24 June 2015

How should we select a modern transport system for Canberra?

| Arthur Davies
Join the conversation
61
Screen Shot 2015-06-10 at 5.02.14 pm

The ACT Government has opted for light rail for the next generation of public transport. This decision was driven by the desire to redevelop Northbourne Avenue, change the lease purposes and increase land values along either side of this “entry” road. A lot of Canberrans do not believe that trams are the best transport solution. So what are the criteria for a good transport system?

The rise and fall of trams

It is often instructive to look to the past to see how we got to where we are now, and whether this can give us some guidance to our current and future needs.

The first tram in Australia was in Hobart in 1893 (pictured above). In 1900 the city density was double what it was in 2000 and all transport was horse drawn; there was no option but to walk or use a horse to get about. It’s easy to see why people were so quick to take to the cutting edge, risky technology of electric trams.

In the early 20th century 25 Australian towns and cities had (this was the period when the Griffins designed Canberra). But things changed and only two systems survived: Melbourne and Adelaide. There are a few vintage tourist short lines in use but these are not mass transport systems. A couple of short “modern” lines have been added recently but these have proved to be quite expensive

So why did trams fail? New alternative transport systems (mostly cars but also buses) which were faster, cheaper, and more convenient challenged the tram’s dominance. However, road transport is now threatened by its own success. Traffic density is making car travel slower, traffic jams are aggravating and stressful as well as reducing efficiency and causing pollution.

Scheduled versus on-demand transport systems

Most public transport systems run to a timetable. You need to have a timetable and have to be at the stop at the right time. This contrasts with on-demand systems where you can go when you want, such as a car or taxi.

At present public transport systems use large vehicles following fixed routes and picking up passengers at fixed locations at specific times. In addition passengers have to get themselves from home, work etc. to the scheduled stop, i.e. it is not door to door. A minor inconvenience for the young and fit but progressively more of a problem for the aged and incapacitated. This is becoming more and more important with an ageing population.

Traditional transport systems evolved when control systems had to be simple. All you needed was a vehicle, a driver, a route, bus/train stop signs and a timetable. Scheduled systems like these can work well for peak time commuting as the large vehicles can move a lot of people, they have a good load factor and the cost per passenger is low. Fortunately Canberra adopted flexible start and stop times quite early.

Off peak is another matter. Passenger numbers per hour are much lower. If the system offers a good frequent service, passengers are reasonably satisfied but the large vehicles have few passengers per vehicle, efficiency is low and cost per passenger is high. The operator/accountants solution is to reduce the frequency of service in an attempt to increase the number of passengers in each vehicle and hence reduce costs. The result is cranky passengers who find other transport means, and the only passengers left are those who with no alternative.

But technology has not stood still. Sophisticated controls are readily available and cheap so that “on-demand” can be extended to other vehicle types. Other vehicle types have been developed and other propulsion technologies too e.g. linear electric motors. The time is right for a major change in transport modes.

Current and future transport solutions

Our goal should be to get the optimum mix of transport modes to most efficiently meet Canberrans’ transport needs now and into the future.

So what transport options are available to serve Canberra in 2015? Except in large cities where underground trains are justified, public transport moves on the ground. Apart from trains, all ground-based transport moves at about the same speed in order to negotiate intersections etc. To increase speed and reduce trip times, it is necessary to exploit the third dimension: height. While underground is far too expensive for a place like Canberra, riding above the traffic is feasible. By moving above the traffic, interaction with intersections is avoided, speed is significantly higher and trip times are reduced. As the majority of road accidents occur at intersections, safety would also be improved.

Elevated railways have been around for many years, generally with large carriages which need large, heavy, and visually dominant tracks (who can forget the Sydney Monorail?). They are also slowed down by passengers alighting (a similar problem to that faced by ground based systems such as trams and buses). These older elevated systems were limited by the technology available in the past

Personal rapid transit systems are now entering the field. These use small vehicles suspended below a rail mounted on poles above the traffic (thus not interacting with road users). Because the vehicles (often referred to as pods) are small and light, the rail or track can be kept small and light, which makes it visually less obtrusive when compared to the older systems with large vehicles. The smaller track is much cheaper than tram tracks and has a much lower carbon dioxide burden.

The pods can be automatically guided to your destination, no driver is needed and the pods do not stop at intermediate stops or interchanges, just tell it where you want to go, just like in an elevator. Because they operate “on-demand”, as does a lift, there is no need for timetables. Just turn up and take the next pod to where you want to go.

Even though individual pods are small, they are relatively cheap mass-produced items, so the numbers can increase as demand rises on the system. Peak passenger numbers are about 7,000 passengers per hour for each track, much greater than those predicted by Capital Metro for the first stage of Canberra’s light rail.

In Canberra the intention is to take trams down the main transport corridors. The problem is that the city was designed to keep dwellings away from the danger, noise and pollution along these routes, and this has worked very well.

This means the tram lines will be quite a distance from the population (e.g. down Adelaide Avenue) for most of the route. Even if fully developed, Capital Metro says most Canberrans will be too far from a tram line to use it with any regularity. Suburban streets are generally too narrow to take tram lines into suburban centres. Overhead rapid transit lines, however, could be easily installed above the narrower suburban streets, serving a much larger proportion of Canberra’s population.

As we have seen, trams are limited by their interaction with other traffic and by the need to stop to let passengers enter or alight. Capital Metro estimates around 25 minutes Gungahlin to Civic and around an hour and a half from Gungahlin to Tuggeranong. This is really too slow to attract passengers out of their cars. Even buses are faster.

On the other hand, personal pods which do not make intermediate stops and ride above the traffic would get more people out of their cars and ease congestion for remaining road users. Trip times from one end of Canberra to the other could be as short as ten minutes, depending on the system.

Another technology which is likely to be commercial in a few years time is autonomous cars, again due to the availability of sophisticated cheap control systems. Fewer autonomous cars would be needed to do the same job as ordinary cars for most local trips. Given the low cost of electronic controls the autonomous cars would reduce in price to little above the price of conventional cars. There would also be reduced need for parking, potentially freeing up space for better community needs (once the autonomous car drops you off, it moves on to the next passenger needing transport. It does not need to park and wait for you). Accident rates should go down too, as autonomous cars do not text, put on lipstick or shave in the mirror. Add your own horror story.

Autonomous cars would park out of the way when not needed, take the time to recharge their electric batteries, be serviced etc. Very much more economical and efficient. What autonomous cars can not do however is to carry people on commuter trips, especially at peak times. Replacing private cars with autonomous cars will not help with traffic jams; essentially the same number of vehicles would be on the road.

To me, close to an ideal solution would be a high speed overhead rapid transit system in conjunction with autonomous cars to get you to and from the pod stations.

We will of course always have people walking, riding bikes and shopping. But these are not suitable for longer distances in most cases, and are not at all suitable when carrying bulky shopping or when disabled. Beware, we all get older eventually!

Join the conversation

61
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

damien haas said :

You are being dishonest Arthur.

That would be the pot calling the kettle black – big time.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

“clean, safe, electric, reliable transport.”
That is almost exactly the same as what we already have through ACTION buses…

Do you even hear the woosh as it all goes right over your head?

..and off you go again with the same old same as if any of it even remotely made sense.

Got to give you marks for coming up with ever more unbelievable rationalisations for your irrational prejudices, you just keep piling them on.

Just saw some more of your “facts” being demonstrated. An Action bus beatling down Adelaide Ave at 80 km/hr with standing passengers. Who would have thought?

rubaiyat said :

rommeldog56 said :

…those who think the population of Canberra is near that of the Gold Coast…

It is indeed.*

As with Canberra the first stage (13km) of the Gold Coast does not cover the entire population either but has usefully removed a large number of cars from the roads where it counts. To the point where the greatest critic of the project, Councillor Lex Bell, who was as well informed and far sighted as yourself, has conceded it is working and popular.

The LNP even pledged to extend the Light Rail to Helensvale in last January’s election.

Surprise, surprise, no other city is exactly Canberra, many that have trams or light rail are smaller, larger, less populous, more populous, hotter, colder, more prosperous, less prosperous, steeper, flatter, higher or lower altitude. What they all have in common is despite an enormous variety of factors and probably just as many fools and ignoramuses, is they have clean, safe, electric, reliable transport.

* Gold Coast pop 591,500 density 970/km2, Canberra pop 381,500 density 815/km2

“clean, safe, electric, reliable transport.”
That is almost exactly the same as what we already have through ACTION buses so, why change the mode and spend $1 billion that we don’t have?
And the light rail passengers will come mainly from existing ACTION services so where is the sense in that?
As to your reference to “electric”, don’t try to sanitize the ugliness of the infrastructure that light rail requires – it’s not just the old technology stanchions and wires, there is also the necessity to construct mains and sub-stations all along the route.
You don’t see this in the artists’ impressions that tour Capital Metro Agency publishes, do you?

Any major project should be subject to serious examination and debate. That is part of a healthy democracy. Unfortunately certain projects seem to attract their unfair share of the loopy, biggotted and underhanded manipulators with another undeclared agenda.

The drive to trams or any other clean, comprehensive public transport system is one such project.

Those for trams want reduced traffic, better safety, a healthier population living in tighter less sprawling and more livable cities not divided up by walled freeways, but above all they want reduced pollution of all sorts, noise, particulates, global warming and a cut back in the reliance on unsustainable fossil fuels.

That makes a whole lot of enemies who want either the status quo or even more of the same. Particularly, because of Global Warming, light rail has been caught up in the dirty political games of mostly American arch-conservatives and the oil and coal industries with their extremely well funded misinformation campaigns that reach around the world.

The enemies of change play on fear and ignorance. In the absence of actual facts they make up endless objections, most ludicrous and totally irrelevant and certainly never comparative. ie Where do they subject the alternatives to exactly the same criteria and “essential” requirements?

It helps their argument when they never compare like with like, particularly total costs. Public transport, particularly rail is comprehensively costed, accounting for all the planning, design, engineering, construction, capital and running costs. It is a total cost.

The alternative is cars and roads where the supporters never do the same comprehensive costing. Definitely ignoring the capital and running costs of the vehicles that actually make it work. To hear them all you’d think they required was the roads, possibly the fuel, never even those two added up. The costs are divided and ignored as convenient.

There is also the ancillary costs of land lost from either agriculture, commercial or residential use. The health and safety of the community, the deaths, hospital admissions, compensation, insurance and crime directly resulting from the transport choice, the pollution, the reliance on dubious sources of foreign fuel. Most of all, the cost to how we live our lives.

The irrational and sometimes hysterical arguments against the project have their antecedents in history.

It would be interesting to read about the Kalgoorlie Water Pipeline, an amazing technological feat in its day and how it was played out by those for it and those against it for their own political agenda. The conservatives actually drove the engineer in charge to suicide with false charges of the impossiblity of the project, corruption and mismanagement and then without batting an eye grabbed the limelight at the cutting of the ribbon on completion. Jørn Utzon was similarly railroaded out of the country by the conservatives.

There are many other examples of this same phenomena down through history. The dullards shouting down anyone who dares change anything.

Most interesting is how they apply their test of what should or should not be done. There is no attempt at objective, well researched, comparative and equitable facts, it is always one sided and emotive, appealing to base ignorance, fears and resentment. What’s in it for me? Hang everybody else.

As with witchcraft trials the test has to be bizarre and designed to meet the objective of denying the project, not assessing the real merit.

Like the White Australia Policy you demand the victim passes an irrelevant language test. If they disappointingly succeed against all odds, just make them pass another, and another until they fail as intended. The purpose is denial to meet ingrained prejudices not to really meet the stated standards.

The other is to hold the project to standards that are never demanded of the alternative. eg safety, health, monetary, engineering etc. In fact it helps if the stacked game is as hypocritical as possible as the sheer affrontery seems to be passed over by a public that has trouble comparing baked beans in the supermarket.

So by all means debate the subject but put it in its context and put all the alternatives to the same tests. I for one just want a better, cleaner, more livable city that stops eating up the countryside and doesn’t kill its citizens in an out of control consumerist death march.

rommeldog56 said :

…those who think the population of Canberra is near that of the Gold Coast…

It is indeed.*

As with Canberra the first stage (13km) of the Gold Coast does not cover the entire population either but has usefully removed a large number of cars from the roads where it counts. To the point where the greatest critic of the project, Councillor Lex Bell, who was as well informed and far sighted as yourself, has conceded it is working and popular.

The LNP even pledged to extend the Light Rail to Helensvale in last January’s election.

Surprise, surprise, no other city is exactly Canberra, many that have trams or light rail are smaller, larger, less populous, more populous, hotter, colder, more prosperous, less prosperous, steeper, flatter, higher or lower altitude. What they all have in common is despite an enormous variety of factors and probably just as many fools and ignoramuses, is they have clean, safe, electric, reliable transport.

* Gold Coast pop 591,500 density 970/km2, Canberra pop 381,500 density 815/km2

dungfungus said :

drfelonious said :

Mark Ellis – you have not argued the merits of the commuter rail approach, instead just sticking a label on the rail technology. You have offered an alternative something that is theoretical and uncosted and your idea would INCREASE traffic congestion on the same road network. Part of the point of public transport is to take cars OFF the road, not to put more cars on the road. Get back to us when you have done some more research or found a city, any city, that has successfully implemented your idea.

Visit just about any US city over 1 million people without rail (ie most of the shiny new 20th century cities) if you want to see the result of doing nothing. Relying solely upon road infrastructure not pretty. Traffic congestion is endemic and is effectively a tax on road users who spend wasted hours stuck in purgatory – not productive at work, and not productive at home.

Then go visit a city with the ’18th century’ technology infrastructure in place and the difference to the amenity of commuters is immediately apparent. Commuters in Copenhagen, for example go where they want, when they want.

I think those who oppose the light rail have an obligation to point to cities not serviced by rail that have transitioned from 500k to 1 mil without significant traffic congestion. I’m not aware of any city in this category, but most every 1 mil + city in the US is a traffic jam disaster movie because they relied solely upon the car – even though their roads and freeways are usually more extensive and better quality than comparable cities in Australia.

“commuter rail approach”?
You are not talking about light rail if you refer to commuter rail.
The former is where two thirds of the passengers stand with at least one hand on a grab strap hoping the tram will not go any faster than 60kmh (between stops) as it will become unstable.
The latter is where everyone sits down securely and there are few stops with the train reaching speeds in excess of 150kmh with comfort.
The best example is trams in Melbourne vs Victorian regional rail services into Melbourne.

You always leave us tantalisingly in doubt as to whether you have ever seen a tram let alone ridden in one or any other form of public transport.

You seem uncertain as to their size, opacity, sound, ability to climb gradients, ability to operate in the cold, their ability to slaughter the occupants or anyone who comes near them, their operators, electrical safety, noise generated by the transformers, appearance of their power supplies, pollution free status, whether they kill or injury innocent wildlife, the list goes on and on and on and…

Now it is their speed and ability of people to stand up in them.

Is this the man walking in front with the red flag of your childhood?

Ordinary trams can reach speeds of over 80, Light Rail over 100. Passengers in both buses (in Canberra even) and commuter trains around the world and in Sydney frequently stand up in both at high speeds.

Light Rail does not get unstable at high speeds. It offers an extremely stable, smooth and quiet ride. I have travelled in high speed Light Rail in L.A. and in Melbourne (the St Kilda line) and can assure you that what you are once again talking, is through your hat.

drfelonious said :

Mark Ellis – you have not argued the merits of the commuter rail approach, instead just sticking a label on the rail technology. You have offered an alternative something that is theoretical and uncosted and your idea would INCREASE traffic congestion on the same road network. Part of the point of public transport is to take cars OFF the road, not to put more cars on the road. Get back to us when you have done some more research or found a city, any city, that has successfully implemented your idea.

Visit just about any US city over 1 million people without rail (ie most of the shiny new 20th century cities) if you want to see the result of doing nothing. Relying solely upon road infrastructure not pretty. Traffic congestion is endemic and is effectively a tax on road users who spend wasted hours stuck in purgatory – not productive at work, and not productive at home.

Then go visit a city with the ’18th century’ technology infrastructure in place and the difference to the amenity of commuters is immediately apparent. Commuters in Copenhagen, for example go where they want, when they want.

I think those who oppose the light rail have an obligation to point to cities not serviced by rail that have transitioned from 500k to 1 mil without significant traffic congestion. I’m not aware of any city in this category, but most every 1 mil + city in the US is a traffic jam disaster movie because they relied solely upon the car – even though their roads and freeways are usually more extensive and better quality than comparable cities in Australia.

“commuter rail approach”?
You are not talking about light rail if you refer to commuter rail.
The former is where two thirds of the passengers stand with at least one hand on a grab strap hoping the tram will not go any faster than 60kmh (between stops) as it will become unstable.
The latter is where everyone sits down securely and there are few stops with the train reaching speeds in excess of 150kmh with comfort.
The best example is trams in Melbourne vs Victorian regional rail services into Melbourne.

drfelonious said :

Mark Ellis – ……Commuters in Copenhagen, for example go where they want, when they want.

Hmmm…….I’ll take a wild stab at this one.

Having a look at stage 1 Gunners-Civic route and the put together hastily plan to extend the tram across the rest of Canberra, I can not see that, despite what you claim in Copenhagen, the Canberra Tram will take commuters “where they want, when they want”.

drfelonious said :

Mark Ellis – …….. Traffic congestion is endemic and is effectively a tax on road users who spend wasted hours stuck in purgatory – not productive at work, and not productive at home.

Im sure those who choose to use a car (for what ever reason) are appreciative of that fact being pointed out. Who would have guessed. And yet, they still choose to use a car, despite that obvious “tax”.

drfelonious said :

Mark Ellis – …… and your idea would INCREASE traffic congestion on the same road network. Part of the point of public transport is to take cars OFF the road, not to put more cars on the road.

I hate to shatter the dream, but the ACT Government’s own draft Environmental Impact Statement on the tram says that, because of the infill, the tram will actually increase road congestion along the route (particularly on Northbourne Ave).

Mark Ellis – you have not argued the merits of the commuter rail approach, instead just sticking a label on the rail technology. You have offered an alternative something that is theoretical and uncosted and your idea would INCREASE traffic congestion on the same road network. Part of the point of public transport is to take cars OFF the road, not to put more cars on the road. Get back to us when you have done some more research or found a city, any city, that has successfully implemented your idea.

Visit just about any US city over 1 million people without rail (ie most of the shiny new 20th century cities) if you want to see the result of doing nothing. Relying solely upon road infrastructure not pretty. Traffic congestion is endemic and is effectively a tax on road users who spend wasted hours stuck in purgatory – not productive at work, and not productive at home.

Then go visit a city with the ’18th century’ technology infrastructure in place and the difference to the amenity of commuters is immediately apparent. Commuters in Copenhagen, for example go where they want, when they want.

I think those who oppose the light rail have an obligation to point to cities not serviced by rail that have transitioned from 500k to 1 mil without significant traffic congestion. I’m not aware of any city in this category, but most every 1 mil + city in the US is a traffic jam disaster movie because they relied solely upon the car – even though their roads and freeways are usually more extensive and better quality than comparable cities in Australia.

MarkE said :

The Canberra Trams proposal is a 18th century solution to a 21st century problem. This Canberra tram project will be obsolete before it is complete.

There are new technologies that we know are on the cusp of being commercialised that the ACT Government is ignoring. We have driver-less cars technology almost ready for market. There have been major advances in battery technology and almost everyone has a smart phone. Put the three of them together and people can use a smart phone application to summons an electric driverless car to take them to their destination quickly, cheaply, safely and without parking or drink driving problems. Once this fleet is large enough there will be little incentive for anyone to own a car.

Mum won’t need to spend hours a day driving around town as a taxi service when there is a fleet of driver-less cars doing it. There will be a reduction on traffic volumes as half mum’s trips are with a car empty of children. There won’t be Canberra’s constant fleet of empty buses. There will probably be a case for a fleet of articulated buses to run the major trunk roots between town centers but not much more.

The electric driver-less cars could even act as storage for the electricity grid at night to smooth out the irregular power production of renewables like solar and wind.

Our Labor/Green ACT Government is so ideologically driven and economically illiterate that they won’t even head their own reports on how marginal this trams project is against current technology let alone emerging technology.

Regards,

Mark Ellis

🙂
Phone: 0412 252588
President
ACT Liberal Democrats

There is obviously an election coming up !

Queue right : Tram lovers, those who think the Tram as mystical transforational powers to make Canberra “grow up”, those who hate cars/car parking spaces & roads, those who can afford the avg.10%pa increase in Annual Rates forever to help pay for the tram, those who believe ACT Gov’t pro tram spin, those who think the population of Canberra is near that of the Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide so we actually need & can afford the tram, those who seriously believe that the tram project will “create” 3,500 jobs, etc. Did I miss anyone ????

“MarkE said : The Canberra Trams proposal is a 18th century solution to a 21st century problem. This Canberra tram…”

Amazing! Those people that lived in the period from 1700 to 1799 were far advanced in technology that they invented the tram?

And there I was believing, that as it is with trains and cars, trams were invented in the latter years of the 19th century.

Apart from that, I am looking forward to the tram being built.

The Canberra Trams proposal is a 18th century solution to a 21st century problem. This Canberra tram project will be obsolete before it is complete.

There are new technologies that we know are on the cusp of being commercialised that the ACT Government is ignoring. We have driver-less cars technology almost ready for market. There have been major advances in battery technology and almost everyone has a smart phone. Put the three of them together and people can use a smart phone application to summons an electric driverless car to take them to their destination quickly, cheaply, safely and without parking or drink driving problems. Once this fleet is large enough there will be little incentive for anyone to own a car.

Mum won’t need to spend hours a day driving around town as a taxi service when there is a fleet of driver-less cars doing it. There will be a reduction on traffic volumes as half mum’s trips are with a car empty of children. There won’t be Canberra’s constant fleet of empty buses. There will probably be a case for a fleet of articulated buses to run the major trunk roots between town centers but not much more.

The electric driver-less cars could even act as storage for the electricity grid at night to smooth out the irregular power production of renewables like solar and wind.

Our Labor/Green ACT Government is so ideologically driven and economically illiterate that they won’t even head their own reports on how marginal this trams project is against current technology let alone emerging technology.

Regards,

Mark Ellis 🙂
Phone: 0412 252588
President
ACT Liberal Democrats

Interesting new lens applied to this on 666 by Simon Corbell this morning. Turns out, folks, the light rail isn’t for us after all! It is, says Corbell, for the ACT population in 2061, when we will apparently hit 750,000 people. Howzabout building that multibillion dollar infrastructure once they’ve started to show up in our city, Simon? Oh, and I just passed that Futsal slab with the million-dollar “popup” packing crate construction. Still pretty much nothing happening there by the look of it, nine months on from the proposed launch date …

Arthur Davies4:43 pm 08 Jul 15

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said:
“The ACT Government has opted for light rail for the next generation of public transport. This decision was driven by the desire to redevelop Northbourne Avenue, change the lease purposes and increase land values along either side of this “entry” road.”

You are being dishonest Arthur.

There were a range of reasons that supported the Gungahlin to Civic route. You can actually read a range of those reports on this page:

http://www.actlightrail.info/p/act-transport-studies.html

The first Gungahlin specific study dates from 1991.

I know it will amaze you, but the requirement for better public transport was – predictable traffic congestion and the need to move people.

It has taken me a while to get back to this comment as I wanted to double check my facts. The Commonwealth program is intended to stimulate the recycling of infrastructure assets. To that end it encourages state & territory govts to sell off assets & reinvest in new infrastructure. The guidelines state that if the funds are reinvested in infrastructure the Commonwealth will add 15% to the territory/state’s investment.

It is NOT a grant specifically for the ACT’s trams, it is a general grant for a capital project of the, in this case, ACT Govt’s choosing, it could equally have been spent on several other capital projects. THEY chose to use it for trams & the Commonwealth approved that as an appropriate investment within the guidelines. I understand that approaches have been made in the past to the Commonwealth for direct funding for the trams but it was rejected on the basis it lacked sufficient financial viability.

I believe that all comments should all be factually based so that readers get a true picture of the issues, you have put in comments before which have had to be corrected. Of course no one is perfect & errors can occur, but we should all strive for accuracy.

Arthur

What is the development timetable for your preferred option?

Where is it up to now? Have they resolved any of the major concerns raised in their 3D animations?

If they can’t even work out their faked up videos what progress could they have made on actually building a working transport system?

Why did it become essential to examine ALL options ONLY when it involves light rail, when eg Majura Parkway or Gungahlin Drive did not examine ALL options?

Nor did the redevelopment of Canberra Airport include all options of, for example, a spaceport/rocket launching facility or tethering masts for Airships.

Did your ANU employment contract examine ALL the options of for instance replacing you with a much cheaper and more convenient subscription to the Teaching Company?

http://www.thegreatcourses.com.au/index.php?ai=82873&_AU

or Lynda.com

http://www.lynda.com/default.aspx

or Udemy

https://www.udemy.com/

The point being that if everything gets held up to “examine all options”, including those not off the drawing board, it becomes just an excuse to stall every project forever. Especially as the requirement is only applied selectively, as in the language test in the White Australia policy.

Arthur Davies4:27 pm 01 Jul 15

The arguments about transport modes reinforces my statement that there is no transport solution for Canberra, there are a number of solutions & the task is to utilise the best combination of them to serve you & the community. Buses meet some needs well, especially if you are travelling within one area & do not need to change buses. Cars are ideal for bulky shopping & when visiting
“out of town” (although if not used often a combination of taxis & hire cars may well be more economical). Trades people need vehicles for tools etc. But cars are far from ideal for commuting.

I do not see trams as an economical or fast part of the mix, better express buses are much cheaper according to the Govt’s own figures.

My ideal solution is a combination of overhead rapid transit (I know it is new technology with all that entails) along with autonomous electric cars for short trips, but we will have see how these options pan out in the next few years. A major advantage of these is that they are “on demand”, no time table, available 24 hours per day.

My major criticism is that no proper investigation of all options was done along with all of the costings before a decision was made, & yes I have read all the reports & none of them looked at all options.

Arthur

wildturkeycanoe said :

When isn’t a shopping trip at least 3 or 4 bags full?

Always for us, but we rarely get processed food.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Yeah, I’ll rather drive my car for at least a quarter of the cost or less.

Only for that one trip. Your car is costing you every single day, sitting in your driveway or not, PLUS $0.72/km when you are driving it. Worse if it is a SUV or 4WD. Contrary to popular belief it isn’t just the petrol.

Driving to the shops, for the cheaper prices, isn’t cheap in itself.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Either that or they live close to the town center.

I thought we had covered that more than adequately. Multiple times.

The central idea is, DON’T live in Googong and shop in Belconnen Mall.

There are a lot of these in Melbourne:

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/ODAxWDY5NA==/z/x2MAAOSwDNdVgiLd/$_57.JPG

You don’t have to fill the Costco Dumpster Trolley every time you shop, not unless you want to look like their customers.

wildturkeycanoe6:39 pm 27 Jun 15

JC said :

How do you reckon people get on in other cities? You say people cannot do shopping and get a bus, well for 3 years that is exactly what I did when I lived in London. The wife and I would go to the supermarket and get the bus home, we even had to walk 500m with the shopping too. The horror of it. The times when we had a really big shop we got a taxi home.

We even had kids that went to school on the bus, no problems at all. Yes London is a tad different to Canberra, but the point is it can be done.

Must admit don’t do it here because a car is a lot more convenient, but that is a choice I make, if push came to shove I would survive with the bus. In fact almost all your examples are doable with public transport, but it is more convenient to drive. You also realsie that not everyone has a car don’t you how do you think they get on?

The only example you gave was when you said you walk home at 11pm. But you don’t do that every night do you, so that would be the exception rather than the norm. Likewise people that work shift or odd hours, they would be the exceptions too.

I do not go shopping with someone to help me carry it all, I go when the markets are open and the kids aren’t tagging along, which means not being able to carry it all myself on a bus. Also, everything isn’t bought in one place, there is a bit of to and fro for different ingredients from different suburbs. Not exactly convenient when you can’t take the trolley out of the precinct. I also can’t carry 20+kg of stuff in a trolley full of bags. When isn’t a shopping trip at least 3 or 4 bags full? You obviously made a lot of little trips, wasting a heap of time. Taxi? Yeah, I’ll rather drive my car for at least a quarter of the cost or less.
The people who don’t have cars probably sacrifice the inconvenience for having to make a lot of trips all the time or just stick to the local shop where they pay double for everything. Either that or they live close to the town center.

Postalgeek said :

A smart person who needs to use a car would actively encourage effective public transport and cycle infrastructure in order to relieve congestion of roads and parking facilities, rather than insist that almost everyone needs to drive which will inevitably lead to increasing congestion, the regulation of vehicle access to city centres, the jacking-up of petrol taxes, and higher parking fees. That argument comes across as masochism.

The first point precludes most of the anti-Light Rail protestors.

The ones who are mortally afraid that once people have a choice they might take up the healthier choice for themselves and for Canberra, and as happens so often, everyone who stood on the sidelines sees this wasn’t the end of the world and they join in.

Otherwise known as the Gus’s effect.

So it is vitally important that people have absolutely no choice.

dungfungus said :

No, it was because Brasilia is getting a light rail also.

No, it was because Brasilia has an enormously wide Monumental Axis which makes crossing Northbourne Ave pale into insignificance.

The Light Rail was simply a btw.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Unfortunately public transport will not get most people to where they have to be, when they have to be there. In this fast paced world of deadlines, schedules and working longer hours to pay for everything, public transport is not fast enough or direct enough for people to use for work, children and family life. How do you do your grocery shopping? How do you carry a trolley full of food home on a bus? Where a car will get one home in time to pick kids up from afters care on the way, a bus would leave the kiddies out in the cold for an hour whilst the parent is waiting in an interchange for twenty minutes for a connection to their suburb.
In these cases the money saved by using public transport has just been blown on more expensive arrangements for child care, if you still have a job after consistently showing up late because the schedules do not operate as early as required or late enough to get you home from your afternoon shift.
What about sporting activities, when there is insufficient time to get from one event to another? What about going out for a picnic in the region around the A.C.T? Without a car you are imprisoned within the borders of the network and can’t go anywhere.
Try going out to some of the evening entertainment offered in Canberra and then suffer the consequences when you can’t get a bus home.
I have had to walk from Belconnen interchange all the way to west Belconnen after 11PM from attending a work function in the City. No services left to take me home. I wan’t going to pay $50 to get home in a cab. I also wasn’t going to ring home and wake up the entire family to come and get me. It was a very scary and unpleasant experience in the sub zero temps. If I’d driven, I could have done it cheaper than what the bus fare was and not had to waste another hour of my life with the fear of being mugged on the way.
Cars are a necessity, no matter how you argue they can be done away with, especially with children.

How do you reckon people get on in other cities? You say people cannot do shopping and get a bus, well for 3 years that is exactly what I did when I lived in London. The wife and I would go to the supermarket and get the bus home, we even had to walk 500m with the shopping too. The horror of it. The times when we had a really big shop we got a taxi home.

We even had kids that went to school on the bus, no problems at all. Yes London is a tad different to Canberra, but the point is it can be done.

Must admit don’t do it here because a car is a lot more convenient, but that is a choice I make, if push came to shove I would survive with the bus. In fact almost all your examples are doable with public transport, but it is more convenient to drive. You also realsie that not everyone has a car don’t you how do you think they get on?

The only example you gave was when you said you walk home at 11pm. But you don’t do that every night do you, so that would be the exception rather than the norm. Likewise people that work shift or odd hours, they would be the exceptions too.

I’d love everyone else to be on a train, leave the roads to those who actually have an interest in driving.

Tenpoints said :

Notwithstanding individuals with legitimate logistical or physical issues using public transport, I think there’s a significant subset of the population who could get a holistic benefit out of incorporating a bit of walking or cycling into their commute. Pretty much every action bus has a bike rack now.

There are also locked bike sheds next to some bus stops, to encourage riding the bike to the bus stop and then catching the bus. This can make catching the bus more attractive, by bypassing the first local bus and riding straight to the more direct bus route.

Notwithstanding individuals with legitimate logistical or physical issues using public transport, I think there’s a significant subset of the population who could get a holistic benefit out of incorporating a bit of walking or cycling into their commute. Pretty much every action bus has a bike rack now.

wildturkeycanoe1:01 pm 26 Jun 15

Postalgeek said :

A smart person who needs to use a car would actively encourage effective public transport and cycle infrastructure in order to relieve congestion of roads and parking facilities, rather than insist that almost everyone needs to drive which will inevitably lead to increasing congestion, the regulation of vehicle access to city centres, the jacking-up of petrol taxes, and higher parking fees. That argument comes across as masochism.

Indeed, I do support buses for transport. Unfortunately they do not suit me one bit. If only they suited more of the population. We spend over $10 a week on public transport just for our son to get to school adding up to over $400 a year, so at least one of us uses the service. I can’t because the nearest stop is half a kilometer away and due to injury I can’t walk long distances anymore. My partner couldn’t use it for work as she has to carry a lot of gear [can’t put that in the bus] and can be called in at around an hour’s notice, leaving no time to catch the required number of buses to get there.
Surely a lot of people could use these services but can’t due to one or two significant issues to do with timing or availability.
At least these days I’m not part of the peak hour problem anymore and most trips are just to the local shops and back. Doing my part!

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

You would think the auto manufacturers would love to brag how cheap driving is. Every car could have a meter, adjusted for the number of occupants, with a burning dollar icon, showing just how much that trip was REALLY costing, with a second showing the cost of parking.

There is a reason why they don’t. They’d have to show another for how much money your car is burning just sitting in your driveway, and your bank could tell you how much of the mortgage goes to the garage you built to keep it at home doing nothing.

You can drive 11km (5.5km return) for the cost of an ALL DAY week day unlimited bus fare.

6km on weekends.

A standard bus fare that will get you anywhere in Canberra, will get you less than 3km in your car.

Halve that for a concession card.

Even less if you drive in heavy traffic.

Parking exceeds the cost of a bus fare to anywhere at any time.

People just want excuses to justify what they do. Not reasons.

People ignore the economics. Even if public transport is totally free they just come up with something else as an excuse.

Unfortunately public transport will not get most people to where they have to be, when they have to be there. In this fast paced world of deadlines, schedules and working longer hours to pay for everything, public transport is not fast enough or direct enough for people to use for work, children and family life. How do you do your grocery shopping? How do you carry a trolley full of food home on a bus? Where a car will get one home in time to pick kids up from afters care on the way, a bus would leave the kiddies out in the cold for an hour whilst the parent is waiting in an interchange for twenty minutes for a connection to their suburb.
In these cases the money saved by using public transport has just been blown on more expensive arrangements for child care, if you still have a job after consistently showing up late because the schedules do not operate as early as required or late enough to get you home from your afternoon shift.
What about sporting activities, when there is insufficient time to get from one event to another? What about going out for a picnic in the region around the A.C.T? Without a car you are imprisoned within the borders of the network and can’t go anywhere.
Try going out to some of the evening entertainment offered in Canberra and then suffer the consequences when you can’t get a bus home.
I have had to walk from Belconnen interchange all the way to west Belconnen after 11PM from attending a work function in the City. No services left to take me home. I wan’t going to pay $50 to get home in a cab. I also wasn’t going to ring home and wake up the entire family to come and get me. It was a very scary and unpleasant experience in the sub zero temps. If I’d driven, I could have done it cheaper than what the bus fare was and not had to waste another hour of my life with the fear of being mugged on the way.
Cars are a necessity, no matter how you argue they can be done away with, especially with children.

A smart person who needs to use a car would actively encourage effective public transport and cycle infrastructure in order to relieve congestion of roads and parking facilities, rather than insist that almost everyone needs to drive which will inevitably lead to increasing congestion, the regulation of vehicle access to city centres, the jacking-up of petrol taxes, and higher parking fees. That argument comes across as masochism.

Arthur Davies said :

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said:
“The ACT Government has opted for light rail for the next generation of public transport. This decision was driven by the desire to redevelop Northbourne Avenue, change the lease purposes and increase land values along either side of this “entry” road.”

You are being dishonest Arthur.

There were a range of reasons that supported the Gungahlin to Civic route. You can actually read a range of those reports on this page:

http://www.actlightrail.info/p/act-transport-studies.html

The first Gungahlin specific study dates from 1991.

I know it will amaze you, but the requirement for better public transport was – predictable traffic congestion and the need to move people.

I have read the studies & more, also Metro’s stuff. I attended the Metro launch & heard them talking about the real estate changes helping pay for the system.

Without real estate development increases the Govt has quoted a cost benefit of 0.5, i.e. put in $M800 get back $M400 over a long period, not per year. Add real estate & the ratio rises to 1.2, far too low for the Federal Govt, it refused to contribute. Note the $M75 from the feds resulted from assets sales of around $M400 & was able to be spent on any capital program, could have been put into our new hospital for instance.

If you have carried out all this research Arthur, why do you leave out the transport factors and ONLY refer to urban renewal?

The asset recycling money cannot be spent on ‘any’ capital program and cannot be spent on hospitals or schools. It can ONLY be spent on light rail.

Maybe you need to do some more research.

wildturkeycanoe11:20 pm 25 Jun 15

rubaiyat said :

You would think the auto manufacturers would love to brag how cheap driving is. Every car could have a meter, adjusted for the number of occupants, with a burning dollar icon, showing just how much that trip was REALLY costing, with a second showing the cost of parking.

There is a reason why they don’t. They’d have to show another for how much money your car is burning just sitting in your driveway, and your bank could tell you how much of the mortgage goes to the garage you built to keep it at home doing nothing.

You can drive 11km (5.5km return) for the cost of an ALL DAY week day unlimited bus fare.

6km on weekends.

A standard bus fare that will get you anywhere in Canberra, will get you less than 3km in your car.

Halve that for a concession card.

Even less if you drive in heavy traffic.

Parking exceeds the cost of a bus fare to anywhere at any time.

People just want excuses to justify what they do. Not reasons.

People ignore the economics. Even if public transport is totally free they just come up with something else as an excuse.

Unfortunately public transport will not get most people to where they have to be, when they have to be there. In this fast paced world of deadlines, schedules and working longer hours to pay for everything, public transport is not fast enough or direct enough for people to use for work, children and family life. How do you do your grocery shopping? How do you carry a trolley full of food home on a bus? Where a car will get one home in time to pick kids up from afters care on the way, a bus would leave the kiddies out in the cold for an hour whilst the parent is waiting in an interchange for twenty minutes for a connection to their suburb.
In these cases the money saved by using public transport has just been blown on more expensive arrangements for child care, if you still have a job after consistently showing up late because the schedules do not operate as early as required or late enough to get you home from your afternoon shift.
What about sporting activities, when there is insufficient time to get from one event to another? What about going out for a picnic in the region around the A.C.T? Without a car you are imprisoned within the borders of the network and can’t go anywhere.
Try going out to some of the evening entertainment offered in Canberra and then suffer the consequences when you can’t get a bus home.
I have had to walk from Belconnen interchange all the way to west Belconnen after 11PM from attending a work function in the City. No services left to take me home. I wan’t going to pay $50 to get home in a cab. I also wasn’t going to ring home and wake up the entire family to come and get me. It was a very scary and unpleasant experience in the sub zero temps. If I’d driven, I could have done it cheaper than what the bus fare was and not had to waste another hour of my life with the fear of being mugged on the way.
Cars are a necessity, no matter how you argue they can be done away with, especially with children.

Arthur Davies said :

rosscoact said :

Solidarity said :

Rather than trying to make driving a car less attractive, make your transport system more attractive, otherwise all you’re going to do is make people not vote for you.

Every law that gets people to act in a different way has a carrot and a stick. The government has to apply both and right now it is far easier to drive a car than take public transport so yes, make bus travel more attractive and car travel far less attractive. For the people who still decide to clog the roads regardless, make them pay for the privilege.

If bus travel was free, I still wouldn’t take it if I can park all day for $17 and have the independence that a car offers. Make it $45 to park all day in the city and all the bus routes go directly into town I will take a bus, not ride a pushie, it’s too far for me but certainly a scooter if I could conveniently park instead of looking for a full motorcycle parking station.

You leave out the needs of people who ready need individual cars/trucks. No transport system I know of will get trades people to & from jobs with their tools, e.g. fixing a blocked sewer. Also we are an ageing population as we are all being told, unfortunately many people with disabilities have no other choice. Once autonomous cars come in then they can be catered for much more easily. The average trip to the garden/hardware store simply is not feasible by tram/bus.

But you are right that if a faster cheaper system were put in many people would use it rather than their car for most trips, especially commuting where we have far & away the biggest problem, not shopping trips or doctors visits. Unfortunately trams are neither faster or cheaper.

How is the popcorn holding out?

😀 touche

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

any solution should start with the problem and THEN look for the solution.

The underlying problem is not actually “transport,” but rather “access” to work, school, shops etc., in a city that was originally planned as a compact city with frequent fast-moving traffic travelling in the median of Northbourne Avenue.”

We can solve many of our “transport” problems by putting more people closer to their everyday destinations.

If you include walking to and from bus stops, walking is Canberra’s second most popular form of transport. Yet we have 1,000 kilometres of streets that don’t even have footpaths. For 50 years, pedestrians crossing Northbourne Avenue have had to wait an extra 90 seconds because our “planners” separated the two carriageways of fast-moving traffic by 30 metres, and then installed traffic lights.

It’s enough to make Walter and Marion turn in their graves!

Be thankful this isn’t Brasilia, the main Eixo Monumental is 1 km wide because everyone was going to fly to work.

Now it is a mere 12 lanes of car traffic with a huge verge between. Canberrans can only dream!

btw Brasilia will be getting its first Light Rail soon.

The population of Brasilia is 2,562,963, making it the fourth largest city in Brazil.
Stop this chalk and cheese nonsense.

Actually the reason Brasilia was probably mentioned has nothing to do with population and everything to do with being a planned capital city like Canberra.

No, it was because Brasilia is getting a light rail also.

Arthur Davies said :

rosscoact said :

Solidarity said :

Rather than trying to make driving a car less attractive, make your transport system more attractive, otherwise all you’re going to do is make people not vote for you.

Every law that gets people to act in a different way has a carrot and a stick. The government has to apply both and right now it is far easier to drive a car than take public transport so yes, make bus travel more attractive and car travel far less attractive. For the people who still decide to clog the roads regardless, make them pay for the privilege.

If bus travel was free, I still wouldn’t take it if I can park all day for $17 and have the independence that a car offers. Make it $45 to park all day in the city and all the bus routes go directly into town I will take a bus, not ride a pushie, it’s too far for me but certainly a scooter if I could conveniently park instead of looking for a full motorcycle parking station.

You leave out the needs of people who ready need individual cars/trucks. No transport system I know of will get trades people to & from jobs with their tools, e.g. fixing a blocked sewer. Also we are an ageing population as we are all being told, unfortunately many people with disabilities have no other choice. Once autonomous cars come in then they can be catered for much more easily. The average trip to the garden/hardware store simply is not feasible by tram/bus.

But you are right that if a faster cheaper system were put in many people would use it rather than their car for most trips, especially commuting where we have far & away the biggest problem, not shopping trips or doctors visits. Unfortunately trams are neither faster or cheaper.

How is the popcorn holding out?

Unlike the ideologically obsessed opponents of light rail we do not demand 0% cars, just less.

Canberra does not need almost one car per man, woman and child. Nor would most trips require one if we weren’t so lazy and had better planning.

Trams ARE cheaper than cars. They are cheaper than buses, metros or any other form of public transport. Except of course pie in the sky solutions, they are always the cheapest.

Pie Up In the Sky that is even less of a solution for shoppers or doctors visits.

Arthur Davies said :

rubaiyat said :

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

any solution should start with the problem and THEN look for the solution.

The underlying problem is not actually “transport,” but rather “access” to work, school, shops etc., in a city that was originally planned as a compact city with frequent fast-moving traffic travelling in the median of Northbourne Avenue.”

We can solve many of our “transport” problems by putting more people closer to their everyday destinations.

If you include walking to and from bus stops, walking is Canberra’s second most popular form of transport. Yet we have 1,000 kilometres of streets that don’t even have footpaths. For 50 years, pedestrians crossing Northbourne Avenue have had to wait an extra 90 seconds because our “planners” separated the two carriageways of fast-moving traffic by 30 metres, and then installed traffic lights.

It’s enough to make Walter and Marion turn in their graves!

Be thankful this isn’t Brasilia, the main Eixo Monumental is 1 km wide because everyone was going to fly to work.

Now it is a mere 12 lanes of car traffic with a huge verge between. Canberrans can only dream!

btw Brasilia will be getting its first Light Rail soon.

The fact that Brazilia went to 12 lane freeways etc is proof of very poor planning & investigatory skills, makes me doubt very much their choice of technology & doubt even more that we should follow them. As pointed out elsewhere their city is many times the size of Canberra, I have not looked at it but a fast train on its own dedicated line may well be best in their case, the cities & problems are just not comparable.

Never said they were, and I have pointed out that Brasilia’s Metro population is actually 6 million, but a lot of my post never make it here.

And yes they have looked at high speed rail but only to the regional capital Goiânia. Brasil is vast!

Brasilia is almost contemporaneous with Canberra and many of the same bad assumptions and decisions were made.

Light rail is going to give some much needed circulation across Brasilia’s N/S axis.

Normally I am all for innovation and thinking out of the box but we do not have a novel problem and don’t need a novel solution. The answer is pretty straight forward. Your suggestion hasn’t even made beta yet.

These are closer to delivery:

http://www.2050publications.com/the-compressed-air-powered-tata-airpod-will-offer-a-range-of-125-miles-with-fuel-costs-of-3-euro-cents-per-mile/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hyperloop-system-construction-start-year-california-article-1.2130162

http://www.hover-bike.com/MA/

How many more solutions do you want thrown on the table? I can do dozens.

Arthur Davies5:31 pm 25 Jun 15

rosscoact said :

Solidarity said :

Rather than trying to make driving a car less attractive, make your transport system more attractive, otherwise all you’re going to do is make people not vote for you.

Every law that gets people to act in a different way has a carrot and a stick. The government has to apply both and right now it is far easier to drive a car than take public transport so yes, make bus travel more attractive and car travel far less attractive. For the people who still decide to clog the roads regardless, make them pay for the privilege.

If bus travel was free, I still wouldn’t take it if I can park all day for $17 and have the independence that a car offers. Make it $45 to park all day in the city and all the bus routes go directly into town I will take a bus, not ride a pushie, it’s too far for me but certainly a scooter if I could conveniently park instead of looking for a full motorcycle parking station.

You leave out the needs of people who ready need individual cars/trucks. No transport system I know of will get trades people to & from jobs with their tools, e.g. fixing a blocked sewer. Also we are an ageing population as we are all being told, unfortunately many people with disabilities have no other choice. Once autonomous cars come in then they can be catered for much more easily. The average trip to the garden/hardware store simply is not feasible by tram/bus.

But you are right that if a faster cheaper system were put in many people would use it rather than their car for most trips, especially commuting where we have far & away the biggest problem, not shopping trips or doctors visits. Unfortunately trams are neither faster or cheaper.

How is the popcorn holding out?

Arthur Davies5:18 pm 25 Jun 15

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said:
“The ACT Government has opted for light rail for the next generation of public transport. This decision was driven by the desire to redevelop Northbourne Avenue, change the lease purposes and increase land values along either side of this “entry” road.”

You are being dishonest Arthur.

There were a range of reasons that supported the Gungahlin to Civic route. You can actually read a range of those reports on this page:

http://www.actlightrail.info/p/act-transport-studies.html

The first Gungahlin specific study dates from 1991.

I know it will amaze you, but the requirement for better public transport was – predictable traffic congestion and the need to move people.

I have read the studies & more, also Metro’s stuff. I attended the Metro launch & heard them talking about the real estate changes helping pay for the system.

Without real estate development increases the Govt has quoted a cost benefit of 0.5, i.e. put in $M800 get back $M400 over a long period, not per year. Add real estate & the ratio rises to 1.2, far too low for the Federal Govt, it refused to contribute. Note the $M75 from the feds resulted from assets sales of around $M400 & was able to be spent on any capital program, could have been put into our new hospital for instance.

Arthur Davies5:03 pm 25 Jun 15

rubaiyat said :

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

any solution should start with the problem and THEN look for the solution.

The underlying problem is not actually “transport,” but rather “access” to work, school, shops etc., in a city that was originally planned as a compact city with frequent fast-moving traffic travelling in the median of Northbourne Avenue.”

We can solve many of our “transport” problems by putting more people closer to their everyday destinations.

If you include walking to and from bus stops, walking is Canberra’s second most popular form of transport. Yet we have 1,000 kilometres of streets that don’t even have footpaths. For 50 years, pedestrians crossing Northbourne Avenue have had to wait an extra 90 seconds because our “planners” separated the two carriageways of fast-moving traffic by 30 metres, and then installed traffic lights.

It’s enough to make Walter and Marion turn in their graves!

Be thankful this isn’t Brasilia, the main Eixo Monumental is 1 km wide because everyone was going to fly to work.

Now it is a mere 12 lanes of car traffic with a huge verge between. Canberrans can only dream!

btw Brasilia will be getting its first Light Rail soon.

The fact that Brazilia went to 12 lane freeways etc is proof of very poor planning & investigatory skills, makes me doubt very much their choice of technology & doubt even more that we should follow them. As pointed out elsewhere their city is many times the size of Canberra, I have not looked at it but a fast train on its own dedicated line may well be best in their case, the cities & problems are just not comparable.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

any solution should start with the problem and THEN look for the solution.

The underlying problem is not actually “transport,” but rather “access” to work, school, shops etc., in a city that was originally planned as a compact city with frequent fast-moving traffic travelling in the median of Northbourne Avenue.”

We can solve many of our “transport” problems by putting more people closer to their everyday destinations.

If you include walking to and from bus stops, walking is Canberra’s second most popular form of transport. Yet we have 1,000 kilometres of streets that don’t even have footpaths. For 50 years, pedestrians crossing Northbourne Avenue have had to wait an extra 90 seconds because our “planners” separated the two carriageways of fast-moving traffic by 30 metres, and then installed traffic lights.

It’s enough to make Walter and Marion turn in their graves!

Be thankful this isn’t Brasilia, the main Eixo Monumental is 1 km wide because everyone was going to fly to work.

Now it is a mere 12 lanes of car traffic with a huge verge between. Canberrans can only dream!

btw Brasilia will be getting its first Light Rail soon.

The population of Brasilia is 2,562,963, making it the fourth largest city in Brazil.
Stop this chalk and cheese nonsense.

Actually the reason Brasilia was probably mentioned has nothing to do with population and everything to do with being a planned capital city like Canberra.

And also using actual facts vs stuff pulled off the internet at first glance. The city of Brasilia itself has a population less than Canberra’s, but the federal district has the 2 mill quoted vs the ACT having not much more. Also population density is 480/km2 for Brasilia vs 430/km2 for Canberra. Which is also irrelevant, because the light rail route will have an even higher population density.

The light rail has nothing to do with a transport solution for Canberra and everything about creating a high density living area.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

any solution should start with the problem and THEN look for the solution.

The underlying problem is not actually “transport,” but rather “access” to work, school, shops etc., in a city that was originally planned as a compact city with frequent fast-moving traffic travelling in the median of Northbourne Avenue.”

We can solve many of our “transport” problems by putting more people closer to their everyday destinations.

If you include walking to and from bus stops, walking is Canberra’s second most popular form of transport. Yet we have 1,000 kilometres of streets that don’t even have footpaths. For 50 years, pedestrians crossing Northbourne Avenue have had to wait an extra 90 seconds because our “planners” separated the two carriageways of fast-moving traffic by 30 metres, and then installed traffic lights.

It’s enough to make Walter and Marion turn in their graves!

Be thankful this isn’t Brasilia, the main Eixo Monumental is 1 km wide because everyone was going to fly to work.

Now it is a mere 12 lanes of car traffic with a huge verge between. Canberrans can only dream!

btw Brasilia will be getting its first Light Rail soon.

The population of Brasilia is 2,562,963, making it the fourth largest city in Brazil.
Stop this chalk and cheese nonsense.

Actually the reason Brasilia was probably mentioned has nothing to do with population and everything to do with being a planned capital city like Canberra.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Cars are in decline:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-24/jericho-car-sales-show-our-economy-isnt-motoring-along/6568744

Gonna have to replace them with something.

That link refers to sales only, not ownership.
The lack of growth in sales means people with cars are hanging on to them longer so no need to worry, the car doesn’t have to be replaced with anything least of all a new car.

Your constant certainty is unimpeded by any reference to facts.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows an actual 10% fall in the age of cars since 1996 and the age of vehicles has been flat for the last 6 years.

http://theconversation.com/why-are-young-australians-turning-their-back-on-the-car-35468

rubaiyat said :

Cars are in decline:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-24/jericho-car-sales-show-our-economy-isnt-motoring-along/6568744

Gonna have to replace them with something.

That link refers to sales only, not ownership.
The lack of growth in sales means people with cars are hanging on to them longer so no need to worry, the car doesn’t have to be replaced with anything least of all a new car.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

any solution should start with the problem and THEN look for the solution.

The underlying problem is not actually “transport,” but rather “access” to work, school, shops etc., in a city that was originally planned as a compact city with frequent fast-moving traffic travelling in the median of Northbourne Avenue.”

We can solve many of our “transport” problems by putting more people closer to their everyday destinations.

If you include walking to and from bus stops, walking is Canberra’s second most popular form of transport. Yet we have 1,000 kilometres of streets that don’t even have footpaths. For 50 years, pedestrians crossing Northbourne Avenue have had to wait an extra 90 seconds because our “planners” separated the two carriageways of fast-moving traffic by 30 metres, and then installed traffic lights.

It’s enough to make Walter and Marion turn in their graves!

Be thankful this isn’t Brasilia, the main Eixo Monumental is 1 km wide because everyone was going to fly to work.

Now it is a mere 12 lanes of car traffic with a huge verge between. Canberrans can only dream!

btw Brasilia will be getting its first Light Rail soon.

The population of Brasilia is 2,562,963, making it the fourth largest city in Brazil.
Stop this chalk and cheese nonsense.

Again you don’t know of what you speak. That is just the city centre. The Metro area is closer to 6 million.

All I was saying is they are getting a Light Rail running along W street.

I leave it to you to tell them how wrong they are.

rubaiyat said :

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

any solution should start with the problem and THEN look for the solution.

The underlying problem is not actually “transport,” but rather “access” to work, school, shops etc., in a city that was originally planned as a compact city with frequent fast-moving traffic travelling in the median of Northbourne Avenue.”

We can solve many of our “transport” problems by putting more people closer to their everyday destinations.

If you include walking to and from bus stops, walking is Canberra’s second most popular form of transport. Yet we have 1,000 kilometres of streets that don’t even have footpaths. For 50 years, pedestrians crossing Northbourne Avenue have had to wait an extra 90 seconds because our “planners” separated the two carriageways of fast-moving traffic by 30 metres, and then installed traffic lights.

It’s enough to make Walter and Marion turn in their graves!

Be thankful this isn’t Brasilia, the main Eixo Monumental is 1 km wide because everyone was going to fly to work.

Now it is a mere 12 lanes of car traffic with a huge verge between. Canberrans can only dream!

btw Brasilia will be getting its first Light Rail soon.

The population of Brasilia is 2,562,963, making it the fourth largest city in Brazil.
Stop this chalk and cheese nonsense.

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

any solution should start with the problem and THEN look for the solution.

The underlying problem is not actually “transport,” but rather “access” to work, school, shops etc., in a city that was originally planned as a compact city with frequent fast-moving traffic travelling in the median of Northbourne Avenue.”

We can solve many of our “transport” problems by putting more people closer to their everyday destinations.

If you include walking to and from bus stops, walking is Canberra’s second most popular form of transport. Yet we have 1,000 kilometres of streets that don’t even have footpaths. For 50 years, pedestrians crossing Northbourne Avenue have had to wait an extra 90 seconds because our “planners” separated the two carriageways of fast-moving traffic by 30 metres, and then installed traffic lights.

It’s enough to make Walter and Marion turn in their graves!

Be thankful this isn’t Brasilia, the main Eixo Monumental is 1 km wide because everyone was going to fly to work.

Now it is a mere 12 lanes of car traffic with a huge verge between. Canberrans can only dream!

btw Brasilia will be getting its first Light Rail soon.

You would think the auto manufacturers would love to brag how cheap driving is. Every car could have a meter, adjusted for the number of occupants, with a burning dollar icon, showing just how much that trip was REALLY costing, with a second showing the cost of parking.

There is a reason why they don’t. They’d have to show another for how much money your car is burning just sitting in your driveway, and your bank could tell you how much of the mortgage goes to the garage you built to keep it at home doing nothing.

You can drive 11km (5.5km return) for the cost of an ALL DAY week day unlimited bus fare.

6km on weekends.

A standard bus fare that will get you anywhere in Canberra, will get you less than 3km in your car.

Halve that for a concession card.

Even less if you drive in heavy traffic.

Parking exceeds the cost of a bus fare to anywhere at any time.

People just want excuses to justify what they do. Not reasons.

People ignore the economics. Even if public transport is totally free they just come up with something else as an excuse.

Solidarity said :

Rather than trying to make driving a car less attractive, make your transport system more attractive, otherwise all you’re going to do is make people not vote for you.

Every law that gets people to act in a different way has a carrot and a stick. The government has to apply both and right now it is far easier to drive a car than take public transport so yes, make bus travel more attractive and car travel far less attractive. For the people who still decide to clog the roads regardless, make them pay for the privilege.

If bus travel was free, I still wouldn’t take it if I can park all day for $17 and have the independence that a car offers. Make it $45 to park all day in the city and all the bus routes go directly into town I will take a bus, not ride a pushie, it’s too far for me but certainly a scooter if I could conveniently park instead of looking for a full motorcycle parking station.

justin heywood said :

any solution should start with the problem and THEN look for the solution.

The underlying problem is not actually “transport,” but rather “access” to work, school, shops etc., in a city that was originally planned as a compact city with frequent fast-moving traffic travelling in the median of Northbourne Avenue.”

We can solve many of our “transport” problems by putting more people closer to their everyday destinations.

If you include walking to and from bus stops, walking is Canberra’s second most popular form of transport. Yet we have 1,000 kilometres of streets that don’t even have footpaths. For 50 years, pedestrians crossing Northbourne Avenue have had to wait an extra 90 seconds because our “planners” separated the two carriageways of fast-moving traffic by 30 metres, and then installed traffic lights.

It’s enough to make Walter and Marion turn in their graves!

Solidarity said :

Rather than trying to make driving a car less attractive, make your transport system more attractive, otherwise all you’re going to do is make people not vote for you.

What exactly were you thinking of? Floral prints on the bus seats?

Bajar said :

I’ve seen similar pods function in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook.

In all seriousness – a reboot and restructure of ACTION Buses would solve a lot of these issues. The way it stands now, it is cheaper and quicker for me and my partner to drive our two cars to work than it is to take public transport.

But it isn’t cheaper.

It may be more convenient, so much so that it is killing you and your family through lack of exercise, but it is WAY more expensive.

You simply don’t get the bill in one hit and ignore the huge amounts of money the government spends on roads and the consequences of the over use of cars.

We are also just getting the bill on maintaining oil supplies from the world’s trouble spots and are starting to feel the consequences of stupidly dumping massive amounts of pollution into our atmosphere. Probably the only bit you notice is the longer commutes and traffic jams as all the single occupant cars jam up the system

I heard the talk you gave on the Science Show and would love to see more than a 3D animation of the system, which is all we have.

You are asking Canberra to experiment and practically pay for the development of this system because it really doesn’t exist, except on the drawing board, and even not much of that there.

To my eye it is simply over engineering to fix bad planning. People generally move around at ground level. To get to a transport system, as you have pointed out, is already an ask. To add the extra dimension of getting up and down to an elevated system is an even bigger ask and barrier.

From all you showed this system will be extremely difficult to use by frail or disabled passengers.

Also I’d like to see what happens in system saturation ie peak hours. Like with taxis, the pods will be mostly used and all in the wrong locations, in transit to destination, or at the far end of the system.

Practical issues are what happens to a parent with multiple small children and shopping. Or groups of people who want to travel together? Safety requirements for high speed travel? The inevitable trees that will get in the way? The extra width footpaths and lifts (if you still have those) required at every stop?

You never addressed the issue of support failures, the huge number of lifts you said were required (unless you have changed your mind on that) and what happens in a line failure with everyone caught mid air like in a ski lift failure?

All to maintain continued isolated urban sprawl that requires long commutes that sap the life out of communities, chew up time money and energy, and takes away the daily exercise people get from moving around by foot and on public transport.

Isn’t it simpler to consolidate as far as possible our urban boundaries, not trash the countryside with MacMansions and the roads to shuffle people to and from them?

…and stop the massive pollution that this all causes?

Rather than trying to make driving a car less attractive, make your transport system more attractive, otherwise all you’re going to do is make people not vote for you.

Arthur Davies said:
“The ACT Government has opted for light rail for the next generation of public transport. This decision was driven by the desire to redevelop Northbourne Avenue, change the lease purposes and increase land values along either side of this “entry” road.”

You are being dishonest Arthur.

There were a range of reasons that supported the Gungahlin to Civic route. You can actually read a range of those reports on this page:

http://www.actlightrail.info/p/act-transport-studies.html

The first Gungahlin specific study dates from 1991.

I know it will amaze you, but the requirement for better public transport was – predictable traffic congestion and the need to move people.

justin heywood12:18 pm 23 Jun 15

rosscoact said :

First, increase the cost of public parking spaces by 300%, make it hurt to take a car into town.
Then, make motorcycle parking on footpaths legal as in Victoria.
Then make two types of bus, ones that only run centre to centre and suburban busses which are smaller.
Then take one lane from all dual lane carriageway major arterials during peak hours and make them T3/bus lanes and book people who break this law
Then make rat running streets 40kph

That should do it for 20 years or so. If there is a need for trams then, let’s go for it. If doing that creates a need for trams, lets go for it. If the technology being boosted by the OP is proven and viable, then lets go for it.

Great ideas. Stand for the Assembly on those and you have my vote.

Not entirely sure that motorbikes are part a big part of the solution in Canberra though (and I ride). I imagine all but the hardiest biker will need an alternative on mornings when the temperature is in the minus, and the Tuggers parkway in peak hour is only for the brave. Scooter commuters should have their own lane.

First, increase the cost of public parking spaces by 300%, make it hurt to take a car into town.
Then, make motorcycle parking on footpaths legal as in Victoria.
Then make two types of bus, ones that only run centre to centre and suburban busses which are smaller.
Then take one lane from all dual lane carriageway major arterials during peak hours and make them T3/bus lanes and book people who break this law
Then make rat running streets 40kph

That should do it for 20 years or so. If there is a need for trams then, let’s go for it. If doing that creates a need for trams, lets go for it. If the technology being boosted by the OP is proven and viable, then lets go for it.

From what I’ve known about tram networks in overseas countries, it would be safer to have it grade separated to avoid accidents with other vehicles and pedestrians. Ultimately, I think public transport should be safe and void of as many risks as possible, for example, Melbourne’s train network still contains many level crossing, where as the problem was largely eliminated by building overpasses and underpasses when it came to constructing the railway network in the Sydney metropolitan region.

justin heywood10:10 am 23 Jun 15

Bajar said :

The way it stands now, it is cheaper and quicker for me and my partner to drive our two cars to work than it is to take public transport.

THAT is the problem.

And any solution should start with the problem and THEN look for the solution.

Creating a city where using public transport is commonplace is desirable from an economic and environmental point of view.

One way would be to close the carparks and restrict the roads in order to force people onto public transport.

A more productive method would be to find a way to make public transport a more attractive option. Make it comfortable, relatively private and easily accessible, much like a car journey where you don’t have to drive.

THEN the masses would willingly come. If we’re willing to spend a $billion on public transport, why just revive old technology?

For that kind of money we (as a small, smart, wealthy city) can do something really innovative and exciting.

I’ve seen similar pods function in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook.

In all seriousness – a reboot and restructure of ACTION Buses would solve a lot of these issues. The way it stands now, it is cheaper and quicker for me and my partner to drive our two cars to work than it is to take public transport.

Daily Digest

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

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