Light rail and intersections?

Skyring said :

rubaiyat said :

Skyring said :

It doesn’t matter what traffic on Northbourne Avenue is doing. It’s the traffic on the cross streets that will be interrupted.How do you think cars get onto Northbourne in the first place? They aren’t born on it.

And no, people are not going to stop driving cars, just because there’s a tram running down Northbourne. The city is far too spread out for that.

I’m trying to follow this. So cars crossing don’t interfere with other cars? Nor Buses? Nor the turning cars that back up behind each other or get jammed in the median strip?

Nobody is suggesting people will stop driving cars, it isn’t an either/or.

And yes the city is badly planned. Your solution is more of the same?

I wouldn’t say Canberra is badly planned. On the contrary.

However, it is designed for people driving cars to get around, with buses as public transport.

The basis of Canberra’s planning post 60s was satellite towns, with people working where they live. As a decentralised city, it worked just fine. There was never a rush hour as such. Traffic flowed smoothly, there was plentiful free parking, getting around wasn’t a hassle.

What we need is to get back to the bus system we had in the 80s, and to the town plannng model which applied then. Gungahlin has no major government offices for public service employment: the model is that Gungahlin residents work in Civic.

And we see the unhappy results every morning and every evening.

As for the cross streets along Northbourne Avenue, there are eleven of them, and traffic on them will be slowed and delayed by the tram, which is apparently not going to stop with the regular traffic. That’s going to delay cross traffic and right-turning traffic. Can’t be avoided.

danieleatspizza747 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I heard a poll result thats aid about 70% of Gunners residents supported the tram. Fair enough – they live in the area that will benefit from it. But I wonder if anyone in Gunners knows the full story – including the loss of the road capacity as stated here (assuming that is correct) and the probable loss of direct bus sevices into the City via Northborne Avenue ?

Nrver mind re loss of road capacity in Gunners – Ms Fitzharris, the Katy Gallagher replacement for Labor in the LA for Gunners, is already petitioning her own Gov’t/party for more road duplication/widening in Gunners too !

It’s sort of comical really………

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-light-rail-infrastructure-work-worth-120m-tipped-to-take-five-years-20141102-11fqpa.html

The narrowing of Flemington Road to one lane each way from south of Lysaght Street was reported in this Canberra times article; I also found it after extensive digging around to find the actual plans.

To quote this article:

“…two car lanes will be reduced to one southbound in Flemington Road between Lysaght Street and Sandford Street.

One bus lane and one car lane between Sandford Street and the Federal Highway will be reduced to one lane and two car lanes will be reduced to one northbound in Flemington Road between Randwick Road and Lysaght Street.”

Quite a loss if you ask me! Truly ironic that Gallagher is petitioning for more road widening in Gungahlin ; you would think that Flemington Road would be the most important route to widen of any. The bus network during the morning peak will really suffer from the loss of the bus lane, there will be no reason for anyone to take the red rapid during that time so I imagine those services will be significantly scaled back or withdrawn completely. Even by 2019 there won’t be enough movements between Gungahlin and the city to justify running both a bus service and a light rail service once every 10-15 minutes.

Which again raises the question of what benefit the light rail will actually bring over buses. In fact, because the trams cannot pass the tram ahead (even if it has broken down) and because trams will stop at every station, all it takes is one tram running late to mess the entire network up. In contrast, buses can easily overtake each other, as is commonly seen around bus stops down Northbourne. Also, there is no reason why people who do not currently take the rapid bus services down Flemington (instead taking those which run through the suburbs and closer to their houses, such as Route 58) would suddenly decide to take the light rail.
It would be considerably more cost effective to simply build more bus lanes; the only benefit of the tram is that it is “kind of cool”.

I also highly doubt that most Gungahlin residents are aware of this plan to narrow Flemington, or have considered the misery of three years of roadworks ahead.

No point using logic anymore. Blind Freddie can see the downsides but our incompetent government has blinkers on and cotton wool in their ears.

danieleatspizza747 said :

In fact, because the trams cannot pass the tram ahead (even if it has broken down) and because trams will stop at every station, all it takes is one tram running late to mess the entire network up.

Seen lots of buses broken down, can’t say I have ever seen a tram broken down. They are extremely reliable.

Is that problem?

JC said :

Think you have missed the point. Sure vehicles have to join Northborne Ave from somewhere, and I even after light rail is built will still be driving my car down Northborne Ave from West Belconnen.

The point is that Northnorne Ave is the main direction flow. Even today as someone that enters Northborne Ave at Antil Street, I and others on that road have priority, in terms of long light phasing that at other intersections. In terms of light rail, as it will be flowing along the main flow, it will have priority anyway.

That’s a given. Nobody’s disputing that.

There are times when the road traffic along Northbourne is stopped to let cross and turning traffic flow. Granted, they are less common during peak hours, but still the traffic lights turn red to Northbourne Avenue traffic every few minutes.

If the tram comes along during these times, and it has absolute priority, then cross and turning traffic must necessarily stop as well. That’s less time available for you to make your right turn from Mouat onto Northbourne. You’re going to be waiting longer because some of the available time is going to be taken up by the tram.

rubaiyat said :

Skyring said :

It doesn’t matter what traffic on Northbourne Avenue is doing. It’s the traffic on the cross streets that will be interrupted.How do you think cars get onto Northbourne in the first place? They aren’t born on it.

And no, people are not going to stop driving cars, just because there’s a tram running down Northbourne. The city is far too spread out for that.

I’m trying to follow this. So cars crossing don’t interfere with other cars? Nor Buses? Nor the turning cars that back up behind each other or get jammed in the median strip?

Nobody is suggesting people will stop driving cars, it isn’t an either/or.

And yes the city is badly planned. Your solution is more of the same?

I wouldn’t say Canberra is badly planned. On the contrary.

However, it is designed for people driving cars to get around, with buses as public transport.

The basis of Canberra’s planning post 60s was satellite towns, with people working where they live. As a decentralised city, it worked just fine. There was never a rush hour as such. Traffic flowed smoothly, there was plentiful free parking, getting around wasn’t a hassle.

What we need is to get back to the bus system we had in the 80s, and to the town plannng model which applied then. Gungahlin has no major government offices for public service employment: the model is that Gungahlin residents work in Civic.

And we see the unhappy results every morning and every evening.

As for the cross streets along Northbourne Avenue, there are eleven of them, and traffic on them will be slowed and delayed by the tram, which is apparently not going to stop with the regular traffic. That’s going to delay cross traffic and right-turning traffic. Can’t be avoided.

My greatest concern is the removal of the avenue of trees the entire length of Northbourne Ave.

Which would be avoided if the Light Rail did not use Northbourne, but was a local tram running from Dickson south through Lonsdale Street and through Garema Place as a curbside service.

Not interfering with the trees in the centre of the street, and actually being at the doorstep of all the high rise apartments and restaurants.

rommeldog56 said :

I dont think its the overhead wires as much as the gantrys that support them. As you point out, given that there are alraedypower poles/wires, street lights, sigage, etc, why on earth would you want to add to that visual pollution with more of the same.

Given that these things already exist visually, is no excuse to add to that.

I’ve seen them. Have you? They are essentially a slim, round, not too tall pole with a cross spar, all in line and evenly spaced. Less obtrusive than Canberra’s light poles.

…and yes we do have telegraph poles. Not everyone lives in the prestige inner suburbs.

Remove unsightly car parks in the city and elsewhere and it is plus, plus, plus.

rubaiyat said :

It is hypocritical to object to the neat isolated wires for light rail and not object to the mess of telegraph poles, street signs and general ugliness and noise that surrounds the alternative which is cars and buses.

Telegraph poles??????

danieleatspizza747 said :

rommeldog56 said :

I heard a poll result thats aid about 70% of Gunners residents supported the tram. Fair enough – they live in the area that will benefit from it. But I wonder if anyone in Gunners knows the full story – including the loss of the road capacity as stated here (assuming that is correct) and the probable loss of direct bus sevices into the City via Northborne Avenue ?

Nrver mind re loss of road capacity in Gunners – Ms Fitzharris, the Katy Gallagher replacement for Labor in the LA for Gunners, is already petitioning her own Gov’t/party for more road duplication/widening in Gunners too !

It’s sort of comical really………

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-light-rail-infrastructure-work-worth-120m-tipped-to-take-five-years-20141102-11fqpa.html

The narrowing of Flemington Road to one lane each way from south of Lysaght Street was reported in this Canberra times article; I also found it after extensive digging around to find the actual plans.

To quote this article:

“…two car lanes will be reduced to one southbound in Flemington Road between Lysaght Street and Sandford Street.

One bus lane and one car lane between Sandford Street and the Federal Highway will be reduced to one lane and two car lanes will be reduced to one northbound in Flemington Road between Randwick Road and Lysaght Street.”

Quite a loss if you ask me! Truly ironic that Gallagher is petitioning for more road widening in Gungahlin ; you would think that Flemington Road would be the most important route to widen of any. The bus network during the morning peak will really suffer from the loss of the bus lane, there will be no reason for anyone to take the red rapid during that time so I imagine those services will be significantly scaled back or withdrawn completely. Even by 2019 there won’t be enough movements between Gungahlin and the city to justify running both a bus service and a light rail service once every 10-15 minutes.

Which again raises the question of what benefit the light rail will actually bring over buses. In fact, because the trams cannot pass the tram ahead (even if it has broken down) and because trams will stop at every station, all it takes is one tram running late to mess the entire network up. In contrast, buses can easily overtake each other, as is commonly seen around bus stops down Northbourne. Also, there is no reason why people who do not currently take the rapid bus services down Flemington (instead taking those which run through the suburbs and closer to their houses, such as Route 58) would suddenly decide to take the light rail.
It would be considerably more cost effective to simply build more bus lanes; the only benefit of the tram is that it is “kind of cool”.

I also highly doubt that most Gungahlin residents are aware of this plan to narrow Flemington, or have considered the misery of three years of roadworks ahead.

This sounds like a significant reduction in road capacity in/out of Gunners to me, JC !

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

“telegraph poles”??????
That is exactly the point. Canberra is unique as it has deliberately under-grounded utilities and communications in our beautiful, planned city.
Why wind back the clock 100 years for ugly stanchions and saggy wires.
The starlings and mynas will be writing in soon to vote for the light rail. Have you ever been “guanoed” by a bird?

NOW it is poopy birds that stand in the way? Wow!

What I see in Canberra is acres and acres of unsightly car parking, ticket dispensers and parking signs, eating up very bit of green space it can.

If you can look past that I doubt you will notice the simple poles and thin cables of modern Light Rail.

See for yourself:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-09/what-will-a-private-metro-mean-fo-sydneys-public/5443646

If you can ever get yourself out of that beautiful addition to the Canberra landscape, the automobile and the hectares of bitumen and festive traffic lights and signs.

OMG – its beaudiful. I really can’t wait for Northborne Avenue to look somewhat like this. I wonder how close the ACT Gov’ts artists impressions are to what it will end up looking like in the flesh ?

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

I don’t agree with your take on light rail wirescape having any visual acceptability at all. It may fit in with “Las Surfers” but it won’t in Canberra.

Modern light rail has extremely sparse and neat overhead wires and superstructure.

Just look at the Gold Coast and Dulwich Hill lines. I’ve posted photos on various sites.

It is hypocritical to object to the neat isolated wires for light rail and not object to the mess of telegraph poles, street signs and general ugliness and noise that surrounds the alternative which is cars and buses.

I dont think its the overhead wires as much as the gantrys that support them. As you point out, given that there are alraedypower poles/wires, street lights, sigage, etc, why on earth would you want to add to that visual pollution with more of the same.

Given that these things already exist visually, is no excuse to add to that.

Who says you need to add to them. No reason why you couldn’t replace the existing street lights with nicer looking ones and use these to support the overhead. Such as this on the Midland Metro in Birmingham/Wolverhampton.

http://citytransport.info/Digi/P1150259a.jpg

Or what about in France:

http://citytransport.info/Scans/Grenoble-wiresa.jpg

Though something like this in London, is not a good idea.

http://citytransport.info/Digi/46154616a.jpg

Also the overhead is not supported by gantry’s but by stanchions.

Imagine the traffic chaos while they are building this thing. It takes literally years for roads and bridges to be built, with constant roadwork, reduced speed limits congestion, etc. Northbourne is already a bloody parking lot come peak hour!

rommeldog56 said :

I heard a poll result thats aid about 70% of Gunners residents supported the tram. Fair enough – they live in the area that will benefit from it. But I wonder if anyone in Gunners knows the full story – including the loss of the road capacity as stated here (assuming that is correct) and the probable loss of direct bus sevices into the City via Northborne Avenue ?

Nrver mind re loss of road capacity in Gunners – Ms Fitzharris, the Katy Gallagher replacement for Labor in the LA for Gunners, is already petitioning her own Gov’t/party for more road duplication/widening in Gunners too !

It’s sort of comical really………

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-light-rail-infrastructure-work-worth-120m-tipped-to-take-five-years-20141102-11fqpa.html

The narrowing of Flemington Road to one lane each way from south of Lysaght Street was reported in this Canberra times article; I also found it after extensive digging around to find the actual plans.

To quote this article:

“…two car lanes will be reduced to one southbound in Flemington Road between Lysaght Street and Sandford Street.

One bus lane and one car lane between Sandford Street and the Federal Highway will be reduced to one lane and two car lanes will be reduced to one northbound in Flemington Road between Randwick Road and Lysaght Street.”

Quite a loss if you ask me! Truly ironic that Gallagher is petitioning for more road widening in Gungahlin ; you would think that Flemington Road would be the most important route to widen of any. The bus network during the morning peak will really suffer from the loss of the bus lane, there will be no reason for anyone to take the red rapid during that time so I imagine those services will be significantly scaled back or withdrawn completely. Even by 2019 there won’t be enough movements between Gungahlin and the city to justify running both a bus service and a light rail service once every 10-15 minutes.

Which again raises the question of what benefit the light rail will actually bring over buses. In fact, because the trams cannot pass the tram ahead (even if it has broken down) and because trams will stop at every station, all it takes is one tram running late to mess the entire network up. In contrast, buses can easily overtake each other, as is commonly seen around bus stops down Northbourne. Also, there is no reason why people who do not currently take the rapid bus services down Flemington (instead taking those which run through the suburbs and closer to their houses, such as Route 58) would suddenly decide to take the light rail.
It would be considerably more cost effective to simply build more bus lanes; the only benefit of the tram is that it is “kind of cool”.

I also highly doubt that most Gungahlin residents are aware of this plan to narrow Flemington, or have considered the misery of three years of roadworks ahead.

dungfungus said :

“telegraph poles”??????
That is exactly the point. Canberra is unique as it has deliberately under-grounded utilities and communications in our beautiful, planned city.
Why wind back the clock 100 years for ugly stanchions and saggy wires.
The starlings and mynas will be writing in soon to vote for the light rail. Have you ever been “guanoed” by a bird?

NOW it is poopy birds that stand in the way? Wow!

What I see in Canberra is acres and acres of unsightly car parking, ticket dispensers and parking signs, eating up very bit of green space it can.

If you can look past that I doubt you will notice the simple poles and thin cables of modern Light Rail.

See for yourself:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-09/what-will-a-private-metro-mean-fo-sydneys-public/5443646

If you can ever get yourself out of that beautiful addition to the Canberra landscape, the automobile and the hectares of bitumen and festive traffic lights and signs.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

I don’t agree with your take on light rail wirescape having any visual acceptability at all. It may fit in with “Las Surfers” but it won’t in Canberra.

Modern light rail has extremely sparse and neat overhead wires and superstructure.

Just look at the Gold Coast and Dulwich Hill lines. I’ve posted photos on various sites.

It is hypocritical to object to the neat isolated wires for light rail and not object to the mess of telegraph poles, street signs and general ugliness and noise that surrounds the alternative which is cars and buses.

I dont think its the overhead wires as much as the gantrys that support them. As you point out, given that there are alraedypower poles/wires, street lights, sigage, etc, why on earth would you want to add to that visual pollution with more of the same.

Given that these things already exist visually, is no excuse to add to that.

Skyring said :

It doesn’t matter what traffic on Northbourne Avenue is doing. It’s the traffic on the cross streets that will be interrupted.How do you think cars get onto Northbourne in the first place? They aren’t born on it.

And no, people are not going to stop driving cars, just because there’s a tram running down Northbourne. The city is far too spread out for that.

I’m trying to follow this. So cars crossing don’t interfere with other cars? Nor Buses? Nor the turning cars that back up behind each other or get jammed in the median strip?

Nobody is suggesting people will stop driving cars, it isn’t an either/or.

And yes the city is badly planned. Your solution is more of the same?

dungfungus said :

The only people that will benefit from the tram are the cartels that will be supplying the trams and the private partners in the proposed PPP, none of which will have any ongoing connection with Canberra.
They will stitch us up real good.

Yes. Exactly.

Not enough Simpsons quotes in this thread.
“But Main Street’s still all cracked and broken
Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken.
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!”

Skyring said :

JC said :

Skyring said :

Antil Street, Murdoch Street, Morphett Street, Wakefield Avenue, and a few other cross streets, not to mention those north of Dickson, all will be affected. I wouldn’t be surprised if that handy Morphett Street crossover gets eliminated completely. Not just the crossing traffic, but turning traffic will be affected if not blocked completely.

No matter how you cut it, ordinary drivers are going to be bumped down a notch in convenience.

Next election, I’m voting for the Motorists Party.

Antil steet the main flow is Northborne Ave way.
Murdoch Street doesn’t have lights and doesn’t need them.
Morphett Street doesn’t have lights, but could do with some. But should pose no great issue because you can only go from Northborne Ave (north bound) into it.
Wakefield Ave, again main flow is Northborne Ave.

North of Antill street I believe the plan was/is to run along the side of Northborne Ave, so will bypass the Barton highway intersection, but will have to cross Phillip Ave. Again despite its size Phillip Ave is a minor road, so no issue there, then of course comes the entry into Flemmington Road.

It doesn’t matter what traffic on Northbourne Avenue is doing. It’s the traffic on the cross streets that will be interrupted.How do you think cars get onto Northbourne in the first place? They aren’t born on it.

And no, people are not going to stop driving cars, just because there’s a tram running down Northbourne. The city is far too spread out for that.

Think you have missed the point. Sure vehicles have to join Northborne Ave from somewhere, and I even after light rail is built will still be driving my car down Northborne Ave from West Belconnen.

The point is that Northnorne Ave is the main direction flow. Even today as someone that enters Northborne Ave at Antil Street, I and others on that road have priority, in terms of long light phasing that at other intersections. In terms of light rail, as it will be flowing along the main flow, it will have priority anyway.

JC said :

Skyring said :

Antil Street, Murdoch Street, Morphett Street, Wakefield Avenue, and a few other cross streets, not to mention those north of Dickson, all will be affected. I wouldn’t be surprised if that handy Morphett Street crossover gets eliminated completely. Not just the crossing traffic, but turning traffic will be affected if not blocked completely.

No matter how you cut it, ordinary drivers are going to be bumped down a notch in convenience.

Next election, I’m voting for the Motorists Party.

Antil steet the main flow is Northborne Ave way.
Murdoch Street doesn’t have lights and doesn’t need them.
Morphett Street doesn’t have lights, but could do with some. But should pose no great issue because you can only go from Northborne Ave (north bound) into it.
Wakefield Ave, again main flow is Northborne Ave.

North of Antill street I believe the plan was/is to run along the side of Northborne Ave, so will bypass the Barton highway intersection, but will have to cross Phillip Ave. Again despite its size Phillip Ave is a minor road, so no issue there, then of course comes the entry into Flemmington Road.

It doesn’t matter what traffic on Northbourne Avenue is doing. It’s the traffic on the cross streets that will be interrupted.How do you think cars get onto Northbourne in the first place? They aren’t born on it.

And no, people are not going to stop driving cars, just because there’s a tram running down Northbourne. The city is far too spread out for that.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

I don’t agree with your take on light rail wirescape having any visual acceptability at all. It may fit in with “Las Surfers” but it won’t in Canberra.

Modern light rail has extremely sparse and neat overhead wires and superstructure.

Just look at the Gold Coast and Dulwich Hill lines. I’ve posted photos on various sites.

It is hypocritical to object to the neat isolated wires for light rail and not object to the mess of telegraph poles, street signs and general ugliness and noise that surrounds the alternative which is cars and buses.

“telegraph poles”??????
That is exactly the point. Canberra is unique as it has deliberately under-grounded utilities and communications in our beautiful, planned city.
Why wind back the clock 100 years for ugly stanchions and saggy wires.
The starlings and mynas will be writing in soon to vote for the light rail. Have you ever been “guanoed” by a bird?

dungfungus said :

I don’t agree with your take on light rail wirescape having any visual acceptability at all. It may fit in with “Las Surfers” but it won’t in Canberra.

Modern light rail has extremely sparse and neat overhead wires and superstructure.

Just look at the Gold Coast and Dulwich Hill lines. I’ve posted photos on various sites.

It is hypocritical to object to the neat isolated wires for light rail and not object to the mess of telegraph poles, street signs and general ugliness and noise that surrounds the alternative which is cars and buses.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

rubaiyat said :

Just checked.

I don’t know if Siemen’s offerings are the best available, but their Light Rail’s top speed is 105km. The L.A. System that I used, would have been close to that.

If Canberra had an express option, no stops between main centres for express connections (with overtaking sections to pass slower services) most of the Centres could be 10mins apart. A huge advancement on what we have now, and something that might have people seriously changing modes of transport.

So long as the service matched people’s movements.

There are also systems that have no overhead wires and store power from stop to stop.

The problems with spanning over underground services has also been solved in the States with a system of stiff plastic foam base under the rails where needed.

All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.

Mostly nonsense. First what the US considers light rail, is a lot heavier than what Australia and Europe consider to be light rail. US light rail has more in common with European metro systems, except they run on the road. So of course they are going to have higher speeds.

That said the US model would probably suit Canberra much better than the Euro style light rail, whereby the light rail would run from the terminus, with only stopping at park and rides and major residential/employment areas on the way. So gunners to the City might start in Civic, run non stop to Dickson, then non stop to a park and ride near EPIC then non stop to gunners.

As for wireless systems, you will find that for the most part they are only used in this mode to bridge certain sensitive sections, not for the complete route. Take Sydney for example, their new route will not use overhead in George street, instead it will run on batteries that get charged when under the wires. For a full wireless battery system, not sure of any light rail system, but there are some electric bus systems that use it. One is being (or soon to be trialed) in London with 4 buses.

As for this “All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.”, firstly can you name any automated light rail systems? Will agree with you re Molonglo, I am surprised that John Gorton drive was not built with the median wider to support light rail later. It would be a perfect place for it. As for what is going ahead being badly sighted, badly planned, disagree, plenty of thought has gone into it, you can of course disagree, but just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it was badly planned or thought out.

“Take Sydney for example, their new route will not use overhead in George street, instead it will run on batteries that get charged when under the wires……….”
Wrong!
Sydney have already chosen the Alstom Citadis trams which will have APS (Aesthetic Power System) which is a powered third rail in areas where overhead wires are not allowed.
This is a very expensive technology which increases the price of each tram about $150,000 and the cost of infrastructure to power the third rail is three times the cost of catenary power.
The technology that you were alluding to is super capacitors which is also outrageously expensive.
Self-powered bio-diesel light railcars (totally wireless) would have been a better option at a total cost of half the system we are going to get.

I stand corrected, didn’t know Sydney had announced supplier and technology for the over headless bit and agree the cost to support even something like APS is a joke. I mean to say modern overhead done properly is not that visually unpleasing. Gold Coast for example, though the current road section in Sydney is a bit ugly and way over engineered.

The announcement about Sydney choosing Alstom was very low key so you can be forgiven for not being aware.
I am wondering if this was deliberate as Alstom has been reported as having some issues with the way it does business with governments in other countries.
It will be very interesting to see if Capital Metro “looks the other way”.
I don’t agree with your take on light rail wirescape having any visual acceptability at all. It may fit in with “Las Surfers” but it won’t in Canberra.

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

Mostly nonsense. First what the US considers light rail, is a lot heavier than what Australia and Europe consider to be light rail. US light rail has more in common with European metro systems, except they run on the road. So of course they are going to have higher speeds.

That said the US model would probably suit Canberra much better than the Euro style light rail, whereby the light rail would run from the terminus, with only stopping at park and rides and major residential/employment areas on the way. So gunners to the City might start in Civic, run non stop to Dickson, then non stop to a park and ride near EPIC then non stop to gunners.

As for wireless systems, you will find that for the most part they are only used in this mode to bridge certain sensitive sections, not for the complete route. Take Sydney for example, their new route will not use overhead in George street, instead it will run on batteries that get charged when under the wires. For a full wireless battery system, not sure of any light rail system, but there are some electric bus systems that use it. One is being (or soon to be trialed) in London with 4 buses.

As for this “All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.”, firstly can you name any automated light rail systems? Will agree with you re Molonglo, I am surprised that John Gorton drive was not built with the median wider to support light rail later. It would be a perfect place for it. As for what is going ahead being badly sighted, badly planned, disagree, plenty of thought has gone into it, you can of course disagree, but just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it was badly planned or thought out.

Perhaps your view that this is “Nonsense” is the real problem.

Running a Light Rail from a set of dormitory suburbs into Civic where they in all likelihood the people don’t even work, study or shop is The Nonsense.

It doesn’t matter what anything is labelled, anywhere, it is what you build and how it works.

What we need is a WORKABLE TRANSPORT SYSTEM.

If that is paddle boats in man made canals and it gets people to and from their destinations conveniently, quickly, economically and in an environmentally friendly manner it doesn’t matter.

I have seen projects like this before. They start as a thought bubble in some politician’s mind and everything thereafter is driven towards ‘proving’ it is the only solution to the problem.

This was sold as a band aid on the frankly stupid planning that pushed a lot of people as far away from their place of employment and the heart of the city as possible. Exacerbated by no planned transport corridors other than the usual roads that ACT Planning thinks is the only solution.

Only made worse by the lack of any planned housing, retail or commercial development en-route. The start and finish points are the only things convenient to the track and at the Gungahlin end that is only marginally useful as housing is so remote. En-route there are swathes of empty paddocks with housing well away from easy walking access. For a large stretch there is absolutely nothing, but the trams still trundle past.

What few destinations there are, such as the Racecourse, Hockey Sports Centre, Dickson and any educational institutions are a long walk away, requiring crossing busy roads in every case.

At either end real users will have to wait to change to catch further transport to get to their real destinations.

Looking at this, it has not been planned for people to move around conveniently OR quickly.

I believe we desperately need FUNCTIONAL public transport to be planned and built into Canberra’s urban environment. All the vague development proposals (not part of any written plan) look like the afterthoughts slapped onto the transport system that was slapped on as an after thought to the original bad town planning.

As I have pointed out if we are supposed to believe ACT Planning seriously believes in light rail, where is it even pencilled into Molonglo? The only conclusion I can come to is they don’t believe in it at all. Never have.

If light rail was extended to Molonglo the trams would have to be North orientated and have an EER of 7.

JC said :

Mostly nonsense. First what the US considers light rail, is a lot heavier than what Australia and Europe consider to be light rail. US light rail has more in common with European metro systems, except they run on the road. So of course they are going to have higher speeds.

That said the US model would probably suit Canberra much better than the Euro style light rail, whereby the light rail would run from the terminus, with only stopping at park and rides and major residential/employment areas on the way. So gunners to the City might start in Civic, run non stop to Dickson, then non stop to a park and ride near EPIC then non stop to gunners.

As for wireless systems, you will find that for the most part they are only used in this mode to bridge certain sensitive sections, not for the complete route. Take Sydney for example, their new route will not use overhead in George street, instead it will run on batteries that get charged when under the wires. For a full wireless battery system, not sure of any light rail system, but there are some electric bus systems that use it. One is being (or soon to be trialed) in London with 4 buses.

As for this “All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.”, firstly can you name any automated light rail systems? Will agree with you re Molonglo, I am surprised that John Gorton drive was not built with the median wider to support light rail later. It would be a perfect place for it. As for what is going ahead being badly sighted, badly planned, disagree, plenty of thought has gone into it, you can of course disagree, but just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it was badly planned or thought out.

Perhaps your view that this is “Nonsense” is the real problem.

Running a Light Rail from a set of dormitory suburbs into Civic where they in all likelihood the people don’t even work, study or shop is The Nonsense.

It doesn’t matter what anything is labelled, anywhere, it is what you build and how it works.

What we need is a WORKABLE TRANSPORT SYSTEM.

If that is paddle boats in man made canals and it gets people to and from their destinations conveniently, quickly, economically and in an environmentally friendly manner it doesn’t matter.

I have seen projects like this before. They start as a thought bubble in some politician’s mind and everything thereafter is driven towards ‘proving’ it is the only solution to the problem.

This was sold as a band aid on the frankly stupid planning that pushed a lot of people as far away from their place of employment and the heart of the city as possible. Exacerbated by no planned transport corridors other than the usual roads that ACT Planning thinks is the only solution.

Only made worse by the lack of any planned housing, retail or commercial development en-route. The start and finish points are the only things convenient to the track and at the Gungahlin end that is only marginally useful as housing is so remote. En-route there are swathes of empty paddocks with housing well away from easy walking access. For a large stretch there is absolutely nothing, but the trams still trundle past.

What few destinations there are, such as the Racecourse, Hockey Sports Centre, Dickson and any educational institutions are a long walk away, requiring crossing busy roads in every case.

At either end real users will have to wait to change to catch further transport to get to their real destinations.

Looking at this, it has not been planned for people to move around conveniently OR quickly.

I believe we desperately need FUNCTIONAL public transport to be planned and built into Canberra’s urban environment. All the vague development proposals (not part of any written plan) look like the afterthoughts slapped onto the transport system that was slapped on as an after thought to the original bad town planning.

As I have pointed out if we are supposed to believe ACT Planning seriously believes in light rail, where is it even pencilled into Molonglo? The only conclusion I can come to is they don’t believe in it at all. Never have.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

rubaiyat said :

Just checked.

I don’t know if Siemen’s offerings are the best available, but their Light Rail’s top speed is 105km. The L.A. System that I used, would have been close to that.

If Canberra had an express option, no stops between main centres for express connections (with overtaking sections to pass slower services) most of the Centres could be 10mins apart. A huge advancement on what we have now, and something that might have people seriously changing modes of transport.

So long as the service matched people’s movements.

There are also systems that have no overhead wires and store power from stop to stop.

The problems with spanning over underground services has also been solved in the States with a system of stiff plastic foam base under the rails where needed.

All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.

Mostly nonsense. First what the US considers light rail, is a lot heavier than what Australia and Europe consider to be light rail. US light rail has more in common with European metro systems, except they run on the road. So of course they are going to have higher speeds.

That said the US model would probably suit Canberra much better than the Euro style light rail, whereby the light rail would run from the terminus, with only stopping at park and rides and major residential/employment areas on the way. So gunners to the City might start in Civic, run non stop to Dickson, then non stop to a park and ride near EPIC then non stop to gunners.

As for wireless systems, you will find that for the most part they are only used in this mode to bridge certain sensitive sections, not for the complete route. Take Sydney for example, their new route will not use overhead in George street, instead it will run on batteries that get charged when under the wires. For a full wireless battery system, not sure of any light rail system, but there are some electric bus systems that use it. One is being (or soon to be trialed) in London with 4 buses.

As for this “All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.”, firstly can you name any automated light rail systems? Will agree with you re Molonglo, I am surprised that John Gorton drive was not built with the median wider to support light rail later. It would be a perfect place for it. As for what is going ahead being badly sighted, badly planned, disagree, plenty of thought has gone into it, you can of course disagree, but just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it was badly planned or thought out.

“Take Sydney for example, their new route will not use overhead in George street, instead it will run on batteries that get charged when under the wires……….”
Wrong!
Sydney have already chosen the Alstom Citadis trams which will have APS (Aesthetic Power System) which is a powered third rail in areas where overhead wires are not allowed.
This is a very expensive technology which increases the price of each tram about $150,000 and the cost of infrastructure to power the third rail is three times the cost of catenary power.
The technology that you were alluding to is super capacitors which is also outrageously expensive.
Self-powered bio-diesel light railcars (totally wireless) would have been a better option at a total cost of half the system we are going to get.

I stand corrected, didn’t know Sydney had announced supplier and technology for the over headless bit and agree the cost to support even something like APS is a joke. I mean to say modern overhead done properly is not that visually unpleasing. Gold Coast for example, though the current road section in Sydney is a bit ugly and way over engineered.

rommeldog56 said :

danieleatspizza747 said :

On another note, even at present, Flemington Road between Well Station Drive and the Federal Highway desperately needs to be widened to at least 2 lanes (if not 3 lanes) each way for the entire length to cope with peak hour traffic to increase the capacity of the road. According to light rail plans, this whole section will be reduced to just one lane each way (which will make things WORSE than it is currently, with significantly increased traffic in 2019 when the tram opens). This includes the permanent removal of the bus lane from south of Sandford Street.

To me this is absolutely disgraceful; Capital Metro appears to be deliberately cannibalizing other forms of transport to encourage patronage, especially impacting the bus network. Who WOULD take the bus if the removal of the bus lane meant 10 extra minutes stuck in traffic?

I heard a poll result thats aid about 70% of Gunners residents supported the tram. Fair enough – they live in the area that will benefit from it. But I wonder if anyone in Gunners knows the full story – including the loss of the road capacity as stated here (assuming that is correct) and the probable loss of direct bus sevices into the City via Northborne Avenue ?

Nrver mind re loss of road capacity in Gunners – Ms Fitzharris, the Katy Gallagher replacement for Labor in the LA for Gunners, is already petitioning her own Gov’t/party for more road duplication/widening in Gunners too !

It’s sort of comical really………

No loss of road capacity. Also it seems the plan I mentioned above to run light rail down the side of Federal highway is no longer happening, instead it will be in the middle.

Capital Metro has an FAQ that discusses what road changes will be made, and look at this what priority at lights means.

“Who will have priority at traffic lights?

A level of priority is typically provided for light rail to help the service run efficiently. This occurs as a part of planning that helps the light sequencing to support the major traffic flow (such as the inbound traffic in the morning peak). This means that the major vehicle traffic flows generally benefit through light rail priority work.

Are there any changes planned for the Federal Highway or Flemington Road?

Some parts of the Federal Highway and Flemington Road will require some realignment or widening to allow space for the light rail, vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

Between Sandford Street in Mitchell and the Federal Highway, light rail is planned to take up the inside lanes in each direction. This means that normal vehicles will move into the current bus lane when driving to the City.”

Flemmington Road at the Federal highway end is interesting though, looks like the road here will remain 1 lane for car traffic, with no seperate bus lane. Bit crazy has there is plenty of space. This also IMO should have been the time to basically make Flemmington Road two lanes each way and re-align it to Phillip Ave which is where on the old plans it was meant to go. Though I do note with the wine place there now that might be a bit harder than originally intended.

rommeldog56 said :

danieleatspizza747 said :

On another note, even at present, Flemington Road between Well Station Drive and the Federal Highway desperately needs to be widened to at least 2 lanes (if not 3 lanes) each way for the entire length to cope with peak hour traffic to increase the capacity of the road. According to light rail plans, this whole section will be reduced to just one lane each way (which will make things WORSE than it is currently, with significantly increased traffic in 2019 when the tram opens). This includes the permanent removal of the bus lane from south of Sandford Street.

To me this is absolutely disgraceful; Capital Metro appears to be deliberately cannibalizing other forms of transport to encourage patronage, especially impacting the bus network. Who WOULD take the bus if the removal of the bus lane meant 10 extra minutes stuck in traffic?

I heard a poll result thats aid about 70% of Gunners residents supported the tram. Fair enough – they live in the area that will benefit from it. But I wonder if anyone in Gunners knows the full story – including the loss of the road capacity as stated here (assuming that is correct) and the probable loss of direct bus sevices into the City via Northborne Avenue ?

Nrver mind re loss of road capacity in Gunners – Ms Fitzharris, the Katy Gallagher replacement for Labor in the LA for Gunners, is already petitioning her own Gov’t/party for more road duplication/widening in Gunners too !

It’s sort of comical really………

rommeldog56 said :

danieleatspizza747 said :

On another note, even at present, Flemington Road between Well Station Drive and the Federal Highway desperately needs to be widened to at least 2 lanes (if not 3 lanes) each way for the entire length to cope with peak hour traffic to increase the capacity of the road. According to light rail plans, this whole section will be reduced to just one lane each way (which will make things WORSE than it is currently, with significantly increased traffic in 2019 when the tram opens). This includes the permanent removal of the bus lane from south of Sandford Street.

To me this is absolutely disgraceful; Capital Metro appears to be deliberately cannibalizing other forms of transport to encourage patronage, especially impacting the bus network. Who WOULD take the bus if the removal of the bus lane meant 10 extra minutes stuck in traffic?

I heard a poll result thats aid about 70% of Gunners residents supported the tram. Fair enough – they live in the area that will benefit from it. But I wonder if anyone in Gunners knows the full story – including the loss of the road capacity as stated here (assuming that is correct) and the probable loss of direct bus sevices into the City via Northborne Avenue ?

Nrver mind re loss of road capacity in Gunners – Ms Fitzharris, the Katy Gallagher replacement for Labor in the LA for Gunners, is already petitioning her own Gov’t/party for more road duplication/widening in Gunners too !

It’s sort of comical really………

The only people that will benefit from the tram are the cartels that will be supplying the trams and the private partners in the proposed PPP, none of which will have any ongoing connection with Canberra.
They will stitch us up real good.

JC said :

rubaiyat said :

Just checked.

I don’t know if Siemen’s offerings are the best available, but their Light Rail’s top speed is 105km. The L.A. System that I used, would have been close to that.

If Canberra had an express option, no stops between main centres for express connections (with overtaking sections to pass slower services) most of the Centres could be 10mins apart. A huge advancement on what we have now, and something that might have people seriously changing modes of transport.

So long as the service matched people’s movements.

There are also systems that have no overhead wires and store power from stop to stop.

The problems with spanning over underground services has also been solved in the States with a system of stiff plastic foam base under the rails where needed.

All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.

Mostly nonsense. First what the US considers light rail, is a lot heavier than what Australia and Europe consider to be light rail. US light rail has more in common with European metro systems, except they run on the road. So of course they are going to have higher speeds.

That said the US model would probably suit Canberra much better than the Euro style light rail, whereby the light rail would run from the terminus, with only stopping at park and rides and major residential/employment areas on the way. So gunners to the City might start in Civic, run non stop to Dickson, then non stop to a park and ride near EPIC then non stop to gunners.

As for wireless systems, you will find that for the most part they are only used in this mode to bridge certain sensitive sections, not for the complete route. Take Sydney for example, their new route will not use overhead in George street, instead it will run on batteries that get charged when under the wires. For a full wireless battery system, not sure of any light rail system, but there are some electric bus systems that use it. One is being (or soon to be trialed) in London with 4 buses.

As for this “All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.”, firstly can you name any automated light rail systems? Will agree with you re Molonglo, I am surprised that John Gorton drive was not built with the median wider to support light rail later. It would be a perfect place for it. As for what is going ahead being badly sighted, badly planned, disagree, plenty of thought has gone into it, you can of course disagree, but just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it was badly planned or thought out.

“Take Sydney for example, their new route will not use overhead in George street, instead it will run on batteries that get charged when under the wires……….”
Wrong!
Sydney have already chosen the Alstom Citadis trams which will have APS (Aesthetic Power System) which is a powered third rail in areas where overhead wires are not allowed.
This is a very expensive technology which increases the price of each tram about $150,000 and the cost of infrastructure to power the third rail is three times the cost of catenary power.
The technology that you were alluding to is super capacitors which is also outrageously expensive.
Self-powered bio-diesel light railcars (totally wireless) would have been a better option at a total cost of half the system we are going to get.

rubaiyat said :

Skyring said :

An elevated system would be far more expensive. Not going to happen. Far cheaper to pass a few laws with Green support.

This seems to be a strange obsession with you, the elevated light rail. What next, elevated ferries running on Canberra’s lakes?

Sorry? How is the one negative mention above “a strange obsession”?

danieleatspizza747 said :

On another note, even at present, Flemington Road between Well Station Drive and the Federal Highway desperately needs to be widened to at least 2 lanes (if not 3 lanes) each way for the entire length to cope with peak hour traffic to increase the capacity of the road. According to light rail plans, this whole section will be reduced to just one lane each way (which will make things WORSE than it is currently, with significantly increased traffic in 2019 when the tram opens). This includes the permanent removal of the bus lane from south of Sandford Street.

To me this is absolutely disgraceful; Capital Metro appears to be deliberately cannibalizing other forms of transport to encourage patronage, especially impacting the bus network. Who WOULD take the bus if the removal of the bus lane meant 10 extra minutes stuck in traffic?

I heard a poll result thats aid about 70% of Gunners residents supported the tram. Fair enough – they live in the area that will benefit from it. But I wonder if anyone in Gunners knows the full story – including the loss of the road capacity as stated here (assuming that is correct) and the probable loss of direct bus sevices into the City via Northborne Avenue ?

Nrver mind re loss of road capacity in Gunners – Ms Fitzharris, the Katy Gallagher replacement for Labor in the LA for Gunners, is already petitioning her own Gov’t/party for more road duplication/widening in Gunners too ! It’s sort of comical really………

rubaiyat said :

Just checked.

I don’t know if Siemen’s offerings are the best available, but their Light Rail’s top speed is 105km. The L.A. System that I used, would have been close to that.

If Canberra had an express option, no stops between main centres for express connections (with overtaking sections to pass slower services) most of the Centres could be 10mins apart. A huge advancement on what we have now, and something that might have people seriously changing modes of transport.

So long as the service matched people’s movements.

There are also systems that have no overhead wires and store power from stop to stop.

The problems with spanning over underground services has also been solved in the States with a system of stiff plastic foam base under the rails where needed.

All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.

Mostly nonsense. First what the US considers light rail, is a lot heavier than what Australia and Europe consider to be light rail. US light rail has more in common with European metro systems, except they run on the road. So of course they are going to have higher speeds.

That said the US model would probably suit Canberra much better than the Euro style light rail, whereby the light rail would run from the terminus, with only stopping at park and rides and major residential/employment areas on the way. So gunners to the City might start in Civic, run non stop to Dickson, then non stop to a park and ride near EPIC then non stop to gunners.

As for wireless systems, you will find that for the most part they are only used in this mode to bridge certain sensitive sections, not for the complete route. Take Sydney for example, their new route will not use overhead in George street, instead it will run on batteries that get charged when under the wires. For a full wireless battery system, not sure of any light rail system, but there are some electric bus systems that use it. One is being (or soon to be trialed) in London with 4 buses.

As for this “All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.”, firstly can you name any automated light rail systems? Will agree with you re Molonglo, I am surprised that John Gorton drive was not built with the median wider to support light rail later. It would be a perfect place for it. As for what is going ahead being badly sighted, badly planned, disagree, plenty of thought has gone into it, you can of course disagree, but just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it was badly planned or thought out.

dungfungus said :

danieleatspizza747 said :

If according to Capital Metro “This means that the major vehicle traffic flows generally benefit through light rail priority work”, this surely means that the traffic signals for motorists down Northbourne Avenue will be synchronized with those for the tram. What puzzles me is how this will work with regard to speed differentials between motorists and the tram.

As far as I am aware, the light rail is set to travel at a speed of 70km/h for its entire length. This makes synchronising traffic signals on Flemington Road very easy, where the current speed limit is 70km/h. However, once the tram reaches the Federal highway, the speed limit for motorists increases to 80km/h, then drops to 60km/h just before Antill Street. From there, it currently remains at 60km/h all the way to Civic.

Does this mean that the speed limit on the Federal Highway will be decreased to 70km/h for motorists, supposedly for the “safety” of increased pedestrian traffic? If the tram continues down Northbourne at 70km/h, where the speed limit is 60km/h for motorists, you can be sure that this would further encourage motorists to travel at 70km/h to receive signal priority and green lights, as most people seem to do anyway (because the speed limit used to be 70 down Northbourne and the light phasing was never altered to work for 60km/h traffic).

On another note, even at present, Flemington Road between Well Station Drive and the Federal Highway desperately needs to be widened to at least 2 lanes (if not 3 lanes) each way for the entire length to cope with peak hour traffic to increase the capacity of the road. According to light rail plans, this whole section will be reduced to just one lane each way (which will make things WORSE than it is currently, with significantly increased traffic in 2019 when the tram opens). This includes the permanent removal of the bus lane from south of Sandford Street.

To me this is absolutely disgraceful; Capital Metro appears to be deliberately cannibalizing other forms of transport to encourage patronage, especially impacting the bus network. Who WOULD take the bus if the removal of the bus lane meant 10 extra minutes stuck in traffic?

I understood that the “70 kmh” referred to the maximum speed of the tram.
A Melbourne tram’s average speed is about 12 kmh in the metro area.

Actually the Melbourne tram network has an average speed of 16km/h. Though except for two half routes, Melbourne is not a light rail network, it is, as you said a tram network which is a different beast, though I know you will argue it is the same, as you have done before.

Sydney and Adelaide by comparison both have a system that is more like what is planned for Canberra and both have an average speed of 33-34km/h. Source page 7 of the document linked below.

Now 33km/h may sound slow, but the reality is even in a car travelling at 70km/h, by the time you stop for lights etc, your average drops off pretty quickly.

http://www.atrf.info/papers/2013/2013_currie_burke.pdf

rubaiyat said :

rommeldog56 said :

[The tram will not stop at lights.

Early on I recall reading/hearing something from Canberra Metro that the lights for the cross traffic across Northborne Avenue will be syncronised to allow the tram to pass without stopping. There would be no point having the tram stop at lights – there is only a 3 minute advantage over busses as it is now (by Canberra Metro’s own admission).

According to the Red Rapid timetable the Light Rail and buses will run practically on the same schedule.

Yes the Light Rail WILL stop at the lights.

Not much of a system if it doesn’t let passengers on and off!

btw Nothing runs at the speed limit. Depending on traffic everything runs slower, in peak time much slower.

The Light Rail in L.A. does however run fast, faster than 70km/hr.

Maybe it’s the American obsession with getting somewhere. Something that seems to be missing in the ACT.

My recollection that it would not stop at traffic lights was early on – maybe they changed that view or i heard wrong.

So, if the tram will stop at traffic lights + it has to stop 3 times along Northborne Ave between Dickson and Civic at designated tram stops (which will in turn slow down its average speed & probably allow cars to catch it up again !) + even allowing for “priority” starts on green lights at traffic lights, remind me again why the ACT Gov’t is spending M$800+ on this tram ???

rubaiyat said :

Just checked.

I don’t know if Siemen’s offerings are the best available, but their Light Rail’s top speed is 105km. The L.A. System that I used, would have been close to that.

If Canberra had an express option, no stops between main centres for express connections (with overtaking sections to pass slower services) most of the Centres could be 10mins apart. A huge advancement on what we have now, and something that might have people seriously changing modes of transport.

So long as the service matched people’s movements.

There are also systems that have no overhead wires and store power from stop to stop.

The problems with spanning over underground services has also been solved in the States with a system of stiff plastic foam base under the rails where needed.

All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.

You should have checked RiotAct first because everything you have cited has been revealed and discussed before.

Just checked.

I don’t know if Siemen’s offerings are the best available, but their Light Rail’s top speed is 105km. The L.A. System that I used, would have been close to that.

If Canberra had an express option, no stops between main centres for express connections (with overtaking sections to pass slower services) most of the Centres could be 10mins apart. A huge advancement on what we have now, and something that might have people seriously changing modes of transport.

So long as the service matched people’s movements.

There are also systems that have no overhead wires and store power from stop to stop.

The problems with spanning over underground services has also been solved in the States with a system of stiff plastic foam base under the rails where needed.

All of which is part of the worry over what is going ahead, badly sighted, badly planned, no over-arching planning or holistic thinking even for brand new developments like Molonglo. Not even thought to a driverless automated system because getting drivers is a huge cost and headache for the ACT.

rubaiyat said :

Skyring said :

Over the years I’ve watched as driving becomes ever more inconvenient and expensive. If the road gets upgraded, the speed limit drops. More shops and more people means less parking. Red light and speed cameras everywhere. More traffic lights. higher fees.

My prediction is that at every point where the light rail encounters car traffic, the light rail will prevail. It might be an empty tram versus a packed street, but the drivers will come off second best.

An elevated system would be far more expensive. Not going to happen. Far cheaper to pass a few laws with Green support.

This seems to be a strange obsession with you, the elevated light rail. What next, elevated ferries running on Canberra’s lakes?

Seems to be a nonsense distraction form the real issues of viable routes going to real destinations within a long term workable budget.

Personal jet-packs are the answer.

Skyring said :

Over the years I’ve watched as driving becomes ever more inconvenient and expensive. If the road gets upgraded, the speed limit drops. More shops and more people means less parking. Red light and speed cameras everywhere. More traffic lights. higher fees.

My prediction is that at every point where the light rail encounters car traffic, the light rail will prevail. It might be an empty tram versus a packed street, but the drivers will come off second best.

An elevated system would be far more expensive. Not going to happen. Far cheaper to pass a few laws with Green support.

This seems to be a strange obsession with you, the elevated light rail. What next, elevated ferries running on Canberra’s lakes?

Seems to be a nonsense distraction form the real issues of viable routes going to real destinations within a long term workable budget.

rommeldog56 said :

[The tram will not stop at lights.

Early on I recall reading/hearing something from Canberra Metro that the lights for the cross traffic across Northborne Avenue will be syncronised to allow the tram to pass without stopping. There would be no point having the tram stop at lights – there is only a 3 minute advantage over busses as it is now (by Canberra Metro’s own admission).

According to the Red Rapid timetable the Light Rail and buses will run practically on the same schedule.

Yes the Light Rail WILL stop at the lights.

Not much of a system if it doesn’t let passengers on and off!

btw Nothing runs at the speed limit. Depending on traffic everything runs slower, in peak time much slower.

The Light Rail in L.A. does however run fast, faster than 70km/hr.

Maybe it’s the American obsession with getting somewhere. Something that seems to be missing in the ACT.

danieleatspizza747 said :

If according to Capital Metro “This means that the major vehicle traffic flows generally benefit through light rail priority work”, this surely means that the traffic signals for motorists down Northbourne Avenue will be synchronized with those for the tram. What puzzles me is how this will work with regard to speed differentials between motorists and the tram.

As far as I am aware, the light rail is set to travel at a speed of 70km/h for its entire length. This makes synchronising traffic signals on Flemington Road very easy, where the current speed limit is 70km/h. However, once the tram reaches the Federal highway, the speed limit for motorists increases to 80km/h, then drops to 60km/h just before Antill Street. From there, it currently remains at 60km/h all the way to Civic.

Does this mean that the speed limit on the Federal Highway will be decreased to 70km/h for motorists, supposedly for the “safety” of increased pedestrian traffic? If the tram continues down Northbourne at 70km/h, where the speed limit is 60km/h for motorists, you can be sure that this would further encourage motorists to travel at 70km/h to receive signal priority and green lights, as most people seem to do anyway (because the speed limit used to be 70 down Northbourne and the light phasing was never altered to work for 60km/h traffic).

On another note, even at present, Flemington Road between Well Station Drive and the Federal Highway desperately needs to be widened to at least 2 lanes (if not 3 lanes) each way for the entire length to cope with peak hour traffic to increase the capacity of the road. According to light rail plans, this whole section will be reduced to just one lane each way (which will make things WORSE than it is currently, with significantly increased traffic in 2019 when the tram opens). This includes the permanent removal of the bus lane from south of Sandford Street.

To me this is absolutely disgraceful; Capital Metro appears to be deliberately cannibalizing other forms of transport to encourage patronage, especially impacting the bus network. Who WOULD take the bus if the removal of the bus lane meant 10 extra minutes stuck in traffic?

I understood that the “70 kmh” referred to the maximum speed of the tram.
A Melbourne tram’s average speed is about 12 kmh in the metro area.

If according to Capital Metro “This means that the major vehicle traffic flows generally benefit through light rail priority work”, this surely means that the traffic signals for motorists down Northbourne Avenue will be synchronized with those for the tram. What puzzles me is how this will work with regard to speed differentials between motorists and the tram.

As far as I am aware, the light rail is set to travel at a speed of 70km/h for its entire length. This makes synchronising traffic signals on Flemington Road very easy, where the current speed limit is 70km/h. However, once the tram reaches the Federal highway, the speed limit for motorists increases to 80km/h, then drops to 60km/h just before Antill Street. From there, it currently remains at 60km/h all the way to Civic.

Does this mean that the speed limit on the Federal Highway will be decreased to 70km/h for motorists, supposedly for the “safety” of increased pedestrian traffic? If the tram continues down Northbourne at 70km/h, where the speed limit is 60km/h for motorists, you can be sure that this would further encourage motorists to travel at 70km/h to receive signal priority and green lights, as most people seem to do anyway (because the speed limit used to be 70 down Northbourne and the light phasing was never altered to work for 60km/h traffic).

On another note, even at present, Flemington Road between Well Station Drive and the Federal Highway desperately needs to be widened to at least 2 lanes (if not 3 lanes) each way for the entire length to cope with peak hour traffic to increase the capacity of the road. According to light rail plans, this whole section will be reduced to just one lane each way (which will make things WORSE than it is currently, with significantly increased traffic in 2019 when the tram opens). This includes the permanent removal of the bus lane from south of Sandford Street.

To me this is absolutely disgraceful; Capital Metro appears to be deliberately cannibalizing other forms of transport to encourage patronage, especially impacting the bus network. Who WOULD take the bus if the removal of the bus lane meant 10 extra minutes stuck in traffic?

Just like Skyring, I too am very disappointed with the lightright scheme. The Greens’ and Labors’ policies for Canberra’s sustainable transportation are ludicrous and not integrated with the existing infrastructure and our lifestyle. Specifically the with the lightrail, it’s the kind of feel-good schema that looks great on an academic paper, but completely fails in the real world.

The are huge amount of criticism about this program, from the relatively small benefits due to its limited routes, through the disturbance of existing traffic pathways, all the way to the reduction in ACT parking lots to pay for this overpriced nonsense.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Considering the light rail is going to run down Northborne Ave, I wouldn’t be too worried about priority and the need to build expensive flyovers.

Already for car traffic, traffic on Northborne Ave has ‘priority’ so trams will just follow the same priority. I gather the only difference will be is if light rail stops at lights, then the first phase rather than turning traffic, as is the case now, it will be thru traffic, with turning coming second.

About the only intersection where Northborne Ave seems to get equal or less priority compared to other roads is Barry Drive/Cooyong Street intersection, which is near the end of the route anyway.

You can’t be serious ?

The tram will not stop at lights.

Early on I recall reading/hearing something from Canberra Metro that the lights for the cross traffic across Northborne Avenue will be syncronised to allow the tram to pass without stopping. There would be no point having the tram stop at lights – there is only a 3 minute advantage over busses as it is now (by Canberra Metro’s own admission).

Serious about what?

Can you name one public transport system in the world, bus, tram or light rail, where priority at lights means they change to allow the transport system passing without stopping? Heavy rail level crossings don’t count!

I cannot think of one, not one. Priority means they get priority, not a green light all the way.

Out of interest do you know that in the past Action buses on the old 333 route had transponders to give priority at lights on Belconnen way/Barry Drive?

Skyring said :

Antil Street, Murdoch Street, Morphett Street, Wakefield Avenue, and a few other cross streets, not to mention those north of Dickson, all will be affected. I wouldn’t be surprised if that handy Morphett Street crossover gets eliminated completely. Not just the crossing traffic, but turning traffic will be affected if not blocked completely.

No matter how you cut it, ordinary drivers are going to be bumped down a notch in convenience.

Next election, I’m voting for the Motorists Party.

Antil steet the main flow is Northborne Ave way.
Murdoch Street doesn’t have lights and doesn’t need them.
Morphett Street doesn’t have lights, but could do with some. But should pose no great issue because you can only go from Northborne Ave (north bound) into it.
Wakefield Ave, again main flow is Northborne Ave.

North of Antill street I believe the plan was/is to run along the side of Northborne Ave, so will bypass the Barton highway intersection, but will have to cross Phillip Ave. Again despite its size Phillip Ave is a minor road, so no issue there, then of course comes the entry into Flemmington Road.

After watching the arguments from DC Haas in his “Light rail for Canberra” Facebook page, I have turned off the idea of Light Rail. Given that it is now cheaper for me to drive to and from work than ACTION buses ($30 a fortnight on half a tank at over $1.20 per litre vs. $45 a fortnight on MyWay), there is a clear solution – make ACTION Buses cheaper and more reliable. Easier said than done, but surely it’d be cheaper than a whole new infrastructure project ripping up the Northbourne trees and stifling traffic flow even more.

Giving trams the absolute priority is the only way they will work.

BUT….

It also negates the need for trams as buses can be given the same priority.

PROBLEM SOLVED, save a billion dollars!

JC said :

Considering the light rail is going to run down Northborne Ave, I wouldn’t be too worried about priority and the need to build expensive flyovers.

Already for car traffic, traffic on Northborne Ave has ‘priority’ so trams will just follow the same priority. I gather the only difference will be is if light rail stops at lights, then the first phase rather than turning traffic, as is the case now, it will be thru traffic, with turning coming second.

About the only intersection where Northborne Ave seems to get equal or less priority compared to other roads is Barry Drive/Cooyong Street intersection, which is near the end of the route anyway.

You can’t be serious ?

The tram will not stop at lights. Early on I recall reading/hearing something from Canberra Metro that the lights for the cross traffic across Northborne Avenue will be syncronised to allow the tram to pass without stopping. There would be no point having the tram stop at lights – there is only a 3 minute advantage over busses as it is now (by Canberra Metro’s own admission).

That means that cross traffic will he held up more – but it shouldnt be too much more – just enough to allow the tram to pass through the intersection. Its all part of the plan……

Im glad I dont live on that side of town and need a car to get to/from places not on the tram line.

JC said :

Considering the light rail is going to run down Northborne Ave, I wouldn’t be too worried about priority and the need to build expensive flyovers.

Already for car traffic, traffic on Northborne Ave has ‘priority’ so trams will just follow the same priority. I gather the only difference will be is if light rail stops at lights, then the first phase rather than turning traffic, as is the case now, it will be thru traffic, with turning coming second.

Antil Street, Murdoch Street, Morphett Street, Wakefield Avenue, and a few other cross streets, not to mention those north of Dickson, all will be affected. I wouldn’t be surprised if that handy Morphett Street crossover gets eliminated completely. Not just the crossing traffic, but turning traffic will be affected if not blocked completely.

No matter how you cut it, ordinary drivers are going to be bumped down a notch in convenience.

Next election, I’m voting for the Motorists Party.

who cares , we get what we are given nowadays.

Considering the light rail is going to run down Northborne Ave, I wouldn’t be too worried about priority and the need to build expensive flyovers.

Already for car traffic, traffic on Northborne Ave has ‘priority’ so trams will just follow the same priority. I gather the only difference will be is if light rail stops at lights, then the first phase rather than turning traffic, as is the case now, it will be thru traffic, with turning coming second.

About the only intersection where Northborne Ave seems to get equal or less priority compared to other roads is Barry Drive/Cooyong Street intersection, which is near the end of the route anyway.

Over the years I’ve watched as driving becomes ever more inconvenient and expensive. If the road gets upgraded, the speed limit drops. More shops and more people means less parking. Red light and speed cameras everywhere. More traffic lights. higher fees.

My prediction is that at every point where the light rail encounters car traffic, the light rail will prevail. It might be an empty tram versus a packed street, but the drivers will come off second best.

An elevated system would be far more expensive. Not going to happen. Far cheaper to pass a few laws with Green support.