6 July 2018

Concern grows about light rail Stage 2 taking the long way round

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
99
An artist's impression of light rail on Adelaide Avenue. Photo: Supplied.

An artist’s impression of light rail on Adelaide Avenue. Photo: Supplied.

Concern appears to be mounting about the impact the preferred light rail Stage 2 route will have on southside commuters and the efficiency of the network as it grows, with a petition launched and some submissions to the current Parliamentary inquiry highlighting the issue.

Although still referred to as being part of the north-south spine, the Stage 2 route chosen by the ACT Government deviates through the Parliamentary zone’s employment and tourism centres on the way to Woden and will mean journey times of 25-30 minutes compared with current Blue Rapid bus times of 13-16 minutes. This will also affect northside commuters making their way to Woden.

Respondents to a survey last year during the public consultation favoured Stage 2 taking in Parkes and Barton, but travel times were not available at the time and the Government has been unclear about how light rail will affect rapid bus services between the City and Woden, apart from emphasising that there will be an integrated network.

The new bus network out for consultation already reduces rapid services between Woden and the City, with frequency cut from a peak-hour bus every two minutes to one every six minutes, which the Woden Valley Community Council (WVCC) says will mean commuters spending more time in interchanges.

“It is likely the tram (25-30 minutes) will take up to 15 minutes longer than the Blue Rapid (13 minutes off-peak, 16 minutes peak), an additional 30 minutes for the return trip from Woden to Civic, equals two and a half hours per week, equals up to 130 hours per year,” the WVCC says.

The WVCC has now launched a petition calling on the Legislative Assembly to:

  • Ensure public transport travel times are maintained for residents living in Canberra’s south should a light rail from Woden to the City be built.
  • Commit to a direct alignment (using the west side of State Circle to link Adelaide Avenue to Commonwealth Avenue) and extension of the track to Mawson.
  • Provide for express services by reserving room in the corridor for a future third track.

“The light rail Stage 2 alignment from Gungahlin to Woden (via Barton) does not provide a direct, fast service for residents from the south of Canberra,” the petition says.

Its submission says consideration of the section through the Parliamentary Triangle should not be taken in isolation of the broader network and approvals should not be given without a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

“This also includes investigation of the benefits and costs of longer travel times for the backbone of Canberra’s public transport network by deviating through the Parliamentary Triangle. It also includes analysis of the origin/destination data and the patronage data for over 130,000 people in Tuggeranong, Woden and Weston,” it says.

The Griffith-Narrabundah Community Association also has concerns about journey times, as well as the impact of light rail construction on the Parliamentary Zone.

In its submission to the Parliamentary inquiry, the Association says the Government’s proposal for light rail to enter the heart of the Parliamentary zone should be rejected until the ACT Government provides a full business case that includes a rigorous social cost-benefit analysis.

It notes that Government has announced that a number of direct bus services from the northern suburbs into Civic will be discontinued, forcing passengers to change on to the tram at Dickson.

“The Committee should take into account any plans for a reduction in direct bus services from Woden Valley, Weston Creek and Tuggeranong to both Civic and the Parliamentary zone which would have a similarly adverse effect on workers travelling into the zone from the South,” the submission says.

Out Weston Creek way, the Community Council is asking what’s the benefit of light rail if the service is worse than the current bus network.

“Council would be concerned if the proposed light rail could not provide the same timetable and service for commuters. If the light rail cannot provide a similar service then what benefit can the light rail provide?” its submission says.

It is also concerned about the indirect nature of the Stage 2 preferred route through the Parliamentary zone and echoes calls for a cost-benefit analysis.

The Planning Institute of Australia (PIA), while supportive of light rail and acknowledging that servicing Barton has merit, says in its submission that it is not clear that the opportunities of the Barton deviation should be part of the Stage 2 North-South corridor project.

“PIA is concerned that by adopting the Barton deviation as part of Stage 2, the opportunity for a faster north-south corridor service will be foregone. The resulting function and role of the light rail system would be different. This potential departure from a more rapid transit role of the network should be further justified against the overarching city planning and transport objectives that surround the project,” it says.

It believes Barton could still be serviced without sacrificing the integrity of the north-south corridor.

There will be a public forum on Stage 2 at Eastlake Football Club in Griffith next Tuesday 10 July, at 7:00 pm.

Speakers and participants will include:

  • CEO, National Capital Authority, Sally Barnes,
  • Deputy Director-General, Transport Canberra, Duncan Edghill,
  • Project Director, Light Rail Stage 2, Pam Nelson
  • Senior Manager of (Bus) Network Systems and Service Performance, Peter Steele

The forum will discuss the implications of light rail for travel options, costs and benefits, urban development, heritage values, and open space.

Join the conversation

99
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

blue rapid will go. once we have trams buses cant be afforded

Blue rapid goes when the new timetable come in. It is replaced in the south by one route that follows the blue rapid to the city and another that follows roughly the same route as the stage 2 light rail.

As for buses we getting 14 trams later in the year which will free buses up, plus there are 40 new buses to be delivered this year (5 or so have just entered service)l and 12 more have been delivered) which are replacing about 15-20 older buses (so a net gain of 20-25). 10 of the new buses are articulated and 30 standards.

Kinda debunks your theory.

These people who don’t mind doubling the travel time between Woden and Civic… do you actually commute on a daily basis? I take the 300 buses twice daily 5 times a week. I invite these pro-Barton route supporters to talk to 300 bus commuters in the Woden or Civic bus stations and ask what they thing. Cmon. Just stand there for half an hour during peak hour and talk to people. Real people that commute. I would be extremely surprised if anyone actually said doubling their Civic-Woden travel time is acceptable. I suspect all these so called expert decision makers don’t take buses at all.

Hi Spades, rest assured, the travel time between Woden and Civic won’t be doubled, that’s just more anti-light rail hysteria.

Astro2,
What are you basing that on?

From the figures being presented by the government, it’s clear that travel times will double.

Seems the only hysteria is from light rail supporters who refuse to acknowledge the flaws of their preferred transport mode. It’s seems like the support is almost religious at times.

Basing these times on actual usage. If light rail is estimated to take 25 minutes, including the stops around Barton/Parkes, then those claiming it “doubles” the time are estimating the bus travel time at 12.5 minutes, which is incorrect. However the language of anti-light rail folk often tips over into the hyperbolic.

The 25 minute estimate is for the direct light rail route, 30 minutes for the Barton route (and that would seem to be optimistic)

Seeing as the current bus averages 13-16 minutes, that’s pretty much a clear doubling, particularly for the preferred Barton route.

The hyperbole would seem to mainly be from people who can’t admit the clear failings of light rail and the route chosen.

I’ve asked elsewhere but does anyone remember when the 333 from Belconnen to the City used to take 15 minutes and travelled via Eastern Valley way and Belconnen way.

The a 5 minute diversion was put in to go up Hayden Drive and College Street.

Almost overnight there was an increase in useage on this route.

Now days a look at the timetable in peak hour shows this route taking 24 minutes, a full 9 minutes longer than before an interestingly about the same time proposed for Woden to City via Barton.

So in essence if stage 2 goes via Barton AND fully replaced the direct service it is no different to the diversion put into the city to belco route all those years ago. End result more people more locations.

And I say the assumption is the stage 2 will replace direct buses. If you look at the new bus network there are actually two rapid routes from the city to Woden. One is direct one follows the route of stage 2.

Whilst the government hasn’t said it I would almost bet that until an express stage goes beyond Woden then there will still be an express bus direct to the city. And if an express stage goes beyond Woden I reckon a bit will be built to make Woden to city direct possible.

If we’re comparing like for like on the route then 25 minutes is the estimate for the same route. The bus I caught yesterday took 20 minutes. Double? No. The bus times aren’t going to get any quicker. The advantage of light rail is that it doesn’t get caught up in traffic going over the bridge. Whilst I acknowledge there is a debate to be had around whether the light rail stage 2 should go left around Parliament House or right around Parliament House (with a few more stops for Parliamentary triangle worker) there needs to be more reality around travel times.

So what you’re saying is that an effective bus network can deliver the same benefits as a light rail one for a fraction of the cost?

And is also more flexible to be able to change routes as passenger numbers, destinations and preferences change?

I agree.

warren the cost of stage 1 is not and has never been $1.6b. In today’s dollars the cost to build, finance and run is just over half that figure.

The figure when you factor in inflation is about $1.2b in future dollars spread over 20 years. That’s not the same as buying something today for $1.2b.

Either way it’s still a waste of money.

JC, according to the auditor general the full cost to the taxpayer of stage 1 over 20 years in nominal dollars will be something like $1.78b. Given that the long term inflation target for the RBA is between 2-3 %, indexing the present value of the project at 2.5% p.a. for 20 years is more like $1.4b rather than your figure. However, the cost of capital is not measured by inflation but rather by interest rates. As such, your attempt to downplay the cost of stage 1 is misleading.

Regardless of cost measurement methodology, the government’s own study showed that BRT would have provided the vast majority of the benefits of LR for less than half the cost. As such the taxpayers of the ACT will be footing the difference, which effectively goes straight to the construction consortium and their primarily interstate and international suppliers.

Less than 1% of ACT Budget. I am yet to see any of the car fans raise the issue of the cost of all the new roads and associated infrastructure. But I guess, as they like to drive, the costs are always going to be affordable.

Capital Retro8:35 am 14 Jul 18

What about the “freebies” the tram gets by using the road infrastructure that is already there for cars?

Less than 1% of the budget?

This is a ridiculous statement when you consider the fact that the ACT cannot arbitrarily raise large amount of income through anything other than household rates and that the vast majority of our spending is fixed and recurrent on things like health and education.

When you then factor in the fact that stage one will only service a tiny percentage of the population, the reality is shown that it’s a huge burden on our budget.

The entire transport budget for the ACT is less than 5% of the budget. It’s a huge impost.

As for your take on roads, there’s been many people here who have suggested large spending on new roads should also face proper scrutiny but at least road spending like the Majura parkway was shown to have a cost benefit ratio of 4, compared to light rail stage 1 at 1.3 with some very questionable assumptions.

Garfield the same Auditor General report confirms the total contract value over 20 years is $939m in present (2016) day cost.

Weather it is $1.2b or $1.6b in future costs is a matter of different crystal ball gazing methods.

Yes, Chewy14, less than 1% of the Budget. As to your claim that Light rail stage one will only serve “a tiny percentage of the population” I doubt whether you could claim that Gungahlin plus the inner north is a tiny percentage. The anti-light rail claims about devastation to the health and education budgets don’t seem to be holding water. Cost benefit on roads also needs to take in the increased health impacts of over-reliance on the car which has been shown to have negative impacts on the health budget. That impacts on your cost-benefit assertions.

Yes, 1% of the budget, a massive impost as I’ve shown considering the makeup of the budget and the potential benefits of the project.

And yes, the area and population serviced by light rail stage one is tiny. Even if you assumed it served the entirety of North Canberra and Gungahlin, it would only be 25% of the total ACT population, but realistically it’s only servicing those who live near the line or around 10% of the population.

As for cost benefit analyses, they already include health impacts, so no changes necessary my “assertions” are just letting you know the facts.

Less than 1% of the Budget for an improved transport system doesn’t seem too much of an impost for most ACT voters. You don’t have to live right next to the light rail to use it. Plenty of Sydneysiders don’t live right next to the light rail however it is comprehensively used. You’ve also forgotten to take into account visitors to Canberra. Your ‘facts’ may need a little more research.

“Less than 1% of the Budget for an improved transport system doesn’t seem too much of an impost for most ACT voters”

But this isn’t the cost for an improved transport system, it’s the cost for stage 1 of a light rail network that might service 10% of the population. And that’s not even considering the fact that the government’s own research showed that they could deliver almost the same benefits for less than half the cost with a BRT system. 1% is clearly a huge impost.

As for visitor numbers, what makes you think they are concentrated in Gungahlin/NorthCanberra or that they would be travelling to/from those areas in light rail when there almost zero major tourist attractions in that route?

My facts are backed up by the research, the fans of light rail seems to base their arguments on emotion.

A 2016 report from then auditor-general Maxine Cooper found the nominal cost – not discounted to today’s dollars – would be as much as $1.78 billion over the project’s 20-year lifespan. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6118177/light-rails-675m-final-bill/ This is the correct answer to the question. We will be paying it off for 20 years and it wil be paid for with increased rates-did you look at your recent rates notice. And we ahven’t started Woden Stage 2 and 2A yet.

HiddenDragon6:30 pm 09 Jul 18

“….the Stage 2 route chosen by the ACT Government deviates through the Parliamentary zone’s employment and tourism centres on the way to Woden and will mean journey times of 25-30 minutes compared with current Blue Rapid bus times of 13-16 minutes. “

On the bright(ish) side, a tram wending its way through the Parliamentary zone will add to the gee-whiz theme park vibe for inter-State visitors to our fair city.

The Parliamentary zone detour also, of course, with all its concomitant costs and complications, underlines the point that after nearly 30 years of self-government, the ACT Government is still, to a considerable degree, just a glorified body corporate/strata manager for the federal Government.

The original plans for tuggerenong included a cable car.

A bus taking 100 people has the same capacity as a tram that takes 200 in twice the time. (The bus can do two trips).

A transport solution doing 200km/h between woden and civic would be 1000x better than any light rail solution.

A few things to ponder here. Firstly, the majority of people commenting here clearly catch the blue rapid bus with a frequency approaching nil. The reality is the schedule is rarely met and the reason for the quick trip between Woden and Civic is that the buses are more often than not exceeding the speed limit for most of the journey. I personally do not feel that safe on a bus that is chock a block with unrestrained passengers hurtling towards Armageddon with Ted or Terry Tradie (complete with mobile glued to ear) driving his overloaded ute one handed in the adjoining lane while trying to be inches ahead at the merge points. Secondly, due to gradient issues it appears having the light rail route follow the existing rapid bus route is too costly in terms of earth works. Thirdly, smart scheduling makes it entirely possible to schedule express light rail services by taking advantage of the crossing points along the route. Fourth, the proposition of running the light rail over Kings Avenue and along Parkes Way is an absurdity, aimed at making the project unviable. Fifth, light rail lends itself to being automated before the general motoring population, meaning the right of way will have benefits for a long time into the future. Sixth, there is no reason to be afraid.
Personally, I never thought the ACT Government would seek to implement light rail because they were too risk averse and lacking in vision. We should celebrate the vision.

Capital Retro6:23 pm 08 Jul 18

Celebrate the vision and lament the reality is nearer the truth.

Woden Valley Community Council10:34 pm 07 Jul 18

It is possible that the blue rapid is retained and the tram replaces the rapid that runs through the Parliamentary Triangle and on to Civic via Kings Avenue. Given that the Government has made the decision on the alignment it should be able to tell us what the underpinning assumptions are about the retention of the blue rapid. Does anyone know if the blue rapid will be retained?

The new bus network would seem to suggest it will be.

I also read the submissions to the Govt about Stage 2 and the Parliamentary Triangle. So to those that support the proposal, I ask-have you thought about the cost of the project? Have you noticed an appreciable improvement in our community facilities, pools, schools and landscape? Have you checked your rates lately? Stage 1 is expected to cost every household $56K over 20 years. Double it for Stage 2. Why spend that kind of money when the patronage history of this city is absolutely woeful? It just doesn’t add up!

bringontheevidence5:30 pm 08 Jul 18

You may need to check your maths. $56k per household is about $8.5 billion.

Come on, dont bring facts into it!

Capital Retro9:52 am 09 Jul 18

Based on the much hyped Gold Coast Light Rail requiring subsidies of about $50 million a year we could expect the same to be applied to Stage 1 of Canberra’s trolley folly.

Stage 2 will be double that so subsidies of $150 million a year will be required. Over 20 years with indexation that will be one heap of cash.

You’d be hard put to find anyone on the Gold Coast still opposed to light rail. I suspect opposition will also ebb away here once stage 1 is operating. A sign the Liberals realise this is that they’re quietly backing away from their opposition to light rail.

Can you define what a subsidy is? Is that just how much it costs to run over and above fare box take or the total cost of everything including the initial capital cost?

If the later can you please work out how much road building is “subsidised” using the same formula of including capital cost etc.

Capital Retro8:53 pm 09 Jul 18

Should I leave out costing of the considerable part of the existing road transport corridor that the tram will be using?

The question we need to ask is, where do we want to go? Are we trying to deliver Parliamentary Workers just to Woden or ultimately beyond? Who says Barton-Woden is the best route? If you live in Woden Valley (WV) you might agree. But if you live at Weston Creek or Tuggeranong Valley there is no way you would drive to Woden to get to Barton. So why would a tram take that route? Sorry, you planners are off your tree if you think you are going to increase patronage that way. Aint going to happen! I venture to suggest there are more folk waiting at the airport that want to come to our city, than WV folk. I live south east Tuggies and use Ashley Drive-Yamba Drive.

Jorge Garcia8:03 am 07 Jul 18

And since the Trams have a greater capacity there will be fewer of them compared to buses, meaning commuters will have fewer options for trips that will take longer. A direct route with buses looping around the parliamentary triangle to cater for tourists seems a better and cheaper option…

Car traffic can’t run along light rail tracks.

Have you never driven in Melbourne?

Travel there frequently, don’t see cars and trams sharing the tracks however. Wouldn’t try it, car would come off pretty badly out of any collision. Sydney is the same. On the other hand though, a “dedicated bus lane” can be used by a car. This appears to be why the anti-light-rail folk have suddenly become so pro-bus.

Sydney road trams and cars share the same lane. Plenty of other examples in Melbourne.

That said one difference between a tramway and light rail is sharing of the road. Light rail usually runs in its own right of way.

Sydney light rail doesn’t share the tracks with cars. The difference between dedicated bus routes and light rail is that the bus route is still a road where light rail tracks are different altogether. I do not envisage cars tootling down the light ail track.

Sydney road, which is what I was taking about is in Melbourne and very much shares lanes with cars. For most of the day the left lane is parking which means trams and cars share the centre lane.

Are you suggesting that cars will be able to drive down the light rail tracks in Northbourne Ave?

I’m not suggesting that. Just pointing out that in Melbourne trams and cars do share some roads.

Though of course the difference between a tramway and a lightrail system is mostly the separation.

Ok I think we are discussing the same thing here. There seems to be confusion by some posters between trams and light rail. My understanding is that Canberra is getting a light rail, not a tram. The confusion may have been helped along by the ‘Can the Tram’ people who have since changed their name. So, with a light rail system, cars and the light rail don’t share the same roadway. This has impacts on comparative travel times between light rail and buses. Buses can, and are, held up by car traffic.

Woden Valley Community Council7:50 pm 06 Jul 18

The new bus network provides more rapid routes (now 10) with the intent of getting everyone to the rapids for intercity trips. Unfortunately there are too many changes of buses required and suburban buses are performing two roles, access to the rapids and the school bus and local shops routes, which are meandering and slow.
The Parliamentary Triangle is significant and its public transport should be commensurate with its importance. It is not clear why there has been a change from Transport Canberra’s previous Light Rail Network that provided the Parliamentary Triangle with a separate alignment through to Manuka, Kingston and Fyshwick. What are the trade-offs from merging the alignments?
Travel times are important and with higher education consolidated in the north, people from Tuggeranong will have to catch a suburban bus to the rapid, wait for the rapid to Woden, wait for the tram to Civic then wait for a bus to UC or Bruce CIT.
It is important to maintain the objective of the backbone, fast, reliable trips between the town centres and work out how to get people to the rapids (and Xpressos). More Park n Rides?
If you would like to see the Parliamentary Triangle, Manuka and Kingston appropriately serviced without compromising the back bone, please sign the WVCC petition at https://epetitions.act.gov.au/CurrentEPetitions.aspx

I think you might have made one too many assumptions about what the future will hold re changes. The rapid bus network that has just been released shows two routes between Woden and civic. One starts at Tuggeranong and is direct to Woden and direct to the city. The other is indirect Woden to Civic via Barton. Now I am making an assumption like you but my assumption is the rapid direct bus will remain bwteeen Woden and city with the indirect route replaced by light rail. And in fact look at previous light tail network plans and they mirror pretty much the rapid bus routes.

So in future if a light rail stage goes from Woden to to Tuggers I would think they would build a direct connection around parl house.

Remember the old 333’s?
That’s the routes that high capacity, metro-style light-rail should be running.
Then let the buses service the hubs from the suburbs.
As far as Civic-Woden proposed route, they’ve essentially proposed a meandering, tourist route.
IMHO there are two best-options – one is from Civic down Commonwealth, onto State Circle then Adelaide Avenue into Woden with stops at the Hyatt, State Circle near DFAT, Hopetoun Cct, Phillip Pool and the Woden Town Centre. The other is Civic then down Constitution, down Kings, onto State then onwards towards Woden.
It has to be direct, high volume, high frequency – fast and efficient.

No such thing as metro style light rail. And this coming from a light tail supporter.

Where light rail works is servicing high density corridors not express routes.

Unless we go for the US style of light rail which is heavier and does work as a metro style but that only works where there is almost 100% right of way and zero toad crossings.

Metro: a type of high-capacity public transport, generally found in urban areas.

My point exactly. Light rail doesn’t fit your description. Want metro look at what Sydney is building.

it’s ridiculous that something like the potential route was put up for public debate like this.

Particularly when the consultation was a self selected survey, where the obvious respondents would be biased towards what benefitted them most, which was clearly going to be the route through the parliamentary triangle.

The current preferred route ruins any notion of this being a whole of Canberra network.

ChrisinTurner4:52 pm 06 Jul 18

Please wait till the Stage 1 experiment is in operation. The Stage 1 tram will be about half the speed of the Red Rapid bus it replaces and require twice as many people to stand as a bus. Now the new bus plan eliminates all Expresso services so the whole system is being slowed. The government refuses to give Transit Signal Priority for buses because a few cars carrying 1.1 people might be “disrupted”. Very sad for us public transport advocates.

Have you taken a look at the bus timetable for the red rapid stage 1 will replace?

Look at the link below.

The first 200 on a weekday leaving at 604 arrives in the city at 627 so takes 23 minutes. So 2 minutes faster than the 25 minute estimate of stage 1.

Now choose the service that leaves at 701 it gets in at 728 so 27 minutes. So longer than the planned light rail time.

And how about an hour later again leaving Gungahlin at 802 it gets in at 842 so 40 minutes!

So really a fallacy to say it is slower, that is only true when there is no traffic but when most people will use it at peak hour, it will be quicker!

https://www.transport.act.gov.au/routes-and-timetables/weekday?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZmaWxlcy50cmFuc3BvcnQuYWN0Lmdvdi5hdSUyRkF1dG9UVCUyRnBkZnMlMkZyb3V0ZV8yMDAucGRmJmFsbD0x

In my experience the Tuggeranong – Woden – Civic – Belconnen express bus network works extremely well and always has. The fastest leg of all is Civic to Woden. Gungahlin has always been a less accessible town centre for the bus because there’s no direct 80kmh+ road out there from either Belconnen or Civic. So at least there’s some justification for light rail in Gungahlin, hopefully reducing some congestion on Northbourne.

However, extending the light rail from Civic to Woden is complete madness! It’s perfectly serviced by the bus! Civic to Woden on the bus (or Woden to Civic) is an absolute breeze! The government’s doing this just so they can throw up thousands and thousands more apartments (and keep revenue ticking over) wherever there is a tram line.

Where will the new apartments go? The mint oval, Curtin horse paddocks, Yarralumla? Can’t see any of these possibilities being overly popular

The Civic to Woden service is OK, however it is increasingly impacted by peak hour traffic entering Civic so there are often delays along this part of the journey. Building the light rail now for future needs where there will be more business, govt services and people travelling, including car traffic, is part of the planning process of government. Building the Sydney Harbour Bridge probably had its detractors at the time as well. A very expensive project and one that took a long time to pay for. Is it a White Elephant? I don’t think so.

A fundamental problem with light rail for Canberra is that it needs to replace buses along its route to come close to being viable, but then is left in the position of trying to deliver both express and local services on the one fixed line. It’s not rocket science to see that its going to have failings for some or all of the people who want to use it.

Capital Retro7:03 pm 06 Jul 18

It’s timely to recall one of the late Harry M Miller’s sayings which was:

“I don’t know the formula for success but the certain way to failure is to try and please everyone”

It’s hard for public transport to be both direct and service multiple areas. We need to decide if light rail is to be the direct spine or the convenient slower option. It can’t be both

Mark of Sydney12:41 pm 06 Jul 18

This report fails to mention the mention the many submissions, including that by the Public Transport Association of Australia, that favour the route via Parkes and Barton.

Surely even supporters of the Light Rail in Canberra would concede that it goes against the first principles of public transport design to put in a service that almost doubles the commuters journey time for an existing service.

Use the money to instead complete a dedicated Bus and Emergency vehicle transit lane from Tuggeranong to Woden to Civic (utilising and extending the existing transit lane where it exists). Much greater Return on Investment.

Probably enough leftover money to include Weston Creek/Molonglo line to link in as well.

I’m a supporter of light rail obviously but I do disagree light tail isn’t necessarily about speed but about serving what is along the route.

Hence I am happy with stage 1, and although not beset with stage 2 I can now see what they are trying to do going via Barton. And what do I mean by that look at the new bus map and it is clear that with light rail stage 2 they are trying to connect the parl triangle to the city and Woden not provide a mechanism to get from Woden (or tuggers) to the city. There are two “rapid” routes I would assume the express bus route would stay and light rail just takes over the rapid that goes via the triangle.

That said very disappointed to see the express buses missing from Gungahlin. The original plan was for them to stay in the peaks but now gone for a change in Gungahlin. That I think is crazy.

Yes,
Just like the express buses from Tuggeranong to the City are now gone replaced with significantly slower ones that go through Woden.

If you think they won’t get rid of those express Woden-Civic buses if light rail is built, I’ve got a bridge for sale that you’ll surely be interested in.

Each cannibalises off the other, there’s no way they’ll continue to run both long term. Everyone will be funnelled to the start or end of the light rail.

Capital Retro7:05 pm 06 Jul 18

At last JC, you are starting to see the folly part of the trolley folly.

Wouldn’t go that far.

Some of the timeframes expressed around light rail vs bus appear to be a little predisposed to taking a certain view against light rail. An express Woden to City bus in peak-hour is usually closer to 20 minutes than 13 to 16. The reality of increased traffic when entering the city will only make this time longer. Light-rail, on the other hand, doesn’t have to compete with car traffic so a difference of around 5 minutes due to the extension around Parliamentary Triangle would be closer to the mark. The extra five minutes will also many people to access their workplaces easily in the Parliamentary triangle.

How does light rail not compete with car traffic? It runs on tracks down the middle or along existing roads. Does it magically teleport through intersections? Seems to me it’s like a bus, but less flexible as it’s forever tied to whatever route the tracks take. If it was elevated or tunneled underground I would agree with you.

There’s no reason that the bus has to compete with traffic if light rail doesn’t. They can follow the same route.

And the bus from Woden to Civic does average around 15 minutes, even in peak. The light rail will never be able to compete with time in this regard due to it’s top speed, unless there was a ridiculously high amount of stops, which there aren’t.

Capital Retro7:07 pm 06 Jul 18

Trams are at least 10kmh slower that cars and buses but hey, they’re sexier ( in the eyes of some).

I presume it will not be in the same lane as cars. I have been in bumper to bumper traffic in a bus – peak hour and some event on – and it took about 30 minutes longer than it should have to get to Woden, because it was blocked by cars. A tram should not have this problem.

Maximum is speed slower but it is average speed that matters. And average speed is a combination of maximum, acceleration, deceleration and stop dwell time.

Comparing a bus to light rail tram wins hands down in acceleration, deceleration and reduced dwell time at stops. Makes up any difference compared to maximum speed.

And good example is Woden to city. It’s is 12km and takes a bus 15 minutes off peak. Which is an average speed of 48km/h.

I think your estimates are a trifle optimistic. Timelines, particularly in peak hour, are dependent on traffic entering the city which has been steadily increasing in recent years.

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.