Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Government to spend $375 million on light rail

By Canfan - 2 June 2015 153

light rail artist impression

The ACT Government will make a capital contribution of $375 million towards Canberra’s light rail project, Capital Metro, ACT budget papers have revealed.

The budget papers explain that the contribution, which is half of the project’s estimated $750 million cost and mostly funded by the sale of ACTTAB and old government office blocks, will be set aside for future costs of light rail. It will only be paid after construction is completed and services from the city to Gungahlin are underway.

Construction is expected to begin in mid-2016.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
153 Responses to
Government to spend $375 million on light rail
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
8
rubaiyat 10:42 am 23 Jul 15

Let’s not just get hysterical over anything that could change the current car monopoly.

How about stopping all the health campaigns to stop smoking, that is taking money away from the considerable medical resources and hospital beds that need to be paid for, by the more sensible and considerate taxpayers, to cope with the victims of smoking?

Are you working for, or a gullible dupe who buys the same cynical message pumped out by, the same cynical lobbyists working on behalf of the same ruthless damaging industries that create the mess that we all have to pay to try and clean up?

rubaiyat 6:04 pm 22 Jul 15

rommeldog56 said :

Anyone in Canberra who thinks that those $ would actually go to hospitals/health care here is dreaming – much of that $ (or an increase to the GST) will go to the loss making toy tran set network and be squandered on other unnecessary insfrastructure projects – not to Health, etc, where it should because this ACT Gov’ts fiscal proprities are all screwed up.

Car accidents ALONE are responsible for approximately 20% of hospital admissions.

A further 16% of hospital admissions are due to obesity as a result of driving everywhere and avoiding the daily exercise of using public transport.

You are claiming that trams, the healthy and safe transport option, will take money away from the victims of cars and freeways?

rommeldog56 11:19 pm 21 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

mcs said :

gooterz said :

Light rail works for flat places, we aren’t flat, Belconnen is a trek that light rail will never make.
We have bridges that arch. The flattest part of Canberra is the other side of the lake.

I’m not for the project in its current form, but suggesting light rail must have flat terrain is stretching the truth. Whilst of course the most efficient operation will be on flat terrain, it certainly can be utilised in places that have quite steep terrain.

Perfect example is Prague, in particular on the Castle side of the River, where the terrain is steep to say the least. If a system more then 100 years old can manage to get up hills that are every bit as steep as the climb to Belco, I’m sure it would hardly present a problem with a modern day system.

Mother Nature can stop a modern day tram system anywhere but especially in Prague:
http://www.china.org.cn/world/Off_the_Wire/2014-12/02/content_34211290.htm
I can hear the warmists already screaming “Climate Change”.
Same thing will happen regularly in Canberra.

What will stop the toy train set will be finances & the ability of the ACTs narrow revenue raising base to pay for it without substantial Federal Gov’t funding (like the Gold Coast project received).

A few days ago, it was in the press that the ACT Govt wrote to the bidding consortia advising that the infrastructure costs were now M$920+ (or there abouts). So, it’s gone from M$620 to M$780 to M$920+ and still the bids have not come in so the PPP has to factor in there profit, cost of mney, risk, etc. As predicted, this is looking like the cost blow outs in other Light Rail projects such as the Gold Coast.

And the Govt’s comment was something like “Well, they were only estimates you know……”.

Is it any wonder the ACT Gov’t supports an increase of 2% to the Medicare Levy. Anyone in Canberra who thinks that those $ would actually go to hospitals/health care here is dreaming – much of that $ (or an increase to the GST) will go to the loss making toy tran set network and be squandered on other unnecessary insfrastructure projects – not to Health, etc, where it should because this ACT Gov’ts fiscal proprities are all screwed up.

rubaiyat 8:24 pm 21 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

Same thing will happen regularly in Canberra.

I see your China/Czech report and up you:

http://www.informationin.com/2013/04/china-national-highway-110-traffic-jam.html

dungfungus 6:44 pm 21 Jul 15

mcs said :

gooterz said :

Light rail works for flat places, we aren’t flat, Belconnen is a trek that light rail will never make.
We have bridges that arch. The flattest part of Canberra is the other side of the lake.

I’m not for the project in its current form, but suggesting light rail must have flat terrain is stretching the truth. Whilst of course the most efficient operation will be on flat terrain, it certainly can be utilised in places that have quite steep terrain.

Perfect example is Prague, in particular on the Castle side of the River, where the terrain is steep to say the least. If a system more then 100 years old can manage to get up hills that are every bit as steep as the climb to Belco, I’m sure it would hardly present a problem with a modern day system.

Mother Nature can stop a modern day tram system anywhere but especially in Prague:
http://www.china.org.cn/world/Off_the_Wire/2014-12/02/content_34211290.htm
I can hear the warmists already screaming “Climate Change”.
Same thing will happen regularly in Canberra.

rubaiyat 2:01 pm 16 Jun 15

JC said :

Oh and I forgot to mention those buses that sent being used. I caught a 200 the letter day leaving Northborne Ave at Macauthur Ave at around 1030am and the bus was full. My return around 1pm wasn’t much emptier.

You are just feeding the double standard that buses are empty and bad, cars are empty and good.

Full buses are bad and empty cars stuck in traffic jams are good, but we need more traffic jammed roads.

All expressed by the typical over weight road raging driver sitting in traffic all alone in their car staring out at the bus next to them and saying “Hey its only half full”, ignoring that every passenger in that bus is one less mostly empty car on the road and way more than is in their car.

The late night bus picking up commuters not wanting to run the gauntlet of breathalysers, criticised by the car driver who’s had a few but drives anyway.

The “under-utilised” public transport system gets a serve from car owners who go back and forth from work twice a day and the rest of the time litter the city with their unused vehicles or leave them locked up in expensive garages that are yet another reason why housing is so “expensive”. I’ve seen triple garage MacMansions that leave next to no room for front windows or garden crammed onto their suburban blocks.

Car owners who park illegally, speed, drink drive, drive whilst on the phone, or without a licence, endanger other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, cafés and shop fronts, but come out in high dudgeon at the possibility of fare evasion.

Like everything the great unwashed bath in hypocrisy!

Rule one of Drive Club: No-one makes any sense about Drive Club!

rubaiyat 11:51 am 16 Jun 15

gazket said :

rubaiyat said :

gazket said :

Canberra has no where near this to have any comparison to Valenciennes in France what so ever. To compare the two is totally irresponsible of the ACT gov.

Valenciennes was first mentioned in 693 in a legal document written by Clovis II, so it has taken over 1300 years to reach 42,989 people, 11% of the population of Canberra which took just 100 years to spring forth out of an empty sheep paddock.

So you are right there is no basis of comparison between Valenciennes and Canberra.

When they built the Tramway de Valenciennes in 2006 they had 42,989 people who said “we can do this”.

Canberra by comparison in 2015 has a population overwhelmed with the difficulties of tying up their own shoelaces.

Just like the stubborn Labor-Greens MLA’s you miss the point. I will spell it out for you.

Valenciennes light rail links at least10 major places that people need to use over 9.5 km’s and actually looks viable.

Gungahlins light rail links 2 town centres one at either end over 12km . And one town centre is a jammed up hole that no one wants to go to.

There can be no comparison. Dedicated bus lanes would give the same outcome and be much more modular and cheaper. full stop

You obviously have not read my many other posts on the subject. Particularly on my bugbear the anti-transport planning of Canberra and deliberate sprawl with large gaps in the town plans.

I am no fan of the Gungahlin-City route but am aware that like everything in Canberra what you see now is not what will be there in the near future.

I am arguing for an inner city loop and a reorientation of the ACT plan to a more centralised, higher density residential and CBD layout with development along transport corridors to there destinations.

…and no more sprawl. Give the animals and the countryside a break and the people out of their cars and living healthier, happier lives.

It is possible, if Canberrans just get out of their La-Z-Boy recliners and mental ruts. And stop trying to imitate America’s mistakes.

rubaiyat 11:40 am 16 Jun 15

There is something seriously missing from the governments reports, and that is studies of population movement. I have tried to find anything that actually has analysed existing movements, but have not been able to locate pertinent data. The data ACTION had on the Gungahlin to City bus route disappeared earlier this year and never returned despite assurances it was “being updated”.

The whole point of the MyWay card, besides payment convenience, is that it lets ACTION know how its passengers use its services.

The much larger number of people in cars can be analysed by satellite data and spot surveys to establish the number of occupants in each car, which from all other research and simple observation is very low, between 1 and 1.2 occupants per car.

The number of registered vehicles in the ACT is known. Add in a researched percentage for out of state visitors and you would have very tight figures.

You would think that our Planners would have their fingers on this information. One, to see how their plans were working (or not) and two, to assess the needs for new roads and the effects of transport planning (if any).

All this data could be relatively easily processed to establish the total cost of simply moving around Canberra, in time and money, so that some sensible and productive decisions could be made instead of the “I say” “You say” that is going on.

If you want to make Canberra a more productive, cost effective place to do business or work, the costs and lost time associated with transport have to be right up the top of the list for things that can be changed/fixed. But you need to know where you are and where you are heading.

It is as usual in the interests of many that such information is not freely available or acted on, because some people can make a lot of money out of the inefficiencies and waste and also out of the bad planning and the strange exceptions that seem to pop up frequently to the stated plans.

gazket 11:18 am 16 Jun 15

rubaiyat said :

gazket said :

Canberra has no where near this to have any comparison to Valenciennes in France what so ever. To compare the two is totally irresponsible of the ACT gov.

Valenciennes was first mentioned in 693 in a legal document written by Clovis II, so it has taken over 1300 years to reach 42,989 people, 11% of the population of Canberra which took just 100 years to spring forth out of an empty sheep paddock.

So you are right there is no basis of comparison between Valenciennes and Canberra.

When they built the Tramway de Valenciennes in 2006 they had 42,989 people who said “we can do this”.

Canberra by comparison in 2015 has a population overwhelmed with the difficulties of tying up their own shoelaces.

Just like the stubborn Labor-Greens MLA’s you miss the point. I will spell it out for you.

Valenciennes light rail links at least10 major places that people need to use over 9.5 km’s and actually looks viable.

Gungahlins light rail links 2 town centres one at either end over 12km . And one town centre is a jammed up hole that no one wants to go to.

There can be no comparison. Dedicated bus lanes would give the same outcome and be much more modular and cheaper. full stop

mcs 11:10 am 16 Jun 15

gooterz said :

Light rail works for flat places, we aren’t flat, Belconnen is a trek that light rail will never make.
We have bridges that arch. The flattest part of Canberra is the other side of the lake.

I’m not for the project in its current form, but suggesting light rail must have flat terrain is stretching the truth. Whilst of course the most efficient operation will be on flat terrain, it certainly can be utilised in places that have quite steep terrain.

Perfect example is Prague, in particular on the Castle side of the River, where the terrain is steep to say the least. If a system more then 100 years old can manage to get up hills that are every bit as steep as the climb to Belco, I’m sure it would hardly present a problem with a modern day system.

rubaiyat 11:06 am 16 Jun 15

So summarise the errors that people repeat over and over again and never check, despite all the examples available and easily looked up research:

gooterz said :

Canberra is a town with 4 Major working districts.
It is also a town with evenly spread housing and many “Mountains”.

Canberra has 5 major town centres: City, Woden, Belconnen, Tuggeranong, Gungahlin and a sixth under development Molonglo.

It however has more working areas. There are also Fyshwick, Mitchell, Russell, The Airport, and over the border Queanbeyan and Hume.

The housing is not evenly spread. There are several areas of medium to higher density and growing as people choose to either downsize or grow tired of long commutes.

Light rail works well when you have a two dense population centres one of commerce and one of housing. We have one, being civic.

Absolutely not true. Light Rail works best when there is linear development along its entire route.

Also there are different styles of Light Rail intermediary between street car style trams which run along streets in traffic, stopping frequently, up to high speed Light Rail as used in the States, Manila and other cities which run in segregated rights of way with infrequent stops, more akin to heavy rail commuter services.

Light rail works for flat places, we aren’t flat, Belconnen is a trek that light rail will never make.
We have bridges that arch. The flattest part of Canberra is the other side of the lake.

Light Rail can climb relatively steep terrain. If you follow the old lines in Sydney you can see the old routes turning quite sharp corners and going up and down fairly steep slopes, particularly around Darlinghurst, Newtown and Marrickville.

To aid grip on rails they can have a zigzag pattern on their ride surface. You see that on standard rail in some locations. The Cairns – Kunandra railway for example.

The gently arched LBG bridges are no obstacle to LR and the same with a route to Belconnen.

The bus service isn’t used and its going to be used less with light rail.

The bus service is being used, but at a much lower rate than in other cities. That was because of cut backs in previous decades that reduced services and made connections much worse. Also the increasing amount of travel over long distances because of Canberra’s planned sprawl with large gaps, makes public transport generally difficult and unattractive.

Of course buses will be used less when Light Rail comes in, that is the intention, but only along the LR route. Feeder buses will still be necessary.

Half the people of Gungahlin probably work in Belconnen or Woden or elsewhere.

That is purely a guess with nothing to back it up. Reputedly a good number work in the City and Russell.

Given a permanent rail transport, residents will sort themselves out to live wherever is good for them and their work.

Light rail to the airport, is going to work well. Just about ever government department will try and move out there!

As that would be a point to point service with not much else on route, it will be attractive to people flying and possibly people working in Brindabella Park, Majura Park and the soon to be developed Fairburn Park. There are problems however with the route, the distance and the fact that the 3 Airport Parks are widely spaced destinations in themselves and as you point out it will reinforce the move to the tax haven of the Airport which is owned by Infrastructure Australia, who recommends and finances infrastructure like Light Rail and major roads.

Light rail ongoing costs are still a mystery. Yet we’re still committed to it?

That is not true and is a typical tactic used by Global Warming skeptics, repeating things over and over to confuse the issue without ever actually substantiating anything. The LR has been costed but is going to tender and the ACT has not signed anything yet.

gooterz said :

Pretty much no member in Canberra will admit to using public transport.

Have you asked them or are you making that up?

gooterz said :

Making public transport free would have a hundred times better effect on Canberra, and could be done before the end of the month!

Bald statement of “fact”. How do you know that? Where is your evidence, or trial?

There are many reasons people choose one transport method over another. Availability, timeliness, convenience and attractiveness are often bigger factors than cost. Public transport is already substantially cheaper than the alternative of driving, but people are terrible at maths, logic and comparisons. Usually they just take the easy way out and jump in the car, no matter the cost and do what everyone else does, complain about the traffic, the parking, the cost of fuel (which is not the major cost) and demand more roads further and further apart, destroying more and more of the “lifestyle” they think they are getting by living in remote suburbia well away from where they work or do anything else.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 9:11 am 16 Jun 15

gooterz said :

Making public transport free would have a hundred times better effect on Canberra, and could be done before the end of the month!

Making public transport free is, I think, a fantastic first step. Once we have a better understanding of how (and how many) people really use public transport we can then augment with other services, including the possibility of rail. Compared with light rail, free buses would cost bugger all.

8

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site