Light rail to cross the lake to Woden next: Greens, ALP

ME: All funds “raised” from these fines should go to fund free public transport for all students in the ACT 18 years or younger, studying at school, college, tafe, etc….
WTC: The funds should, but I can guarantee you I know exactly where they would end up and it would not at all be related to transport.

– You are probably right, but I am an idealist, and actually doing that would make it palatable to most of the public. I presume that you didn’t object to the idea itself though that you agree camera enforcement like I suggest would achieve the desired behaviour if required though, if the bridge lane was a shared lane except in peak? (presuming the weight issue is solved, that’s a separate argument though).

ME: So the bus will win this race by a whopping 37.5 seconds. I imagine most people likely wouldn’t even notice the difference.
WTC: But to bring the government it’s “value added benefits” along the route and to be within easy reach, the tram will need to stop along this section to pick up and drop off passengers a number of times. This will add much more time to the trip, thus not being an express service anymore. Buses can do both, drive straight through to give passengers from Woden a quick trip into town and other buses stop to pick up those along the route. The tram is inflexible and that is its biggest drawback.

– Adding 2-4 stops along this section could work, I have thought about this, but it would likely require pedestrian bridges built at each stop, or a pedestrian tunnel under the road, how else do you get people safely into the median where the LR will run otherwise? We do seem to cope perfectly well at the moment not having stops along there. I have heard ppl calling for an extra stop at Wanniassa shops of the 300 route busses there for 20 years now, but I have never heard anyone suggest we need to put stops in along Adelaide Ave or Yarra Glen for the 300 busses before, please correct me on this if I am wrong and this is something people have been asking for. If those stops were added with the expensive access ways added along with them, this would add some travel time to this section of the route yes. But would the benefits not then outway the slightly longer travel time, if we did indeed then open up that route to all those people living either side of that roadway section. I have always though there should at least be a nearby stop on that 300 bus for the Mint itself and the soccer fields there if nothing else.

ME: http://nickstravelbug.com/portugal/trams-in-lisbon/ – see 3rd picture down. (you insist on calling it a tram, so I am answering your question for the moment with… a tram… ours will still be light rail though).
WTC: Really? That is not even a sensible comparison. The CAF Urbos 2 series of trams can only climb gradients of 6 to 7 degrees incline, nowhere near what is in that picture. It is difficult to say what that Parliamentary area is, or the bridge itself, but possibly close to exceeding its designed parameters.

– Sorry, I am not a vehicle mechanics person or an engineer or close on either, thus I didn’t try to answer your question, just did some quick googling, found that, and wondered how close an answer that was. I honestly don’t know what the gradient abilities of the vehicles we are using it, so I am happy to take your statement on that as fact. You just reinforced my point though that ours is Light Rail not a Tram and that there are big differences between the two, so thanks for that! Anyway, does it need to go up that gradient to parliament? Wouldn’t a stop at the lights just before that hill suffice really? It might be *nice* to ponder the concept of it going up that little hill, but realistically, it’s not actually that important to achieve.

ME: bus breakdowns are not comparable to light rail potential to break down. tram breakdowns are not even that comparable, as this is light rail, not a tram.
WTC: Nonetheless, the LR as you call it, will stop the entire line from moving passengers if it breaks down or the power goes out. Buses can be towed away or simply circumvented and replaced with backup buses to keep the timetable ticking along. The tram becomes a road block to the rest of the fleet who cannot go around.

Our vehicles do have onboard battery storage, enough for “short to medium” distances without receiving direct power, thus the ability to run with overheard lines taken out on some sections. I am not sure, but this might be enough most of the time to get the vehicle to a spot where it was less out of the way till power was restored. Both a break down and a power outage like this are very low odds though, maybe a once a year occurrence at best, with the redundancies built in with both.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Meaning? Unless you have a PROPOSAL and money funded to investigate the proposal how do you solve engineering issues such as the bridge crossing? And don’t you need to announce proposals to be able to fund said development work? Don’t do that and you then have secret projects that oppositions would then dearly love to find and use agai at you at election time.

There is no issue of chicken and egg or secrecy (at least, yet) in relation to stage 2.

The ACT Labor/Greens Govt has said that it WILL sign stage 2 contracts and I think, COMMENCE WORK before the 2020 election.

Unlike for stage 1, they haven’t even bothered to provide a cost estimate for stage 2. Not even “subject to engineering reports, business case/BCR being sufficiently positive (which, like that for stage 1, will be fudged to be), a full costing, an environmental impact statement, permission from the authorities who approve planning across the bridges/Parl. triangle,” etc, etc. ie. Disclaimers. Unlike for stage 1, they haven’t even bothered to provide a cost estimate.

No. This ACT Labor/Greens Govt is so arrogant and confident in their electoral future here and that they know that ACT Ratepayers will underwrite the contracts regardless, that they don’t have to worry about those formalities. ACT Labor/Greens will just sign contracts and commence construction before the 2020 election, regardless. It is a blank cheque to be funded by already hard pressed ACT Ratepayers.

It will be much, much cheaper for the Lib’s now to tear up the stage 1 contract. That will be a cost, but now will be much, much cheaper than ploughing on with stage 3, 3, 4, etc.

Actually, the cost of tearing up the contract should not be much judging by the work (or more the lack of it) done to date.

Typical Liberal view point. Bit like how Labor dragged the chain and spent heaps of money on NBN with little to show. The reality however there is a lot of money in planning, design and advance procurement that is spent before you see one bit of dirt moved. Light rail no different.

Yes JC, they are still struggling to complete that “Northbourne Ave. underground services audit and relocation cost report” but a least they have constructed a couple of cardboard trams.

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Meaning? Unless you have a PROPOSAL and money funded to investigate the proposal how do you solve engineering issues such as the bridge crossing? And don’t you need to announce proposals to be able to fund said development work? Don’t do that and you then have secret projects that oppositions would then dearly love to find and use agai at you at election time.

There is no issue of chicken and egg or secrecy (at least, yet) in relation to stage 2.

The ACT Labor/Greens Govt has said that it WILL sign stage 2 contracts and I think, COMMENCE WORK before the 2020 election.

Unlike for stage 1, they haven’t even bothered to provide a cost estimate for stage 2. Not even “subject to engineering reports, business case/BCR being sufficiently positive (which, like that for stage 1, will be fudged to be), a full costing, an environmental impact statement, permission from the authorities who approve planning across the bridges/Parl. triangle,” etc, etc. ie. Disclaimers. Unlike for stage 1, they haven’t even bothered to provide a cost estimate.

No. This ACT Labor/Greens Govt is so arrogant and confident in their electoral future here and that they know that ACT Ratepayers will underwrite the contracts regardless, that they don’t have to worry about those formalities. ACT Labor/Greens will just sign contracts and commence construction before the 2020 election, regardless. It is a blank cheque to be funded by already hard pressed ACT Ratepayers.

It will be much, much cheaper for the Lib’s now to tear up the stage 1 contract. That will be a cost, but now will be much, much cheaper than ploughing on with stage 3, 3, 4, etc.

Actually, the cost of tearing up the contract should not be much judging by the work (or more the lack of it) done to date.

Typical Liberal view point. Bit like how Labor dragged the chain and spent heaps of money on NBN with little to show. The reality however there is a lot of money in planning, design and advance procurement that is spent before you see one bit of dirt moved. Light rail no different.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

All funds “raised” from these fines should go to fund free public transport for all students in the ACT 18 years or younger, studying at school, college, tafe, etc….

The funds should, but I can guarantee you I know exactly where they would end up and it would not at all be related to transport.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

– So the bus will win this race by a whopping 37.5 seconds. I imagine most people likely wouldn’t even notice the difference.

But to bring the government it’s “value added benefits” along the route and to be within easy reach, the tram will need to stop along this section to pick up and drop off passengers a number of times. This will add much more time to the trip, thus not being an express service anymore. Buses can do both, drive straight through to give passengers from Woden a quick trip into town and other buses stop to pick up those along the route. The tram is inflexible and that is its biggest drawback.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

http://nickstravelbug.com/portugal/trams-in-lisbon/ – see 3rd picture down. (you insist on calling it a tram, so I am answering your question for the moment with… a tram… ours will still be light rail though).

Really? That is not even a sensible comparison. The CAF Urbos 2 series of trams can only climb gradients of 6 to 7 degrees incline, nowhere near what is in that picture. It is difficult to say what that Parliamentary area is, or the bridge itself, but possibly close to exceeding its designed parameters.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

– bus breakdowns are not comparable to light rail potential to break down. tram breakdowns are not even that comparable, as this is light rail, not a tram.

Nonetheless, the LR as you call it, will stop the entire line from moving passengers if it breaks down or the power goes out. Buses can be towed away or simply circumvented and replaced with backup buses to keep the timetable ticking along. The tram becomes a road block to the rest of the fleet who cannot go around.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Meaning? Unless you have a PROPOSAL and money funded to investigate the proposal how do you solve engineering issues such as the bridge crossing? And don’t you need to announce proposals to be able to fund said development work? Don’t do that and you then have secret projects that oppositions would then dearly love to find and use agai at you at election time.

There is no issue of chicken and egg or secrecy (at least, yet) in relation to stage 2.

The ACT Labor/Greens Govt has said that it WILL sign stage 2 contracts and I think, COMMENCE WORK before the 2020 election.

Unlike for stage 1, they haven’t even bothered to provide a cost estimate for stage 2. Not even “subject to engineering reports, business case/BCR being sufficiently positive (which, like that for stage 1, will be fudged to be), a full costing, an environmental impact statement, permission from the authorities who approve planning across the bridges/Parl. triangle,” etc, etc. ie. Disclaimers. Unlike for stage 1, they haven’t even bothered to provide a cost estimate.

No. This ACT Labor/Greens Govt is so arrogant and confident in their electoral future here and that they know that ACT Ratepayers will underwrite the contracts regardless, that they don’t have to worry about those formalities. ACT Labor/Greens will just sign contracts and commence construction before the 2020 election, regardless. It is a blank cheque to be funded by already hard pressed ACT Ratepayers.

It will be much, much cheaper for the Lib’s now to tear up the stage 1 contract. That will be a cost, but now will be much, much cheaper than ploughing on with stage 3, 3, 4, etc.

Actually, the cost of tearing up the contract should not be much judging by the work (or more the lack of it) done to date.

JC said :

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Meaning? Unless you have a PROPOSAL and money funded to investigate the proposal how do you solve engineering issues such as the bridge crossing? And don’t you need to announce proposals to be able to fund said development work? Don’t do that and you then have secret projects that oppositions would then dearly love to find and use agai at you at election time.

There is no issue of chicken and egg or secrecy (at least, yet) in relation to stage 2. The ACT Labor/Greens Govt has said that it WILL sign stage 2 contracts and I think, COMMENCE WORK before the 2020 election. Unlike for stage 1, they haven’t even bothered to provide a cost estimate for stage 2. Not even “subject to engineering reports, business case/BCR being sufficiently positive (which, like that for stage 1, will be fudged to be), a full costing, an environmental impact statement, permission from the authorities who approve planning across the bridges/Parl. triangle,” etc, etc. ie. Disclaimers. Unlike for stage 1, they haven’t even bothered to provide a cost estimate.

No. This ACT Labor/Greens Govt is so arrogant and confident in their electoral future here and that they know that ACT Ratepayers will underwrite the contracts regardless, that they don’t have to worry about those formalities. ACT Labor/Greens will just sign contracts and commence construction before the 2020 election, regardless. It is a blank cheque to be funded by already hard pressed ACT Ratepayers.

It will be much, much cheaper for the Lib’s now to tear up the stage 1 contract. That will be a cost, but now will be much, much cheaper than ploughing on with stage 3, 3, 4, etc.

rommeldog56 said :

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

I don’t know what the bridge plan is……

Nor does Shane Rattenburry or no doubt, does the ACT Gov’t.

But that did not stop them announcing the reprioritisation of stage to to be to Woden instead of the airport.

They said that contracts WOULD be signed before the 2020 Legislative Assembly election. Really, without knowing about the bridge work, whats under the roads, without an Environmental Impact Statement, a business case/Benefits Costs Ratio, engineering reports and most importantly, THE COST to ACT Ratepayers and the impact of that on ACT Annual Rates/Levies.

Its like requesting a blank cheque from ACT Voters/Ratepayers. “Trust us – we will do it, regardless”.

But, at the end of the day, the to and fro, argument and counter argument, means nothing. Its sort of pointless.

Why ?

Because ACT Voters are most likely to vote back the the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t, despite the above and despite their track record.

Thats not the ACT Govt’s fault actually – its the fault of ACT Voters and Ratepayers.

We get the Governments we deserve both Federally and in Canberra.

Gullibility, some sort of pathological fear of changing Government in the ACT and a city where so many people are so well paid that they can apparently absorb the ACT Govt’s 10% avg pa forever increase to Annual Rates/Levies and charges, etc, dominates voting trends.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Meaning? Unless you have a PROPOSAL and money funded to investigate the proposal how do you solve engineering issues such as the bridge crossing? And don’t you need to announce proposals to be able to fund said development work? Don’t do that and you then have secret projects that oppositions would then dearly love to find and use agai at you at election time.

Anyway for the record I don’t agree with this proposed extension. First extension should have been parl triangle to Kingston. Unlike Flemmington road and Northborne ace there is no development opportunity along Adelaide avr to generate passengers plus unlike Flemmington Road/Northborne ave Adelaide Ave is an express bus corridor. Whereas parl triangle to Kingston has a supply of passengers going to work in triangle plus the higher density housing in Kingston.

Arthur Davies said :

The bridge will not safely take the weight of a tram when the rest of the lane is full of traffic. In fact I suspect that they would have to remove some of the existing roadbed to reduce the dead load before putting in tram rails. It is either a dedicated tram lane or a new bridge, mixed traffic is not technically feasible.

I’m not an engineer so I won’t tell you that’s wrong, I will simply ask, do you have any source you can point to that backs that up? I will ask some people, get back to you when I can on the weight issue. It’s a fair point to bring up, would prefer to discuss this aspect with sources not assumptions though.

wildturkeycanoe said:

“Canberra drivers haven’t even been able to adopt the concept of sharing roads with cyclists and you think they will welcome a tram? Unless it is segregated from the rest of the traffic, drivers WILL use it even when it is illegal to do so, you cannot stop human nature. People continue to speed through 40 zones, use clearways when traffic is jammed, park in “No Stopping ” zones and txt whilst driving. Signs and markings will not solve problems, sharing the road with a tram will only create them.”

– Fair point – I have a counter then. The bridge is not that long a stretch of road, let’s say 4 sets of camera’s per side, 8 total, and automatic fine of let’s say random figure $187 for driving in the LR lane during peak times. All funds “raised” from these fines should go to fund free public transport for all students in the ACT 18 years or younger, studying at school, college, tafe, etc….

“There are at most maybe 3 sets of traffic lights or intersections along the route planned, Adelaide avenue has a free run all the way. I do not understand why you would bring that up as a part of the argument.”

– Sorry, I was speaking more network wide there (and gungahlin link specifically), the woden to city portion is actually the only portion that will be mostly devoid of lights though, pretty much everywhere else will have to contend with some sets of lights (airport link the least I would guess, but woden > tuggers/lanyon and city to belco – yeh lights).

“Buses can travel along Adelaide avenue at 80km/h, faster if the government wished them to. The tram can only do 70km/h, if it is to be the same as the fleet used for the Gunners route [The government would be daft to use a different system for this one]. Calling it Light Rail won’t make it go any quicker, certainly no faster than the bus network.
From a technical point of view, can anybody tell me if the tram would be able to go up the incline to Parliament Drive or even over the bridge because if they planned to go around Capital Circle, one lane would need to be shared or made “tram only” to go through the tunnel. Do we indeed know which route it would take, or is that going to be announced after contracts have been signed?”

– You are correct, the bus is faster at 80k along Adelaide Avenue and Yarra Glen. So let’s look at that. I am using Google Maps as my resource, I hope that is accurate enough for you also. This tells me the length along which you can do 80, starting at where the 80 sign as as you start to curve left around parliament house, up until the roundabout that diverges to the hospital or woden shopping centre itself, is 6.3 kilometres, and it says the travelling time is 5 minutes with or without traffic. Going by this, we can easily work out the difference, presuming that both travel at their top speed along this section. So the bus will win this race by a whopping 37.5 seconds. I imagine most people likely wouldn’t even notice the difference.

– As for the question of going up hills, that is an interesting question. How steep would you say this is (see link below) compared to the grade up that hill to parliament there?

http://nickstravelbug.com/portugal/trams-in-lisbon/ – see 3rd picture down. (you insist on calling it a tram, so I am answering your question for the moment with… a tram… ours will still be light rail though).

@gooterz

– the light rail cars have multiple entry/exit doors, the busses only use one most of the time. light rail will load just as fast as busses do or faster if you take into account the difference in maximum carrying capacity.

– 1 breakdown does not break an entire network. stage 1 is not a network, it is 1 link in a network, the first link.

– bus breakdowns are not comparable to light rail potential to break down. tram breakdowns are not even that comparable, as this is light rail, not a tram.

– likelihood of derailment? very low, again, light rail, not a tram. would take a massive amount of force to derail it. in the unlikely event, i am not in the construction industry, but would be surprised if we don’t have a crane somewhere in the city that could do it. and if we don’t then transport canberra will have to buy one I guess won’t they?

– chance of taking out wires? I think they will allow for this in the design phase, you are starting to really clutch at straws now.

gooterz said :

Its a tram

Each stop will have to get many more people on and off to make it viable. The speed is slower than bus and the stops will be increased by at least double.
Light rail will get priority at lights so traffic will bank up more in every direction.

When a single tram breaks down the whole network is broken.

How often do you see an action bus break down? How often are the streetlights out. If there is no power or a broken tram buses will need to be diverted from their regular routes to cover. Which means the regular routes will lose regular passengers.

Worst of all if a light rail car derails you have to get in a portable crane. Does canberra have any of these locally? Or would it be a 4 hour trip from Sydney then 2 hours to complete the job. Thats pretty much the whole day for onw tram.

How hard is it to derail a tram? Given we have constant subzero temperatures during winter quite likely.

What about large vehicles taking out the wires… i cant think of any incidents lately except the parks way tunnel.

All these risks (and more) were pointed out at the time but few people displayed any interest or concern.

Nor were they addressed or defended by the government.

It is probable that serious problems are being suppressed (where is the underground services to be relocated audit and costing?)

It’s too late to raise the issues now as the frog has already been boiled (and the Terrirtory taxpayer’s goose has been cooked).

Its a tram

Each stop will have to get many more people on and off to make it viable. The speed is slower than bus and the stops will be increased by at least double.
Light rail will get priority at lights so traffic will bank up more in every direction.

When a single tram breaks down the whole network is broken.

How often do you see an action bus break down? How often are the streetlights out. If there is no power or a broken tram buses will need to be diverted from their regular routes to cover. Which means the regular routes will lose regular passengers.

Worst of all if a light rail car derails you have to get in a portable crane. Does canberra have any of these locally? Or would it be a 4 hour trip from Sydney then 2 hours to complete the job. Thats pretty much the whole day for onw tram.

How hard is it to derail a tram? Given we have constant subzero temperatures during winter quite likely.

What about large vehicles taking out the wires… i cant think of any incidents lately except the parks way tunnel.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Arthur Davies said :

I recently spoke to Shane Rattenbury at the Dickson shops re trams etc. I asked him how they intended to cross the lake, as the Metro Chief Engineer at the time, advised me that the trams can cross the lake ONLY IF ONE LANE OF TRAFFIC IS CLOSED EACH WAY (will do wonders for the traffic flow!). Or a new bridge would be needed at quite some cost. He had no idea what solutions were available let alone which one is included in the scheme, “we haven’t got down to that detail yet”. Like almost all of the planning, they commit without doing any real planning or costing etc.

Adelaide avenue is a very good main traffic route, i.e. it is located well away from residences so it protect them from noise, air pollution, physical danger etc. A case of excellent planning in the past. However virtually all the people in this area are too far from the tram route for it to be useful to them. Another case of you pay for it even though you cannot practically use it, a bit of an equity problem? Other modes of transport, buses initially, then electric autonomous cars, overhead rapid transit etc can all get into the existing suburban community centres, BUT TRAMS CANNOT AS THEY CANNOT NEGOTIATE NARROWER STREETS. So are we looking forward to high rise apartments along the edges of Adelaide Av as for Northbourne? Stunning silence from the Govt, “haven’t thought about that”, “we don’t want you to know”.

Coming technology will turn the trams into a “stranded asset” long before the end of the contract period, about 22 years away. As for past pp tollways, the contract will have a clause in it which guarantees that they they will continue to be paid even if patronage does not meet expectations, or even if the trams are closed down & the rails quietly rust away. Why else does the govt refuse to publish the contract & let us all see the implications?

The whole idea is not so much a thought bubble as a thought drool.

I don’t know what the bridge plan is, but can the light rail lane not be a shared LR + car lane during normal times, and during peak times, a LR only lane. This wouldn’t be that different to get used to than going 40 in school zones, or the time limited 60k limit in the 80k zone near Mawson on Athllon Drive, or how you can’t stop along certain routes during clearway times, etc… It might be a bit weird at first but ppl would get used to it fast, and it could be clearly sign marked. This solves most of the problem. In peak, it would make it worse initially for cars, and then encourage people to consider catching the faster tram instead and get less worse over time as people transitioned.

Yes the light rail will have some more stops than current express buses it will displace, but it won’t be lots more, it will be a few more. The slightly added time will not be that significant, especially with the traffic light priority system for the light rail. Remember, this is NOT a TRAM, it is LIGHT RAIL, which is significantly faster than your average TRAM. We need to stop referring to it as a tram altogether, as it is not, it is light rail which is different.

The north of Canberra around Gungahlin is expanding fast, so many suburbs there already, more being built, parcels of land being released, this long term infrastructure is needed now. The alternative is completely redoing a large part of the road and adding dedicated bus only lanes and extra car lanes at some point along with lots more busses, add all that up and the costs come very close to the LR costs for a less desirable solution that doesn’t add the same amount of land capture value which is the key to LR being the right solution.

As for the costings to Woden, it will not be cheap, long term infrastructure is not cheap by definition, but long term it is good value and good for Canberra. Stage 2 is announced and makes sense for a few reasons already discussed. Stage 3 will most likely be Russell + Airport Link hopefully announced in the next Governments term, and hopefully Stage 4 of Tuggeranong and Belconnen can be done taken to the 2020 election as a commitment. The more the network is built out, the more functional it becomes overall, and the more sense it makes put together than pieces alone, and the more busses it frees up to service specialised routes not currently covered.

Now this is pure spin.

This is not a long term infrastructure project with identified long term benefits that would justify the costs. The first stage has a cost benefit ratio of 0.4 (a number which incorporates long term value) as a pure public transport project. It only becomes viable (just) if you include the uplift from massive urban intensification along the route which must occur at the same time.

The exact same rationale applies to this stage except it will be even more expensive and doesn’t have the same logical intensification options as stage 1.
They’ve said the second stage contracts will be signed before the next election with construction soon after.

So where exactly will the demand come from for high density units along Adelaide Avenue when Northbourne Avenue intensification is supposed to be a 20-30 year project to make the first stage viable?They would be actively cannibalising the same development demand.

There is no predictions of even possibility of the required growth in population to sustain this project as a “value capture” excercise, the upfront capital and lost opportunity cost would clearly outweigh the long benefits. It’s a pipedream, an enormously expensive pipedream that we’ll be footing the bill for generations if it actually gets built to their current timeframe.

Plan for it by all means but just don’t build the thing now.

I don’t know what the bridge plan is, but can the light rail lane not be a shared LR + car lane during normal times, and during peak times, a LR only lane. This wouldn’t be that different to get used to than going 40 in school zones, or the time limited 60k limit in the 80k zone near Mawson on Athllon Drive, or how you can’t stop along certain routes during clearway times, etc… It might be a bit weird at first but ppl would get used to it fast, and it could be clearly sign marked. This solves most of the problem. In peak, it would make it worse initially for cars, and then encourage people to consider catching the faster tram instead and get less worse over time as people transitioned.

Yes the light rail will have some more stops than current express buses it will displace, but it won’t be lots more, it will be a few more. The slightly added time will not be that significant, especially with the traffic light priority system for the light rail. Remember, this is NOT a TRAM, it is LIGHT RAIL, which is significantly faster than your average TRAM. We need to stop referring to it as a tram altogether, as it is not, it is light rail which is different.

The north of Canberra around Gungahlin is expanding fast, so many suburbs there already, more being built, parcels of land being released, this long term infrastructure is needed now. The alternative is completely redoing a large part of the road and adding dedicated bus only lanes and extra car lanes at some point along with lots more busses, add all that up and the costs come very close to the LR costs for a less desirable solution that doesn’t add the same amount of land capture value which is the key to LR being the right solution.

As for the costings to Woden, it will not be cheap, long term infrastructure is not cheap by definition, but long term it is good value and good for Canberra. Stage 2 is announced and makes sense for a few reasons already discussed. Stage 3 will most likely be Russell + Airport Link hopefully announced in the next Governments term, and hopefully Stage 4 of Tuggeranong and Belconnen can be done taken to the 2020 election as a commitment. The more the network is built out, the more functional it becomes overall, and the more sense it makes put together than pieces alone, and the more busses it frees up to service specialised routes not currently covered.

The bridge will not safely take the weight of a tram when the rest of the lane is full of traffic. In fact I suspect that they would have to remove some of the existing roadbed to reduce the dead load before putting in tram rails. It is either a dedicated tram lane or a new bridge, mixed traffic is not technically feasible.

rommeldog56 said :

Why ?

Because ACT Voters are most likely to vote back the the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t, despite the above and despite their track record.

Ummm when the Liberal’s were last in government there was a vote of no confidence (that succeeded) in their Chief Minister because grass was ordered from Queensland for the stadium in our winter for the 2000 Olympic soccer games (September) – I believe that was the final straw in a series of bad debacles

Liberal’s have some good policies and I was planning on voting on them but their stance on the tram specifically means I won’t. I think there will be a high number of independents because lots of people think the light rail should be started (lots also don’t like the light rail) but it’s probably time for a change.
Also Although Canberra people are more likely to be able to separate federal vs state government issues the federal situation will still have an impact on the election.

Given that Shane Rattenbury was the person responsible for this “project”: http://www.tccs.act.gov.au/roads-paths/major-construction-projects/completed-projects/molonglo-reach-cycle-path it is probable that he is currently searching for another local bridge to “recycle” and use for the trams to cross LBG.
If I were the mayor of Tharwa I would be arranging a 24/7 stakeout around their bridge to repel any attempts by TCCS to purloin same.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

I don’t know what the bridge plan is……

Nor does Shane Rattenburry or no doubt, does the ACT Gov’t. But that did not stop them announcing the reprioritisation of stage to to be to Woden instead of the airport. They said that contracts WOULD be signed before the 2020 Legislative Assembly election. Really, without knowing about the bridge work, whats under the roads, without an Environmental Impact Statement, a business case/Benefits Costs Ratio, engineering reports and most importantly, THE COST to ACT Ratepayers and the impact of that on ACT Annual Rates/Levies. Its like requesting a blank cheque from ACT Voters/Ratepayers. “Trust us – we will do it, regardless”.

But, at the end of the day, the to and fro, argument and counter argument, means nothing. Its sort of pointless.

Why ? Because ACT Voters are most likely to vote back the the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t, despite the above and despite their track record.

Thats not the ACT Govt’s fault actually – its the fault of ACT Voters and Ratepayers. We get the Governments we deserve both Federally and in Canberra. Gullibility, some sort of pathological fear of changing Government in the ACT and a city where so many people are so well paid that they can apparently absorb the ACT Govt’s 10% avg pa forever increase to Annual Rates/Levies and charges, etc, dominates voting trends.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

I don’t know what the bridge plan is, but can the light rail lane not be a shared LR + car lane during normal times, and during peak times, a LR only lane. This wouldn’t be that different to get used to than going 40 in school zones, or the time limited 60k limit in the 80k zone near Mawson on Athllon Drive, or how you can’t stop along certain routes during clearway times, etc… It might be a bit weird at first but ppl would get used to it fast, and it could be clearly sign marked. This solves most of the problem.

Canberra drivers haven’t even been able to adopt the concept of sharing roads with cyclists and you think they will welcome a tram? Unless it is segregated from the rest of the traffic, drivers WILL use it even when it is illegal to do so, you cannot stop human nature. People continue to speed through 40 zones, use clearways when traffic is jammed, park in “No Stopping ” zones and txt whilst driving. Signs and markings will not solve problems, sharing the road with a tram will only create them.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Yes the light rail will have some more stops than current express buses it will displace, but it won’t be lots more, it will be a few more. The slightly added time will not be that significant, especially with the traffic light priority system for the light rail.

There are at most maybe 3 sets of traffic lights or intersections along the route planned, Adelaide avenue has a free run all the way. I do not understand why you would bring that up as a part of the argument.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Remember, this is NOT a TRAM, it is LIGHT RAIL, which is significantly faster than your average TRAM. We need to stop referring to it as a tram altogether, as it is not, it is light rail which is different.

Buses can travel along Adelaide avenue at 80km/h, faster if the government wished them to. The tram can only do 70km/h, if it is to be the same as the fleet used for the Gunners route [The government would be daft to use a different system for this one]. Calling it Light Rail won’t make it go any quicker, certainly no faster than the bus network.

From a technical point of view, can anybody tell me if the tram would be able to go up the incline to Parliament Drive or even over the bridge because if they planned to go around Capital Circle, one lane would need to be shared or made “tram only” to go through the tunnel. Do we indeed know which route it would take, or is that going to be announced after contracts have been signed?

Arthur Davies said :

I recently spoke to Shane Rattenbury at the Dickson shops re trams etc. I asked him how they intended to cross the lake, as the Metro Chief Engineer at the time, advised me that the trams can cross the lake ONLY IF ONE LANE OF TRAFFIC IS CLOSED EACH WAY (will do wonders for the traffic flow!). Or a new bridge would be needed at quite some cost. He had no idea what solutions were available let alone which one is included in the scheme, “we haven’t got down to that detail yet”. Like almost all of the planning, they commit without doing any real planning or costing etc.

Adelaide avenue is a very good main traffic route, i.e. it is located well away from residences so it protect them from noise, air pollution, physical danger etc. A case of excellent planning in the past. However virtually all the people in this area are too far from the tram route for it to be useful to them. Another case of you pay for it even though you cannot practically use it, a bit of an equity problem? Other modes of transport, buses initially, then electric autonomous cars, overhead rapid transit etc can all get into the existing suburban community centres, BUT TRAMS CANNOT AS THEY CANNOT NEGOTIATE NARROWER STREETS. So are we looking forward to high rise apartments along the edges of Adelaide Av as for Northbourne? Stunning silence from the Govt, “haven’t thought about that”, “we don’t want you to know”.

Coming technology will turn the trams into a “stranded asset” long before the end of the contract period, about 22 years away. As for past pp tollways, the contract will have a clause in it which guarantees that they they will continue to be paid even if patronage does not meet expectations, or even if the trams are closed down & the rails quietly rust away. Why else does the govt refuse to publish the contract & let us all see the implications?

The whole idea is not so much a thought bubble as a thought drool.

I don’t know what the bridge plan is, but can the light rail lane not be a shared LR + car lane during normal times, and during peak times, a LR only lane. This wouldn’t be that different to get used to than going 40 in school zones, or the time limited 60k limit in the 80k zone near Mawson on Athllon Drive, or how you can’t stop along certain routes during clearway times, etc… It might be a bit weird at first but ppl would get used to it fast, and it could be clearly sign marked. This solves most of the problem. In peak, it would make it worse initially for cars, and then encourage people to consider catching the faster tram instead and get less worse over time as people transitioned.

Yes the light rail will have some more stops than current express buses it will displace, but it won’t be lots more, it will be a few more. The slightly added time will not be that significant, especially with the traffic light priority system for the light rail. Remember, this is NOT a TRAM, it is LIGHT RAIL, which is significantly faster than your average TRAM. We need to stop referring to it as a tram altogether, as it is not, it is light rail which is different.

The north of Canberra around Gungahlin is expanding fast, so many suburbs there already, more being built, parcels of land being released, this long term infrastructure is needed now. The alternative is completely redoing a large part of the road and adding dedicated bus only lanes and extra car lanes at some point along with lots more busses, add all that up and the costs come very close to the LR costs for a less desirable solution that doesn’t add the same amount of land capture value which is the key to LR being the right solution.

As for the costings to Woden, it will not be cheap, long term infrastructure is not cheap by definition, but long term it is good value and good for Canberra. Stage 2 is announced and makes sense for a few reasons already discussed. Stage 3 will most likely be Russell + Airport Link hopefully announced in the next Governments term, and hopefully Stage 4 of Tuggeranong and Belconnen can be done taken to the 2020 election as a commitment. The more the network is built out, the more functional it becomes overall, and the more sense it makes put together than pieces alone, and the more busses it frees up to service specialised routes not currently covered.

I recently spoke to Shane Rattenbury at the Dickson shops re trams etc. I asked him how they intended to cross the lake, as the Metro Chief Engineer at the time, advised me that the trams can cross the lake ONLY IF ONE LANE OF TRAFFIC IS CLOSED EACH WAY (will do wonders for the traffic flow!). Or a new bridge would be needed at quite some cost. He had no idea what solutions were available let alone which one is included in the scheme, “we haven’t got down to that detail yet”. Like almost all of the planning, they commit without doing any real planning or costing etc.

Adelaide avenue is a very good main traffic route, i.e. it is located well away from residences so it protect them from noise, air pollution, physical danger etc. A case of excellent planning in the past. However virtually all the people in this area are too far from the tram route for it to be useful to them. Another case of you pay for it even though you cannot practically use it, a bit of an equity problem? Other modes of transport, buses initially, then electric autonomous cars, overhead rapid transit etc can all get into the existing suburban community centres, BUT TRAMS CANNOT AS THEY CANNOT NEGOTIATE NARROWER STREETS. So are we looking forward to high rise apartments along the edges of Adelaide Av as for Northbourne? Stunning silence from the Govt, “haven’t thought about that”, “we don’t want you to know”.

Coming technology will turn the trams into a “stranded asset” long before the end of the contract period, about 22 years away. As for past pp tollways, the contract will have a clause in it which guarantees that they they will continue to be paid even if patronage does not meet expectations, or even if the trams are closed down & the rails quietly rust away. Why else does the govt refuse to publish the contract & let us all see the implications?

The whole idea is not so much a thought bubble as a thought drool.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Buses will not be scrapped except for the route 300 the light rail replaces, and only along those sections.

The Gungers to City will be as fast, or faster in peak, than the current bus travel times.

Other bus services will get ALTERED to FEED INTO the light rail network, but they will NOT be cancelled outright and people forced to walk km’s to the light rail with no other option.

Not only are you falsely scaremongering, Coe is not a reliable source for what the government will or will not do with a stage 2 that is still in the planning phase, he is not a mind reader and neither are you.

Your attempt to frighten everyone by twisting the facts won’t work though, just as Coe’s BS scaremongering is also being mostly ignored by intelligent Canberran’s who can recognise mediscare spin and lies when they see it.

The usefulness of this thread has severaly degraded into ridiculous aspersions with no basis in fact now, sad, we had a half intelligent conversation going for a few pages there.

Firstly, if the tram is only replacing the express service and traveling straight through to Civic without stopping, what is the point of any development along the route, which is the foundation of the financial viability of the project? Does everyone in Deakin, Yarralumla, Curtin, Hughes and the parliamentary triangle still have to catch a suburb meandering bus all the way to Woden Interchange to get to work, as there won’t be anywhere for connecting services to connect to? You say the other services will be fed into the tram route, but the tram needs to stop to pick up these passengers, meaning a slower trip. That is a basic concept, please explain to me how you can have the best of both worlds.

Secondly, now that your revelation is being challenged you go to the classic fallback of changing the subject with a stab at the credibility of the opposition, instead of getting some evidence to back up your point of view.
There is no scaremongering going on, just intelligent debate. At least that was the case until the personal cheap shots begun.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Buses will not be scrapped except for the route 300 the light rail replaces, and only along those sections.

The Gungers to City will be as fast, or faster in peak, than the current bus travel times.

Other bus services will get ALTERED to FEED INTO the light rail network, but they will NOT be cancelled outright and people forced to walk km’s to the light rail with no other option.

Not only are you falsely scaremongering, Coe is not a reliable source for what the government will or will not do with a stage 2 that is still in the planning phase, he is not a mind reader and neither are you.

Your attempt to frighten everyone by twisting the facts won’t work though, just as Coe’s BS scaremongering is also being mostly ignored by intelligent Canberran’s who can recognise mediscare spin and lies when they see it.

The usefulness of this thread has severaly degraded into ridiculous aspersions with no basis in fact now, sad, we had a half intelligent conversation going for a few pages there.

It’s not scaremongering to point out logical facts.

The first stage is barely viable with the addition of 20000-30000 residents in the direct vicinity of the route.

The second stage will be more expensive and currently has nowhere near the density of potential users to make it viable. It too will require massive urban intensification along the route, hence it will require extra stops along the route to service those people. You can’t not service the people that make the route viable. This will neccessarily make it slower than current express buses along the route.

But it’s probably irrelevant in the long run because the travel time by car will also be significantly longer due to the increased densities with little or no increase in road capacities.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Buses will not be scrapped except for the route 300 the light rail replaces, and only along those sections.

The Gungers to City will be as fast, or faster in peak, than the current bus travel times.

Other bus services will get ALTERED to FEED INTO the light rail network, but they will NOT be cancelled outright and people forced to walk km’s to the light rail with no other option.

Not only are you falsely scaremongering, Coe is not a reliable source for what the government will or will not do with a stage 2 that is still in the planning phase, he is not a mind reader and neither are you.

Your attempt to frighten everyone by twisting the facts won’t work though, just as Coe’s BS scaremongering is also being mostly ignored by intelligent Canberran’s who can recognise mediscare spin and lies when they see it.

The usefulness of this thread has severaly degraded into ridiculous aspersions with no basis in fact now, sad, we had a half intelligent conversation going for a few pages there.

What Morrd/the other bloke who apparently is the only one allowed to “Mind read” is saying is:

Never Bull S*** a Bull S***er

Buses will not be scrapped except for the route 300 the light rail replaces, and only along those sections.

The Gungers to City will be as fast, or faster in peak, than the current bus travel times.

Other bus services will get ALTERED to FEED INTO the light rail network, but they will NOT be cancelled outright and people forced to walk km’s to the light rail with no other option.

Not only are you falsely scaremongering, Coe is not a reliable source for what the government will or will not do with a stage 2 that is still in the planning phase, he is not a mind reader and neither are you.

Your attempt to frighten everyone by twisting the facts won’t work though, just as Coe’s BS scaremongering is also being mostly ignored by intelligent Canberran’s who can recognise mediscare spin and lies when they see it.

The usefulness of this thread has severaly degraded into ridiculous aspersions with no basis in fact now, sad, we had a half intelligent conversation going for a few pages there.

Paul Costigan said :

Bring on the tram. Let there be loads more.
Yes to the tram to Woden – and elsewhere in good time.

Personally, I find your pro tram glee club statements and your whinging and whining about planning – including in Dickson, just a touch hypocrite.

The tram will change Dickson – including the shops, forever. It is inevitable that planning and consultation will suffer because of the indecent haste by the ACT Gov’t to claw back $ by land sales for infill – including Dickson shops. You will loose green/open spaces and public amenities. Congestion will dramatically increase in and around the tram line – including in Dickson, etc.

You can not have your cake and eat it too.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Shadow Minister for Transport Alistair Coe has slammed the extension, saying it’s “completely uncosted”.

Correct. From the OP :

” Both Labor and the Greens have announced today that they will sign contracts during the next term of Government to extend the line”

So, cost, environmental impact statement, consultants and engineering reports, etc, will be irrelevant, it will go ahead, regardless.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Given the current 300 route bus between Civic and Woden does not stop anywhere near close to every 500m, why would the light rail have to exactly? It may have a few more stops than the current express bus between Woden and the City does, but if it does, it won’t be many, and it may be the same as now, which is hardly any. Your argument is nonsensical.

When the other buses are removed from the area because the tram is the only option the government demands you to take into the city and “value added” shops and services are built along the route, the tram will have to stop frequently or the development along that route will be in vain. Look at the Gunners tram route, it stops nearly a dozen times in its 12km route because there will be no more bus services in the area. It is already proven to be slower than existing bus services. That is how it gets patronage. Do you seriously think the tram will gun it straight through to Civic without stopping at Deakin and Yarralumla? The tram is supposed to be within “easy” reach of the residents of the highrise apartments along the route. This means more stops. There will be no more express, just like the Gungahlin express buses will be scrapped once the tram line is finished. It isn’t nonsense, it is what the government wants.

I am not alone in thinkng this too,
From http://hercanberra.com.au/cpnews/light-rail-bound-woden/ the opposition minister has been quoted as follows –
Shadow Minister for Transport Alistair Coe has slammed the extension, saying it’s “completely uncosted”.
Coe argues that few people will live within walking distance of Stage 2, and that the extension will have a negative effect on the current bus network.
“Buses that already service the route between the City and Woden are likely to be cancelled, meaning commuters will be forced to take a slower and less efficient journey on a tram.”

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

dungfungus said :

They will need a long extension cord for cloudy days and nigh time, then.

You might like to read some articles on battery storage technology developments under way re solar …

That is going to be the mother of all jet packs then – you do know how heavy batteries are, don’t you?

Masquara said :

dungfungus said :

They will need a long extension cord for cloudy days and nigh time, then.

You might like to read some articles on battery storage technology developments under way re solar …

Nuclear Fusion is a thing. Its only a ‘matter’ of time before it becomes useful.

The words nuclear and Green never appear in the same sentence in the ACT.

wildturkeycanoe said :

If the tram is going to service all the people along the line, from Woden to Civic, it has to stop every 500m or so to pick up and drop off passengers. This will make the trip take longer than an express bus or a private car. People will only take public transport if it gets them to and from work on time, we are an impatient bunch who can’t sit around all day waiting for stuff to happen, we want it now. So if buses are replaced by the tram and trams can’t overtake each other on the one line, then there will be no rapid transport anymore – except by private vehicle. Who is going to start their journey 30 minutes earlier thanks to the tram? Who is going to be able to make their work let them leave 30 minutes earlier so they can get home at the same time as they used to do via bus?
Trams are not a suitable transport solution for time-starved workers. They will ditch public transport for the convenience of a car, so they don’t have to walk so far to catch their public transport and regain those lost minutes stopping and starting to pick up and drop off other patrons. BRT seems like such a better option, plus transit lanes…but nobody in government is listening.

Given the current 300 route bus between Civic and Woden does not stop anywhere near close to every 500m, why would the light rail have to exactly? It may have a few more stops than the current express bus between Woden and the City does, but if it does, it won’t be many, and it may be the same as now, which is hardly any. Your argument is nonsensical.

Masquara said :

dungfungus said :

They will need a long extension cord for cloudy days and nigh time, then.

You might like to read some articles on battery storage technology developments under way re solar …

That is going to be the mother of all jet packs then – you do know how heavy batteries are, don’t you?

Masquara said :

dungfungus said :

They will need a long extension cord for cloudy days and nigh time, then.

You might like to read some articles on battery storage technology developments under way re solar …

Nuclear Fusion is a thing. Its only a ‘matter’ of time before it becomes useful.

aussie2 said :

This is pork barrelling but more importantly is a bad decision. Labor needs to go! With 2million visitors to Canberra annually, many will come by air, yet there is no public transport from the airport to the city like other capital cities. Additionally light rail is touted as being a rapid form of transport. Whilst the Griffins may have envisaged transport corridors, such as those proposed by Labor today, they do little to create DIRECT routes to our main population centres. If congestion is to be such a major headache, why light rail and not Skyrail at a quarter of the cost? Surely a Skyrail track (see Melbourne, Dusseldorf, Dortmund, Wuppertal, Shanghai examples) to Belconnen or Tuggeranong – our largest population centres, would be of the utmost use to the travelling public and encourage high levels of patronage

So I went to Sydney on the weekend. We drove to our hotel in the CBD and parked our car there on Friday left it there to this morning.
Most tourists generally if they are driving like to drive into the city then drive out when it’s time to leave. For our entertainment we remained within walking distance (our hotel was on George street) and got a taxi to and from the main event (a little out of the city). We did this for several reasons – Driving in a busy unfamilar city is hard and frustrating, we wanted to drink at the main event (not driving) and the taxi dropped us off at the exact points we wanted to go, the main event was also a little way outside the city ($20 cab ride).
If we fly or bus in we also usually cab to the hotel (because they go directly there and commuter transport with luggage is annoying – tired and/or confused tourists and it takes us directly to where we need to go. (We didn’t consider trains because working out where we needed to go was hard and we would have to buy one of those card things)

While a link to the airport is for the future use by tourists isn’t real high – it’s for locals going to or returning from trips. A tram on Northbourne (where the majority of hotels are) to the Commonwealth Ave (where the major tourists attractions are NGA particularly) stops would be much more used. Defined stops, permanent signs marking the route to the attractions.

dungfungus said :

They will need a long extension cord for cloudy days and nigh time, then.

You might like to read some articles on battery storage technology developments under way re solar …

Masquara said :

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

And how much extra fuel, generated using CO2 generating processes, will be required for them to drive all the way home and then back again.

With solar fuel? Zero I guess!

How long till all of Australia is 100% renewables energy only? This might be fine for Canberra, after 2020, but what about everywhere else? Not to mention places overseas. Not the magic bullet it is made out to be.

Masquara said :

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

And how much extra fuel, generated using CO2 generating processes, will be required for them to drive all the way home and then back again.

With solar fuel? Zero I guess!

They will need a long extension cord for cloudy days and nigh time, then.

Paul Costigan said :

Bring on the tram. Let there be loads more.
Yes to the tram to Woden – and elsewhere in good time.

I know people who bought a house near the proposed Woden line ages ago – as it was mentioned way back then as a possibility. Till this announcement they thought they would see the fast train and a have a jet pack well before they saw the tram near their house – so they are very happy about the prospect of the tram to Woden.

We also share the skeptical view that anything from a politician in election mode could be later a non-core promise. So fingers crossed that this was not another thought bubble and that we will see more trams across Canberra sooner rather than later.

Now about my Jet-pack? Who is going to make that an election promise?

Those Woden line folk might be wanting to re-cork the champagne when the “value capture” levies get added to their already rapidly growing rates:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/action/printArticle?id=1012899728

and when they find that the parkland/bushland/playing fields near them are replaced by five storey apartments, occupied by people who might, sometimes, use the tram, but more likely will be whizzing back and forth in their 4WDs to places that the tram will never take them.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

The problem with driverless cars is that they don’t take up any less road room than present day cars.

That can be managed. Driverless cars don’t need metres in front and behind, and they will all take off from the lights at the same time. Driverless cars I would think would at least halve road space taken.

If they are privately owned they will still need areas to park. Okay, perhaps they could let the passengers off and then go park themselves very close to each other and so require less room each than present cars to park. But with the population continuing to increase this advantage will soon be negated and we will no doubt need more parking areas. Owners of the cars will also want them to park nearby so that when they decide they want their car they don’t have to wait for it to drive too far to them.
With the fast increasing population any advantage the cars have with being able to drive close to each other and so take up less room, will also be negated, whether the car is privately or publicly owned. I imagine most people will want their own car; not have to share.

This is 100% spot on. It is the same as adding more road lanes for existing cars, it doesn’t take long for the excess capacity to fill again and then we need more lanes, again, a never ending cycle.

Driverless cars are 1 part of an integrated solution, which also involves light rail and buses and better walkability and riding access in general for all. They are not the magic bullet some people make them out to be. 20-30 years is the more realistic estimate of mass adoption of driverless cars. Yes *some* will exist in 6 years from now, but they will be a tiny fraction overall. We will not have MASS adoption in 6 years, that’s pie in the sky dreaming right there. We need light rail AND driverless cars, they are not mutually exclusive in any way. Think CO2 generation, all those cars have to be powered somehow, and apparently we are going to have a lot more of them than current cars. Sure they will all run on electricity, produced using fossil fuels from dirty sources like coal mining. Light Rail massively reduces CO2 generation for moving the same amount of people the same distance. Thinking driverless cars will replace public transport is about as realistic as Mexico paying for Trump’s wall.

You may be right, but then an awful lot of transport experts (CEO’s of Ford, GM, Audi, Toyota, BMW, Daimler, Volvo, Tesla, Honda, plus transport analysts at bankers, management consultants, plus researchers at Columbia, MIT, Stanford, CMU, plus governments of Singapore, UK, USA, …) are all wrong. Even the ACT’s senior tram consultant, Parsons  Brinckerhoff, are busy telling UK authorities to start planning transport systems for autonomous cars now, to reap the benefits of much safer local roads”, “better quality of townscape with more space for pedestrian activity”, “less cluttered streets”, “enormous potential for land value uplift” and, with a shared fleet of autonomous vehicles, “much reduced congestion and smoother traffic flow”, all with “no need for major infrastructure investment”: http://www.wsp-pb.com/Globaln/UK/WSPPB-Farrells-AV-whitepaper.pdf

For a bibliography see http://canberraautonomouscars.info/#related

I understand the rate of change is hard to understand: supercomputers in people’s pockets, usable video calling, on-demand streaming of TV, cloud computing – these were “pie in the sky” ten years ago, but here they are.

This is a long video, but it conveys the depth of work that has gone on to enable autonomous cars to get to where they are now, and the incredible progress that has been made in the last few years: https://vimeo.com/180667687

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

Curiouser and curiouser. One of the Labor candidates – a transport expert apparently – told me at the shops that she thinks “driverless cars” will probably be the norm within 15 years. I had nominated 6 years. Deferring to her expertise, that means that all that massive disruption for a static, inflexible light rail line may well be redundant just when we finish paying for the first stage. (Who is going to walk “last-mile” to a light rail station when we have the convenience of driverless cars?) It’s actually looking more and more as though the cost of letting the Liberals cancel the thing might end up looking like sensible expenditure. Her further argument to my cars speculation was that “poor people won’t be able to afford driverless cars, so we’ll need the light rail to look after them”. So it sounds as though Labor plan to rely on fares from “poor people who can’t afford a car” to maintain the cost of light rail in 15 years’ time. Furthermore (scrabbling for positives) the candidate said that light rail was more convenient for people in wheelchairs than buses are. I’m all for looking after the disabled – but seriously, surely we could provide ALL wheelchair-bound people in the ACT with their own modified cars without making a dent in the savings from cancelling the light rail.

The problem with driverless cars is that they don’t take up any less road room than present day cars.

I’m so glad you said that because I can’t see where the breakthrough or advantage is with this concept. I thought it was just me, already half senile.
Could someone please explain what the big deal is?

Sure DF: If, rather than driverless cars being privately owned, tax or other financial incentives strongly encourage use of a shared fleet of cars, and if those cars are shared in peak periods (that is, contain 2 or more people with common or on-route source and destination), then congestion is indeed greatly reduced, even in cities with strong “tidal” commuter flows (into city in AM, back to suburbs in the PM).

Yes, there is repositioning of empty cars (from city to suburbs in the AM to pick up the next wave of commuters), but they are only empty in proportion to the lack of demand for travel (traffic) on that back-route.

With each car in the peak flow carrying 2 or 3 people (rather than the typical 1.2 person occupancy), congestion on the peak route is reduced.

For a configurable web simulation of the operation of a shared fleet of autonomous cars in Canberra, see http://canberraautonomouscars.info/

If the tram is going to service all the people along the line, from Woden to Civic, it has to stop every 500m or so to pick up and drop off passengers. This will make the trip take longer than an express bus or a private car. People will only take public transport if it gets them to and from work on time, we are an impatient bunch who can’t sit around all day waiting for stuff to happen, we want it now. So if buses are replaced by the tram and trams can’t overtake each other on the one line, then there will be no rapid transport anymore – except by private vehicle. Who is going to start their journey 30 minutes earlier thanks to the tram? Who is going to be able to make their work let them leave 30 minutes earlier so they can get home at the same time as they used to do via bus?
Trams are not a suitable transport solution for time-starved workers. They will ditch public transport for the convenience of a car, so they don’t have to walk so far to catch their public transport and regain those lost minutes stopping and starting to pick up and drop off other patrons. BRT seems like such a better option, plus transit lanes…but nobody in government is listening.

Mordd / Chris Richards said :

And how much extra fuel, generated using CO2 generating processes, will be required for them to drive all the way home and then back again.

With solar fuel? Zero I guess!

Paul Costigan said :

Bring on the tram. Let there be loads more.
Yes to the tram to Woden – and elsewhere in good time.

I know people who bought a house near the proposed Woden line ages ago – as it was mentioned way back then as a possibility. Till this announcement they thought they would see the fast train and a have a jet pack well before they saw the tram near their house – so they are very happy about the prospect of the tram to Woden.

We also share the skeptical view that anything from a politician in election mode could be later a non-core promise. So fingers crossed that this was not another thought bubble and that we will see more trams across Canberra sooner rather than later.

Now about my Jet-pack? Who is going to make that an election promise?

Jet Packs are coming – but probably not as election promises. Martin Jetpacks are scheduled to start selling first responder jetpacks around the end of this year and their first personal jetpacks around a year later. Another company I looked at seems to still be in development, but has a smaller & lighter jetpack that may be good for getting people to & from work. I expect price to be rather prohibitive at the moment, but as the technology matures, that will come down.

By the time light rail in Canberra is actually economically viable, there may be no need for it. As the government knew for certain back in 2013, rapid buses are a much better option, providing almost the same transport benefits for less than half the cost.

Paul Costigan said :

Bring on the tram. Let there be loads more.
Yes to the tram to Woden – and elsewhere in good time.

I know people who bought a house near the proposed Woden line ages ago – as it was mentioned way back then as a possibility. Till this announcement they thought they would see the fast train and a have a jet pack well before they saw the tram near their house – so they are very happy about the prospect of the tram to Woden.

We also share the skeptical view that anything from a politician in election mode could be later a non-core promise. So fingers crossed that this was not another thought bubble and that we will see more trams across Canberra sooner rather than later.

Now about my Jet-pack? Who is going to make that an election promise?

Gee Paul, just when I thought you were getting through to me you have tramsmogrified into a transit hipster.

Bring on the tram. Let there be loads more.
Yes to the tram to Woden – and elsewhere in good time.

I know people who bought a house near the proposed Woden line ages ago – as it was mentioned way back then as a possibility. Till this announcement they thought they would see the fast train and a have a jet pack well before they saw the tram near their house – so they are very happy about the prospect of the tram to Woden.

We also share the skeptical view that anything from a politician in election mode could be later a non-core promise. So fingers crossed that this was not another thought bubble and that we will see more trams across Canberra sooner rather than later.

Now about my Jet-pack? Who is going to make that an election promise?

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

If they are privately owned they will still need areas to park. Okay, perhaps they could let the passengers off and then go park themselves very close to each other and so require less room each than present cars to park.

: ) They’ll be able to toddle off anywhere – even back home to park for the day. It will be so liberating to have the convenience of using a car door to door without threatening the environment … or paying for parking …

And how much extra fuel, generated using CO2 generating processes, will be required for them to drive all the way home and then back again. Who will wait 15-30 mins in peak traffic for their car to get back to them from home. All these extra trips will require way more fuel used. They need to park nearby or it doesn’t work. Yet another reason that driverless cars replacing all existing cars and public transport is a complete fallacy.

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

The problem with driverless cars is that they don’t take up any less road room than present day cars.

That can be managed. Driverless cars don’t need metres in front and behind, and they will all take off from the lights at the same time. Driverless cars I would think would at least halve road space taken.

If they are privately owned they will still need areas to park. Okay, perhaps they could let the passengers off and then go park themselves very close to each other and so require less room each than present cars to park. But with the population continuing to increase this advantage will soon be negated and we will no doubt need more parking areas. Owners of the cars will also want them to park nearby so that when they decide they want their car they don’t have to wait for it to drive too far to them.
With the fast increasing population any advantage the cars have with being able to drive close to each other and so take up less room, will also be negated, whether the car is privately or publicly owned. I imagine most people will want their own car; not have to share.

This is 100% spot on. It is the same as adding more road lanes for existing cars, it doesn’t take long for the excess capacity to fill again and then we need more lanes, again, a never ending cycle.

Driverless cars are 1 part of an integrated solution, which also involves light rail and buses and better walkability and riding access in general for all. They are not the magic bullet some people make them out to be. 20-30 years is the more realistic estimate of mass adoption of driverless cars. Yes *some* will exist in 6 years from now, but they will be a tiny fraction overall. We will not have MASS adoption in 6 years, that’s pie in the sky dreaming right there. We need light rail AND driverless cars, they are not mutually exclusive in any way. Think CO2 generation, all those cars have to be powered somehow, and apparently we are going to have a lot more of them than current cars. Sure they will all run on electricity, produced using fossil fuels from dirty sources like coal mining. Light Rail massively reduces CO2 generation for moving the same amount of people the same distance. Thinking driverless cars will replace public transport is about as realistic as Mexico paying for Trump’s wall.

chewy14 said :

TuggLife said :

This makes my head hurt. It terminates at Canberra Hospital, rather than the more populous town centre? Why? And it comes days after announcing a comprehensive bus network encompassing Woden. Why isn’t it a more integrated strategy?

I’m not 100% in agreement with the current works, but at least the current route links high density housing, a town centre that is otherwise poorly connected, and provides transport options to an industrial area.

We need a link between Civic and the Airport.

Where did you find that it stops at the hospital? There’s nothing in the article and the map shows it stopping at the town centre so it can eventually be extended down Athllon drive.

Whoops, my bad, I’m totally wrong.

Masquara said :

We will all look back at the Labor expert contractors’ “Yeah but light rail is funky” rationale and wish we had voted Labor out an election prior

This is probably a water shed election for the ACT. If Labor/Greens arn’t shown the door in October – with their 13+ year track record including up to tripling Annual Rates. the new levies, hopeless fiscal priority setting, the worst hospital debacle, opposition to an ICAC, the Tram, etc, then it just isn’t going to happen after that. They will be in Government here forever.

Maya123 said :

If they are privately owned they will still need areas to park. Okay, perhaps they could let the passengers off and then go park themselves very close to each other and so require less room each than present cars to park.

: ) They’ll be able to toddle off anywhere – even back home to park for the day. It will be so liberating to have the convenience of using a car door to door without threatening the environment … or paying for parking …

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

The problem with driverless cars is that they don’t take up any less road room than present day cars.

That can be managed. Driverless cars don’t need metres in front and behind, and they will all take off from the lights at the same time. Driverless cars I would think would at least halve road space taken.

The road rules regarding vehicle separation would have to change to allow that to happen.

Also to add and which I should have put in my last entry is that there will still be driver driven cars out there, so the distances between cars can’t change for safety’s sake.

Driverless cars. So startrek and all the delivery companies wont need drivers anymore. Itd be cheaper to order food online. Ready made meals delivered. No more cold chinese food. An automated uber network would be cheaper than the bus network.
Door to door automated from a phone.

Id rather act government invest 500 million in driverless car R&D than on light rail.

Make ACT the test zone for it. Were basically a perfect size and perfect fit for it.

HiddenDragon said :

The Labor/Green approach to rates and car registration will ensure a steady increase in the numbers of “poor people who can’t afford a car” – so that would help with tram patronage……..

And of course, after taking technological advancements into the equation too late, they will attempt to front-load the payments by charging an absolute faaaaartune in fares in the early stage, so that the hipster fares they will only get on board until driverless cars come in, will pay off as much of the debt as possible, before light rail becomes the “poor people’s option” rather than the “hipster cachet option”. Then, they’ll cut back on services, so that the “poor people who can’t afford driverless cars, and the people in wheelchairs” our goodly candidate referred to, will be waiting at the station for infrequent trains. We will all look back at the Labor expert contractors’ “Yeah but light rail is funky” rationale and wish we had voted Labor out an election prior. Furthermore, the Labor candidate/transport expert said she doesn’t think light rail is a priority at the airport “because there is already a bus service to the airport”. Huh????? There’s “already a bus service down Northbourne”, right? Labor are just plucking nonsense out of the air because they can’t tell us the truth: “stage 2 decision” is just a clumsy pork-barrelling attempt aimed at disenchanted Woden voters. (BTW – anyone remember Sydney’s Skyrail?)

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

The problem with driverless cars is that they don’t take up any less road room than present day cars.

That can be managed. Driverless cars don’t need metres in front and behind, and they will all take off from the lights at the same time. Driverless cars I would think would at least halve road space taken.

The road rules regarding vehicle separation would have to change to allow that to happen.

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

The problem with driverless cars is that they don’t take up any less road room than present day cars.

That can be managed. Driverless cars don’t need metres in front and behind, and they will all take off from the lights at the same time. Driverless cars I would think would at least halve road space taken.

If they are privately owned they will still need areas to park. Okay, perhaps they could let the passengers off and then go park themselves very close to each other and so require less room each than present cars to park. But with the population continuing to increase this advantage will soon be negated and we will no doubt need more parking areas. Owners of the cars will also want them to park nearby so that when they decide they want their car they don’t have to wait for it to drive too far to them.
With the fast increasing population any advantage the cars have with being able to drive close to each other and so take up less room, will also be negated, whether the car is privately or publicly owned. I imagine most people will want their own car; not have to share.

Masquara said :

Curiouser and curiouser. One of the Labor candidates – a transport expert apparently – told me at the shops that she thinks “driverless cars” will probably be the norm within 15 years. I had nominated 6 years. Deferring to her expertise, that means that all that massive disruption for a static, inflexible light rail line may well be redundant just when we finish paying for the first stage. (Who is going to walk “last-mile” to a light rail station when we have the convenience of driverless cars?) It’s actually looking more and more as though the cost of letting the Liberals cancel the thing might end up looking like sensible expenditure. Her further argument to my cars speculation was that “poor people won’t be able to afford driverless cars, so we’ll need the light rail to look after them”. So it sounds as though Labor plan to rely on fares from “poor people who can’t afford a car” to maintain the cost of light rail in 15 years’ time. Furthermore (scrabbling for positives) the candidate said that light rail was more convenient for people in wheelchairs than buses are. I’m all for looking after the disabled – but seriously, surely we could provide ALL wheelchair-bound people in the ACT with their own modified cars without making a dent in the savings from cancelling the light rail.

The Labor/Green approach to rates and car registration will ensure a steady increase in the numbers of “poor people who can’t afford a car” – so that would help with tram patronage……..

Maya123 said :

The problem with driverless cars is that they don’t take up any less road room than present day cars.

That can be managed. Driverless cars don’t need metres in front and behind, and they will all take off from the lights at the same time. Driverless cars I would think would at least halve road space taken.

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

Curiouser and curiouser. One of the Labor candidates – a transport expert apparently – told me at the shops that she thinks “driverless cars” will probably be the norm within 15 years. I had nominated 6 years. Deferring to her expertise, that means that all that massive disruption for a static, inflexible light rail line may well be redundant just when we finish paying for the first stage. (Who is going to walk “last-mile” to a light rail station when we have the convenience of driverless cars?) It’s actually looking more and more as though the cost of letting the Liberals cancel the thing might end up looking like sensible expenditure. Her further argument to my cars speculation was that “poor people won’t be able to afford driverless cars, so we’ll need the light rail to look after them”. So it sounds as though Labor plan to rely on fares from “poor people who can’t afford a car” to maintain the cost of light rail in 15 years’ time. Furthermore (scrabbling for positives) the candidate said that light rail was more convenient for people in wheelchairs than buses are. I’m all for looking after the disabled – but seriously, surely we could provide ALL wheelchair-bound people in the ACT with their own modified cars without making a dent in the savings from cancelling the light rail.

The problem with driverless cars is that they don’t take up any less road room than present day cars.

I’m so glad you said that because I can’t see where the breakthrough or advantage is with this concept. I thought it was just me, already half senile.
Could someone please explain what the big deal is?

Masquara said :

Curiouser and curiouser. One of the Labor candidates – a transport expert apparently – told me at the shops that she thinks “driverless cars” will probably be the norm within 15 years. I had nominated 6 years. Deferring to her expertise, that means that all that massive disruption for a static, inflexible light rail line may well be redundant just when we finish paying for the first stage. (Who is going to walk “last-mile” to a light rail station when we have the convenience of driverless cars?) It’s actually looking more and more as though the cost of letting the Liberals cancel the thing might end up looking like sensible expenditure. Her further argument to my cars speculation was that “poor people won’t be able to afford driverless cars, so we’ll need the light rail to look after them”. So it sounds as though Labor plan to rely on fares from “poor people who can’t afford a car” to maintain the cost of light rail in 15 years’ time. Furthermore (scrabbling for positives) the candidate said that light rail was more convenient for people in wheelchairs than buses are. I’m all for looking after the disabled – but seriously, surely we could provide ALL wheelchair-bound people in the ACT with their own modified cars without making a dent in the savings from cancelling the light rail.

The problem with driverless cars is that they don’t take up any less road room than present day cars.

Curiouser and curiouser. One of the Labor candidates – a transport expert apparently – told me at the shops that she thinks “driverless cars” will probably be the norm within 15 years. I had nominated 6 years. Deferring to her expertise, that means that all that massive disruption for a static, inflexible light rail line may well be redundant just when we finish paying for the first stage. (Who is going to walk “last-mile” to a light rail station when we have the convenience of driverless cars?) It’s actually looking more and more as though the cost of letting the Liberals cancel the thing might end up looking like sensible expenditure. Her further argument to my cars speculation was that “poor people won’t be able to afford driverless cars, so we’ll need the light rail to look after them”. So it sounds as though Labor plan to rely on fares from “poor people who can’t afford a car” to maintain the cost of light rail in 15 years’ time. Furthermore (scrabbling for positives) the candidate said that light rail was more convenient for people in wheelchairs than buses are. I’m all for looking after the disabled – but seriously, surely we could provide ALL wheelchair-bound people in the ACT with their own modified cars without making a dent in the savings from cancelling the light rail.

gooterz said :

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Leon said :

The Labor Government’s August 2012 submission to Infrastructure Australia estimated that bus rapid transit would deliver more than nine tenths of the benefits of light rail at less than half the cost. Labor rejected the report’s findings, committed to light rail, and kept the report secret until nine months after the 2012 election. The Greens naively believed that building light rail to Gungahlin would cost less than the Majura Parkway.
For a tiny fraction of the cost of extending light rail to Woden we can extend Adelaide Avenue’s transit lanes to Civic and Woden. Transit lanes carry more traffic than light rail lines. They can reduce congestion more effectively, because they also encourage car drivers to become car passengers.
Transport Minister Meegan Fitzharris refuses to consider transit lanes, despite admitting that the Government has two secret transit lane reports.
Labor has now committed to extend the light rail to Woden.
How many secret reports does the Government have, that conclude that investing in buses offers greater benefits than investing in light rail?

Leon, by adopting this line you are playing into the Liberals’ hands. And guess what? If they get in there won’t be more buses. Just more and more and more cars.

One day, all Canberrans will realise that the preferred method of transport in Canberra is by private car and governments will once again start cater for the 92% that use private cars.

Alternative. Class some new suburbs as public transport or non public transport. Non public transport gets very miminal service.
Public transport suburb encourages public transport users.

If it based on user-pays cost recovery I am all for it!

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Leon said :

The Labor Government’s August 2012 submission to Infrastructure Australia estimated that bus rapid transit would deliver more than nine tenths of the benefits of light rail at less than half the cost. Labor rejected the report’s findings, committed to light rail, and kept the report secret until nine months after the 2012 election. The Greens naively believed that building light rail to Gungahlin would cost less than the Majura Parkway.
For a tiny fraction of the cost of extending light rail to Woden we can extend Adelaide Avenue’s transit lanes to Civic and Woden. Transit lanes carry more traffic than light rail lines. They can reduce congestion more effectively, because they also encourage car drivers to become car passengers.
Transport Minister Meegan Fitzharris refuses to consider transit lanes, despite admitting that the Government has two secret transit lane reports.
Labor has now committed to extend the light rail to Woden.
How many secret reports does the Government have, that conclude that investing in buses offers greater benefits than investing in light rail?

Leon, by adopting this line you are playing into the Liberals’ hands. And guess what? If they get in there won’t be more buses. Just more and more and more cars.

One day, all Canberrans will realise that the preferred method of transport in Canberra is by private car and governments will once again start cater for the 92% that use private cars.

Alternative. Class some new suburbs as public transport or non public transport. Non public transport gets very miminal service.
Public transport suburb encourages public transport users.

Leon said :

Nilrem said :

Leon, by adopting this line you are playing into the Liberals’ hands. And guess what? If they get in there won’t be more buses. Just more and more and more cars.

Is it better to vote for a Liberal Party that will do little for public transport, or for a Labor Party that reduced the public transport journey-to-work mode share from 7.8% to 7.1% within two years of its 2012 election commitment to increase that mode share to 10.5% by 2016?

Its a circular argument against light rail. Light rail costs someone a billion dollars. That billion dollars has to be earned income meaning that we need to work more hours or get jobs where we otherwise wouldnt. Which in turn increases the number of people whom have to travel to work.

In essence we most of our lives working to help others to work.

Nilrem said :

Leon, by adopting this line you are playing into the Liberals’ hands. And guess what? If they get in there won’t be more buses. Just more and more and more cars.

Is it better to vote for a Liberal Party that will do little for public transport, or for a Labor Party that reduced the public transport journey-to-work mode share from 7.8% to 7.1% within two years of its 2012 election commitment to increase that mode share to 10.5% by 2016?

TuggLife said :

This makes my head hurt. It terminates at Canberra Hospital, rather than the more populous town centre? Why? And it comes days after announcing a comprehensive bus network encompassing Woden. Why isn’t it a more integrated strategy?

I’m not 100% in agreement with the current works, but at least the current route links high density housing, a town centre that is otherwise poorly connected, and provides transport options to an industrial area.

We need a link between Civic and the Airport.

Where did you find that it stops at the hospital? There’s nothing in the article and the map shows it stopping at the town centre so it can eventually be extended down Athllon drive.

Nilrem said :

Leon said :

The Labor Government’s August 2012 submission to Infrastructure Australia estimated that bus rapid transit would deliver more than nine tenths of the benefits of light rail at less than half the cost. Labor rejected the report’s findings, committed to light rail, and kept the report secret until nine months after the 2012 election. The Greens naively believed that building light rail to Gungahlin would cost less than the Majura Parkway.
For a tiny fraction of the cost of extending light rail to Woden we can extend Adelaide Avenue’s transit lanes to Civic and Woden. Transit lanes carry more traffic than light rail lines. They can reduce congestion more effectively, because they also encourage car drivers to become car passengers.
Transport Minister Meegan Fitzharris refuses to consider transit lanes, despite admitting that the Government has two secret transit lane reports.
Labor has now committed to extend the light rail to Woden.
How many secret reports does the Government have, that conclude that investing in buses offers greater benefits than investing in light rail?

Leon, by adopting this line you are playing into the Liberals’ hands. And guess what? If they get in there won’t be more buses. Just more and more and more cars.

One day, all Canberrans will realise that the preferred method of transport in Canberra is by private car and governments will once again start cater for the 92% that use private cars.

This makes my head hurt. It terminates at Canberra Hospital, rather than the more populous town centre? Why? And it comes days after announcing a comprehensive bus network encompassing Woden. Why isn’t it a more integrated strategy?

I’m not 100% in agreement with the current works, but at least the current route links high density housing, a town centre that is otherwise poorly connected, and provides transport options to an industrial area.

We need a link between Civic and the Airport.

Canberra light rail goes south more quickly than expected!

Leon said :

The Labor Government’s August 2012 submission to Infrastructure Australia estimated that bus rapid transit would deliver more than nine tenths of the benefits of light rail at less than half the cost. Labor rejected the report’s findings, committed to light rail, and kept the report secret until nine months after the 2012 election. The Greens naively believed that building light rail to Gungahlin would cost less than the Majura Parkway.
For a tiny fraction of the cost of extending light rail to Woden we can extend Adelaide Avenue’s transit lanes to Civic and Woden. Transit lanes carry more traffic than light rail lines. They can reduce congestion more effectively, because they also encourage car drivers to become car passengers.
Transport Minister Meegan Fitzharris refuses to consider transit lanes, despite admitting that the Government has two secret transit lane reports.
Labor has now committed to extend the light rail to Woden.
How many secret reports does the Government have, that conclude that investing in buses offers greater benefits than investing in light rail?

Leon, by adopting this line you are playing into the Liberals’ hands. And guess what? If they get in there won’t be more buses. Just more and more and more cars.

Blen_Carmichael said :

This desperation is hilarious. What next, Shane Rattenbury? Mawson? Wanniassa? Calwell? Williamsdale?

Oak’s Estate? : ]

madelini said :

“Just like the current proposed route from Gungahlin to the City, this extension to Woden is the wrong direction for Canberra on so many fronts…”

We get it, Jeremy. You’re a No Man, leading a No Party. Given that current costings say that it would be too expensive to cancel the contracts and infrastructure already invested in light rail, what are you proposing as an alternative? Anyone can say No, to anything; I want to see the Leader of the Opposition present a viable alternative.

In this context a viable alternative will be a win by the Liberals.

madelini said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

You all know my opinion on the proposed ACT Light Fail and I will add comment on this latest “brain explosion” that the ACT Labor/Green minority government has just announced.

Something else has caught my eye with that photo of Mr Barr and Mr Rattenbury.

They appear to be at the site of a solar farm surrounded by pine trees. I am assuming this is the Williamsdale or Royalla project.

The implications for siting solar PV farms near pollen and dust sources depletes their efficiency and adds to maintenance costs. Note that (expensive) tap water must be used to clean them.

Dust is also a problem so the siting of the one under construction next to the Mugga Lane land fill was not a very bright idea.

I got this off the internet:

In the past, the phenomenon of dust deposition on the glass cover of photovoltaic modules has been studied mainly in the Middle East, but little is known about the phenomenon in Central Europe. This paper focuses on the magnitude of the problem in Belgium
A variety of measurements were performed to determine the effect of dust settlement on the power output of photovoltaic modules. The physical properties of the collected dust were examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). A potential solution for the phenomenon, namely the usage of special coatings on the cover glass, was investigated.

The resultsshow that the problem of dust settlement on photovoltaic modules in Belgium is not as severe as in the Middle East. Nonetheless the problem exists and results in a constant power loss between 3% and 4% for the optimal tilt angle in Belgium which is 35 and with periods of regular rainfall. Please note that these results do not reflect a one year energy loss, further experiments are needed. Rain seems to have little cleaning effect on smaller dust particles (2–10 lm), but on bigger particles (pollen, approx. 60 lm) the cleaning effect is clearly visible.
The use of special coatings on the glass have a potential reduction in power loss caused by dust settlement. However, at this moment, the extra cost associated with these coatings is not justified for photovoltaic modules in Belgium. Cleaning panels should only be done when soft tap water or demineralized water is available.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Air pollution; Dust; Energy efficiency; Environmental factors

I missed the bit in the OP that the photo was taken at the Majura Solar Farm (which I didn’t know existed) but the same thing applies regarding pollen.

The Majura Solar Farm is relatively new – they managed to get it up in record time.

I have to say though, even with the dust and pollen risk, I am in favour of energy sources such as solar over the more traditional methods of producing power. We have finite resources but lots of daylight; the upkeep on the panels is surely worth the money spent if it means that we’re slowing the environmental impacts of our everyday life, even in a small way.

We do have lots of sunlight, especially when the sun is shining but that’s not today and there is no wind so looks like we are using that evil traditional power……

chewy14 said :

This is laughable.

If stage one is barely break even on a cost benefit analysis when you incorporate the urban intensification along Northbourne/Flemington, then this leg is way behind.

The only way possible that this could work is by building high density apartments along Adelaide Avenue and Athllon drive to Mawson. Considering that the first stage will utilise almost all demand for those types of dwellings for the next few decades, this stage won’t be viable for 50 odd years, if ever.

This is pure political spin to try and buy votes in the upcoming election. If they actually try to build it, it places our finances in an even poorer position than we’re in now. A position that will be extremely hard to recover from.

Yes – and even if the apartments are miraculously built and occupied, there is the practical detail of getting passengers to the median strip on a roadway where there are no current intersecting roads or pedestrian crossings. Will it be underpasses (always popular with the mugger demographic), or a bridge (neither option being disability or aged-friendly) or is this eleventh-hour thought bubble part of a grand vision to turn Adelaide Avenue/Yarra Glen into another Northbourne Avenue style mess?

I can’t understand why the Greens are locking the whole community into a nineteenth century notion of the ideal workplace.

I would have thought they’d be promoting work from home and regenerating the idea of the suburban village.

50 years ago i would have been right behind light rail. However by 2040 light rail will be completely obsolete. By then the idea that people had to switch modes of transport once leave alone several times and work to a timetable, or even travel to work at all for an office job, will seem quaint.

Typical Labor attitude,to hell with the economics,let’s just put it ‘here’.

This desperation is hilarious. What next, Shane Rattenbury? Mawson? Wanniassa? Calwell? Williamsdale?

The Labor Government’s August 2012 submission to Infrastructure Australia estimated that bus rapid transit would deliver more than nine tenths of the benefits of light rail at less than half the cost. Labor rejected the report’s findings, committed to light rail, and kept the report secret until nine months after the 2012 election. The Greens naively believed that building light rail to Gungahlin would cost less than the Majura Parkway.
For a tiny fraction of the cost of extending light rail to Woden we can extend Adelaide Avenue’s transit lanes to Civic and Woden. Transit lanes carry more traffic than light rail lines. They can reduce congestion more effectively, because they also encourage car drivers to become car passengers.
Transport Minister Meegan Fitzharris refuses to consider transit lanes, despite admitting that the Government has two secret transit lane reports.
Labor has now committed to extend the light rail to Woden.
How many secret reports does the Government have, that conclude that investing in buses offers greater benefits than investing in light rail?

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

You all know my opinion on the proposed ACT Light Fail and I will add comment on this latest “brain explosion” that the ACT Labor/Green minority government has just announced.

Something else has caught my eye with that photo of Mr Barr and Mr Rattenbury.

They appear to be at the site of a solar farm surrounded by pine trees. I am assuming this is the Williamsdale or Royalla project.

The implications for siting solar PV farms near pollen and dust sources depletes their efficiency and adds to maintenance costs. Note that (expensive) tap water must be used to clean them.

Dust is also a problem so the siting of the one under construction next to the Mugga Lane land fill was not a very bright idea.

I got this off the internet:

In the past, the phenomenon of dust deposition on the glass cover of photovoltaic modules has been studied mainly in the Middle East, but little is known about the phenomenon in Central Europe. This paper focuses on the magnitude of the problem in Belgium
A variety of measurements were performed to determine the effect of dust settlement on the power output of photovoltaic modules. The physical properties of the collected dust were examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). A potential solution for the phenomenon, namely the usage of special coatings on the cover glass, was investigated.

The resultsshow that the problem of dust settlement on photovoltaic modules in Belgium is not as severe as in the Middle East. Nonetheless the problem exists and results in a constant power loss between 3% and 4% for the optimal tilt angle in Belgium which is 35 and with periods of regular rainfall. Please note that these results do not reflect a one year energy loss, further experiments are needed. Rain seems to have little cleaning effect on smaller dust particles (2–10 lm), but on bigger particles (pollen, approx. 60 lm) the cleaning effect is clearly visible.
The use of special coatings on the glass have a potential reduction in power loss caused by dust settlement. However, at this moment, the extra cost associated with these coatings is not justified for photovoltaic modules in Belgium. Cleaning panels should only be done when soft tap water or demineralized water is available.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Air pollution; Dust; Energy efficiency; Environmental factors

I missed the bit in the OP that the photo was taken at the Majura Solar Farm (which I didn’t know existed) but the same thing applies regarding pollen.

The Majura Solar Farm is relatively new – they managed to get it up in record time.

I have to say though, even with the dust and pollen risk, I am in favour of energy sources such as solar over the more traditional methods of producing power. We have finite resources but lots of daylight; the upkeep on the panels is surely worth the money spent if it means that we’re slowing the environmental impacts of our everyday life, even in a small way.

“Just like the current proposed route from Gungahlin to the City, this extension to Woden is the wrong direction for Canberra on so many fronts…”

We get it, Jeremy. You’re a No Man, leading a No Party. Given that current costings say that it would be too expensive to cancel the contracts and infrastructure already invested in light rail, what are you proposing as an alternative? Anyone can say No, to anything; I want to see the Leader of the Opposition present a viable alternative.

I’m not surprised Labor and The Greens are panicking over Woden and the Murrumbidgee electorate. We’ve already had an articulate letter from Liberal candidate Paul House in our mailbox and a pamphlet from Jeremy Hanson who is also standing in Murrumbidgee. I’ve already gone onto Facebook saying I’ll be voting for Paul House. By contrast Labor and The Greens are almost invisible and total nonentities. I received a pamphlet from a Labor candidate I’ve never heard of showing her with her female partner but apart from that there has been nothing. I’m afraid Labor and The Greens have dropped the ball around here and expensive stunts like extending the tram won’t turn things around.

Is anyone twigging to the fact that driverless cars will be with us within five years – and light rail is likely to be a billion-dollar white elephant even before it is launched? We will all be driven to work in little electric beasties, dropped off at our workplace door, and our little cost-effective donkeys will take themselves off to park cheaply until they are called back to pick us up. Even if that involves getting them to head back to our homes for the day! Canberrans who buy into light-rail-driven Northbourne Avenue apartment blocks without car parking spaces (presumably the ACT Government will be touting “no need for such” on the basis of a light rail sell) will be kicking themselves. Investors – you’ve been warned!

Megan Fitzharris was on 666 this morning touting the tourism benefits of extending light rail. Yet they’ve ignored the airport option … simply doesn’t compute. I think this is a cynical election promise, they’ll be able to haul out a consultant’s report down the track. They’ll be able to manage that report to say (truthfully, as it happens) that Northbourne Avenue has exhausted the infill rush and there will be no similar market in Woden for another 20 years …. so ….. “Sorry Woden, have to do the Airport/Russell link after all and you’ll have to wait till we build up a critical mass of apartment demand in your area!”

Garfield said :

This is all about trying to win 3 Labor/Green seats in Murrumbidgee so as to ensure the Libs can’t get a majority. Another purely political decision to spend large amounts of our money to hang on to power.

Well, the bribe worked in Gungahlin so there is every chance it will also work in Woden/Murrumbidgee. Given the rusted on Labor & apathy of ACT voters that is.

I am no fan at all of the 1st stage. It will cost more than the benefits it provides, but at least its running down the median strip leaving the existing lanes available for cars. This 2nd stage is going to have to take over a car lane on the bridge, thus funnelling what the government says will be an increasing number of cars into fewer lanes. Its also going to cost more to get over the lake than building a line on solid ground and it goes past the Lodge etc in areas where intensive development will not be at all welcome. This stage is going to be a bigger disaster than the first one. To have any chance at success, a second stage had to go to the airport. This is all about trying to win 3 Labor/Green seats in Murrumbidgee so as to ensure the Libs can’t get a majority. Another purely political decision to spend large amounts of our money to hang on to power.

dungfungus said :

You all know my opinion on the proposed ACT Light Fail and I will add comment on this latest “brain explosion” that the ACT Labor/Green minority government has just announced.

Something else has caught my eye with that photo of Mr Barr and Mr Rattenbury.

They appear to be at the site of a solar farm surrounded by pine trees. I am assuming this is the Williamsdale or Royalla project.

The implications for siting solar PV farms near pollen and dust sources depletes their efficiency and adds to maintenance costs. Note that (expensive) tap water must be used to clean them.

Dust is also a problem so the siting of the one under construction next to the Mugga Lane land fill was not a very bright idea.

I got this off the internet:

In the past, the phenomenon of dust deposition on the glass cover of photovoltaic modules has been studied mainly in the Middle East, but little is known about the phenomenon in Central Europe. This paper focuses on the magnitude of the problem in Belgium
A variety of measurements were performed to determine the effect of dust settlement on the power output of photovoltaic modules. The physical properties of the collected dust were examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). A potential solution for the phenomenon, namely the usage of special coatings on the cover glass, was investigated.

The resultsshow that the problem of dust settlement on photovoltaic modules in Belgium is not as severe as in the Middle East. Nonetheless the problem exists and results in a constant power loss between 3% and 4% for the optimal tilt angle in Belgium which is 35 and with periods of regular rainfall. Please note that these results do not reflect a one year energy loss, further experiments are needed. Rain seems to have little cleaning effect on smaller dust particles (2–10 lm), but on bigger particles (pollen, approx. 60 lm) the cleaning effect is clearly visible.
The use of special coatings on the glass have a potential reduction in power loss caused by dust settlement. However, at this moment, the extra cost associated with these coatings is not justified for photovoltaic modules in Belgium. Cleaning panels should only be done when soft tap water or demineralized water is available.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Air pollution; Dust; Energy efficiency; Environmental factors

I missed the bit in the OP that the photo was taken at the Majura Solar Farm (which I didn’t know existed) but the same thing applies regarding pollen.

Baffling.

Only weeks ago the preferred stage 2 extended to Mawson, not just to Woden. And now, knees jerking, this government abandons its expressed preference.

You all know my opinion on the proposed ACT Light Fail and I will add comment on this latest “brain explosion” that the ACT Labor/Green minority government has just announced.

Something else has caught my eye with that photo of Mr Barr and Mr Rattenbury.

They appear to be at the site of a solar farm surrounded by pine trees. I am assuming this is the Williamsdale or Royalla project.

The implications for siting solar PV farms near pollen and dust sources depletes their efficiency and adds to maintenance costs. Note that (expensive) tap water must be used to clean them.

Dust is also a problem so the siting of the one under construction next to the Mugga Lane land fill was not a very bright idea.

I got this off the internet:

In the past, the phenomenon of dust deposition on the glass cover of photovoltaic modules has been studied mainly in the Middle East, but little is known about the phenomenon in Central Europe. This paper focuses on the magnitude of the problem in Belgium
A variety of measurements were performed to determine the effect of dust settlement on the power output of photovoltaic modules. The physical properties of the collected dust were examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). A potential solution for the phenomenon, namely the usage of special coatings on the cover glass, was investigated.

The resultsshow that the problem of dust settlement on photovoltaic modules in Belgium is not as severe as in the Middle East. Nonetheless the problem exists and results in a constant power loss between 3% and 4% for the optimal tilt angle in Belgium which is 35 and with periods of regular rainfall. Please note that these results do not reflect a one year energy loss, further experiments are needed. Rain seems to have little cleaning effect on smaller dust particles (2–10 lm), but on bigger particles (pollen, approx. 60 lm) the cleaning effect is clearly visible.
The use of special coatings on the glass have a potential reduction in power loss caused by dust settlement. However, at this moment, the extra cost associated with these coatings is not justified for photovoltaic modules in Belgium. Cleaning panels should only be done when soft tap water or demineralized water is available.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Air pollution; Dust; Energy efficiency; Environmental factors

This is laughable.

If stage one is barely break even on a cost benefit analysis when you incorporate the urban intensification along Northbourne/Flemington, then this leg is way behind.

The only way possible that this could work is by building high density apartments along Adelaide Avenue and Athllon drive to Mawson. Considering that the first stage will utilise almost all demand for those types of dwellings for the next few decades, this stage won’t be viable for 50 odd years, if ever.

This is pure political spin to try and buy votes in the upcoming election. If they actually try to build it, it places our finances in an even poorer position than we’re in now. A position that will be extremely hard to recover from.

Light rail needs to be fast, light rail with stops every 500 metres wont work as a north south spine.

This is pork barrelling but more importantly is a bad decision. Labor needs to go! With 2million visitors to Canberra annually, many will come by air, yet there is no public transport from the airport to the city like other capital cities. Additionally light rail is touted as being a rapid form of transport. Whilst the Griffins may have envisaged transport corridors, such as those proposed by Labor today, they do little to create DIRECT routes to our main population centres. If congestion is to be such a major headache, why light rail and not Skyrail at a quarter of the cost? Surely a Skyrail track (see Melbourne, Dusseldorf, Dortmund, Wuppertal, Shanghai examples) to Belconnen or Tuggeranong – our largest population centres, would be of the utmost use to the travelling public and encourage high levels of patronage

They just figured out that stage 1 won’t work without it.
What happened to its npt a transport solution its a driver for increasing development.

It makes slightly more sense perhaps they should do stage 2 before stage 1. Given that if they can’t cross the lake the whole project is doomed

I would have given the Airport a greater priority, followed by Belconnen only because I live there. I guess Adelaide Avenue does offer greater development opportunity.

A vote enticing election promise? Trying to appease the masses on the south side? Does the government even have a costing for this promise or are ratepayers again going to be screwed over with an undisclosed debt we can’t afford?
Again we see the wonderful spin language such as “revitalise” and “vibrant urban development”. Can they get a thesaurus please, these words are getting so overused and have lost their impact.
Although they say contracts will be signed next term of government, construction wouldn’t commence till 2020 or when the first leg is finished, so there is still the possibility that a future change in leadership would can this line anyway. Labor and the Greens have some big dreams, but we shouldn’t be supporting them with the burden falling onto residents whose rates and utility bills are skyrocketing so much that “bill shock” is becoming a commonplace occurrence.

OMG. How desperate are ACT Labor/Greens. They look and sound desperate.

I thought stage 2 was to go to the Airport via Russell and the Parliamentary Triangle loop and that Woden wasn’t slated for many years down the track (excuse the pun). So much for embracing tourism coming in via the now International Airport.

How will they cross the Lake ? Will it still be by closing a lane each way on Commonwealth Avenue bridge ? Impact on traffic ? Declare that now. Its not even mentioned in the article.

Another aprox. b$1.7 added to the bill to be met by ACT Ratepayers !