29 December 2016

A new pro-light rail public transport lobby group for Canberra

| Amy M
Join the conversation
92
light rail

There’s a new voice in Canberra’s public transport discussions, with pro-light rail lobbyist Damien Haas setting up a new community-based advocacy group for public transport in the ACT.

The Public Transport Association of Canberra, or PTCBR, intends to act as the ACT’s peak body for public transport consultation. It also plans to further the integration of light rail, bus services and active transport in the territory.

RiotACT understands that PTCBR has evolved from the ACT for Light Rail lobby group, which Haas has chaired since 2004.

According to a statement posted by Haas on the ACT for Light Rail Facebook page, PTCBR will focus on broader public transport issues in addition to light rail, with a view to having a “real, tangible impact” on Canberra’s liveability.

“Following on from [ACT for Light Rail’s] success in helping to secure a light rail future in Canberra, a question was raised amongst a few of us on the ACT Light Rail committee about where we should go from here,” he said.

“The consensus reached was that we should continue our advocacy, not just for light rail, but also for overall better public transport in Canberra and our immediate region. To that end, a brand new community based public transport advocacy group has been created with members drawn from ACT Light Rail, and a few new faces.”

He said the group will host regular public forums where organisations, businesses and government departments involved in public transport will be invited to speak.

PTCBR is registered with the ACT Government’s Office of Regulatory Services and will invite applications for membership in the new year.

Join the conversation

92
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

How about supporting something like this?

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/capital-metro-free-ride-hailing-service/457753287

It is demand driven and while free for the trial period it will be “user pays” when it becomes permanent. The obvious benefit would be that all the empty/single passenger ACTION bus on dedicated runs could be parked forever.

This system on trial in the US would integrate well with the ACTION network where large busses are carrying fewer people on 20 year old routes.

http://kxan.com/2017/05/23/capital-metro-testing-new-free-ride-hailing-app-in-east-northeast-austin/

I would go so far as to say it would even generate more business as the older people who can’t make it to the nearest open-air bus stop would use it.

I

Leon Arundell2:32 pm 23 Mar 17

It appears that, three days after this group was formally launched by Meegan Fitzharris, I have been removed from the group and blocked from being able to see its Facebook page – presumably because I asked for a copy of its constitution and made a post that referred to a Government report on how to get more people using public transport.

Leon Arundell1:57 pm 23 Mar 17

Has the Public Transport Association of Canberra disbanded?
I can no longer find it on Facebook, and it doesn’t seem to have any other web presence.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Mr Haas may wish to comment on how the problem of violence on public transport (especially trams) will be handled in Canberra.

The problem is growing in Adelaide, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/hundreds-banned-as-violence-on-adelaides-public-transport-soars/news-story/a43beeb13a0872148c136240ef6605bd

Another reason for commuters to keep using their cars.

As someone who uses buses, I have never witnessed any of this violence you mention. What violence have you witnessed on buses? Do you ever catch a bus to witness any?

Yes, violence happens on public transport, but then violence happens on the street and…in the home too. I have witnessed car rage though. To paraphrase, another reason for commuters to leave their car at home.

You need to read what I post closer.

I was referring to a current problem IN ADELAIDE and no, I have never witnessed violence on a bus IN ADELAIDE however, I have travelled on busses IN ADELAIDE about 50 years ago.

No doubt it will happen in Canberra too so I would like to know what the new Transport Canberra plan is for the future.

And, for the record violence does happen on Action busses here in Canberra:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/police-call-for-witnesses-after-action-bus-driver-assaulted-in-fyshwick-20160707-gq0nur.html

Suggest you check out Google for more examples.

Yes, but does violence happen more in buses, or in Civic for example? To put this into perspective, is being on a bus more dangerous than walking through Civic?

Depends whether you want to be king hit or spewed on I suppose.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Mr Haas may wish to comment on how the problem of violence on public transport (especially trams) will be handled in Canberra.

The problem is growing in Adelaide, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/hundreds-banned-as-violence-on-adelaides-public-transport-soars/news-story/a43beeb13a0872148c136240ef6605bd

Another reason for commuters to keep using their cars.

As someone who uses buses, I have never witnessed any of this violence you mention. What violence have you witnessed on buses? Do you ever catch a bus to witness any?

Yes, violence happens on public transport, but then violence happens on the street and…in the home too. I have witnessed car rage though. To paraphrase, another reason for commuters to leave their car at home.

You need to read what I post closer.

I was referring to a current problem IN ADELAIDE and no, I have never witnessed violence on a bus IN ADELAIDE however, I have travelled on busses IN ADELAIDE about 50 years ago.

No doubt it will happen in Canberra too so I would like to know what the new Transport Canberra plan is for the future.

And, for the record violence does happen on Action busses here in Canberra:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/police-call-for-witnesses-after-action-bus-driver-assaulted-in-fyshwick-20160707-gq0nur.html

Suggest you check out Google for more examples.

Yes, but does violence happen more in buses, or in Civic for example? To put this into perspective, is being on a bus more dangerous than walking through Civic?

wildturkeycanoe said :

dungfungus said :

“… one group who are going to suffer negatively…”
I thought you were going to nominate the unemployed bus and tram drivers.

You might be right, they will become the new homeless and unemployed!

My brother in law built accomodation for his grandkids out of a disused train carriage, so I think you might be only half right on homeless and unemployed.

wildturkeycanoe5:01 pm 29 Jan 17

dungfungus said :

“… one group who are going to suffer negatively…”
I thought you were going to nominate the unemployed bus and tram drivers.

You might be right, they will become the new homeless and unemployed!

wildturkeycanoe said :

Once autonomous cars have eliminated the need for both buses and trams as the preferred mode of transport, there is one group who are going to suffer negatively, the homeless and beggars. Instead of asking “Spare some change for the bus?” they will be asking “Can you please pay for my Uber ride?”. It will become incumbent on the charitable passer-by to pay for the entire journey and probably to book the vehicle with their app, in order to protect their credit card details. Something that will make them reconsider this generous gesture, is the risk of the recipient damaging the vehicle and then the good Samaritan has to cop the repair bill. Of course in the future you won’t be able to hire a driverless car unless you have a credit card with a balance large enough to meet the minimum amount required to activate an account. This will ensure the cars won’t be trashed or left in an unusable state. Unless a network of affordable public transport remains to service the poor and needy, there will be a new class of poverty to add to the homeless and unemployed – the “walking poor”.

“… one group who are going to suffer negatively…”

I thought you were going to nominate the unemployed bus and tram drivers.

wildturkeycanoe6:47 pm 28 Jan 17

Once autonomous cars have eliminated the need for both buses and trams as the preferred mode of transport, there is one group who are going to suffer negatively, the homeless and beggars. Instead of asking “Spare some change for the bus?” they will be asking “Can you please pay for my Uber ride?”. It will become incumbent on the charitable passer-by to pay for the entire journey and probably to book the vehicle with their app, in order to protect their credit card details. Something that will make them reconsider this generous gesture, is the risk of the recipient damaging the vehicle and then the good Samaritan has to cop the repair bill. Of course in the future you won’t be able to hire a driverless car unless you have a credit card with a balance large enough to meet the minimum amount required to activate an account. This will ensure the cars won’t be trashed or left in an unusable state. Unless a network of affordable public transport remains to service the poor and needy, there will be a new class of poverty to add to the homeless and unemployed – the “walking poor”.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Mr Haas may wish to comment on how the problem of violence on public transport (especially trams) will be handled in Canberra.

The problem is growing in Adelaide, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/hundreds-banned-as-violence-on-adelaides-public-transport-soars/news-story/a43beeb13a0872148c136240ef6605bd

Another reason for commuters to keep using their cars.

As someone who uses buses, I have never witnessed any of this violence you mention. What violence have you witnessed on buses? Do you ever catch a bus to witness any?

Yes, violence happens on public transport, but then violence happens on the street and…in the home too. I have witnessed car rage though. To paraphrase, another reason for commuters to leave their car at home.

You need to read what I post closer.

I was referring to a current problem IN ADELAIDE and no, I have never witnessed violence on a bus IN ADELAIDE however, I have travelled on busses IN ADELAIDE about 50 years ago.

No doubt it will happen in Canberra too so I would like to know what the new Transport Canberra plan is for the future.

And, for the record violence does happen on Action busses here in Canberra:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/police-call-for-witnesses-after-action-bus-driver-assaulted-in-fyshwick-20160707-gq0nur.html

Suggest you check out Google for more examples.

dungfungus said :

Mr Haas may wish to comment on how the problem of violence on public transport (especially trams) will be handled in Canberra.

The problem is growing in Adelaide, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/hundreds-banned-as-violence-on-adelaides-public-transport-soars/news-story/a43beeb13a0872148c136240ef6605bd

Another reason for commuters to keep using their cars.

As someone who uses buses, I have never witnessed any of this violence you mention. What violence have you witnessed on buses? Do you ever catch a bus to witness any?

Yes, violence happens on public transport, but then violence happens on the street and…in the home too. I have witnessed car rage though. To paraphrase, another reason for commuters to leave their car at home.

Mr Haas may wish to comment on how the problem of violence on public transport (especially trams) will be handled in Canberra.

The problem is growing in Adelaide, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/hundreds-banned-as-violence-on-adelaides-public-transport-soars/news-story/a43beeb13a0872148c136240ef6605bd

Another reason for commuters to keep using their cars.

JC said :

… Maybe because I was trained in analogue electronics where there is more to it than 1 and 0 logic that I can see more than those who’s world revolves around 1’s, 0’s, black or white or indeed real world V’s academia.

I realise you are desperately attempting to sidetrack the discussion, but the technology used to capture and transmit those very words is based on digital encodings made and interpreted by analogue electronics (and optics). The footing of the “real world” is inexorably moving to digital.

JC said :

1’s and 0’s again, and worlds largest auto makers except for the biggest of the lot Toyota. Anyway I don’t doubt autonomous cars are coming, and I don’t doubt there will be elements available in 2021 either. However what I believe to be fantasy is this belief that a fleet of 23,000 of them will replace Canberra’s current fleet of, 240,000 private human driven cars in the next 8 years. I see a niche market of maybe a few dozen to replace and enhance the current taxi/uber fleet MAYBE, but not every private vehicle and not a pool of 23,000 of them….

I sense some progress at last! So, imagine there may, as you concede, be a “niche” market of autonomous cars replacing the current taxi/uber fleet, providing journeys on demand, 24×7, door-to-door at less than 30cents/km during peak and less than 25cents/km off-peak (mre on these costs below), that is less half the comparable price of running a car even before considering parking costs. Such a service would also much more convenient than a bus and at the same time cost the passenger about the same or less based on current bus fares, and cost the government less than a third of the cost of providing the bus service. (At about $150m per year (all up capital, operational and loss), ACTION delivers around 150m passenger km, making gross costs of running the bus service around $1 per passenger/km.) What would car drivers seeking to maximize convenience and economy do? What would the government do, pressed as it is and will increasingly be, on all sides for greater expenditure on health, education, housing, family protection and funding superannuation? The lobbying dinners and fact-finding-missions will be extravagant, and the love will be reciprocated. The decision will be quick, and the “niche” explode.

JC said :

KentFitch said :

The incentive is convenience and economics. The convenience is 24×7, on-demand, door-to-door travel, even more convenient than a private car (no garaging, no parking, no servicing/repairing, no cleaning, no refuelling).

The economics for commuters is that the typical “all up” private financial cost of a private car return journey of 13.4km each way is $15.16 (NRMA’s cost of running a Hyundai i30, with annual insurance at $600) and a further $11.50 for parking in the Parliamentary Triangle or between $8.30 and $14.80 for parking in a town centre or Civic (5 day paid-in-advance discount) – somewhere between $23 and $30, each day. A door-to-door round trip in peak hour in an autonomous car is modelled as costing $7.60 (including all operating costs and profit).

So who has modelled this cost? You? What is the assumptions for return of cost and profit?

Many organisation have independently modelled the costs. See, for example, Columbia University’s Earth Institute “Transforming Personal Mobility”: http://sustainablemobility.ei.columbia.edu/files/2012/12/Transforming-Personal-Mobility-Jan-27-20132.pdf , University of Texas “The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles” http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB14SAVenergy_emissions.pdf, MIT’s “Toward a Systematic Approach to the Design and Evaluation of Automated Mobility-on-Demand Systems: A Case Study in Singapore” http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/82904#files-area , and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s “Autonomous taxis could greatly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions of US light-duty vehicles”, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n9/full/nclimate2685.html.

The model for costs, income and profits for the Canberra simulation is conservative. It assumes cars cost $40,000, are 100% financed by money borrowed at 10% and have a life time of 3 years and no residual value. It assumes cars have a utilised operational range of less than 200km (which was conservative in 2014, but now looks ridiculously pessimistic), and 5% of the fleet is made up of spares (1150 cars in a 23,000 car fleet). It assumes car maintenance costs of $2000/pa plus 2.5c/km (real-word maintenance of a 2013 Nissan Leaf is estimated at $US0.5c/km, not including tyres, for example, see: http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002001728 ). It assumes charging stations cost $15,000 (again, financed at 10%), have a life of 10 years, and annual maintenance costs of $3000. It assumes bulk electricity costs 20cents/kWh (much higher than current bulk tariff), and many other parameters documented here, with a sensitivity analysis: http://canberraautonomouscars.info/model.html . It assumes peak period fares are $0.45 flag-fall and $0.25/km, and off peak fares are $0.20 flag-fall and $0.20/km. With 750,000 journeys per weekday and 23,000 cars (plus 5% spares), the operating surplus (or “profit”) is between $75m and $80m.

JC said :

My assumption using your costs doesn’t stack up. Canberra’s peak is roughly 2 hours morning, 2 hours afternoon and it is mostly unidirectional traffic. So to go from Evatt to the city is around 30 minutes, that car will most likely return empty, so round trip 1 hour. So in the peak that car can do two trips morning, two trips afternoon, and during the time in between probably another 2 trips, and evening maybe 2 more. So max of 8 13.4km trips a day. At $3.80 per trip (using your $7.60 return figure) that makes for a grand total of $30.40 per day in income.

There are currently around 750,000 passenger journeys per week-day in Canberra undertaken by private car and bus, over about 32 journeys per car (in a fleet of 23,000). In peak periods, a fleet this size must be shared: there are not enough cars otherwise. Of course, that is a “community decision”, and you can change the maximum capacity of a car in the simulation from 4 to 1 to see what happens: a much larger fleet of about cars to cover the peak period demand (at the same service level of 98% journeys starting within 1 minute of being requested), more chargers or bigger car batteries (or a much better scheduling algorithm than in this simulation),much higher travel costs and one person per car doesn’t help congestion.

JC said :

Now getting back to your i30, the NRMA caculates a running cost of $0.50/km. Running costs are purcahse, insurance, fuel, maintenance etc, all of which an autonomous car will also have.

These NRMA i30 costs do not include insurance ( other than compulsory third party insurance). It also amortises fixed costs over 15,000km/yr, whereas the average Canberra passenger car travels 13,700km/yr (according to ABS: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9208.0/ ). So in reality, the cost per km for the cheapest i30 will be a bit higher, but never-mind..

For an electric car, the purchase cost is much higher (modelled at $40,000 in 2014$, which may be pessimistic as electric car costs are on a downward trend), but operational costs are much lower. This is one of the reasons that a shared fleet of electric vehicles is competitive: an individual purchase and use of an expensive electric vehicle is not economically sensible, as the typical low duty-cycle of the car (3-5% running) does not allow the operational costs to offset the higher fixed purchase/financing/depreciation cost. With 750,000 journeys in Canberra provided by 23,000 cars, each car averages 40% of its time on the road servicing passengers (that is, not idle, recharging, or relocating).

JC said :

Now your 8 trip autonomous car has racked up roughly 110km, so lets assume the running costs were on par to NRMA’s figures for an i30 to RUN that car would have cost roughly $55, so a loss of $25 for the day. But the flaw in my logic is that assumes a standard i30, not an autonomous one, which will cost significantly more to purchase (at least short to mid term), so the running costs is going to be even higher again. So I put it to you the fare would have to be at least double, and probably triple to make a profit. Unless of course that $3.80 one way fare was per passenger, but that is a rather big assumption to be making.

This is based on the incorrect assumption of 8 trips per autonomous car. In reality, a fleet of 23,000 cars servicing 750,000 journeys (some of them shared), travels about 390km per weekday whilst carrying passengers (“billable km”) and earns about $103 per weekday in fares and flag-fall. Capital costs and interest on the cars, spares and chargers are about $45/weekday, power is about $20/weekday, maintenance, rego, insurance, admin, other are about $19/weekday, for a weekday cost per car of about $84. Weekend travel is lighter, and fewer trips and no peak surcharge mean capital and fixed costs exceed revenue, so in this model, each car generates a surplus of about $19 on weekdays and a deficit of just under $13 on weekends. Again, the model is “open”, you can easily change the assumptions and see what happens if, for example, you think electricity will cost 15c/kWh, or 20c/kWh, or cars will cost $45,000 and have a residual value of $2,000, or finance will cost 7% rather than 10%.

JC said :

KentFitch said :

Car-pooling today is inconvenient simply because it is not easy to arrange a trip exactly when you want it. People highly value flexibility and simplicity and not having to think or negotiate to achieve simple, daily tasks.

Exactly. But hang on a second why will autonomous cars make it any easier to better co-ordinate people going from the same origin to the same destination at the exact same time?

Because of the matching problem: imagine you live in Kaleen and want to go to Torrens. How many phone calls must you make to find someone nearby also wanting to go to Torrens right now, who is willing to negotiate to take you? The autonomous car booking systems analysed by many of the above references assume you have an app or a dedicated device on which you press a button: “pick me up now”, then just walk to the curb. (Yes, there are complications if you are in Belconnen Mall – which exit? Well, because such places have a steady stream of requests, there will be cars at every exit, so you’ll just walk up to one and press that button and it will open the door..)

JC said :

Massive logic flaw there, which if I am not mistaken is the cornerstone to your proof these cars will reduce congestion. What was it again, occupancy increasing from 1.1 to 1.5-2.5? Hmmmm. Don’t see it happening.

Yes, you are mistaken. And once again, there is no point trying to personalise this as “my proof”: the Canberra simulation is merely replicating the work of many other studies, including one released by MIT last week on the Manhattan taxi fleet. What I think does not matter one iota. My purpose here is saying “The economic and social advantages of autonomous cars not to mention juicy business model means that are going to happen, regardless of whether some individuals understand what’s happening or not, whether they like it or not. Many more people will benefit from this innovate than will suffer. So, let us get ready for this development as a community so that we can shape it to serve us, rather than serve the businesses that will introduce it.”

You are free to ignore it, to stick your fingers in your ears and say “la la la, laughable, la la la”, but by doing so, you cede the opportunity to shape it.

JC said :

And simpler. Sorry but how much more simple could it be to walk to your garage/driveway at a whim, open a door, turn a key and drive to where you want to go? It is this simplicity and the time factor that is already a major disadvantage to public transport use as it is. And autonomous cars won’t help one little bit. To be cost effective they will be like taxis, in use as much as possible, which of course means people will need to wait and fleet size in Canberra won’t be 23,000!

How much simpler can it be to press a button on an app and walk to the curb, then get delivered to the door of your destination, no worries about finding a car park or driving (which is an insurmountable barrier for many of my family, friends and colleagues). This is much simpler than the activities required for getting and keeping that car in the garage: loan negotiation, purchase (it is so much fun in car dealerships!), keeping it fuelled, serviced, repaired and clean, even having the money to devote all that space to a garage.

Of course simplicity and time factor is a major disadvantage to public transport: why, when you are fortunate enough to be able to walk to your car “on a whim” and drive off, would any commuter except those with zero alternatives be eager to follow the ACT Gov’s vision for the vast majority of commuters in Gungahlin: walk to a bus stop, wait in hope, board the bus, take a scenic route to the tram stop, wait for the tram, stand up for the trip to Civic, walk to the bus stop, wait for a bus to Parkes/Deakin/Woden/Russell/Barton/… That is why, in Canberra at least, a shared fleet of autonomous cars will be enthusiastically welcomed. Lets welcome them on our terms, not GM’s or Ford’s or Nissan’s or BMW’s or Uber’s or Honda’s, or ..

JC said :

KentFitch said :

Except at night, most cars are not idle most of the time and hence are not parked. They are doing the work of the current private fleet of over 240,000 passenger cars (ABS 2016: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0 ), taxis and 400+ACTION buses. At night, they are (mostly) parked, distributed (mostly) around suburbs, waiting for the AM peak – around 200 per suburb, depending on their population of travellers and hence expected demand.

So you reckon 23,000 will be working day and night in Canberra? Yeah right, another massive flaw in logic there, but gee it sounds good and makes the figures look good. As previously mentioned the ACT’s car journeys see two clear peaks, moderate use during the inter peak period, and very little at night. So those cars have to be parked somewhere. And even you mentioned it you will have 200 vehicles in Evatt ready for service, so that clearly means parked somewhere. So where?

I don’t “reckon” as in “guess”; I didn’t know, so, constructed a model containing some conservative assumptions (in common with several independent models) and ran a simulation. I don’t want to tell you how to do your job as a devil’s advocate, but you may get some traction if you survey the literature, and then make informed criticisms of the assumptions and the model.

Evatt has about 1800 detached dwellings and 200 public car places unoccupied at night (primary schools, shops) and about 25km of roads. Idle cars at 5am will be optimally positioned to respond to requests ASAP, at a density of about 1 car per 10 detached dwellings. Perhaps they could park in streets or unused driveways – I think that really is doesn’t matter. wildturkeycanoe’s questions/issues are much more interesting.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

KentFitch said :

It a logic error to argue “because some cases of X results in Y, all cases of X result in Y”. That is, because *some* of the things your colleagues announced as “the next great thing” are bogus, all such things are bogus. If you studied the correlation between your colleagues enthusiasm for something and corresponding independent support for the likelihood of that thing eventuating across industry, academia and government, I suggest you’d find a correlation.

I think it is a logic error to assume that is what I was assuming. In this thing called the real world, I have heard story after story after story of what will be the next biggest thing. Some things happen as predicted, some happen but no where near as predicted (which is what I think will be the case for autonomous vehicles), and others, most don’t happen at all.

Maybe because I was trained in analogue electronics where there is more to it than 1 and 0 logic that I can see more than those who’s world revolves around 1’s, 0’s, black or white or indeed real world V’s academia.

KentFitch said :

In the case of the timetable for Level 4 autonomous cars (those able to operate without any human intervention in their “operational design domain”, which will probably exclude backing a trailer through your side-gate but will include all city/suburban road travel) the world’s largest car manufacturers (each with R and D budgets that dwarf that of CSIRO) and many of the others are planning for commercialisation by or before 2021. Governments across Europe, Asia and in the USA are encouraging and planning for their arrival. Academia and related industry (such as transport and urban planners) are researching how to optimise their operation.

All a fantasy? Maybe, if you are blind to evidence, but then so is global warming. After all, its only happened a little bit so far, and all those scientists with their over the top waffling and irrelevant stats – lets assume it will never happen, eh?

1’s and 0’s again, and worlds largest auto makers except for the biggest of the lot Toyota. Anyway I don’t doubt autonomous cars are coming, and I don’t doubt there will be elements available in 2021 either. However what I believe to be fantasy is this belief that a fleet of 23,000 of them will replace Canberra’s current fleet of, 240,000 private human driven cars in the next 8 years. I see a niche market of maybe a few dozen to replace and enhance the current taxi/uber fleet MAYBE, but not every private vehicle and not a pool of 23,000 of them….

KentFitch said :

The incentive is convenience and economics. The convenience is 24×7, on-demand, door-to-door travel, even more convenient than a private car (no garaging, no parking, no servicing/repairing, no cleaning, no refueling).

The economics for commuters is that the typical “all up” private financial cost of a private car return journey of 13.4km each way is $15.16 (NRMA’s cost of running a Hyundai i30, with annual insurance at $600) and a further $11.50 for parking in the Parliamentary Triangle or between $8.30 and $14.80 for parking in a town centre or Civic (5 day paid-in-advance discount) – somewhere between $23 and $30, each day. A door-to-door round trip in peak hour in an autonomous car is modelled as costing $7.60 (including all operating costs and profit).

So who has modelled this cost? You? What is the assumptions for return of cost and profit?

My assumption using your costs doesn’t stack up. Canberra’s peak is roughly 2 hours morning, 2 hours afternoon and it is mostly unidirectional traffic. So to go from Evatt to the city is around 30 minutes, that car will most likely return empty, so round trip 1 hour. So in the peak that car can do two trips morning, two trips afternoon, and during the time in between probably another 2 trips, and evening maybe 2 more. So max of 8 13.4km trips a day. At $3.80 per trip (using your $7.60 return figure) that makes for a grand total of $30.40 per day in income.

Now getting back to your i30, the NRMA caculates a running cost of $0.50/km. Running costs are purcahse, insurance, fuel, maintenance etc, all of which an autonomous car will also have. Now your 8 trip autonomous car has racked up roughly 110km, so lets assume the running costs were on par to NRMA’s figures for an i30 to RUN that car would have cost roughly $55, so a loss of $25 for the day. But the flaw in my logic is that assumes a standard i30, not an autonomous one, which will cost significantly more to purchase (at least short to mid term), so the running costs is going to be even higher again.

So I put it to you the fare would have to be at least double, and probably triple to make a profit. Unless of course that $3.80 one way fare was per passenger, but that is a rather big assumption to be making.

KentFitch said :

Car-pooling today is inconvenient simply because it is not easy to arrange a trip exactly when you want it. People highly value flexibility and simplicity and not having to think or negotiate to achieve simple, daily tasks.

Exactly. But hang on a second why will autonomous cars make it any easier to better co-ordinate people going from the same origin to the same destination at the exact same time?

Massive logic flaw there, which if I am not mistaken is the cornerstone to your proof these cars will reduce congestion. What was it again, occupancy increasing from 1.1 to 1.5-2.5? Hmmmm. Don’t see it happening.

And simpler. Sorry but how much more simple could it be to walk to your garage/driveway at a whim, open a door, turn a key and drive to where you want to go? It is this simplicity and the time factor that is already a major disadvantage to public transport use as it is. And autonomous cars won’t help one little bit. To be cost effective they will be like taxis, in use as much as possible, which of course means people will need to wait and fleet size in Canberra won’t be 23,000!

KentFitch said :

Again, Ford, GM, Benz, BMW, and others have made public commitments of 2021 for level 4 autonomous cars operating in shared fleets, and are unlikely to be swayed by your assertion of 10 years being the earliest, given the only supporting evidence you can muster is writing the word “earliest” in capitals!

Doesn’t mean there will be a fleet of 23,000 plying Canberra roads in the middle of the next decade.

KentFitch said :

Many academic studies show much greater lane capacity with autonomous cars due to smaller following distances, reduced reaction times and smoother driving.

Would agree if 100% autonomous, but not in mixed human/autonomous mode operation. Once a human is placed into the mix the margins of error on autonomous vehicles increases. The evidence can be seen in the railway industry. Recently TFL converted the Northern Line from manual driven to automatic and gained a theoretical additional 20% capacity. But during the change over period which lasted about a year they lost 10% capacity due to mixed mode operation. And this is in an environment that is entirely more simple and predictable than public roads.

KentFitch said :

Except at night, most cars are not idle most of the time and hence are not parked. They are doing the work of the current private fleet of over 240,000 passenger cars (ABS 2016: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0 ), taxis and 400+ACTION buses. At night, they are (mostly) parked, distributed (mostly) around suburbs, waiting for the AM peak – around 200 per suburb, depending on their population of travellers and hence expected demand.

So you reckon 23,000 will be working day and night in Canberra? Yeah right, another massive flaw in logic there, but gee it sounds good and makes the figures look good. As previously mentioned the ACT’s car journeys see two clear peaks, moderate use during the inter peak period, and very little at night. So those cars have to be parked somewhere. And even you mentioned it you will have 200 vehicles in Evatt ready for service, so that clearly means parked somewhere. So where?

Only half that number at night. The rest will be dreamin’.

So are we actually in agreement on something?

Well, that’s preferable to saying we are in the same bed.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

KentFitch said :

It a logic error to argue “because some cases of X results in Y, all cases of X result in Y”. That is, because *some* of the things your colleagues announced as “the next great thing” are bogus, all such things are bogus. If you studied the correlation between your colleagues enthusiasm for something and corresponding independent support for the likelihood of that thing eventuating across industry, academia and government, I suggest you’d find a correlation.

I think it is a logic error to assume that is what I was assuming. In this thing called the real world, I have heard story after story after story of what will be the next biggest thing. Some things happen as predicted, some happen but no where near as predicted (which is what I think will be the case for autonomous vehicles), and others, most don’t happen at all.

Maybe because I was trained in analogue electronics where there is more to it than 1 and 0 logic that I can see more than those who’s world revolves around 1’s, 0’s, black or white or indeed real world V’s academia.

KentFitch said :

In the case of the timetable for Level 4 autonomous cars (those able to operate without any human intervention in their “operational design domain”, which will probably exclude backing a trailer through your side-gate but will include all city/suburban road travel) the world’s largest car manufacturers (each with R and D budgets that dwarf that of CSIRO) and many of the others are planning for commercialisation by or before 2021. Governments across Europe, Asia and in the USA are encouraging and planning for their arrival. Academia and related industry (such as transport and urban planners) are researching how to optimise their operation.

All a fantasy? Maybe, if you are blind to evidence, but then so is global warming. After all, its only happened a little bit so far, and all those scientists with their over the top waffling and irrelevant stats – lets assume it will never happen, eh?

1’s and 0’s again, and worlds largest auto makers except for the biggest of the lot Toyota. Anyway I don’t doubt autonomous cars are coming, and I don’t doubt there will be elements available in 2021 either. However what I believe to be fantasy is this belief that a fleet of 23,000 of them will replace Canberra’s current fleet of, 240,000 private human driven cars in the next 8 years. I see a niche market of maybe a few dozen to replace and enhance the current taxi/uber fleet MAYBE, but not every private vehicle and not a pool of 23,000 of them….

KentFitch said :

The incentive is convenience and economics. The convenience is 24×7, on-demand, door-to-door travel, even more convenient than a private car (no garaging, no parking, no servicing/repairing, no cleaning, no refueling).

The economics for commuters is that the typical “all up” private financial cost of a private car return journey of 13.4km each way is $15.16 (NRMA’s cost of running a Hyundai i30, with annual insurance at $600) and a further $11.50 for parking in the Parliamentary Triangle or between $8.30 and $14.80 for parking in a town centre or Civic (5 day paid-in-advance discount) – somewhere between $23 and $30, each day. A door-to-door round trip in peak hour in an autonomous car is modelled as costing $7.60 (including all operating costs and profit).

So who has modelled this cost? You? What is the assumptions for return of cost and profit?

My assumption using your costs doesn’t stack up. Canberra’s peak is roughly 2 hours morning, 2 hours afternoon and it is mostly unidirectional traffic. So to go from Evatt to the city is around 30 minutes, that car will most likely return empty, so round trip 1 hour. So in the peak that car can do two trips morning, two trips afternoon, and during the time in between probably another 2 trips, and evening maybe 2 more. So max of 8 13.4km trips a day. At $3.80 per trip (using your $7.60 return figure) that makes for a grand total of $30.40 per day in income.

Now getting back to your i30, the NRMA caculates a running cost of $0.50/km. Running costs are purcahse, insurance, fuel, maintenance etc, all of which an autonomous car will also have. Now your 8 trip autonomous car has racked up roughly 110km, so lets assume the running costs were on par to NRMA’s figures for an i30 to RUN that car would have cost roughly $55, so a loss of $25 for the day. But the flaw in my logic is that assumes a standard i30, not an autonomous one, which will cost significantly more to purchase (at least short to mid term), so the running costs is going to be even higher again.

So I put it to you the fare would have to be at least double, and probably triple to make a profit. Unless of course that $3.80 one way fare was per passenger, but that is a rather big assumption to be making.

KentFitch said :

Car-pooling today is inconvenient simply because it is not easy to arrange a trip exactly when you want it. People highly value flexibility and simplicity and not having to think or negotiate to achieve simple, daily tasks.

Exactly. But hang on a second why will autonomous cars make it any easier to better co-ordinate people going from the same origin to the same destination at the exact same time?

Massive logic flaw there, which if I am not mistaken is the cornerstone to your proof these cars will reduce congestion. What was it again, occupancy increasing from 1.1 to 1.5-2.5? Hmmmm. Don’t see it happening.

And simpler. Sorry but how much more simple could it be to walk to your garage/driveway at a whim, open a door, turn a key and drive to where you want to go? It is this simplicity and the time factor that is already a major disadvantage to public transport use as it is. And autonomous cars won’t help one little bit. To be cost effective they will be like taxis, in use as much as possible, which of course means people will need to wait and fleet size in Canberra won’t be 23,000!

KentFitch said :

Again, Ford, GM, Benz, BMW, and others have made public commitments of 2021 for level 4 autonomous cars operating in shared fleets, and are unlikely to be swayed by your assertion of 10 years being the earliest, given the only supporting evidence you can muster is writing the word “earliest” in capitals!

Doesn’t mean there will be a fleet of 23,000 plying Canberra roads in the middle of the next decade.

KentFitch said :

Many academic studies show much greater lane capacity with autonomous cars due to smaller following distances, reduced reaction times and smoother driving.

Would agree if 100% autonomous, but not in mixed human/autonomous mode operation. Once a human is placed into the mix the margins of error on autonomous vehicles increases. The evidence can be seen in the railway industry. Recently TFL converted the Northern Line from manual driven to automatic and gained a theoretical additional 20% capacity. But during the change over period which lasted about a year they lost 10% capacity due to mixed mode operation. And this is in an environment that is entirely more simple and predictable than public roads.

KentFitch said :

Except at night, most cars are not idle most of the time and hence are not parked. They are doing the work of the current private fleet of over 240,000 passenger cars (ABS 2016: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0 ), taxis and 400+ACTION buses. At night, they are (mostly) parked, distributed (mostly) around suburbs, waiting for the AM peak – around 200 per suburb, depending on their population of travellers and hence expected demand.

So you reckon 23,000 will be working day and night in Canberra? Yeah right, another massive flaw in logic there, but gee it sounds good and makes the figures look good. As previously mentioned the ACT’s car journeys see two clear peaks, moderate use during the inter peak period, and very little at night. So those cars have to be parked somewhere. And even you mentioned it you will have 200 vehicles in Evatt ready for service, so that clearly means parked somewhere. So where?

Only half that number at night. The rest will be dreamin’.

So are we actually in agreement on something?

JC said :

KentFitch said :

It a logic error to argue “because some cases of X results in Y, all cases of X result in Y”. That is, because *some* of the things your colleagues announced as “the next great thing” are bogus, all such things are bogus. If you studied the correlation between your colleagues enthusiasm for something and corresponding independent support for the likelihood of that thing eventuating across industry, academia and government, I suggest you’d find a correlation.

I think it is a logic error to assume that is what I was assuming. In this thing called the real world, I have heard story after story after story of what will be the next biggest thing. Some things happen as predicted, some happen but no where near as predicted (which is what I think will be the case for autonomous vehicles), and others, most don’t happen at all.

Maybe because I was trained in analogue electronics where there is more to it than 1 and 0 logic that I can see more than those who’s world revolves around 1’s, 0’s, black or white or indeed real world V’s academia.

KentFitch said :

In the case of the timetable for Level 4 autonomous cars (those able to operate without any human intervention in their “operational design domain”, which will probably exclude backing a trailer through your side-gate but will include all city/suburban road travel) the world’s largest car manufacturers (each with R and D budgets that dwarf that of CSIRO) and many of the others are planning for commercialisation by or before 2021. Governments across Europe, Asia and in the USA are encouraging and planning for their arrival. Academia and related industry (such as transport and urban planners) are researching how to optimise their operation.

All a fantasy? Maybe, if you are blind to evidence, but then so is global warming. After all, its only happened a little bit so far, and all those scientists with their over the top waffling and irrelevant stats – lets assume it will never happen, eh?

1’s and 0’s again, and worlds largest auto makers except for the biggest of the lot Toyota. Anyway I don’t doubt autonomous cars are coming, and I don’t doubt there will be elements available in 2021 either. However what I believe to be fantasy is this belief that a fleet of 23,000 of them will replace Canberra’s current fleet of, 240,000 private human driven cars in the next 8 years. I see a niche market of maybe a few dozen to replace and enhance the current taxi/uber fleet MAYBE, but not every private vehicle and not a pool of 23,000 of them….

KentFitch said :

The incentive is convenience and economics. The convenience is 24×7, on-demand, door-to-door travel, even more convenient than a private car (no garaging, no parking, no servicing/repairing, no cleaning, no refueling).

The economics for commuters is that the typical “all up” private financial cost of a private car return journey of 13.4km each way is $15.16 (NRMA’s cost of running a Hyundai i30, with annual insurance at $600) and a further $11.50 for parking in the Parliamentary Triangle or between $8.30 and $14.80 for parking in a town centre or Civic (5 day paid-in-advance discount) – somewhere between $23 and $30, each day. A door-to-door round trip in peak hour in an autonomous car is modelled as costing $7.60 (including all operating costs and profit).

So who has modelled this cost? You? What is the assumptions for return of cost and profit?

My assumption using your costs doesn’t stack up. Canberra’s peak is roughly 2 hours morning, 2 hours afternoon and it is mostly unidirectional traffic. So to go from Evatt to the city is around 30 minutes, that car will most likely return empty, so round trip 1 hour. So in the peak that car can do two trips morning, two trips afternoon, and during the time in between probably another 2 trips, and evening maybe 2 more. So max of 8 13.4km trips a day. At $3.80 per trip (using your $7.60 return figure) that makes for a grand total of $30.40 per day in income.

Now getting back to your i30, the NRMA caculates a running cost of $0.50/km. Running costs are purcahse, insurance, fuel, maintenance etc, all of which an autonomous car will also have. Now your 8 trip autonomous car has racked up roughly 110km, so lets assume the running costs were on par to NRMA’s figures for an i30 to RUN that car would have cost roughly $55, so a loss of $25 for the day. But the flaw in my logic is that assumes a standard i30, not an autonomous one, which will cost significantly more to purchase (at least short to mid term), so the running costs is going to be even higher again.

So I put it to you the fare would have to be at least double, and probably triple to make a profit. Unless of course that $3.80 one way fare was per passenger, but that is a rather big assumption to be making.

KentFitch said :

Car-pooling today is inconvenient simply because it is not easy to arrange a trip exactly when you want it. People highly value flexibility and simplicity and not having to think or negotiate to achieve simple, daily tasks.

Exactly. But hang on a second why will autonomous cars make it any easier to better co-ordinate people going from the same origin to the same destination at the exact same time?

Massive logic flaw there, which if I am not mistaken is the cornerstone to your proof these cars will reduce congestion. What was it again, occupancy increasing from 1.1 to 1.5-2.5? Hmmmm. Don’t see it happening.

And simpler. Sorry but how much more simple could it be to walk to your garage/driveway at a whim, open a door, turn a key and drive to where you want to go? It is this simplicity and the time factor that is already a major disadvantage to public transport use as it is. And autonomous cars won’t help one little bit. To be cost effective they will be like taxis, in use as much as possible, which of course means people will need to wait and fleet size in Canberra won’t be 23,000!

KentFitch said :

Again, Ford, GM, Benz, BMW, and others have made public commitments of 2021 for level 4 autonomous cars operating in shared fleets, and are unlikely to be swayed by your assertion of 10 years being the earliest, given the only supporting evidence you can muster is writing the word “earliest” in capitals!

Doesn’t mean there will be a fleet of 23,000 plying Canberra roads in the middle of the next decade.

KentFitch said :

Many academic studies show much greater lane capacity with autonomous cars due to smaller following distances, reduced reaction times and smoother driving.

Would agree if 100% autonomous, but not in mixed human/autonomous mode operation. Once a human is placed into the mix the margins of error on autonomous vehicles increases. The evidence can be seen in the railway industry. Recently TFL converted the Northern Line from manual driven to automatic and gained a theoretical additional 20% capacity. But during the change over period which lasted about a year they lost 10% capacity due to mixed mode operation. And this is in an environment that is entirely more simple and predictable than public roads.

KentFitch said :

Except at night, most cars are not idle most of the time and hence are not parked. They are doing the work of the current private fleet of over 240,000 passenger cars (ABS 2016: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0 ), taxis and 400+ACTION buses. At night, they are (mostly) parked, distributed (mostly) around suburbs, waiting for the AM peak – around 200 per suburb, depending on their population of travellers and hence expected demand.

So you reckon 23,000 will be working day and night in Canberra? Yeah right, another massive flaw in logic there, but gee it sounds good and makes the figures look good. As previously mentioned the ACT’s car journeys see two clear peaks, moderate use during the inter peak period, and very little at night. So those cars have to be parked somewhere. And even you mentioned it you will have 200 vehicles in Evatt ready for service, so that clearly means parked somewhere. So where?

Only half that number at night. The rest will be dreamin’.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

bj_ACT said :

Ohhh some of these transport reports I have been able to find on the web are just a magic read. They are so consistently wrong in their assumptions and future claims it would surely make even the greatest supporter of the Light Rail a little sceptical about Canberra realising the benefits claimed (to be honest these concerns have been previously highlighted by the government’s own auditor general and various public transport experts).

This over $200k in cost report from Booz Allen Hamilton which was thankfully mentioned earlier by Leon Arundell (I note Leon has provided some clear thinking on public transport issues previously) is a classic report of false hope, incorrect assumptions and some very dodgy claims (Canberra we need to try and get our money back from the consultants 😉 http://grapevine.net.au/~mccluskeyarundell/ACTElasticityStudy_FinalReport.pdf from Note Booz Allen is the company who bought the world Edward Snowden plus a list of other highlights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton

This report below had a speedy rapid transport for Erindale (the actual outcome now is that there are less 30 minute apart busses in Wanniassa than there used to be – the total opposite of what was proclaimed would be a rapid service every 2-10 minutes). https://www.transport.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/887250/ESDD_ACT_Transport_Policy_web_Appendices.pdf

This one has Public transport at 10.5% in 2016 and 30% of us would be walking, cycling or using public transport by 2026
http://timetotalk.act.gov.au/storage/EDS_ACT%20Transport%20Policy_Part%205.pdf

The problem is also that this highlights just how poor the ACT Liberals were as an opposition and how poor they were during the election campaign. How were they not able to articulate the inability of the ACT Government to deliver on their policy and predicted outcomes.

Actually, the Canberra Liberals are a very successful opposition. They have retained their position for three elections now.

Outstanding.

Actually Dungers, they have lost the last 5 elections, so that means they have retained opposition 4 times. So even worse than you thought!

Actually they didn’t lose the 2012 election but they failed to form a government in the post-election farce but let’s say they did lose so they are even more successful in retaining opposition than I had said.

dungfungus said :

bj_ACT said :

Ohhh some of these transport reports I have been able to find on the web are just a magic read. They are so consistently wrong in their assumptions and future claims it would surely make even the greatest supporter of the Light Rail a little sceptical about Canberra realising the benefits claimed (to be honest these concerns have been previously highlighted by the government’s own auditor general and various public transport experts).

This over $200k in cost report from Booz Allen Hamilton which was thankfully mentioned earlier by Leon Arundell (I note Leon has provided some clear thinking on public transport issues previously) is a classic report of false hope, incorrect assumptions and some very dodgy claims (Canberra we need to try and get our money back from the consultants 😉 http://grapevine.net.au/~mccluskeyarundell/ACTElasticityStudy_FinalReport.pdf from Note Booz Allen is the company who bought the world Edward Snowden plus a list of other highlights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton

This report below had a speedy rapid transport for Erindale (the actual outcome now is that there are less 30 minute apart busses in Wanniassa than there used to be – the total opposite of what was proclaimed would be a rapid service every 2-10 minutes). https://www.transport.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/887250/ESDD_ACT_Transport_Policy_web_Appendices.pdf

This one has Public transport at 10.5% in 2016 and 30% of us would be walking, cycling or using public transport by 2026
http://timetotalk.act.gov.au/storage/EDS_ACT%20Transport%20Policy_Part%205.pdf

The problem is also that this highlights just how poor the ACT Liberals were as an opposition and how poor they were during the election campaign. How were they not able to articulate the inability of the ACT Government to deliver on their policy and predicted outcomes.

Actually, the Canberra Liberals are a very successful opposition. They have retained their position for three elections now.

Outstanding.

Actually Dungers, they have lost the last 5 elections, so that means they have retained opposition 4 times. So even worse than you thought!

KentFitch said :

It a logic error to argue “because some cases of X results in Y, all cases of X result in Y”. That is, because *some* of the things your colleagues announced as “the next great thing” are bogus, all such things are bogus. If you studied the correlation between your colleagues enthusiasm for something and corresponding independent support for the likelihood of that thing eventuating across industry, academia and government, I suggest you’d find a correlation.

I think it is a logic error to assume that is what I was assuming. In this thing called the real world, I have heard story after story after story of what will be the next biggest thing. Some things happen as predicted, some happen but no where near as predicted (which is what I think will be the case for autonomous vehicles), and others, most don’t happen at all.

Maybe because I was trained in analogue electronics where there is more to it than 1 and 0 logic that I can see more than those who’s world revolves around 1’s, 0’s, black or white or indeed real world V’s academia.

KentFitch said :

In the case of the timetable for Level 4 autonomous cars (those able to operate without any human intervention in their “operational design domain”, which will probably exclude backing a trailer through your side-gate but will include all city/suburban road travel) the world’s largest car manufacturers (each with R and D budgets that dwarf that of CSIRO) and many of the others are planning for commercialisation by or before 2021. Governments across Europe, Asia and in the USA are encouraging and planning for their arrival. Academia and related industry (such as transport and urban planners) are researching how to optimise their operation.

All a fantasy? Maybe, if you are blind to evidence, but then so is global warming. After all, its only happened a little bit so far, and all those scientists with their over the top waffling and irrelevant stats – lets assume it will never happen, eh?

1’s and 0’s again, and worlds largest auto makers except for the biggest of the lot Toyota. Anyway I don’t doubt autonomous cars are coming, and I don’t doubt there will be elements available in 2021 either. However what I believe to be fantasy is this belief that a fleet of 23,000 of them will replace Canberra’s current fleet of, 240,000 private human driven cars in the next 8 years. I see a niche market of maybe a few dozen to replace and enhance the current taxi/uber fleet MAYBE, but not every private vehicle and not a pool of 23,000 of them….

KentFitch said :

The incentive is convenience and economics. The convenience is 24×7, on-demand, door-to-door travel, even more convenient than a private car (no garaging, no parking, no servicing/repairing, no cleaning, no refueling).

The economics for commuters is that the typical “all up” private financial cost of a private car return journey of 13.4km each way is $15.16 (NRMA’s cost of running a Hyundai i30, with annual insurance at $600) and a further $11.50 for parking in the Parliamentary Triangle or between $8.30 and $14.80 for parking in a town centre or Civic (5 day paid-in-advance discount) – somewhere between $23 and $30, each day. A door-to-door round trip in peak hour in an autonomous car is modelled as costing $7.60 (including all operating costs and profit).

So who has modelled this cost? You? What is the assumptions for return of cost and profit?

My assumption using your costs doesn’t stack up. Canberra’s peak is roughly 2 hours morning, 2 hours afternoon and it is mostly unidirectional traffic. So to go from Evatt to the city is around 30 minutes, that car will most likely return empty, so round trip 1 hour. So in the peak that car can do two trips morning, two trips afternoon, and during the time in between probably another 2 trips, and evening maybe 2 more. So max of 8 13.4km trips a day. At $3.80 per trip (using your $7.60 return figure) that makes for a grand total of $30.40 per day in income.

Now getting back to your i30, the NRMA caculates a running cost of $0.50/km. Running costs are purcahse, insurance, fuel, maintenance etc, all of which an autonomous car will also have. Now your 8 trip autonomous car has racked up roughly 110km, so lets assume the running costs were on par to NRMA’s figures for an i30 to RUN that car would have cost roughly $55, so a loss of $25 for the day. But the flaw in my logic is that assumes a standard i30, not an autonomous one, which will cost significantly more to purchase (at least short to mid term), so the running costs is going to be even higher again.

So I put it to you the fare would have to be at least double, and probably triple to make a profit. Unless of course that $3.80 one way fare was per passenger, but that is a rather big assumption to be making.

KentFitch said :

Car-pooling today is inconvenient simply because it is not easy to arrange a trip exactly when you want it. People highly value flexibility and simplicity and not having to think or negotiate to achieve simple, daily tasks.

Exactly. But hang on a second why will autonomous cars make it any easier to better co-ordinate people going from the same origin to the same destination at the exact same time?

Massive logic flaw there, which if I am not mistaken is the cornerstone to your proof these cars will reduce congestion. What was it again, occupancy increasing from 1.1 to 1.5-2.5? Hmmmm. Don’t see it happening.

And simpler. Sorry but how much more simple could it be to walk to your garage/driveway at a whim, open a door, turn a key and drive to where you want to go? It is this simplicity and the time factor that is already a major disadvantage to public transport use as it is. And autonomous cars won’t help one little bit. To be cost effective they will be like taxis, in use as much as possible, which of course means people will need to wait and fleet size in Canberra won’t be 23,000!

KentFitch said :

Again, Ford, GM, Benz, BMW, and others have made public commitments of 2021 for level 4 autonomous cars operating in shared fleets, and are unlikely to be swayed by your assertion of 10 years being the earliest, given the only supporting evidence you can muster is writing the word “earliest” in capitals!

Doesn’t mean there will be a fleet of 23,000 plying Canberra roads in the middle of the next decade.

KentFitch said :

Many academic studies show much greater lane capacity with autonomous cars due to smaller following distances, reduced reaction times and smoother driving.

Would agree if 100% autonomous, but not in mixed human/autonomous mode operation. Once a human is placed into the mix the margins of error on autonomous vehicles increases. The evidence can be seen in the railway industry. Recently TFL converted the Northern Line from manual driven to automatic and gained a theoretical additional 20% capacity. But during the change over period which lasted about a year they lost 10% capacity due to mixed mode operation. And this is in an environment that is entirely more simple and predictable than public roads.

KentFitch said :

Except at night, most cars are not idle most of the time and hence are not parked. They are doing the work of the current private fleet of over 240,000 passenger cars (ABS 2016: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0 ), taxis and 400+ACTION buses. At night, they are (mostly) parked, distributed (mostly) around suburbs, waiting for the AM peak – around 200 per suburb, depending on their population of travellers and hence expected demand.

So you reckon 23,000 will be working day and night in Canberra? Yeah right, another massive flaw in logic there, but gee it sounds good and makes the figures look good. As previously mentioned the ACT’s car journeys see two clear peaks, moderate use during the inter peak period, and very little at night. So those cars have to be parked somewhere. And even you mentioned it you will have 200 vehicles in Evatt ready for service, so that clearly means parked somewhere. So where?

wildturkeycanoe said :

To add to the autonomous car debate, there are other considerations that haven’t been brought to the table as far as I can tell.
Thunderstorms wreak havoc on Foxtel TV signals. How do storms affect the GPS tracking in autonomous cars? Apparently scientists have already uncovered problems with high altitude thunderstorms, so what about the huge nimbo-cumulous clouds we often see brewing over the Brindabellas on a hot summer’s afternoon? Time to press the “manual override” button on the dash?

Thanks for these questions.

GPS frequencies and algorithms were specifically chosen to provide good accuracy even in the most severe terrestrial weather conditions and even “space weather” [ http://www.gps.gov/news/2012/03/solarstorm/ ].

wildturkeycanoe said :

What about the internet? Autonomous vehicles will be relying on mapping data, traffic updates and so on. They will churn through more mobile data than a teenager on Facebook, so how are our networks going to handle it all? As we’ve seen already, the government is incapable of rolling out a high speed land-based internet service to the population. How can we trust them to build a wireless technology that our lives depend on?

Detailed maps are very likely to be pre-loaded and incrementally updated as required. Traffic updates are likely to be compressed and have small volumes, as will “instructions” to pick passengers up and relocate. However, live-streaming of instrumentation and especially any video/audio-feeds from the car could be substantial.

Some manufacturers are preparing to address this market, eg https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/04/intels-new-go-brand-covers-car-tech-from-self-driving-to-5g-wireless/

Autonomous car providers will need to design systems that are redundant (eg, antennae failure, augment GPS with dead-reckoning and location identification based on sensor data) and fail gracefully (eg, take in-car passengers to their destination even if communications fails).

wildturkeycanoe said :

How much redundancy will be in place for unexpected dropouts of service, black-spots in coverage and congestion? You would think that our networks are already pretty reliable, but as an example, our Christmas holiday travel revealed several patches of no service on the Hume Highway, service provided by one of the three largest providers. No internet or phone for several kilometers at a time in many locations on the less than 200km drive to visit relatives might have been an inconvenience to playing Pandora, but if cars were relying on that connection to continue their journey, what would happen in these circumstances?

I think autonomous car makers will have a strong incentive to build redundancy and fail-graceful systems. I think this means, for example, that it would be very rare that a car could not continue to its destination without assistance due to a communications failure. There will, as ever, be mechanical failures (blown tyre, battery fire, meteor strike..) that require assistance (such as a human repair crew and replacement car being dispatched to allow passengers to continue). As with trying to implement level 5 autonomous systems (drive anywhere with any requirements), trying to implement a shared fleet that operates in an urban area is much easier than trying to implement a system that operates anywhere.

wildturkeycanoe said :

A far more concerning issue than those I’ve mentioned already is hacking. Just imagine the carnage if somebody got into the mind of your vehicle and began tinkering with it’s safety protocols? It would need a security system on par with military, law enforcement and government services. Who is going to be paying for this security?

Indeed! These issues are at the forefront of system design, and current prototype systems are undergoing a lot of scrutiny. Although in theory, good and secure system design is possible, the last 30 years of connected systems demonstrates it is almost impossible to achieve. Secure operation is an absolute requirement, just as it is for in-aircraft and air-traffic-control systems and other systems we place our trust in, such as GPS and even our banking system.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Who indeed is going to be paying for the rest of the infrastructure upgrades that are needed to run this fleet of vehicles that will transport us in the future? Will it be the Telcos, the vehicle manufacturers, the government or the user? Will there be minimum standards that need to be met in order to allow this mode of transport to flourish? Who is held responsible when an accident does occur? How do you find out the cause of the crash, considering it won’t be the passenger’s fault because they do not have a driver’s license [or do they?]. With the inability for Telcos to diagnose even simple faults on land based internet connections in a timely manner, how are wireless systems going to be maintained? There is a big difference between not being able to check your emails and having hundreds of cars come to a standstill because they can’t get a signal.

Indeed! Your questions show why the policy debate about autonomous cars is more interesting and more important than the hardware and algorithms that enable cars to steer for themselves.

wildturkeycanoe said :

The claims that autonomous cars will be roaming the streets by 2020 are in my opinion absolute fantasy. I remember back when I was a child [many believe I am still one], reading in a book about bubble shaped cars with the happy, smiling family playing Monopoly while they cruised along the freeway. That was back in the sixties. Do we have autonomous cars yet? No, though they appear to be getting closer to reality. I wonder if back then they saw this happening in their lifetime. Personally, I can’t see it happening in our lifetime either.

Maybe the picture you are remembering is even earlier, from the 1950s: http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/where-to-a-history-of-autonomous-vehicles/ (2nd picture down) . I remember Maxwell Smart’s shoe phone (rotary dial, nice: https://isthatcoffee.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/max-on-shoe-phone.jpg ), and video phones were always coming, and one day computers would understand our voices and translate languages well. And all of a sudden, they happened..

People are endlessly inventive. All those PhDs, all those research budgets and papers, all being produced in unprecedented numbers. The economic motives are very strong and the direction now so clear that automotive giants such as Ford, GM, Benz and BMW are betting their companies on transforming themselves from car producers to providing “mobility as a service”, knowing that if they don’t, competitors from China or upstarts such as Tesla and Uber will “disrupt” their businesses.

wildturkeycanoe said :

The entire concept is putting human life in the hands of a computer. Computers are not infallible. They make errors. Sometimes a “1” comes out the other end of a circuit as a “0” without any logical explanation as to why. It could be some invisible particle that has traveled through billions of years of space, undetectable by man but existing nonetheless. Chaos theory says that eventually something will go wrong and your life could be forfeit through this freak of universal randomness. You could also die tomorrow of a heart attack, but putting your life and that of others into the hands of a computer, susceptible to gremlins, is asking for trouble.

Indeed! Computers are not infallible, it is inevitable that many people will die as a consequence of bad decisions, bugs, failures in autonomous cars. But in 2015, over 1200 people died in car accidents in Australia, the vast majority (over 90%) as a result of human error, maybe just being tired, distracted or drunk. BITRE estimates the hospitalisations from road accidents at 30 times the number of deaths. That’s a lot of trauma. [ https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_australia_annual_summaries.aspx ]

The annual cost of road crashes in Australia is $27 billion according to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, or roughly $1150 per person per year. [ https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/ ]. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s Injury among young Australians report from 2008 showed that transport accidents were the leading cause of death and injury of young Australians (aged 12-24 years) in 2005.

Then there is the cost of social and economic disadvantage caused by the current high cost of transport, such as occurs to people like you and I probably know: http://canberraautonomouscars.info/index.html#motivation

JC said :

Over 26 years in information technology, the things I’ve heard colleagues annouce as “the next great thing” that has failed to materialise as they have believed it would, would have made me a millionaire if I had of placed a bet with them. And the number of times these people just talk over the top, waffling with irrelevant stats to hide the real truth and fantasy is, well, lets just say you are not alone Kent, you are normal.

It a logic error to argue “because some cases of X results in Y, all cases of X result in Y”. That is, because *some* of the things your colleagues announced as “the next great thing” are bogus, all such things are bogus. If you studied the correlation between your colleagues enthusiasm for something and corresponding independent support for the likelihood of that thing eventuating across industry, academia and government, I suggest you’d find a correlation.

In the case of the timetable for Level 4 autonomous cars (those able to operate without any human intervention in their “operational design domain”, which will probably exclude backing a trailer through your side-gate but will include all city/suburban road travel) the world’s largest car manufacturers (each with R and D budgets that dwarf that of CSIRO) and many of the others are planning for commercialisation by or before 2021. Governments across Europe, Asia and in the USA are encouraging and planning for their arrival. Academia and related industry (such as transport and urban planners) are researching how to optimise their operation.

All a fantasy? Maybe, if you are blind to evidence, but then so is global warming. After all, its only happened a little bit so far, and all those scientists with their over the top waffling and irrelevant stats – lets assume it will never happen, eh?

JC said :

As for the whole debate, I have one massive problem. For autonomous cars to work you are suggesting average occupancy WILL change from 1.1 to 1.5-2.2. Now even I will accept IF that were to happen congestion will reduce, but where is the scientific evidence or otherwise to suggest and prove that in 10 years time people will want to be sharing a driverless car with others? What is the incentive to share? And lets say people wanted to share couldn’t the same result be made today through car pooling?

The incentive is convenience and economics. The convenience is 24×7, on-demand, door-to-door travel, even more convenient than a private car (no garaging, no parking, no servicing/repairing, no cleaning, no refueling).

The economics for commuters is that the typical “all up” private financial cost of a private car return journey of 13.4km each way is $15.16 (NRMA’s cost of running a Hyundai i30, with annual insurance at $600) and a further $11.50 for parking in the Parliamentary Triangle or between $8.30 and $14.80 for parking in a town centre or Civic (5 day paid-in-advance discount) – somewhere between $23 and $30, each day. A door-to-door round trip in peak hour in an autonomous car is modelled as costing $7.60 (including all operating costs and profit).

Taxes on vehicle owners and operators currently more than cover the costs of building and maintaining roads – that is, the direct costs of roads are not subsidised. However, along with indirect economic benefits from our current transport system, there are great economic and social costs.

The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics working paper “Health impacts of transport emissions in Australia: Economic costs” [ https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2005/files/wp_063.pdf ] , estimated that pollution from motor vehicles (cars, buses, trucks, motor-cycles, light commercial vehicles) was responsible for between 900 and 4500 cases of morbidity and between 900 and 2000 early deaths each year, with an annual economic cost of between $1.5 billion and $3.8 billion.

The annual cost of road crashes in Australia is $27 billion according to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, or roughly $1150 per person per year. [ https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/ ]. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s Injury among young Australians report from 2008 showed that transport accidents were the leading cause of death and injury of young Australians (aged 12-24 years) in 2005.

Governments are increasingly discussing additional road usage charges (based on time and place of travel), and extension of “congestion charging”.

Car-pooling today is inconvenient simply because it is not easy to arrange a trip exactly when you want it. People highly value flexibility and simplicity and not having to think or negotiate to achieve simple, daily tasks.

JC said :

And even if the figure were 1.5, in 10 years time, which would be the EARLIEST any autonomous car hire business could possibly start (to replace taxis and Uber etc) the amount of traffic on the road, even with the higher occupancy would be about equal to the number of vehicles on the road today at the same single point in time.

Again, Ford, GM, Benz, BMW, and others have made public commitments of 2021 for level 4 autonomous cars operating in shared fleets, and are unlikely to be swayed by your assertion of 10 years being the earliest, given the only supporting evidence you can muster is writing the word “earliest” in capitals!

JC said :

Being autonomous doesn’t reduce the space they take on the road, and in fact there will be autonomous and human driven cars on the road, so if anything the margins of error that would need to be programmed into autonomous cars to avoid human driven cars would need to increase. And my reading of the Toyota article is this margin of error and peoples natural distrust for risk involved with autonomous systems is why this kind of thing WONT be happening next decade.

Now lets say it did the increase margin of error would mean the the average space autonomous vehicles need on the road will increase, which increases congestion. Until such time as autonomous cars are all there is, and that won’t be in 2021, nor 2025 this simple issue will remain.

Many academic studies show much greater lane capacity with autonomous cars due to smaller following distances, reduced reaction times and smoother driving. But they also show the advantages require a significant uptake, use of a shared-fleet (rather than private cars) to counteract empty return trips and requisite planning [ http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB14EnoAVs.pdf http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/intelligent-cars-could-boost-highway-capacity-by-273 http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/Papers/FP_NextGenVehicleWhitePaper012414.pdf ]. This is why government planning now is important. That’s happening in UK and Europe, USA, Singapore, even in NSW: https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/technology/program/overview/technology-strategies/enable-connected-automated-vehicle-platforms/

JC said :

And a fleet of 23,000 you say? Again where are these things going to park when not in use, which will be for about 20 hours a day.

Except at night, most cars are not idle most of the time and hence are not parked. They are doing the work of the current private fleet of over 240,000 passenger cars (ABS 2016: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0 ), taxis and 400+ACTION buses. At night, they are (mostly) parked, distributed (mostly) around suburbs, waiting for the AM peak – around 200 per suburb, depending on their population of travellers and hence expected demand.

If you run the simulation with default parameters (23,000 cars, 750,000 journeys), wait until it ends then scroll down until you come to the map of Canberra. Choose an hour in the “car distribution” section. For example, at 5am, there are about 200 idle cars in Evatt. At 7am there are about 100 idle cars in Evatt, about 20 picking someone up (parked, waiting for them to get in the car) and about 85 travelling to or within Evatt to pick someone up (or drop them off). At 8am, there are about 30 idle in Evatt, about 25 picking someone up (or dropping them off) and about 210 travelling to or within Evatt to pick someone up (or drop them off). At 8am in Barton, there are about 660 cars travelling towards or within Barton to drop someone, and about 160 cars dropping someone off. At 5pm in Barton, there are about 40 idle cars, 160 cars picking people up and about 620 travelling towards or within Barton in anticipation of more requests for homeward journeys.

Vanessa Jones said :

I have been campaigning for “blue rapid” weekend buses, from Kippax to Belconnen to connect with the weekend blue rapid buses. Please see my earlier comment on this article. We really need this service for Kippax. Where is the noise from the ALP, the 5 local MLAs and the Belconnen Community Council about weekend blue rapid buses to West Belconnen? They run every 15 mins on weekends from Belconnen to Tuggers. Why is Kippax so ignored? Where is the public debate, by political figures? Why the silence, for safe Labor seats like the Kippax area? Buses are the answer out here, as the tram line will take so long to ever get here. Why are Labor figures so, so silent? Why is the media so silent? Amazing…

The short answer is “lack of empathy”. Mary Porter was a shining counter-example, and Jon Stanhope has been courageous by openly condemning ALP policies and putting others above his own interests. If the current MLAs spent a month living the life of a single parent in the suburbs juggling 3 kids , and casual work, catching buses to extend the budget by avoiding the expenses of running a car, they might regain the empathy many once had.

Lets propose March each year as “No Car Month” for our MLAs and their “chiefs of staff” and policy advisors: they auction their free car-spots for charity and spend a month walking, cycling and catching buses… and so will their spouses. Yes, they’ll bring the shopping home on the bus, go to kids sporting events on the bus, catch a bus to meet departmental heads in Woden or Dickson or Gungahlin. “Oh, but we’re too busy and stressed – its impractical! ” they’ll think. Busier and more stressed than a single parent with 3 kids and irregular casual work on a marginal budget? Ha! No way..

“If only the tram were already running – that would make things easier” none of them will think.

wildturkeycanoe7:58 am 07 Jan 17

To add to the autonomous car debate, there are other considerations that haven’t been brought to the table as far as I can tell.
Thunderstorms wreak havoc on Foxtel TV signals. How do storms affect the GPS tracking in autonomous cars? Apparently scientists have already uncovered problems with high altitude thunderstorms, so what about the huge nimbo-cumulous clouds we often see brewing over the Brindabellas on a hot summer’s afternoon? Time to press the “manual override” button on the dash?
What about the internet? Autonomous vehicles will be relying on mapping data, traffic updates and so on. They will churn through more mobile data than a teenager on Facebook, so how are our networks going to handle it all? As we’ve seen already, the government is incapable of rolling out a high speed land-based internet service to the population. How can we trust them to build a wireless technology that our lives depend on? How much redundancy will be in place for unexpected dropouts of service, black-spots in coverage and congestion? You would think that our networks are already pretty reliable, but as an example, our Christmas holiday travel revealed several patches of no service on the Hume Highway, service provided by one of the three largest providers. No internet or phone for several kilometers at a time in many locations on the less than 200km drive to visit relatives might have been an inconvenience to playing Pandora, but if cars were relying on that connection to continue their journey, what would happen in these circumstances?
A far more concerning issue than those I’ve mentioned already is hacking. Just imagine the carnage if somebody got into the mind of your vehicle and began tinkering with it’s safety protocols? It would need a security system on par with military, law enforcement and government services. Who is going to be paying for this security? Who indeed is going to be paying for the rest of the infrastructure upgrades that are needed to run this fleet of vehicles that will transport us in the future? Will it be the Telcos, the vehicle manufacturers, the government or the user? Will there be minimum standards that need to be met in order to allow this mode of transport to flourish? Who is held responsible when an accident does occur? How do you find out the cause of the crash, considering it won’t be the passenger’s fault because they do not have a driver’s license [or do they?]. With the inability for Telcos to diagnose even simple faults on land based internet connections in a timely manner, how are wireless systems going to be maintained? There is a big difference between not being able to check your emails and having hundreds of cars come to a standstill because they can’t get a signal.
The claims that autonomous cars will be roaming the streets by 2020 are in my opinion absolute fantasy. I remember back when I was a child [many believe I am still one], reading in a book about bubble shaped cars with the happy, smiling family playing Monopoly while they cruised along the freeway. That was back in the sixties. Do we have autonomous cars yet? No, though they appear to be getting closer to reality. I wonder if back then they saw this happening in their lifetime. Personally, I can’t see it happening in our lifetime either. The entire concept is putting human life in the hands of a computer. Computers are not infallible. They make errors. Sometimes a “1” comes out the other end of a circuit as a “0” without any logical explanation as to why. It could be some invisible particle that has traveled through billions of years of space, undetectable by man but existing nonetheless. Chaos theory says that eventually something will go wrong and your life could be forfeit through this freak of universal randomness. You could also die tomorrow of a heart attack, but putting your life and that of others into the hands of a computer, susceptible to gremlins, is asking for trouble.

bj_ACT said :

Ohhh some of these transport reports I have been able to find on the web are just a magic read. They are so consistently wrong in their assumptions and future claims it would surely make even the greatest supporter of the Light Rail a little sceptical about Canberra realising the benefits claimed (to be honest these concerns have been previously highlighted by the government’s own auditor general and various public transport experts).

This over $200k in cost report from Booz Allen Hamilton which was thankfully mentioned earlier by Leon Arundell (I note Leon has provided some clear thinking on public transport issues previously) is a classic report of false hope, incorrect assumptions and some very dodgy claims (Canberra we need to try and get our money back from the consultants 😉 http://grapevine.net.au/~mccluskeyarundell/ACTElasticityStudy_FinalReport.pdf from Note Booz Allen is the company who bought the world Edward Snowden plus a list of other highlights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton

This report below had a speedy rapid transport for Erindale (the actual outcome now is that there are less 30 minute apart busses in Wanniassa than there used to be – the total opposite of what was proclaimed would be a rapid service every 2-10 minutes). https://www.transport.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/887250/ESDD_ACT_Transport_Policy_web_Appendices.pdf

This one has Public transport at 10.5% in 2016 and 30% of us would be walking, cycling or using public transport by 2026
http://timetotalk.act.gov.au/storage/EDS_ACT%20Transport%20Policy_Part%205.pdf

The problem is also that this highlights just how poor the ACT Liberals were as an opposition and how poor they were during the election campaign. How were they not able to articulate the inability of the ACT Government to deliver on their policy and predicted outcomes.

Actually, the Canberra Liberals are a very successful opposition. They have retained their position for three elections now.

Outstanding.

devils_advocate said :

bj_ACT said :

I actually thought the Tram was a good idea when first mooted, but changed my mind after thinking about the very low likelihood of getting Canberran’s out of their cars and the overall cost of the project.

So much truth, and well said.

Even I agree with that, which is one of the main reasons I do not believe light rail will work outside of the Gungahlin/City/Kingston corridor.

And even on the Gungahlin City corridor it should have been built when Carnell and Wynell first proposed it. The problem now is people travel habbits are already set, so much harder to break than establish. Same is true for bus services in new suburbs. Look at Moncreif it now has houses but no buses, so of course residents are establishing patterns based on car which will be hard to break.

KentFitch said :

JC said :


Autonomous cars as a mass public transport solution is quite laughable actually. I can understand and see autonomous cars being used to replace taxi’s and ride sharing like uber, maybe sometime late next decade, but that doesn’t mean it will be a mass affordable public transport solution.

Even the whole premise of reducing costs and congestion, pleeeeease. Reduced congestion? If my understanding is right the only difference to having your own car now is you press a button on your phone app, and then a vehicle (which would otherwise be park edin your drive/garage) will then appear….

Over 40 years in information technology, the things I’ve heard colleagues pronounce as “laughable” include TCP/IP (as an alternative to IBM’s SNA), mini-computers, PCs, Linux, relational databases, the internet, the WWW, SMS, smart-phones, tablets, SSD, climate change, …. The common thread in these colleagues nervous dismissal as “laughable” is often (sometimes wilful) ignorance but is always the threat to their vested interest, whether emotional, ideological or personal relevance. It has always been so, and always will be: protecting the status quo denies the possibility of change for as long as possible. So don’t feel bad, JC, you’re normal.

As I’ve described to you previously, your understanding of how a shared fleet of autonomous cars operates to reduce congestion is incomplete, but to repeat the salient facts: congestion in Canberra occurs in peak periods with car occupancy around 1.1 people per car; during these peaks, shared autonomous cars on highly travelled (and hence prone-to-congestion routes) will typically have 1.5 – 2.5 people per car, reducing the number of cars travelling the congested routes by 35%-65%. In Canberra, a shared fleet of about 23,000 can easily meet the travel needs currently serviced by almost 10 times than number of private passenger cars (and ACTION buses) – around 750,000 trips per weekday. This does not mean a shared fleet could replace mass transit in other, denser cities with relatively less road infrastructure. It does not mean a shared fleet will replace all vehicles (tradies’ utes, delivery vans, trucks…).

A shared fleet of autonomous cars is much more convenient than car-pooling: with 23,000 cars in a Canberra fleet, for 98% of journey requests, a car will arrive within 60 seconds of a request. It is also much cheaper and the commute will be much faster (less congestion). Fewer cars on the road at any one time means less demand for new roads. Idle cars are distributed across the city, and far fewer cars means much less demand for car-parking.

There is no need to imagine the size of the fleet – just model it. Here’s a model: http://canberraautonomouscars.info/model.html If you disagree with the assumptions, change them and see what happens. MIT researchers published a model this week of a shared fleet in Manhattan: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/01/1611675114.full.pdf

n summary, they demonstrated that a fleet of 3,000 cars with capacity for 4 people can serve about 450,000 trips per day with a service level such that 98% journeys start within 2.8 min and have on-route delays (diversions for other passengers) of an average 3.5 minutes.

The area of the simulation was Manhattan – just 60 sqkm (Belconnen is 77 sqkm), and looking at the videos on the simulation, there isn’t nearly as much repositioning (or dead-running, or what they call “rebalancing” when a car moves without passengers to where it is needed, or to be recharged) as in the simulation I did based on Canberra. This is probably because:

a) their positioning/scheduling model is much more sophisticated than mine, which is very naive (and is designed to run very quickly during the browser simulation), and hence represents pretty much a “worst case” for number of cars needed. For example, even in peak times, at most 15,000 of the 23,000 cars are servicing trips: the rest are idle, repositioning or recharging).

b) their travel demands are much less “tidal” – lots of traffic in the Canberra simulation (about 22% of vehicle-km) is repositioning during morning and afternoon peak periods (mostly empty trips back from city/Parliamentary Triangle to suburbs in the AM peak to collect more commuters: note crucially that these trips are empty only to the extent that demand for travel (and hence travel-induced congestion) is low)

c) their coverage area is much smaller (and more densely populated!)

d) it doesn’t seem that they are accounting for vehicle recharging/refueling/cleaning

e) their 450,000 trips are much less “peaky” over the 24 hour day – they have heavy utilisation up until 1am! The sharper the peak, the greater the number of cars required: basically, the cars required are those needed to service this peak.

Researchers from Columbia University’s Earth Institute, OECD’s International Transport Forum, University of Texas and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and others have independent models and simulations, all showing similar results: a shared fleet of autonomous vehicles is cheap and effective in providing universal, on demand, 24×7, door-to-door mobility.

Of course, some auto-manufacturers are behind the curve. Just as “big-coal” panders to the climate-deniers and talks down the viability of renewables and the urgency of climate-change, the laggards such as Toyota (they belatedly launched their “Toyota Research Institute” to research autonomous cars years after their competitors) hope to reduce the advantage of the leaders with “Fear Uncertainty and Doubt”. For example, they are quoted in the CT article as as saying “None of us in the automobile or IT industries are close to achieving true Level 5 autonomy”, which is irrelevant to the task of commercialising the Level 4 autonomy needed to operate a shared fleet in a well-defined area such as Canberra’s suburbs, and which BMW, Benz, Ford, GM, Tesla and Volvo have announced they will commercialise in or before 2021. You have to read widely for enlightenment rather than selectively to reinforce preconceived notions and prejudices.

Over 26 years in information technology, the things I’ve heard colleagues annouce as “the next great thing” that has failed to materialise as they have believed it would, would have made me a millionaire if I had of placed a bet with them. And the number of times these people just talk over the top, waffling with irrelevant stats to hide the real truth and fantasy is, well, lets just say you are not alone Kent, you are normal.

As for the whole debate, I have one massive problem. For autonomous cars to work you are suggesting average occupancy WILL change from 1.1 to 1.5-2.2. Now even I will accept IF that were to happen congestion will reduce, but where is the scientific evidence or otherwise to suggest and prove that in 10 years time people will want to be sharing a driverless car with others? What is the incentive to share? And lets say people wanted to share couldn’t the same result be made today through car pooling?

And even if the figure were 1.5, in 10 years time, which would be the EARLIEST any autonomous car hire business could possibly start (to replace taxis and Uber etc) the amount of traffic on the road, even with the higher occupancy would be about equal to the number of vehicles on the road today at the same single point in time.

Being autonomous doesn’t reduce the space they take on the road, and in fact there will be autonomous and human driven cars on the road, so if anything the margins of error that would need to be programmed into autonomous cars to avoid human driven cars would need to increase. And my reading of the Toyota article is this margin of error and peoples natural distrust for risk involved with autonomous systems is why this kind of thing WONT be happening next decade.

Now lets say it did the increase margin of error would mean the the average space autonomous vehicles need on the road will increase, which increases congestion. Until such time as autonomous cars are all there is, and that won’t be in 2021, nor 2025 this simple issue will remain.

And a fleet of 23,000 you say? Again where are these things going to park when not in use, which will be for about 20 hours a day.

devils_advocate5:04 pm 06 Jan 17

bj_ACT said :

I actually thought the Tram was a good idea when first mooted, but changed my mind after thinking about the very low likelihood of getting Canberran’s out of their cars and the overall cost of the project.

So much truth, and well said.

Ohhh some of these transport reports I have been able to find on the web are just a magic read. They are so consistently wrong in their assumptions and future claims it would surely make even the greatest supporter of the Light Rail a little sceptical about Canberra realising the benefits claimed (to be honest these concerns have been previously highlighted by the government’s own auditor general and various public transport experts).

This over $200k in cost report from Booz Allen Hamilton which was thankfully mentioned earlier by Leon Arundell (I note Leon has provided some clear thinking on public transport issues previously) is a classic report of false hope, incorrect assumptions and some very dodgy claims (Canberra we need to try and get our money back from the consultants 😉 http://grapevine.net.au/~mccluskeyarundell/ACTElasticityStudy_FinalReport.pdf from Note Booz Allen is the company who bought the world Edward Snowden plus a list of other highlights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton

This report below had a speedy rapid transport for Erindale (the actual outcome now is that there are less 30 minute apart busses in Wanniassa than there used to be – the total opposite of what was proclaimed would be a rapid service every 2-10 minutes). https://www.transport.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/887250/ESDD_ACT_Transport_Policy_web_Appendices.pdf

This one has Public transport at 10.5% in 2016 and 30% of us would be walking, cycling or using public transport by 2026
http://timetotalk.act.gov.au/storage/EDS_ACT%20Transport%20Policy_Part%205.pdf

The problem is also that this highlights just how poor the ACT Liberals were as an opposition and how poor they were during the election campaign. How were they not able to articulate the inability of the ACT Government to deliver on their policy and predicted outcomes.

Ohhh some of these transport reports I have been able to find on the web are just a magic read. They are so consistently wrong in their assumptions and future claims it would surely make even the greatest supporter of the Light Rail a little sceptical about Canberra realising the benefits claimed (to be honest this was even highlighted by the governments own auditor general and a some public transport experts).

This over $200k in cost report from Booz Allen Hamilton mentioned earlier by Leon Arundell is a classic of false hope, incorrect assumptions and some very dodgy claims (Canberra we need to try and get our money back)http://grapevine.net.au/~mccluskeyarundell/ACTElasticityStudy_FinalReport.pdf from Note Booz Allen is the company who bought the world Edward Snowden plus a list of other highlights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton

This report below had a speedy rapid transport for Erindale (the actual outcome now is that there are less 30 minute apart busses in Wanniassa than there used to be – the total opposite of what was proclaimed would be a rapid service every 2-10 minutes). https://www.transport.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/887250/ESDD_ACT_Transport_Policy_web_Appendices.pdf

This one has Public transport at 10.5% in 2016 and 30% of us would be walking, cycling or using public transport by 2026
http://timetotalk.act.gov.au/storage/EDS_ACT%20Transport%20Policy_Part%205.pdf

The problem is also that this highlights just how poor the ACT Liberals were as an opposition and how poor they were during the election campaign. How were they not able to articulate the inability of the ACT Government to deliver on their policy and predicted outcomes.

JC said :


Autonomous cars as a mass public transport solution is quite laughable actually. I can understand and see autonomous cars being used to replace taxi’s and ride sharing like uber, maybe sometime late next decade, but that doesn’t mean it will be a mass affordable public transport solution.

Even the whole premise of reducing costs and congestion, pleeeeease. Reduced congestion? If my understanding is right the only difference to having your own car now is you press a button on your phone app, and then a vehicle (which would otherwise be park edin your drive/garage) will then appear….

Over 40 years in information technology, the things I’ve heard colleagues pronounce as “laughable” include TCP/IP (as an alternative to IBM’s SNA), mini-computers, PCs, Linux, relational databases, the internet, the WWW, SMS, smart-phones, tablets, SSD, climate change, …. The common thread in these colleagues nervous dismissal as “laughable” is often (sometimes wilful) ignorance but is always the threat to their vested interest, whether emotional, ideological or personal relevance. It has always been so, and always will be: protecting the status quo denies the possibility of change for as long as possible. So don’t feel bad, JC, you’re normal.

As I’ve described to you previously, your understanding of how a shared fleet of autonomous cars operates to reduce congestion is incomplete, but to repeat the salient facts: congestion in Canberra occurs in peak periods with car occupancy around 1.1 people per car; during these peaks, shared autonomous cars on highly travelled (and hence prone-to-congestion routes) will typically have 1.5 – 2.5 people per car, reducing the number of cars travelling the congested routes by 35%-65%. In Canberra, a shared fleet of about 23,000 can easily meet the travel needs currently serviced by almost 10 times than number of private passenger cars (and ACTION buses) – around 750,000 trips per weekday. This does not mean a shared fleet could replace mass transit in other, denser cities with relatively less road infrastructure. It does not mean a shared fleet will replace all vehicles (tradies’ utes, delivery vans, trucks…).

A shared fleet of autonomous cars is much more convenient than car-pooling: with 23,000 cars in a Canberra fleet, for 98% of journey requests, a car will arrive within 60 seconds of a request. It is also much cheaper and the commute will be much faster (less congestion). Fewer cars on the road at any one time means less demand for new roads. Idle cars are distributed across the city, and far fewer cars means much less demand for car-parking.

There is no need to imagine the size of the fleet – just model it. Here’s a model: http://canberraautonomouscars.info/model.html If you disagree with the assumptions, change them and see what happens. MIT researchers published a model this week of a shared fleet in Manhattan: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/01/1611675114.full.pdf

n summary, they demonstrated that a fleet of 3,000 cars with capacity for 4 people can serve about 450,000 trips per day with a service level such that 98% journeys start within 2.8 min and have on-route delays (diversions for other passengers) of an average 3.5 minutes.

The area of the simulation was Manhattan – just 60 sqkm (Belconnen is 77 sqkm), and looking at the videos on the simulation, there isn’t nearly as much repositioning (or dead-running, or what they call “rebalancing” when a car moves without passengers to where it is needed, or to be recharged) as in the simulation I did based on Canberra. This is probably because:

a) their positioning/scheduling model is much more sophisticated than mine, which is very naive (and is designed to run very quickly during the browser simulation), and hence represents pretty much a “worst case” for number of cars needed. For example, even in peak times, at most 15,000 of the 23,000 cars are servicing trips: the rest are idle, repositioning or recharging).

b) their travel demands are much less “tidal” – lots of traffic in the Canberra simulation (about 22% of vehicle-km) is repositioning during morning and afternoon peak periods (mostly empty trips back from city/Parliamentary Triangle to suburbs in the AM peak to collect more commuters: note crucially that these trips are empty only to the extent that demand for travel (and hence travel-induced congestion) is low)

c) their coverage area is much smaller (and more densely populated!)

d) it doesn’t seem that they are accounting for vehicle recharging/refueling/cleaning

e) their 450,000 trips are much less “peaky” over the 24 hour day – they have heavy utilisation up until 1am! The sharper the peak, the greater the number of cars required: basically, the cars required are those needed to service this peak.

Researchers from Columbia University’s Earth Institute, OECD’s International Transport Forum, University of Texas and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and others have independent models and simulations, all showing similar results: a shared fleet of autonomous vehicles is cheap and effective in providing universal, on demand, 24×7, door-to-door mobility.

Of course, some auto-manufacturers are behind the curve. Just as “big-coal” panders to the climate-deniers and talks down the viability of renewables and the urgency of climate-change, the laggards such as Toyota (they belatedly launched their “Toyota Research Institute” to research autonomous cars years after their competitors) hope to reduce the advantage of the leaders with “Fear Uncertainty and Doubt”. For example, they are quoted in the CT article as as saying “None of us in the automobile or IT industries are close to achieving true Level 5 autonomy”, which is irrelevant to the task of commercialising the Level 4 autonomy needed to operate a shared fleet in a well-defined area such as Canberra’s suburbs, and which BMW, Benz, Ford, GM, Tesla and Volvo have announced they will commercialise in or before 2021. You have to read widely for enlightenment rather than selectively to reinforce preconceived notions and prejudices.

Vanessa Jones said :

I have been campaigning for “blue rapid” weekend buses, from Kippax to Belconnen to connect with the weekend blue rapid buses. Please see my earlier comment on this article. We really need this service for Kippax. Where is the noise from the ALP, the 5 local MLAs and the Belconnen Community Council about weekend blue rapid buses to West Belconnen? They run every 15 mins on weekends from Belconnen to Tuggers. Why is Kippax so ignored? Where is the public debate, by political figures? Why the silence, for safe Labor seats like the Kippax area? Buses are the answer out here, as the tram line will take so long to ever get here. Why are Labor figures so, so silent? Why is the media so silent? Amazing…

Re Tuggers getting weekend rapid buses, can I point something out? Tuggers is a town centre, not a group centre which is what Kippax is. If you look towards Tuggers, Lanyon, or Calwell are the Tuggers equivalent of Kippax. Pretty certain they don’t get weekend blue rapid buses, in fact certain they don’t get weekday ones either. hough yes on the weekend Erindale does get them, but that is on the route from Tuggers to Woden soa tad different.

As to why the media and elected pollies (of all persuasion) are not doing anything, maybe because they don’t think there is an issue, which is what I believe and going by your election results the people of West Belconnen too. It seems to me you are the only one making noise. Refer to my post above.

rommeldog56 said :

Not surprised u have been banned. Don’t get in the way of tram enthusiasts and ACT Labor/Greens Govt spin and ideology. The Chief Minister, Kim Jong-il Barr, and his puppet ACT Labor/Greens Ministers and MLAs, also do that.

So does the Liberal party. There is even a facebook page called banned by ACT Liberals (or something like that) dedicated to those that have been banned for daring to question their policies.

Vanessa Jones11:56 am 06 Jan 17

mglew said :

Mr Haas banned me from his Facebook page when I began questioning the feasibility of light rail, and providing evidence such as white papers and studies proving that Light rail is nothing more than a money wasting attempt by train lovers to get rail into Canberra. These papers have refutable evidence that trams are less efficient and cost effective than buses, and in terms of green transport, electric buses are the big thing in Europe right now. Trams are an heirloom of the early 20th century.

On the face of it the introduction of trams into Canberra may benefit those in Gungahlin, but areas such as Lyneham, Kaleen and surrounding suburbs will be disadvantaged with the axing of bus services into the city. Instead a bus will need to connect in Belconnen or Dickson for either a 2nd bus or a tram into the city. Also traffic will be adversely affected by the tram with obvious limitations to the turning across Northbourne Ave north between Dickson and the Federal Hwy.

Check out some of the aforementioned evidence for yourself.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/light-rail-wrong-choice-cities?mc_cid=887235fec6&mc_eid=654758450f+Institute+Emails&utm_term=0_395878584c-887235fec6-142810349

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cost-of-running-sydneys-new-lightrail-line-blows-out-by-70-to-938-million-20161208-gt7gjl.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-27/light-rail-expert-warns-act-government-to-rethink-plans/6979196

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/angela-shanahan/light-rail-folly-illustrates-level-of-capital-dysfunction/news-story/53ea5b5a45bab45b635c38fc33be0a54

and there’s a whole lot more out there.

I have been campaigning for “blue rapid” weekend buses, from Kippax to Belconnen to connect with the weekend blue rapid buses. Please see my earlier comment on this article. We really need this service for Kippax. Where is the noise from the ALP, the 5 local MLAs and the Belconnen Community Council about weekend blue rapid buses to West Belconnen? They run every 15 mins on weekends from Belconnen to Tuggers. Why is Kippax so ignored? Where is the public debate, by political figures? Why the silence, for safe Labor seats like the Kippax area? Buses are the answer out here, as the tram line will take so long to ever get here. Why are Labor figures so, so silent? Why is the media so silent? Amazing…

Leon Arundell said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I would be fascinated to hear some really creative solutions to the current low usage of public transport in Canberra.

The Government’s Transport Demand Elasticities Study identified ways to get more people on public transport and, more importantly, to reduce the number of private vehicle trips:

* a 10% reduction in total public transport journey time (in-vehicle travel time, wait time and walk time) will increase public transport patronage by 8% and reduce private vehicle trips by 0.7%

* a 10% increase in parking charges will increase public transport patronage by 2.6% and reduce the number of private vehicle trips by 1%

* a 10% reduction in fares will increase public transport patronage by 2% and reduce private vehicle trips by 0.2%*

More information: http://grapevine.net.au/%7Emccluskeyarundell/LSNewsSep2016.html#__RefHeading___Toc2982_1507649706

It’s interesting just how wrong the claims of the Transport Demand Elasticities Study has proved. Despite the 10% increase in parking and implementing other key recommendations, Public Transport use in Canberra has actually declined since they introduced measures that they said would increase use by over 2% up to 10%.

This is the key issue with use of Public Transport by the good people of Canberra. About 75% of us have the disposable income to use cars and wear almost any associated costs (hey we don’t care if our Subaru, Audi or BMW costs us $15k per year in depreciation).

Despite having a Bus Stop right outside my house (and a Bus straight to work in Civic, I still drove and paid for parking). I can’t even explain to myself why I did this, but I guess it was a factor of privacy, comfort, options to easily pick up food and milk afterwards or the flexibility to leave or go where I want.

I think I am like many other people of Canberra. We think it’s good for other people to catch public transport, just not our self in particular. (ACT Politicians reflect this mind set too)

I actually thought the Tram was a good idea when first mooted, but changed my mind after thinking about the very low likelihood of getting Canberran’s out of their cars and the overall cost of the project.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

Meet George Jetson
His boy, Elroy
Daughter Judy Jane, his wife

At least Kent Fitch is looking to the future with his autonomous cars whereas you are stuck in the past with your trams.

For me, the present is perfect with self-driven cars in a city designed for them.

It doesn’t get much better than this.

Autonomous cars as a mass public transport solution is quite laughable actually. I can understand and see autonomous cars being used to replace taxi’s and ride sharing like uber, maybe sometime late next decade, but that doesn’t mean it will be a mass affordable public transport solution.

Even the whole premise of reducing costs and congestion, pleeeeease. Reduced congestion? If my understanding is right the only difference to having your own car now is you press a button on your phone app, and then a vehicle (which would otherwise be park edin your drive/garage) will then appear. For one that is now adding an extra journey to the roads, even if it is just waiting around the corner. You will then go to work as you would always have done, along with everyone else who would have been going at the same time. So same number of cars. Then they drop you off and need to head somewhere else. So in reality that vehicle will make MORE journeys and more journeys means more congestion.

Unless of course people want to car pool, but hey they can do that already can’t they?

Next imagine the size of the fleet needed? Where on earth are these vehicles going to park during the day or night when demand is lower? They won’t be parking in your driveway at night or in a commercial car park during the day, so where are they going to be. And how many would be needed, 30,000+ of them. Whilst technology may be close, to say they will be a mass transit solution is just pie in the sky stuff really.

So how on earth does it reduce congestion? Same if not more journeys and masses of cars parked or driving around when not needed. And what will be the cost it sure won’t be priced like a bus (or tram) ticket will it?

Not withstanding the obvious above I tend to agree with Toyota, that for the immediate to mid term future automation will be more use aiding human drivers not replacing them. Companys will and are developing solutions, and may well have them ready by 2021, but that doesn’t mean there will be mass market acceptance and saturation. 2050 maybe….

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/toyota-plans-years-of-building-cars-largely-controlled-by-humans-20170105-gtmfwy.html

I still think a Jestsons space car would achieve all the goals others claim autonomous cars will achecive, so much more space in the sky to be flying around waiting, due to it being more 3 dimensional than the surface of the land…

And whilst you are right a self driving car is the ultimate question has to be asked is it sustainable. Which I think the answer is firmly no. You only need to look at how many more cars are on the road now compared to 20 years ago to realise that, and building more and more roads (which would also be need for autonomous cards) just ain’t the answer.

In no way was I advocating the introduction of autonomous cars.

I was simply pointing out that there was a future, a past and a present in relation to transport in Canberra.

Thank you for confirming what I said.

mglew said :

Mr Haas banned me from his Facebook page when I began questioning the feasibility of light rail, and providing evidence such as white papers and studies proving that Light rail is nothing more than a money wasting attempt by train lovers to get rail into Canberra. These papers have refutable evidence that trams are less efficient and cost effective than buses, and in terms of green transport, electric buses are the big thing in Europe right now.

Not surprised u have been banned. Don’t get in the way of tram enthusiasts and ACT Labor/Greens Govt spin and ideology. The Chief Minister, Kim Jong-il Barr, and his puppet ACT Labor/Greens Ministers and MLAs, also do that.

Besides, its far too late now, at least for Stages 1 and 2 and after Labor/Greens are returned in 2020, for the other stages too. The hose has bolted.

And I think you may mean “non refutable evidence”, not “refutable evidence” ??

Leon Arundell said :

* a 10% reduction in fares will increase public transport patronage by 2% and reduce private vehicle trips by 0.2%*

Interesting that the ACT Labor/Greens Govt has just increased ACTION bus fares !!!

dungfungus said :

JC said :

Meet George Jetson
His boy, Elroy
Daughter Judy Jane, his wife

At least Kent Fitch is looking to the future with his autonomous cars whereas you are stuck in the past with your trams.

For me, the present is perfect with self-driven cars in a city designed for them.

It doesn’t get much better than this.

Autonomous cars as a mass public transport solution is quite laughable actually. I can understand and see autonomous cars being used to replace taxi’s and ride sharing like uber, maybe sometime late next decade, but that doesn’t mean it will be a mass affordable public transport solution.

Even the whole premise of reducing costs and congestion, pleeeeease. Reduced congestion? If my understanding is right the only difference to having your own car now is you press a button on your phone app, and then a vehicle (which would otherwise be park edin your drive/garage) will then appear. For one that is now adding an extra journey to the roads, even if it is just waiting around the corner. You will then go to work as you would always have done, along with everyone else who would have been going at the same time. So same number of cars. Then they drop you off and need to head somewhere else. So in reality that vehicle will make MORE journeys and more journeys means more congestion.

Unless of course people want to car pool, but hey they can do that already can’t they?

Next imagine the size of the fleet needed? Where on earth are these vehicles going to park during the day or night when demand is lower? They won’t be parking in your driveway at night or in a commercial car park during the day, so where are they going to be. And how many would be needed, 30,000+ of them. Whilst technology may be close, to say they will be a mass transit solution is just pie in the sky stuff really.

So how on earth does it reduce congestion? Same if not more journeys and masses of cars parked or driving around when not needed. And what will be the cost it sure won’t be priced like a bus (or tram) ticket will it?

Not withstanding the obvious above I tend to agree with Toyota, that for the immediate to mid term future automation will be more use aiding human drivers not replacing them. Companys will and are developing solutions, and may well have them ready by 2021, but that doesn’t mean there will be mass market acceptance and saturation. 2050 maybe….

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/toyota-plans-years-of-building-cars-largely-controlled-by-humans-20170105-gtmfwy.html

I still think a Jestsons space car would achieve all the goals others claim autonomous cars will achecive, so much more space in the sky to be flying around waiting, due to it being more 3 dimensional than the surface of the land…

And whilst you are right a self driving car is the ultimate question has to be asked is it sustainable. Which I think the answer is firmly no. You only need to look at how many more cars are on the road now compared to 20 years ago to realise that, and building more and more roads (which would also be need for autonomous cards) just ain’t the answer.

Leon Arundell4:55 pm 05 Jan 17

Maryann Mussared said :

I would be fascinated to hear some really creative solutions to the current low usage of public transport in Canberra.

The Government’s Transport Demand Elasticities Study identified ways to get more people on public transport and, more importantly, to reduce the number of private vehicle trips:

* a 10% reduction in total public transport journey time (in-vehicle travel time, wait time and walk time) will increase public transport patronage by 8% and reduce private vehicle trips by 0.7%

* a 10% increase in parking charges will increase public transport patronage by 2.6% and reduce the number of private vehicle trips by 1%

* a 10% reduction in fares will increase public transport patronage by 2% and reduce private vehicle trips by 0.2%*

More information: http://grapevine.net.au/%7Emccluskeyarundell/LSNewsSep2016.html#__RefHeading___Toc2982_1507649706

Mr Haas banned me from his Facebook page when I began questioning the feasibility of light rail, and providing evidence such as white papers and studies proving that Light rail is nothing more than a money wasting attempt by train lovers to get rail into Canberra. These papers have refutable evidence that trams are less efficient and cost effective than buses, and in terms of green transport, electric buses are the big thing in Europe right now. Trams are an heirloom of the early 20th century.

On the face of it the introduction of trams into Canberra may benefit those in Gungahlin, but areas such as Lyneham, Kaleen and surrounding suburbs will be disadvantaged with the axing of bus services into the city. Instead a bus will need to connect in Belconnen or Dickson for either a 2nd bus or a tram into the city. Also traffic will be adversely affected by the tram with obvious limitations to the turning across Northbourne Ave north between Dickson and the Federal Hwy.

Check out some of the aforementioned evidence for yourself.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/light-rail-wrong-choice-cities?mc_cid=887235fec6&mc_eid=654758450f+Institute+Emails&utm_term=0_395878584c-887235fec6-142810349

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cost-of-running-sydneys-new-lightrail-line-blows-out-by-70-to-938-million-20161208-gt7gjl.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-27/light-rail-expert-warns-act-government-to-rethink-plans/6979196

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/angela-shanahan/light-rail-folly-illustrates-level-of-capital-dysfunction/news-story/53ea5b5a45bab45b635c38fc33be0a54

and there’s a whole lot more out there.

JC said :

KentFitch said :

The good news for those interested in making transport for everyone in Canberra accessible 24×7, convenient (door to door) and affordable whilst reducing congestion, pollution, the costs of accidents, spending on roads and the space devoted to parking private cars is that shared fleets of autonomous cars will be commercialised by 2021.

BMW, Ford, Tesla and Volvo have committed to have fully autonomous cars (no human driver) on roads by then. Honda are now negotiating with Google’s spinoff, Waymo, to use their technology. Daimler-Benz have announced that “Connected, Autonomous, Shared/Service and Electric Drive” are their four strategic pillars [ http://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Mercedes-Benz-at-CES-2017-Connected-Autonomous-Shared–Servi.xhtml?oid=15098223 ]. [See also https://medium.com/@ford/building-fords-next-generation-autonomous-development-vehicle-82a6160a7965#.jv89p7vl4 ]. Ford, BMW, GM and others see their future in providing mobility as a service rather than simply selling private cars. Singapore’s government fully gets this, and are shaping their future so the technology meets their needs, rather than just accepting what is offered by the car-makers and other such as Uber [ http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/after-mastering-singapores-streets-nutonomys-robotaxis-are-poised-to-take-on-new-cities ] Canberra’s urban form makes it ideally suited to a shared fleet of autonomous cars [ http://canberraautonomouscars.info/ ].

Traditionally, advocates for public transport have tried to get people out of cars, but often, and especially so in Canberra, the convenience and speed of private cars has trumped their social, environmental and economic costs. But that is about to change. I encourage people genuinely interested in improving people’s lives through better and cheaper transport to investigate the technology behind and the social and urban implications of autonomous cars. There are thousands of starting points on the web, and the ACT public library even has copy of the recent book from MIT Press “Driverless: Intelligent Cars and the Road Ahead”.

Meet George Jetson
His boy, Elroy
Daughter Judy Jane, his wife

At least Kent Fitch is looking to the future with his autonomous cars whereas you are stuck in the past with your trams.

For me, the present is perfect with self-driven cars in a city designed for them.

It doesn’t get much better than this.

KentFitch said :

The good news for those interested in making transport for everyone in Canberra accessible 24×7, convenient (door to door) and affordable whilst reducing congestion, pollution, the costs of accidents, spending on roads and the space devoted to parking private cars is that shared fleets of autonomous cars will be commercialised by 2021.

BMW, Ford, Tesla and Volvo have committed to have fully autonomous cars (no human driver) on roads by then. Honda are now negotiating with Google’s spinoff, Waymo, to use their technology. Daimler-Benz have announced that “Connected, Autonomous, Shared/Service and Electric Drive” are their four strategic pillars [ http://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Mercedes-Benz-at-CES-2017-Connected-Autonomous-Shared–Servi.xhtml?oid=15098223 ]. [See also https://medium.com/@ford/building-fords-next-generation-autonomous-development-vehicle-82a6160a7965#.jv89p7vl4 ]. Ford, BMW, GM and others see their future in providing mobility as a service rather than simply selling private cars. Singapore’s government fully gets this, and are shaping their future so the technology meets their needs, rather than just accepting what is offered by the car-makers and other such as Uber [ http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/after-mastering-singapores-streets-nutonomys-robotaxis-are-poised-to-take-on-new-cities ] Canberra’s urban form makes it ideally suited to a shared fleet of autonomous cars [ http://canberraautonomouscars.info/ ].

Traditionally, advocates for public transport have tried to get people out of cars, but often, and especially so in Canberra, the convenience and speed of private cars has trumped their social, environmental and economic costs. But that is about to change. I encourage people genuinely interested in improving people’s lives through better and cheaper transport to investigate the technology behind and the social and urban implications of autonomous cars. There are thousands of starting points on the web, and the ACT public library even has copy of the recent book from MIT Press “Driverless: Intelligent Cars and the Road Ahead”.

Meet George Jetson
His boy, Elroy
Daughter Judy
Jane, his wife

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

The latest information I have is that the range of the CAF Urbos with the super capacitors and extra traction batteries is 800 metres.

That is not enough to navigate across the bridge and through the Parliamentary Triangle.

If indeed you are not involved with a light rail project you would have to be the most active tram enthusiast I have ever known (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Again think you are confused. On super capacitor alone the Urbos can do about 200m. In hybrid supercapacitor and battery configuration it can do 2km, but can fully recharge at a stop in standard dwell time, vis 30 seconds. Now 2km is enough to get from London Circuit to Albert hall with 500m to spare, as the distance is 1.5km, assuming no stop near commonwealth park which would drop the distance to around 1km. Though in reality it would only need to get to the hump in the bridge to then coast down to Albert Hall or London CCT if city bound so plenty of ‘room’ to spare.

And yes a serious transport enthusiast. You may have also noticed I know a fair bit about aircraft too which are my primary interest (or do you suggest I have some professional intrest in them too), and also know a bit about buses too.

I am not confused, the sources I obtained my information from are sound but you are confused about the rises and falls of the route from London Circuit to Parliamentary triangle and return I think.

It is impossible for any vehicle to “coast” from the crest of the bridge to London Circuit as Commonwealth Avenue inclines towards Vernon Circle along the way.

The tram would become literally stranded like the stranded asset it is destined to be.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

I respect the knowledge you have on all forms of transport but there is no place for enthusiasm in business plans when decisions that will affect the financial future of the Territory are to be made.

I see you have not got a sense of humour in the new year. You obviously missed the bit where I said the distance from London cut to Albert hall was in range. So coasting is irrelevant.

Re me and my enthusiasm again you seem to be making some insinuation that I am somehow involved in the project and decision making. Will repeat again I have no involvement in the project in any way shape or form. Indeed am I not firmly on record in this very board saying I don’t agree with the Woden extension? Hardly something someone with skin in the game would be saying is it? And I have been saying it for a long time too.

But interesting you seem to think your ill informed opinion is somehow more valid than someone else’s opinion (which could well be ill informed too).

As the poster above said I too fully trust the experts who design and build these things know what they are doing. And as mentioned there are already lines planed and in in use using Urbos3 operating wirelessly on distances far greater than what you have suggested is the maximum.

I accept your repeated claims that you have no interest in the the “trolley folly”.

There is no need to be so specific as to single out that you are not “involved in the project and decision making” in the project. If the recommendations that you are making are used in the end you should submit them an account, nevertheless.

And if you disagree with the Woden extension it is academic how far the wireless tram will go before the few passengers that will be using them have to alight and push the tram to the destination.

It’s strange that you are the only one complaining about my “ill-informed opinion” too.

The good news for those interested in making transport for everyone in Canberra accessible 24×7, convenient (door to door) and affordable whilst reducing congestion, pollution, the costs of accidents, spending on roads and the space devoted to parking private cars is that shared fleets of autonomous cars will be commercialised by 2021. BMW, Ford, Tesla and Volvo have committed to have fully autonomous cars (no human driver) on roads by then. Honda are now negotiating with Google’s spinoff, Waymo, to use their technology. Daimler-Benz have announced that “Connected, Autonomous, Shared/Service and Electric Drive” are their four strategic pillars [ http://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Mercedes-Benz-at-CES-2017-Connected-Autonomous-Shared–Servi.xhtml?oid=15098223 ]. [See also https://medium.com/@ford/building-fords-next-generation-autonomous-development-vehicle-82a6160a7965#.jv89p7vl4 ]. Ford, BMW, GM and others see their future in providing mobility as a service rather than simply selling private cars. Singapore’s government fully gets this, and are shaping their future so the technology meets their needs, rather than just accepting what is offered by the car-makers and other such as Uber [ http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/after-mastering-singapores-streets-nutonomys-robotaxis-are-poised-to-take-on-new-cities ] Canberra’s urban form makes it ideally suited to a shared fleet of autonomous cars [ http://canberraautonomouscars.info/ ].

Traditionally, advocates for public transport have tried to get people out of cars, but often, and especially so in Canberra, the convenience and speed of private cars has trumped their social, environmental and economic costs. But that is about to change. I encourage people genuinely interested in improving people’s lives through better and cheaper transport to investigate the technology behind and the social and urban implications of autonomous cars. There are thousands of starting points on the web, and the ACT public library even has copy of the recent book from MIT Press “Driverless: Intelligent Cars and the Road Ahead”.

Maryann Mussared said :

I would be fascinated to hear some really creative solutions to the current low usage of public transport in Canberra. I genuinely believe the buses should be free for a year, if not two. There has to be some sort of incentive offered to lever people out of their cars. The Government can build as many tram routes as they like, but the original somewhat misguided planning vision of the individual town centres where people lived and worked, disintegrated a long time ago.

Friends living in Gungahlin variously work in Queanbeyan, Belconnen or Woden. The tram will never be anything that they will factor into their commute – well maybe Woden if they are still living in Gungahlin and Stage 2 somehow gets built.

For the most part it is a lost cause due to the 1960’s NCDC design of Canberra, as Dungers and yourself have rightfully pointed out.

What the government can do however is make sure that new developments make public transport more attractive and viable. And the Flemmington Road and Northborne Ave developments coupled with light rail are what I believe makes both viable and also why I don’t believe light rail is viable to other existing town centers (except Molongolo) in the ACT, unless we want the corridors that separate them to be developed.

One area that has disappointed me however is Molongolo, as it doesn’t appear as if John Gorton Drive has been designed with light rail conversion in the same manner as Flemmington Road was. Because Molongolo to Adelaide Ave and to the city would be another ideal route with higher density housing along John Gorton Drive.

Maryann Mussared1:47 pm 03 Jan 17

R_Knight said :

Thanks to the commenters for taking the time to get involved in this conversation. It’s kinda the point of why WE, (it’s not just Damien Haas), decided to create PTCBR. Start conversations.

For far too long in Canberra we’ve planned for the city to be a car drivers paradise, not realizing the long term deleterious effects this transport paradigm creates. People like to comment, ‘it’s too late, we can’t change how we get around. People NEED to drive’. Well, that’s just bollocks.

Public transport can and does work when supported by appropriate policy in land use and transport planning. The way we get around in Canberra MUST change. I don’t care what your position is on the issue of car dominance, the fact is it is totally unsustainable from an economic, social and environmental perspective. That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact. If you disagree, you may as well insist the sky is green and trees are blue.

So, to further the conversation in our city, not just on light rail, (rail based transit being a demonstrably vital element in changing land use/transport patterns), but on creating a more sustainable transport system, a large group of us have come together to do a number of things: Raise public awareness of transport issues, advocate for an appropriate rebalance of priorities in transport infrastructure spending, and engage with the greater community on how to improve public and active transport for them.

Rather than relying on politicians to hand us ‘top-down’ solutions, PTCBR intends to be the public voice advocating for grass roots initiatives that allow the community and government to work together. Time and again, this approach has shown to produce far greater outcomes in terms of community ‘buy-in’ of infrastructure projects and other initiatives. Instead of pointing your finger and shouting ‘you’re doing it wrong!’, why not get involved yourself?

Robert Knight
Vice-Chair
PTCBR

PTCBR – I would be fascinated to hear some really creative solutions to the current low usage of public transport in Canberra. I genuinely believe the buses should be free for a year, if not two. There has to be some sort of incentive offered to lever people out of their cars. The Government can build as many tram routes as they like, but the original somewhat misguided planning vision of the individual town centres where people lived and worked, disintegrated a long time ago. Friends living in Gungahlin variously work in Queanbeyan, Belconnen or Woden. The tram will never be anything that they will factor into their commute – well maybe Woden if they are still living in Gungahlin and Stage 2 somehow gets built.

BTW before someone jumps on me for a lack of evidence or links about the Urbos 3 capabilities I offer the following:

http://194.30.98.38/img/prensa/notprensa/20090701100224tecnirail_june2009.pdf

https://www.dcstreetcar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Section-D-Part-13-1210-1350-pagesred.pdf

Note the first document is dated 2009 and states a working autonomous capability of 1.2km already beyond dungers claim of 800m.

The second document states 1.4km and although not dated I believe it was written circa 2012/13.

Since then CAF has been developing the system further, mainly for the Birmingham extension to the Midland Metro using Lithium-Ion batteries, as opposed to NiMH batteries. The use of lithium-ion is what gives the extra distance which extends it to (well over) over 2km and in the case of Birmingham without the super capacitor boost.

dungfungus said :

gooterz said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

Specifics aside if it costs a billion dollars extra we pay it. Because we have a mandate for a blank cheque for it to be built. If it costs too much and they don’t build it they should be voted out for misleading the territory.

A Free bus would solve all the issues light rail is trying to solve, and it would be cheaper for 70 years!

The only issue with free buses is it encourages people to live in the suburbs so developers can’t build those ugly lego blocks anymore.

Apperently 5000 people a year are moving in and yet with extra people the public transport use has collapsed.
There is no accountability anymore, be it lack of actual news reporting. It wasn’t that long ago it was made public that most of the speed camera didnt work and more recently the average speed camera got pulled out overnight all evidence removed.
It might be 2017 now but its feeling more and more like 1984

Why can’t Canberrans celebrate the fact that we are one of few cities in the world that was designed so the car could be the main mode of transport?

My prediction is that the proposed new Soviet style unit developments along Northbourne Avenue will have no car parking spaces so the citizens living there will only have a choice of walking, cycling or catching a tram to nowhere.

The traffic lights at the roundabout on the Barton Highway has been designed to increase congestion and frustration in the hope that Gungahlin drivers will abandon their cars and catch the tram.

Next thing the Govt. will ban SummerNats and replace it with a “tram festival”.

Oh the failure in the theory of celebrating Canberra being designed for cars is that was one part of a wider plan which is the decentralised town centre model. The theory was we would all live work and play in our own little town with little need to venture to other towns.

Now I am sure you will agree that the premis of live work and play in our own towns is rather flawed so goes to reason the whole car mentality is flawed as well.

And interestingly Gungahlin is the first town centre that has dropped a lot of the 1960’s NCDC mentality. No doubt you will say for the worse but frankly I reckon it is for the better. One key difference is the design of a commuting corridor of higher density housing which is ideal for different forms of public transport solutions like light rail.

What is a pity is Carnell and Bob Wynell didn’t build it when they first proposed it and the corridor. Because sadly many of the higher density properties on the Gungahlin section have already been built and commuting patterns already established. So will make it harder to change after the fact.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

The latest information I have is that the range of the CAF Urbos with the super capacitors and extra traction batteries is 800 metres.

That is not enough to navigate across the bridge and through the Parliamentary Triangle.

If indeed you are not involved with a light rail project you would have to be the most active tram enthusiast I have ever known (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Again think you are confused. On super capacitor alone the Urbos can do about 200m. In hybrid supercapacitor and battery configuration it can do 2km, but can fully recharge at a stop in standard dwell time, vis 30 seconds. Now 2km is enough to get from London Circuit to Albert hall with 500m to spare, as the distance is 1.5km, assuming no stop near commonwealth park which would drop the distance to around 1km. Though in reality it would only need to get to the hump in the bridge to then coast down to Albert Hall or London CCT if city bound so plenty of ‘room’ to spare.

And yes a serious transport enthusiast. You may have also noticed I know a fair bit about aircraft too which are my primary interest (or do you suggest I have some professional intrest in them too), and also know a bit about buses too.

I am not confused, the sources I obtained my information from are sound but you are confused about the rises and falls of the route from London Circuit to Parliamentary triangle and return I think.

It is impossible for any vehicle to “coast” from the crest of the bridge to London Circuit as Commonwealth Avenue inclines towards Vernon Circle along the way.

The tram would become literally stranded like the stranded asset it is destined to be.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

I respect the knowledge you have on all forms of transport but there is no place for enthusiasm in business plans when decisions that will affect the financial future of the Territory are to be made.

I see you have not got a sense of humour in the new year. You obviously missed the bit where I said the distance from London cut to Albert hall was in range. So coasting is irrelevant.

Re me and my enthusiasm again you seem to be making some insinuation that I am somehow involved in the project and decision making. Will repeat again I have no involvement in the project in any way shape or form. Indeed am I not firmly on record in this very board saying I don’t agree with the Woden extension? Hardly something someone with skin in the game would be saying is it? And I have been saying it for a long time too.

But interesting you seem to think your ill informed opinion is somehow more valid than someone else’s opinion (which could well be ill informed too).

As the poster above said I too fully trust the experts who design and build these things know what they are doing. And as mentioned there are already lines planed and in in use using Urbos3 operating wirelessly on distances far greater than what you have suggested is the maximum.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

The latest information I have is that the range of the CAF Urbos with the super capacitors and extra traction batteries is 800 metres.

That is not enough to navigate across the bridge and through the Parliamentary Triangle.

If indeed you are not involved with a light rail project you would have to be the most active tram enthusiast I have ever known (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Again think you are confused. On super capacitor alone the Urbos can do about 200m. In hybrid supercapacitor and battery configuration it can do 2km, but can fully recharge at a stop in standard dwell time, vis 30 seconds. Now 2km is enough to get from London Circuit to Albert hall with 500m to spare, as the distance is 1.5km, assuming no stop near commonwealth park which would drop the distance to around 1km. Though in reality it would only need to get to the hump in the bridge to then coast down to Albert Hall or London CCT if city bound so plenty of ‘room’ to spare.

And yes a serious transport enthusiast. You may have also noticed I know a fair bit about aircraft too which are my primary interest (or do you suggest I have some professional intrest in them too), and also know a bit about buses too.

I am not confused, the sources I obtained my information from are sound but you are confused about the rises and falls of the route from London Circuit to Parliamentary triangle and return I think.

It is impossible for any vehicle to “coast” from the crest of the bridge to London Circuit as Commonwealth Avenue inclines towards Vernon Circle along the way.

The tram would become literally stranded like the stranded asset it is destined to be.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

I respect the knowledge you have on all forms of transport but there is no place for enthusiasm in business plans when decisions that will affect the financial future of the Territory are to be made.

Dungfungus,
if the information you have is sound then surely it is publically available and you can post some reference links?

I mean, what you are seriously suggesting is that the planners, engineers and designers haven’t thought about the simplest and most obvious of problems to choosing this type of technology for this route.

I think i’ll stick with the professionals for the moment unless you’ve got some actual hard information to present.

I reckon there is a good chance the source is Canberra Liberal talking points. Always devoid of fact or to be kind relevant context.

Re the capabilities of the Urbos3 there is a city in Taiwan that is planning a totally wireless system using Urbos3 supercapacitor/battery hybrid. Charging will be at each stop. This is similar to the line in China already operating, which is from a different company not CAF. And also a correction above I said the Chinese one was in Shanghi it is in fact in Guangzhou.

And in the U.K. midland metro (Birmingham) is planning a wireless extension of their system using Urbos3 on just battery (no supercapacitor) with charging from the existing cabled line. Beleive the extension is about 1km in length so means 2km running off wire.

So gather these cities have made a dire mistake as well?

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

The latest information I have is that the range of the CAF Urbos with the super capacitors and extra traction batteries is 800 metres.

That is not enough to navigate across the bridge and through the Parliamentary Triangle.

If indeed you are not involved with a light rail project you would have to be the most active tram enthusiast I have ever known (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Again think you are confused. On super capacitor alone the Urbos can do about 200m. In hybrid supercapacitor and battery configuration it can do 2km, but can fully recharge at a stop in standard dwell time, vis 30 seconds. Now 2km is enough to get from London Circuit to Albert hall with 500m to spare, as the distance is 1.5km, assuming no stop near commonwealth park which would drop the distance to around 1km. Though in reality it would only need to get to the hump in the bridge to then coast down to Albert Hall or London CCT if city bound so plenty of ‘room’ to spare.

And yes a serious transport enthusiast. You may have also noticed I know a fair bit about aircraft too which are my primary interest (or do you suggest I have some professional intrest in them too), and also know a bit about buses too.

I am not confused, the sources I obtained my information from are sound but you are confused about the rises and falls of the route from London Circuit to Parliamentary triangle and return I think.

It is impossible for any vehicle to “coast” from the crest of the bridge to London Circuit as Commonwealth Avenue inclines towards Vernon Circle along the way.

The tram would become literally stranded like the stranded asset it is destined to be.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

I respect the knowledge you have on all forms of transport but there is no place for enthusiasm in business plans when decisions that will affect the financial future of the Territory are to be made.

Dungfungus,
if the information you have is sound then surely it is publically available and you can post some reference links?

I mean, what you are seriously suggesting is that the planners, engineers and designers haven’t thought about the simplest and most obvious of problems to choosing this type of technology for this route.

I think i’ll stick with the professionals for the moment unless you’ve got some actual hard information to present.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

The latest information I have is that the range of the CAF Urbos with the super capacitors and extra traction batteries is 800 metres.

That is not enough to navigate across the bridge and through the Parliamentary Triangle.

If indeed you are not involved with a light rail project you would have to be the most active tram enthusiast I have ever known (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Again think you are confused. On super capacitor alone the Urbos can do about 200m. In hybrid supercapacitor and battery configuration it can do 2km, but can fully recharge at a stop in standard dwell time, vis 30 seconds. Now 2km is enough to get from London Circuit to Albert hall with 500m to spare, as the distance is 1.5km, assuming no stop near commonwealth park which would drop the distance to around 1km. Though in reality it would only need to get to the hump in the bridge to then coast down to Albert Hall or London CCT if city bound so plenty of ‘room’ to spare.

And yes a serious transport enthusiast. You may have also noticed I know a fair bit about aircraft too which are my primary interest (or do you suggest I have some professional intrest in them too), and also know a bit about buses too.

I am not confused, the sources I obtained my information from are sound but you are confused about the rises and falls of the route from London Circuit to Parliamentary triangle and return I think.

It is impossible for any vehicle to “coast” from the crest of the bridge to London Circuit as Commonwealth Avenue inclines towards Vernon Circle along the way.

The tram would become literally stranded like the stranded asset it is destined to be.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

I respect the knowledge you have on all forms of transport but there is no place for enthusiasm in business plans when decisions that will affect the financial future of the Territory are to be made.

Thank God Damien Haas will be in the news. Where would we be without him?

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

The latest information I have is that the range of the CAF Urbos with the super capacitors and extra traction batteries is 800 metres.

That is not enough to navigate across the bridge and through the Parliamentary Triangle.

If indeed you are not involved with a light rail project you would have to be the most active tram enthusiast I have ever known (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Again think you are confused. On super capacitor alone the Urbos can do about 200m. In hybrid supercapacitor and battery configuration it can do 2km, but can fully recharge at a stop in standard dwell time, vis 30 seconds. Now 2km is enough to get from London Circuit to Albert hall with 500m to spare, as the distance is 1.5km, assuming no stop near commonwealth park which would drop the distance to around 1km. Though in reality it would only need to get to the hump in the bridge to then coast down to Albert Hall or London CCT if city bound so plenty of ‘room’ to spare.

And yes a serious transport enthusiast. You may have also noticed I know a fair bit about aircraft too which are my primary interest (or do you suggest I have some professional intrest in them too), and also know a bit about buses too.

Vanessa Jones said :

. Why does the ACT government ignore the needs of West Belconnen, as outlined above?

That is your perception of course.

As someone who lived in West Belconnen from 1978 until last year (save for 8 years living in in Sydney and overseas), so 30 years in total in the area, I disagree wholeheartedly with your claim of neglect. That is my perception of course.

HiddenDragon4:53 pm 02 Jan 17

“Public Transport Association of Canberra” – sounds so much more positive and progressive than “The Fewer and More Expensive Parking Spaces for Everyone Except MLAs and Favoured ACT Public Officials Association”.

Vanessa Jones4:22 pm 02 Jan 17

Safe Labor voting areas like West Belconnen need:
1. Blue rapid buses every 15 mins on weekends to and from Kippax. Currently, the blue rapid bus goes to and from Belconnen to Tuggers every 15 mins on weekends. Why doesn’t the blue rapid bus go to Kippax on the weekend? It does on weekdays. I have asked the Labor Transport Minister to fix this. We need this service to Kippax.
2. More bus shelters on main roads in Canberra, especially in West Belconnen. I have asked the Transport Minister for this. Will this happen?
If we can build 2 tram lines, why can’t we have these 2 needs above? Safe Labor areas should be cared for FIRST, not last. Why does the ACT government ignore the needs of West Belconnen, as outlined above?

gooterz said :

dungfungus said :

gooterz said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

Specifics aside if it costs a billion dollars extra we pay it. Because we have a mandate for a blank cheque for it to be built. If it costs too much and they don’t build it they should be voted out for misleading the territory.

A Free bus would solve all the issues light rail is trying to solve, and it would be cheaper for 70 years!

The only issue with free buses is it encourages people to live in the suburbs so developers can’t build those ugly lego blocks anymore.

Apperently 5000 people a year are moving in and yet with extra people the public transport use has collapsed.
There is no accountability anymore, be it lack of actual news reporting. It wasn’t that long ago it was made public that most of the speed camera didnt work and more recently the average speed camera got pulled out overnight all evidence removed.
It might be 2017 now but its feeling more and more like 1984

Why can’t Canberrans celebrate the fact that we are one of few cities in the world that was designed so the car could be the main mode of transport?

My prediction is that the proposed new Soviet style unit developments along Northbourne Avenue will have no car parking spaces so the citizens living there will only have a choice of walking, cycling or catching a tram to nowhere.

The traffic lights at the roundabout on the Barton Highway has been designed to increase congestion and frustration in the hope that Gungahlin drivers will abandon their cars and catch the tram.

Next thing the Govt. will ban SummerNats and replace it with a “tram festival”.

Which they refuse to help out or fund the historical railway society which includes trams. One day this tram will be in a museum for one reason or another no doubt they’ll still be prising themselves then.

Why are buses increasing in price? Clearly there is no financial incentive as we’ve seen with the tram. Public transaport has no defined goals.

“Public transport has no defined goals.”

It’s hard to plan for only 8% of the population when the other 92% are paying for it.

dungfungus said :

gooterz said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

Specifics aside if it costs a billion dollars extra we pay it. Because we have a mandate for a blank cheque for it to be built. If it costs too much and they don’t build it they should be voted out for misleading the territory.

A Free bus would solve all the issues light rail is trying to solve, and it would be cheaper for 70 years!

The only issue with free buses is it encourages people to live in the suburbs so developers can’t build those ugly lego blocks anymore.

Apperently 5000 people a year are moving in and yet with extra people the public transport use has collapsed.
There is no accountability anymore, be it lack of actual news reporting. It wasn’t that long ago it was made public that most of the speed camera didnt work and more recently the average speed camera got pulled out overnight all evidence removed.
It might be 2017 now but its feeling more and more like 1984

Why can’t Canberrans celebrate the fact that we are one of few cities in the world that was designed so the car could be the main mode of transport?

My prediction is that the proposed new Soviet style unit developments along Northbourne Avenue will have no car parking spaces so the citizens living there will only have a choice of walking, cycling or catching a tram to nowhere.

The traffic lights at the roundabout on the Barton Highway has been designed to increase congestion and frustration in the hope that Gungahlin drivers will abandon their cars and catch the tram.

Next thing the Govt. will ban SummerNats and replace it with a “tram festival”.

Which they refuse to help out or fund the historical railway society which includes trams. One day this tram will be in a museum for one reason or another no doubt they’ll still be prising themselves then.

Why are buses increasing in price? Clearly there is no financial incentive as we’ve seen with the tram. Public transaport has no defined goals.

gooterz said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

Specifics aside if it costs a billion dollars extra we pay it. Because we have a mandate for a blank cheque for it to be built. If it costs too much and they don’t build it they should be voted out for misleading the territory.

A Free bus would solve all the issues light rail is trying to solve, and it would be cheaper for 70 years!

The only issue with free buses is it encourages people to live in the suburbs so developers can’t build those ugly lego blocks anymore.

Apperently 5000 people a year are moving in and yet with extra people the public transport use has collapsed.
There is no accountability anymore, be it lack of actual news reporting. It wasn’t that long ago it was made public that most of the speed camera didnt work and more recently the average speed camera got pulled out overnight all evidence removed.
It might be 2017 now but its feeling more and more like 1984

Why can’t Canberrans celebrate the fact that we are one of few cities in the world that was designed so the car could be the main mode of transport?

My prediction is that the proposed new Soviet style unit developments along Northbourne Avenue will have no car parking spaces so the citizens living there will only have a choice of walking, cycling or catching a tram to nowhere.

The traffic lights at the roundabout on the Barton Highway has been designed to increase congestion and frustration in the hope that Gungahlin drivers will abandon their cars and catch the tram.

Next thing the Govt. will ban SummerNats and replace it with a “tram festival”.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

The latest information I have is that the range of the CAF Urbos with the super capacitors and extra traction batteries is 800 metres.

That is not enough to navigate across the bridge and through the Parliamentary Triangle.

If indeed you are not involved with a light rail project you would have to be the most active tram enthusiast I have ever known (and there is nothing wrong with that).

JC said :

My point which is still being missed is regardless of what the government did you would have complained. Call that a straw man argument if you like but think your comments on this board over a number of years shows me to be right.

Your point was not missed as u claim. And yes, it is a straw man argument to say that if the ACT labor/Greens Govt had made different decisions I and others on these boards would criticise that too. Like your claim to know a lot about Trams, I have over 25 years experience in Governance, public administration, major contracting and finance in both private and public sectors, so can see through the spin and obfuscations.

Fact is, the ACT is very poorly Governed and the fiscal priorities and decision making are very poor. As I have said before, I think that ACT voters/ratepayers have become conditioned to that though to the extent that it is now “normal”.

I will leave u to your defence of the ACT Labor/Greens Govt through obfuscations and straw man arguments.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

Specifics aside if it costs a billion dollars extra we pay it. Because we have a mandate for a blank cheque for it to be built. If it costs too much and they don’t build it they should be voted out for misleading the territory.

A Free bus would solve all the issues light rail is trying to solve, and it would be cheaper for 70 years!

The only issue with free buses is it encourages people to live in the suburbs so developers can’t build those ugly lego blocks anymore.

Apperently 5000 people a year are moving in and yet with extra people the public transport use has collapsed.
There is no accountability anymore, be it lack of actual news reporting. It wasn’t that long ago it was made public that most of the speed camera didnt work and more recently the average speed camera got pulled out overnight all evidence removed.
It might be 2017 now but its feeling more and more like 1984

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Dungers for the record your claims about the limitations of the CAF supercapacitor tram are wrong and baseless. The CAF tram is capable at running at full speed and torque with all services running including a/c and heating whilst operating on supercapacitor power.

Maybe you are confused with older style battery trams or trolley buses. Can I remind you we are now in 2017 and technology has come a very long way even in the past 20 years. China (Shangahi) now has a completely wireless tram system using supercapacitors that charge at stations and the CAF Urbos can be run much the same. And before you mention it the modular design of modern trams of which the urbos3 is such a design means you can add options like supercapacitor later on without expensive modification costs. Just buy and bolt the units on. Job done.

And I also figure your comments about vested intrest is pointed towards me. I shall remaind you yet again I do not nor have any role in the act government or any company that has a direct intrest in peddling or advocating the light rail project. I do have a strong intrest in all things public transport and do know a fair bit about tramways and buses.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

No not arguing that all. Arguing that if they had of done a costing document prior to the election some members of this board would whinge and whine claiming no mandate, yadda yadda yadda. Bottom line any proposal has to start somewhere and bit hard to have detail costings, engineering solutions and indeed a detailed route until you have stumped up money to start the process. Yet on here people complain if they spend money on costings and design (no mandate etc) and then complain that there are all these hurdles and hidden costs (commonwealth ave bridge anyone?) that make it impossible so it shouldn’t even be looked at.

Welcome to 2017 – and more straw man arguments to defend the ACT Labor/Green Govt.

Firstly, Act Labor/Greens went to the2012 election saying that they would spend m$30on pre Tram stage 1 studies. In fact they spent about 3 times that. In any event, I thought it was conclusively proven on RiotAct that they did not say that they would sign contracts and start construction before the 2016 election. Hence, comments about not having a “mandate” to start construction.

Then in 2016 election ACT Labor/Greens said that if re-elected, they WOULD build a tram from Civic to Woden. No other detail, supporting documentation, business case, costings, etc.

This is a categorical statement regardless of what the cost turns out to be, or the engineering studies, benefits costs ratio (if there will be one), etc. So, there is no argument about a mandate for Stage 2.

The fact that they got a mandate to build Stage 2 without that pre work/studies or even saying something like “subject to a positive benefits, costs ratio and providing that costs aren’t more than b$x, we will sign contracts to start construction of Tram Stage 2 before the 2020 election”, is as much reflection of Act voters and ratepayers as it is Act Labor/Greens business planning and due diligence.

And they haven’t just “stumped up they money to start the process” for Stage 2. ACT Labor/Greens said that they WILL build Tram Stage 2, so stumping up the $ to “start” it is a given now.

During the election campaign, Barr said he didn’t know how it will cross Commonwealth Avenue Bridge. If crossing Commonwealth Ave bridge isn’t a “hidden cost” as u seem to claim, what will it cost and how will it be done ?

Does anyone have any feasible alternative to closing one lane in each direction of the bridge so the Tram can run on it (that won’t cost Ratepayers an arm and a leg of course) ?

However, as it appears that ACT voters/ratepayers have accepted these poor business processes by re relecting ACT Labor/Greens, it’s all a moot point now. Many voters have become conditioned to this sort of ultra poor governance I’m afraid. Or are just apathetic. Probably both. It could only happen in Canberra.

Welcome to 2017 and more of the same. My point which is still being missed is regardless of what the government did you would have complained. Call that a straw man argument if you like but think your comments on this board over a number of years shows me to be right.

Thanks to the commenters for taking the time to get involved in this conversation. It’s kinda the point of why WE, (it’s not just Damien Haas), decided to create PTCBR. Start conversations.

For far too long in Canberra we’ve planned for the city to be a car drivers paradise, not realizing the long term deleterious effects this transport paradigm creates. People like to comment, ‘it’s too late, we can’t change how we get around. People NEED to drive’. Well, that’s just bollocks.

Public transport can and does work when supported by appropriate policy in land use and transport planning. The way we get around in Canberra MUST change. I don’t care what your position is on the issue of car dominance, the fact is it is totally unsustainable from an economic, social and environmental perspective. That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact. If you disagree, you may as well insist the sky is green and trees are blue.

So, to further the conversation in our city, not just on light rail, (rail based transit being a demonstrably vital element in changing land use/transport patterns), but on creating a more sustainable transport system, a large group of us have come together to do a number of things: Raise public awareness of transport issues, advocate for an appropriate rebalance of priorities in transport infrastructure spending, and engage with the greater community on how to improve public and active transport for them.

Rather than relying on politicians to hand us ‘top-down’ solutions, PTCBR intends to be the public voice advocating for grass roots initiatives that allow the community and government to work together. Time and again, this approach has shown to produce far greater outcomes in terms of community ‘buy-in’ of infrastructure projects and other initiatives. Instead of pointing your finger and shouting ‘you’re doing it wrong!’, why not get involved yourself?

Robert Knight
Vice-Chair
PTCBR

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Sooooooo the promise of a second leg in short order was just a pre-election sop to Woden residents? Surely not ! : )

Masquara said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

Forget the “drilling machines” in Sydney. This is Canberra we are talking about which in a couple of years will have a useless tram system able to serve about 70,000 only.

Those “drilling machines” are used when there is real demand for mass transit and that will never be the case in Canberra.

There are no engineering problems in putting tram tracks across Commonwealth Bridge. This has been explained numerous times on RiotACT.
The lane they are embedded in can be shared by all other road vehicles too (except of course bikes).
It is doubtful that the NCA will allow a catenary across the bride or within the Parliamentary Triangle so the very expensive and short life “super capacitor” system will be utilised.
This would be marginal due to the distance that has to be crossed so there would be no tram heating/cooling when in this mode.

There are also some long, consistent steep grades on the approaches to the bridge, around State Circle and into Adelaide Avenue. This type of terrain is not compatible with running “battery” powered trams.

On mornings when there are heavy frosts trams will be unable to get traction.

Clearly, none of these problems were considered before the pre-election announcement.

I know I will get slammed by our resident “experts” on these negative comments but they are more involved in this tram fiasco than most making comments on this thread, some may even have vested interests in the concept.

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

I think the limestone geology beneath the lake might mean they wouldn’t like to risk going under though.

JC said :

No not arguing that all. Arguing that if they had of done a costing document prior to the election some members of this board would whinge and whine claiming no mandate, yadda yadda yadda. Bottom line any proposal has to start somewhere and bit hard to have detail costings, engineering solutions and indeed a detailed route until you have stumped up money to start the process. Yet on here people complain if they spend money on costings and design (no mandate etc) and then complain that there are all these hurdles and hidden costs (commonwealth ave bridge anyone?) that make it impossible so it shouldn’t even be looked at.

Welcome to 2017 – and more straw man arguments to defend the ACT Labor/Green Govt.

Firstly, Act Labor/Greens went to the2012 election saying that they would spend m$30on pre Tram stage 1 studies. In fact they spent about 3 times that. In any event, I thought it was conclusively proven on RiotAct that they did not say that they would sign contracts and start construction before the 2016 election. Hence, comments about not having a “mandate” to start construction.

Then in 2016 election ACT Labor/Greens said that if re-elected, they WOULD build a tram from Civic to Woden. No other detail, supporting documentation, business case, costings, etc. This is a categorical statement regardless of what the cost turns out to be, or the engineering studies, benefits costs ratio (if there will be one), etc. So, there is no argument about a mandate for Stage 2. The fact that they got a mandate to build Stage 2 without that pre work/studies or even saying something like “subject to a positive benefits, costs ratio and providing that costs aren’t more than b$x, we will sign contracts to start construction of Tram Stage 2 before the 2020 election”, is as much reflection of Act voters and ratepayers as it is Act Labor/Greens business planning and due diligence.

And they haven’t just “stumped up they money to start the process” for Stage 2. ACT Labor/Greens said that they WILL build Tram Stage 2, so stumping up the $ to “start” it is a given now.

During the election campaign, Barr said he didn’t know how it will cross Commonwealth Avenue Bridge. If crossing Commonwealth Ave bridge isn’t a “hidden cost” as u seem to claim, what will it cost and how will it be done ? Does anyone have any feasible alternative to closing one lane in each direction of the bridge so the Tram can run on it (that won’t cost Ratepayers an arm and a leg of course) ?

However, as it appears that ACT voters/ratepayers have accepted these poor business processes by re relecting ACT Labor/Greens, it’s all a moot point now. Many voters have become conditioned to this sort of ultra poor governance I’m afraid. Or are just apathetic. Probably both. It could only happen in Canberra.

JC said :

First a clarification labor did not change stage 2 for Woden. There were several options on the table and that is the one they choose. Eg no change. Yes do agree they choose that destination for political reasons but since when did that really matter?

As for my comments not in any way defending the government think I am in record as saying I don’t support the Woden route or indeed any route except Gungahlin and park triangle to Kingston.

Just highlighting that no matter what they did you would find some reason to complain. Call that lame if you like, But the evidence is clearly on this board.

They did change stage 2 during the election campaign. ACT Gov’t, including Barr, said a number of times prior to the election that stage 2 would be to the airport. If u have to have a Tram, that made more marginally sense actually.

Regardless, there has been little or no work done on which route was best for the next stage after stage 1, including cost estimates, engineering studies, etc. Surely, even u would think that a pre requisite to selecting the rankings of future stages. Compare that investment decision involving Ratepayer $ to that undertaken by the private sector when planning takeovers, capital investment, expansion, etc. They wouldn’t just “announce” it without considerable due diligence, financial analysis and business related investigations – often taking 12 months or more. Those investigations for Tram Stage 1 were laughable enough but are non existent for Stage 2. So where to for future Tram stages. Might as well set up a a dart board or perhaps play “pin the Tram on the Map of Canberra”.

Criticising people for criticising the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t is lame ? Well, that’s why we have the ACT Govt that we have got – and deserve. There is far too much blind acceptance and excuse making about ACT Labor/Greens decision making and fiscal priority setting. Perhaps it’s a flow on from having so many Federal and ACT Govt employees and contractors as voters and ratepayers here. Too used to implementing Govt decisions where they don’t really have to think much or are paid to spin it and are too afraid nowdays to raise objections.

bruce_lord said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House.

I dont think Canberra Labor/Greens voters care how it will cross the Lake. They voted for it without any Benefits Costs Ratio, any formal costing or any engineering and other studies. Just print more monopoly money is the Canberra way.

And Barr has said that they will have to close one lane of Commonwealth Ave bridge each way to run the tram. They have no intention of of going under the lake or building a tram dedicated bridge.

And if they had of spent money on (a rushed to get it out prior to the election) design, costing and report prior to the last election you would have been whining about the report being rushed and there being no mandate for stage 2.

So you are arguing that just making a Billion dollar election promise to install a Light Rail route between Civic and Woden is better than rushing through a design and costing process.

Wow it’s no wonder the ACT budget has a host of future timebombs coming up over the next decade with this approach to government spending.

Considering the Auditor General and previous Treasury officials have been claiming doctoring of ACT Government cost benefit reports, than I presume the lack of time to release the analysis was for the rewriting of the figures to suit the electoral gains not for writing the report itself.

No not arguing that all. Arguing that if they had of done a costing document prior to the election some members of this board would whinge and whine claiming no mandate, yadda yadda yadda. Bottom line any proposal has to start somewhere and bit hard to have detail costings, engineering solutions and indeed a detailed route until you have stumped up money to start the process. Yet on here people complain if they spend money on costings and design (no mandate etc) and then complain that there are all these hurdles and hidden costs (commonwealth ave bridge anyone?) that make it impossible so it shouldn’t even be looked at.

rommeldog56 said :

JC said :

And if they had of spent money on (a rushed to get it out prior to the election) design, costing and report prior to the last election you would have been whining about the report being rushed and there being no mandate for stage 2.

If that’s the only defence of the ACT labor/Greens Govt you have, then its too light on and in the same vein as your “the Liberals would not have done it any different” comments.

Fact is that the destination for Tram Stage 2 was changed during the election campaign to be Woden, without any studies or costings. That was designed to win votes. Guess what ? It worked. But if air head ACT Voters and Ratepayers were happy enough to excuse that major business process flaw and write the ACT Labor/Greens Govt a blank cheque/mandate for Tram Stage 2, then so be it.

Those reports couldnt have been prepared during the election period anyway, so your argument about whining because they would have been too rushed, doesnt have substance.

First a clarification labor did not change stage 2 for Woden. There were several options on the table and that is the one they choose. Eg no change. Yes do agree they choose that destination for political reasons but since when did that really matter?

As for my comments not in any way defending the government think I am in record as saying I don’t support the Woden route or indeed any route except Gungahlin and park triangle to Kingston.

Just highlighting that no matter what they did you would find some reason to complain. Call that lame if you like, But the evidence is clearly on this board.

rommeldog56 said :

Elias Hallaj (aka CBRFoodie) said :

If we just rely on cars and private options as advocated by some then the hidden costs just become a greater burden on the whole community down the track, particularly on those who may not have any choice but to drive. The more voices there are advocating a better public transport system the easier it will be be to get to work, study and entertainment and enjoy a city with better access and less driving and parking hassles in the future.

Here we go again. But its too late now.

I have never, ever heard anyone advocate cars instead of public transport. People just do not believe that the Tram is the needed solution. But as usual, anyone who queries the Tram is typified as not supporting public transport in favor of cars. Its a rubbish conclusion.

And even post Tram, there will still be mega shortages of parking spaces for those who must use a car + cost of parking will be prohibitive for them anyway. The trip to work will not be any easier either. Congestion is forecast to increase along stage 1 route (because of the infill) and stage 2 will close one lane of Commonwealth Ave bridge each way.

And u claim that there will be “better access”, less driving”, “easier to get to work”, etc.

Yeah. Right.

The problem all along is most folk don’t believe in public transport anyway-except in a NIMBY way. Now that over 50% have voted for the tram, can we expect to see a resolve of those folk to backing up their votes with action and using what is on offer? Doubt it! I talk to a lot of people and the bus routes just don’t cut it. Which says we need to bring the planners and the current non users together and see what is missing. Since 2006 I think, it has always taken about an hour to get from Theo-Russell via the circuitous route. Tells me the planners don’t get it. There is no real evidence of “build it and they will come” in 28 years of self govt. Run a bus from Lanyon-Civic via Monaro direct and you have a winner in that area. But they have never managed to engage enough folks to make it happen despite the fact that 22 000 cars go in and out along that route from Lanyon. Another time perhaps, but I believe the second leg of the tram needs to be of an elevated type-NO CONGESTION.

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House.

I dont think Canberra Labor/Greens voters care how it will cross the Lake. They voted for it without any Benefits Costs Ratio, any formal costing or any engineering and other studies. Just print more monopoly money is the Canberra way.

And Barr has said that they will have to close one lane of Commonwealth Ave bridge each way to run the tram. They have no intention of of going under the lake or building a tram dedicated bridge.

And if they had of spent money on (a rushed to get it out prior to the election) design, costing and report prior to the last election you would have been whining about the report being rushed and there being no mandate for stage 2.

So you are arguing that just making a Billion dollar election promise to install a Light Rail route between Civic and Woden is better than rushing through a design and costing process.

Wow it’s no wonder the ACT budget has a host of future timebombs coming up over the next decade with this approach to government spending.

Considering the Auditor General and previous Treasury officials have been claiming doctoring of ACT Government cost benefit reports, than I presume the lack of time to release the analysis was for the rewriting of the figures to suit the electoral gains not for writing the report itself.

wildturkeycanoe8:06 am 31 Dec 16

Is this simply a desperate bid to garner support for the tram by getting those who want better public transport to join a group, then by default supporting light rail?
Also, how exactly is a group like this going to change or sway the government’s planning decisions? The public quite vocally opposed the Barton Highway roundabout/traffic lights chaos, but did they listen? Nope. They went ahead with their half-assed idea regardless and look at the result! I think because light rail is now already pretty much guaranteed to go ahead, Damien is looking for attention some other way.

JC said :

And if they had of spent money on (a rushed to get it out prior to the election) design, costing and report prior to the last election you would have been whining about the report being rushed and there being no mandate for stage 2.

If that’s the only defence of the ACT labor/Greens Govt you have, then its too light on and in the same vein as your “the Liberals would not have done it any different” comments.

Fact is that the destination for Tram Stage 2 was changed during the election campaign to be Woden, without any studies or costings. That was designed to win votes. Guess what ? It worked. But if air head ACT Voters and Ratepayers were happy enough to excuse that major business process flaw and write the ACT Labor/Greens Govt a blank cheque/mandate for Tram Stage 2, then so be it.

Those reports couldnt have been prepared during the election period anyway, so your argument about whining because they would have been too rushed, doesnt have substance.

rommeldog56 said :

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House.

I dont think Canberra Labor/Greens voters care how it will cross the Lake. They voted for it without any Benefits Costs Ratio, any formal costing or any engineering and other studies. Just print more monopoly money is the Canberra way.

And Barr has said that they will have to close one lane of Commonwealth Ave bridge each way to run the tram. They have no intention of of going under the lake or building a tram dedicated bridge.

And if they had of spent money on (a rushed to get it out prior to the election) design, costing and report prior to the last election you would have been whining about the report being rushed and there being no mandate for stage 2.

ChrisinTurner6:22 pm 30 Dec 16

It is great to hear that Damien is now thinking beyond the single issue Light Rail experiment. Many expert supporters of public transport were against Light Rail for plainly logical reasons. One is a likely doubling of fares seeing the Light Rail costs double the maintenance and operation cost per passenger of ACTION. Should we now consider making all public transport “fare-free”?

Elias Hallaj (aka CBRFoodie) said :

If we just rely on cars and private options as advocated by some then the hidden costs just become a greater burden on the whole community down the track, particularly on those who may not have any choice but to drive. The more voices there are advocating a better public transport system the easier it will be be to get to work, study and entertainment and enjoy a city with better access and less driving and parking hassles in the future.

Here we go again. But its too late now.

I have never, ever heard anyone advocate cars instead of public transport. People just do not believe that the Tram is the needed solution. But as usual, anyone who queries the Tram is typified as not supporting public transport in favor of cars. Its a rubbish conclusion.

And even post Tram, there will still be mega shortages of parking spaces for those who must use a car + cost of parking will be prohibitive for them anyway. The trip to work will not be any easier either. Congestion is forecast to increase along stage 1 route (because of the infill) and stage 2 will close one lane of Commonwealth Ave bridge each way.

And u claim that there will be “better access”, less driving”, “easier to get to work”, etc. Yeah. Right.

Maryann Mussared4:07 pm 30 Dec 16

Getting more people to use public transport? I have long been an advocate of making it free for a year or two. Even I would consider leaving my car at home to get something for free, but while buses do not run to timetable, MyWay is completely dysfunctional and bus drivers quite often rude and in some instances bad drivers, I will stick to my car.

Maryann Mussared said :

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House.

I dont think Canberra Labor/Greens voters care how it will cross the Lake. They voted for it without any Benefits Costs Ratio, any formal costing or any engineering and other studies. Just print more monopoly money is the Canberra way.

And Barr has said that they will have to close one lane of Commonwealth Ave bridge each way to run the tram. They have no intention of of going under the lake or building a tram dedicated bridge.

Elias Hallaj (aka CBRFoodie)3:03 pm 30 Dec 16

dungfungus said :

Elias Hallaj (aka CBRFoodie) said :

This is good news for public transport in Canberra. There are no simple or cheap solutions for transport. If we just rely on cars and private options as advocated by some then the hidden costs just become a greater burden on the whole community down the track, particularly on those who may not have any choice but to drive. The more voices there are advocating a better public transport system the easier it will be be to get to work, study and entertainment and enjoy a city with better access and less driving and parking hassles in the future.

Are you serious?

Only 8% of Canberrans use public transport.

Does that convey a message that 92% us want more public transport?

Thanks for your response Dungers, but it isn’t very logical. What relatively low PT use shows is we need to encourage more people to use public transport. As we grow our population density is comparable to cities like Adelaide and Perth (https://chartingtransport.com/category/australian-cities/page/2/) so it makes sense that we (like other smart cities) try and reduce the reliance on private motor transport. There are some things we do much better than other cities (like the use of bikes) due to our extensive path network and sensible laws and planning. We should build on that, rather than assume cars will always provide the best solution to everyone’s transport needs. Just because most people are happy to use cars most of the time (we own and regularly drive two) doesn’t mean that a car is always the best solution. We also cycle and/or use buses when it makes more sense, which is at least once a week. When we can do that it takes a car off the road and makes it easier for others who don’t have a choice and have to drive (less congestion, parking competition, wear and tear on roads, etc.)

Elias Hallaj (aka CBRFoodie) said :

This is good news for public transport in Canberra. There are no simple or cheap solutions for transport. If we just rely on cars and private options as advocated by some then the hidden costs just become a greater burden on the whole community down the track, particularly on those who may not have any choice but to drive. The more voices there are advocating a better public transport system the easier it will be be to get to work, study and entertainment and enjoy a city with better access and less driving and parking hassles in the future.

Are you serious?

Only 8% of Canberrans use public transport.

Does that convey a message that 92% us want more public transport?

Elias Hallaj (aka CBRFoodie)1:13 pm 30 Dec 16

This is good news for public transport in Canberra. There are no simple or cheap solutions for transport. If we just rely on cars and private options as advocated by some then the hidden costs just become a greater burden on the whole community down the track, particularly on those who may not have any choice but to drive. The more voices there are advocating a better public transport system the easier it will be be to get to work, study and entertainment and enjoy a city with better access and less driving and parking hassles in the future.

Hilarious!

Maryann Mussared11:44 am 30 Dec 16

I will be interested to hear how this ‘new’ group thinks is the best way to get Stage Two (which all the Labor voters out there voter for) across the Lake without completely defacing the vista up to Parliament House. I did read there are some old drilling machines available from the monstrously expensive West Connex project in Sydney, so going under the Lake is something I would like to see advocated. This would also allow preservation of the lovely trees (I think Cedars of Lebanon) on the median strip of Commonwealth Avenue.

Also not mentioned is the union fees….

So whats the difference between this and ACT for light rail?
Is it that light rail is expensive and now the group and haas has turned around and said well the rest of canberra can get the cheaper option?

Watch now as the cost benefits say that light rail isn’t economical south of the lake and the rest of the project is wrapped up.

This seems like the end of the lobby group rather than the beginning…

As I recall, the previous group Mr Haas Chaired, also referred to itself as the peak public transport lobby for Canberra.

Now this new one, also chaired by Mr Haas, is also the ACT’s peak body for public transport consultation, including Light Rail.

The “peak body” claim is self anointed, no doubt.

Daily Digest

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

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