RiotACT Face Off: Does Light Rail measure up for Canberra?

I have just been to the light rail ‘consultation’ (aka sales pitch) at Erindale. The promotional booklet provided sets out what they call ‘five reasons why Canberra needs light rail.’
Now I am REALLY concerned, as these five ‘reasons’ are not what a reasonable person would call ‘reasons.’

They are, and I quote:

“1. Canberra has a vision and light rail plays a big role
2. We can’t keep building more roads for more cars
3. Diversifying the economy and creating jobs
4. Better health and environment
5. Connecting communities”

First, ‘vision’ is not what any sane person would call a ‘reason’.
Second, these are all just motherhood statements to encourage people out of their cars and onto public transport – they apply just as equally to, for example, rapid bus transit, or even walking or riding bikes.
They do not justify ‘why Canberra needs light rail’ (as opposed to any decent public transport service) at all.
Finally, my biggest problem with the light rail proposal is that they are going down the same problematic road as ACTION, in providing a main trunk and expecting people to have interrupted journeys by travelling to the main trunk.

While this ‘main trunk’ philosophy appears rational to many, including some Rioters, I believe it is the most significant reason why ACTION is under-utilised. Interrupting a journey makes the journey longer and more complicated, forcing people to wait, in Canberra’s extreme weather, more than once. Why would you do that, when you can get in your car?
Rather, I put that the best thing that ever happened to public transport in Canberra is Xpresso services. These services actually offer decent competition to driving, and therefore value for money, because they are sufficiently direct. Consequently they are popular and well patronised.
Unfortunately light rail proponents state that they, too, expect people to go ‘the wrong way’ towards a trunk route connection (such as an interchange to station), and get off the nice warm bus and onto a tram. This is no different to what ACTION offers right now – except that it will cost a fortune.
It would be far better value for money expanding Xpresso routes to off peak and weekends.
It is apparent to me that the light rail proponents have no clue whatsoever about what is wrong with the current bus network, and consequently are falling into exactly the same trap as ACTION . . . only much more expensive, for years and years to come.

housebound said :

miz said :

Even with their push polling, the Govt only got 55% support for light rail – see today’s CT
Hardly a resounding endorsement.

Does anyone even know anyone who was polled for the government’s push poll in today’s CT? Does anyone know what questions were asked, or how the regions were divided (other than north and south). With more than 1000 people being interviewed, most of us would know or know of someone who’d been polled.

Let’s have a quick look at this article for some figures, this is actually a debate about the pros/cons of “the local council train set” so it should be a fair enough place to view the opinions of various locals.

Of 76 responses we have the following outcomes:
42 against
6 for – although 3 of these are from Mr Hargreaves himself so should probably be ignored
3 alternative suggestions
2 not decided
23 various comments on topics not really related to the tram itself.

Seems to be a little off the 55% positive spin result from the Gov’t funded report… Seems more accurate to say there is at least 55% against, even taking into account 33% of the replies weren’t even really voting as such. Ignore these responses (and Mr Hargreaves’s) and we are now looking at 42/48 against – 88%.

To analyse another spin article from last week:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/light-rail-figures-indicate-strong-patronage-during-peak-times-20140729-zy5du.html

Some of the best projections come from running some figures:

Estimated cost to build $1b, no-one believes the $614M est based on Canberra’s history – Bruce Stadium, Cotter Dam, Gungahlin Drive, Majura Parkway…

Give it a 20 year life – doesn’t sound too unreasonable. Still looking at $50M per year to pay for the initial investment.

Passenger figures of 13,700/day – gives us 5 million trips a year based on 365 days of full operation. Given the new parking meters have failed to collect revenue Canberra wide on at least 2 occasions since June we could probably guess that the train won’t be 100% operational over its lifetime. Also doubtful these passenger figures will be achieved on public holidays, weekends etc but lets give them the benefit – not like these figures are in any way accurate anyway.

Simple math now shows that each trip will cost $10 to recoup investment costs alone – that is $20 per day to travel just part of the full trip to work. Add bus fares to/from tram stations and the inconvenience of walking half way through Civic twice a day and I’m betting most of those will revert back to buses/cars within 2 weeks of it opening.

Add in operational costs – let’s guess 20-30 full time employees as drivers, ticket collectors, help/info phone line, maintenance crews etc and there is another $1M or so per year to fund. Then we have the electricity costs, maintenance parts – costs just keep going up and up.

Funny how the more they try to sell it the worse it looks…

rommeldog56 said :

miz said :

Even with their push polling, the Govt only got 55% support for light rail – see today’s CT
Hardly a resounding endorsement.

55% is a fairly resounding for vote i would think ?

If you believe the results and havent had the benefit of seeing what questions were asked, the demographics, location of those asked, etc.

So, if the result is reflective (and I do not, in any way, shape or form !) then where does that leave the ACT ?

Maybe with a population that is too well paid, too apathetic or too stupid to see the bleeding obvious ?

I thought the Labor minority government was only using the 2012 light rail promise as a stunt to get the support of The Green after the election.
Now, I am not so sure.
Simon Corbell is fanatical about it to the extent he is conducting meaningless polls that somehow reflect a majority is in favour of the project and he is beating up the story/photos of a “local” company digging pot holes in Gungahlin to convey the impression that real progress is being made.
Capital Metro Agency have been employing a lot of people and all this means it will be difficult to even shelve (let alone withdraw from) the project before the planned “investment ready” stage.
Andrew Barr is confident the project can be financed by a PPP (Public Private Partnership) despite rail industry experts stating fom day one that it is not viable.
Corbell also supports PPP (Pet Project Promise).
I think it is high time Corbell explained the economics of running the light rail without clouding the figures with “value added” inputs and all the hype that he claims makes it a winner.

miz said :

Even with their push polling, the Govt only got 55% support for light rail – see today’s CT
Hardly a resounding endorsement.

55% is a fairly resounding for vote i would think ? If you believe the results and havent had the benefit of seeing what questions were asked, the demographics, location of those asked, etc.

So, if the result is reflective (and I do not, in any way, shape or form !) then where does that leave the ACT ?

Maybe with a population that is too well paid, too apathetic or too stupid to see the bleeding obvious ?

Masquara said :

And it’s easy to have “vision” when you’re risking other people’s money.

And this, fundamentally, is what the Greens are about.

When you’ve lost the argument, you haul out “where’s your vision?” …

I’m sure Sydney’s Monorail proponents had heaps of “vision”, John! And it’s easy to have “vision” when you’re risking other people’s money. If this light rail is commercially and socially viable, let Terry Snow realise the vision!

miz said :

Even with their push polling, the Govt only got 55% support for light rail – see today’s CT
Hardly a resounding endorsement.

Does anyone even know anyone who was polled for the government’s push poll in today’s CT? Does anyone know what questions were asked, or how the regions were divided (other than north and south). With more than 1000 people being interviewed, most of us would know or know of someone who’d been polled.

Even with their push polling, the Govt only got 55% support for light rail – see today’s CT
Hardly a resounding endorsement.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

gooterz said :

Its not a highspeed rail link to Sydney.

Which would be far more useful…

….or less useless.

gooterz said :

Its not a highspeed rail link to Sydney.

Which would be far more useful…

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

dungfungus said :

The case for telecommuting from just across the border.
http://www.futureplans.org.au/projects/teleworking
It’s very compelling when you check how many people fight their way in and out of Canberra every day on gridlocked roads along side an underutilised EXISTING rail line which could be running regional commuting services in a matter of months.
The Greens are always carping on about too many cars coming into Canberra so how about doing something useful Mr Rattenbury by starting a regional rail service instead of trying to justify a visionary light rail that nobody needs.

Not quite related, but I often see people working on a laptop/tablet on Action buses. Its also common on trains in other Capitals.

Some workplaces even count that as “working time” – because of the commuting distances/times in larger cities.

So, with the now seemingly inevitable Light Rail for Gunners-Civic, will passengers be able to sit down to work on laptops/tablets or will they be squeezed in like sardines with mostly standing room only ? Maybe the trip isn’t long enough for it to matter ?

Comparing trams with buses & trains as far as ability to sit and operate a laptop is like comparing chalk and cheese.
Trams are designed to cram people who mostly stand and Canberra trams will probably have passenger space sacrificed for bicycles, prams & wheelchairs.

All the talk of laptops and doing work

Its 12km….

Literally 10 minutes once you sit down. You’d spend twice that Changing bus to tram or extra time in the trip.
Its not a highspeed rail link to Sydney. However for the price per km i can see how someone might get confused.

So is ACT labor really going to spite the ACT by brining this in?

I was driving down the monaro highway yesterday. It would be the perfect spot for light rail.
There is bugger all out there, which is perfect.

The land prices are low which is perfect.
There aren’t expensive utilities to move.

The increase in value on the land price would be perfect for public private partnership
Light rail has to be the first thing built in a new group centre. It should have been built for molonglo valley. However there aren’t any voters there yet.

How do we get the things we need and not the things the current government need to buy votes?

Transport planning needs to be following a set of rules by a government department. Governments can change the rules but not make individual decisions of who gets what.

The only thing keeping Labor in power this term is the fear that if you don’t vote for them you’ll get ripped off.

The other way would be if the election numbers for the entire act were anonymous for region so we only got a count overall. The divisions of the act are useless.

rommeldog56 said :

dungfungus said :

The case for telecommuting from just across the border.
http://www.futureplans.org.au/projects/teleworking
It’s very compelling when you check how many people fight their way in and out of Canberra every day on gridlocked roads along side an underutilised EXISTING rail line which could be running regional commuting services in a matter of months.
The Greens are always carping on about too many cars coming into Canberra so how about doing something useful Mr Rattenbury by starting a regional rail service instead of trying to justify a visionary light rail that nobody needs.

Not quite related, but I often see people working on a laptop/tablet on Action buses. Its also common on trains in other Capitals.

Some workplaces even count that as “working time” – because of the commuting distances/times in larger cities.

So, with the now seemingly inevitable Light Rail for Gunners-Civic, will passengers be able to sit down to work on laptops/tablets or will they be squeezed in like sardines with mostly standing room only ? Maybe the trip isn’t long enough for it to matter ?

Comparing trams with buses & trains as far as ability to sit and operate a laptop is like comparing chalk and cheese.
Trams are designed to cram people who mostly stand and Canberra trams will probably have passenger space sacrificed for bicycles, prams & wheelchairs.

dungfungus said :

The case for telecommuting from just across the border.
http://www.futureplans.org.au/projects/teleworking
It’s very compelling when you check how many people fight their way in and out of Canberra every day on gridlocked roads along side an underutilised EXISTING rail line which could be running regional commuting services in a matter of months.
The Greens are always carping on about too many cars coming into Canberra so how about doing something useful Mr Rattenbury by starting a regional rail service instead of trying to justify a visionary light rail that nobody needs.

Not quite related, but I often see people working on a laptop/tablet on Action buses. Its also common on trains in other Capitals. Some workplaces even count that as “working time” – because of the commuting distances/times in larger cities.

So, with the now seemingly inevitable Light Rail for Gunners-Civic, will passengers be able to sit down to work on laptops/tablets or will they be squeezed in like sardines with mostly standing room only ? Maybe the trip isn’t long enough for it to matter ?

The case for telecommuting from just across the border.
http://www.futureplans.org.au/projects/teleworking
It’s very compelling when you check how many people fight their way in and out of Canberra every day on gridlocked roads along side an underutilised EXISTING rail line which could be running regional commuting services in a matter of months.
The Greens are always carping on about too many cars coming into Canberra so how about doing something useful Mr Rattenbury by starting a regional rail service instead of trying to justify a visionary light rail that nobody needs.

The telecommuting is another aspect I hadn’t thought of. Add in the inevitable driverless cars and potential improvements in electric transport (eg Capabus/tram) makes this long term financial commitment to old school technology absolutely ludicrous.

I’m all ears, can anyone seriously offer even a vaguely reasonable cost/benefit analysis for the tram here. It doesn’t even need to make a profit, just show me in real terms how this thing isn’t going to generate a sea of red ink that makes Action look like a viable public transport model.

dungfungus said :

gooterz said :

HiddenDragon said :

rosscoact said :

HiddenDragon said :

“…Capital Metro’s projections indicate that population in the City to Gungahlin corridor will grow from 43,900 in 2012 to 61,400 in 2031 while the number of jobs in the corridor will grow from 59,800 in 2012 to 73,000 in 2031…..”

With Canberra’s private sector being squeezed (by economic conditions and rapidly rising ACT Government taxes and charges) and future Commonwealth governments unlikely to have the capacity to spend up big in Canberra (even if they wanted to), where are these 13,000 new jobs in the “corridor” going to come from?

Looks like wishful thinking, and projections based on the assumption that Australia’s debt-fuelled over-consumption of recent decades will continue largely unabated – a fascinating perspective for people supposedly concerned about sustainability.

Are you suggesting that how we are right now is how we’re going to stay for the next 17 years? That’s really interesting, tell me more.

I’m questioning the source of 13,200 new jobs in the corridor in 17 years – against a broader economic background which is uncertain at best. I don’t share the sanguine views of the “she’ll be right, Canberra always bounces back” brigade, and I am concerned about a Government with a fragile revenue base and debts which are already substantial and mounting at a worrying pace – even if interest rates stay at emergency levels for years to come. Beyond all of that, I have yet to hear one compelling reason why trams, as proposed – compared to buses with dedicated lanes, are worth the financial risk – even “if” the cost is only $600m. or so.

Given that the entire areas serviced by the tram will be serviced by 1gb fibre, the rest of Canberra wont be and the feds wanted to have 20% work from home, where does that leave the job growth. There might be an extra 12000 people employed but many of them wont come to work. I’m sure more than a few with move into the area just to work from home.

This is a very valid point. I think this phenomena is called “telecommuting” and several Federal agencies already have staff de-centralised all over Australia using the internet.
In fact, if telecommuting catches on and is embraced more, the whole future planning for mass transit in Canberra could be turned on its head because people will be able to live in places like Cooma and Goulburn where house prices are affordable. There would be implications for the current property rates system in Canberra which could impact adversely on rate revenue.

If Andrew Wilkie, and others, have their way there’ll be a lot more telecommuting with Canberra, over much longer distances. For those whose jobs remain in Canberra, a residence across the border may become increasingly financially attractive, unless NSW goes down the same taxing path as the ACT – more likely, though, they will wait for national changes to GST and income tax distribution.

gooterz said :

HiddenDragon said :

rosscoact said :

HiddenDragon said :

“…Capital Metro’s projections indicate that population in the City to Gungahlin corridor will grow from 43,900 in 2012 to 61,400 in 2031 while the number of jobs in the corridor will grow from 59,800 in 2012 to 73,000 in 2031…..”

With Canberra’s private sector being squeezed (by economic conditions and rapidly rising ACT Government taxes and charges) and future Commonwealth governments unlikely to have the capacity to spend up big in Canberra (even if they wanted to), where are these 13,000 new jobs in the “corridor” going to come from?

Looks like wishful thinking, and projections based on the assumption that Australia’s debt-fuelled over-consumption of recent decades will continue largely unabated – a fascinating perspective for people supposedly concerned about sustainability.

Are you suggesting that how we are right now is how we’re going to stay for the next 17 years? That’s really interesting, tell me more.

I’m questioning the source of 13,200 new jobs in the corridor in 17 years – against a broader economic background which is uncertain at best. I don’t share the sanguine views of the “she’ll be right, Canberra always bounces back” brigade, and I am concerned about a Government with a fragile revenue base and debts which are already substantial and mounting at a worrying pace – even if interest rates stay at emergency levels for years to come. Beyond all of that, I have yet to hear one compelling reason why trams, as proposed – compared to buses with dedicated lanes, are worth the financial risk – even “if” the cost is only $600m. or so.

Given that the entire areas serviced by the tram will be serviced by 1gb fibre, the rest of Canberra wont be and the feds wanted to have 20% work from home, where does that leave the job growth. There might be an extra 12000 people employed but many of them wont come to work. I’m sure more than a few with move into the area just to work from home.

This is a very valid point. I think this phenomena is called “telecommuting” and several Federal agencies already have staff de-centralised all over Australia using the internet.
In fact, if telecommuting catches on and is embraced more, the whole future planning for mass transit in Canberra could be turned on its head because people will be able to live in places like Cooma and Goulburn where house prices are affordable. There would be implications for the current property rates system in Canberra which could impact adversely on rate revenue.

Messrs. Corbell and Rattenbury could learn something if they visited Twin Cities in Minnesota
http://www.twincities.com/transportation/ci_26121989/minnesota-think-tank-calls-pause-light-rail
and
Bogota in Colombia
http://vimeo.com/12472119

Buses are better by far.

HiddenDragon said :

rosscoact said :

HiddenDragon said :

“…Capital Metro’s projections indicate that population in the City to Gungahlin corridor will grow from 43,900 in 2012 to 61,400 in 2031 while the number of jobs in the corridor will grow from 59,800 in 2012 to 73,000 in 2031…..”

With Canberra’s private sector being squeezed (by economic conditions and rapidly rising ACT Government taxes and charges) and future Commonwealth governments unlikely to have the capacity to spend up big in Canberra (even if they wanted to), where are these 13,000 new jobs in the “corridor” going to come from?

Looks like wishful thinking, and projections based on the assumption that Australia’s debt-fuelled over-consumption of recent decades will continue largely unabated – a fascinating perspective for people supposedly concerned about sustainability.

Are you suggesting that how we are right now is how we’re going to stay for the next 17 years? That’s really interesting, tell me more.

I’m questioning the source of 13,200 new jobs in the corridor in 17 years – against a broader economic background which is uncertain at best. I don’t share the sanguine views of the “she’ll be right, Canberra always bounces back” brigade, and I am concerned about a Government with a fragile revenue base and debts which are already substantial and mounting at a worrying pace – even if interest rates stay at emergency levels for years to come. Beyond all of that, I have yet to hear one compelling reason why trams, as proposed – compared to buses with dedicated lanes, are worth the financial risk – even “if” the cost is only $600m. or so.

Given that the entire areas serviced by the tram will be serviced by 1gb fibre, the rest of Canberra wont be and the feds wanted to have 20% work from home, where does that leave the job growth. There might be an extra 12000 people employed but many of them wont come to work. I’m sure more than a few with move into the area just to work from home.

HiddenDragon said :

rosscoact said :

HiddenDragon said :

“…Capital Metro’s projections indicate that population in the City to Gungahlin corridor will grow from 43,900 in 2012 to 61,400 in 2031 while the number of jobs in the corridor will grow from 59,800 in 2012 to 73,000 in 2031…..”

With Canberra’s private sector being squeezed (by economic conditions and rapidly rising ACT Government taxes and charges) and future Commonwealth governments unlikely to have the capacity to spend up big in Canberra (even if they wanted to), where are these 13,000 new jobs in the “corridor” going to come from?

Looks like wishful thinking, and projections based on the assumption that Australia’s debt-fuelled over-consumption of recent decades will continue largely unabated – a fascinating perspective for people supposedly concerned about sustainability.

Are you suggesting that how we are right now is how we’re going to stay for the next 17 years? That’s really interesting, tell me more.

I’m questioning the source of 13,200 new jobs in the corridor in 17 years – against a broader economic background which is uncertain at best. I don’t share the sanguine views of the “she’ll be right, Canberra always bounces back” brigade, and I am concerned about a Government with a fragile revenue base and debts which are already substantial and mounting at a worrying pace – even if interest rates stay at emergency levels for years to come. Beyond all of that, I have yet to hear one compelling reason why trams, as proposed – compared to buses with dedicated lanes, are worth the financial risk – even “if” the cost is only $600m. or so.

The 13,200 jobs will be created by Capital Metro Agency.
Look at their website; it’s more than just a tram track you know.

rosscoact said :

HiddenDragon said :

“…Capital Metro’s projections indicate that population in the City to Gungahlin corridor will grow from 43,900 in 2012 to 61,400 in 2031 while the number of jobs in the corridor will grow from 59,800 in 2012 to 73,000 in 2031…..”

With Canberra’s private sector being squeezed (by economic conditions and rapidly rising ACT Government taxes and charges) and future Commonwealth governments unlikely to have the capacity to spend up big in Canberra (even if they wanted to), where are these 13,000 new jobs in the “corridor” going to come from?

Looks like wishful thinking, and projections based on the assumption that Australia’s debt-fuelled over-consumption of recent decades will continue largely unabated – a fascinating perspective for people supposedly concerned about sustainability.

Are you suggesting that how we are right now is how we’re going to stay for the next 17 years? That’s really interesting, tell me more.

I’m questioning the source of 13,200 new jobs in the corridor in 17 years – against a broader economic background which is uncertain at best. I don’t share the sanguine views of the “she’ll be right, Canberra always bounces back” brigade, and I am concerned about a Government with a fragile revenue base and debts which are already substantial and mounting at a worrying pace – even if interest rates stay at emergency levels for years to come. Beyond all of that, I have yet to hear one compelling reason why trams, as proposed – compared to buses with dedicated lanes, are worth the financial risk – even “if” the cost is only $600m. or so.

OpenYourMind said :

This morning’s Canberra Times drew some circles around tram stops. Using a walking distance limit of 400mtrs, the tram supports just 12000 Canberrans. It would be cheaper to give each user $60,000 and a decent bike!

No, no, no. I don’t think we mere Ratepayers get the ACT Govt’s “vision”.

To create the population density/tram patronage required for at least a 1:1 Benifits Costs Ratio (BCR), it seems to me that the ACT Gov’t has a visionary strategy of “build it and they will come”.

IMHO, thats one hell of a risk to take with Ratepayers $, based on such flimsey projections.

dungfungus said :

Please tell me all you know about “super capacitors” of the type that are in some trams already.

Well here’s some background reading.

dungfungus said :

switch said :

dungfungus said :

Same goes for trams with batteries (or super capacitors as the trendoid salesmen call them).

Capacitors aren’t batteries.

Please tell me all you know about “super capacitors” of the type that are in some trams already.

Look, I’m no more convinced about the tram than you are, but these things DO exist. Five seconds googling “super capacitor light rail” led me to

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/guangzhou-supercapacitor-tram-unveiled.html

HiddenDragon said :

“…Capital Metro’s projections indicate that population in the City to Gungahlin corridor will grow from 43,900 in 2012 to 61,400 in 2031 while the number of jobs in the corridor will grow from 59,800 in 2012 to 73,000 in 2031…..”

With Canberra’s private sector being squeezed (by economic conditions and rapidly rising ACT Government taxes and charges) and future Commonwealth governments unlikely to have the capacity to spend up big in Canberra (even if they wanted to), where are these 13,000 new jobs in the “corridor” going to come from?

Looks like wishful thinking, and projections based on the assumption that Australia’s debt-fuelled over-consumption of recent decades will continue largely unabated – a fascinating perspective for people supposedly concerned about sustainability.

Are you suggesting that how we are right now is how we’re going to stay for the next 17 years? That’s really interesting, tell me more.

“…Capital Metro’s projections indicate that population in the City to Gungahlin corridor will grow from 43,900 in 2012 to 61,400 in 2031 while the number of jobs in the corridor will grow from 59,800 in 2012 to 73,000 in 2031…..”

With Canberra’s private sector being squeezed (by economic conditions and rapidly rising ACT Government taxes and charges) and future Commonwealth governments unlikely to have the capacity to spend up big in Canberra (even if they wanted to), where are these 13,000 new jobs in the “corridor” going to come from?

Looks like wishful thinking, and projections based on the assumption that Australia’s debt-fuelled over-consumption of recent decades will continue largely unabated – a fascinating perspective for people supposedly concerned about sustainability.

switch said :

dungfungus said :

Same goes for trams with batteries (or super capacitors as the trendoid salesmen call them).

Capacitors aren’t batteries.

Please tell me all you know about “super capacitors” of the type that are in some trams already.

rommeldog56 said :

southsiderioter said :

Nice point John. Will I be able to travel to the arboretum on the new light rail? WillI be able to get to the Zoo, the art gallery, the museum or Questicon? If not why not? We have these wonderful destinations within our city, will our newest public transport actually take anyone to them?

Well, I’ve never seen the toy train set between Gunners and Civic as a tourist attraction I suppose. I couldn’t imagine tourists staying in Gunners, catching it to Civic then getting a local bus/cab to the National attractions ?

Its more for commuters – I think ?

Tourists don’t vote in the ACT.

gooterz said :

Flywheel power storage can already bring a freight train up to cruising speed. Nasa uses them in space, they are fairly simple devices that actually stabilize the vehicle.

The chagrining time for a flywheel is in seconds to minutes, a bus could charge at lights or bus stops.

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

Capital Metro have shown no interest in FES and regenerative energy. As I have said before, the Euro Tram cartel salesmen are the best – the deal has already been done.
Ironically, flywheels have been in use for 200 years and trams only 100 years.

OpenYourMind said :

This morning’s Canberra Times drew some circles around tram stops. Using a walking distance limit of 400mtrs, the tram supports just 12000 Canberrans. It would be cheaper to give each user $60,000 and a decent bike!

The times when I caught a bus to work – when it rained, otherwise I rode a bike – I had two kms to walk from my destination bus stop to my work place. The walk was pleasant and not hard to do, and the exercise was good for me. And I don’t walk very fast either. So 800metres should not be a problem to most people.

OpenYourMind said :

This morning’s Canberra Times drew some circles around tram stops. Using a walking distance limit of 400mtrs, the tram supports just 12000 Canberrans. It would be cheaper to give each user $60,000 and a decent bike!

Oh dear. Things are not looking so good for the Tram Plan spin. According to the article:

Capital Metro Minister Simon Corbell said the analysis amounted to “guesswork”.

“Capital Metro’s projections indicate that population in the City to Gungahlin corridor will grow from 43,900 in 2012 to 61,400 in 2031 while the number of jobs in the corridor will grow from 59,800 in 2012 to 73,000 in 2031.

According to the 2012 submission to IA the business as usual case (with a benefit cost ratio of 1.02) the population in the corridor was going to be 74,100 with 75,800 jobs by 2031. The higher density scenario (the one that made the BCR look plausible) had 102,600 people living in the corridor by 2031 and 91,700 jobs.

Sounds awfully like the BCR may have just official drifted south of 1.0. Can’t wait to see how they spin this one.

This morning’s Canberra Times drew some circles around tram stops. Using a walking distance limit of 400mtrs, the tram supports just 12000 Canberrans. It would be cheaper to give each user $60,000 and a decent bike!

rommeldog56 said :

southsiderioter said :

Nice point John. Will I be able to travel to the arboretum on the new light rail? WillI be able to get to the Zoo, the art gallery, the museum or Questicon? If not why not? We have these wonderful destinations within our city, will our newest public transport actually take anyone to them?

Well, I’ve never seen the toy train set between Gunners and Civic as a tourist attraction I suppose. I couldn’t imagine tourists staying in Gunners, catching it to Civic then getting a local bus/cab to the National attractions ?

Its more for commuters – I think ?

Only if they commute from Gunners and work in civic, if they work in Woden, Fyshwick, Gungahlin, Tuggeranong, Queenbeyan, South Canberra, Western Creek, Belconnen. And likely only if they live close enough to the terminal at Gungahlin to make it worth while.
But sure there would be some people who catch it right?

Its not like its going to be caught in traffic along the way… hmmm they better fix the lights then.

Tourists will use it and stay in all the hotels in Gunners….hmmm

Shoppers will use it, because it will go past ikea… hmm not that close however.

Shoppers will use it because they can get from civic to the other major centres like belco… hmm no

At least the net impact will be good, its not as if its going to slow down other traffic.. hmm well thats wrong too.

At least its green, we just have to remove all the trees.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Walker said :

……

As urchin says in a way, why just two options? Is there anything else?

During my time as minister for transport, we looked at the light rail option as a way of addressing the crawl on Northbourne during the peak hours and the cost of extending it over time to the other town centres. We looked at it as a tourist boon and a way of addressing our carbon footprint. We also looked at the appetite of the private sector and at that time there was no appetite. I’m told that there is private sector interest now in a PPP to build the line.

As I am not a member of the caucus anymore, I am not entitled to any detailed information on the costings or the interest from the private sector other than what is in the media.

We also had my time a greater call on the capital budget in the forward years to be able to consider the possibility. Those large capital items have now been built and the time is now to do the preliminary workaround getting the project started.

Thanks.

The reasons for looking into it are good, but what I meant was: what other potential solutions were investigated? (If you’ve access or knew in your time).

Also, I think I’ve got some of the drift on that last paragraph, but not quite sure (captial items etc).

rommeldog56 said :

southsiderioter said :

Nice point John. Will I be able to travel to the arboretum on the new light rail? WillI be able to get to the Zoo, the art gallery, the museum or Questicon? If not why not? We have these wonderful destinations within our city, will our newest public transport actually take anyone to them?

Well, I’ve never seen the toy train set between Gunners and Civic as a tourist attraction I suppose. I couldn’t imagine tourists staying in Gunners, catching it to Civic then getting a local bus/cab to the National attractions ?

Its more for commuters – I think ?

Half right. Lots of hotels on Northbourne, starting around Mitchell / Watson. Not sure that’s a huge factor, but there it is.

southsiderioter said :

Nice point John. Will I be able to travel to the arboretum on the new light rail? WillI be able to get to the Zoo, the art gallery, the museum or Questicon? If not why not? We have these wonderful destinations within our city, will our newest public transport actually take anyone to them?

Well, I’ve never seen the toy train set between Gunners and Civic as a tourist attraction I suppose. I couldn’t imagine tourists staying in Gunners, catching it to Civic then getting a local bus/cab to the National attractions ? Its more for commuters – I think ?

Nice point John. Will I be able to travel to the arboretum on the new light rail? WillI be able to get to the Zoo, the art gallery, the museum or Questicon? If not why not? We have these wonderful destinations within our city, will our newest public transport actually take anyone to them?

Maya123 said :

watto23 said :

I agree that Tuggeranong residents seem to oppose this on price, but would probably support it if it started in Tuggeranong first.

My opposition to it as I’ve stated in many posts, is the speed of the transport. I don’t use public transport because it takes too long. When an hour+ is needed to say commute from Tuggeranong to civic and the same journey in reasonable traffic takes half the time, i’m willing to pay for the privelege so that i can have an hour a day free to do something else.

The proposed system, doesn’t cut transit times that much. too many stops, too many traffic lights as well. Its not like the bus lights at traffic lights work for anyone other than motorcyclists.

Route 300 about 32 minutes Tuggeranong to Civic.
If driving, it is not only the actual driving time that needs to be factored in, but the time it takes to find a park too. On bad days this can take a considerable time. Then there is the walking time to destination if a near park can’t be found. Often the bus is closer to destination than the car parking. Of course the reverse is true. The time taken to walk to the bus is a factor.
Personally, I usually find it more convenient to catch a bus to large centres such as Civic and Woden than drive, despite the walk from home to bus and back again. I have only ever caught one bus to Tuggeranong, as that is not my closest shopping centre and therefore I rarely see the need to visit it. Woden, followed by Civic are my closest centres, so there is usually no need to travel so far.
As for commuting, I made sure I bought a house close enough to my work to cycle. (8kms). My local bus didn’t go there, but if it were raining and I caught a bus instead, I could get within 2 kms and it wasn’t hard to walk that. I lowered my expectations for a house to afford to live so close to work, despite other people’s negative comments at the time (horrors, they wouldn’t live there!).

That bus is indeed 32 minutes on time, but then I can either catch a connecting bus to Tuggeranong or walk (~35 minutes). Door to door using the buses its well over 1 hr commute time. Door to Door driving can be done in 30 minutes. And my situation is now I don’t work in Civic, so buses to Deakin or Barton take even longer. When I worked in Fyshwick it was 1-1 1/2 hrs to Tuggeranong depending on connections.

A rapid bus or light rail network to reduce transit times would be beneficial. I’m being rational here and suggesting ideas, as opposed to just bluntly rejecting it on cost or because of who i vote for for example. If more people put forward rational ideas rather than regurgitating what the political party of choice told them to say, we’d probably get somewhere with this debate!

pepmeup said :

I’m happy for the gov to put in light rail, do long as the entire cost (including the usual blow outs) is covered by rates from those who will be able to use it, the Northbourne corridor and all of Gungahlin. The rates increases will have to be huge, not only to cover the build cost but the running costs as it will not run at a profit. When rates in Gungahlin move from $600-1200 per year to $2000-3000 per year we will see if people are happy.

I won’t benefit from this first stage as I don’t live in Gungahlin, but am open minded enough to see the broader community benefit.

dungfungus said :

What happens to light rail infrastructure when there is a riot like the one last week in Jerusalem:
“Among the damage caused by rioters at the stations was the destruction of ticket machines, the destruction of rubber tracks by rioters who set fire to them, demolishing of the traffic lights at intersections of the road and the tracks, vandalism of the electricity and communication infrastructure, and the ransacking of at least one electricity control center……”

It could happen here also.

I’m still buzzing over Dunger’s magnificent paralogism. Can not the Riot Act Star Chamber implement awards that recognise such brilliance?

I’m happy for the gov to put in light rail, do long as the entire cost (including the usual blow outs) is covered by rates from those who will be able to use it, the Northbourne corridor and all of Gungahlin. The rates increases will have to be huge, not only to cover the build cost but the running costs as it will not run at a profit. When rates in Gungahlin move from $600-1200 per year to $2000-3000 per year we will see if people are happy.

Flywheel power storage can already bring a freight train up to cruising speed. Nasa uses them in space, they are fairly simple devices that actually stabilize the vehicle.

The chagrining time for a flywheel is in seconds to minutes, a bus could charge at lights or bus stops.

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

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

After the plug for Tesla on last night’s Four Corners, I’m wondering if they also manufacture, or plan to, electric buses – if such are available, or likely to be in the not-too-distant future, that would weaken considerably the claimed sustainability advantage for Canberra trams.

Trials of electric buses in Adelaide and Brisbane have been very didappointing to say the least.
Despite what the spin says, it is just not possible to fast charge the big batteries that these buses are using. Same goes for trams with batteries (or super capacitors as the trendoid salesmen call them).

Surely the best way to improve the environmental impact would be to improve the utilisation of the buses we already have. If more people use the existing service then the environmental per person is smaller, since the extra people don’t need alternate transport.

I had a feeling battery size and charging time would be a problem with electric buses, but it shouldn’t turn on that, anyway. Flexibility is THE issue for Canberra, and trams can never match buses for that. The only potential advantage I can see in favour of electric trams is if we faced a situation where there was a serious and sustained shortage of fuel for cars and buses – but the inflexibility of the trams means that they wouldn’t do all that much to reduce the dislocation resulting from fuel shortages in a highly dispersed city.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Walker said :

Kate, your trail of logic through to viability doesn’t convince me, this part:

“If people have to drive to the stop and park, it will often be quicker to drive to work so the price differential between the light rail and parking in Civic will have to be huge. This will mean there will be pressure to keep fares low which will add to the viability problems of the system.”

I don’t see the sequence. We could pick through it, but before that, question the initial premise on which it rests. Just how is staying in a car through to the jam part, better?

On density, what are the relevant thresholds? In some parts seems like we’re there and it’s not like it’ll get any thinner.

Over to John. Some call it “spin,” it seems more fair to argue that your words are mostly about attitude and mentality, so far, relevant factors for sure. And yes there’s too much “noise” in some quarters, negativity and rancid mob mentality, maybe it’s too infectious.

Still, as the face off progresses, you’ll need a bit more meat for us to chew on, it seems, you can’t make it all about the vibe as such.

Those things, and this question to you both or to anyone: What else was looked into? (In Kate’s time, or later?). Other methods, other routes, and so on.

As urchin says in a way, why just two options? Is there anything else?

During my time as minister for transport, we looked at the light rail option as a way of addressing the crawl on Northbourne during the peak hours and the cost of extending it over time to the other town centres. We looked at it as a tourist boon and a way of addressing our carbon footprint. We also looked at the appetite of the private sector and at that time there was no appetite. I’m told that there is private sector interest now in a PPP to build the line.

As I am not a member of the caucus anymore, I am not entitled to any detailed information on the costings or the interest from the private sector other than what is in the media.

We also had my time a greater call on the capital budget in the forward years to be able to consider the possibility. Those large capital items have now been built and the time is now to do the preliminary workaround getting the project started.

I hope the PPP for the Canberra light rail is more successful than the recent PPP road tunnel failures in Sydney and Brisbane. Then again the outcome is the same namely the taxpayer picks up the tab.
Experts in the rail industry have already said a Canberra light rail is not viable enough to attract a PPP anyhow.
Why not fund it by a lottery like the Sydney Opera House was financed?
The Labor clubs could run the whole thing. The people who are passionate about light rail could buy the tickets and the other 99% of us could sleep soundly at night knowing none of our rates and taxes will be used in building the d*mn thing.
Imagine, the Capital Metro Lottery. A win-win deal.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

During my time as minister for transport, we looked at the light rail option as a way of addressing the crawl on Northbourne during the peak hours and the cost of extending it over time to the other town centres.

“Crawl on Northbourne? Peak hours??” Move to Sydney if you want to see what real traffic and peak hour hells are like. Canberra doesn’t have a transport crisis, more like a peak ten minutes.

Did you look at simpler options like a dedicated bus lane (only during the peak ten minutes), or synchronising the traffic lights. It is very, very rare to get a “dream run” along Northbourne, I may managed it twice.

Walker said :

Kate, your trail of logic through to viability doesn’t convince me, this part:

“If people have to drive to the stop and park, it will often be quicker to drive to work so the price differential between the light rail and parking in Civic will have to be huge. This will mean there will be pressure to keep fares low which will add to the viability problems of the system.”

I don’t see the sequence. We could pick through it, but before that, question the initial premise on which it rests. Just how is staying in a car through to the jam part, better?

On density, what are the relevant thresholds? In some parts seems like we’re there and it’s not like it’ll get any thinner.

Over to John. Some call it “spin,” it seems more fair to argue that your words are mostly about attitude and mentality, so far, relevant factors for sure. And yes there’s too much “noise” in some quarters, negativity and rancid mob mentality, maybe it’s too infectious.

Still, as the face off progresses, you’ll need a bit more meat for us to chew on, it seems, you can’t make it all about the vibe as such.

Those things, and this question to you both or to anyone: What else was looked into? (In Kate’s time, or later?). Other methods, other routes, and so on.

As urchin says in a way, why just two options? Is there anything else?

During my time as minister for transport, we looked at the light rail option as a way of addressing the crawl on Northbourne during the peak hours and the cost of extending it over time to the other town centres. We looked at it as a tourist boon and a way of addressing our carbon footprint. We also looked at the appetite of the private sector and at that time there was no appetite. I’m told that there is private sector interest now in a PPP to build the line.

As I am not a member of the caucus anymore, I am not entitled to any detailed information on the costings or the interest from the private sector other than what is in the media.

We also had my time a greater call on the capital budget in the forward years to be able to consider the possibility. Those large capital items have now been built and the time is now to do the preliminary workaround getting the project started.

Kalliste said :

I can’t believe how different these opinions are. Kate’s is based on facts and a history of how her government considered it and that the same issues affect us now.

John’s is a bunch of emotional spin with no facts to back it up whatsoever.

As someone who lives in gungahlin, I’m not sure why I’d waste time catching a bus and then the light rail (or walking and then light rail) that would take more time than I currently take to catch the bus now.

I was also originally for the rail, until further information became available, now it seems like a massive waste of money and I don’t want my rates increasing for a service I don’t see a need for.

Would you please reiterate the facts in Kate’s post cos I missed them. The point I tried to make is that the Govt must be brave and build the line as a first step to linking all the town centres and then people will use this transport option as part of their decision as to where they live and whether to own a car. I say build the line first.

dungfungus said :

Same goes for trams with batteries (or super capacitors as the trendoid salesmen call them).

Capacitors aren’t batteries.

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

After the plug for Tesla on last night’s Four Corners, I’m wondering if they also manufacture, or plan to, electric buses – if such are available, or likely to be in the not-too-distant future, that would weaken considerably the claimed sustainability advantage for Canberra trams.

Trials of electric buses in Adelaide and Brisbane have been very didappointing to say the least.
Despite what the spin says, it is just not possible to fast charge the big batteries that these buses are using. Same goes for trams with batteries (or super capacitors as the trendoid salesmen call them).

Surely the best way to improve the environmental impact would be to improve the utilisation of the buses we already have. If more people use the existing service then the environmental per person is smaller, since the extra people don’t need alternate transport.

HiddenDragon said :

After the plug for Tesla on last night’s Four Corners, I’m wondering if they also manufacture, or plan to, electric buses – if such are available, or likely to be in the not-too-distant future, that would weaken considerably the claimed sustainability advantage for Canberra trams.

Trials of electric buses in Adelaide and Brisbane have been very didappointing to say the least.
Despite what the spin says, it is just not possible to fast charge the big batteries that these buses are using. Same goes for trams with batteries (or super capacitors as the trendoid salesmen call them).

watto23 said :

I agree that Tuggeranong residents seem to oppose this on price, but would probably support it if it started in Tuggeranong first.

My opposition to it as I’ve stated in many posts, is the speed of the transport. I don’t use public transport because it takes too long. When an hour+ is needed to say commute from Tuggeranong to civic and the same journey in reasonable traffic takes half the time, i’m willing to pay for the privelege so that i can have an hour a day free to do something else.

The proposed system, doesn’t cut transit times that much. too many stops, too many traffic lights as well. Its not like the bus lights at traffic lights work for anyone other than motorcyclists.

Route 300 about 32 minutes Tuggeranong to Civic.
If driving, it is not only the actual driving time that needs to be factored in, but the time it takes to find a park too. On bad days this can take a considerable time. Then there is the walking time to destination if a near park can’t be found. Often the bus is closer to destination than the car parking. Of course the reverse is true. The time taken to walk to the bus is a factor.
Personally, I usually find it more convenient to catch a bus to large centres such as Civic and Woden than drive, despite the walk from home to bus and back again. I have only ever caught one bus to Tuggeranong, as that is not my closest shopping centre and therefore I rarely see the need to visit it. Woden, followed by Civic are my closest centres, so there is usually no need to travel so far.
As for commuting, I made sure I bought a house close enough to my work to cycle. (8kms). My local bus didn’t go there, but if it were raining and I caught a bus instead, I could get within 2 kms and it wasn’t hard to walk that. I lowered my expectations for a house to afford to live so close to work, despite other people’s negative comments at the time (horrors, they wouldn’t live there!).

After the plug for Tesla on last night’s Four Corners, I’m wondering if they also manufacture, or plan to, electric buses – if such are available, or likely to be in the not-too-distant future, that would weaken considerably the claimed sustainability advantage for Canberra trams.

I agree that Tuggeranong residents seem to oppose this on price, but would probably support it if it started in Tuggeranong first.

My opposition to it as I’ve stated in many posts, is the speed of the transport. I don’t use public transport because it takes too long. When an hour+ is needed to say commute from Tuggeranong to civic and the same journey in reasonable traffic takes half the time, i’m willing to pay for the privelege so that i can have an hour a day free to do something else.

The proposed system, doesn’t cut transit times that much. too many stops, too many traffic lights as well. Its not like the bus lights at traffic lights work for anyone other than motorcyclists.

gazket said :

People wanted Gungahlin Dr a few greenies held it up, Labor originally built “one of the most expensive non tunnelled single lane roads per kilometre in Australia’s history.” Labor don’t have a good record of build infrastructure to original projected costs.

Federally run Labor infrastructure projects B.E.R, pink batts, NBN blowouts ,Satelite band width rip off, $698 set top boxes for pensioners. There’s so many failures I’ve forgotten some. No one has faith in Labor locally or Federally TO BUILD ANYTHING.

How about fixing the rail line to Sydney that would be more useful to Canberrans, we could at least get to Sydney in under the current rail 4.5 hours and get our fuel and goods here cheaper by rail.

NBN is a failure because it doesn’t suit a political parties ideologies or financial supporters. Otherwise Australia would have been the real winner there and it would have generated a lot of business. Its a shame their is so much short sightedness in politics these days.
I could argue the stop the boats is a failure too, but unless you were of a certain political persuasion you wouldn’t agree.

Kalliste said :

I can’t believe how different these opinions are. Kate’s is based on facts and a history of how her government considered it and that the same issues affect us now.

John’s is a bunch of emotional spin with no facts to back it up whatsoever.

+ 1

urchin said :

light rail is a nice dream but it ain’t practical. go with a bus rapid transit system, cut morning commutes in half with the same fares and people will flock to it.

This. +10000000000000.

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

I am a fan of St Kilda Road near the City precinct of Melbourne – let’s just get on and do it…

Well i’m a fan of realistic outcomes so the thought of being burdened with a white elephant is leaving me perplexed.

The average speed of a Melbourne tram is 11 kmh.

Hmm I wonder how that would compare to buses with dedicated lanes. My personal favourites would be miniature choo choo’s or a team of huskies which would make far more sense than a white elephant…

People wanted Gungahlin Dr a few greenies held it up, Labor originally built “one of the most expensive non tunnelled single lane roads per kilometre in Australia’s history.” Labor don’t have a good record of build infrastructure to original projected costs.

Federally run Labor infrastructure projects B.E.R, pink batts, NBN blowouts ,Satelite band width rip off, $698 set top boxes for pensioners. There’s so many failures I’ve forgotten some. No one has faith in Labor locally or Federally TO BUILD ANYTHING.

How about fixing the rail line to Sydney that would be more useful to Canberrans, we could at least get to Sydney in under the current rail 4.5 hours and get our fuel and goods here cheaper by rail.

John Hargreaves, I appreciate your well reasoned argument, however a potential $800million is a completely unacceptable expense for the people of Canberra right now. Lots of Canberrans are doing it tougher than ever. The public service is reducing in size, there are few jobs, no salary rises and rises in utility bills and horrendous rates rises of 10+%. Sending the city into debt for a tram when the current bus service (which services most of the city) is running at losses in the 10s of millions per annum smacks as a terrible choice.

I’m not opposed to a tram network in Canberra. I’m opposed to the horrendous cost of it coupled with the potential for all public transport to be changing across the world as electric vehicles and self driving options begin to take to the street.

Please Canberra, reconsider light rail before our lovely city plunges into debt.

urchin said :

having a tram will not suddenly transform canberra’s image in australia and throughout the world.

Agreed. People who argue that we need light rail to prove that we’re a real city, or that we’re sophisticated, need to grow up and stop thinking that an $800 million tram will fix their self-esteem issues. Your Sydney-based friends who currently laugh at Canberra aren’t going to stop because of a tram.

No-one who currently makes fun of Canberra is going to stop just because

Kate, your trail of logic through to viability doesn’t convince me, this part:

“If people have to drive to the stop and park, it will often be quicker to drive to work so the price differential between the light rail and parking in Civic will have to be huge. This will mean there will be pressure to keep fares low which will add to the viability problems of the system.”

I don’t see the sequence. We could pick through it, but before that, question the initial premise on which it rests. Just how is staying in a car through to the jam part, better?

On density, what are the relevant thresholds? In some parts seems like we’re there and it’s not like it’ll get any thinner.

Over to John. Some call it “spin,” it seems more fair to argue that your words are mostly about attitude and mentality, so far, relevant factors for sure. And yes there’s too much “noise” in some quarters, negativity and rancid mob mentality, maybe it’s too infectious.

Still, as the face off progresses, you’ll need a bit more meat for us to chew on, it seems, you can’t make it all about the vibe as such.

Those things, and this question to you both or to anyone: What else was looked into? (In Kate’s time, or later?). Other methods, other routes, and so on.

As urchin says in a way, why just two options? Is there anything else?

bundah said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

I am a fan of St Kilda Road near the City precinct of Melbourne – let’s just get on and do it…

Well i’m a fan of realistic outcomes so the thought of being burdened with a white elephant is leaving me perplexed.

The average speed of a Melbourne tram is 11 kmh.

dungfungus said :

Johno says:
“Remember when people bagged out the Arboretum? A $20 million tree zoo, if I recall. Now everyone loves it. Remember the bagging the Gungahlin Drive Extension got? Now everyone loves it.
Remember the dam? Now everyone loves it.”
You must have different news feeds to the rest of us Johno because a lot of us are still bagging the arboretum and the cost is approaching $100 million (not $20 million).
The bagging your government was getting over the GDE was mainly because you wouldn’t do it 4 lane from the beginning.
And the dam, well there was calling for a dam for ages but it took a 100 year drought to get people moving. Let’s not talk about the cost either lest it be a precendent for cost blowouts on the light fail.

But, you only picked the Labor/Minority Govt spends.

If you want to whinge about spending, lets look at the shonky deal done by the Carnell Govt to redesign the Bruce Stadium. Raiders barely get up above 10k for their home games for example.

i remain confused why prominent people weighing in on this issue persist on presenting the public with a false choice – light rail or business as usual. instead of taking extreme positions, why not compare light rail with rapid bus transit?

a recent post by shane rattenbury dismissed rapid bus out of hand. light rail is faster, can carry more and is better for the environment, he said. and he is right enough on those counts. but *how much* faster? *how many* more? and *how much* better for the environment (than the passenger cars it will presumably replace)?

The answer to the first two questions, according to the gov’ts own report, is “not a hell of a lot”. speed is a couple of percent faster, capacity is a few percent higher.

Now, what about the cost? how much does that extra couple percent cost us? somewhere on the order of $200 million+. Oh and with rapid bus transit other busses–not ones just going gungahlin-civic–can take advantage of the improved infrastructure. all those busses heading up and down northbourne can use it, even if they don’t turn onto flemington road.

their own report seems to make the case for rapid bus transit blindingly obvious. it is cheaper, faster to build, more able to withstand downturns and more flexible.

the only arguments in favour of rail are a marginal increase in speed and capacity, “aesthetics” (all in the eye of the beholder) and a warm & fuzzy feeling.

having a tram will not suddenly transform canberra’s image in australia and throughout the world. it will not bring about a massive increase in tourism.

i personally love trains and i live quite near where the train will be running–and even I don’t support it. it will take ages to get built and when it finally is built, they will have to jack up fares to a ridiculous degree in order to pay for the inevitable cost overruns. in the meantime they will cancel or reduce existing bus services so that we have no choice but to ride this white elephant to and from work each day or drive.

light rail is a nice dream but it ain’t practical. go with a bus rapid transit system, cut morning commutes in half with the same fares and people will flock to it.

bundah said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

I am a fan of St Kilda Road near the City precinct of Melbourne – let’s just get on and do it…

Well i’m a fan of realistic outcomes so the thought of being burdened with a white elephant is leaving me perplexed.

+1. How about we accept that Canberra is not Melbourne (athough let’s be thankful it’s a Melbourne vibe they’re after and not Venice).

Canberra’s layout suits road transport, not light rail. For much less money we could have a world-leading bus system.

“Remember when people bagged out the Arboretum? A $20 million tree zoo, if I recall. Remember the bagging the Gungahlin Drive Extension got? Remember the dam?”
Is John Hargreaves trying to promote the light rail or giving those opposing it more ammunition?
The Arboretum has come under scrutiny for its policies and costs for access. The GDE is precisely the reason the government thinks light rail is needed due to the mass of cars that occupy it at peak periods, so is he saying they flopped with all the money spent on it as it didn’t solve any problems, another White Elephant he wants us to recall? [Not to mention the catastrophic collapse]
The Cotter Dam extension had it’s share of flops too, with it’s delays and damage from floods.
How can these memories possibly convince us that another multi-hundreds of millions of dollars is needed to be spent on yet another useless piece of infrastructure they still can’t substantiate with data proving it to be of benefit?

When Northbourne Avenue is wall to wall 6 story stone buildings with copper sheeted Mansard roofs, and all of the gum tress cut down in the median strip and replaced with something oh la lay Parisian trees, that will be the right time to build light rail.

Cr%ppy C grade multi story one bedroom flats just does not cut the croissant for me.

HiddenDragon said :

From Kate:

“….. And what do you need to make light rail cost effective – medium to high density nodes of population that can be linked to places where these people work.

I am not talking about a few high rise buildings , I am talking enough to house the thousands of people needed to make a mass transit system sustainable. It is also important to remember that these high rise buildings must be within walking distance of a light rail stop. If people have to drive to the stop and park , it will often be quicker to drive to work so the price differential between the light rail and parking in Civic will have to be huge. This will mean there will be pressure to keep fares low which will add to the viability problems of the system….”

That sums it up very nicely, and no amount of spin, “vision”, wishful thinking or heavy handed planning and social engineering will change those facts of life. One way or another, there will be a high price to pay.

I’m no fan of Kate Carnell, but what she said in the Face Off was very accurate and well substantiated in understandable terms, IMHO. Kate wins, hands down.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

I am a fan of St Kilda Road near the City precinct of Melbourne – let’s just get on and do it…

Well i’m a fan of realistic outcomes so the thought of being burdened with a white elephant is leaving me perplexed.

Think the artists responsible for these pictures will ever get the catenary right? They usually show no wires, while the above picture has two wires above each track. Two wires will quickly get entangled with the pantographs and bring the whole system to a grinding halt. One is the correct number, and needs a lot of additional poles etc to hold it up, also not shown above. I know many others have pointed this out in the past, but surely it’s about time they got a more realistic picture in their advertising. It’s not like trams are new untried technology.

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

What happens to light rail infrastructure when there is a riot like the one last week in Jerusalem:
“Among the damage caused by rioters at the stations was the destruction of ticket machines, the destruction of rubber tracks by rioters who set fire to them, demolishing of the traffic lights at intersections of the road and the tracks, vandalism of the electricity and communication infrastructure, and the ransacking of at least one electricity control center……”

It could happen here also.

I’m speechless

I assume you are commenting on my suggestion that “it could happen here” ridiculous?
Well, it wasn’t that long ago that there was a riot at Parliament House which was instigated by trade unionists and the front doors and lobby were trashed. Also, a mentally disturbed man drove a 4WD into the great hall at the same address. Imagine what would have happened if the vehicle was loaded with explosives?
Another mentally disturbed man regularly smashed windows at the Legislative Assembly building, eco-extremists destroyed crops at the CSIRO etc.
Are you still speechless?

A riot at Parliment house? Please. That was a far from being a riot. Despite the media sensationalism.

All your points are speculative and border on the ridiculous.

Are you suggesting we should not risk building the light rail because there might be a riot and that riot might damage the rail infrastucture?

I suggest you don’t risk leaving your home. You never know when one of these “maybes” could strike.

I can’t believe how different these opinions are. Kate’s is based on facts and a history of how her government considered it and that the same issues affect us now.

John’s is a bunch of emotional spin with no facts to back it up whatsoever.

As someone who lives in gungahlin, I’m not sure why I’d waste time catching a bus and then the light rail (or walking and then light rail) that would take more time than I currently take to catch the bus now.

I was also originally for the rail, until further information became available, now it seems like a massive waste of money and I don’t want my rates increasing for a service I don’t see a need for.

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

What happens to light rail infrastructure when there is a riot like the one last week in Jerusalem:
“Among the damage caused by rioters at the stations was the destruction of ticket machines, the destruction of rubber tracks by rioters who set fire to them, demolishing of the traffic lights at intersections of the road and the tracks, vandalism of the electricity and communication infrastructure, and the ransacking of at least one electricity control center……”

It could happen here also.

I’m speechless

I assume you are commenting on my suggestion that “it could happen here” ridiculous?
Well, it wasn’t that long ago that there was a riot at Parliament House which was instigated by trade unionists and the front doors and lobby were trashed. Also, a mentally disturbed man drove a 4WD into the great hall at the same address. Imagine what would have happened if the vehicle was loaded with explosives?
Another mentally disturbed man regularly smashed windows at the Legislative Assembly building, eco-extremists destroyed crops at the CSIRO etc.
Are you still speechless?

I think you would then discuss risk probabilities. Risk has not ceased development and deployment of transit systems in the past e.g. planes crash, brought to a standstill by terrorism and volcanos, but millions still fly them. And cars, well, if you want to talk about regular grinding halts, the M5 is a prime example. Many arguments to be made against light rail, as opposed to other transit systems, but I don’t think risk of riots is a particularly persuasive one.

dungfungus said :

Johno says:
“Remember when people bagged out the Arboretum? A $20 million tree zoo, if I recall. Now everyone loves it. Remember the bagging the Gungahlin Drive Extension got? Now everyone loves it.
Remember the dam? Now everyone loves it.”
You must have different news feeds to the rest of us Johno because a lot of us are still bagging the arboretum and the cost is approaching $100 million (not $20 million).
The bagging your government was getting over the GDE was mainly because you wouldn’t do it 4 lane from the beginning.
And the dam, well there was calling for a dam for ages but it took a 100 year drought to get people moving. Let’s not talk about the cost either lest it be a precendent for cost blowouts on the light fail.

+1

Lets not do it. Please.

From Kate:

“….. And what do you need to make light rail cost effective – medium to high density nodes of population that can be linked to places where these people work.

I am not talking about a few high rise buildings , I am talking enough to house the thousands of people needed to make a mass transit system sustainable. It is also important to remember that these high rise buildings must be within walking distance of a light rail stop. If people have to drive to the stop and park , it will often be quicker to drive to work so the price differential between the light rail and parking in Civic will have to be huge. This will mean there will be pressure to keep fares low which will add to the viability problems of the system….”

That sums it up very nicely, and no amount of spin, “vision”, wishful thinking or heavy handed planning and social engineering will change those facts of life. One way or another, there will be a high price to pay.

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

What happens to light rail infrastructure when there is a riot like the one last week in Jerusalem:
“Among the damage caused by rioters at the stations was the destruction of ticket machines, the destruction of rubber tracks by rioters who set fire to them, demolishing of the traffic lights at intersections of the road and the tracks, vandalism of the electricity and communication infrastructure, and the ransacking of at least one electricity control center……”

It could happen here also.

I’m speechless

I assume you are commenting on my suggestion that “it could happen here” ridiculous?
Well, it wasn’t that long ago that there was a riot at Parliament House which was instigated by trade unionists and the front doors and lobby were trashed. Also, a mentally disturbed man drove a 4WD into the great hall at the same address. Imagine what would have happened if the vehicle was loaded with explosives?
Another mentally disturbed man regularly smashed windows at the Legislative Assembly building, eco-extremists destroyed crops at the CSIRO etc.
Are you still speechless?

I agree with Kate here! But really we should just firm up Action it needs a royal commission ha, or recruit a very good CEO to change the culture and create new systems.

dungfungus said :

What happens to light rail infrastructure when there is a riot like the one last week in Jerusalem:
“Among the damage caused by rioters at the stations was the destruction of ticket machines, the destruction of rubber tracks by rioters who set fire to them, demolishing of the traffic lights at intersections of the road and the tracks, vandalism of the electricity and communication infrastructure, and the ransacking of at least one electricity control center……”

It could happen here also.

I’m speechless

Johno says:
“Remember when people bagged out the Arboretum? A $20 million tree zoo, if I recall. Now everyone loves it. Remember the bagging the Gungahlin Drive Extension got? Now everyone loves it.
Remember the dam? Now everyone loves it.”
You must have different news feeds to the rest of us Johno because a lot of us are still bagging the arboretum and the cost is approaching $100 million (not $20 million).
The bagging your government was getting over the GDE was mainly because you wouldn’t do it 4 lane from the beginning.
And the dam, well there was calling for a dam for ages but it took a 100 year drought to get people moving. Let’s not talk about the cost either lest it be a precendent for cost blowouts on the light fail.

Kate has a couple of good points here. I think the issue of public transport has been a live one since well before self government but only on self government did it become such a visible issue. We spend a lot on subsidising the busses and have done a lot, between both sides of the Assembly in trying to make it an attractive alternative to taking the polluting motor car as a commuting vehicle.

Where Kate is absolutely right is that for light rail to work, and indeed a rapid bus system, there needs to be thousands of people living on or near the transport route.

So what comes first, chook or googie?

The light rail proposal suggests that “if you build it, people will use it”. I agree with this preposition. we need now to encourage the development sector to get behind the proposal and build higher rise accommodation along the proposed routes. And if this means tearing down some dreadful old and tired buildings along Northbourne, so be it. I’m all for preserving the heritage stuff but not all the horrid, ugly monstrosities which line our main thoroughfare.

Have the public housing tenants rehoused into state of the art accommodation, and release the land for the enticement of the generation of apartment dwellers who will not need a car.

I am a fan of St Kilda Road near the City precinct of Melbourne – let’s just get on and do it…

What happens to light rail infrastructure when there is a riot like the one last week in Jerusalem:
“Among the damage caused by rioters at the stations was the destruction of ticket machines, the destruction of rubber tracks by rioters who set fire to them, demolishing of the traffic lights at intersections of the road and the tracks, vandalism of the electricity and communication infrastructure, and the ransacking of at least one electricity control center……”

It could happen here also.