tram in Adelaide then.

I spend a lot of time in both palindrome towns. The Glenelg tram is well utilized at the city end where it is free and to a lesser extent at the Glenelg end where it is also free but the commuter section in the middle not so much and not free. There is always the really drunk guy though and only half of the commuters on the not free section pay anyway as it isn’t policed.

From memory there are no stations between the city and Glenelg. The tram was a novelty in the 1970’s – as the Canberra one will be in 2010’s.
I think serious commuters use the Bus Bahn thing.

It is a true Light Rail between the City and Glenelg with mostly overpasses over roads and 15 suburban stations at regular intervals between the Genelg and City stops.

The O-bahn is at the other end of town heading out to Tea Tree Junction. They are nowhere near each other.

2.9 million passengers per year and growing steadily. Took a 13% increase in patronage after the extension to the Entertainment Centre. The only shame is that they haven’t extended it further.

Southmouth said :

I spend a lot of time in both palindrome towns. The Glenelg tram is well utilized at the city end where it is free and to a lesser extent at the Glenelg end where it is also free but the commuter section in the middle not so much and not free. There is always the really drunk guy though and only half of the commuters on the not free section pay anyway as it isn’t policed.

Do you have anything to substantiate “only half of the commuters on the not free section pay anyway” or is that just you saying that? I observed most people were tapping on when I travelled on it, although there is plenty of fudge room at either end. It is not expensive, so

The Glenelg tram suffers from a few bad decisions.

1. It has no right of way or even priority at traffic lights

2. Quite a few stops are on the wrong, awkward side of intersections

3. It was stopped from going through Adelaide and up to Tea Tree Plaza back in the 80’s so never did the job it was meant to do, nor covered anything but the west end (least fun part) of the city

4. It does not integrate well with the railway, which in turn is a mess, being largely divorced from the city, still largely unelectrified, and at one point had 3 different gauges.

5. Most of the money was blown on freeways

Still all the times I have been there the tram was well used.

Another thing for you to fret over:

Apparently Light Rail encourages the Gay and Lesbian Community to move in:

http://www.starobserver.com.au/life-style/transport-upgrades-spur-new-growth-in-dulwich-hill/146107

Tragically I had previously sold my property there in frustration at the perpetual opposition against the Light Rail, only to finally have it delivered 2 decades late and in a substantially neutered form.

The long opposition to the Light Rail “because it was not needed now” and “It was too expensive” and “buses can do the job better on Canterbury Road” and “There isn’t the demand”, only drove the cost up multiple times, and ruined large tracts of Inner Sydney to unbearable traffic noise and pollution, with buses jammed in all the roads unable to get to their destinations anymore than the cars.

But as Peter Cook famously said: “I have learnt from all my mistakes, and can do them all over perfectly again.”

KentFitch said :

And some things never change: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110609784
.. “the parting on the left is now parting on the right”

I know you are only looking for affirmation of what you want to see but cast your eyes a little to the left to N. COWAN of O’Connor’s letter to the Canberra Times:

“The Infill question

Sir, – The infill question needs more airing. Are the people responsible for Canberra’s sprawl admitting that they were wrong? Are they who were apparently blind in the past now deaf to entreaty? Can they speak? With millions of dollars’ worth of serviced land available, surely Magpie Hill can be spared. Cynically I am reminded of the releases of greenbelt land in Sydney when profits took precedence over promises.

The ant-infill lobby has my support and sympathy but it can’t expect much sympathy from that brand of Canberran who, apparently immune from any other authority, thinks they have the God-given right to drive over or park upon any available stretch of grass. Anyone who walks near the Workmen’s Club and the School of Music will know what I mean. This is the sort of mentality that the NCDC can rely on and exploit.”

Yes apparently nothing changes!

KentFitch said :

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

Wrong again miz. Gus faced the same “Can’t change the way its *always been*!” stick-in-the-muds that is going into hysterics here. The bureaucrats were just the official face of the public ignorance that wasn’t going to have a bar of those “foreign” ideas. If Gus wanted those fancy and “inappropriate” for “Australian Conditions” ideas then he should go back to Europe where he came from.

Once again, you misrepresent history to support your point.

I recall there was massive public support for Gus. That’s one of the reasons that the then law was changed allowing outdoor seating. The bureaucrats were out of step with peoples views – they were running there own conservative agenda’s.

Absolutely correct, miz and Rommel’s dog, as a Trove search on Canberra Times from the 1970s and even 1960’s) on the words GUS and CAFE confirms. As a newcomer to Canberra in 1974, this was a popular David – v (lumbering) Goliath battle, as you’ll see from the letters to the CT:

YAY!
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/107068673
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/107066226
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/107917660
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110788951
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110786658
(many more)

BOO HISS:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110786503

Early Gang Gang chimed in, albeit modestly compared to Gang Gang’s current flair:
“At the Vienna end of Garema Arcade..” http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110332301
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110445411

And some things never change: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110609784
.. “the parting on the left is now parting on the right”

From the same source:

Other businesses complaining about Gus’ outdoor dining in *1992*:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122403865

“The owners of a nearby business have written to the Attorney-General, Terry Connolly, asking for official investigation into the conduct of business at Mr Petersilka’s latest venture, Cafe Augustin’s, which opened in August last year. Issues raised in the letter included the negative impact on other business of the encroachment of Augustin’s into public access pathways, the negative impact on the complainants’ business of rival entertainment being provided by Augustin’s within public space…”

1991 Local business people were still objecting to his outdoor seating:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122387602

He was still able to show a reporter letters objecting to his seating in *March 1992*:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122406684

“Gus poured coffee and tea. I browsed through the loosely arranged books on the tables near the door, noticing a copy of a letter complaining about Gus’s side walk chairs and tables left there for customers to see. *Nothing had changed*.”

The loud and unreasoned objections against the Light Rail do not represent the majority view either, but they are still loud and hysterical. Time will tell if they get their way and ban any alternative to the car.

Nothing has changed.

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Do you know much about self-driving cars/autonomous vehicles? I have met a few anti-light railers in recent months who see these as the solution to all Canberra’s transport problems and would like to read more about the pros and cons.

While I don’t see road traffic congestion as a problem in Canberra I can see how masses of empty cars roaming the highways and byways could cause congestion.
It’s like that “A Better Place” electric car scheme that Canberra’s leaders embraced and now don’t want to mention.
Is that too simplistic or has “the science been settled” on this one also?

dungers you need to look at this through your “glass half full” specs.

Those totally empty Autofurphy cars *only* have one less passenger than the regular cheaper kind!

Not sure if you have bothered to read anything on autonomous vehicles. They offer all sorts of advantages over regular cars. They will have V2V communication, intelligent routing, slip lane drop off thus reducing congestion, don’t require parking facilities in high value land (can park themselves underground in charge stations), intelligent mini buses can carry multiple people to where they actually want to go, the list goes on.

A Canberra tram on the other hand, it will run empty most of the time and leave people miserable and standing at peak times…. and worst of all it won’t actually take people where they need to go. All this at a time when public transport use in Canberra is diminishing, car use is increasing, cars are relatively cheaper than ever, fuel is getting cheaper and technology is romping ahead. A tram will not turn any of that around.

More cars has always been the solution to congestion, just the same way that a brown snake bite is the cure for being bitten by a red-bellied black.

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

tuco said :

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

I heard they were calling mass transit system there “the palindrome”.

Borrowed from the Glenelg tram

I wasn’t aware of that but good one!
I last travelled on the Glenelg tram in the 1970s. I think it was the only tram in Adelaide then.

I spend a lot of time in both palindrome towns. The Glenelg tram is well utilized at the city end where it is free and to a lesser extent at the Glenelg end where it is also free but the commuter section in the middle not so much and not free. There is always the really drunk guy though and only half of the commuters on the not free section pay anyway as it isn’t policed.

From memory there are no stations between the city and Glenelg. The tram was a novelty in the 1970’s – as the Canberra one will be in 2010’s.
I think serious commuters use the Bus Bahn thing.

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Do you know much about self-driving cars/autonomous vehicles? I have met a few anti-light railers in recent months who see these as the solution to all Canberra’s transport problems and would like to read more about the pros and cons.

While I don’t see road traffic congestion as a problem in Canberra I can see how masses of empty cars roaming the highways and byways could cause congestion.
It’s like that “A Better Place” electric car scheme that Canberra’s leaders embraced and now don’t want to mention.
Is that too simplistic or has “the science been settled” on this one also?

dungers you need to look at this through your “glass half full” specs.

Those totally empty Autofurphy cars *only* have one less passenger than the regular cheaper kind!

Not sure if you have bothered to read anything on autonomous vehicles. They offer all sorts of advantages over regular cars. They will have V2V communication, intelligent routing, slip lane drop off thus reducing congestion, don’t require parking facilities in high value land (can park themselves underground in charge stations), intelligent mini buses can carry multiple people to where they actually want to go, the list goes on.

A Canberra tram on the other hand, it will run empty most of the time and leave people miserable and standing at peak times…. and worst of all it won’t actually take people where they need to go. All this at a time when public transport use in Canberra is diminishing, car use is increasing, cars are relatively cheaper than ever, fuel is getting cheaper and technology is romping ahead. A tram will not turn any of that around.

Of course I have. I do all the nerdy stuff.

I’ve been reading Scientific American, New Scientist, Popular Mechanics and Popular Science ever since I was 8, and have been into computers since I could afford my own yonks ago. I happily have 6 just at home to play with. I am under no delusions that the autonomous cars will do what you fantasise it doing.

It could be any Big Boys Toys Cover on Pop Mech And Pop Sci. If it isn’t that, they’d have to stick on a rocket propelled ride on mower for post apocalyptic USA survivors.

One thing that seems painfully obvious is that you do not read any of the climate science because you “Don’ wike it!”

The Autofurphy is just an excuse to keep on messing with our City and our Planet like there is no tomorrow, which for many of the reactionaries on this forum is not long anyway.

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

tuco said :

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

I heard they were calling mass transit system there “the palindrome”.

Borrowed from the Glenelg tram

I wasn’t aware of that but good one!
I last travelled on the Glenelg tram in the 1970s. I think it was the only tram in Adelaide then.

I spend a lot of time in both palindrome towns. The Glenelg tram is well utilized at the city end where it is free and to a lesser extent at the Glenelg end where it is also free but the commuter section in the middle not so much and not free. There is always the really drunk guy though and only half of the commuters on the not free section pay anyway as it isn’t policed.

rubaiyat said :

Whilst we are investigating ALL options, I insist on several million dollars being spent on just two of my MANY proposals;

1. The O-Bahn rolling Ferris Wheel

2. The Rocky Mountain Rampage logs floating down a purpose excavated canal down the middle of Northbourne Avenue. Each log will carry a full family, overweight or not, complete with hot dogs and popcorn,so already a jump ahead of the SkyTrain.

I’m looking for Crowd Sourcing to create the *real* 3D animations. We can do it economically because I’ll use my son’s version of Studio Max and his cosplay elf characters in their improbably skimpy leather battlekinis for the passengers. It will let us test the practicalities of captured healing spells and magic gold coins to finance the entire scheme, just like with freeways.

Rubaiyat has at last found his depth.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Do you know much about self-driving cars/autonomous vehicles? I have met a few anti-light railers in recent months who see these as the solution to all Canberra’s transport problems and would like to read more about the pros and cons.

While I don’t see road traffic congestion as a problem in Canberra I can see how masses of empty cars roaming the highways and byways could cause congestion.
It’s like that “A Better Place” electric car scheme that Canberra’s leaders embraced and now don’t want to mention.
Is that too simplistic or has “the science been settled” on this one also?

dungers you need to look at this through your “glass half full” specs.

Those totally empty Autofurphy cars *only* have one less passenger than the regular cheaper kind!

I thought it was flying cars that would save us all from green social engineering and apostrophe crimes.

Feel free to stick “autonomous” and “Uber” in front of any of those proposals.

Whilst we are investigating ALL options, I insist on several million dollars being spent on just two of my MANY proposals;

1. The O-Bahn rolling Ferris Wheel

2. The Rocky Mountain Rampage logs floating down a purpose excavated canal down the middle of Northbourne Avenue. Each log will carry a full family, overweight or not, complete with hot dogs and popcorn,so already a jump ahead of the SkyTrain.

I’m looking for Crowd Sourcing to create the *real* 3D animations. We can do it economically because I’ll use my son’s version of Studio Max and his cosplay elf characters in their improbably skimpy leather battlekinis for the passengers. It will let us test the practicalities of captured healing spells and magic gold coins to finance the entire scheme, just like with freeways.

Charlotte Harper said :

Do you know much about self-driving cars/autonomous vehicles? I have met a few anti-light railers in recent months who see these as the solution to all Canberra’s transport problems and would like to read more about the pros and cons.

Pro’s imagine an awesome cheaper version of uber.
One simply has to buy a car and maybe fill it with petrol occasionally.

Cons… they don’t know to stop when the fuzz want them too.
Its unknown what happens when they crash. There is no driver who whom is at fault

Arthur Davies said :

The rails weigh around 100kg per m compared with 13,000kg per m for “light” rail (metro’s own figure). Compare environmental impacts.

Not much to go on from the cheap inconsistent 3D animations, but don’t the pods carry max 2 skinny people and an oroton hand bag? whilst the tram moves well over a hundred times that.

It seems unfair to pick on your concept, but exactly how long will it take the thousands of people arriving at their destination in peak hour to climb out of each of the thousands of swaying pods dangling up in the air, without falling down the gaps, and then make their way down the hopefully still functional escalator or lifts to ground level?

Peak hour is about an hour and a half in Canberra and the City probably takes 30-40,000 workers. Even if the pods only carried as much as the Light Rail, despite fictionally having only a fraction of the capacity, that means disembarking/loading hundreds of people in the minute or so that a Tram takes. In other words the pods will have to get people in and out in a fraction of a second, without hiccups just to keep up.

Given that these pods will be much like the cars (if they were motorcar sidecars), they supposedly will replace, most will have a solitary occupant in them. Families with small children will have to split themselves amongst several, so let’s not think about what happens with a mother with multiple small children and shopping. So exactly how many 100s of thousands of these will there be?

wildturkeycanoe10:06 pm 18 Feb 16

tuco said :

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

Would that be a solution to the masses of shopping trolleys getting driven home from the pubs at 1:00AM Saturday morning? BTW, how was the phone reception, bit sketchy?

OpenYourMind8:09 pm 18 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Do you know much about self-driving cars/autonomous vehicles? I have met a few anti-light railers in recent months who see these as the solution to all Canberra’s transport problems and would like to read more about the pros and cons.

While I don’t see road traffic congestion as a problem in Canberra I can see how masses of empty cars roaming the highways and byways could cause congestion.
It’s like that “A Better Place” electric car scheme that Canberra’s leaders embraced and now don’t want to mention.
Is that too simplistic or has “the science been settled” on this one also?

dungers you need to look at this through your “glass half full” specs.

Those totally empty Autofurphy cars *only* have one less passenger than the regular cheaper kind!

Not sure if you have bothered to read anything on autonomous vehicles. They offer all sorts of advantages over regular cars. They will have V2V communication, intelligent routing, slip lane drop off thus reducing congestion, don’t require parking facilities in high value land (can park themselves underground in charge stations), intelligent mini buses can carry multiple people to where they actually want to go, the list goes on.

A Canberra tram on the other hand, it will run empty most of the time and leave people miserable and standing at peak times…. and worst of all it won’t actually take people where they need to go. All this at a time when public transport use in Canberra is diminishing, car use is increasing, cars are relatively cheaper than ever, fuel is getting cheaper and technology is romping ahead. A tram will not turn any of that around.

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

tuco said :

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

I heard they were calling mass transit system there “the palindrome”.

Borrowed from the Glenelg tram

A Toyota. Race fast, safe car. A Toyota.

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

tuco said :

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

I heard they were calling mass transit system there “the palindrome”.

Borrowed from the Glenelg tram

I wasn’t aware of that but good one!
I last travelled on the Glenelg tram in the 1970s. I think it was the only tram in Adelaide then.

Arthur Davies said :

The SkyTran example needs a rail only about 300mm square which when suspended from poles (which can also carry the streetlights, signage etc), will not be very obtrusive, especially if it has well planned landscaping around it.

Tall shrubs or short trees?

We’ll just step around all the unobtrusive, barely there poles, platforms, escalators and lifts in the footpath. Hope they pass muster with dungfungus, he’s very sensitive about things hanging overhead.

Arthur Davies said :

The rails weigh around 100kg per m compared with 13,000kg per m for “light” rail (metro’s own figure). Compare environmental impacts.

Never realised that the “Light” Rail was being constructed of spent plutonium! 😀

I am unfortunately reminded of E. L. Wisty’s invention, the aeroplane that goes a million miles an hour and only costs 3p a year to run. When asked for more details at the Patent Office he announced he hadn’t got past that yet, whereupon the Patents Clerk demonstrated his own invention, “The Nit Poker”. 😉

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

Wrong again miz. Gus faced the same “Can’t change the way its *always been*!” stick-in-the-muds that is going into hysterics here. The bureaucrats were just the official face of the public ignorance that wasn’t going to have a bar of those “foreign” ideas. If Gus wanted those fancy and “inappropriate” for “Australian Conditions” ideas then he should go back to Europe where he came from.

Once again, you misrepresent history to support your point.

I recall there was massive public support for Gus. That’s one of the reasons that the then law was changed allowing outdoor seating. The bureaucrats were out of step with peoples views – they were running there own conservative agenda’s.

The bureacrat’s arent the only one’s running conservative agenda’s.

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

Wrong again miz. Gus faced the same “Can’t change the way its *always been*!” stick-in-the-muds that is going into hysterics here. The bureaucrats were just the official face of the public ignorance that wasn’t going to have a bar of those “foreign” ideas. If Gus wanted those fancy and “inappropriate” for “Australian Conditions” ideas then he should go back to Europe where he came from.

Once again, you misrepresent history to support your point.

I recall there was massive public support for Gus. That’s one of the reasons that the then law was changed allowing outdoor seating. The bureaucrats were out of step with peoples views – they were running there own conservative agenda’s.

Absolutely correct, miz and Rommel’s dog, as a Trove search on Canberra Times from the 1970s and even 1960’s) on the words GUS and CAFE confirms. As a newcomer to Canberra in 1974, this was a popular David – v (lumbering) Goliath battle, as you’ll see from the letters to the CT:

YAY!
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/107068673
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/107066226
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/107917660
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110788951
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110786658
(many more)

BOO HISS:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110786503

Early Gang Gang chimed in, albeit modestly compared to Gang Gang’s current flair:
“At the Vienna end of Garema Arcade..” http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110332301
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110445411

And some things never change: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110609784
.. “the parting on the left is now parting on the right”

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Do you know much about self-driving cars/autonomous vehicles? I have met a few anti-light railers in recent months who see these as the solution to all Canberra’s transport problems and would like to read more about the pros and cons.

While I don’t see road traffic congestion as a problem in Canberra I can see how masses of empty cars roaming the highways and byways could cause congestion.
It’s like that “A Better Place” electric car scheme that Canberra’s leaders embraced and now don’t want to mention.
Is that too simplistic or has “the science been settled” on this one also?

The key is that they dont roam empty without intent, as to do so is a waste of power and of the asset (the car). So, the operator (perhaps the Government) has an incentive to minimise empty running, as to do otherwise means unnecessarily higher operating and capital costs (basically, they want to minimise number of cars to service a given level of demand).

On highly travelled routes (such as southbound on Northbourne in AM peak), they never run empty as by definition, there are people they could carry Rather, with commuters hiring a seat (rather than a whole car) in peak periods, the average occupancy along such routes is around 2 people: slightly lower if they are trip source/destination are relatively unpopular (say, Hall to Symonston), slightly higher if the trip source/destination are relatively popular (say, Amaroo to Parkes or Downer to ANU). Because the average occupancy is much higher than current private cars (1.1 – 1.2 people per car, with the fractional part often being in the car solely as the driver, not to travel to the destination) and because highly efficient buses are used for such a small proportion of travel in Canberra, the net result is many fewer vehicles and hence congestion, delays, fuel use, demand for new roads.

Because the peak period flows are tidal, many cars will return empty, in this example, northbound on Northbourne to collect more passengers to take them south again. The number of empty cars is inversely proportional to the travel demand: northbound on Northbourne is free-flowing in the AM peak, and this return flow does not cause congestion on that route.

There’s a simulation of autonomous cars in Canberra here, which you can parametrise yourself:
Background: http://www.projectcomputing.com/resources/cacs/
Simulation: http://www.projectcomputing.com/resources/cacs/sim.html
Model: http://www.projectcomputing.com/resources/cacs/model.html

Independent (other) models of similar environments return similar results.

Whilst I do not characterise my attitude as “anti-tram” (it seems too negative!), the proposed tram just completely fails to meet Canberra’s transport needs, such as those outlined by Minister Corbell in his excellent transport plan of 2012, and the needs of people I know: http://www.projectcomputing.com/resources/cacs/index.html#motivation

I hasten to add that a shared fleet of autonomous electric vehicles is not the sole transport solution for many places, but Canberra has a combination of low population, low density and an existing excellent road infrastructure.

Attempting to create a parallel infrastructure (light rail) is very expensive, and as always, the cost will be born disproportionately by those least able to afford it, and will provide poorer public transport than we have now. The tram project did start out with laudable intentions, but it hasn’t panned out, and is now only kept alive by pressure from developers looking for an excuse to maximise their profits with high-rise apartments, and by their unlikely bed-fellows’ “cars are bad” ideology, which fails to understand that what it is meant by the word “car” will look very different by 2020.

Charlotte Harper said :

Do you know much about self-driving cars/autonomous vehicles? I have met a few anti-light railers in recent months who see these as the solution to all Canberra’s transport problems and would like to read more about the pros and cons.

Tesla summon software is worth a look as it is something you can go and buy today. They seem to be trying to enter the autonomous future in a soft, less scary way.

dungfungus said :

tuco said :

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

I heard they were calling mass transit system there “the palindrome”.

Borrowed from the Glenelg tram

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

Wrong again miz. Gus faced the same “Can’t change the way its *always been*!” stick-in-the-muds that is going into hysterics here. The bureaucrats were just the official face of the public ignorance that wasn’t going to have a bar of those “foreign” ideas. If Gus wanted those fancy and “inappropriate” for “Australian Conditions” ideas then he should go back to Europe where he came from.

Once again, you misrepresent history to support your point.

I recall there was massive public support for Gus. That’s one of the reasons that the then law was changed allowing outdoor seating. The bureaucrats were out of step with peoples views – they were running there own conservative agenda’s.

He opened the café in 1969. How many years did it take for the supposed “peoples views” to swing behind Gus and stop the hue and cry of: “Canberra is NOT Paris or Vienna!”. We never seem able to ever decide what Canberra is, but it sure is NOT a lot of other places!

btw The bureaucrats were right! According to Wikipedia; “On 9 March 2012 Gus’s was temporarily closed down by the ACT Health Directorate for serious food safety breaches and risks to the public.” 😀

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Do you know much about self-driving cars/autonomous vehicles? I have met a few anti-light railers in recent months who see these as the solution to all Canberra’s transport problems and would like to read more about the pros and cons.

While I don’t see road traffic congestion as a problem in Canberra I can see how masses of empty cars roaming the highways and byways could cause congestion.
It’s like that “A Better Place” electric car scheme that Canberra’s leaders embraced and now don’t want to mention.
Is that too simplistic or has “the science been settled” on this one also?

dungers you need to look at this through your “glass half full” specs.

Those totally empty Autofurphy cars *only* have one less passenger than the regular cheaper kind!

Arthur Davies said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Hi, sure, the editors would be interested to learn more, though it’s moot given the Opposition is offering up more buses as the tram alternative and Labor/Greens government are committed to the tram.
One question that springs to mind is this: what you’re describing reminds me a bit of the Monorail in Sydney (able to travel over the traffic/not held up by other traffic/faster than ground trams). Sydney took its Monorail down, so these benefits may not be sufficient to make Skytrain a viable alternative?

I totally agree that the Sydney monorail was a total disaster, it was big, ugly, very badly designed & installed, slow, it did not integrate with the rest of the transport system, ran to a none too frequent timetable. The worst possible example for overhead transport.

Modern rapid transit systems are nothing like that. The SkyTran example needs a rail only about 300mm square which when suspended from poles (which can also carry the streetlights, signage etc), will not be very obtrusive, especially if it has well planned landscaping around it. The rails weigh around 100kg per m compared with 13,000kg per m for “light” rail (metro’s own figure). Compare environmental impacts.

It would operate on demand so it has no timetable, just take the next car when you want to go.

I will put some thought into an article with more technical information & especially the social impacts of pods & several other transport modes.

There is no way the rail weight of light rail is 13,000kg/m no way. Not sure what the figure you are quoting is and where it came from but it is not rail weight. The weight of the heaviest train tracks is circa 80-90kg/m and that’s for what you will find out in the Pilbara carrying iron ore trains.

Tram tracks are about half that, around 50kg/m.

As for that 13,000kg figure hmm. It’s not even axle weight so would love to see where you have got that from.

Charlotte Harper said :

Do you know much about self-driving cars/autonomous vehicles? I have met a few anti-light railers in recent months who see these as the solution to all Canberra’s transport problems and would like to read more about the pros and cons.

While I don’t see road traffic congestion as a problem in Canberra I can see how masses of empty cars roaming the highways and byways could cause congestion.
It’s like that “A Better Place” electric car scheme that Canberra’s leaders embraced and now don’t want to mention.
Is that too simplistic or has “the science been settled” on this one also?

tuco said :

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

I heard they were calling mass transit system there “the palindrome”.

rubaiyat said :

Wrong again miz. Gus faced the same “Can’t change the way its *always been*!” stick-in-the-muds that is going into hysterics here. The bureaucrats were just the official face of the public ignorance that wasn’t going to have a bar of those “foreign” ideas. If Gus wanted those fancy and “inappropriate” for “Australian Conditions” ideas then he should go back to Europe where he came from.

Once again, you misrepresent history to support your point.

I recall there was massive public support for Gus. That’s one of the reasons that the then law was changed allowing outdoor seating. The bureaucrats were out of step with peoples views – they were running there own conservative agenda’s.

miz said :

rubaiyat said :

Every time I feel totally exhausted at having to explain the most basic and elementary of details, I think of Gus and how he had to put up with you lot for so long, and all he wanted to do was put chairs on the footpath!!

Well we have got down to if you don’t like Canberra the way God made it, leave!

So since you so hate the mere possibilty of another form of transport becoming available in Canberra, one no one will force you to use, you’ll be needing help with your bags?

Maybe the sprightly lively octogenarians can carry them to your car.

Rubaiyat, wrong again. Gus was stymied by government regulation, not by the public’s views on that issue. Generally speaking Canberra people are smart so little wonder that most are opposed to the proposed light rail, given that it is simply poor value no matter which way you look at it.

Wrong again miz. Gus faced the same “Can’t change the way its *always been*!” stick-in-the-muds that is going into hysterics here. The bureaucrats were just the official face of the public ignorance that wasn’t going to have a bar of those “foreign” ideas. If Gus wanted those fancy and “inappropriate” for “Australian Conditions” ideas then he should go back to Europe where he came from.

The City inevitably changes but the reaction from unimaginative conservatives, never does.

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat said :

If light weight overhead cables are out crossing the lake, what will the NCA say about high overhead rails and pods?.

So, by your own understanding, the proposed trams won’t be able to go South of the lake through parly triangle.

Try to explain how this can be a classed as a sound project? Either the project won’t service major employment and tourism sites such as Parliament House, National Library, High Court, (possibly Russell) etc., or an entirely new set of tram stock will be required for trams servicing a very unlikely second line of the tram. You can’t make this sort of stuff up. That’s pure insanity. Will Gunghalin-Civic tramsters have to change trams to go the next leg? How much more on top of the huge cost of stage 1 will stage 2 be?

Why don’t we drain one of the lake basins and start filling it with cash instead…that should be cheaper!

Both bridges across LBG were tested with bumper to bumper fully loaded trucks and as has been pointed out if they can take Concrete Mixers crossing with several cubic metres of wet cement, the load from a tram spread across all its wheels, steel track and base should not be a problem.

You do know how deep the bridge structure is? If not take a walk by the lakeside and check it out.

More Homework less Guesswork!

As each day goes by the whole Grand Daft Auto tragics are losing their grip on what little reality is left them. Infrastructure Australia is now unfettered by Abbott and is coming out for the project, new population figures show we will be under even greater pressure sooner, Global Warming is now an open and shut case with virtually everybody on board at least pledging to do something, even if it still isn’t enough, and last but not least the bids are in on the Light Rail and it will be here sooner rather than later.

I am just back from Tumut (and yes, I took my phone).
Happy to answer any questions regarding Tumut’s development of a rapid mass transport system.

Arthur Davies4:50 pm 17 Feb 16

Charlotte Harper said :

Hi, sure, the editors would be interested to learn more, though it’s moot given the Opposition is offering up more buses as the tram alternative and Labor/Greens government are committed to the tram.
One question that springs to mind is this: what you’re describing reminds me a bit of the Monorail in Sydney (able to travel over the traffic/not held up by other traffic/faster than ground trams). Sydney took its Monorail down, so these benefits may not be sufficient to make Skytrain a viable alternative?

I totally agree that the Sydney monorail was a total disaster, it was big, ugly, very badly designed & installed, slow, it did not integrate with the rest of the transport system, ran to a none too frequent timetable. The worst possible example for overhead transport.

Modern rapid transit systems are nothing like that. The SkyTran example needs a rail only about 300mm square which when suspended from poles (which can also carry the streetlights, signage etc), will not be very obtrusive, especially if it has well planned landscaping around it. The rails weigh around 100kg per m compared with 13,000kg per m for “light” rail (metro’s own figure). Compare environmental impacts.

It would operate on demand so it has no timetable, just take the next car when you want to go.

I will put some thought into an article with more technical information & especially the social impacts of pods & several other transport modes.

Charlotte Harper7:34 am 18 Feb 16

Do you know much about self-driving cars/autonomous vehicles? I have met a few anti-light railers in recent months who see these as the solution to all Canberra’s transport problems and would like to read more about the pros and cons.

gooterz said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Hi, sure, the editors would be interested to learn more, though it’s moot given the Opposition is offering up more buses as the tram alternative and Labor/Greens government are committed to the tram.
One question that springs to mind is this: what you’re describing reminds me a bit of the Monorail in Sydney (able to travel over the traffic/not held up by other traffic/faster than ground trams). Sydney took its Monorail down, so these benefits may not be sufficient to make Skytrain a viable alternative?

Didn’t Tuggeranong Cc put in a big to buy it too?

Sydney has a excellent transport network that is mostly privately run. Meaning the buses are making money for someone. Canberra can make 10% of the cost back though fees.

The monorail ran for 25 years and got taken down because of the proposed redevelopment of the tram and various buildings. People also started having to walk more as traffic gridlocked the city. So where people are easily able to walk the length of the monorail (as roads became malls ) passengers go down.

If they extend light rail to Queanbeyan how much would NSW put in?
Still can’t believe they are outsourcing the tram. Would have thought that the commonwealth would chip in the difference like they did with ford.

“Sydney has a excellent transport network”
Not necessarily if you don’t live in the centre of the city. I visit a family out in the west. A half hour, very indirect bus service (it goes up and down parallel streets), and no local train service. I have better public transport here in Canberra.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

dungfungus said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Coming to you from my phone in Melbourne. .

Wait – you’re like a reporter now? Or this is some sort of code?

He is probably down there negotiating the redevelopment of Manuka Oval for the Barr government.

You’re still misrepresenting Dungers – Barr has not proposed anything. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-17/gws-giants-grocon-propose-800m-revamp-of-manuka-oval/7175132?section=sport

I didn’t say Barr proposed it.
The link quotes Barr as saying the government will consider it. That means it is “on the table”.
No need for you to apologise.

gooterz said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Hi, sure, the editors would be interested to learn more, though it’s moot given the Opposition is offering up more buses as the tram alternative and Labor/Greens government are committed to the tram.
One question that springs to mind is this: what you’re describing reminds me a bit of the Monorail in Sydney (able to travel over the traffic/not held up by other traffic/faster than ground trams). Sydney took its Monorail down, so these benefits may not be sufficient to make Skytrain a viable alternative?

Didn’t Tuggeranong Cc put in a big to buy it too?

Sydney has a excellent transport network that is mostly privately run. Meaning the buses are making money for someone. Canberra can make 10% of the cost back though fees.

The monorail ran for 25 years and got taken down because of the proposed redevelopment of the tram and various buildings. People also started having to walk more as traffic gridlocked the city. So where people are easily able to walk the length of the monorail (as roads became malls ) passengers go down.

If they extend light rail to Queanbeyan how much would NSW put in?
Still can’t believe they are outsourcing the tram. Would have thought that the commonwealth would chip in the difference like they did with ford.[/quote
State Transit Authority (most Sydney buses) is govt – though there are some private buses in certain areas which in my experience are not great.

gooterz said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Hi, sure, the editors would be interested to learn more, though it’s moot given the Opposition is offering up more buses as the tram alternative and Labor/Greens government are committed to the tram.
One question that springs to mind is this: what you’re describing reminds me a bit of the Monorail in Sydney (able to travel over the traffic/not held up by other traffic/faster than ground trams). Sydney took its Monorail down, so these benefits may not be sufficient to make Skytrain a viable alternative?

Didn’t Tuggeranong Cc put in a big to buy it too?

Sydney has a excellent transport network that is mostly privately run. Meaning the buses are making money for someone. Canberra can make 10% of the cost back though fees.

The monorail ran for 25 years and got taken down because of the proposed redevelopment of the tram and various buildings. People also started having to walk more as traffic gridlocked the city. So where people are easily able to walk the length of the monorail (as roads became malls ) passengers go down.

If they extend light rail to Queanbeyan how much would NSW put in?
Still can’t believe they are outsourcing the tram. Would have thought that the commonwealth would chip in the difference like they did with ford.

Laurie Brereton put up the Monorail because he reckoned it was “Modern” and it let him chop through the end of Pyrmont bridge with his disgusting Western Distributer to make room for the oh so “modern’ 200 year old automobile.

Sydneysiders hated it because it wasn’t a transport system, just a useless joyride stuck up high in the air with barely anyone bothering to climb to get to it.

Some 30 years later it has finally gone, although there are still remnants stuck all over the place, and finally, FINALLY the Light Rail is getting built. 30 wasted, dirty, polluting, congested, and noisy years.

But of course the Western Distributer still blights the City and cuts off Darling Harbour.

Car owners are just like smokers, they don’t care about the affect on everyone else so long as they get to pollute to their hearts content.

Ghettosmurf879:07 am 17 Feb 16

dungfungus said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Coming to you from my phone in Melbourne. .

Wait – you’re like a reporter now? Or this is some sort of code?

He is probably down there negotiating the redevelopment of Manuka Oval for the Barr government.

You’re still misrepresenting Dungers – Barr has not proposed anything. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-17/gws-giants-grocon-propose-800m-revamp-of-manuka-oval/7175132?section=sport

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Coming to you from my phone in Melbourne. .

Wait – you’re like a reporter now? Or this is some sort of code?

He is probably down there negotiating the redevelopment of Manuka Oval for the Barr government.

I can’t wait for the media to ask Andrew Barr for comment about this:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/dumped-melb-link-now-a-top-priority/news-story/176d02ffba84f5f0a48c50c77f507d9d
What a dilemma for a Labor man this will be.
And before you all say “that is just Rupert’s propaganda via one of his newspapers, the report was attributed to The Age which is owned by the “always independent” Fairfax Media.

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

So since you so hate the mere possibilty of another form of transport becoming available in Canberra, one no one will force you to use, you’ll be needing help with your bags?

It isn’t that no one is forcing us to use the tram, but the fact that we will all be forced to pay through the nose to provide it for those who do use it voluntarily that is upsetting.

A look at stats from the ABS revealed to me that only about 4.5% [2500 actual persons] of residents in Gungahlin presently use the bus network for work, with 90% using vehicles. Now obviously they don’t all travel to Civic either, so the number using a bus down Northbourne gets smaller. To get 15,000 people of a population expected to reach 55,000 by 2019 to jump on a tram means a massive shift from private car use to public transport, 23% more. Do you think these people will switch modes so readily?
The inner north figures are slightly better at 9% using public transport, but twice as many ride to work and three times that number walk, probably due to their proximity to the office. So how will you get the remaining 60% of car drivers to jump on board?
There is a huge assumption that folks will adopt the tram for their journeys. That is a $1billion gamble on human beings changing their minds. You have yourself noted many times how steadfastly opposed to the tram many residents of Canberra are, how unwilling they are get out of the driver’s seat. How are we to change that mindset once the rails are rolling? Will there be an expensive advertising campaign or will the government tax us out of our cars by introducing a congestion charge like the British have in London’s central areas?
This is one of the main reasons that people are opposed to the tram, they can see the writing on the wall by looking at the statistics of the present day. Public transport patronage [or lack of] will be the tram’s demise. Running it at a loss can not be sustained indefinitely.
As for your arguments that the tram will make people healthier because they are getting more exercise, the requirement to have to walk further to get to the tram will be the very disincentive to using it. People are lazy and they are time-poor. The extra 20 minutes to exercise isn’t available to parents who have to drop their young-uns off at school and then get to work by 9:00. That walk at the end of the day when temps are in their high thirties will be too much for those who have weaker bodies. On a -7°C morning a lot of people will look out the window and think “Bugger that, I’m driving today”. The die-hards will jump on board so they can sit comfortably, let their heart rate slow whilst they Google the news on their i-phones, using the free wi-fi on the half hour journey, but undoubtedly inclement weather will make numbers diminish.
I still can’t see the health benefits of riding on a tram. You get more exercise driving a car because you are using your arms to steer and change gears, your legs for accelerator, brake and possibly the clutch. Then you have to walk from the car park all the way to the office/shops. The tram lets you travel in comfort, not lifting a finger, delivering you conveniently right next door to work [according to the brochure that is]. The “Green energy” it runs on will be undoubtedly taken away from the existing customers signed up for it, because there isn’t enough of it yet to supply everyone. Build another solar farm and maybe we’ll have enough for half the day trips but inevitably the tram WILL be running on fossil fuel at night time. Can anyone quantify where the “green” kilowatt hours will be coming from? How much of the current solar and wind energy is sitting there unused, waiting for the light rail consortium to buy? I’m sure the output right now has already been sold to somebody, so once the tram is rolling will they cancel those contracts and re-direct the power to the tram’s substations? No, they will just call it green and find it from the nearest/cheapest coal powered plant.

A very compelling argument against the light rail.
Don’t expect anyone from the government to defend it though.

Charlotte Harper said :

Hi, sure, the editors would be interested to learn more, though it’s moot given the Opposition is offering up more buses as the tram alternative and Labor/Greens government are committed to the tram.
One question that springs to mind is this: what you’re describing reminds me a bit of the Monorail in Sydney (able to travel over the traffic/not held up by other traffic/faster than ground trams). Sydney took its Monorail down, so these benefits may not be sufficient to make Skytrain a viable alternative?

Didn’t Tuggeranong Cc put in a big to buy it too?

Sydney has a excellent transport network that is mostly privately run. Meaning the buses are making money for someone. Canberra can make 10% of the cost back though fees.

The monorail ran for 25 years and got taken down because of the proposed redevelopment of the tram and various buildings. People also started having to walk more as traffic gridlocked the city. So where people are easily able to walk the length of the monorail (as roads became malls ) passengers go down.

If they extend light rail to Queanbeyan how much would NSW put in?
Still can’t believe they are outsourcing the tram. Would have thought that the commonwealth would chip in the difference like they did with ford.

OpenYourMind9:43 pm 16 Feb 16

Arthur Davies said :

rubaiyat said :

Arthur Davies said :

I would like to add a few issues to these comments.

I am really glad that someone has finally noted that there always were more options than buses vs trams. As well as the Heathrow pods there are smaller faster magnetically suspended versions which can move up to 7000 people per hour per track, i.e. 14,000 per for for the system. This is far more than Metro estimates in its business plan tram usage. It is estimated to cost less than half the price of the trams. The overhead systems can get into the community centres of the existing suburbs so they are far more equitable than trams which can only travel along the major transport routes which is not where most people live (yet we all have to pay), much more equitable. Having said all that, the real problem was that these alternative systems were never fully & publicly evaluated.

Metro’s EIS estimates that 160,000T of concrete & steel will be needed for the 12km route. Not very green.

Steel wheels on steel rails are quite efficient at peak hours when the tram is full (with most people standing). However if you check the data you will find that the tram uses huge amounts of energy per passenger off peak, far worse than a car in fact (if the car is electric it too can use green energy).

Melbourne is the poster child of tram fans. But current data shows that they only serve 2 to 3% of Melbourne residents. Exactly the same rate as Metro claims for their system. Even close in where the trams run, the usage rate is quite poor.

The govt claims that for each $1 spent, it will yield $1.20. Even if this is true, the yield is over 20 years, not per annum. Assume simple interest for my simple brain, this is a yield of 1%, far lower than inflation let alone the interest rate on the money needed to build it. The Feds say anything less than a pay back of 2.5 will not attract federal money. This is about 7.5% p a, should just pay the interest but still not a huge windfall. So the $1.20 return is deceptive at best.

Thank you Charlotte for your very good detective work on the poly’s promises!

I have checked with Metro’s chief engineer on how trams can cross the bridges when, as promised, the trams go south. Surprisingly the trams will go on the existing bridges without causing them to collapse, but
1. They will have to be battery operated to satisfy the NCA (rightly I think) to avoid overhead wires.
2. One lane of roadway will have to be converted to a tram lane & much of the roadbed removed to lighten the lane, so it cannot be a shared lane. So both bridges will become one lane each way unless new bridges are built. The cost of this is not disclosed in the Govt’s press releases, in fact they did not check with the engineer until after they had published their maps.

Hi Arthur, back again. You may have to enlighten many of the readers about the suspended pod system you have been pushing for some time.

I can’t deal with everyone of your points, it is ver difficult on an iPhone, but just a few key issues.

What exactly has happened with the claimed Tel Aviv trials? I keep checking and nothing seems to have happened. Even the cheap and very inconsistent videos lacking detail don’t seem to have been updated.

If light weight overhead cables are out crossing the lake, what will the NCA say about high overhead rails and pods?

Lastly I’m surprised that you are surprised that the bridges can easily support light rail and even more surprised that somehow the light rail lanes will support light rail but not anything else. How does that even make the slightest sense? Just looking at any light rail which has rails laid into a road surface, it is just a road surface nothing exceptional about it, it happens everywhere.

I keep coming back to this.Trams and light rail are so common and functional, but it is like they only exist on Mars for the objectors. It is like the medeavel maps with images of mythical monsters inhabiting the dark spaces of a world filled by fear and ignorance.

By all means raise your proposal as an alternative transport but be aware that that raises an enormous number of other half baked, on closer examination more functional and less half baked proposals as possibilities. Really do we need them for something as basic as just moving the large number of people efficiently and cleanly along a set route? Square the wheel as much as you like but it is hardly an improvement and just puts off doing anything at all, particularly when your idea is not even off the drawing board and has enormous number of obvious problems, not the least of which is the fact that it is elevated quite high up in the air.

Thanks for the serious thought that you & some others have put into this issue.

The trams cannot be run across the bridges as they stand, they are far too heavy. However Metro’s then Chief Engineer advised me that they could if one of the two lanes were made tram only & that it could not be a combined lane. I assume that the roadbed would have to be removed to reduce the dead load on the bridge & rails run exposed as for a train, hence no cars.

However the pods would be small & light enough to be run at bridge handrail height either between the bridge spans or along the outside edge of the bridge at the same height, so NCA should have no problem. The suspended track would have to drop at each end of the bridge to the handrail height. Propulsion is via direct magnetic induction, not via wheels so a fairly steep grade would not be an issue.

The timing of the first active line is still problematic but the latest I have is the end of 2016, I am trying to get more data & will keep you posted. The main issue to date is the timidity of Govt’s towards anything newer than 100 years, I despair at the lack of vision & the lack of longer term thinking in the West.

Briefly for those who are unsure what we are talking about, Google “SkyTran” & you will get some information. But briefly the system utilises light weight cars, or pods, which carry one or two people suspended below a small light weight track suspended from poles like light poles. Hence the pods go above the traffic at intersections & are not held up by other traffic, so they are very much faster than ground based trams. They would be less than half the cost of trams, can get into the suburban community centres which trams can not. They operate “on demand” rather than to a timetable so there is no delay, just go to the station & hop on the next one & go. They can carry up to 7,000 people per hour per track. I can write a brief article on this sort of technology if the editors would like, & if others are interested.

But I keep getting back to the main point, that the Govt did not investigate all the available options, their costs, & their advantages & disadvantages. This should have been done & the full data published for all to see before a decision was made about which technology to adopt. This was not done, so what is the problem that we are not being told about? Did I hear something about open Govt some time? I must have been dreaming, maybe it was something I ate.

As Charlotte said, Skytrain does sound a lot like the Monorail and we know what a success that was.

With regard to heading South. Why are more people not highlighting this deficiency in the tram concept. As if the tram concept isn’t bad enough, not being able to easily traverse Commonwealth or Kings Ave bridges surely must be a show stopper. And taking a car lane would crucify car traffic on those bridges. I know that according to some, cars are evil, but at the same time p1ssing off the 90% of commuters and voters ain’t going to go down well for any local politician.

Arthur Davies5:11 pm 16 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

Arthur Davies said :

I would like to add a few issues to these comments.

I am really glad that someone has finally noted that there always were more options than buses vs trams. As well as the Heathrow pods there are smaller faster magnetically suspended versions which can move up to 7000 people per hour per track, i.e. 14,000 per for for the system. This is far more than Metro estimates in its business plan tram usage. It is estimated to cost less than half the price of the trams. The overhead systems can get into the community centres of the existing suburbs so they are far more equitable than trams which can only travel along the major transport routes which is not where most people live (yet we all have to pay), much more equitable. Having said all that, the real problem was that these alternative systems were never fully & publicly evaluated.

Metro’s EIS estimates that 160,000T of concrete & steel will be needed for the 12km route. Not very green.

Steel wheels on steel rails are quite efficient at peak hours when the tram is full (with most people standing). However if you check the data you will find that the tram uses huge amounts of energy per passenger off peak, far worse than a car in fact (if the car is electric it too can use green energy).

Melbourne is the poster child of tram fans. But current data shows that they only serve 2 to 3% of Melbourne residents. Exactly the same rate as Metro claims for their system. Even close in where the trams run, the usage rate is quite poor.

The govt claims that for each $1 spent, it will yield $1.20. Even if this is true, the yield is over 20 years, not per annum. Assume simple interest for my simple brain, this is a yield of 1%, far lower than inflation let alone the interest rate on the money needed to build it. The Feds say anything less than a pay back of 2.5 will not attract federal money. This is about 7.5% p a, should just pay the interest but still not a huge windfall. So the $1.20 return is deceptive at best.

Thank you Charlotte for your very good detective work on the poly’s promises!

I have checked with Metro’s chief engineer on how trams can cross the bridges when, as promised, the trams go south. Surprisingly the trams will go on the existing bridges without causing them to collapse, but
1. They will have to be battery operated to satisfy the NCA (rightly I think) to avoid overhead wires.
2. One lane of roadway will have to be converted to a tram lane & much of the roadbed removed to lighten the lane, so it cannot be a shared lane. So both bridges will become one lane each way unless new bridges are built. The cost of this is not disclosed in the Govt’s press releases, in fact they did not check with the engineer until after they had published their maps.

Hi Arthur, back again. You may have to enlighten many of the readers about the suspended pod system you have been pushing for some time.

I can’t deal with everyone of your points, it is ver difficult on an iPhone, but just a few key issues.

What exactly has happened with the claimed Tel Aviv trials? I keep checking and nothing seems to have happened. Even the cheap and very inconsistent videos lacking detail don’t seem to have been updated.

If light weight overhead cables are out crossing the lake, what will the NCA say about high overhead rails and pods?

Lastly I’m surprised that you are surprised that the bridges can easily support light rail and even more surprised that somehow the light rail lanes will support light rail but not anything else. How does that even make the slightest sense? Just looking at any light rail which has rails laid into a road surface, it is just a road surface nothing exceptional about it, it happens everywhere.

I keep coming back to this.Trams and light rail are so common and functional, but it is like they only exist on Mars for the objectors. It is like the medeavel maps with images of mythical monsters inhabiting the dark spaces of a world filled by fear and ignorance.

By all means raise your proposal as an alternative transport but be aware that that raises an enormous number of other half baked, on closer examination more functional and less half baked proposals as possibilities. Really do we need them for something as basic as just moving the large number of people efficiently and cleanly along a set route? Square the wheel as much as you like but it is hardly an improvement and just puts off doing anything at all, particularly when your idea is not even off the drawing board and has enormous number of obvious problems, not the least of which is the fact that it is elevated quite high up in the air.

Thanks for the serious thought that you & some others have put into this issue.

The trams cannot be run across the bridges as they stand, they are far too heavy. However Metro’s then Chief Engineer advised me that they could if one of the two lanes were made tram only & that it could not be a combined lane. I assume that the roadbed would have to be removed to reduce the dead load on the bridge & rails run exposed as for a train, hence no cars.

However the pods would be small & light enough to be run at bridge handrail height either between the bridge spans or along the outside edge of the bridge at the same height, so NCA should have no problem. The suspended track would have to drop at each end of the bridge to the handrail height. Propulsion is via direct magnetic induction, not via wheels so a fairly steep grade would not be an issue.

The timing of the first active line is still problematic but the latest I have is the end of 2016, I am trying to get more data & will keep you posted. The main issue to date is the timidity of Govt’s towards anything newer than 100 years, I despair at the lack of vision & the lack of longer term thinking in the West.

Briefly for those who are unsure what we are talking about, Google “SkyTran” & you will get some information. But briefly the system utilises light weight cars, or pods, which carry one or two people suspended below a small light weight track suspended from poles like light poles. Hence the pods go above the traffic at intersections & are not held up by other traffic, so they are very much faster than ground based trams. They would be less than half the cost of trams, can get into the suburban community centres which trams can not. They operate “on demand” rather than to a timetable so there is no delay, just go to the station & hop on the next one & go. They can carry up to 7,000 people per hour per track. I can write a brief article on this sort of technology if the editors would like, & if others are interested.

But I keep getting back to the main point, that the Govt did not investigate all the available options, their costs, & their advantages & disadvantages. This should have been done & the full data published for all to see before a decision was made about which technology to adopt. This was not done, so what is the problem that we are not being told about? Did I hear something about open Govt some time? I must have been dreaming, maybe it was something I ate.

Charlotte Harper9:12 pm 16 Feb 16

Hi, sure, the editors would be interested to learn more, though it’s moot given the Opposition is offering up more buses as the tram alternative and Labor/Greens government are committed to the tram.
One question that springs to mind is this: what you’re describing reminds me a bit of the Monorail in Sydney (able to travel over the traffic/not held up by other traffic/faster than ground trams). Sydney took its Monorail down, so these benefits may not be sufficient to make Skytrain a viable alternative?

OpenYourMind10:36 pm 13 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

If light weight overhead cables are out crossing the lake, what will the NCA say about high overhead rails and pods?.

So, by your own understanding, the proposed trams won’t be able to go South of the lake through parly triangle.

Try to explain how this can be a classed as a sound project? Either the project won’t service major employment and tourism sites such as Parliament House, National Library, High Court, (possibly Russell) etc., or an entirely new set of tram stock will be required for trams servicing a very unlikely second line of the tram. You can’t make this sort of stuff up. That’s pure insanity. Will Gunghalin-Civic tramsters have to change trams to go the next leg? How much more on top of the huge cost of stage 1 will stage 2 be?

Why don’t we drain one of the lake basins and start filling it with cash instead…that should be cheaper!

wildturkeycanoe8:11 am 13 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

So since you so hate the mere possibilty of another form of transport becoming available in Canberra, one no one will force you to use, you’ll be needing help with your bags?

It isn’t that no one is forcing us to use the tram, but the fact that we will all be forced to pay through the nose to provide it for those who do use it voluntarily that is upsetting.

A look at stats from the ABS revealed to me that only about 4.5% [2500 actual persons] of residents in Gungahlin presently use the bus network for work, with 90% using vehicles. Now obviously they don’t all travel to Civic either, so the number using a bus down Northbourne gets smaller. To get 15,000 people of a population expected to reach 55,000 by 2019 to jump on a tram means a massive shift from private car use to public transport, 23% more. Do you think these people will switch modes so readily?
The inner north figures are slightly better at 9% using public transport, but twice as many ride to work and three times that number walk, probably due to their proximity to the office. So how will you get the remaining 60% of car drivers to jump on board?
There is a huge assumption that folks will adopt the tram for their journeys. That is a $1billion gamble on human beings changing their minds. You have yourself noted many times how steadfastly opposed to the tram many residents of Canberra are, how unwilling they are get out of the driver’s seat. How are we to change that mindset once the rails are rolling? Will there be an expensive advertising campaign or will the government tax us out of our cars by introducing a congestion charge like the British have in London’s central areas?
This is one of the main reasons that people are opposed to the tram, they can see the writing on the wall by looking at the statistics of the present day. Public transport patronage [or lack of] will be the tram’s demise. Running it at a loss can not be sustained indefinitely.
As for your arguments that the tram will make people healthier because they are getting more exercise, the requirement to have to walk further to get to the tram will be the very disincentive to using it. People are lazy and they are time-poor. The extra 20 minutes to exercise isn’t available to parents who have to drop their young-uns off at school and then get to work by 9:00. That walk at the end of the day when temps are in their high thirties will be too much for those who have weaker bodies. On a -7°C morning a lot of people will look out the window and think “Bugger that, I’m driving today”. The die-hards will jump on board so they can sit comfortably, let their heart rate slow whilst they Google the news on their i-phones, using the free wi-fi on the half hour journey, but undoubtedly inclement weather will make numbers diminish.
I still can’t see the health benefits of riding on a tram. You get more exercise driving a car because you are using your arms to steer and change gears, your legs for accelerator, brake and possibly the clutch. Then you have to walk from the car park all the way to the office/shops. The tram lets you travel in comfort, not lifting a finger, delivering you conveniently right next door to work [according to the brochure that is]. The “Green energy” it runs on will be undoubtedly taken away from the existing customers signed up for it, because there isn’t enough of it yet to supply everyone. Build another solar farm and maybe we’ll have enough for half the day trips but inevitably the tram WILL be running on fossil fuel at night time. Can anyone quantify where the “green” kilowatt hours will be coming from? How much of the current solar and wind energy is sitting there unused, waiting for the light rail consortium to buy? I’m sure the output right now has already been sold to somebody, so once the tram is rolling will they cancel those contracts and re-direct the power to the tram’s substations? No, they will just call it green and find it from the nearest/cheapest coal powered plant.

rubaiyat said :

Coming to you from my phone in Melbourne. .

Wait – you’re like a reporter now? Or this is some sort of code?

It’s timely to revisit the failure and huge cost to the ACT of “A better Place.”
I can see why our leaders fell for the spin but they have learnt nothing as they have now plunged into the visionary delights that light rail promises.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/anatomy-start-ups-failure-%E2%80%93-what-went-wrong-better-place

ChrisinTurner said :

According to the government’s own figures the subsidy per boarding for ACTION buses is $7.20 while the subsidy for operating light rail varies from $14 per boarding using the governments optimistic patronage figures to $24 per boarding if patronage remains about the same as the buses. The likelihood of commuters changing from car to light rail will be low, considering that light rail is slower, less frequent, less seats and further to walk to the nearest station. In addition many commuters currently use an express bus to their destination at peak hour, while light rail will often involve two changes of mode. Many commuters will go back to using their car,

Yep, its the detail & flow on effects that was not known at the 2012 ACT election, but which now is such as the potential subsidy compared to busses, the Benefits Costs Ratio (1:1.2), the Environmental Impact Statement (which clearly states that road congestion will worsen, not improve – post Light Rail), the cancellation of the Gunners-City express bus routes, phasing of traffic lights to help speed up trams, the fact that a tram ride will take about the same amount of time as an express bus, etc, etc, that should have been put to a vote in 2016 before contracts were signed.

To claim that the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t had a “mandate” to commence construction of the Light Rail before the 2016 election without the depth of knowledge and appreciation of the detail and flow on impacts that are now known and visible, in a jurisdiction with such a narrow revenue raising base as the ACT, is laughable.

But then again, the gullible ACT voters did it I suppose……..

rubaiyat said :

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

More light rail “Amazing Facts”.

Just passing Victorian parliament. Road has a considerable fall to the west across the tramlines. Tram suspension seems to compensate without problems.

Tram is full of people of all ages but many octogenarians or older, slim, in good health and using the trams like they have all their lives

Track up middle of Victoria parade is down middle of verge between trees. No barriers in sight.

Mind you all of that is just my “opinion”, not the “facts” of Tuggeranong residents who do not need to go anywhere, nor observe anything to simply KNOW it is a “fact”.

So, it is a “fact” that u have observed that these many slim octogenarians or older tram users are in “good health”. And u know that how ? Is their health status tattooed on their foreheads perhaps ? Do they carry a sigh asserting such ? Did u do a survey ?

Ask doctors ?

No. But once again, you present your “observation” and interpretation that the tram causes that, as a “fact”. It beggars belief.

Every time I feel totally exhausted at having to explain the most basic and elementary of details, I think of Gus and how he had to put up with you lot for so long, and all he wanted to do was put chairs on the footpath!!

Well we have got down to if you don’t like Canberra the way God made it, leave!

So since you so hate the mere possibilty of another form of transport becoming available in Canberra, one no one will force you to use, you’ll be needing help with your bags?

Maybe the sprightly lively octogenarians can carry them to your car.

Rubaiyat, wrong again. Gus was stymied by government regulation, not by the public’s views on that issue. Generally speaking Canberra people are smart so little wonder that most are opposed to the proposed light rail, given that it is simply poor value no matter which way you look at it.

ChrisinTurner10:54 am 12 Feb 16

According to the government’s own figures the subsidy per boarding for ACTION buses is $7.20 while the subsidy for operating light rail varies from $14 per boarding using the governments optimistic patronage figures to $24 per boarding if patronage remains about the same as the buses. The likelihood of commuters changing from car to light rail will be low, considering that light rail is slower, less frequent, less seats and further to walk to the nearest station. In addition many commuters currently use an express bus to their destination at peak hour, while light rail will often involve two changes of mode. Many commuters will go back to using their car,

Arthur Davies said :

I would like to add a few issues to these comments.

I am really glad that someone has finally noted that there always were more options than buses vs trams. As well as the Heathrow pods there are smaller faster magnetically suspended versions which can move up to 7000 people per hour per track, i.e. 14,000 per for for the system. This is far more than Metro estimates in its business plan tram usage. It is estimated to cost less than half the price of the trams. The overhead systems can get into the community centres of the existing suburbs so they are far more equitable than trams which can only travel along the major transport routes which is not where most people live (yet we all have to pay), much more equitable. Having said all that, the real problem was that these alternative systems were never fully & publicly evaluated.

Metro’s EIS estimates that 160,000T of concrete & steel will be needed for the 12km route. Not very green.

Steel wheels on steel rails are quite efficient at peak hours when the tram is full (with most people standing). However if you check the data you will find that the tram uses huge amounts of energy per passenger off peak, far worse than a car in fact (if the car is electric it too can use green energy).

Melbourne is the poster child of tram fans. But current data shows that they only serve 2 to 3% of Melbourne residents. Exactly the same rate as Metro claims for their system. Even close in where the trams run, the usage rate is quite poor.

The govt claims that for each $1 spent, it will yield $1.20. Even if this is true, the yield is over 20 years, not per annum. Assume simple interest for my simple brain, this is a yield of 1%, far lower than inflation let alone the interest rate on the money needed to build it. The Feds say anything less than a pay back of 2.5 will not attract federal money. This is about 7.5% p a, should just pay the interest but still not a huge windfall. So the $1.20 return is deceptive at best.

Thank you Charlotte for your very good detective work on the poly’s promises!

I have checked with Metro’s chief engineer on how trams can cross the bridges when, as promised, the trams go south. Surprisingly the trams will go on the existing bridges without causing them to collapse, but
1. They will have to be battery operated to satisfy the NCA (rightly I think) to avoid overhead wires.
2. One lane of roadway will have to be converted to a tram lane & much of the roadbed removed to lighten the lane, so it cannot be a shared lane. So both bridges will become one lane each way unless new bridges are built. The cost of this is not disclosed in the Govt’s press releases, in fact they did not check with the engineer until after they had published their maps.

Hi Arthur, back again. You may have to enlighten many of the readers about the suspended pod system you have been pushing for some time.

I can’t deal with everyone of your points, it is ver difficult on an iPhone, but just a few key issues.

What exactly has happened with the claimed Tel Aviv trials? I keep checking and nothing seems to have happened. Even the cheap and very inconsistent videos lacking detail don’t seem to have been updated.

If light weight overhead cables are out crossing the lake, what will the NCA say about high overhead rails and pods?

Lastly I’m surprised that you are surprised that the bridges can easily support light rail and even more surprised that somehow the light rail lanes will support light rail but not anything else. How does that even make the slightest sense? Just looking at any light rail which has rails laid into a road surface, it is just a road surface nothing exceptional about it, it happens everywhere.

I keep coming back to this.Trams and light rail are so common and functional, but it is like they only exist on Mars for the objectors. It is like the medeavel maps with images of mythical monsters inhabiting the dark spaces of a world filled by fear and ignorance.

By all means raise your proposal as an alternative transport but be aware that that raises an enormous number of other half baked, on closer examination more functional and less half baked proposals as possibilities. Really do we need them for something as basic as just moving the large number of people efficiently and cleanly along a set route? Square the wheel as much as you like but it is hardly an improvement and just puts off doing anything at all, particularly when your idea is not even off the drawing board and has enormous number of obvious problems, not the least of which is the fact that it is elevated quite high up in the air.

ungruntled said :

rubaiyat said :

More light rail “Amazing Facts”.

Tram is full of people of all ages but many octogenarians or older, slim, in good health and using the trams like they have all their lives

The ones who are not strong and fit can’t use it maybe? They only go where they can take a car maybe? It does not necessarily follow that being fit and able is because they use the trams, if that was what you were trying to say.

Also, disability & infirmity are not always self inflicted or due to slackness or laziness. Sometimes, S**t just happens to us.

Talk to the doctors and medical professionals, given the state of modern medicine, which certainly is very effective at doing what it does but is very expensive, it is battling a flood of self inflicted damage. As we get rid of older scourges such as smoking we face greater lifestyle disasters such as dreadful diets and almost total avoidance of daily habitual exercise.

The Ancient Greeks observed the links between diet, the mind and health and the link between lower socio-economic groups, poor education and bad health has been well researched.

The insistent stupidity certainly leads onto entirely predictable consequences. But never under estimate the ability for denial and excuses to sweep all of it under the carpet.

Sh*t happens but mostly these days not by accident. I hardly think the crazy idea that infirm and not in control people should be driving on our already problematic roads is beneficial to those already having trouble moving nor everyone else who has to face them on the road.

You are aware that many of the inner city apartments are being sold to down sizing seniors who want to avoid the empty suburbia and pointless drives to nowhere? Easy circulation within a vibrant city benefits them almost more than anyone else. I really wish I could post videos of what it is like in Melbourne and the number of people freely circulating around the city and enjoying life.

Not trapped in isolated miserable suburbia, peaking out through their curtains and hysterically objecting to any and every change, particularly if it involves cleaning up the mess they have created.

JC said :

rubaiyat said :

I got the specs from the data sheet which is exactly what I said and I also pointed out that that is expandable. The exact specification for the Capital Metro is for the 55m unit so yes that will weigh more.

As for the “rumble” not sure what that has to do with anything. I assume you again misread what I wrote to take quiet to be “silent”.

My first night in Melbourne I stayed in a hotel on Flinders Street which has the trams running right past the door. I could hear all the cars, boy could I hear the cars!, buses, trucks, motorbikes and even the street sweeper, but I could not hear the trams. That I moved to a quieter location in North Melbourne obviously had nothing to do with the tram that is still just outside the door.

The overall weight is irrelevant, what is important is axle load.

As for noise from trams depends on how the track is constructed, curves etc. Sydney for example has their tracks embedded in a rubber type material when on the road sections which absorbs the vibrations. Melbourne is a bit more traditional in that the tracks are fully embedded in concrete, so tend to be a bit noisier. And curves can always squeak. But won’t be an issue in on the first line except at Northborne/Flemmington Road and the depot entrance. But not much there anyway.

Yes since you mentioned it I have paid a lot closer attention to what they have done here.

It is a much older system but there are new sections in the Docklands area. Besides the surprising camber, I have also noted the gradients. Within their system there s an amazing amount of variety and flexibility and solutions to varying engineering problems.

But what a difference it makes to getting around and I have noticed how whole new building and shopping developments as well as high rise accomodation are popping up everywhere within the city boundaries now that transport is free in the CBD. Today came across a Farmers Market just started up in the opened up space in an ultra modern laneway dining area running between Bourke and Little Bourke down towards Southern Cross. Fascinating! Especially when you compare that to the semi desolate misery of most of the spaces and monopoly shopping towns of the ACt where the excitement seems to be getting a parking spot in a concrete excrescence as close to the uninspiring retail as possible.

After the dearth of building work and development work we noticed in America the non-stop buzz of a place like Melbourne would be scary if it wasn’t so infectiously stimulating.

The personal miserableness of those hysterically opposing a pretty basic step up in Canbeera’s transport and development is recognisable from when I first came to Canberra. I thought we maybe had left them behind but we still have the vestiges in the retired oldies in Tuggeranong. Still opposing all change or human activity, imagination and enterprise as ever.

You almost want to bottle them and examine them as the endangered species they are. The only energy they ever exhibit is to oppose just about everything not in their ken, which really is everything. Ah it brings back (not fond) memories of batting PS committees.

Committee: def. A social device to lower the collective IQ.

I was used to always having one or two of these miserable sods on committees in Sydney but when I came to Canberra discovered they frequently made up the entire committee. And not only never got anything done, took forever not doing it.

rubaiyat said :

I got the specs from the data sheet which is exactly what I said and I also pointed out that that is expandable. The exact specification for the Capital Metro is for the 55m unit so yes that will weigh more.

As for the “rumble” not sure what that has to do with anything. I assume you again misread what I wrote to take quiet to be “silent”.

My first night in Melbourne I stayed in a hotel on Flinders Street which has the trams running right past the door. I could hear all the cars, boy could I hear the cars!, buses, trucks, motorbikes and even the street sweeper, but I could not hear the trams. That I moved to a quieter location in North Melbourne obviously had nothing to do with the tram that is still just outside the door.

The overall weight is irrelevant, what is important is axle load.

As for noise from trams depends on how the track is constructed, curves etc. Sydney for example has their tracks embedded in a rubber type material when on the road sections which absorbs the vibrations. Melbourne is a bit more traditional in that the tracks are fully embedded in concrete, so tend to be a bit noisier. And curves can always squeak. But won’t be an issue in on the first line except at Northborne/Flemmington Road and the depot entrance. But not much there anyway.

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

More light rail “Amazing Facts”.

Just passing Victorian parliament. Road has a considerable fall to the west across the tramlines. Tram suspension seems to compensate without problems.

Tram is full of people of all ages but many octogenarians or older, slim, in good health and using the trams like they have all their lives

Track up middle of Victoria parade is down middle of verge between trees. No barriers in sight.

Mind you all of that is just my “opinion”, not the “facts” of Tuggeranong residents who do not need to go anywhere, nor observe anything to simply KNOW it is a “fact”.

So, it is a “fact” that u have observed that these many slim octogenarians or older tram users are in “good health”. And u know that how ? Is their health status tattooed on their foreheads perhaps ? Do they carry a sigh asserting such ? Did u do a survey ?

Ask doctors ?

No. But once again, you present your “observation” and interpretation that the tram causes that, as a “fact”. It beggars belief.

Every time I feel totally exhausted at having to explain the most basic and elementary of details, I think of Gus and how he had to put up with you lot for so long, and all he wanted to do was put chairs on the footpath!!

Well we have got down to if you don’t like Canberra the way God made it, leave!

So since you so hate the mere possibilty of another form of transport becoming available in Canberra, one no one will force you to use, you’ll be needing help with your bags?

Maybe the sprightly lively octogenarians can carry them to your car.

rubaiyat said :

Then argue for a better design. Don’t oppose the principle of light rail.

By your own admission, the route chosen by the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t for tram stage 1 Gunners-Civic, is poor. So, whats the point of arguing “for a better design” now – it’s too late.

GreenCommuter said :

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

I agree that you can’t just lay the tracks down on the existing roadbed, but the conduits would not be under the track, they are laid adjacent for easy access.

A CAF Urbos Light Rail Train weighs under 35 tonnes, less than the 3-4 buses it replaces (ea 18 to 25 tonnes). Add 50% more for the passengers. The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

I agree that you can’t just lay the tracks down on the existing roadbed, but the conduits would not be under the track, they are laid adjacent for easy access.

A CAF Urbos Light Rail Train weighs under 35 tonnes, less than the 3-4 buses it replaces (ea 18 to 25 tonnes). Add 50% more for the passengers. The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

Against the strong advice of my work colleagues to just keep ignoring this misinformation, but because I just cant stand the nonsense presented here as “research”, let me just say the CAF Urbos 100 33m 2.65m tram, which I have ridden hundreds of times, weighs 55 tons empty, 75 tons nominal loaded weight.

I can tell you this: in Birmingham, which started using this tram a few years ago, the track prep work is very deep and very careful and even then, they rumble!

I got the specs from the data sheet which is exactly what I said and I also pointed out that that is expandable. The exact specification for the Capital Metro is for the 55m unit so yes that will weigh more.

As for the “rumble” not sure what that has to do with anything. I assume you again misread what I wrote to take quiet to be “silent”.

My first night in Melbourne I stayed in a hotel on Flinders Street which has the trams running right past the door. I could hear all the cars, boy could I hear the cars!, buses, trucks, motorbikes and even the street sweeper, but I could not hear the trams. That I moved to a quieter location in North Melbourne obviously had nothing to do with the tram that is still just outside the door.

rubaiyat said :

More light rail “Amazing Facts”.

Tram is full of people of all ages but many octogenarians or older, slim, in good health and using the trams like they have all their lives

The ones who are not strong and fit can’t use it maybe? They only go where they can take a car maybe? It does not necessarily follow that being fit and able is because they use the trams, if that was what you were trying to say.

Also, disability & infirmity are not always self inflicted or due to slackness or laziness. Sometimes, S**t just happens to us.

rubaiyat said :

Looking at the specs for the CAF Urbos they are very flexible and easily extended to increase capacity and efficiency, without doing anything to the rights of way.

The very thing roads miserably fail at. Roads just get worse and more inefficient the more capacity you try to force into them. A simple in your face fact.

Most interesting is “off wire capability”. So it seems they can do what the NSW Liberals’ (pay attention ACT Liberals!) Sydney Light Rail will do, which is free run between station charges without overhead cables.

Before I hear the tiresome “but Canberra is not Sydney”, well Capital Metro is not Sydney’s huge transport infrastructure either. The old petrolheads, here who can’t imagine Canberra ever growing up or changing, never moan that Canberra’s ridiculously expensive freeways will “Bankrupt us, because we are not L.A., or Sydney or Melbourne!”

Your comments frequently indicate a dislike of cars & car drivers.

There are many people here for whom the getting around you seem to advocate just can’t be done. The old, the frail, the people needing to carry lots of shopping or big items, parents needing to get kids to day care & school on the way to work and home again. There’s lots of things to be done in life & by people that require individual transport solutions.

If we are going to make this city work for the majority of its citizens, we are actually going to have to THINK and sort this out by going back to basics – what have we got? what do we want? how are we going to get to what we want? Then plan it step by step. Through that process, we need to keep the citizens informed & envolved. THEN we start to implement.

rubaiyat said :

bj_ACT said :

Charlotte Harper said :

I don’t live in Gungahlin but I would use the light rail to get from the city to sports training and matches at Lyneham three times a week. There is more to public transport than the commute to and from work.

This is good that you can do this and this is a great example of how there needs to be more to the Light Rail proposal then the current ‘use case’ where the vast majority of travellers will be taken from Gunghalin to Civic in the Morning and then back home again after work. With very little use outside of these trips.

The issue for the current light rail proposal is – that the proposed route doesn’t link (from different locations along the route) a Hospital, a University, a tourist attraction, a Sports stadium, a Business precinct, a shopping centre etc. The often referred to “String of Pearls’ model.

Civic has the University, Business Precinct & Shopping centre in roughly the same broader area and these are not linked by the light rail. Even light rail supporting experts have reservations about the suitability and viability of the proposed route. Canberra has had 70 years of building in geospatial locations to suit the car and this makes any light rail solution problematical and more difficult than some other cities.

I want good public transport infrastructure for Canberra’s future (I actually agree with Rubaiyat that we need it before 2040), I am just concerned the current proposal will be a dud and set back public transport in Canberra for a whole generation.

Then argue for a better design. Don’t oppose the principle of light rail.

The debate is dominated by the “No way! Never!” And not unless it starts and finishes in MY driveway.

No. Argue for a better transport System, not a better design.

If you try to just redesign Canberra to be like other big cities, rather than accept the base plan we have to work with, it will be more costly than necessary and is very unlikely to produce a good result.

Why does the discussion always come back to cars/trams/buses? This is the 21st century. There are other options (thank you Arthur).

For God’s sake, can’t we assess them & show some level of maturity in the process? I thought we are supposed to be innovative since we got Turnbull? There is nothing innovative in what’s happening with ACT public transport

rubaiyat said :

More light rail “Amazing Facts”.

Just passing Victorian parliament. Road has a considerable fall to the west across the tramlines. Tram suspension seems to compensate without problems.

Tram is full of people of all ages but many octogenarians or older, slim, in good health and using the trams like they have all their lives

Track up middle of Victoria parade is down middle of verge between trees. No barriers in sight.

Mind you all of that is just my “opinion”, not the “facts” of Tuggeranong residents who do not need to go anywhere, nor observe anything to simply KNOW it is a “fact”.

So, it is a “fact” that u have observed that these many slim octogenarians or older tram users are in “good health”. And u know that how ? Is their health status tattooed on their foreheads perhaps ? Do they carry a sigh asserting such ? Did u do a survey ? Ask doctors ?

No. But once again, you present your “observation” and interpretation that the tram causes that, as a “fact”. It beggars belief.

rubaiyat said :

Coming to you from my phone in Melbourne. The more I look at its culture, food and amazing liveliness it wouldn’t be possible without the relatively easy open spaces and cleanliness of the trams.

People can enjoy open spaces which remain human because they are not constantly ruined by cars.

It is not just getting around without that millstone of a car, it is being able to cross and use the streets freely, especially the streets dominated by the trams.

Here I am ducking back and forth across Bourke, Swanson, Collins streets. Going up or down town just involves either a bit of Unencumbered walking or getting a lift on a passing tram. No problem circulating any of the extremely long streets full of shops, cafes and restaurants, you explore till you’ve had enough then jump on a tram to so where else.

There are still cars and they still generate far too much noise and pollution, but they don’t get to totally kill the place, as they do nearly everywhere in Canbera.

If u love Melbourne so much, perhaps you will be pre disposed to stay there then – instead of trying to turn Canberra into it.

More light rail “Amazing Facts”.

Just passing Victorian parliament. Road has a considerable fall to the west across the tramlines. Tram suspension seems to compensate without problems.

Tram is full of people of all ages but many octogenarians or older, slim, in good health and using the trams like they have all their lives

Track up middle of Victoria parade is down middle of verge between trees. No barriers in sight.

Mind you all of that is just my “opinion”, not the “facts” of Tuggeranong residents who do not need to go anywhere, nor observe anything to simply KNOW it is a “fact”.

gooterz said :

If rubaiyat catches the tram as often as he posts on here we might actually make it work.

Priceless……RiotAct comment of the year……LOL……

Oooops…..my bad. Repost of # 174.

gooterz said :

Priceless – RiotAct comment of the year……..LOL…..

bj_ACT said :

Charlotte Harper said :

I don’t live in Gungahlin but I would use the light rail to get from the city to sports training and matches at Lyneham three times a week. There is more to public transport than the commute to and from work.

This is good that you can do this and this is a great example of how there needs to be more to the Light Rail proposal then the current ‘use case’ where the vast majority of travellers will be taken from Gunghalin to Civic in the Morning and then back home again after work. With very little use outside of these trips.

The issue for the current light rail proposal is – that the proposed route doesn’t link (from different locations along the route) a Hospital, a University, a tourist attraction, a Sports stadium, a Business precinct, a shopping centre etc. The often referred to “String of Pearls’ model.

Civic has the University, Business Precinct & Shopping centre in roughly the same broader area and these are not linked by the light rail. Even light rail supporting experts have reservations about the suitability and viability of the proposed route. Canberra has had 70 years of building in geospatial locations to suit the car and this makes any light rail solution problematical and more difficult than some other cities.

I want good public transport infrastructure for Canberra’s future (I actually agree with Rubaiyat that we need it before 2040), I am just concerned the current proposal will be a dud and set back public transport in Canberra for a whole generation.

Then argue for a better design. Don’t oppose the principle of light rail.

The debate is dominated by the “No way! Never!” And not unless it starts and finishes in MY driveway.

Coming to you from my phone in Melbourne. The more I look at its culture, food and amazing liveliness it wouldn’t be possible without the relatively easy open spaces and cleanliness of the trams.

People can enjoy open spaces which remain human because they are not constantly ruined by cars.

It is not just getting around without that millstone of a car, it is being able to cross and use the streets freely, especially the streets dominated by the trams.

Here I am ducking back and forth across Bourke, Swanson, Collins streets. Going up or down town just involves either a bit of Unencumbered walking or getting a lift on a passing tram. No problem circulating any of the extremely long streets full of shops, cafes and restaurants, you explore till you’ve had enough then jump on a tram to so where else.

There are still cars and they still generate far too much noise and pollution, but they don’t get to totally kill the place, as they do nearly everywhere in Canbera.

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

How can the tram run along the left hand lane of Northbourne Avenue without extensive road levelling? Presently there is a substantial gradient from previous works, whether by design for water catchment or through periodical topping off by quick-fix road sealing. You can tell by the huge puddles that lay in the gutter after heavy rains. How much can a tram lean before it becomes unstable? I found a specification document [tramstore21] stating that 20mm is the maximum “cant” or superelevation allowable for a straight section of tramway. That’d mean completely re-doing the whole of Northbourne Avenue, not a simple or cheap job by any stretch of the imagination. Looks like down the middle is the only way they’ll do it for less than a billion dollars.

Yet cities do it. No matter what you say. And how do you manage to miss that I propose that it should not go down northbourne age which is ruined by traffic already. Better the development and housing happens in a cleaner quieter more intimate setting.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Ah, yes I can, but I am not an expert.

Wasn’t it you who said building two separate single line lines down the side of Northborne would be cheaper? Strange comment for a non expert.

I suspect dungfungus and Sarah Pailin coauthored a few papers.

PS I bow to your greater knowledge of what may have been done locally. I am interested in and admire what I have seen elsewhere. I can’t quite remember what they’ve done in Auckland but it sounds like what you are describing for Sydney. It looked very clean and neat. I do hope they are going to grass the track for aesthetics, drainage and to aerate the soil for the surrounding vegetation.

dungfungus said :

Ah, yes I can, but I am not an expert.

Wasn’t it you who said building two separate single line lines down the side of Northborne would be cheaper? Strange comment for a non expert.

rubaiyat said :

Particularly once built, most of the money, energy and employment stays within the ACT, unlike the cars where most of the money flows out of the ACT.

Well, there have been some pretty vitriolic if not outrageous assertions and extrapolations from pro-tram’ers on here – this is just another example.

Yes – a few long term jobs will be created (but no where near the 3,500 claimed by the ACT Gov’t so often) – so that will be good. But claiming that “most of the money” will be staying in the ACT after it is built, is false. There is a massive “profit” on the ongoing operating cost (after local wages, repairs and maintenance costs are met) that will be repatriated to the tram consortia, to their bankers and to their shareholders.

Charlotte Harper said :

I don’t live in Gungahlin but I would use the light rail to get from the city to sports training and matches at Lyneham three times a week. There is more to public transport than the commute to and from work.

Well that like one boarding a day 19,999 to go.
If rubaiyat catches the tram as often as he posts on here we might actually make it work.

Charlotte Harper said :

I don’t live in Gungahlin but I would use the light rail to get from the city to sports training and matches at Lyneham three times a week. There is more to public transport than the commute to and from work.

That’s nice to hear, but doesn’t really add to the case for light rail – buses up Northbourne would take you to Lyneham as efficiently – especially as there’s more likelihood you could get off as close as possible to your destination ,,,

Arthur Davies4:41 pm 09 Feb 16

I would like to add a few issues to these comments.

I am really glad that someone has finally noted that there always were more options than buses vs trams. As well as the Heathrow pods there are smaller faster magnetically suspended versions which can move up to 7000 people per hour per track, i.e. 14,000 per for for the system. This is far more than Metro estimates in its business plan tram usage. It is estimated to cost less than half the price of the trams. The overhead systems can get into the community centres of the existing suburbs so they are far more equitable than trams which can only travel along the major transport routes which is not where most people live (yet we all have to pay), much more equitable. Having said all that, the real problem was that these alternative systems were never fully & publicly evaluated.

Metro’s EIS estimates that 160,000T of concrete & steel will be needed for the 12km route. Not very green.

Steel wheels on steel rails are quite efficient at peak hours when the tram is full (with most people standing). However if you check the data you will find that the tram uses huge amounts of energy per passenger off peak, far worse than a car in fact (if the car is electric it too can use green energy).

Melbourne is the poster child of tram fans. But current data shows that they only serve 2 to 3% of Melbourne residents. Exactly the same rate as Metro claims for their system. Even close in where the trams run, the usage rate is quite poor.

The govt claims that for each $1 spent, it will yield $1.20. Even if this is true, the yield is over 20 years, not per annum. Assume simple interest for my simple brain, this is a yield of 1%, far lower than inflation let alone the interest rate on the money needed to build it. The Feds say anything less than a pay back of 2.5 will not attract federal money. This is about 7.5% p a, should just pay the interest but still not a huge windfall. So the $1.20 return is deceptive at best.

Thank you Charlotte for your very good detective work on the poly’s promises!

I have checked with Metro’s chief engineer on how trams can cross the bridges when, as promised, the trams go south. Surprisingly the trams will go on the existing bridges without causing them to collapse, but
1. They will have to be battery operated to satisfy the NCA (rightly I think) to avoid overhead wires.
2. One lane of roadway will have to be converted to a tram lane & much of the roadbed removed to lighten the lane, so it cannot be a shared lane. So both bridges will become one lane each way unless new bridges are built. The cost of this is not disclosed in the Govt’s press releases, in fact they did not check with the engineer until after they had published their maps.

Charlotte Harper said :

I don’t live in Gungahlin but I would use the light rail to get from the city to sports training and matches at Lyneham three times a week. There is more to public transport than the commute to and from work.

This is good that you can do this and this is a great example of how there needs to be more to the Light Rail proposal then the current ‘use case’ where the vast majority of travellers will be taken from Gunghalin to Civic in the Morning and then back home again after work. With very little use outside of these trips.

The issue for the current light rail proposal is – that the proposed route doesn’t link (from different locations along the route) a Hospital, a University, a tourist attraction, a Sports stadium, a Business precinct, a shopping centre etc. The often referred to “String of Pearls’ model.

Civic has the University, Business Precinct & Shopping centre in roughly the same broader area and these are not linked by the light rail. Even light rail supporting experts have reservations about the suitability and viability of the proposed route. Canberra has had 70 years of building in geospatial locations to suit the car and this makes any light rail solution problematical and more difficult than some other cities.

I want good public transport infrastructure for Canberra’s future (I actually agree with Rubaiyat that we need it before 2040), I am just concerned the current proposal will be a dud and set back public transport in Canberra for a whole generation.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

I agree that you can’t just lay the tracks down on the existing roadbed, but the conduits would not be under the track, they are laid adjacent for easy access.

A CAF Urbos Light Rail Train weighs under 35 tonnes, less than the 3-4 buses it replaces (ea 18 to 25 tonnes). Add 50% more for the passengers. The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

It’s very entertaining when experts like you and JC take the lead for comment on technical details.
I am always reminded of that old maxim “experts never agree”.

You can talk.

Ah, yes I can, but I am not an expert.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

I agree that you can’t just lay the tracks down on the existing roadbed, but the conduits would not be under the track, they are laid adjacent for easy access.

A CAF Urbos Light Rail Train weighs under 35 tonnes, less than the 3-4 buses it replaces (ea 18 to 25 tonnes). Add 50% more for the passengers. The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

It’s very entertaining when experts like you and JC take the lead for comment on technical details.
I am always reminded of that old maxim “experts never agree”.

You can talk.

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

I agree that you can’t just lay the tracks down on the existing roadbed, but the conduits would not be under the track, they are laid adjacent for easy access.

A CAF Urbos Light Rail Train weighs under 35 tonnes, less than the 3-4 buses it replaces (ea 18 to 25 tonnes). Add 50% more for the passengers. The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

It’s very entertaining when experts like you and JC take the lead for comment on technical details.
I am always reminded of that old maxim “experts never agree”.

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

I agree that you can’t just lay the tracks down on the existing roadbed, but the conduits would not be under the track, they are laid adjacent for easy access.

A CAF Urbos Light Rail Train weighs under 35 tonnes, less than the 3-4 buses it replaces (ea 18 to 25 tonnes). Add 50% more for the passengers. The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

Conduits are both under and besides. A conduit for signalling and tracking is very commingle laid down the centre of the reservation with pits for access at regular intervals. They run sensor cables through them. Ancillary power and earths can often be found in the centre of the reservation too.

Ps not all lines have sleepers either. The Sydney line the road sections don’t have them. There they basically made concrete channel for the rail and then set the tracks into the concrete using a rubbery product.

The Gold Coast the road sections they did use sleepers then encased the lot in concrete.

rubaiyat hogging all the bandwidth …..Again

Let someone else have a go.

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

Of course they fit into a single lane. But to construct that lane, which is what I was talking about you would have to close 1.5 lanes.

And does every response need to get into a rant? Doing that people stop listening, even me who is quite clearly on the pro side.

I simply detailed the solution. Which I researched, and observed in Zurich, where they were able to work within the lane, occasionally blocking off the adjacent lane with cones where necessary. The same as any highway work. I was struck by the process and impressed by the result. Less bitumen and more greenery is always good, especially in our excessively hot cities.

Because the sleepers were laid in sets the whole process was quite quick.

What about the roadwork currently going on in Constitution Ave? Any different, other than being horrendously slow?

I still see Light Rail down the centre of a wide roadway as a poor second choice for users, for all the reasons I have pointed out. I will support it as it is still an environmentally appropriate system that obviates the need for widening Northbourne Avenue, but it isn’t the best design.

Tell us about it! The left turn from London Circuit into Constitution Avenue has been blocked off for over a year – no sign of what they are doing, but it holds up the traffic badly.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

ungruntled said :

I would really like to see the numbers for this development clearly laid out.

One piece of information that has passed me is that the cost does not include the work that will have to be done at the intersections along Northborne, because that will be taken out of another budget – roads or some such.

It’s a shame that there is not enough confidence in our Assembly to be able to trust that what they say is for real.

Also a sad state of affairs that they are not prepared to put this contentious & expensive item to the electorate, but prefer to nail down contracts before there is a chance for the community to have a say.

I would feel a little better if the Liberal leader were more able to express & quantify the opposition position. Sadly, the last time I saw him trying to defend his position, on the ABC, the performance was pathetic. Considering how long this issue has been being discussed, why does he not have a fully costed & detailed alternative to offer us instead of just saying “No”, and waffle about improving buses.

By the way, the original consultants report on the light rail project had the trams along the footpath edges of Northborne Ave, where passengers could alight directly onto the footpath, not onto the median strip. This option did not involve the removal of all the trees, nor did it place those alighting from the tram in the same level of danger of becoming pedestrian casualties on the road.

Why was the public not told of this option? Why did they opt for the option where wholesale tree removal was required?

Did someone mention open Government?

It’s funny how the government opted for the cheapest option when they sneakily bought land adjacent to the Mugga Lane landfill and then decided to extend its life another 20 years.
The trams adjacect to the footpath alignment is by far the best and the cheapest but wait, that’s not the way they do things in Europe is it and we must do the same whatever the cost.

How does it work out cheaper? It would be more expensive as you would have to rip up 50% more space for 2x single alignments compared to 1x double alignment and more disruptive as they would have to close down 1.5 lanes of traffic on Northborne ave which would also increase the cost.

It would be cheaper because the road bed, which is constructed to carry much greater axle loadings than trams have (like buses), is already there.
The median strip will have to excavated to a depth below where the underground services are (incredibly expensive relocation required) and a new base constructed.
I am surprised you didn’t know that.

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

It would be good if it were that easy because it would bring costs down but sadly it isn’t.

Well, that’s just your opinion.

It is fact actually. They don’t lay tram tracks down on road base. So the method you rekcon would be cheaper just isn’t done and wouldn’t be strong enough.

JC said :

gooterz said :

I think another key point missed is that the PPP is likely only for part of the work.
So while the government pats itself on the back for a cheaper PPP than expected. Hopefully this includes all the public works, not just the tram parts.

If the government has to spend 100’s of millions on remediation outside the contract moving services and losing out on parking and making alternatives this should also be included as tram costs not ‘other’.

I wonder what the cost of getting a train to run from Tuggeranong to Civic would be? Given there is already a line between Tuggeranong and Kingston. A slight extension could give a fast public transport between the two centres.

Light rail is NOT about connecting two centres. It is about servicing what is along the route. In the case of this proposal it is the high density housing that is already along the route and planned for the route. It will not be viable to any other town centre except maybe Molonglo and possibly Woden if Adelaide Ave were to be redeveloped into high density housing. Something not very likely.

Which was sold as such going to the last ACT election?
Sure prices and density might increase along the route but it’ll make every other place in Canberra that much more attractive. Anyone living anywhere close to the tram will have major issues using a car.
So either ACT Labor lied to secure the green vote so they could build a single stage of light rail, or the numbers don’t add up for the rest of Canberra to get light rail, hence the numbers for the first stage are likely bogus too.

There is no reason to live along the tram route when cars can get you into the city from most places in 15 minutes.

The majority of civic workers are either low end retail or parents with families. Who would really want to raise their kids in high density living in Canberra. We have abundant free space. Living close to the city wont shave an hour off travel time.

The time expected for the length of the first route is 25 minutes. this is expect to be 30% less than what average travel time is. (Calculated about 35 minutes). The numbers seem strangely fictional. You could travel from one end of Canberra to the other in about 35 minutes. Does it really take longer to get to civic than it does to banks?

GreenCommuter6:06 pm 08 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

I agree that you can’t just lay the tracks down on the existing roadbed, but the conduits would not be under the track, they are laid adjacent for easy access.

A CAF Urbos Light Rail Train weighs under 35 tonnes, less than the 3-4 buses it replaces (ea 18 to 25 tonnes). Add 50% more for the passengers. The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

I agree that you can’t just lay the tracks down on the existing roadbed, but the conduits would not be under the track, they are laid adjacent for easy access.

A CAF Urbos Light Rail Train weighs under 35 tonnes, less than the 3-4 buses it replaces (ea 18 to 25 tonnes). Add 50% more for the passengers. The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

Against the strong advice of my work colleagues to just keep ignoring this misinformation, but because I just cant stand the nonsense presented here as “research”, let me just say the CAF Urbos 100 33m 2.65m tram, which I have ridden hundreds of times, weighs 55 tons empty, 75 tons nominal loaded weight.

I can tell you this: in Birmingham, which started using this tram a few years ago, the track prep work is very deep and very careful and even then, they rumble!

OpenYourMind5:40 pm 08 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

You are still missing the point completely. $698million++ of construction, $204million of running cost and multiple excluded from contract costs

Back those figures up.

From the Capital Metro Business Case in full.pdf:

p95 Table 23 Summary of project costs (real $m from 2015 to 2048)

Total project costs Present value from 2015 to 2048 (prior operation to 30 years of full service) was $823 million at current cost of the report.

p85 Table 16 Operating, maintenance and lifecycle costs

The first 20 years (2019 – 2039) are under the PPP operation.

Do you have anything that contradicts or updates those figures?

Do you have an alternately fully costed transport system doing the same job, that will still be able to bear the traffic required 30 years hence?

My quick calculations for roads and cars just for the next 20 years laid out above was vastly more than that.

Just the purchase of equivalent cars needed (not even moving) required more than the cost of the whole fully operational Light Rail System.

No “operational expenses” for the cars and roads, and ignoring the massive resumptions and damage all the cars and roads would do to Canberra.

I have a clear idea what a pair of tracks running up the middle of the Nourthbourne Avenue verge, surrounded by trees, will look like.

What will your road based infrastructure in the same space look like in 2048 when Canberra should have passed 600,000 in population?

Just how much environmental damage will have been done in those 30 years?

Just how unpleasant will Northbourne Avenue be when it becomes our Parramatta Road?

Are you living in the same city as the rest of us or do you reside in your ski lodge? Have you seen how botched up most local projects here are? We’ve painted grass green, we’ve built an unused pop up village, we’ve had bridge collapses, massive cost overruns (Cotter dam anyone) and even failed to blow up a building. I think I can safely trade on the past to suggest that the tram will be an even bigger white elephant than most of us already expect.

You’ve already said the way the tram will run on Northbourne Ave isn’t how it should be done. The tram will botch up Northbourne.

You aren’t comparing like and like by counting people’s private car acquisitions. That’s ridiculous. Canberra, like it or not, is a car oriented city. This stupid tram won’t take kids to sporting matches all over town, or drop kids at school, or get to anywhere else than friggin civic. People will still own a car…how the hell can you compare private car aquisition against this project. As for our road infrastructure, a tram doesn’t deliver goods and most people won’t use such a limited solution, so no matter what, we’ll still need our roads. I’ve lived in London, I get how public transport can work. Canberra ain’t London, and it won’t be London in 2048 or even 2100.

OpenYourMind said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

gooterz said :

I think another key point missed is that the PPP is likely only for part of the work.
So while the government pats itself on the back for a cheaper PPP than expected. Hopefully this includes all the public works, not just the tram parts.

If the government has to spend 100’s of millions on remediation outside the contract moving services and losing out on parking and making alternatives this should also be included as tram costs not ‘other’.

I wonder what the cost of getting a train to run from Tuggeranong to Civic would be? Given there is already a line between Tuggeranong and Kingston. A slight extension could give a fast public transport between the two centres.

Light rail is NOT about connecting two centres. It is about servicing what is along the route. In the case of this proposal it is the high density housing that is already along the route and planned for the route. It will not be viable to any other town centre except maybe Molonglo and possibly Woden if Adelaide Ave were to be redeveloped into high density housing. Something not very likely.

So what you are saying is that no one will board the tram at Gungahlin and they will still use their cars to commute? The ones that use the buses now will also go back to their cars.
A lot of people in that “high density housing” along the route are unemployed and won’t be commuting by bus, car or tram anyway. The tram will end up like most buses in the Territory which move air from suburb to suburb.

No, no, this will be quite different. The air moved between suburbs will be gold plated and then showered with the tears of stressed rate payers.

As they say, “That’s Priceless”

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

Of course they fit into a single lane. But to construct that lane, which is what I was talking about you would have to close 1.5 lanes.

And does every response need to get into a rant? Doing that people stop listening, even me who is quite clearly on the pro side.

I simply detailed the solution. Which I researched, and observed in Zurich, where they were able to work within the lane, occasionally blocking off the adjacent lane with cones where necessary. The same as any highway work. I was struck by the process and impressed by the result. Less bitumen and more greenery is always good, especially in our excessively hot cities.

Because the sleepers were laid in sets the whole process was quite quick.

What about the roadwork currently going on in Constitution Ave? Any different, other than being horrendously slow?

I still see Light Rail down the centre of a wide roadway as a poor second choice for users, for all the reasons I have pointed out. I will support it as it is still an environmentally appropriate system that obviates the need for widening Northbourne Avenue, but it isn’t the best design.

Only a stakeholder in this project would “research”in Zurich” so why don’t you state your real (and vested) interest in the project.

dungfungus said :

Underpinning the Gungahlin to City tram proposal there has always been an unchallenged assumption that everybody in Gungahlin works in the city.
The media (and the Canberra Liberals) have failed miserably to prove the un-viability of the project based on the points you have raised.

If that were true, which it clearly is not, then the assumption would be that many more passengers would use the Light Rail.

It’s statements like this that have failed miserably to prove the un-viability of the project. You are fighting the straw man of your own creation.

wildturkeycanoe2:42 pm 08 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

How can the tram run along the left hand lane of Northbourne Avenue without extensive road levelling? Presently there is a substantial gradient from previous works, whether by design for water catchment or through periodical topping off by quick-fix road sealing. You can tell by the huge puddles that lay in the gutter after heavy rains. How much can a tram lean before it becomes unstable? I found a specification document [tramstore21] stating that 20mm is the maximum “cant” or superelevation allowable for a straight section of tramway. That’d mean completely re-doing the whole of Northbourne Avenue, not a simple or cheap job by any stretch of the imagination. Looks like down the middle is the only way they’ll do it for less than a billion dollars.

chewy14 said :

And it’s that land value that should have been captured in a precinct levy or charge, so that the main beneficiaries of the light rail, funded it (at least partially).

Something the NSW Liberal Government is looking at doing.

The ACT Government, no matter what persuasion (except The Greens), is under the thumb of the developers so chickened out with the help of the Liberals who think they can have it both ways, oppose the taxpayer paying for it and the beneficiaries as well.

When is the lunacy going to stop and the light rail canned for good? What use will this thing be to residents of Belconnen, the inner South, Woden Valley, Weston Creek and Tuggeranong ie more than 80% of Canberra’s population? The answer is it will be of no use whatsoever. Also, why should residents who’ll never use it have to pay for it through the inevitable hike in rates?

Time to buy a few more express buses and put the remaining many millions of $ into more important things. Had a look at the potholes on the Tuggeranong Parkway near Weston Creek lately???

Charlotte Harper9:49 am 09 Feb 16

I don’t live in Gungahlin but I would use the light rail to get from the city to sports training and matches at Lyneham three times a week. There is more to public transport than the commute to and from work.

dungfungus said :

The tram will end up like most buses in the Territory which move air from suburb to suburb.

You are saying all the cars with just the driver in them are really bad at moving air around?

They certainly are very effectively crop dusting us with all the pollution and noise.

Impossible to get any peace thanks to the cars.

The striking difference is the peak hour buses, with all the passengers in them compared with all the peak hour cars, empty except for the driver. What is full is the roads, full of mostly empty cars.

JC said :

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

I agree that you can’t just lay the tracks down on the existing roadbed, but the conduits would not be under the track, they are laid adjacent for easy access.

A CAF Urbos Light Rail Train weighs under 35 tonnes, less than the 3-4 buses it replaces (ea 18 to 25 tonnes). Add 50% more for the passengers. The Light Rail sleepers, especially if laid as modular sets, are designed to spread the train’s weight via the rails, over a very broad area.

The Edmonton Light Rail Manual details most engineering issues, if you want to look them up.

Buses and other heavy vehicles impose quite a load on roads, which is why roads are so over engineered, particularly where they brake at stops and traffic lights.

JC said :

Of course they fit into a single lane. But to construct that lane, which is what I was talking about you would have to close 1.5 lanes.

And does every response need to get into a rant? Doing that people stop listening, even me who is quite clearly on the pro side.

I simply detailed the solution. Which I researched, and observed in Zurich, where they were able to work within the lane, occasionally blocking off the adjacent lane with cones where necessary. The same as any highway work. I was struck by the process and impressed by the result. Less bitumen and more greenery is always good, especially in our excessively hot cities.

Because the sleepers were laid in sets the whole process was quite quick.

What about the roadwork currently going on in Constitution Ave? Any different, other than being horrendously slow?

I still see Light Rail down the centre of a wide roadway as a poor second choice for users, for all the reasons I have pointed out. I will support it as it is still an environmentally appropriate system that obviates the need for widening Northbourne Avenue, but it isn’t the best design.

OpenYourMind1:28 pm 08 Feb 16

dungfungus said :

JC said :

gooterz said :

I think another key point missed is that the PPP is likely only for part of the work.
So while the government pats itself on the back for a cheaper PPP than expected. Hopefully this includes all the public works, not just the tram parts.

If the government has to spend 100’s of millions on remediation outside the contract moving services and losing out on parking and making alternatives this should also be included as tram costs not ‘other’.

I wonder what the cost of getting a train to run from Tuggeranong to Civic would be? Given there is already a line between Tuggeranong and Kingston. A slight extension could give a fast public transport between the two centres.

Light rail is NOT about connecting two centres. It is about servicing what is along the route. In the case of this proposal it is the high density housing that is already along the route and planned for the route. It will not be viable to any other town centre except maybe Molonglo and possibly Woden if Adelaide Ave were to be redeveloped into high density housing. Something not very likely.

So what you are saying is that no one will board the tram at Gungahlin and they will still use their cars to commute? The ones that use the buses now will also go back to their cars.
A lot of people in that “high density housing” along the route are unemployed and won’t be commuting by bus, car or tram anyway. The tram will end up like most buses in the Territory which move air from suburb to suburb.

No, no, this will be quite different. The air moved between suburbs will be gold plated and then showered with the tears of stressed rate payers.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

gooterz said :

I think another key point missed is that the PPP is likely only for part of the work.
So while the government pats itself on the back for a cheaper PPP than expected. Hopefully this includes all the public works, not just the tram parts.

If the government has to spend 100’s of millions on remediation outside the contract moving services and losing out on parking and making alternatives this should also be included as tram costs not ‘other’.

I wonder what the cost of getting a train to run from Tuggeranong to Civic would be? Given there is already a line between Tuggeranong and Kingston. A slight extension could give a fast public transport between the two centres.

Light rail is NOT about connecting two centres. It is about servicing what is along the route. In the case of this proposal it is the high density housing that is already along the route and planned for the route. It will not be viable to any other town centre except maybe Molonglo and possibly Woden if Adelaide Ave were to be redeveloped into high density housing. Something not very likely.

So what you are saying is that no one will board the tram at Gungahlin and they will still use their cars to commute? The ones that use the buses now will also go back to their cars.
A lot of people in that “high density housing” along the route are unemployed and won’t be commuting by bus, car or tram anyway. The tram will end up like most buses in the Territory which move air from suburb to suburb.

No, what he’s saying is that the light rail will service the corridor not simply two disparate town centres.

So people from Gungahlin and all along the route will utilise it but the only reason it will actually be viable is due to the increased development density along the corridor.

And perhaps you’ve noticed that the government is trying to avoid the pitfalls of large scale public housing developments that have happened previously by spreading PH tenants around the city in a “salt and pepper” approach. You won’t have the high level of public housing tenants along the corridor that existed previously, mainly because the land is worth too much in private hands.

And it’s that land value that should have been captured in a precinct levy or charge, so that the main beneficiaries of the light rail, funded it (at least partially).

ungruntled said :

Rubaiyat,
Can I assume from your comments that
a. you are fit & able?
b. you are unable to consider that those in need of personal transport are unable to consider community issues like protection of our natural world from pollution and the resulting climate change?
c. you also consider that the development of transport facilities for all the community are somehow selfish because the have been superceded but not yet replaced?
At this time, roads are transport for everyone. That doesn’t mean that they will always be. Just that they are now.

I remain healthy and fit by actual exercise. Not avoiding it.

As does my elderly father, who had become dangerous as a driver. Even though it was very hard to get him to let go of his car, he finally did it after pulling into his driveway and losing conscience. We could not persuade him for many years to relinquish his licence because he was dangerous on the road, something he would never admit. He finally gave up when he realised he might crash and hurt himself. Seen anybody else like that on Canberra’s roads?

He now walks, albeit slowly to the bus and catches it to the local shops and library and is healthier now than when he was sitting in his car eternally.

I can perfectly well see that some will want to use personal transport, and I am not stopping them. What I can not understand is why they return the favour by vehemently opposing public transport for others. Many in terms that it will be the “End of Canberra” and they will be forced to flee to the coast to be under the jurisdiction of a Liberal government (that is building light rail in Sydney). Yeah, THAT! rational. 😀

The only thing I can determine from what people post here is what they do or don’t post. Which is loudly and endlessly vitriolic against a cleaner, safer transport system and the ONLY concerns ever express is how quick it is and how much (they imagine) it costs. Pollution just doesn’t come into it. Quite a few go so far as to regularly describe environmental matters and those who espouse them as total frauds and wax endlessly on with Greens Under The Bed conspiracies.

These forums are an endless demand that no “undesirable” public transport system ever come into THEIR neighborhood.

Are you unable to consider that your car will not be taken away from you just because there is an alternative?

Are you unable to consider that without the alternative, there is no alternative?

Are you unable to consider that at some point we will need an alternative and not when it is too late?

Are you unable to consider that far from a recent discussion this goes back to before Gungahlin was even built? I remember some of the original renders and draings had the light rail shown on them.

Are you unable to consider that the eternal “Not Now!’ really is a “Not Ever!”?

JC said :

gooterz said :

I think another key point missed is that the PPP is likely only for part of the work.
So while the government pats itself on the back for a cheaper PPP than expected. Hopefully this includes all the public works, not just the tram parts.

If the government has to spend 100’s of millions on remediation outside the contract moving services and losing out on parking and making alternatives this should also be included as tram costs not ‘other’.

I wonder what the cost of getting a train to run from Tuggeranong to Civic would be? Given there is already a line between Tuggeranong and Kingston. A slight extension could give a fast public transport between the two centres.

Light rail is NOT about connecting two centres. It is about servicing what is along the route. In the case of this proposal it is the high density housing that is already along the route and planned for the route. It will not be viable to any other town centre except maybe Molonglo and possibly Woden if Adelaide Ave were to be redeveloped into high density housing. Something not very likely.

So what you are saying is that no one will board the tram at Gungahlin and they will still use their cars to commute? The ones that use the buses now will also go back to their cars.
A lot of people in that “high density housing” along the route are unemployed and won’t be commuting by bus, car or tram anyway. The tram will end up like most buses in the Territory which move air from suburb to suburb.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

ungruntled said :

I would really like to see the numbers for this development clearly laid out.

One piece of information that has passed me is that the cost does not include the work that will have to be done at the intersections along Northborne, because that will be taken out of another budget – roads or some such.

It’s a shame that there is not enough confidence in our Assembly to be able to trust that what they say is for real.

Also a sad state of affairs that they are not prepared to put this contentious & expensive item to the electorate, but prefer to nail down contracts before there is a chance for the community to have a say.

I would feel a little better if the Liberal leader were more able to express & quantify the opposition position. Sadly, the last time I saw him trying to defend his position, on the ABC, the performance was pathetic. Considering how long this issue has been being discussed, why does he not have a fully costed & detailed alternative to offer us instead of just saying “No”, and waffle about improving buses.

By the way, the original consultants report on the light rail project had the trams along the footpath edges of Northborne Ave, where passengers could alight directly onto the footpath, not onto the median strip. This option did not involve the removal of all the trees, nor did it place those alighting from the tram in the same level of danger of becoming pedestrian casualties on the road.

Why was the public not told of this option? Why did they opt for the option where wholesale tree removal was required?

Did someone mention open Government?

It’s funny how the government opted for the cheapest option when they sneakily bought land adjacent to the Mugga Lane landfill and then decided to extend its life another 20 years.
The trams adjacect to the footpath alignment is by far the best and the cheapest but wait, that’s not the way they do things in Europe is it and we must do the same whatever the cost.

How does it work out cheaper? It would be more expensive as you would have to rip up 50% more space for 2x single alignments compared to 1x double alignment and more disruptive as they would have to close down 1.5 lanes of traffic on Northborne ave which would also increase the cost.

It would be cheaper because the road bed, which is constructed to carry much greater axle loadings than trams have (like buses), is already there.
The median strip will have to excavated to a depth below where the underground services are (incredibly expensive relocation required) and a new base constructed.
I am surprised you didn’t know that.

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

It would be good if it were that easy because it would bring costs down but sadly it isn’t.

Well, that’s just your opinion.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Can anyone answer me one very important question? How many people ACTUALLY use the Gungahlin to City, Northbourne Avenue corridor to get between Gunners and the City? Can anybody quantify with real figures, future usage of the tramway? I don’t want to know about Pizza Research’s phone surveys asking if people prefer a tram to horse and carriage. Where are the actual figures? Where are the stats showing that there is a genuine need and people will use it?
Sure there is a lot of traffic going down that road in the mornings and evenings, but where do they all end up? Certainly not all in the car parks around Civic, a mere 10,000 to 15,000 would easily fill up the available spaces. There has to be a percentage or number that goes through to the parliamentary triangle, to Duntroon, to Deakin and Red Hill. Will these commuters abandon their cars to catch a slow boat to Civic and then be confronted with the puzzle of bus schedules to cross the lake? How much time will that add to their journey? Can Action cope with this extra demand on it’s local routes?
These are questions I would have assumed would [and should] have been asked by those in control of the tram proposal, but I cannot find any figures, any answers, actually I can’t even find the questions among the information given to us. Perhaps they never existed and we’ve simply been told what is good for us and convinced through political speak it was our idea all along.

Its in this much talked about Tram “Business Case/Benefits Costs Ratio” document :

http://www.capitalmetro.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/655650/Capital-Metro-Business-Case-In-Full.pdf

I haven’t read it cover to cover for a while, but as I recall, TRAM passengers will be from ACTION bus passengers who already travel into the city to work or get connecting buses to where ever they need to go, from newly converted users to public transport (ie the Tram) who live in Gunners and work in the City, from infill along the route generating Tram passengers, etc. So, until the whole Tram network is completed (20+ years away – if at all !) it will be for many potential Tram passengers, a bus-tram-bus each way.

That’s no doubt why in part, thousands of ACT public service jobs are being relocated into Civic – to help boost Tram numbers.

Also, I think its probably also about after hours access to Civic generating tram passengers. Unless that happens, the Tram is likely to be very lightly patronised outside the one way traffic into and out of Civic in peak hours.

Anyway, I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong or have missed things.

I would encourage all ACT voters & Ratepayers to read this Business Case/Benefits Costs Ratio document and the assumptions its based on and form your own opinions from a fiscal priority setting, logic and common sense viewpoint.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Can anyone answer me one very important question? How many people ACTUALLY use the Gungahlin to City, Northbourne Avenue corridor to get between Gunners and the City? Can anybody quantify with real figures, future usage of the tramway? I don’t want to know about Pizza Research’s phone surveys asking if people prefer a tram to horse and carriage. Where are the actual figures? Where are the stats showing that there is a genuine need and people will use it?
Sure there is a lot of traffic going down that road in the mornings and evenings, but where do they all end up? Certainly not all in the car parks around Civic, a mere 10,000 to 15,000 would easily fill up the available spaces. There has to be a percentage or number that goes through to the parliamentary triangle, to Duntroon, to Deakin and Red Hill. Will these commuters abandon their cars to catch a slow boat to Civic and then be confronted with the puzzle of bus schedules to cross the lake? How much time will that add to their journey? Can Action cope with this extra demand on it’s local routes?
These are questions I would have assumed would [and should] have been asked by those in control of the tram proposal, but I cannot find any figures, any answers, actually I can’t even find the questions among the information given to us. Perhaps they never existed and we’ve simply been told what is good for us and convinced through political speak it was our idea all along.

Underpinning the Gungahlin to City tram proposal there has always been an unchallenged assumption that everybody in Gungahlin works in the city.
The media (and the Canberra Liberals) have failed miserably to prove the un-viability of the project based on the points you have raised.

wildturkeycanoe9:54 am 08 Feb 16

Can anyone answer me one very important question? How many people ACTUALLY use the Gungahlin to City, Northbourne Avenue corridor to get between Gunners and the City? Can anybody quantify with real figures, future usage of the tramway? I don’t want to know about Pizza Research’s phone surveys asking if people prefer a tram to horse and carriage. Where are the actual figures? Where are the stats showing that there is a genuine need and people will use it?
Sure there is a lot of traffic going down that road in the mornings and evenings, but where do they all end up? Certainly not all in the car parks around Civic, a mere 10,000 to 15,000 would easily fill up the available spaces. There has to be a percentage or number that goes through to the parliamentary triangle, to Duntroon, to Deakin and Red Hill. Will these commuters abandon their cars to catch a slow boat to Civic and then be confronted with the puzzle of bus schedules to cross the lake? How much time will that add to their journey? Can Action cope with this extra demand on it’s local routes?
These are questions I would have assumed would [and should] have been asked by those in control of the tram proposal, but I cannot find any figures, any answers, actually I can’t even find the questions among the information given to us. Perhaps they never existed and we’ve simply been told what is good for us and convinced through political speak it was our idea all along.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

ungruntled said :

I would really like to see the numbers for this development clearly laid out.

One piece of information that has passed me is that the cost does not include the work that will have to be done at the intersections along Northborne, because that will be taken out of another budget – roads or some such.

It’s a shame that there is not enough confidence in our Assembly to be able to trust that what they say is for real.

Also a sad state of affairs that they are not prepared to put this contentious & expensive item to the electorate, but prefer to nail down contracts before there is a chance for the community to have a say.

I would feel a little better if the Liberal leader were more able to express & quantify the opposition position. Sadly, the last time I saw him trying to defend his position, on the ABC, the performance was pathetic. Considering how long this issue has been being discussed, why does he not have a fully costed & detailed alternative to offer us instead of just saying “No”, and waffle about improving buses.

By the way, the original consultants report on the light rail project had the trams along the footpath edges of Northborne Ave, where passengers could alight directly onto the footpath, not onto the median strip. This option did not involve the removal of all the trees, nor did it place those alighting from the tram in the same level of danger of becoming pedestrian casualties on the road.

Why was the public not told of this option? Why did they opt for the option where wholesale tree removal was required?

Did someone mention open Government?

It’s funny how the government opted for the cheapest option when they sneakily bought land adjacent to the Mugga Lane landfill and then decided to extend its life another 20 years.
The trams adjacect to the footpath alignment is by far the best and the cheapest but wait, that’s not the way they do things in Europe is it and we must do the same whatever the cost.

How does it work out cheaper? It would be more expensive as you would have to rip up 50% more space for 2x single alignments compared to 1x double alignment and more disruptive as they would have to close down 1.5 lanes of traffic on Northborne ave which would also increase the cost.

It would be cheaper because the road bed, which is constructed to carry much greater axle loadings than trams have (like buses), is already there.
The median strip will have to excavated to a depth below where the underground services are (incredibly expensive relocation required) and a new base constructed.
I am surprised you didn’t know that.

I have never ever seen a new tram line laid by taking up the road surface and plonking tracks down onto the existing road bed. Which is what I suspect you are taking about. They need far greater excavation than that for foundations, often with multiple conduits installed below for signlaling and electrical cables.

It would be good if it were that easy because it would bring costs down but sadly it isn’t.

gooterz said :

I think another key point missed is that the PPP is likely only for part of the work.
So while the government pats itself on the back for a cheaper PPP than expected. Hopefully this includes all the public works, not just the tram parts.

If the government has to spend 100’s of millions on remediation outside the contract moving services and losing out on parking and making alternatives this should also be included as tram costs not ‘other’.

I wonder what the cost of getting a train to run from Tuggeranong to Civic would be? Given there is already a line between Tuggeranong and Kingston. A slight extension could give a fast public transport between the two centres.

Light rail is NOT about connecting two centres. It is about servicing what is along the route. In the case of this proposal it is the high density housing that is already along the route and planned for the route. It will not be viable to any other town centre except maybe Molonglo and possibly Woden if Adelaide Ave were to be redeveloped into high density housing. Something not very likely.

dungfungus said :

IdlePeasant said :

JC said :

Something servicing a car park close to a terminal is one thing. Scaling that to service a sparse city is another thing altogether.

Google have had their autonomous cars driving around the United States for months (thousands upon thousands of driving hours) now, and the cars have never once been involved in an incident that was the fault of the software. They have also stated that their software would be available to car manufacturers as early as 2020, so I think we’re past the stage where autonomous cars are unrealistic.

If an autonomous car breaks a traffic regulation does it need an autonomous policeman to pull it over?

Interestingly according to mr Wiki one of the problems with the Google cars is they don’t pull over for the fuz. To be fixed by 2020 apparently. I wouldn’t be getting in one in America if it didn’t pull over for the cops, over there you would get shot at for failing to stop.

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

It’s funny how the government opted for the cheapest option when they sneakily bought land adjacent to the Mugga Lane landfill and then decided to extend its life another 20 years.
The trams adjacect to the footpath alignment is by far the best and the cheapest but wait, that’s not the way they do things in Europe is it and we must do the same whatever the cost.

How does it work out cheaper? It would be more expensive as you would have to rip up 50% more space for 2x single alignments compared to 1x double alignment and more disruptive as they would have to close down 1.5 lanes of traffic on Northborne ave which would also increase the cost.

The Melbourne trams fit in one road lane.

The CAF Urbos vehicles proposed for Capital Metro are 23.6m long by either 2.4m or 2.65m wide, which easily fits in the standard right of way of light rail as specified in the Edmonton data of 3.5m which allows for parallel rail operation with allowance for the clearance required for passing trains on curves.

According to:

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/396857/ds03_roaddesign.pdf

The standard road lane in the ACT is 3.5m. Whether that is what was applied to Northbourne Ave I don’t know but assessing the general wastefulness and exaggerated infrastructure that was put in place in early Canberra I am guessing may even be exceeded.

The new tram tracks that I observed in Zurich were being laid in the kerbside lanes. The bitumen was removed, then modular open 10 concrete sleeper sets were laid end to end, followed by soil and grass infill. It was a very speedy process. I believe Hume Concrete Australia has the sleeper modular sets as one of their off catalogue products.

I believe that the Canberra Light Rail should not go down the centre of a very busy multilane road as the cars are already destroying that space. It should do what light rail does best which is penetrate the urban spaces going through the heart of populated areas to be close to the commuters and pass straight through popular destinations, not avoid them as the roads do because they are so dangerous and noisy.

I have proposed all along a much more handy line through the heart of Canberra City maybe even through City Walk or Bunda Street, up Lonsdale Street to Dickson and beyond. What it loses in initial engineering convenience it makes up for in lifelong commuter convenience, available and visible to where people live, work and play.

Figure 2.10.1 in the General Guidelines for the Design of Light Rail Transit Facilities in Edmonton

http://www.trolleycoalition.org/pdf/lrtreport.pdf

…shows the trade off between the frequency of stops and the overall speed of operation. What most designs do not account for is the commuter access time, ie how long it takes from real destinations to embarkation.

Where this whole nonsensical debate has gone off the rails (sic) is that the argument has revolved around massive false claims by the irrational anti-Light Rail/Pro Car Lobby and the counter deceptions by the ACT Government which treads a careful line between the extreme misinformation of their opponents and the lack of awareness, thinking or knowledge of the general public who don’t plan ahead of what’s for dinner. Leading to a policy designed to get by the very people who give it no thought.

In the famous words of Mrs. Patrick Campbell about the behaviour of two fellow actors, “Does it really matter … so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!”

The level of debate has been at the same level as Who Magazine on the Kardashian’s arses.

Of course they fit into a single lane. But to construct that lane, which is what I was talking about you would have to close 1.5 lanes.

And does every response need to get into a rant? Doing that people stop listening, even me who is quite clearly on the pro side.

dungfungus said :

IdlePeasant said :

JC said :

Something servicing a car park close to a terminal is one thing. Scaling that to service a sparse city is another thing altogether.

Google have had their autonomous cars driving around the United States for months (thousands upon thousands of driving hours) now, and the cars have never once been involved in an incident that was the fault of the software. They have also stated that their software would be available to car manufacturers as early as 2020, so I think we’re past the stage where autonomous cars are unrealistic.

If an autonomous car breaks a traffic regulation does it need an autonomous policeman to pull it over?

Knowing the current government it’ll have to fine itself.

rubaiyat said :

ungruntled said :

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

It would seem that Canada is suffering a severe case of LRTS (Light Rail Train Syndrome)
http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com%2Ffp-comment%2Flight-rail-disease

Don’t let LRTS happen to us…

The only other cure is to wait until the public teat is dry.

…from blowing far more on cars and freeways.

But then we have put up with COS (Car Obsession Syndrome) for far longer and look what it has done to our cities, children, lifestyles and waistlines.

When the car obsessed metropolis of Los Angeles says enough is enough, that it is sick of the cost, the crawling peak hour traffic, the concrete caverns dividing the city, the dead urban spaces, the pollution, deaths and injuries and turns to the sensible electric driven solution, even the most obstinately obtuse should finally open their minds.

If we had some open minds in our Assembly, this whole thing would have been approached quite differently.
First, they would have started by assessing the problem
Then they would have looked at ALL the available options – including new technologies.
Then they would have offered the options in a clearly laid out format with all the options, their pros & cons, their costs – upfront & ongoing, the social as well as economic implications.
Lastly, they would have left it with the community to think about and discuss for 12 months before implementing.
I know the Assembly says they did all this, but what they say doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

As they did with every single freeway they have poured money into? Or the horrendously expensive Cotter Road duplication or the Russell Office underpass that I counted makes pedestrians now cross 6 busy roads to get from one side to the other.

But stuff everyone who isn’t car obsessed!

…and shhh, let’s not talk about the pollution. Huh wah pollution? We have pollution?

Rubaiyat,
Can I assume from your comments that
a. you are fit & able?
b. you are unable to consider that those in need of personal transport are unable to consider community issues like protection of our natural world from pollution and the resulting climate change?
c. you also consider that the development of transport facilities for all the community are somehow selfish because the have been superceded but not yet replaced?
At this time, roads are transport for everyone. That doesn’t mean that they will always be. Just that they are now.

IdlePeasant said :

JC said :

Something servicing a car park close to a terminal is one thing. Scaling that to service a sparse city is another thing altogether.

Google have had their autonomous cars driving around the United States for months (thousands upon thousands of driving hours) now, and the cars have never once been involved in an incident that was the fault of the software. They have also stated that their software would be available to car manufacturers as early as 2020, so I think we’re past the stage where autonomous cars are unrealistic.

If an autonomous car breaks a traffic regulation does it need an autonomous policeman to pull it over?

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat said :

The Joy of Maths.

13,000 parked cars parked is 200/kilometre, 65 kilometres when not moving.

ie 5.5 completely packed lanes stretching from Gungahlin to the City.

When moving (if they can) add an extra space for each 10km/hr.

The ultimate long car park is what ACT planners obviously planned for when they made us Car City ACT.

Light Rail is a discrete, quiet, clean, 2 tracks down the middle of the green verge, with a train passing at most every 6 minutes. No way we can have that!

You are still missing the point completely. $698million++ of construction, $204million of running cost and multiple excluded from contract costs will mean that we are spending $10s of thousands of dollars on this tiny sub section of commuters. Commuters we are not even certain will embrace a slow and inflexible tram.

By contrast this successful autonomous solution at Heathrow (obviously different to Gunghalin-Civic link) has been enormously successful and only a third the cost per km of trams and each trip involves average wait of about 12 seconds! And here’s the thing, that’s 6 year old technology. Autonomous is screaming ahead.

From Wiki, just think about this:
“The first system began passenger trials at London Heathrow Airport, Terminal 5, in October 2010 and opened for full passenger service 22 hours a day, 7 days a week, in May 2011. Operational statistics in May 2012 demonstrate >99% reliability and an average passenger wait time over the year of 10 seconds.

It connects Heathrow Terminal 5 to its business passenger car park, just north of the airport, by a 3.9-kilometre (2.4 mi) line built on behalf of BAA, the airport’s owner and operator. The system cost £30 million to develop.

Construction of the guideway was completed in October 2008. The line is largely elevated, but includes a ground level section where the route passes under the approach to the airport’s northern runway. Following various trials, including some using airport staff as test passengers, the line opened to the public in May 2011 as a passenger trial. Subsequently it was made fully operational and the bus service between the business car park and Terminal 5 was discontinued.The pods use 50% less energy than a bus. They run 22 hours a day. As of May 2013 the system passed the 600,000th passenger milestone.

The developers expect that users will wait an average of around 12 seconds, with 95% of passengers waiting for less than one minute for their private pod which will travel at up to 40 kilometres per hour (25 mph).”

Why would we even consider plonking a billion we can’t afford on trams??

The only reason Labor has pushed ahead with this millstone (both shortly after the last election and beyond) is because Labor made a deal with the self-serving Green to save their political @rses. At that moment, they lost all respect.
The alleged ‘rationale’ they continue to feel obliged to spruik (and spend OUR money on) is actually ‘justification’, i.e. vain attempts to disguise the real reason by greenwashing and other means. But this light rail millstone is now coming round full circle.
I can hardly wait till the election when I will take great pleasure in putting all Labor and Green candidates last on my ballot paper. Goodbye, megalomaniac, ‘actually useless at governing’ government, and good riddance.

ABS projections based on “medium growth” have Canberra’s population at 586,000 by 2040.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/3222.0Media%20Release12012%20(base)%20to%202101

It could be higher it could be lower but past projections have been fairly on target, so no point burying your head in the sands and ignoring it.

OpenYourMind said :

You are still missing the point completely. $698million++ of construction, $204million of running cost and multiple excluded from contract costs

Back those figures up.

From the Capital Metro Business Case in full.pdf:

p95 Table 23 Summary of project costs (real $m from 2015 to 2048)

Total project costs Present value from 2015 to 2048 (prior operation to 30 years of full service) was $823 million at current cost of the report.

p85 Table 16 Operating, maintenance and lifecycle costs

The first 20 years (2019 – 2039) are under the PPP operation.

Do you have anything that contradicts or updates those figures?

Do you have an alternately fully costed transport system doing the same job, that will still be able to bear the traffic required 30 years hence?

My quick calculations for roads and cars just for the next 20 years laid out above was vastly more than that.

Just the purchase of equivalent cars needed (not even moving) required more than the cost of the whole fully operational Light Rail System.

No “operational expenses” for the cars and roads, and ignoring the massive resumptions and damage all the cars and roads would do to Canberra.

I have a clear idea what a pair of tracks running up the middle of the Nourthbourne Avenue verge, surrounded by trees, will look like.

What will your road based infrastructure in the same space look like in 2048 when Canberra should have passed 600,000 in population?

Just how much environmental damage will have been done in those 30 years?

Just how unpleasant will Northbourne Avenue be when it becomes our Parramatta Road?

I think another key point missed is that the PPP is likely only for part of the work.
So while the government pats itself on the back for a cheaper PPP than expected. Hopefully this includes all the public works, not just the tram parts.

If the government has to spend 100’s of millions on remediation outside the contract moving services and losing out on parking and making alternatives this should also be included as tram costs not ‘other’.

I wonder what the cost of getting a train to run from Tuggeranong to Civic would be? Given there is already a line between Tuggeranong and Kingston. A slight extension could give a fast public transport between the two centres.

Looking at the specs for the CAF Urbos they are very flexible and easily extended to increase capacity and efficiency, without doing anything to the rights of way.

The very thing roads miserably fail at. Roads just get worse and more inefficient the more capacity you try to force into them. A simple in your face fact.

Most interesting is “off wire capability”. So it seems they can do what the NSW Liberals’ (pay attention ACT Liberals!) Sydney Light Rail will do, which is free run between station charges without overhead cables.

Before I hear the tiresome “but Canberra is not Sydney”, well Capital Metro is not Sydney’s huge transport infrastructure either. The old petrolheads, here who can’t imagine Canberra ever growing up or changing, never moan that Canberra’s ridiculously expensive freeways will “Bankrupt us, because we are not L.A., or Sydney or Melbourne!”

JC said :

dungfungus said :

It’s funny how the government opted for the cheapest option when they sneakily bought land adjacent to the Mugga Lane landfill and then decided to extend its life another 20 years.
The trams adjacect to the footpath alignment is by far the best and the cheapest but wait, that’s not the way they do things in Europe is it and we must do the same whatever the cost.

How does it work out cheaper? It would be more expensive as you would have to rip up 50% more space for 2x single alignments compared to 1x double alignment and more disruptive as they would have to close down 1.5 lanes of traffic on Northborne ave which would also increase the cost.

The Melbourne trams fit in one road lane.

The CAF Urbos vehicles proposed for Capital Metro are 23.6m long by either 2.4m or 2.65m wide, which easily fits in the standard right of way of light rail as specified in the Edmonton data of 3.5m which allows for parallel rail operation with allowance for the clearance required for passing trains on curves.

According to:

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/396857/ds03_roaddesign.pdf

The standard road lane in the ACT is 3.5m. Whether that is what was applied to Northbourne Ave I don’t know but assessing the general wastefulness and exaggerated infrastructure that was put in place in early Canberra I am guessing may even be exceeded.

The new tram tracks that I observed in Zurich were being laid in the kerbside lanes. The bitumen was removed, then modular open 10 concrete sleeper sets were laid end to end, followed by soil and grass infill. It was a very speedy process. I believe Hume Concrete Australia has the sleeper modular sets as one of their off catalogue products.

I believe that the Canberra Light Rail should not go down the centre of a very busy multilane road as the cars are already destroying that space. It should do what light rail does best which is penetrate the urban spaces going through the heart of populated areas to be close to the commuters and pass straight through popular destinations, not avoid them as the roads do because they are so dangerous and noisy.

I have proposed all along a much more handy line through the heart of Canberra City maybe even through City Walk or Bunda Street, up Lonsdale Street to Dickson and beyond. What it loses in initial engineering convenience it makes up for in lifelong commuter convenience, available and visible to where people live, work and play.

Figure 2.10.1 in the General Guidelines for the Design of Light Rail Transit Facilities in Edmonton

http://www.trolleycoalition.org/pdf/lrtreport.pdf

…shows the trade off between the frequency of stops and the overall speed of operation. What most designs do not account for is the commuter access time, ie how long it takes from real destinations to embarkation.

Where this whole nonsensical debate has gone off the rails (sic) is that the argument has revolved around massive false claims by the irrational anti-Light Rail/Pro Car Lobby and the counter deceptions by the ACT Government which treads a careful line between the extreme misinformation of their opponents and the lack of awareness, thinking or knowledge of the general public who don’t plan ahead of what’s for dinner. Leading to a policy designed to get by the very people who give it no thought.

In the famous words of Mrs. Patrick Campbell about the behaviour of two fellow actors, “Does it really matter … so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!”

The level of debate has been at the same level as Who Magazine on the Kardashian’s arses.

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat said :

The Joy of Maths.

13,000 parked cars parked is 200/kilometre, 65 kilometres when not moving.

ie 5.5 completely packed lanes stretching from Gungahlin to the City.

When moving (if they can) add an extra space for each 10km/hr.

The ultimate long car park is what ACT planners obviously planned for when they made us Car City ACT.

Light Rail is a discrete, quiet, clean, 2 tracks down the middle of the green verge, with a train passing at most every 6 minutes. No way we can have that!

You are still missing the point completely. $698million++ of construction, $204million of running cost and multiple excluded from contract costs will mean that we are spending $10s of thousands of dollars on this tiny sub section of commuters. Commuters we are not even certain will embrace a slow and inflexible tram.

By contrast this successful autonomous solution at Heathrow (obviously different to Gunghalin-Civic link) has been enormously successful and only a third the cost per km of trams and each trip involves average wait of about 12 seconds! And here’s the thing, that’s 6 year old technology. Autonomous is screaming ahead.

From Wiki, just think about this:
“The first system began passenger trials at London Heathrow Airport, Terminal 5, in October 2010 and opened for full passenger service 22 hours a day, 7 days a week, in May 2011. Operational statistics in May 2012 demonstrate >99% reliability and an average passenger wait time over the year of 10 seconds.

It connects Heathrow Terminal 5 to its business passenger car park, just north of the airport, by a 3.9-kilometre (2.4 mi) line built on behalf of BAA, the airport’s owner and operator. The system cost £30 million to develop.

Construction of the guideway was completed in October 2008. The line is largely elevated, but includes a ground level section where the route passes under the approach to the airport’s northern runway. Following various trials, including some using airport staff as test passengers, the line opened to the public in May 2011 as a passenger trial. Subsequently it was made fully operational and the bus service between the business car park and Terminal 5 was discontinued.The pods use 50% less energy than a bus. They run 22 hours a day. As of May 2013 the system passed the 600,000th passenger milestone.

The developers expect that users will wait an average of around 12 seconds, with 95% of passengers waiting for less than one minute for their private pod which will travel at up to 40 kilometres per hour (25 mph).”

Why would we even consider plonking a billion we can’t afford on trams??

Because it isn’t a billion.

The Heathrow car park shuttle is a very light weight system, each little electric cart only carries a few people and their luggage and very slowly. It only carried as many people in 5 years as the Gungahlin Light Rail will in a month and a half, and only over a fifth of the distance.

The pods only move a few hundred people a day.

All these fiddly pretend cars do not eliminate the problem of cars. Lots of individual transport units inefficiently moving individuals along concentrated routes cluttering up the space available and using vastly too much energy and space to do so. Turning the route into an impassable wide noisy barrier that divides our city.

Go off and have a think about what that system would look like to move 40 x the people over 5 x the distance twice a day. Simple maths extrapolates the “£30 million to develop” to at least £6 billion ($12 billion) to “develop” for the Gungahlin line working off your vague figures. You conveniently don’t mention the real cost nor the operating cost nor what does “50% less energy than a bus” mean in real units, and what that compares to light rail which is extremely efficient.

So you are grasping at a project that most of us here already knew about, that will cost 13 to 14 times the light rail for a slow joy road around airport car parks, and never mixes with heavy traffic.

I really do not understand how if we can afford the vastly more expensive cars/roads, how the much cheaper Light Rail is unaffordable. Particularly once built, most of the money, energy and employment stays within the ACT, unlike the cars where most of the money flows out of the ACT.

But you just make up figures. First the cost of building it then the vastly exaggerated operational cost which from the Metro report will be $5million/year rising to $94 million after 30 years.

So your whole premise is based on false costs, vague details, ignored performance, absolutely ignoring the energy and environmental costs, and most of all the consequences and noise of the tens of thousands of individual vehicles cutting down a narrow corridor through the middle of the city ruining the neighbourhood to left and right.

Even more than the cars are already doing, and with no regard to how this will even vaguely meet the needs of a city double this size in the next 20-30 years.

IdlePeasant said :

JC said :

Something servicing a car park close to a terminal is one thing. Scaling that to service a sparse city is another thing altogether.

Google have had their autonomous cars driving around the United States for months (thousands upon thousands of driving hours) now, and the cars have never once been involved in an incident that was the fault of the software. They have also stated that their software would be available to car manufacturers as early as 2020, so I think we’re past the stage where autonomous cars are unrealistic.

Hats not what was in the link I was replying to. The linked article was talking about the Heathrow pods.

As for google car, yes it can drive itself, but that doesn’t mean it solves any congestion issues, not does it give them somewhere to park.

OpenYourMind11:25 am 07 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

curmudgery said :

I sense an appropriateness in the idea that the future line to Tuggeranong should be reserved for steam transportation. There’s something delightfully old-world about the sight, sound and smell of steam – it’s enough to make one alliterate.

Thoughtfully-designed coal bunkers could provide a canvas for artists to daub and these would sit well, I think, with the existing works of art en-route. Water towers not unlike pendulous breasts would be in keeping with previous managerial initiatives.

I’d put the change-over platform near Mooseheads.

…and that fellow with the red flag that used to walk in front of the all the 19th century cars could have done it the other day as I was stuck in 4 lanes of traffic on the Tuggeranong Parkway, trying to get off the Scrivener Dam turn off heading south.

Bet you were driving a car too. Previously you have stated in RiotACT that you have kids at Grammar and own a Ski Lodge. I’ll run my money you don’t take public transport to get to either of these. You, like many others, are most likely to be a strong advocate of public transport…so long as you don’t have to use it. That said, standing on a tram for a 13km journey I can do faster on my bike is not my idea of fun either.

OpenYourMind10:48 am 07 Feb 16

IdlePeasant said :

JC said :

Something servicing a car park close to a terminal is one thing. Scaling that to service a sparse city is another thing altogether.

Google have had their autonomous cars driving around the United States for months (thousands upon thousands of driving hours) now, and the cars have never once been involved in an incident that was the fault of the software. They have also stated that their software would be available to car manufacturers as early as 2020, so I think we’re past the stage where autonomous cars are unrealistic.

Let’s not forget that Tesla has 90,000 cars enabled with Auto Pilot clocking up millions of kms of experience a day and feeding that back to a central repository. Owners are finding that their car may struggle with a situation one day and the next it has learnt how to handle it. Imagine this tech 10 years from now!

rubaiyat said :

For all of you who reckon pollution has nothing to do with this debate, try sitting in your car, in the garage with the engine running. Ignoring it.

Hmmm, no takers?

What was the outcome when you tried it?

JC said :

dungfungus said :

ungruntled said :

I would really like to see the numbers for this development clearly laid out.

One piece of information that has passed me is that the cost does not include the work that will have to be done at the intersections along Northborne, because that will be taken out of another budget – roads or some such.

It’s a shame that there is not enough confidence in our Assembly to be able to trust that what they say is for real.

Also a sad state of affairs that they are not prepared to put this contentious & expensive item to the electorate, but prefer to nail down contracts before there is a chance for the community to have a say.

I would feel a little better if the Liberal leader were more able to express & quantify the opposition position. Sadly, the last time I saw him trying to defend his position, on the ABC, the performance was pathetic. Considering how long this issue has been being discussed, why does he not have a fully costed & detailed alternative to offer us instead of just saying “No”, and waffle about improving buses.

By the way, the original consultants report on the light rail project had the trams along the footpath edges of Northborne Ave, where passengers could alight directly onto the footpath, not onto the median strip. This option did not involve the removal of all the trees, nor did it place those alighting from the tram in the same level of danger of becoming pedestrian casualties on the road.

Why was the public not told of this option? Why did they opt for the option where wholesale tree removal was required?

Did someone mention open Government?

It’s funny how the government opted for the cheapest option when they sneakily bought land adjacent to the Mugga Lane landfill and then decided to extend its life another 20 years.
The trams adjacect to the footpath alignment is by far the best and the cheapest but wait, that’s not the way they do things in Europe is it and we must do the same whatever the cost.

How does it work out cheaper? It would be more expensive as you would have to rip up 50% more space for 2x single alignments compared to 1x double alignment and more disruptive as they would have to close down 1.5 lanes of traffic on Northborne ave which would also increase the cost.

It would be cheaper because the road bed, which is constructed to carry much greater axle loadings than trams have (like buses), is already there.
The median strip will have to excavated to a depth below where the underground services are (incredibly expensive relocation required) and a new base constructed.
I am surprised you didn’t know that.

$800,000,000 / 145,000 (number of ACT Households) = $5,517 per household

wildturkeycanoe8:16 am 07 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

Mass rail transport moves the large number of peak hour commuters, in large groups, on highly efficient electric powered vehicles on steel rails.

But it doesn’t get most of the people to where they are going. Your statement assumes that all the passengers are going from one point on the route to another point on the route. Has anyone actually done a survey of commuters traveling on Northbourne Ave to see where they are coming from and going to? I do not believe for a second they are all going to the City Center. If they did, there’d be no cars going over Commonwealth Avenue bridge, nothing going east on Parkes Way, Fairbairn Ave would be empty. The carparks in the Canberra Center would need to fit fifty to sixty thousand vehicles according to your overblown calculations. I don’t see that many spaces there, it is more like 10,000 or so at an exaggerated count. People will still need to use cars or buses to complete their tram journey, or to begin it in the first place. Where does this extra transport link come from? Buses, taxis, Uber?
The one big factor that goes against the tram and public transport in general, is that it isn’t flexible or convenient. Due to the need for connections at either end of the route and the extra time it takes, people will inevitably go back to their car. We are time-poor culture, everything must be done immediately. If we were all retired and didn’t have deadlines to meet, the tram would be fine, but most workers do not have the luxury of waiting around for a bus or walking five blocks in the rain to get to their workplace.
It seems the patronage figures that support the tram’s financial viability assume too much, that everyone in Gungahlin will be aboard. In time, unfortunately, we will see this to be a falsehood as the seats remain empty and running costs put the carriages back into the depot for retirement.

bj_ACT said :

Postalgeek said :

gooterz said :

Its like going to buy google shares now. If any benefit its at risk of very high cost and low payoff.
However it looks good because if you bought google back in 1995 you are a millionaire today.

Buying Google shares in 1995 would’ve been quite the accomplishment, given that Google wasn’t even incorporated until 1998 and floated in 2004.

Yep good call, but I bet you Googled that.

🙂 burn of the week! Well done bj_ACT

dungfungus said :

ungruntled said :

I would really like to see the numbers for this development clearly laid out.

One piece of information that has passed me is that the cost does not include the work that will have to be done at the intersections along Northborne, because that will be taken out of another budget – roads or some such.

It’s a shame that there is not enough confidence in our Assembly to be able to trust that what they say is for real.

Also a sad state of affairs that they are not prepared to put this contentious & expensive item to the electorate, but prefer to nail down contracts before there is a chance for the community to have a say.

I would feel a little better if the Liberal leader were more able to express & quantify the opposition position. Sadly, the last time I saw him trying to defend his position, on the ABC, the performance was pathetic. Considering how long this issue has been being discussed, why does he not have a fully costed & detailed alternative to offer us instead of just saying “No”, and waffle about improving buses.

By the way, the original consultants report on the light rail project had the trams along the footpath edges of Northborne Ave, where passengers could alight directly onto the footpath, not onto the median strip. This option did not involve the removal of all the trees, nor did it place those alighting from the tram in the same level of danger of becoming pedestrian casualties on the road.

Why was the public not told of this option? Why did they opt for the option where wholesale tree removal was required?

Did someone mention open Government?

It’s funny how the government opted for the cheapest option when they sneakily bought land adjacent to the Mugga Lane landfill and then decided to extend its life another 20 years.
The trams adjacect to the footpath alignment is by far the best and the cheapest but wait, that’s not the way they do things in Europe is it and we must do the same whatever the cost.

How does it work out cheaper? It would be more expensive as you would have to rip up 50% more space for 2x single alignments compared to 1x double alignment and more disruptive as they would have to close down 1.5 lanes of traffic on Northborne ave which would also increase the cost.

JC said :

Something servicing a car park close to a terminal is one thing. Scaling that to service a sparse city is another thing altogether.

Google have had their autonomous cars driving around the United States for months (thousands upon thousands of driving hours) now, and the cars have never once been involved in an incident that was the fault of the software. They have also stated that their software would be available to car manufacturers as early as 2020, so I think we’re past the stage where autonomous cars are unrealistic.

Anyone willing to put money on the speed limit post tram will be 40 or 50km/h for most of its length?

It would be pretty unsafe to have people running for trams in 60/80km/h traffic.

Plus then the side effect it might actually make the Tram quicker.

Driverless cars will start a new industry, that wont be office based. How cheap will home deliveries be, anyone who can will be working from home. Online shopping will kill retail.

rubaiyat said :

Transport should not destroy the city it serves:

So a riskly billion dollar tram wont do that financially?

You’d never guess they spent over $300 million on that just a little while ago!

curmudgery said :

I sense an appropriateness in the idea that the future line to Tuggeranong should be reserved for steam transportation. There’s something delightfully old-world about the sight, sound and smell of steam – it’s enough to make one alliterate.

Thoughtfully-designed coal bunkers could provide a canvas for artists to daub and these would sit well, I think, with the existing works of art en-route. Water towers not unlike pendulous breasts would be in keeping with previous managerial initiatives.

I’d put the change-over platform near Mooseheads.

…and that fellow with the red flag that used to walk in front of the all the 19th century cars could have done it the other day as I was stuck in 4 lanes of traffic on the Tuggeranong Parkway, trying to get off the Scrivener Dam turn off heading south.

Autonomous Hoverboards are the future.

Don’t waste one cent more on freeways, roads, car parks, middle eastern oil or tennis balls on your Kingswood tow bars.

All those 100 year old cars are looking pretty silly now!

For all of you who reckon pollution has nothing to do with this debate, try sitting in your car, in the garage with the engine running. Ignoring it.

Hmmm, no takers?

ungruntled said :

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

It would seem that Canada is suffering a severe case of LRTS (Light Rail Train Syndrome)
http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com%2Ffp-comment%2Flight-rail-disease

Don’t let LRTS happen to us…

The only other cure is to wait until the public teat is dry.

…from blowing far more on cars and freeways.

But then we have put up with COS (Car Obsession Syndrome) for far longer and look what it has done to our cities, children, lifestyles and waistlines.

When the car obsessed metropolis of Los Angeles says enough is enough, that it is sick of the cost, the crawling peak hour traffic, the concrete caverns dividing the city, the dead urban spaces, the pollution, deaths and injuries and turns to the sensible electric driven solution, even the most obstinately obtuse should finally open their minds.

If we had some open minds in our Assembly, this whole thing would have been approached quite differently.
First, they would have started by assessing the problem
Then they would have looked at ALL the available options – including new technologies.
Then they would have offered the options in a clearly laid out format with all the options, their pros & cons, their costs – upfront & ongoing, the social as well as economic implications.
Lastly, they would have left it with the community to think about and discuss for 12 months before implementing.
I know the Assembly says they did all this, but what they say doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

As they did with every single freeway they have poured money into? Or the horrendously expensive Cotter Road duplication or the Russell Office underpass that I counted makes pedestrians now cross 6 busy roads to get from one side to the other.

But stuff everyone who isn’t car obsessed!

…and shhh, let’s not talk about the pollution. Huh wah pollution? We have pollution?

dungfungus said :

The trams adjacect to the footpath alignment is by far the best and the cheapest but wait, that’s not the way they do things in Europe is it and we must do the same whatever the cost.

Weren’t you the one saying they would fall over because of the camber, or kill all the pedestrians on the footpath, or fall off because of black ice, or not be able to climb the gradient, or any other of endless: “Aw, I dun wike it!”.

You know I’m starting to think you don’t like this government or anything it does, and just object to everything, because that’s just what you do.

ungruntled said :

I would really like to see the numbers for this development clearly laid out.

One piece of information that has passed me is that the cost does not include the work that will have to be done at the intersections along Northborne, because that will be taken out of another budget – roads or some such.

It’s a shame that there is not enough confidence in our Assembly to be able to trust that what they say is for real.

Also a sad state of affairs that they are not prepared to put this contentious & expensive item to the electorate, but prefer to nail down contracts before there is a chance for the community to have a say.

I would feel a little better if the Liberal leader were more able to express & quantify the opposition position. Sadly, the last time I saw him trying to defend his position, on the ABC, the performance was pathetic. Considering how long this issue has been being discussed, why does he not have a fully costed & detailed alternative to offer us instead of just saying “No”, and waffle about improving buses.

By the way, the original consultants report on the light rail project had the trams along the footpath edges of Northborne Ave, where passengers could alight directly onto the footpath, not onto the median strip. This option did not involve the removal of all the trees, nor did it place those alighting from the tram in the same level of danger of becoming pedestrian casualties on the road.

Why was the public not told of this option? Why did they opt for the option where wholesale tree removal was required?

Did someone mention open Government?

It’s funny how the government opted for the cheapest option when they sneakily bought land adjacent to the Mugga Lane landfill and then decided to extend its life another 20 years.
The trams adjacect to the footpath alignment is by far the best and the cheapest but wait, that’s not the way they do things in Europe is it and we must do the same whatever the cost.

OpenYourMind said :

As per the Action bus thread, here’s an example of why autonomous technology is about to make a tram seem so completely and utterly ridiculous.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422307/London-s-driverless-cars-adapted-shuttle-pods-used-Heathrow-s-Terminal-5.html

Not new, I saw that ages ago, and saving people a short walk that would have done them good in a car park is not mass transport. The equivalent of the electric golf carts that let people avoid the exercise they supposedly went to the course to get. Have you seen this Not Cheap technology anywhere else?

Trouble is people want their cake and eat it.

Mass rail transport moves the large number of peak hour commuters, in large groups, on highly efficient electric powered vehicles on steel rails. Electric rail transport uses 2% the energy of fossil fuel driven vehicles on rubber tyres. Still the most efficient transport outside of bicycles. The rest of the time it keeps things ticking over at less frequent intervals.

People are however selfish, not too bright and think they can have whatever they want sitting all on their own in their cars in peak hour, but not everyone else will. So they ultimately end up in massive traffic congestion, getting in each others way. Whilst similarly ignoring what they are doing to the city with their choices and the planet with their pollution.

No matter how this happens to them nearly every single time they try it, they pretend that it is not normal, just “a bad day”.

They also tell themselves “nobody saw this coming”, because they ignored it and everybody who warned them that this would obviously happen.

As I said not too bright.

They want to haul their large lump of metal around with them, everywhere. Even getting another lump of metal on the golf course or in the car park, just to avoid what they really need, which is daily exercise.

Then they again complain bitterly when they can’t just dump their large lump of metal wherever they want in the street, because everybody else is doing exactly the same thing. They ignore the extra unnecessary driving and expense as they circle around for a parking spot and that they haven’t ultimately been able to get to exactly where they wanted to get because they had to dispose of their car first. Then they have to come back for it, crossing their fingers they haven’t been slugged with a fine.

They also whine on endlessly about the cost of any choice but their own, which is next to the most expensive going. Only limos, taxis, uber and ultimately the Miraculous Autonomous Car. At least with the AC they will be slugged with the full cost which the suppliers will endeavor to hide with auto deductions or the like. Still sliding past all the hidden cost of the roads, pollution and urban destructiveness of overblown inefficient transport systems.

Just as they have let international corporations slip money surreptitiously out of their back pocket unnoticed with credit card purchases generally, they will be eased into paying a lot more for their choices. Autonomous cars are not going to be cheap, at best they will be somewhere between owning your own car and driving it, which is already expensive and Uber which is a slightly cheaper (sometimes wildly more expensive) taxi service.

Any potential success the system may have will be:

1. Stymied by all the non-AC vehicles, that will still get in the way

2. The extra vehicle movements inherent in shuffling them not from A to B but from A to C to D to G to M to F and maybe eventually to B, then having to move them all back again or off to park somewhere in the ‘burbs, which was one of the bright suggestions. Or even all the way back home, if you own one outright.

3. The ride sharing notion is just a sop and will still be ride sharing and just as popular because who’ll take their chances with strangers in an isolated vehicle? Or put up with all the delays and detours, especially if you live out at whoop whoop and there is no-one else nearby, or at a time no-one else is traveling.

4. Just another fancy expensive taxi service.

5. About the same inefficiency (not very) as cars today. Maybe a little temporary gain rapidly lost by greater usage, just like cars today, And STILL requiring massive freeways that will STILL require massive expenditure and STILL generate massive noise and divide up our cities to make them as unpleasant for everybody as do the existing roads, STILL paid for by the government but somehow not “socialism”.

In a world with larger growing populations the clear choice is transport systems designed for moving large numbers efficiently, not individuals extremely inefficiently and at the expense of the city as a whole.

People could be more rational and just take themselves to where they were going without the 1-2 tonnes of baggage. But rational has nothing to do with this.

A lot of money to be made out of Claytons’ solutions: eCigarettes for people who just won’t give up their addiction, home delivered “fresh” diets that fail, drugs to fix lifestyle health problems, and now the Autonomous Car that won’t fix the real problem of inefficiently moving too many unnecessary vehicles, too great distances, too often.

All to dupe the same people who keep going on about “100 year old transport”, desperate to maintain their bad choice of a 100 year old transport that has ruined our cities and is trashing our planet.

OpenYourMind12:31 pm 06 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

The Joy of Maths.

13,000 parked cars parked is 200/kilometre, 65 kilometres when not moving.

ie 5.5 completely packed lanes stretching from Gungahlin to the City.

When moving (if they can) add an extra space for each 10km/hr.

The ultimate long car park is what ACT planners obviously planned for when they made us Car City ACT.

Light Rail is a discrete, quiet, clean, 2 tracks down the middle of the green verge, with a train passing at most every 6 minutes. No way we can have that!

You are still missing the point completely. $698million++ of construction, $204million of running cost and multiple excluded from contract costs will mean that we are spending $10s of thousands of dollars on this tiny sub section of commuters. Commuters we are not even certain will embrace a slow and inflexible tram.

By contrast this successful autonomous solution at Heathrow (obviously different to Gunghalin-Civic link) has been enormously successful and only a third the cost per km of trams and each trip involves average wait of about 12 seconds! And here’s the thing, that’s 6 year old technology. Autonomous is screaming ahead.

From Wiki, just think about this:
“The first system began passenger trials at London Heathrow Airport, Terminal 5, in October 2010 and opened for full passenger service 22 hours a day, 7 days a week, in May 2011. Operational statistics in May 2012 demonstrate >99% reliability and an average passenger wait time over the year of 10 seconds.

It connects Heathrow Terminal 5 to its business passenger car park, just north of the airport, by a 3.9-kilometre (2.4 mi) line built on behalf of BAA, the airport’s owner and operator. The system cost £30 million to develop.

Construction of the guideway was completed in October 2008. The line is largely elevated, but includes a ground level section where the route passes under the approach to the airport’s northern runway. Following various trials, including some using airport staff as test passengers, the line opened to the public in May 2011 as a passenger trial. Subsequently it was made fully operational and the bus service between the business car park and Terminal 5 was discontinued.The pods use 50% less energy than a bus. They run 22 hours a day. As of May 2013 the system passed the 600,000th passenger milestone.

The developers expect that users will wait an average of around 12 seconds, with 95% of passengers waiting for less than one minute for their private pod which will travel at up to 40 kilometres per hour (25 mph).”

Why would we even consider plonking a billion we can’t afford on trams??

ungruntled said :

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

It would seem that Canada is suffering a severe case of LRTS (Light Rail Train Syndrome)
http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com%2Ffp-comment%2Flight-rail-disease

Don’t let LRTS happen to us…

The only other cure is to wait until the public teat is dry.

…from blowing far more on cars and freeways.

But then we have put up with COS (Car Obsession Syndrome) for far longer and look what it has done to our cities, children, lifestyles and waistlines.

When the car obsessed metropolis of Los Angeles says enough is enough, that it is sick of the cost, the crawling peak hour traffic, the concrete caverns dividing the city, the dead urban spaces, the pollution, deaths and injuries and turns to the sensible electric driven solution, even the most obstinately obtuse should finally open their minds.

If we had some open minds in our Assembly, this whole thing would have been approached quite differently.
First, they would have started by assessing the problem
Then they would have looked at ALL the available options – including new technologies.
Then they would have offered the options in a clearly laid out format with all the options, their pros & cons, their costs – upfront & ongoing, the social as well as economic implications.
Lastly, they would have left it with the community to think about and discuss for 12 months before implementing.
I know the Assembly says they did all this, but what they say doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Your right they didn’t do this. Where the mistake was made was by leaving it with the community for 20 odd years rather than the 12 months you suggested.

ungruntled said :

I would really like to see the numbers for this development clearly laid out.

One piece of information that has passed me is that the cost does not include the work that will have to be done at the intersections along Northborne, because that will be taken out of another budget – roads or some such.

It’s a shame that there is not enough confidence in our Assembly to be able to trust that what they say is for real.

Also a sad state of affairs that they are not prepared to put this contentious & expensive item to the electorate, but prefer to nail down contracts before there is a chance for the community to have a say.

I would feel a little better if the Liberal leader were more able to express & quantify the opposition position. Sadly, the last time I saw him trying to defend his position, on the ABC, the performance was pathetic. Considering how long this issue has been being discussed, why does he not have a fully costed & detailed alternative to offer us instead of just saying “No”, and waffle about improving buses.

By the way, the original consultants report on the light rail project had the trams along the footpath edges of Northborne Ave, where passengers could alight directly onto the footpath, not onto the median strip. This option did not involve the removal of all the trees, nor did it place those alighting from the tram in the same level of danger of becoming pedestrian casualties on the road.

Why was the public not told of this option? Why did they opt for the option where wholesale tree removal was required?

Did someone mention open Government?

Don’t recall running down the side ever being on the drawing board except for the section from Flemmington road to Dickson. That plan had it running down the service road side to an interchange at the location of the Dickson motor registry then running down the centre of Northborne ave.

OpenYourMind said :

As per the Action bus thread, here’s an example of why autonomous technology is about to make a tram seem so completely and utterly ridiculous.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422307/London-s-driverless-cars-adapted-shuttle-pods-used-Heathrow-s-Terminal-5.html

Something servicing a car park close to a terminal is one thing. Scaling that to service a sparse city is another thing altogether.

Also this technology isn’t new terminal 5 has had this since it opened 8 years ago now and how many sales have there been. In the same time how many light rail systems have been planned, built or extended, so don’t think light rail us worried just yet. They might be once we get autonomous helicopters.

OpenYourMind7:50 am 06 Feb 16

As per the Action bus thread, here’s an example of why autonomous technology is about to make a tram seem so completely and utterly ridiculous.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422307/London-s-driverless-cars-adapted-shuttle-pods-used-Heathrow-s-Terminal-5.html

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

It would seem that Canada is suffering a severe case of LRTS (Light Rail Train Syndrome)
http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com%2Ffp-comment%2Flight-rail-disease

Don’t let LRTS happen to us…

The only other cure is to wait until the public teat is dry.

…from blowing far more on cars and freeways.

But then we have put up with COS (Car Obsession Syndrome) for far longer and look what it has done to our cities, children, lifestyles and waistlines.

When the car obsessed metropolis of Los Angeles says enough is enough, that it is sick of the cost, the crawling peak hour traffic, the concrete caverns dividing the city, the dead urban spaces, the pollution, deaths and injuries and turns to the sensible electric driven solution, even the most obstinately obtuse should finally open their minds.

If we had some open minds in our Assembly, this whole thing would have been approached quite differently.
First, they would have started by assessing the problem
Then they would have looked at ALL the available options – including new technologies.
Then they would have offered the options in a clearly laid out format with all the options, their pros & cons, their costs – upfront & ongoing, the social as well as economic implications.
Lastly, they would have left it with the community to think about and discuss for 12 months before implementing.
I know the Assembly says they did all this, but what they say doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I would really like to see the numbers for this development clearly laid out.

One piece of information that has passed me is that the cost does not include the work that will have to be done at the intersections along Northborne, because that will be taken out of another budget – roads or some such.

It’s a shame that there is not enough confidence in our Assembly to be able to trust that what they say is for real.

Also a sad state of affairs that they are not prepared to put this contentious & expensive item to the electorate, but prefer to nail down contracts before there is a chance for the community to have a say.

I would feel a little better if the Liberal leader were more able to express & quantify the opposition position. Sadly, the last time I saw him trying to defend his position, on the ABC, the performance was pathetic. Considering how long this issue has been being discussed, why does he not have a fully costed & detailed alternative to offer us instead of just saying “No”, and waffle about improving buses.

By the way, the original consultants report on the light rail project had the trams along the footpath edges of Northborne Ave, where passengers could alight directly onto the footpath, not onto the median strip. This option did not involve the removal of all the trees, nor did it place those alighting from the tram in the same level of danger of becoming pedestrian casualties on the road.

Why was the public not told of this option? Why did they opt for the option where wholesale tree removal was required?

Did someone mention open Government?

wildturkeycanoe said :

bj_ACT said :

You are yet to see what Tuggeranong is lacking????? To help you out, here’s just 3 key areas that Tuggeranong lacks that are popular with most Canberra Residents.

Main Road Duplication – Other than Drakeford Drive, Tuggeranong has Single lane main roads, these roads take bigger daily traffic counts than many dual lane roads in Belco and Central Canberra. The following Tuggers roads were meant to be duplicated years ago but still have not. Roads include by highest to lowest use – Ashley Drive, Sulwood Drive, Athlonn Drive and next candidates include Isabella, Erindale & Johnson Drives. An accident or roadworks on these single lane main roads cause mayhem.

Lake Tuggeranong & Parks – Lake Tuggers is a total disaster that is effectively unusable and often stinks out nearby residents and picnic’ers etc. Tuggeranong also has no parks to the standard of Commonwealth Park, Weston Park, Glebe Park, Lake Ginninderra parklands. Even just a small European style park with nice grass, trees and hard landscaping would be great for families.

Entertainment for local residents – Other regions of Canberra have plenty of tourist attractions from Art Galleries & Science centres down to the Dinosaur museum and Cockington Green. Tuggeranong has none of these things for residents to go to. What do you think of Tuggeranong’s Sports stadiums and precincts with sporting events to attend?? I prefer to think of Bruce Stadium, AIS arena, the Lyneham Tennis and Hockey. I can tell you first hand that it’s a pretty sad state of affairs to try and encourage the kids to ride their bike somewhere local to entertain themselves.

Tuggeranong has been a quarter of Canberra’s resident count and a quarter of its taxpayers for two decades and despite your claims to the contrary, Tuggeranong never got more than its fair share in Infrastructure and Government funding. Things like the Lake were done on the cheap, roundabouts built instead of installing more expensive traffic lights, Cheap Eucalypts in public places instead of nice trees and gardens. Yes, Tuggeranong has more than its fair share of Bogans and Dole bludgers, but also a lot of hardworking family and small business people who see their taxpayer dollars go off North to a West Basin Shipping container and the like.

A quick look at incomes in the A.C.T by region, show Tuggeranong residents a good $3-4k per family per year less than the more affluent Gungahlin. Could be a reason for the lack of expenditure, taking care of the big spenders first? It also probably has to do with vote winning and who is in the current leader’s electorate as has been mentioned on these pages quite a lot. Nepotism is alive and well. I sympathize with the southern residents but would also like to point out that Belconnen and Gungahlin don’t have a nice swimming hole to go down to in the summer months [Tuggers has many along the river], lake Ginninderra doesn’t count because it is polluted. There is little for entertainment for the young ones in Belco either but that is a problem across Canberra, not just Tuggeranong. I have seen the state of your sporting grounds, but there are bad ones in all areas, Woden has a shocker and some of our local fields in Belconnen only get mowed quarterly.
The redirection of funds from the lake in order to get the Dickson wetlands project going was a deceitful move by the gov. I am appalled at this kind of manipulation of our money for the pollies own benefit. That money should be returned and work begun ASAP. It is a health concern and much more important than a few ducks and a pleasant walking environment for the inner north dog walkers.
I don’t know why you would want more traffic lights instead of roundabouts, Drakeford Drive is my least favorite road to traverse, with having to stop at every single intersection due to the poor timing of the signals regardless of how many vehicles are on the road.

Interesting its only 3-4k per year. Given Tuggeranong is a fair amount older than younger Gungahlin. Have likely retired and older hence not earning as much.
Given they’ve still paid taxes like everyone else one would think that over their lifetime would have earned more and paid more taxes than a similar person of similar age in Gungahlin.

So sure your argument works if you neglect retirement.

Transport should not destroy the city it serves:

Which do you want, vast expanses of impassable bitumen and car/bus fumes and high concrete token sound barriers dividing our city,?

or a barely there green Light Rail?

http://www.travelvictoria.com.au/eastmelbourne/photos/#

Barcelona is a better example of modern trams running through grassed tracks.

Zurich grasses all its tracks in the suburbs.

Graz has grassed tracks. I am sure there are many others.

13,000 cars is an extra 65 hectares of car parking in the City.

Lets just get rid of the City and make it one big parking lot.

Give the people what they want, or say they want without thinking about the consequences.

Postalgeek said :

gooterz said :

Its like going to buy google shares now. If any benefit its at risk of very high cost and low payoff.
However it looks good because if you bought google back in 1995 you are a millionaire today.

Buying Google shares in 1995 would’ve been quite the accomplishment, given that Google wasn’t even incorporated until 1998 and floated in 2004.

Yep good call, but I bet you Googled that.

I sense an appropriateness in the idea that the future line to Tuggeranong should be reserved for steam transportation. There’s something delightfully old-world about the sight, sound and smell of steam – it’s enough to make one alliterate.

Thoughtfully-designed coal bunkers could provide a canvas for artists to daub and these would sit well, I think, with the existing works of art en-route. Water towers not unlike pendulous breasts would be in keeping with previous managerial initiatives.

I’d put the change-over platform near Mooseheads.

The Joy of Maths.

13,000 parked cars parked is 200/kilometre, 65 kilometres when not moving.

ie 5.5 completely packed lanes stretching from Gungahlin to the City.

When moving (if they can) add an extra space for each 10km/hr.

The ultimate long car park is what ACT planners obviously planned for when they made us Car City ACT.

Light Rail is a discrete, quiet, clean, 2 tracks down the middle of the green verge, with a train passing at most every 6 minutes. No way we can have that!

…and just one more thing…

13,000 extra cars in the city! Now where do we put 13,000 useless lumps of metal that do absolutely nothing for most of the day? Hmm…

http://www.brokencarcollection.com.au/selling-car-to-scrap-yard-in-brisbane/

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

Leon said :

The successful tender includes a capital cost of $698 million with a variance of five per cent. Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated operating costs at $204 million. This would bring the total cost to between $867 and $937 million.

Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated the benefits of light rail at $984 million, including $54 million of public transport operating savings benefit. But on 28 October 2015 Andrew Barr announced that the bus travel displaced by light rail would be reallocated elsewhere in the bus network. This eliminates the public transport operating savings, thus reducing the value of the gross benefits of light rail to $930 million.

The bottom line is that the net benefit of light rail – the amount by which the benefits exceed the cost – will be in the range minus $7 million to plus $63 million.

The Government estimated in 2012 that bus rapid transit would generate $230 million greater net benefits than light rail.

$204million could pretty much buy every single one of the estimated 13,000 tram commuters a new cheap small car and a nice bicycle.

…and run them for 20 years? …adding another 13,000 polluting cars on Northbourne Ave? …with how many more needed over the next 20 years?

So a small $25,000 car x 13,000 = $325 million, replaced after 10 years = $650 million.

Plus $300 million for the road to run them on.

Plus the land resumptions to demolish everything both sides of Northbourne Avenue to add the extra roads $5 billion.

Plus 20 years of car parking = $182 million (current prices).

13,000 cars x $18,000/yr running costs (RACV annual ave) x 20 years = $4.68 billion.

http://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/car-running-costs

Cost of the congestion, deaths, injury, pollution and noise… Priceless!

You really thought this through. But thanks for pointing out what a bargain the Light Rail is.

Once again, you completely miss the point. The running costs of the light rail alone are the cost of a small car each for the measly 13,000 users. The total tram project cost, the rest of the rate paying Canberrans could fork out for a new BMW for each of them. I’m using the car analogy to primarily show the gob smacking cost of this project. The road costs won’t change that much with or without light rail. We will still need roads for the large bulk of road users. Most of that infrastructure is already there with a need for some simple improvements for Gunghalin. As for parking, if the local government keeps pushing up the cost of parking, private enterprise will step in.

Personally, to me, a miniscule fraction of the light rail could go toward massively improved cycling facilities for the residents of Gunghalin and Old North to make a cycle highway with priority access. Using your trick of looking at an unrelated big city, London has halved car travel into the city centre and double bicycle trips. For out and out cost savings, nothing beats cycling facilities.

And you can dismiss autonomous cars all you like, but you will simply end up looking like one of those people who didn’t think that internet thing would ever be useful or change anything. Autonomous car projects have so much momentum now that they are basically inevitable. Even the Californian state transport head who has tempered enthusiasm now accepts that he will approve a completely driverless car on the roads in California within 5 years.

The tram will just seem like a quaint Canberra anachronism and eventually go the way of the Sydney monorail.

Maths is not your strong point, but all of that is quite clearly not true. RACQ research shows just how expensive cars are.

Let’s take your cheapest option BMW Series 1 which is in fact cheaper than the ave cost of the Australian car that I based my previous costings on:

http://www.carshowroom.com.au/showrooms/bmw/1

13,000 BMW series 1, minimum $39,000 = $507 million which just buys the car, doesn’t pay rego, insurance, fuel, maintenance. Nor replacement costs, because my wife’s series 1 didn’t last beyond 11 or 12 years. so around $1 billion for the 20 years to fill up the long Northbourne Avenue parking lot during peak hour.

Ignore that the Light Rail vehicles, the tram sets, only cost a quarter of this, carry far more people and easily accommodate future growth. Which cars do not.

But just buying a lot of cars is not a transport system, so let’s do the Running Costs using the RACQ research:

Ave weekly running costs of BMW 116i is $219.15 x 52 weeks x 20 years = $227,916 x 13,000 cars = $2.96 billion in todays costs.

Don’t we already have congestion on the roads? The totally free “not really public subsidised” stuff you need to drive on?

13,000 cars to be moved during mostly peak hour @ 1000 – 2,400 per lane, lets be generous claim 2,400, we’ll need another 5 lanes just for the additional cars, say 3 if we spread out the peak hour (and ignore future growth), on each side of Norhbourne Ave. ie doubling its size.

Lets ballpark the road costs alone. Majura Parkway was a greenfields site and is only 4 lanes for 11.5 km at $288 million in 2011 dollars so round up the bitumen and concrete to $300.5 million for 12 km in 2011 dollars or $358.8 million in 2016 dollars. x 6/4 lanes = $538.2 million to make Northbourne Avenue 12 lanes instead of 6.

I calculated the land resumptions necessary for the widened Northbourne Ave at a conservative $5 billion ie at about $200 million per kilometre times two (the very expensive city real estate averages out to less at the Gunghalin end).

I really don’t know how much the delightful 4 metre high concrete walls lining both sides of the freeway will cost but I’m guessing not cheap for 24 kilometres. Then there are the very occassional overhead pedestrian bridges spanning 16 lanes of LA type freeway (they are only pedestrians and should be in their cars). Lets guesstimate another cheapish $100 million, that’s enough concrete to build another 4 lanes of freeway.

Plus parking = $3.144 billion.

Adding up the cars, roads, resumptions etc I get $8.782 billion just for 20 years.

All of that is ignoring that that is just current usage. Long before 20 years that would need to be doubled and possibly doubled again. So exactly how wide does Northbourne Avenue have to get?

Not that we “need” any of this because we already have a large number of 4 wheel drives which do not need freeways, they can just cut through people’s yards and of course there is the, TA DA!, Autonomous Flying Car:

http://www.terrafugia.com

Which will solve the problem of how the Miraculous Autonomous Car (All Praise Be Upon It) will get through the existing traffic congestion. The Miraculous Autonomous Car that like the Holy Trinity changes from your Personal Car, to a (ssh, let’s not talk about how expensive it is) Taxi service, or that ever popular Ride Share that has worked a treat ever since cars were invented.

The Miraculous Autonomous Car that has replaced the eternal Hover Car on the covers of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics as the ultimate boys fantasy toy. You’ll be able to sell off your old fashioned Hover Car on Ebay and trade up.

And finally we will ignore the noise, pollution, congestion, fuel security, city dividing freeways, the total cost of the roads not just the extra for this model, policing, deaths & injuries, disruption and any finance and environmental costs, because you do.

Ignore it all and pretend the eternal self driving Hover Car is just around the corner and it is all business as usual. A licence to stuff up the city with yet more traffic.

It’s not as if anyone could possibly see where this is heading.

gooterz said :

Its like going to buy google shares now. If any benefit its at risk of very high cost and low payoff.
However it looks good because if you bought google back in 1995 you are a millionaire today.

Buying Google shares in 1995 would’ve been quite the accomplishment, given that Google wasn’t even incorporated until 1998 and floated in 2004.

gooterz said :

Perhaps Tuggeranong should look into Succession.

I think you mean “secession” (if I didn’t tell you JC or the Rube would have).
I like to be the benevolent dictator in charge.

wildturkeycanoe6:42 am 05 Feb 16

bj_ACT said :

You are yet to see what Tuggeranong is lacking????? To help you out, here’s just 3 key areas that Tuggeranong lacks that are popular with most Canberra Residents.

Main Road Duplication – Other than Drakeford Drive, Tuggeranong has Single lane main roads, these roads take bigger daily traffic counts than many dual lane roads in Belco and Central Canberra. The following Tuggers roads were meant to be duplicated years ago but still have not. Roads include by highest to lowest use – Ashley Drive, Sulwood Drive, Athlonn Drive and next candidates include Isabella, Erindale & Johnson Drives. An accident or roadworks on these single lane main roads cause mayhem.

Lake Tuggeranong & Parks – Lake Tuggers is a total disaster that is effectively unusable and often stinks out nearby residents and picnic’ers etc. Tuggeranong also has no parks to the standard of Commonwealth Park, Weston Park, Glebe Park, Lake Ginninderra parklands. Even just a small European style park with nice grass, trees and hard landscaping would be great for families.

Entertainment for local residents – Other regions of Canberra have plenty of tourist attractions from Art Galleries & Science centres down to the Dinosaur museum and Cockington Green. Tuggeranong has none of these things for residents to go to. What do you think of Tuggeranong’s Sports stadiums and precincts with sporting events to attend?? I prefer to think of Bruce Stadium, AIS arena, the Lyneham Tennis and Hockey. I can tell you first hand that it’s a pretty sad state of affairs to try and encourage the kids to ride their bike somewhere local to entertain themselves.

Tuggeranong has been a quarter of Canberra’s resident count and a quarter of its taxpayers for two decades and despite your claims to the contrary, Tuggeranong never got more than its fair share in Infrastructure and Government funding. Things like the Lake were done on the cheap, roundabouts built instead of installing more expensive traffic lights, Cheap Eucalypts in public places instead of nice trees and gardens. Yes, Tuggeranong has more than its fair share of Bogans and Dole bludgers, but also a lot of hardworking family and small business people who see their taxpayer dollars go off North to a West Basin Shipping container and the like.

A quick look at incomes in the A.C.T by region, show Tuggeranong residents a good $3-4k per family per year less than the more affluent Gungahlin. Could be a reason for the lack of expenditure, taking care of the big spenders first? It also probably has to do with vote winning and who is in the current leader’s electorate as has been mentioned on these pages quite a lot. Nepotism is alive and well. I sympathize with the southern residents but would also like to point out that Belconnen and Gungahlin don’t have a nice swimming hole to go down to in the summer months [Tuggers has many along the river], lake Ginninderra doesn’t count because it is polluted. There is little for entertainment for the young ones in Belco either but that is a problem across Canberra, not just Tuggeranong. I have seen the state of your sporting grounds, but there are bad ones in all areas, Woden has a shocker and some of our local fields in Belconnen only get mowed quarterly.
The redirection of funds from the lake in order to get the Dickson wetlands project going was a deceitful move by the gov. I am appalled at this kind of manipulation of our money for the pollies own benefit. That money should be returned and work begun ASAP. It is a health concern and much more important than a few ducks and a pleasant walking environment for the inner north dog walkers.
I don’t know why you would want more traffic lights instead of roundabouts, Drakeford Drive is my least favorite road to traverse, with having to stop at every single intersection due to the poor timing of the signals regardless of how many vehicles are on the road.

BlowMeDown said :

Regardless of the cost, which is way too high, light rail will simply not get used once autonomous vehicles hit the roads. It just doesn’t solve the problem that people want solved, which is getting them from door to door. Even if it takes another 15 years for autonomous vehicles to arrive, that’s way sooner than the ROI for light rail and long before the network is completed. Then we will have the cost of digging it all up again.

Once there is vested interest in light rail there will be resistence to better alternatives, including work from home.

Further, as light rail grows, the bus network will become more and more expensive per kilometer to run.

Yep, the imaginary solution to a congestion problem is to create more congestion with imaginary driverless cars stuck in the same real traffic jams.

At least this enables the regressives, working with the Liberal party playbook to pretend that obfuscation is a reform.

Light rail only works when the land is flat and the gradient is small…. The same kind of thing that is super easy for even the most unfit of us to ride a bike on.

For 5% the cost, the government could give every resident of Gungharlmen a bike and still build better bike tracks.

With even a fraction of the left over money, they could fix the worst public hospitals in Australia.

Why should my young family pay so much extra in rates for this white elephant when it will never benefit us?

Perhaps Tuggeranong should look into Succession.

BlowMeDown said :

Regardless of the cost, which is way too high, light rail will simply not get used once autonomous vehicles hit the roads. It just doesn’t solve the problem that people want solved, which is getting them from door to door. Even if it takes another 15 years for autonomous vehicles to arrive, that’s way sooner than the ROI for light rail and long before the network is completed. Then we will have the cost of digging it all up again.

Once there is vested interest in light rail there will be resistence to better alternatives, including work from home.

Further, as light rail grows, the bus network will become more and more expensive per kilometer to run.

I think this is the clincher. 10 years ago it would have made some sense, but why would you do anything else when door to door on demand is a option. ACT should get on the bandwagon to become an early adopter of such things. Heck Action could own and maintain them.

Nicely summed up, bj_ACT. There is always a person who opines: ‘but Tuggeranong got [allegedly all that] money when it was new.’ Except that was YEARS ago – I moved back to Canberra in 1999 and it was way before that. That pathetic argument does not justify why Tuggeranong has remained neglected for so long since, and STILL does not have its fair share of community-building and -attracting amenities.
For example, why ruin Civic and LBG by trying to retrofit a new stadium into it, when it could far more easily be put in Tuggeranong? Why not move Floriade to Tuggeranong Town Park now that Commonwealth Park is out? This Government is so short sighted and dismissive about Tuggeranong it does not even consider Tuggeranong for any of these things. I genuinely think ACT Government and their policy makers actively discriminate against Tuggeranong.

BlowMeDown said :

Regardless of the cost, which is way too high, light rail will simply not get used once autonomous vehicles hit the roads. It just doesn’t solve the problem that people want solved, which is getting them from door to door. Even if it takes another 15 years for autonomous vehicles to arrive, that’s way sooner than the ROI for light rail and long before the network is completed. Then we will have the cost of digging it all up again.

Once there is vested interest in light rail there will be resistence to better alternatives, including work from home.

Further, as light rail grows, the bus network will become more and more expensive per kilometer to run.

Its like going to buy google shares now. If any benefit its at risk of very high cost and low payoff.
However it looks good because if you bought google back in 1995 you are a millionaire today.

Notably the government also pushed Uber, look at the states and the backlash at uber that’s going on.
We’ve screwed the pooch and will likely have very limited taxi/uber options going forward.

OpenYourMind6:49 pm 04 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

Leon said :

The successful tender includes a capital cost of $698 million with a variance of five per cent. Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated operating costs at $204 million. This would bring the total cost to between $867 and $937 million.

Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated the benefits of light rail at $984 million, including $54 million of public transport operating savings benefit. But on 28 October 2015 Andrew Barr announced that the bus travel displaced by light rail would be reallocated elsewhere in the bus network. This eliminates the public transport operating savings, thus reducing the value of the gross benefits of light rail to $930 million.

The bottom line is that the net benefit of light rail – the amount by which the benefits exceed the cost – will be in the range minus $7 million to plus $63 million.

The Government estimated in 2012 that bus rapid transit would generate $230 million greater net benefits than light rail.

$204million could pretty much buy every single one of the estimated 13,000 tram commuters a new cheap small car and a nice bicycle.

…and run them for 20 years? …adding another 13,000 polluting cars on Northbourne Ave? …with how many more needed over the next 20 years?

So a small $25,000 car x 13,000 = $325 million, replaced after 10 years = $650 million.

Plus $300 million for the road to run them on.

Plus the land resumptions to demolish everything both sides of Northbourne Avenue to add the extra roads $5 billion.

Plus 20 years of car parking = $182 million (current prices).

13,000 cars x $18,000/yr running costs (RACV annual ave) x 20 years = $4.68 billion.

http://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/car-running-costs

Cost of the congestion, deaths, injury, pollution and noise… Priceless!

You really thought this through. But thanks for pointing out what a bargain the Light Rail is.

Once again, you completely miss the point. The running costs of the light rail alone are the cost of a small car each for the measly 13,000 users. The total tram project cost, the rest of the rate paying Canberrans could fork out for a new BMW for each of them. I’m using the car analogy to primarily show the gob smacking cost of this project. The road costs won’t change that much with or without light rail. We will still need roads for the large bulk of road users. Most of that infrastructure is already there with a need for some simple improvements for Gunghalin. As for parking, if the local government keeps pushing up the cost of parking, private enterprise will step in.

Personally, to me, a miniscule fraction of the light rail could go toward massively improved cycling facilities for the residents of Gunghalin and Old North to make a cycle highway with priority access. Using your trick of looking at an unrelated big city, London has halved car travel into the city centre and double bicycle trips. For out and out cost savings, nothing beats cycling facilities.

And you can dismiss autonomous cars all you like, but you will simply end up looking like one of those people who didn’t think that internet thing would ever be useful or change anything. Autonomous car projects have so much momentum now that they are basically inevitable. Even the Californian state transport head who has tempered enthusiasm now accepts that he will approve a completely driverless car on the roads in California within 5 years.

The tram will just seem like a quaint Canberra anachronism and eventually go the way of the Sydney monorail.

HiddenDragon6:22 pm 04 Feb 16

rommeldog56 said :

Charlotte Harper said :

You’re right, miz, next time I will do that. Incorrect spelling is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me, especially when it’s my own name, but an edit of the two typos would’ve done the job.

Yeah – feel free to do typo edits Charlotte. I am actually mildly dyslexic and sometimes typo’s look ok to me !

I’ve dropped some clangers in my time !…..LOL…..

Given the topic under discussion, I wondered whether you were thinking of this when you “mis-typed”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charrette

Regardless of the cost, which is way too high, light rail will simply not get used once autonomous vehicles hit the roads. It just doesn’t solve the problem that people want solved, which is getting them from door to door. Even if it takes another 15 years for autonomous vehicles to arrive, that’s way sooner than the ROI for light rail and long before the network is completed. Then we will have the cost of digging it all up again.

Once there is vested interest in light rail there will be resistence to better alternatives, including work from home.

Further, as light rail grows, the bus network will become more and more expensive per kilometer to run.

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Rather than be negative and destructive, how about, trying to be positive and cooperative. Does Gungahlin have a hospital. No and neither does Tuggeranong, but you can’t just build a hospital because there isn’t one 5 minutes away.

Tuggeranong has a sport precinct, a football oval, archery fields, hockey fields and the dog training area at the back of Greenway. One of the first areas to get a dog park also.

So rather than whinging how about thinking of genuine infrastructure needs and raising them with a few MLAs. I’d like to see the Erindale Restaurant precinct fixed up and made a nice area with better parking. As I’ve also said every time, the benefits light rail brings to Tuggeranong are that car parking will remain affordable for longer and will be available for longer. No light rail will mean more whinging about lack of parking and cost of parking in the city.

Problem is politicians love to play divisive politics and idiots go along for the ride thinkign they are the smart ones, but are in reality sheep being led by the politicians.

JC said :

crackerpants said :

JC said :

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Swimming pool, Tuggeranong 1, Gungahlin 0.
CIT Tuggeranong 1, Gungahlin 0
Colleges

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Canberra is not big enough to have more Uni’s, same too with CIT. Where they are located is close enough to central to the whole population of Canberra.

Sports fields, think you will find Tuggernaong has them, and not just talking basic suburban ovals. They have 2 out of 5 of the ACT’s artificial hockey fields and an enclosed oval similar to that at Gungahlin.

Swimming pools. yeah Tuggers has one so does Gungahlin, but doesn’t stop pollies, mostly Liebral promising more, not that they are needed.

Bus services, think if you look at time tables you will see Tuggernong actually has a better service. Sure Gungahlin is better connected to the city, but then again it is closer to the city too.

So don’t give me this boo hoo poor Tuggeranong nonesense. Tuggeranong got more than it’s fair share of infrastructure when it was built. Now is Gungahlins time and soon it will be Molongolo. The new towns also contribute more to the coffers through stamp duty and land sales, so it makes it right to spend that money where it is needed.

Wait, are we comparing swimming pools with $800 million-worth of light rail? Is that what we’re doing? If I was living in Gungahlin I’d want a fair bit of cash splashed around too as de facto compensation, but I suspect Gungahlin could have quite a few pools for $800 million. Claims that Gungahlin is a growth area, therefore needs the infrastructure $$, is a chicken-and-egg argument. Why are people favouring buying into Gungahlin when they could buy into Tuggeranong (with views, natural beauty, actual backyards etc)? Is it because Tuggeranong has been neglected at the expense of Gungahlin, making Gungahlin the more attractive proposition?

Gungahln has land for sale Tuggeranong doesn’t. So of course Gungahlin is going to be the growth area and needs disproportionate infrastructure funding. Just as Tuggeranong got it when it had land available. Nothing to do with neglect. I am yet to see what Tuggeranong is so lacking hence the pool debate. What some claim it lacks, a Uni or hospital for example are simply not needed. These facilities are central to the population not stuck in the deep burbs just to make residents feel they are getting value.

You are yet to see what Tuggeranong is lacking????? To help you out, here’s just 3 key areas that Tuggeranong lacks that are popular with most Canberra Residents.

Main Road Duplication – Other than Drakeford Drive, Tuggeranong has Single lane main roads, these roads take bigger daily traffic counts than many dual lane roads in Belco and Central Canberra. The following Tuggers roads were meant to be duplicated years ago but still have not. Roads include by highest to lowest use – Ashley Drive, Sulwood Drive, Athlonn Drive and next candidates include Isabella, Erindale & Johnson Drives. An accident or roadworks on these single lane main roads cause mayhem.

Lake Tuggeranong & Parks – Lake Tuggers is a total disaster that is effectively unusable and often stinks out nearby residents and picnic’ers etc. Tuggeranong also has no parks to the standard of Commonwealth Park, Weston Park, Glebe Park, Lake Ginninderra parklands. Even just a small European style park with nice grass, trees and hard landscaping would be great for families.

Entertainment for local residents – Other regions of Canberra have plenty of tourist attractions from Art Galleries & Science centres down to the Dinosaur museum and Cockington Green. Tuggeranong has none of these things for residents to go to. What do you think of Tuggeranong’s Sports stadiums and precincts with sporting events to attend?? I prefer to think of Bruce Stadium, AIS arena, the Lyneham Tennis and Hockey. I can tell you first hand that it’s a pretty sad state of affairs to try and encourage the kids to ride their bike somewhere local to entertain themselves.

Tuggeranong has been a quarter of Canberra’s resident count and a quarter of its taxpayers for two decades and despite your claims to the contrary, Tuggeranong never got more than its fair share in Infrastructure and Government funding. Things like the Lake were done on the cheap, roundabouts built instead of installing more expensive traffic lights, Cheap Eucalypts in public places instead of nice trees and gardens. Yes, Tuggeranong has more than its fair share of Bogans and Dole bludgers, but also a lot of hardworking family and small business people who see their taxpayer dollars go off North to a West Basin Shipping container and the like.

rommeldog56 said :

I’ve dropped some clangers in my time !…..LOL…..

I think we can all agree on that. 😉

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

When the car obsessed metropolis of Los Angeles says enough is enough, that it is sick of the cost, the crawling peak hour traffic, the concrete caverns dividing the city, the dead urban spaces, the pollution, deaths and injuries and turns to the sensible electric driven solution, even the most obstinately obtuse should finally open their minds.

Here we go again – Los Angeles ? You compare Canberra (pop of about 380k) to the “metropolis” of Los Angeles? Stop the scare campaings……there seems to be no bow long enough to justify your scare campaign against cars, roads, carparks and those who use those.

Unlike the scare campaign of bankruptcy and the like that others here peddle?

In the case of LA the argument bring put forward is quite valid though. When a city that does have all those issues is waking up smelling the roses and doing something to fix it then other places regardless of size need to take note. Whilst scale is different what both cites have in common is near endless urban sprawl and a car culture. There is a place for that but there is also very much a place for higher density city living which needs to be served by decent public transport. And that’s what gets missed in these debates. People, usually Tuggeranong residents make it into a me me me debate without looking at the bigger picture.

Oh and to answer a criticism in a previous post about why I hate Tuggeranong so much. Well the answer is I don’t but I do get sick of the whinging that only seems to come from there. You don’t hear too much whinging from people from Weston creek, Woden or Belconnen do you? Despite these areas being as neglected if you will as anywhere else. Gungahlin gets more new stuff because it is new just like you in Tuggeranong got your her stuff when you had land and were growing. You say the place is run down needs a refurb. May well be true but before you refurb you need to get the maximum use out of the things. Belconnen for example has had some face lift and refurb works but it is olde than Tuggeranong. So maybe in another 5-10 years it will make sense to direct more refurb money tuggeranongs way.

crackerpants said :

JC said :

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Swimming pool, Tuggeranong 1, Gungahlin 0.
CIT Tuggeranong 1, Gungahlin 0
Colleges

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Canberra is not big enough to have more Uni’s, same too with CIT. Where they are located is close enough to central to the whole population of Canberra.

Sports fields, think you will find Tuggernaong has them, and not just talking basic suburban ovals. They have 2 out of 5 of the ACT’s artificial hockey fields and an enclosed oval similar to that at Gungahlin.

Swimming pools. yeah Tuggers has one so does Gungahlin, but doesn’t stop pollies, mostly Liebral promising more, not that they are needed.

Bus services, think if you look at time tables you will see Tuggernong actually has a better service. Sure Gungahlin is better connected to the city, but then again it is closer to the city too.

So don’t give me this boo hoo poor Tuggeranong nonesense. Tuggeranong got more than it’s fair share of infrastructure when it was built. Now is Gungahlins time and soon it will be Molongolo. The new towns also contribute more to the coffers through stamp duty and land sales, so it makes it right to spend that money where it is needed.

Wait, are we comparing swimming pools with $800 million-worth of light rail? Is that what we’re doing? If I was living in Gungahlin I’d want a fair bit of cash splashed around too as de facto compensation, but I suspect Gungahlin could have quite a few pools for $800 million. Claims that Gungahlin is a growth area, therefore needs the infrastructure $$, is a chicken-and-egg argument. Why are people favouring buying into Gungahlin when they could buy into Tuggeranong (with views, natural beauty, actual backyards etc)? Is it because Tuggeranong has been neglected at the expense of Gungahlin, making Gungahlin the more attractive proposition?

Gungahln has land for sale Tuggeranong doesn’t. So of course Gungahlin is going to be the growth area and needs disproportionate infrastructure funding. Just as Tuggeranong got it when it had land available. Nothing to do with neglect. I am yet to see what Tuggeranong is so lacking hence the pool debate. What some claim it lacks, a Uni or hospital for example are simply not needed. These facilities are central to the population not stuck in the deep burbs just to make residents feel they are getting value.

Charlotte Harper said :

You’re right, miz, next time I will do that. Incorrect spelling is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me, especially when it’s my own name, but an edit of the two typos would’ve done the job.

Yeah – feel free to do typo edits Charlotte. I am actually mildly dyslexic and sometimes typo’s look ok to me ! I’ve dropped some clangers in my time !…..LOL…..

rubaiyat said :

My guess is being politicians they look at the frothing hate fest that is Tuggers and think to themselves, “We aren’t going to please any of the OAP Mexicans so why bother trying?”

Well I think we can safely call Rubaiyat’s OAP (old age pensioner) claim utter BS – see stats here (hover over suburb to see average age)

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-is-australias-most-incomeequitable-city-despite-innersouth-riches-20160202-gmjcd2.html

Most Tuggers suburbs have an average age of around 40 years, similar to (e.g.) Belco .

Gold! ” . . . the whole project is the equivalent of a candy company releasing a new chocolate bar called Herpes Al-Qaeda.” (from the article linked by Open Your Mind at #33, reposted below for your convenience

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2F%2Ffull-comment%2Ftristin-hopper-the-600-million-edmonton-train-that-snarls-traffic-slows-down-transit-times-and-increases-emissions )

Sums it up, really.

rubaiyat said :

When the car obsessed metropolis of Los Angeles says enough is enough, that it is sick of the cost, the crawling peak hour traffic, the concrete caverns dividing the city, the dead urban spaces, the pollution, deaths and injuries and turns to the sensible electric driven solution, even the most obstinately obtuse should finally open their minds.

Here we go again – Los Angeles ? You compare Canberra (pop of about 380k) to the “metropolis” of Los Angeles? Stop the scare campaings……there seems to be no bow long enough to justify your scare campaign against cars, roads, carparks and those who use those.

crackerpants6:46 am 04 Feb 16

JC said :

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Swimming pool, Tuggeranong 1, Gungahlin 0.
CIT Tuggeranong 1, Gungahlin 0
Colleges

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Canberra is not big enough to have more Uni’s, same too with CIT. Where they are located is close enough to central to the whole population of Canberra.

Sports fields, think you will find Tuggernaong has them, and not just talking basic suburban ovals. They have 2 out of 5 of the ACT’s artificial hockey fields and an enclosed oval similar to that at Gungahlin.

Swimming pools. yeah Tuggers has one so does Gungahlin, but doesn’t stop pollies, mostly Liebral promising more, not that they are needed.

Bus services, think if you look at time tables you will see Tuggernong actually has a better service. Sure Gungahlin is better connected to the city, but then again it is closer to the city too.

So don’t give me this boo hoo poor Tuggeranong nonesense. Tuggeranong got more than it’s fair share of infrastructure when it was built. Now is Gungahlins time and soon it will be Molongolo. The new towns also contribute more to the coffers through stamp duty and land sales, so it makes it right to spend that money where it is needed.

Wait, are we comparing swimming pools with $800 million-worth of light rail? Is that what we’re doing? If I was living in Gungahlin I’d want a fair bit of cash splashed around too as de facto compensation, but I suspect Gungahlin could have quite a few pools for $800 million. Claims that Gungahlin is a growth area, therefore needs the infrastructure $$, is a chicken-and-egg argument. Why are people favouring buying into Gungahlin when they could buy into Tuggeranong (with views, natural beauty, actual backyards etc)? Is it because Tuggeranong has been neglected at the expense of Gungahlin, making Gungahlin the more attractive proposition?

wildturkeycanoe6:37 am 04 Feb 16

“”Critics of light rail have said that we wouldn’t be able to deliver this project for less than a billion dollars but by selecting a bid that will deliver the project under our projected budget and ahead of our projected timeframes we have proven that our business case was conservative in its estimates,” Mr Corbell said.”

Reminds me of a line from Armageddon – “You know we’re sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn’t it?”

OpenYourMind said :

It would seem that Canada is suffering a severe case of LRTS (Light Rail Train Syndrome)
http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com%2Ffp-comment%2Flight-rail-disease

Don’t let LRTS happen to us…

The only other cure is to wait until the public teat is dry.

…from blowing far more on cars and freeways.

But then we have put up with COS (Car Obsession Syndrome) for far longer and look what it has done to our cities, children, lifestyles and waistlines.

When the car obsessed metropolis of Los Angeles says enough is enough, that it is sick of the cost, the crawling peak hour traffic, the concrete caverns dividing the city, the dead urban spaces, the pollution, deaths and injuries and turns to the sensible electric driven solution, even the most obstinately obtuse should finally open their minds.

OpenYourMind said :

It would seem that Canada is suffering a severe case of LRTS (Light Rail Train Syndrome)
http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com%2Ffp-comment%2Flight-rail-disease

Don’t let LRTS happen to us…

The only other cure is to wait until the public teat is dry.

So many parallels to what’s happening in Canberra, that it’s frightening.

OpenYourMind7:19 pm 03 Feb 16

It would seem that Canada is suffering a severe case of LRTS (Light Rail Train Syndrome)
http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com%2Ffp-comment%2Flight-rail-disease

Don’t let LRTS happen to us…

The only other cure is to wait until the public teat is dry.

Charlotte Harper said :

Hi Rommeldog56. My name is Charlotte, not Charolette. I will chase them up on the tip issue as well.

Looks like a simple typo, ‘o’ being just above ‘l’ . . .
why not just edit the post? 🙂

Charlotte Harper7:53 am 04 Feb 16

You’re right, miz, next time I will do that. Incorrect spelling is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me, especially when it’s my own name, but an edit of the two typos would’ve done the job.

Enough Canberrans have been polled and proven to be anti light rail, for this government to definitely NOT be acting in good faith by poisoning the process in case the next government is Liberal. Responsibility for the cost of getting out of the contracts will be sheeted straight home to Andrew Barr.

Charlotte Harper said :

Hi Rommeldog56. My name is Charlotte, not Charolette. I will chase them up on the tip issue as well.

Charolette is a cool name though!

Can we please just stop this madness?

Give us better bus timetables (more often and at times when we want them), more services, dedicated bus lanes where possible (like on Northbourne Avenue peoples!!) and lets forget this whole light rail shenanigan ever happened.

justin heywood2:07 pm 03 Feb 16

Simon Corbell says;

“Critics of light rail have said that we wouldn’t be able to deliver this project for less than a billion dollars but by selecting a bid that will deliver the project under our projected budget and ahead of our projected timeframes we have proven that our business case was conservative in its estimates,..”.

Simon hasn’t ‘proven’ anything by selecting a low bid. The ‘business case’ was widely pilloried for its lack of clarity and detai (i.e. wriggle room).
He will only have proven it if it’s actually built under budget and ahead of schedule as proposed. And when was the last time that happened?

The Gold Coast light rail (13 km) reportedly cost $1.6 billion.
Canberra’s Metro (12 km) at less than half that?
Hmm.

JC,
so Gungahlin and Tuggeranong both have a range of general services. Great.

But that doesn’t automatically mean a $700 million dollar spend on inner north and Gungahlin residents is automatically acceptable or equal to anything in Tuggeranong or anywhere else. The fact that government is gaining large amounts of revenue from new development areas also doesn’t justify such an expenditure.

I’ll refer to my last comment, if the benefits are certain to accrue in those areas, why didn’t the government institute a precinct levy for the light rail? For a project of that magnitude and predicted level of benefit (that will accrue mostly to residents along the route), surely the only equitable way to fund it (even if it was only partially) would be through such a levy?

btw I am NOT double counting the car capital cost.

I am aware that is in the running cost as depreciation, just had it as a direct separate total to show that the cars alone cost almost as much as the entire 20 years of building, maintaining and running the Light Rail.

I didn’t even add in the cost of maintaining and running the roads and associated infrastructure. Which is included in the Light Rail.

If people actually compared equivalents in full, they wouldn’t come to the silly conclusions that they do.

OpenYourMind said :

Leon said :

The successful tender includes a capital cost of $698 million with a variance of five per cent. Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated operating costs at $204 million. This would bring the total cost to between $867 and $937 million.

Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated the benefits of light rail at $984 million, including $54 million of public transport operating savings benefit. But on 28 October 2015 Andrew Barr announced that the bus travel displaced by light rail would be reallocated elsewhere in the bus network. This eliminates the public transport operating savings, thus reducing the value of the gross benefits of light rail to $930 million.

The bottom line is that the net benefit of light rail – the amount by which the benefits exceed the cost – will be in the range minus $7 million to plus $63 million.

The Government estimated in 2012 that bus rapid transit would generate $230 million greater net benefits than light rail.

$204million could pretty much buy every single one of the estimated 13,000 tram commuters a new cheap small car and a nice bicycle.

…and run them for 20 years? …adding another 13,000 polluting cars on Northbourne Ave? …with how many more needed over the next 20 years?

So a small $25,000 car x 13,000 = $325 million, replaced after 10 years = $650 million.

Plus $300 million for the road to run them on.

Plus the land resumptions to demolish everything both sides of Northbourne Avenue to add the extra roads $5 billion.

Plus 20 years of car parking = $182 million (current prices).

13,000 cars x $18,000/yr running costs (RACV annual ave) x 20 years = $4.68 billion.

http://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/car-running-costs

Cost of the congestion, deaths, injury, pollution and noise… Priceless!

You really thought this through. But thanks for pointing out what a bargain the Light Rail is.

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Hey, dungfungus you could be onto something here. A tram-stop tapas bar sounds like a goer to me.

Actually, my plan was to have the tapas bar on the trams, you know, a daggy “pop-up” one.

Hey sounds like a good way. to recycle those shipping containers … Just add wheels and call it ‘light rail’.

Tuggers has Namadgi. So unfair to the rest of Canberra. Why can’t all the other parts of the ACT have a huge national park for their use? Southside bias yet again.

Not to mention Tuggers having a Bunnings how many years before Belco & Gunghalin… Not fair, not fair.

And isn’t there an inversion layer Tuggers & Woden doesn’t see fit to share with the rest of the territory? Hogging all that warm woodsmoke and fine particles. And how come BoM gives Tuggers their own weather, while the rest of Canberra has a measuring point at the airport?

The inequities just don’t stop!

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat said :

All those perpetually claiming that this would cost well over a billion and run over time, have really done the Government an enormous favour.

Of course there will be blood flowing down Northbourne Ave from suicide truckies trying to ram it, pedestrians managing to dodge the 6 lanes of cars to wait patiently the 10 minutes for the next tram to pass so they can throw themselves under it, and our children will be sold into slavery so we will have enough money to put petrol on the table, after the whole of the ACT is declared bankrupt…

Now that the End of Days is upon us the ancient, wise burgers of Tuggeranong will be casting themselves and their families off Mt Taylor to spare them the horrors of Electrified Public Transport! 😀

Wo is me, sackcloth and ashes, the heavens will be rent asunder, the horror, the horror, Oh the Humanity!

You’re obviously new to this whole contracting thing. Don’t worry it will run over a billion.

It will also probably be as big a disaster as this similar recent light rail project: http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2F%2Ffull-comment%2Ftristin-hopper-the-600-million-edmonton-train-that-snarls-traffic-slows-down-transit-times-and-increases-emissions

What do you think this stupid tram will do to traffic on Northbourne during construction and after. One of the ridiculous identified savings in the business case was some incredible saving in congestion reduction….yeah, right.

“It will be…” because you say so. Over and over and over and over and over and over again.

There are are hundreds of light rail projects under way all around the world at any given time.

I subscribe to Google Alert’s light rail fed. So I hear of Addis Abba’s light rail network, on time and under budget. Two recent Philippines light rail projects 2 years ahead of schedule and under budget. The Gold Coast’s spectacular uptake and passenger numbers far ahead of even the most optimistic projections. The big picture is that light rail is safe, clean, works well in inner cities and popular. The people who oppose light rail projects do so for all sorts of dubious reasons. Even the supposedly more rational ones fall apart on closer examination.

Like dungfungus you hunt desperately for ANYTHING that will reinforce your prejudices and cling desperately to them. A truck that takes an illegal right turn into the path of a tram in the US proves the TRAM is unsafe! Not the TRUCK! People complaining about swearing and smoking on trams in Sacramento becomes a crime wave. A notably bad year (in over a decade!) in Minnesotta for pedestrian accidents “proves” trams are unsafe! 3 (atypically) dead out of how many dead in car accidents? Ignoring everything else around them which actually shows they are the safest option of all the available options, by far.

One project, that you do not know the background of encounters problems and you have an Ah Ha!

In which case stop the freeways in Canberra, they are horrendously expensive and almost universal stuff ups. We don’t need them. Autonomous cars are just around the corner and they will fix traffic congestion, pollution, noise, serious injuries and deaths because you get to sit in the back seat. 😀

Charlotte Harper said :

The policy document is original. It looks like the article linking to it was original but was updated subsequently in light of the Opposition’s suggestions there was no mandate. If they’d updated the date or made a note at the end of the article explaining they’d updated an original article, when, and why, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I will ask ACT Labor about it.

Thanks for following this up Charolette. But we should never confuse rank stupidity for rat cunning.

Besides, it will be interesting to see if the ACT Labor Gov’t does respond to you – because they, nor any MLAs representing Tuggeranong, apparently have not done so in relation to other matters raised on RiotAct (including the smell from the Mugga Lane tip). Maybe questions asked about their pet project, Light Rail, will get a response ? Lets hope so.

Charlotte Harper11:35 am 03 Feb 16

Hi Rommeldog56. My name is Charlotte, not Charolette. I will chase them up on the tip issue as well.

Charlotte Harper said :

The policy document is original. It looks like the article linking to it was original but was updated subsequently in light of the Opposition’s suggestions there was no mandate. If they’d updated the date or made a note at the end of the article explaining they’d updated an original article, when, and why, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I will ask ACT Labor about it.

Please ask why Woden Tuggeranong and Belconnen were removed

JC said :

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Swimming pool, Tuggeranong 1, Gungahlin 0.
CIT Tuggeranong 1, Gungahlin 0
Colleges

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Canberra is not big enough to have more Uni’s, same too with CIT. Where they are located is close enough to central to the whole population of Canberra.

Sports fields, think you will find Tuggernaong has them, and not just talking basic suburban ovals. They have 2 out of 5 of the ACT’s artificial hockey fields and an enclosed oval similar to that at Gungahlin.

Swimming pools. yeah Tuggers has one so does Gungahlin, but doesn’t stop pollies, mostly Liebral promising more, not that they are needed.

Bus services, think if you look at time tables you will see Tuggernong actually has a better service. Sure Gungahlin is better connected to the city, but then again it is closer to the city too.

So don’t give me this boo hoo poor Tuggeranong nonesense. Tuggeranong got more than it’s fair share of infrastructure when it was built. Now is Gungahlins time and soon it will be Molongolo. The new towns also contribute more to the coffers through stamp duty and land sales, so it makes it right to spend that money where it is needed.

How’s that re-jigging the equation about FHOGs and stamp duty concessions given to home buyers in Gungahlin going JC?
I recall you moved to Gungahlin recently so how much stamp duty did you pay and what other “concessions” were you given?

gooterz said :

Also from Katy’s blog

“Capital Metro’s travel times are estimated to be at least 30% faster than general vehicle traffic.”

Is this still part of the election policy?

Katy plans to write children’s fairy stories as her next job.

rubaiyat said :

My guess is being politicians they look at the frothing hate fest that is Tuggers and think to themselves, “We aren’t going to please any of the OAP Mexicans so why bother trying?”

Once again, a belittling if not rude comment directed at Tugger’s residents who may not share your views – on most things.

If ACT Labor does in fact think that, then I’m also sure that they know that they could loose seats in Tugge’s too, so possibly loose Government on the back of that backlash.

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Swimming pool, Tuggeranong 1, Gungahlin 0.
CIT Tuggeranong 1, Gungahlin 0
Colleges

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

Canberra is not big enough to have more Uni’s, same too with CIT. Where they are located is close enough to central to the whole population of Canberra.

Sports fields, think you will find Tuggernaong has them, and not just talking basic suburban ovals. They have 2 out of 5 of the ACT’s artificial hockey fields and an enclosed oval similar to that at Gungahlin.

Swimming pools. yeah Tuggers has one so does Gungahlin, but doesn’t stop pollies, mostly Liebral promising more, not that they are needed.

Bus services, think if you look at time tables you will see Tuggernong actually has a better service. Sure Gungahlin is better connected to the city, but then again it is closer to the city too.

So don’t give me this boo hoo poor Tuggeranong nonesense. Tuggeranong got more than it’s fair share of infrastructure when it was built. Now is Gungahlins time and soon it will be Molongolo. The new towns also contribute more to the coffers through stamp duty and land sales, so it makes it right to spend that money where it is needed.

JC said :

The operating cost is over the life of the PPP, which is 20 years.

Capital Metro estimated $204 million as the cost of operating the tramway over its 30 year lifetime. The Government has not disclosed how much it will pay the consortium to operate the tramway for its first 20 years.

justin heywood said :

Charlotte Harper said :

I have set out the facts and linked to the original documents. Readers can examine tham and make their own call as to whether the Government has a mandate, as you have.

And a curious fact about the ‘original’ documents. The linked article from ACT Labor’s website is dated September 21, 2012 ( a month before the actual election). Yet it says:

“ACT Labor went to the 2012 election with a clear policy commitment, to build a light rail route from Gungahlin to Civic. The Canberra Liberals’ claims that we didn’t, are just plain wrong”.

This clearly implies that the election has occurred, yet the posted date is a month before the election.

(While I love a good conspiracy, sadly it’s almost always incompetence.)

Nothing about a clear commitment here, the operative word is “progressing”:
In an election policy statement on 4th October 2013, Simon Corbell MLA stated “that the steps in progressing the project during 2012 – 2013 would be to direct the Capital Metro office to complete the following four priority projects by December 2013.
– Light rail vehicle options study ($100,000), to investigate appropriate vehicle options for the corridor and the broader network;
– Transport planning to support light rail ($200,000) – bus network integration and implications, regulatory impacts and supportive policy options;
– Light rail staging study ($225,000) – to confirm early works plan, utility relocation, public realm including landscaping and supporting infrastructure, project timeframes and detailed staging;
– Light rail station infrastructure design study ($225,000) – station concept design for Gungahlin, Dickson and City stations and standard light rail stop concept design.”
I am now starting to believe that nothing will stop this government from bankrupting the Territory.
Were all you ACT public servants who blindly voted for Labor in 2012 aware that most of your retirement benefits (close to $5 billion) are unfunded? What is more important, your security in retirement or a ridiculous, totally unneeded tram which will service less that 25% of Canberra.
Yes, it’s sobering isn’t it.

Charlotte Harper said :

Yes, I noticed that. I think it must’ve been an old post that they updated without updating its original dateline.

So that isn’t in fact the original document, but one conveniently retrofitted ….

Charlotte Harper7:16 am 03 Feb 16

The policy document is original. It looks like the article linking to it was original but was updated subsequently in light of the Opposition’s suggestions there was no mandate. If they’d updated the date or made a note at the end of the article explaining they’d updated an original article, when, and why, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I will ask ACT Labor about it.

Also from Katy’s blog

“Capital Metro’s travel times are estimated to be at least 30% faster than general vehicle traffic.”

Is this still part of the election policy?

Charlotte Harper said :

Yes, I noticed that. I think it must’ve been an old post that they updated without updating its original dateline.

The magical Internet:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120724021615/http://www.actlabor.org.au/policy

http://web.archive.org/web/20130409224912/http://actlabor.org.au/policy/policy-announcements/322-our-city-capital-metro

ORIGINAL
If re-elected in 2012, ACT Labor will establish the ACT’s first large-scale private sector partnership to plan, finance and develop the first stage of a Light Rail Network for Canberra – the Capital Metro.

Capital Metro will be the backbone of Canberra’s public transport network, combined with the Frequent Network of buses. Options for investigation of second and subsequent stages are already being considered, including Kingston (East Lake) to the City via Barton, Woden to the City, Woden to Erindale and Tuggeranong, as well as to Belconnen, Weston Creek and Molonglo.

NEW

ACT Labor’s election commitment in 2012 to “plan, finance and develop the first stage of a light rail network for Canberra” is clearly laid out in ACT Labor’s 2012 Light Rail Election policy document. ACT Labor costed the development of a light rail route at $614m, and allocated $30m for concept and design. The policy stated the project would be delivered as a public private partnership.

The election policy states that construction on Capital Metro stage 1 will begin in 2016, and so far the ACT Government is on track to meet its commitment.

HiddenDragon8:08 pm 02 Feb 16

“…I met with the Prime Minister late last year and following the meeting he has invited the ACT Government to seek federal funding for the Russell extension,” Mr Barr said….”

If the PM is in a Daddy Warbucks kinda mood, the very best thing he could do would be to convert the Mr Fluffy loan into a grant – it did, after all, happen on the Commonwealth’s “watch” – which would then neatly cover the cost (apparently) of the northside tramline.

“…“Critics of light rail have said that we wouldn’t be able to deliver this project for less than a billion dollars but by selecting a bid that will deliver the project under our projected budget and ahead of our projected timeframes we have proven that our business case was conservative in its estimates,” Mr Corbell said….”

In other words, it could have been even worse – about as relevant as the “promise” that rates won’t triple.

OpenYourMind7:17 pm 02 Feb 16

Leon said :

The successful tender includes a capital cost of $698 million with a variance of five per cent. Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated operating costs at $204 million. This would bring the total cost to between $867 and $937 million.

Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated the benefits of light rail at $984 million, including $54 million of public transport operating savings benefit. But on 28 October 2015 Andrew Barr announced that the bus travel displaced by light rail would be reallocated elsewhere in the bus network. This eliminates the public transport operating savings, thus reducing the value of the gross benefits of light rail to $930 million.

The bottom line is that the net benefit of light rail – the amount by which the benefits exceed the cost – will be in the range minus $7 million to plus $63 million.

The Government estimated in 2012 that bus rapid transit would generate $230 million greater net benefits than light rail.

$204million could pretty much buy every single one of the estimated 13,000 tram commuters a new cheap small car and a nice bicycle.

Charlotte Harper said :

Hey, dungfungus you could be onto something here. A tram-stop tapas bar sounds like a goer to me.

Actually, my plan was to have the tapas bar on the trams, you know, a daggy “pop-up” one.

OpenYourMind6:38 pm 02 Feb 16

rubaiyat said :

All those perpetually claiming that this would cost well over a billion and run over time, have really done the Government an enormous favour.

Of course there will be blood flowing down Northbourne Ave from suicide truckies trying to ram it, pedestrians managing to dodge the 6 lanes of cars to wait patiently the 10 minutes for the next tram to pass so they can throw themselves under it, and our children will be sold into slavery so we will have enough money to put petrol on the table, after the whole of the ACT is declared bankrupt…

Now that the End of Days is upon us the ancient, wise burgers of Tuggeranong will be casting themselves and their families off Mt Taylor to spare them the horrors of Electrified Public Transport! 😀

Wo is me, sackcloth and ashes, the heavens will be rent asunder, the horror, the horror, Oh the Humanity!

You’re obviously new to this whole contracting thing. Don’t worry it will run over a billion.

It will also probably be as big a disaster as this similar recent light rail project: http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2F%2Ffull-comment%2Ftristin-hopper-the-600-million-edmonton-train-that-snarls-traffic-slows-down-transit-times-and-increases-emissions

What do you think this stupid tram will do to traffic on Northbourne during construction and after. One of the ridiculous identified savings in the business case was some incredible saving in congestion reduction….yeah, right.

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

What projects have the people of Tuggeranong asked for? And how many of them are in the realm of $800m or more?

miz said :

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

My guess is being politicians they look at the frothing hate fest that is Tuggers and think to themselves, “We aren’t going to please any of the OAP Mexicans so why bother trying?”

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Swimming pools and the like? I’m also unsure as to what this infrastructure is that Tuggeranong got that no one else in the ACT has received that you’re referencing?
Oh, maybe you mean those water quality control ponds that were constructed in Tuggeranong? Oh, no wait, that was the Inner North wasn’t it, I forgot the Tuggeranong ones got cancelled.

If the government was so sure of the benefits of this project, they should have instituted a precinct levy for the main beneficiaries who will see a large windfall jump in their property prices along the light rail route. Unfortunately equity is not part of their mandate and politics is once again the winner on the day.

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Totally false accusation.

Gungahlin is not providing a disproportionate amount of Income to ACT coffers. Tuggeranong is providing a disproportionate amount to ACT coffers via Federal grants to Canberra from residents payments of GST, Payroll tax, Income Tax, Medicare levy etc. Add to that the money given direct to ACT government via Land Rates, Fees & Charges, Stamp duty and New housing charges.

If the majority of ACT Government funding came from New Housing charges then you would be correct, but most of the money ACT government gets is from Federal grants & payments, Land rates, Stamp duty all of which Tuggeranong residents pay. In the highest total area payment in ACT. Equal first with Belconnen, North Canberra 3rd, Gungahlin 4th, South Canberra 5th, Woden 6th and the Creek 7th.

I don’t know what issues you regularly seem to have against Tuggeranong and its 85,000 residents, but an over and above amount of funding by the ACT government for Infrastructure, Entertainment, Services & Amenities into Tuggeranong can not be taken seriously.

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

Are you referring to the Lanyon pool (promised by the Libs)? Obviously not on the cards. Not sure what other infrastructure you are alleging has been delivered in Tuggers. Does Tuggers have a Uni? No. Apparently a token CIT (with no kitchens or other actual trade facilities) is all we get – if it ever happens. Does Tuggers have a sports precinct? No, just the usual ovals which are so poorly maintained my daughter’s soccer team has not infrequently been directed to play a ‘home’ game at Kaleen!
Money earmarked for Lake Tuggeranong improvements was redirected to a Northside wetlands. Tuggers is poorly served by PT compared to Gunners yet Gunners is getting massive PT dollars.
Need I say more? Tuggeranong has the same population as Gunners yet, despite being far more beautiful in terms of natural aspect and views, gets far fewer genuinely community focused amenities. It is so pathetic that they are trumpeting loudly and proudly about a renovated bus stop!! Gee wow.
I have spent years of my life travelling to Northside unis and sports facilities at Lyneham, Hawker, etc. It’s time to look at fairer amenity distribution.

justin heywood1:09 pm 02 Feb 16

Charlotte Harper said :

I have set out the facts and linked to the original documents. Readers can examine tham and make their own call as to whether the Government has a mandate, as you have.

And a curious fact about the ‘original’ documents. The linked article from ACT Labor’s website is dated September 21, 2012 ( a month before the actual election). Yet it says:

“ACT Labor went to the 2012 election with a clear policy commitment, to build a light rail route from Gungahlin to Civic. The Canberra Liberals’ claims that we didn’t, are just plain wrong”.

This clearly implies that the election has occurred, yet the posted date is a month before the election.

(While I love a good conspiracy, sadly it’s almost always incompetence.)

Charlotte Harper5:07 pm 02 Feb 16

Yes, I noticed that. I think it must’ve been an old post that they updated without updating its original dateline.

justin heywood said :

From the OP “However, the then Labor Chief Minister Katy Gallagher announced in September 2012, the month before the last ACT election, that if re-elected, her Government would develop light rail between Gungahlin and Civic. The policy document included this line: “Capital Metro Stage 1 is anticipated to be completed by 2018, with construction estimated to commence in 2016.”

Charlotte, if that was your comment, I think I should post a few quotes before the history of who was promising what at the last election is permanently distorted:

“ACT Greens Transport Spokesperson, Amanda Bresnan, has hailed today’s light rail announcement from the Government as a testament to what can be achieved by Greens leadership on big issues.
The ACT Greens have already launched a plan to deliver light rail in Canberra, committing $200M. Today the ALP said it would commit $30mto pursue the same model of public-private partnership together with seeking federal assistance.”

ACT Greens, media release, 20th September 2012

“The election policy is that the Government will commit $30 million for a series of studies, with an aim to begin construction no later than 2016, and have it up and running by 2018.” ACT Light Rail, September 21, 2012

“Labor has estimated the total project will cost $614 million, of which they will commit $30 million in capital funding over two years; the remaining funds will come from a private sector partnership.” Crikey, October 18, 2012

I hope you would agree that, at the very least, Labor was keen to emphasise the $30 million figure rather than the true cost. It was dishonest then, and to claim a mandate was given to them is dishonest now.

Hope all you want but you talking to yourself, saying they said, when they didn’t, is not convincing anybody.

Charlotte Harper said :

Hi Justin, the Labor policy document I link to has in very large type the following words: “If re-elected in 2012, ACT Labor will establish the ACT’s first large-scale private sector partnership to plan, finance and develop the first stage of a Light Rail Network for Canberra – the Capital Metro.”
It also explains that the $30 million is to be spent in the first two years i.e. 2012-2014 on a series of studies, and that construction would begin in 2016. From what I have in front of me, Crikey looks to have made an incorrect assumption not having read the document properly.
I have set out the facts and linked to the original documents. Readers can examine tham and make their own call as to whether the Government has a mandate, as you have.

How much has been spent to date and is that capitalised in the total cost?

Ever wondered why these “new” trams that are styled and streamlined like supersonic fighter jets only have a top speed of 70 kph?
And how are they going to run on “100% renewable energy” when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing?

justin heywood12:30 pm 02 Feb 16

Charlotte Harper said :

Hi Justin, the Labor policy document I link to has in very large type the following words: “If re-elected in 2012, ACT Labor will establish the ACT’s first large-scale private sector partnership to plan, finance and develop the first stage of a Light Rail Network for Canberra – the Capital Metro.”
It also explains that the $30 million is to be spent in the first two years i.e. 2012-2014 on a series of studies, and that construction would begin in 2016. From what I have in front of me, Crikey looks to have made an incorrect assumption not having read the document properly.
I have set out the facts and linked to the original documents. Readers can examine tham and make their own call as to whether the Government has a mandate, as you have.

Charlotte, I wasn’t arguing that you were distorting the facts. I am saying that there was some sleight of hand from ACT Labor. A ‘commitment’ figure of $30 million was widely promoted and is all that most voters would have seen.

Our governments are supposed to be trustworthy. We shouldn’t have to be checking the fine print.

JC said :

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

How much has been given to new home/unit buyers in Gungahlin (funded by every ratepayer in Tuggeranong).
How much has been forgone in stamp duty on the new home/unit buyers in Gungahlin – once again Tuggeranong ratepayers pick up the tab for this.
Remember we in Tuggeranong didn’t get any concessions or grants that you newbies in Gungahlin are getting.
Please re-do your equation on proportions.

justin heywood11:58 am 02 Feb 16

From the OP “However, the then Labor Chief Minister Katy Gallagher announced in September 2012, the month before the last ACT election, that if re-elected, her Government would develop light rail between Gungahlin and Civic. The policy document included this line: “Capital Metro Stage 1 is anticipated to be completed by 2018, with construction estimated to commence in 2016.”

Charlotte, if that was your comment, I think I should post a few quotes before the history of who was promising what at the last election is permanently distorted:

“ACT Greens Transport Spokesperson, Amanda Bresnan, has hailed today’s light rail announcement from the Government as a testament to what can be achieved by Greens leadership on big issues.
The ACT Greens have already launched a plan to deliver light rail in Canberra, committing $200M. Today the ALP said it would commit $30mto pursue the same model of public-private partnership together with seeking federal assistance.”

ACT Greens, media release, 20th September 2012

“The election policy is that the Government will commit $30 million for a series of studies, with an aim to begin construction no later than 2016, and have it up and running by 2018.” ACT Light Rail, September 21, 2012

“Labor has estimated the total project will cost $614 million, of which they will commit $30 million in capital funding over two years; the remaining funds will come from a private sector partnership.” Crikey, October 18, 2012

I hope you would agree that, at the very least, Labor was keen to emphasise the $30 million figure rather than the true cost. It was dishonest then, and to claim a mandate was given to them is dishonest now.

Charlotte Harper12:21 pm 02 Feb 16

Hi Justin, the Labor policy document I link to has in very large type the following words: “If re-elected in 2012, ACT Labor will establish the ACT’s first large-scale private sector partnership to plan, finance and develop the first stage of a Light Rail Network for Canberra – the Capital Metro.”
It also explains that the $30 million is to be spent in the first two years i.e. 2012-2014 on a series of studies, and that construction would begin in 2016. From what I have in front of me, Crikey looks to have made an incorrect assumption not having read the document properly.
I have set out the facts and linked to the original documents. Readers can examine tham and make their own call as to whether the Government has a mandate, as you have.

Leon said :

The successful tender includes a capital cost of $698 million with a variance of five per cent. Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated operating costs at $204 million. This would bring the total cost to between $867 and $937 million.

Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated the benefits of light rail at $984 million, including $54 million of public transport operating savings benefit. But on 28 October 2015 Andrew Barr announced that the bus travel displaced by light rail would be reallocated elsewhere in the bus network. This eliminates the public transport operating savings, thus reducing the value of the gross benefits of light rail to $930 million.

The bottom line is that the net benefit of light rail – the amount by which the benefits exceed the cost – will be in the range minus $7 million to plus $63 million.

The Government estimated in 2012 that bus rapid transit would generate $230 million greater net benefits than light rail.

The operating cost is over the life of the PPP, which is 20 years.

miz said :

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

Yet those in Tuggeranong are more than happy to ask for projects that benefit them and no one else. Swimming pools and the like, for example. And not to mention all the money spent over the years on all that infrastructure that only benefits Tuggeranong. And also forgetting for a moment that Gungahlin is the growth area of the ACT and is delivering a disproportionate amount of income to the ACT coffers.

Yeah makes sense doesn’t it?

wildturkeycanoe said :

The Majura Parkway is about the same length, does not need substations and complicated services relocations, yet has already taken 3 years and still isn’t complete. How do they think they can get a 12km tram line done in 24 months? The road closures, detouring, land acquisitions, tree removal, underground services complexities, power distribution issues and all the rest of the infrastructure just does not seem likely to get done in that time frame.

The Majura Parkway required two massive bridges over the Molonglo and a viaduct along the RMC ovals connected to two more sizeable bridges that crossed an existing road, that is what has taken time. It also required complex relocation of existing road ‘services’ to minimise disruption.

As for light rail, what land acquisitions are required? It is all down the median strip of Northborne Ave and Flemmington Road, with the depot on government owned land in Mitchell near Totalcare.

Diversions and road closures? What diversions and road closures? Most of the construction is down the median strip of Northborne Ave and Flemmington Road. Sure when it crosses other roads there will need to be some, but doubt it will be any worse or complex than any other road works project. Unlike Sydney for example where it is being built on existing carriageways which does require mass closures and diversions.

So really two years seems reasonable for this project.

Is their scope in the design layout of the German engineered Spanish trams to include tapas bars for Canberra’s new age transit hipsters?

Charlotte Harper10:52 am 02 Feb 16

Hey, dungfungus you could be onto something here. A tram-stop tapas bar sounds like a goer to me.

wildturkeycanoe said :

“Canberra Metro intends to complete construction in late 2018 and begin operations in early 2019, around a year earlier than previous estimates.”
Two years? They reckon it’ll be complete in two years? The Majura Parkway is about the same length, does not need substations and complicated services relocations, yet has already taken 3 years and still isn’t complete. How do they think they can get a 12km tram line done in 24 months? The road closures, detouring, land acquisitions, tree removal, underground services complexities, power distribution issues and all the rest of the infrastructure just does not seem likely to get done in that time frame.

They will specify quick-set concrete and fast dry paint to be used?

gooterz said :

Andrew should ask Jeremy to a pistol shoot at dawn or call an election now.
A vote of no confidence would trigger an election. This would clear the prospect of any of the termination clauses out of the equation. The government would them have until 2020 to build the system and operate for 2 years.

“A vote of no confidence would trigger an election.”
Two chances on this happening, none and Buckley’s.

gooterz said :

Andrew should ask Jeremy to a pistol shoot at dawn or call an election now.
A vote of no confidence would trigger an election. This would clear the prospect of any of the termination clauses out of the equation. The government would them have until 2020 to build the system and operate for 2 years.

A vote of no confidence?

I’m not very confident.

Leon said :

The bottom line is that the ….Government estimated in 2012 that bus rapid transit would generate $230 million greater net benefits than light rail.

They could have spent that money to benefit the entire city, which would have been far better value. Instead they are in la la land and appear unable to see how exclusive, divisive and ‘us and them’ this whole project is. I personally can’t wait to see it binned and hope there will be a large bonfire to celebrate its demise.

I am a bit confused.
Does the $698 million include the money spent so far (I reckon that would be at least $100 million) and that “lump sum” payment of $375 million to be paid to the contractor on completion of the project?
I realize that critical discussion about the “avant-garde” design of the trams is more important but I am sure there are others who will want to know just how deep this bottomless pit is going to be.

There is no point in having the pro/anti Tram debate any more. Its a done deal.

Where this actually went wrong is at the ballot box in 2012 when ACT voters voted for the tram proposal without very much knowledge of the detail, the flow on effects to Gov’t Annual Rates & changes and without an integrated transport plan (which is still being backwards re engineered).

Good luck with all this Canberra……your going to need it !

gooterz said :

Andrew should ask Jeremy to a pistol shoot at dawn or call an election now.
A vote of no confidence would trigger an election. This would clear the prospect of any of the termination clauses out of the equation. The government would them have until 2020 to build the system and operate for 2 years.

A successful vote of no confidence would need a labor or a greens member to vote against this ACT Labor/Greens Government. That’s no going to happen – unfortunately.

wildturkeycanoe6:33 am 02 Feb 16

“Canberra Metro intends to complete construction in late 2018 and begin operations in early 2019, around a year earlier than previous estimates.”
Two years? They reckon it’ll be complete in two years? The Majura Parkway is about the same length, does not need substations and complicated services relocations, yet has already taken 3 years and still isn’t complete. How do they think they can get a 12km tram line done in 24 months? The road closures, detouring, land acquisitions, tree removal, underground services complexities, power distribution issues and all the rest of the infrastructure just does not seem likely to get done in that time frame.

All those perpetually claiming that this would cost well over a billion and run over time, have really done the Government an enormous favour.

Of course there will be blood flowing down Northbourne Ave from suicide truckies trying to ram it, pedestrians managing to dodge the 6 lanes of cars to wait patiently the 10 minutes for the next tram to pass so they can throw themselves under it, and our children will be sold into slavery so we will have enough money to put petrol on the table, after the whole of the ACT is declared bankrupt…

Now that the End of Days is upon us the ancient, wise burgers of Tuggeranong will be casting themselves and their families off Mt Taylor to spare them the horrors of Electrified Public Transport! 😀

Wo is me, sackcloth and ashes, the heavens will be rent asunder, the horror, the horror, Oh the Humanity!

The successful tender includes a capital cost of $698 million with a variance of five per cent. Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated operating costs at $204 million. This would bring the total cost to between $867 and $937 million.

Capital Metro’s Business Case estimated the benefits of light rail at $984 million, including $54 million of public transport operating savings benefit. But on 28 October 2015 Andrew Barr announced that the bus travel displaced by light rail would be reallocated elsewhere in the bus network. This eliminates the public transport operating savings, thus reducing the value of the gross benefits of light rail to $930 million.

The bottom line is that the net benefit of light rail – the amount by which the benefits exceed the cost – will be in the range minus $7 million to plus $63 million.

The Government estimated in 2012 that bus rapid transit would generate $230 million greater net benefits than light rail.

Great. How many orgninsations and individuals have to speak out against the current iteration of the light rail plan before people notice it’s a bad idea? The Productivity Commission said it wasn’t viable. Experts that have previously built light rail in Australian cities have stated it isn’t viable. Think-tanks have crunched the numbers and stated it’s not viable – and that’s not counting disproving the rubbish cost-to-benefit document the government published.

Light rail might have a place in Canberra, but we need to ditch the iteration that Labor (or god forbid the version proposed by the Greens) is pushing because it was designed to neither be an adequate or viable transport system. It was always about boosting the land values of private individuals and trying to kick-start dying businesses along the planned route. I really don’t see why rate payers should pay an estimated $8,000 to people who pushed this plan to receive a government welfare handout.

Seriously. One of the very basic concepts of light rail is that you initially build it so traffic is continually flowing in both directions. I’ll never understand how the Government has convinced people that the first link should be between Gungahlin and Civic… It goes against everything that good modern transit planning has taught us. The ACT Governments plan reminds me of city in France that attempted building a rail system which linked an outer suburb with its CDB with the promise that the system would later be linked to other places. It was a massive failure, bankrupted the city and was never expanded. The reason is simple; traffic only flowed in spikes during the morning and night as people went to & from work.

The greatest problem with this whole light-rail saga is that it’s difficult to actually fight against. If you vote for your liberal representative you wind up supporting the greatest travesty this country has seen in the last decade (the butchering of the NBN caused a brain-drain because anyone that isn’t a baby boomer now knows this country has no economic future). Vote for Labor or the Greens and you end up supporting this “plan”.

How are moderates in this city supposed to fight against this? I doubt it will matter anyway. Labor will undoubtedly write the contracts so it’s impossible to pull out of without massive expense. They know that Canberra won’t vote for this plan if they have to wait an extra election cycle. By that time the mis-information will have been exposed.

Andrew should ask Jeremy to a pistol shoot at dawn or call an election now.
A vote of no confidence would trigger an election. This would clear the prospect of any of the termination clauses out of the equation. The government would them have until 2020 to build the system and operate for 2 years.

Can we get a breakdown of the costs?
There seems to be a lot of critical things left out here:
“Stage one will consist of 12km of light rail track, 13 stops, 14 light rail vehicles, a depot and 20 years of operation and maintenance. It will operate from as early as 6am and up to 1am with services every six minutes during peak times.”

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.