Government to spend $375 million on light rail

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.

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.

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.

gooterz said :

So summarise the ideas.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

gooterz said :

So summarise the ideas.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some very interesting and not to mention wrong assumptions in there. Where do I start?

Of firstly Canbberras population is NOT evenly spread. There are pockets of higher density housing throughout the city, one such area is the Northborne Ave and Flemmington Road corridor. Now remind me where do they propose to run light rail? Hmm

Secondly light rail does not need flat terrain, modern trams are more tha. Capable of climbing quite steep gradients. That said remind me again where do they propose to run light rail? Yeah the Northborne and Flemmington road corridor. Now what’s the terrain like on this corridor? Yeah reasonably flat with a few minor rises that will pose no issue what so ever.

So summarise the ideas.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those of you casting about for the never ending excuses, I know the Arrondissement of Valenciennes (the area including all the countryside outside) has a population of 353,994 (density of 560/km2).

The Tramway de Valenciennes does not cover the entire population.

Inner Canberra (Inner North and South) has a population of 72,184 almost twice that of inner Valenciennes and Canberra’s metropolitan density is 428.6/km2, 80% of Valencienne’s.

Inner Canberra’s population and density is increasing dramatically and will be enhanced by a suitable clean, handy and attractive transport system.

Where we might agree is that the chosen route should link our major attractions, retail, restaurant precincts, educational institutions, sports fields and workplaces, plus other forms of transport. i.e. A loop around the lake and Dickson.

In which case the argument, as I see it is, not whether we should have Light Rail but where we should have it.

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

damien haas said :

rubaiyat said :

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Personally the NCA would be the last people I’d turn to for aesthetic advice.

Any simple poles or catenary wiring will be no more obtrusive than the existing much taller road lighting the NCA has seen fit to install.

I don’t disagree, but the NCA have the statutory authority to approve works in the parliamentary Triangle. This is their advice at present.

The NCA is utterly ineffectual. e.g. Between four and eight private cars are parked at the Tent Embassy daily, as has been the case for several months, and not one has been booked.

You have mentioned this before and I have to agree with you.
Funny how the Canberra left accepts double standards.

Interesting thought process Dunders. How does the AFP not booking illegal parking on Commonwealth land translate into “Canberra left accepts double standards”?

The AFP have no jurisdiction over parking in the Parliamentary Triangle – it’s now managed by a private parking company.

Nope, obfuscation won’t wash. How are you connecting “Canberra left accepts double standards” with illegal parking in front of Parliament house?

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.

gazket said :

ACT government e.g. of light rail in similar size population.
Valenciennes in France pop 390,000

from what I could see on Google earth this is what is actually found. and bear in mind Peugeot and Citroen also have a massive factory here.

Their light rail starts at a massive UNI and Campus much bigger than the ANU here’
It then runs past 2 huge shopping centres, a big town centre, a heap of housing and units, another town centre, Train station, town centre, town centre, Industrial area, town centre another massive shopping centre. all this in 9.5km of track.

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.

What was that famous quote of Labor’s Graeme Richardson?
That’s right, “whatever it takes”.

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

damien haas said :

rubaiyat said :

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Personally the NCA would be the last people I’d turn to for aesthetic advice.

Any simple poles or catenary wiring will be no more obtrusive than the existing much taller road lighting the NCA has seen fit to install.

I don’t disagree, but the NCA have the statutory authority to approve works in the parliamentary Triangle. This is their advice at present.

The NCA is utterly ineffectual. e.g. Between four and eight private cars are parked at the Tent Embassy daily, as has been the case for several months, and not one has been booked.

You have mentioned this before and I have to agree with you.
Funny how the Canberra left accepts double standards.

Interesting thought process Dunders. How does the AFP not booking illegal parking on Commonwealth land translate into “Canberra left accepts double standards”?

The AFP have no jurisdiction over parking in the Parliamentary Triangle – it’s now managed by a private parking company.

ACT government e.g. of light rail in similar size population.
Valenciennes in France pop 390,000

from what I could see on Google earth this is what is actually found. and bear in mind Peugeot and Citroen also have a massive factory here.

Their light rail starts at a massive UNI and Campus much bigger than the ANU here’
It then runs past 2 huge shopping centres, a big town centre, a heap of housing and units, another town centre, Train station, town centre, town centre, Industrial area, town centre another massive shopping centre. all this in 9.5km of track.

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.

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

damien haas said :

rubaiyat said :

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Personally the NCA would be the last people I’d turn to for aesthetic advice.

Any simple poles or catenary wiring will be no more obtrusive than the existing much taller road lighting the NCA has seen fit to install.

I don’t disagree, but the NCA have the statutory authority to approve works in the parliamentary Triangle. This is their advice at present.

The NCA is utterly ineffectual. e.g. Between four and eight private cars are parked at the Tent Embassy daily, as has been the case for several months, and not one has been booked.

You have mentioned this before and I have to agree with you.
Funny how the Canberra left accepts double standards.

Interesting thought process Dunders. How does the AFP not booking illegal parking on Commonwealth land translate into “Canberra left accepts double standards”?

The Canberra Times has a story on the State of the Regions report by the Australian Local Government Association which outlines the failures of Canberra’s town centres.

Basically it points out the town centres exist solely for convenient car parking, as if that was the raison de terre for everything, but then fail to act as real decentralised work centres because they are too close to be separate labour markets but are too far apart to be workable centres for interaction.

“[Canberra] has enough offices to form one reasonably-significant CBD – with employment, say, 150,000 – but instead has four or five major clumps of offices, one of which Civic is now acknowledged as its CBD and two more of which are ‘town centres’ which in theory provide both employment and retail services for a surrounding group of suburbs.

They are too small to reap the economies of agglomeration generated by the knowledge economy; they lack the ease of pedestrian interaction which would have been possible had they been co-located.”

The planners worked backwards from their car obsession and land speculation to produce the worst possible results, which are now starting to bite. Hopefully the battle between the business as usual and the forward thinking group in Planning will tip in favour of the denser, centralised model, but with the recent launch of Molonglo the chances don’t look good.

I am surprised that no one has referred to the second Canberra Times article by David Hughes (economist and former academic who was head of major project analysis for ACT Treasury and director of the economic branch, 2002-2005) titled “Rail supporters miss mark”.
This was published in last Friday’s Canberra Times and it questioned the lack of analysis in another recent CT article by Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability at Perth’s Curtin University.
Followers of the light rail saga would know of Professor Newman as one of the leading cheerleaders for the Capital Metro Project.
Perhaps there has been no reference to Hughes’ article there are fewer people reading the CT than ever before and I can understand this, as only the toughest people can take the ever increasing “Abbott, Abbott, Abbott” mantra that the Fairfax press dishes up day after day.
Those interested should be able to Google the article.
The last paragraph of Hughes article says it all: “In trying to defend the Gungahlin tram, Professor Newman inadvertently highlights some of its many deficiencies. The questioning of this ridiculous project will continue”.
I look forward to it.

Masquara said :

damien haas said :

rubaiyat said :

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Personally the NCA would be the last people I’d turn to for aesthetic advice.

Any simple poles or catenary wiring will be no more obtrusive than the existing much taller road lighting the NCA has seen fit to install.

I don’t disagree, but the NCA have the statutory authority to approve works in the parliamentary Triangle. This is their advice at present.

The NCA is utterly ineffectual. e.g. Between four and eight private cars are parked at the Tent Embassy daily, as has been the case for several months, and not one has been booked.

You have mentioned this before and I have to agree with you.
Funny how the Canberra left accepts double standards.

rommeldog56 said :

Whether or not u agree with Light Rail and want to argue the pro’s & con’s is now not relevant. Rightly or wrongly, it’s going to happen.

What remains is the future post stage 1 Gunners-Civic CBDs. I think that:

1) It will never spread to all of Canberra because its simply unaffordable here with the ACTs small and narrow revenue raising base (eg. little industry, almost no mining revenues and failure/no real attempt to diversify the employment base). And besides, LBG is in the way. Even if it did expand, that will take decades because of the affordability issue – if the ACT doesn’t go broke because of the payments to the PPP corsortia beforehand. Blind freddy can see that. Unless of course, the ACT Gov’t intends to milk the sacred cow of ACT Ratepayers to death to pay for it.
2) Even if the ACT Lib’s do win Gov’t and terminate the contract (or tear it up – what ever description u prefer), the payout to the consortia will be enormous – maybe too much for the ACTs narrow revenue raising base to meet. The ACT simply does not have the finances that Victoria had to draw on when the incoming Vic State Gov’t “tore up” that freeway contract recently.
3) Anyway u look at it, it is a dead duck project financially & affordability wise, because the Fed’s didnt tip in substantial funding.
4) I think the real “crime” here is that by signing contracts for the 12 ks of stage 1 before the next election instead of waiting a few months and doing that post election (if they are re elected), that the current ACT Gov’t & the PPP consortia will put so many penalty/termination provisions/payouts into the contract that it may have to go ahead regardless of what the ACT Lib’s say they will do if elected.

Well, at least Canberra will be all grown up and infilled then, but I suspect only quite wealthy people will be able to afford to live here.

“quite wealthy people will be able to afford to live here.”

If what happened in France a couple of years ago (when the socialist government started over-soaking the rich) happens here, the wealthy will be the first to leave.

rommeldog56 said :

Whether or not u agree with Light Rail and want to argue the pro’s & con’s is now not relevant. Rightly or wrongly, it’s going to happen.

What remains is the future post stage 1 Gunners-Civic CBDs. I think that:

1) It will never spread to all of Canberra because its simply unaffordable here with the ACTs small and narrow revenue raising base (eg. little industry, almost no mining revenues and failure/no real attempt to diversify the employment base). And besides, LBG is in the way. Even if it did expand, that will take decades because of the affordability issue – if the ACT doesn’t go broke because of the payments to the PPP corsortia beforehand. Blind freddy can see that. Unless of course, the ACT Gov’t intends to milk the sacred cow of ACT Ratepayers to death to pay for it.
2) Even if the ACT Lib’s do win Gov’t and terminate the contract (or tear it up – what ever description u prefer), the payout to the consortia will be enormous – maybe too much for the ACTs narrow revenue raising base to meet. The ACT simply does not have the finances that Victoria had to draw on when the incoming Vic State Gov’t “tore up” that freeway contract recently.
3) Anyway u look at it, it is a dead duck project financially & affordability wise, because the Fed’s didnt tip in substantial funding.
4) I think the real “crime” here is that by signing contracts for the 12 ks of stage 1 before the next election instead of waiting a few months and doing that post election (if they are re elected), that the current ACT Gov’t & the PPP consortia will put so many penalty/termination provisions/payouts into the contract that it may have to go ahead regardless of what the ACT Lib’s say they will do if elected.

Well, at least Canberra will be all grown up and infilled then, but I suspect only quite wealthy people will be able to afford to live here.

I don’t agree with the route selected, but the constant mantra of Light Rail will bankrupt the ACT is total nonsense. The much greater amount spent on gold plating the freeways (very inefficiently) hasn’t sent us broke and going on the crazy thinking of some here, hasn’t apparently been why businesses have packed up their bags and left Canberra.

Light Rail is a target of obsessive roads users with limited vision of what the future holds or could hold.

Canberra will change. It always has. It didn’t even exist until someone said it should. Do you want me to go back and quote from your like minded forebears who also couldn’t look further than the ends of their noses and said Canberra was one huge folly that “Australia couldn’t afford” with its tiny population at the time?

Huge mistakes have been made with planning and transport in Canberra and there is a long standing battle between those trying to create U.S. style suburban sprawl and those pointing out that that is just not unsustainable in the long term, it has been the cause of the suburban emptiness, parochial mindset, destroyed countryside and expensive long commutes in increasingly congested traffic.

I have also pointed out that we live in challenging times. There is not a day we are not reminded of the consequences of our over dependence on oil and recently Australia got a shocker of a trade deficit figure. We are now losing that flood of unhealthy money we got from digging up and exporting resources. Resources which are slipping from our ownership. Half of which is coal that is being phased out of the world market.

We can choose to take steps to rectify all these matters or pay massively later on. Given the age of many of the posters here, their supposed concern for the future of their children and grandchildren seems to be feinted. Everything they say and demand seems to be more selfishly for their own self preservation and a desperate clinging to a past that no longer exists and hasn’t for a long time.

Pretending away the geopolitical and environmental consequences whilst hiding in your red texture bungalow in remotest Canberra suburbia, is just sticking your head in the sand. Maybe that is why Light Rail is targetted as the cause of everything gone wrong in Canberra, before the Light Rail even exists. It is the bogey man that you can attack because everything else is out of your reach and out of your control.

rommeldog56 said :

Well, at least Canberra will be all grown up and infilled then, but I suspect only quite wealthy people will be able to afford to live here.

You are being overly optimistic about your Gungers investments there!

Whether or not u agree with Light Rail and want to argue the pro’s & con’s is now not relevant. Rightly or wrongly, it’s going to happen.

What remains is the future post stage 1 Gunners-Civic CBDs. I think that:

1) It will never spread to all of Canberra because its simply unaffordable here with the ACTs small and narrow revenue raising base (eg. little industry, almost no mining revenues and failure/no real attempt to diversify the employment base). And besides, LBG is in the way. Even if it did expand, that will take decades because of the affordability issue – if the ACT doesn’t go broke because of the payments to the PPP corsortia beforehand. Blind freddy can see that. Unless of course, the ACT Gov’t intends to milk the sacred cow of ACT Ratepayers to death to pay for it.
2) Even if the ACT Lib’s do win Gov’t and terminate the contract (or tear it up – what ever description u prefer), the payout to the consortia will be enormous – maybe too much for the ACTs narrow revenue raising base to meet. The ACT simply does not have the finances that Victoria had to draw on when the incoming Vic State Gov’t “tore up” that freeway contract recently.
3) Anyway u look at it, it is a dead duck project financially & affordability wise, because the Fed’s didnt tip in substantial funding.
4) I think the real “crime” here is that by signing contracts for the 12 ks of stage 1 before the next election instead of waiting a few months and doing that post election (if they are re elected), that the current ACT Gov’t & the PPP consortia will put so many penalty/termination provisions/payouts into the contract that it may have to go ahead regardless of what the ACT Lib’s say they will do if elected.

Well, at least Canberra will be all grown up and infilled then, but I suspect only quite wealthy people will be able to afford to live here.

montana said :

ive asked it before and ill ask it again. What advantage does a tram have over a bus?

buses can go anywhere, while trams are bound by the track. both still need to stop at traffic lights.

am i missing something???

According to the ACT Governments own business case, it will be 3 minutes faster than bus……

justin heywood said :

damien haas said :

The problem with internet warriors is that the limit of their research is when their source du jour started putting info online.

Justin Heywood should trawl through the Canberra Times online at the NLA and read the editorials and debates about public transport in Canberra. Light Rail has been discussed since the 60’s and …..l

The problem with internet Ninjas is that they often jump into a discussion in mad skill attack mode without actually having followed the discussion. This can lead to some embarrassment (see#109, where apparently one of the ‘facts’ you ‘injected’ into the argument was subject to change.)

The point I was making with my potted history of light rail (#96) was that ACT Labor had been talking about light rail since at least 2002, but had never firmly committed to it. I argue that Labor wanted light rail enthusiasts on side but didn’t actually consider it a viable public transport solution.

It was the Greens who forced their hand after the 2012 election, in return for political support.

Shall I roll a D10 for telepathy? I don’t know what you really intend to write, only what you write.

Th ACT Labor party had a crack at light rail under Stanhope (2009 submission) and light rail as 2012 election policy.

That’s before the election. Not after.

On the Chief Minister’s 666 session yesterday, he was asked by a caller whether the polling he cited as “Canberrans favouring light rail” had been questions specifically about the Gungahlin to Civic light rail project, or whether the poll had asked Canberrans whether they supported the concept of light rail in the general. Andrew Barr was forced to admit that the question had not been specific. Just a symptom of the dishonest spin surrounding the project …

damien haas said :

rubaiyat said :

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Personally the NCA would be the last people I’d turn to for aesthetic advice.

Any simple poles or catenary wiring will be no more obtrusive than the existing much taller road lighting the NCA has seen fit to install.

I don’t disagree, but the NCA have the statutory authority to approve works in the parliamentary Triangle. This is their advice at present.

The NCA is utterly ineffectual. e.g. Between four and eight private cars are parked at the Tent Embassy daily, as has been the case for several months, and not one has been booked.

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

If what the senior Capital metro person “told you” is correct, where is the public disclosure of that ? If there isn’t any, could that be that it is not correct so and would so put an end to the fantasy of extending Light rail south of the Lake ! In any event, which bridge will be closed to traffic to accomodate two light rail tracks or will each span be expanded to cater for LR ?

I never thought I would say this, but in this case, thank god for the NCA – poles/wires for LR on the bridge(s) will wreck the appearance of them.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

We actually don’t need an efficient and reliable bus service either as we have good roads…

So at last we get you to admit that all the money being spent on roads is pointless and just wasted as we already have good roads.

Especially as 4WD vehicles are so cheap and plentiful, we don’t need ANY roads at all!

I did refer to cheaper cars you know but since you mention it there are plenty of 4WDs in the ACT Government fleet and some high profile Greens have also driven them.
The roads we have are good – of course we are going to need more roads as the population grows just as we will need more houses (unless you are against them too).
You really hate modern civilisation, don’t you?
PS Trams use existing roads also.

damien haas said :

The problem with internet warriors is that the limit of their research is when their source du jour started putting info online.

Justin Heywood should trawl through the Canberra Times online at the NLA and read the editorials and debates about public transport in Canberra. Light Rail has been discussed since the 60’s and …..l

The problem with internet Ninjas is that they often jump into a discussion in mad skill attack mode without actually having followed the discussion. This can lead to some embarrassment (see#109, where apparently one of the ‘facts’ you ‘injected’ into the argument was subject to change.)

The point I was making with my potted history of light rail (#96) was that ACT Labor had been talking about light rail since at least 2002, but had never firmly committed to it. I argue that Labor wanted light rail enthusiasts on side but didn’t actually consider it a viable public transport solution.

It was the Greens who forced their hand after the 2012 election, in return for political support.

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

And the angle of the bridge? Nice that you ignore half the issues.

So one would assume that light rail without wires would be just as cheap ? or you going to add a few million to the budget.

Also is capital metro “Forward thinking” and planning this now, or are we getting some rolling stock only to have them not work over the bridge?

You can’t really complain about keyboard warriors when you write so much on the riotact and facebook.

Speaking of forward thinking where is the plan for the rest of the network.. oh wait.. there isn’t one because it would be too expensive.

At least when you build a road, you know it works with all cars.

dungfungus said :

We actually don’t need an efficient and reliable bus service either as we have good roads…

So at last we get you to admit that all the money being spent on roads is pointless and just wasted as we already have good roads.

Especially as 4WD vehicles are so cheap and plentiful, we don’t need ANY roads at all!

rubaiyat said :

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Personally the NCA would be the last people I’d turn to for aesthetic advice.

Any simple poles or catenary wiring will be no more obtrusive than the existing much taller road lighting the NCA has seen fit to install.

I don’t disagree, but the NCA have the statutory authority to approve works in the parliamentary Triangle. This is their advice at present.

Postalgeek said :

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Yes, well, I was just going by what you were quoted as saying in the article:

Mr Haas said additional bridges might have to be built across Lake Burley Griffin to accommodate light rail.

“Once Civic to Gungahlin is in, I think bridge-to-bridge would be a logical extension,” Mr Haas said.

“Certainly, probably the major investment would be putting those two bridges in and that would satisfy a lot of public transport issues in the parliamentary triangle.”

If that’s changed, great. If this project continues, at least we won’t bear that cost.

As a rule I change my opinions when the facts change. When I was told the bridge was suitable, my opinion changed.

Postalgeek said :

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Yes, well, I was just going by what you were quoted as saying in the article:

Mr Haas said additional bridges might have to be built across Lake Burley Griffin to accommodate light rail.

“Once Civic to Gungahlin is in, I think bridge-to-bridge would be a logical extension,” Mr Haas said.

“Certainly, probably the major investment would be putting those two bridges in and that would satisfy a lot of public transport issues in the parliamentary triangle.”

Ouch!

Over to you Damien.

NoACTLightRail said :

Hi all. ACTION could be great again. History below:

In 1973 the Whitlam government moved to change transport priorities in Canberra. They created the Department of Territories, which took control of the bus network and established a transport policy and planning division. Major upgrading and funding was provided, with more services and new buses. The NCDC was ordered to change its policy for improved public transport. After a detailed travel study was conducted, a new transport model was created. They achieved an amazing turnaround and tripled yearly patronage from 8.4 to 24 million in just 12 years (1973 – 1985). There was a 73% increase in patronage between 1973-76 alone. Canberra was running second only to Sydney in usage rates. All this occurred with an expanded city and yet a small population density. The bus service was excellent, with a maximum 4-5 minute wait for a connecting bus at interchanges. Bus supervisors were also stationed at interchanges to ensure the flow and timing of buses. You could also buy tickets and get information from the kiosks. As a teenager I caught the 333 express bus daily from Civic to Belconnen. If it was running late the interchange supervisor would hold the connecting area buses. Passengers rarely missed the connecting bus. In 1976 ACTION led the way with the introduction of the articulated bus, the first city in Australia to do so. They were so popular that another 24 were purchased. The population in 1985 reached 250,000.

If you look at the patronage in relation to the population you get an idea how successful it was. At 24 million rides in 1985, divided by the population at the time gives you a number of 96 rides per person. Do you know what this ratio is now? In 2013-14 the number is 46 rides per person. This is over 50% drop.

The ACTION bus network has suffered a record decline in ridership over the past 20 years. In 1988, the first cuts to services began with some peak period feeder trips cancelled. The hugely successful timed transfer network had completely broken down with passengers waiting up to an hour for a connection. With more cuts, the interchanges became unstaffed. Even with the introduction of paid parking, bus patronage fell by 30% between 1991 and 2001. The biggest decline in patronage was in the non-central locations. Car ownership continued to increase as bus passengers decreased.

In 2001, the newly elected Labor Government re-introduced the ‘expresso’ service and patronage increased. The addition of extra peak-period services was expensive and subsidies increased. In 2006 services were cut again and passenger numbers declined. In 2011 ACTION had the second lowest patronage per capita, with Hobart being worse.

Bad decision making, bad planning and bad advice has not improved patronage since then. Poor connections are a huge disincentive for any passenger. Even with ‘Park and Ride’ and a new ticketing system, ACTION struggles to gain patronage. It is also impossible to buy a MyWay card at any interchange as there is no staff, no shop fronts and no ticketing machines.

So in 2015, we have a much larger population and higher population density, but a continuing decrease in bus patronage. There were only 17.764 million boardings for 2013-14. With only 70% being on time, Canberra needs an efficient and reliable bus service. If the Government cannot properly manage one, how can an $800 million plus, 12km light rail possibly work?

The light rail is all for show with no where to go.
We actually don’t need an efficient and reliable bus service either as we have good roads, reasonable parking and cars have never been cheaper, more fuel efficient and reliable.
Anyone who has moved to Canberra in recent years knows how lucky we are in respect of motor vehicle transport which is the way Canberra was originally designed.
The very few people in Canberra that need public transport could be better catered for if the ACTION network was downscaled commensurately and a more targeted and personal service was created for the 8% (and falling) of Canberrans that use the buses.

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Yes, well, I was just going by what you were quoted as saying in the article:

Mr Haas said additional bridges might have to be built across Lake Burley Griffin to accommodate light rail.

“Once Civic to Gungahlin is in, I think bridge-to-bridge would be a logical extension,” Mr Haas said.

“Certainly, probably the major investment would be putting those two bridges in and that would satisfy a lot of public transport issues in the parliamentary triangle.”

If that’s changed, great. If this project continues, at least we won’t bear that cost.

damien haas said :

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Personally the NCA would be the last people I’d turn to for aesthetic advice.

Any simple poles or catenary wiring will be no more obtrusive than the existing much taller road lighting the NCA has seen fit to install.

The problem with internet warriors is that the limit of their research is when their source du jour started putting info online.

Justin Heywood should trawl through the Canberra Times online at the NLA and read the editorials and debates about public transport in Canberra. Light Rail has been discussed since the 60’s. The first serious political push was post self government during the Follet era. It gained momentum when Gungahlin was being planned.

The ACT Light Rail website has many reports going back to the 1962 online: http://www.actlightrail.info/p/act-transport-studies.html

I am loathe to inject fact into the alternate reality zone here, but the two bridges across LBG require no extra strengthening for light rail. I know this because a senior Capital Metro person told me that engineers had already looked at that issue.

The NCA do not want wires across the bridges. Light rail without wires for power, does exist.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Hi all. ACTION could be great again. History below:

In 1973 the Whitlam government moved to change transport priorities in Canberra. They created the Department of Territories, which took control of the bus network and established a transport policy and planning division. Major upgrading and funding was provided, with more services and new buses. The NCDC was ordered to change its policy for improved public transport. After a detailed travel study was conducted, a new transport model was created. They achieved an amazing turnaround and tripled yearly patronage from 8.4 to 24 million in just 12 years (1973 – 1985). There was a 73% increase in patronage between 1973-76 alone. Canberra was running second only to Sydney in usage rates. All this occurred with an expanded city and yet a small population density. The bus service was excellent, with a maximum 4-5 minute wait for a connecting bus at interchanges. Bus supervisors were also stationed at interchanges to ensure the flow and timing of buses. You could also buy tickets and get information from the kiosks. As a teenager I caught the 333 express bus daily from Civic to Belconnen. If it was running late the interchange supervisor would hold the connecting area buses. Passengers rarely missed the connecting bus. In 1976 ACTION led the way with the introduction of the articulated bus, the first city in Australia to do so. They were so popular that another 24 were purchased. The population in 1985 reached 250,000.

If you look at the patronage in relation to the population you get an idea how successful it was. At 24 million rides in 1985, divided by the population at the time gives you a number of 96 rides per person. Do you know what this ratio is now? In 2013-14 the number is 46 rides per person. This is over 50% drop.

The ACTION bus network has suffered a record decline in ridership over the past 20 years. In 1988, the first cuts to services began with some peak period feeder trips cancelled. The hugely successful timed transfer network had completely broken down with passengers waiting up to an hour for a connection. With more cuts, the interchanges became unstaffed. Even with the introduction of paid parking, bus patronage fell by 30% between 1991 and 2001. The biggest decline in patronage was in the non-central locations. Car ownership continued to increase as bus passengers decreased.

In 2001, the newly elected Labor Government re-introduced the ‘expresso’ service and patronage increased. The addition of extra peak-period services was expensive and subsidies increased. In 2006 services were cut again and passenger numbers declined. In 2011 ACTION had the second lowest patronage per capita, with Hobart being worse.

Bad decision making, bad planning and bad advice has not improved patronage since then. Poor connections are a huge disincentive for any passenger. Even with ‘Park and Ride’ and a new ticketing system, ACTION struggles to gain patronage. It is also impossible to buy a MyWay card at any interchange as there is no staff, no shop fronts and no ticketing machines.

So in 2015, we have a much larger population and higher population density, but a continuing decrease in bus patronage. There were only 17.764 million boardings for 2013-14. With only 70% being on time, Canberra needs an efficient and reliable bus service. If the Government cannot properly manage one, how can an $800 million plus, 12km light rail possibly work?

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

rubaiyat said :

[Sadly so many people delude themselves as to the real costs of the only proffered alternative, more roads, running more cars and buses. All of which are a proven extremely expensive failure over a very long time all around the world.

There are a number of bus rapid transit systems in South America that are considered successes. We can throw articles back and forth all day demonstrating success or failure of a particular system. The biggest issue with Canberra, at this time, is the cost of getting LR over LBG. The bridges in their current states will not support it:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-light-rail-would-need-new-bridges-20130924-2ubg2.html

rubaiyat said :

So we have practical proof that the existing bus system (which is supposed to be the “real solution”) is failing.

I don’t think many people arguing for buses are saying the existing bus system is the ‘real’ solution. It needs to be improved, whether that’s through pricing, service, modernisation, or complete makeover. But instead of using what we already have (roads) and what we can support, and I mean structurally as well as figuratively, to establish a city-wide benefit, we are focusing on a system that may not even be viable for the rest of Canberra, and may consequently be disconnected from the work hubs south of the lake.

I’m not saying that light rail won’t have a place at some point in Canberra. Any BRT should be developed with a future LR spine in mind, with a focus on densification along reserved transit corridors, but we should walk before we run, expanding to LR once BRT is not capable of adequately servicing a key route. Establish the patronage, then expand. We’ll have a larger economy, hopefully, with a larger population to absorb the cost.

And there are already electrical and hybrid bus systems out there. We even have a company in Australia, BCI, that makes them.

Personally I’d like to see separated dedicated micro transport (bikes, e-bikes, segways whatever) trunk routes with speed limits of 40kmph established instead of neutering electrical micro-transport to 20-something Kmph on shared paths. After all, we allow cars and kids to mix at 40kmphs in school zones. Adults on two wheels should be able to cope with that. But I’m not going to hold my breath for it.

“The biggest issue with Canberra, at this time, is the cost of getting LR over LBG. The bridges in their current states will not support it:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-light-rail-would-need-new-bridges-20130924-2ubg2.html“

This is simply wrong.
The bridges were built with strengthening to allow the heavy machinery (scrapers etc) to use the bridge carriageway when the construction of the new Parliament House commenced.
Some rare future planning there.
I have spoken with an engineer who worked on the project and in his opinion, if a loaded 40 tonne B double can use the bridge then a loaded 3 carriage tram could also. It’s all about axle loadings.
The one thing that won’t allow it is the NCA and who can blame them with the ugly wirescape that will have to be built (forget batteries, they haven’t got the grunt to get a tram up and over the approaches).

I would have thought the issue would be the added weight of the extra lane, track and other static fixtures, not so much the actual rolling stock. Plus whereas the road surface has a slight arch over the lake, any tracks will need to remain horizontal as possible.

Postalgeek said :

rubaiyat said :

[Sadly so many people delude themselves as to the real costs of the only proffered alternative, more roads, running more cars and buses. All of which are a proven extremely expensive failure over a very long time all around the world.

There are a number of bus rapid transit systems in South America that are considered successes. We can throw articles back and forth all day demonstrating success or failure of a particular system. The biggest issue with Canberra, at this time, is the cost of getting LR over LBG. The bridges in their current states will not support it:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-light-rail-would-need-new-bridges-20130924-2ubg2.html

rubaiyat said :

So we have practical proof that the existing bus system (which is supposed to be the “real solution”) is failing.

I don’t think many people arguing for buses are saying the existing bus system is the ‘real’ solution. It needs to be improved, whether that’s through pricing, service, modernisation, or complete makeover. But instead of using what we already have (roads) and what we can support, and I mean structurally as well as figuratively, to establish a city-wide benefit, we are focusing on a system that may not even be viable for the rest of Canberra, and may consequently be disconnected from the work hubs south of the lake.

I’m not saying that light rail won’t have a place at some point in Canberra. Any BRT should be developed with a future LR spine in mind, with a focus on densification along reserved transit corridors, but we should walk before we run, expanding to LR once BRT is not capable of adequately servicing a key route. Establish the patronage, then expand. We’ll have a larger economy, hopefully, with a larger population to absorb the cost.

And there are already electrical and hybrid bus systems out there. We even have a company in Australia, BCI, that makes them.

Personally I’d like to see separated dedicated micro transport (bikes, e-bikes, segways whatever) trunk routes with speed limits of 40kmph established instead of neutering electrical micro-transport to 20-something Kmph on shared paths. After all, we allow cars and kids to mix at 40kmphs in school zones. Adults on two wheels should be able to cope with that. But I’m not going to hold my breath for it.

We need more than vague references to some BRTs in Latin America. costed on the relatively short City to Belconnen route and was extremely expensive JUST for the segregated right of way. And they are still only buses.

I have no objection to viable electric buses as feeders to a better rail based system:

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/assets/acc/Environment/energy/docs/tindo_fact_sheet.pdf

…but they are still buses, just with a different fuel, not being used by ACTION, who have not even got natural gas to replace their foul, noisy polluting diesels. All of which does not get around the rattly, meandering, infrequent, slow and obviously unpopular existing bus service that could have been “fixed” by any of the previous Labor, Liberal or Commonwealth administrations, but wasn’t.

Are you one of the few who use Canberra’s buses? If not, let us know what is holding you back, I am guessing it is not just because they run on diesel.

I use the buses which run past my door, when I can, on principle, but they are a rotten ride, slow, infrequent and every time I go to the bus stop I have that nagging uncertainty whether they will show up as scheduled. We are down to only one service, only City/Woden at hourly intervals during most of the day. We used to have 3 services at 15 to 30min intervals that let us go to Manuka/Kingston as well as the City or Woden.

To go to any other destination than Woden or the City involves multiple other meandering slow, infrequent and poorly connecting services. All because most of the money has been spent on badly planned roads that are a bottomless hole for the ACT taxpayer and having to deal with a badly laid out sprawl of a city that ignores liveability.

Postalgeek said :

rubaiyat said :

[Sadly so many people delude themselves as to the real costs of the only proffered alternative, more roads, running more cars and buses. All of which are a proven extremely expensive failure over a very long time all around the world.

There are a number of bus rapid transit systems in South America that are considered successes. We can throw articles back and forth all day demonstrating success or failure of a particular system. The biggest issue with Canberra, at this time, is the cost of getting LR over LBG. The bridges in their current states will not support it:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-light-rail-would-need-new-bridges-20130924-2ubg2.html

rubaiyat said :

So we have practical proof that the existing bus system (which is supposed to be the “real solution”) is failing.

I don’t think many people arguing for buses are saying the existing bus system is the ‘real’ solution. It needs to be improved, whether that’s through pricing, service, modernisation, or complete makeover. But instead of using what we already have (roads) and what we can support, and I mean structurally as well as figuratively, to establish a city-wide benefit, we are focusing on a system that may not even be viable for the rest of Canberra, and may consequently be disconnected from the work hubs south of the lake.

I’m not saying that light rail won’t have a place at some point in Canberra. Any BRT should be developed with a future LR spine in mind, with a focus on densification along reserved transit corridors, but we should walk before we run, expanding to LR once BRT is not capable of adequately servicing a key route. Establish the patronage, then expand. We’ll have a larger economy, hopefully, with a larger population to absorb the cost.

And there are already electrical and hybrid bus systems out there. We even have a company in Australia, BCI, that makes them.

Personally I’d like to see separated dedicated micro transport (bikes, e-bikes, segways whatever) trunk routes with speed limits of 40kmph established instead of neutering electrical micro-transport to 20-something Kmph on shared paths. After all, we allow cars and kids to mix at 40kmphs in school zones. Adults on two wheels should be able to cope with that. But I’m not going to hold my breath for it.

“The biggest issue with Canberra, at this time, is the cost of getting LR over LBG. The bridges in their current states will not support it:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-light-rail-would-need-new-bridges-20130924-2ubg2.html“

This is simply wrong.
The bridges were built with strengthening to allow the heavy machinery (scrapers etc) to use the bridge carriageway when the construction of the new Parliament House commenced.
Some rare future planning there.
I have spoken with an engineer who worked on the project and in his opinion, if a loaded 40 tonne B double can use the bridge then a loaded 3 carriage tram could also. It’s all about axle loadings.
The one thing that won’t allow it is the NCA and who can blame them with the ugly wirescape that will have to be built (forget batteries, they haven’t got the grunt to get a tram up and over the approaches).

rubaiyat said :

[Sadly so many people delude themselves as to the real costs of the only proffered alternative, more roads, running more cars and buses. All of which are a proven extremely expensive failure over a very long time all around the world.

There are a number of bus rapid transit systems in South America that are considered successes. We can throw articles back and forth all day demonstrating success or failure of a particular system. The biggest issue with Canberra, at this time, is the cost of getting LR over LBG. The bridges in their current states will not support it:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberras-light-rail-would-need-new-bridges-20130924-2ubg2.html

rubaiyat said :

So we have practical proof that the existing bus system (which is supposed to be the “real solution”) is failing.

I don’t think many people arguing for buses are saying the existing bus system is the ‘real’ solution. It needs to be improved, whether that’s through pricing, service, modernisation, or complete makeover. But instead of using what we already have (roads) and what we can support, and I mean structurally as well as figuratively, to establish a city-wide benefit, we are focusing on a system that may not even be viable for the rest of Canberra, and may consequently be disconnected from the work hubs south of the lake.

I’m not saying that light rail won’t have a place at some point in Canberra. Any BRT should be developed with a future LR spine in mind, with a focus on densification along reserved transit corridors, but we should walk before we run, expanding to LR once BRT is not capable of adequately servicing a key route. Establish the patronage, then expand. We’ll have a larger economy, hopefully, with a larger population to absorb the cost.

And there are already electrical and hybrid bus systems out there. We even have a company in Australia, BCI, that makes them.

Personally I’d like to see separated dedicated micro transport (bikes, e-bikes, segways whatever) trunk routes with speed limits of 40kmph established instead of neutering electrical micro-transport to 20-something Kmph on shared paths. After all, we allow cars and kids to mix at 40kmphs in school zones. Adults on two wheels should be able to cope with that. But I’m not going to hold my breath for it.

NoACTLightRail said :

I like light rail and have caught it in different places in the world. However, the plain fact is that it’s not economically viable for the ACT and will not be for at least 20-30yrs plus. All public transport systems run at a loss and that’s not a problem unless the system cannot meet it’s economic potential.

Light rail is designed for medium to high patronage and only then will it operate cheaper than a bus system.
“Lower operating and maintenance costs – LRT is more cost efficient to operate and maintain on routes
carrying more than 2,000 passengers per hour. ref:Bruun, E. (2005)
So if you do not have large passenger demand, light rail will not be cost-effective and it will cost more to run than a bus.

The big thing overlooked are the ongoing costs per year for the rail. Currently the ACTION bus system costs $160 million per yr. How much will the ACT pay the eventual operators per yr? Labor has been very quiet about this ongoing cost. The original cost an estimated $7million per yr, but I think it will be closer to $20-30million based on other rail networks in Oz.

Now onto Capital Metro, the propaganda machine. re:http://www.capitalmetro.act.gov.au/news-and-publications/news/news-and-events/2015/canberra-is-growing
“Some argue that Canberra is too small for a light rail network, yet cities the same size as Canberra, for example in France Nice and Valenciennes with populations of 350,000 and 400,000 respectively, or in Freiburg, Germany, with 220,000 residents, all have modern city wide light rail networks developed in the last few decades.”

Fact: Comparing Nice in France to Canberra is ridiculous. It’s like comparing a pea with a pumpkin. While the population is similar, the area is smaller at 72sqkm and the population density is 4,800 people per sq km, which is 4,000 more than Gungahlin/City area.
Freiburg has a population density of 1,400 and a 150sqkm area.

Finally, the most important thing is to get the existing bus system running properly. 24million rides in 1985 – 2nd best in country. 17.5million rides for 2015-16 – 2nd worse in country!!

Whew, time to take a breath…..

So we have practical proof that the existing bus system (which is supposed to be the “real solution”) is failing.

Inner Canberra; the City, Inner South and North Canberra, all have population densities the same or greater than Freiburg, plus public institutions, education & sports facilities and tourist attractions that draw a daily circulating population that would justify light rail, so long as it was kept close and central to the population and attractions. There is already a steady growth of high rise buildings on a circular route around those suburbs that would link them all together and further light rail usage.

Gungahlin has a third of the population density of Freiburg and the usual Canberra town planning which appears to have the twin objectives of making houses face any direction but north, and making public transport unworkable.

There is one huge caveat though. Merely because something does not exist now, does not mean that it will not in the future. This is Canberra. Everything in Canberra has popped up out of a sheep paddock. I would not want to bet that it will not happen again once a high quality transport system was put in place.

I like light rail and have caught it in different places in the world. However, the plain fact is that it’s not economically viable for the ACT and will not be for at least 20-30yrs plus. All public transport systems run at a loss and that’s not a problem unless the system cannot meet it’s economic potential.

Light rail is designed for medium to high patronage and only then will it operate cheaper than a bus system.
“Lower operating and maintenance costs – LRT is more cost efficient to operate and maintain on routes
carrying more than 2,000 passengers per hour. ref:Bruun, E. (2005)
So if you do not have large passenger demand, light rail will not be cost-effective and it will cost more to run than a bus.

The big thing overlooked are the ongoing costs per year for the rail. Currently the ACTION bus system costs $160 million per yr. How much will the ACT pay the eventual operators per yr? Labor has been very quiet about this ongoing cost. The original cost an estimated $7million per yr, but I think it will be closer to $20-30million based on other rail networks in Oz.

Now onto Capital Metro, the propaganda machine. re:http://www.capitalmetro.act.gov.au/news-and-publications/news/news-and-events/2015/canberra-is-growing
“Some argue that Canberra is too small for a light rail network, yet cities the same size as Canberra, for example in France Nice and Valenciennes with populations of 350,000 and 400,000 respectively, or in Freiburg, Germany, with 220,000 residents, all have modern city wide light rail networks developed in the last few decades.”

Fact: Comparing Nice in France to Canberra is ridiculous. It’s like comparing a pea with a pumpkin. While the population is similar, the area is smaller at 72sqkm and the population density is 4,800 people per sq km, which is 4,000 more than Gungahlin/City area.
Freiburg has a population density of 1,400 and a 150sqkm area.

Finally, the most important thing is to get the existing bus system running properly. 24million rides in 1985 – 2nd best in country. 17.5million rides for 2015-16 – 2nd worse in country!!

Whew, time to take a breath…..

justin heywood said :

rubaiyat said :

Congestion, massive amounts of time wasted sitting in traffic jams, childhood obesity from being ferried everywhere in cars, pollution, the largest foreign deficit ever, petroleum fuelled middle eastern wars, violence and terrorism…

Right! Not one problem!

A light rail from Gunners to Civic will address all these problems? Sign me up!

Seriously though, if the current light rail plan was a serious attempt to address the public transport needs of the city, that would an issue worth serious discussion. But the current plan is a ludicrously expensive option which doesn’t even pick the low-hanging fruit by servicing the major population centres.

The thing is so expensive (relative to our size and resource base), that any talk of this being the start of a city wide roll-out of a light rail network is pure fantasy.

We will be stuck with an odd mix of public transport. An ageing, under-resourced bus network with a gold-plated tram servicing one small part of the city.

An electrically driven public transport system that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by utilising renewable energy will do that.

As to the selected route I largely agree with you, with the proviso that it contains elements of future development that only time will reveal whether they justified the plan. Given that nothing about Canberra’s planning, including Canberra itself, ever justified themselves before hand, this may just be another, but unlike all the others we will know the ALL UP costs before hand.

It may be just another bad idea amongst many other bad ideas that just muddle through.

It stands out though because it attracts a lot of opposition from people who oppose it just because it is public transport, or is rail, or is green, but most of all because it is not the SAME set of bad ideas that have been applied for the last 100 years of Canberra’s existence.

Sadly so many people delude themselves as to the real costs of the only proffered alternative, more roads, running more cars and buses. All of which are a proven extremely expensive failure over a very long time all around the world.

JC said :

justin heywood said :

rosscoact said :

They are colourists.

Currently it’s the Green menace ruining it for everyone. The Rainbow is also making them anxious.

Before that it was Reds under the bed

Before that it was the Yellow peril.

Not sure which colour will get them into high dudgeon next, but it’s worth following it just for the chuckles

Correct. It is all about politics. Labor didn’t want the thing, but had to do a deal with the Greens in order to stay in government.

The usual Labor cheerleaders are on board having decided that this is what they want after all.

Nice attempt at rewritting history. But Labor had light rail as an election platform prior to the last election. The only change they made was the date the first bit of dirt was dug.

There was also a limit of $615 million or so. Its now upto at least $850m without the tendering.
That doesn’t include the remediation works or anything else.
In comparison wasn’t parks way widened with several bridges for $12 million for a similar length?

JC said :

Nice attempt at rewritting history. But Labor had light rail as an election platform prior to the last election. The only change they made was the date the first bit of dirt was dug.

Glad you popped in. Light rail has been on the political agenda in Canberra since at least 2002.

In 2005, Simon Corbell returned from a trip to Portland claiming that ‘we [Canberra] can’t afford light rail’

Stanhope got keen on the idea again in 2008, spending half a million on a study, but in 2010 an RMIT expert accused ACT Treasury of significantly overestimating the cost ($2 billion), ensuring that the project would not go ahead. ”Anyone reading that document [the ACT Treasury submission] would say these people are not serious,” Dr Mees said.”

http://www.actlightrail.info/p/articles.html

And so on. As late as September 2011, less than 12 months before the election, Corbell said

‘The Greens once again adopt a unrealistic and unconsidered approach to the real challenge of transport in this city, all because they want to jump on the wagon….of rail’

http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2015/pdfs/20150506a.pdf

In the run up to the election, however, ACT Labor apparently had a change of heart (nothing to do with attracting Green votes of course). They now promised $30 m for a ‘series of studies’ into light rail, with a further commitment to commence work if elected again in 2016.

http://www.actlightrail.info/2012/10/light-rail-policy-from-parties-in-2012.html

I hope you’ll agree that ‘the only change they made was the date’ is significant, if that date happens to be before the next election rather than after it.

justin heywood said :

rosscoact said :

They are colourists.

Currently it’s the Green menace ruining it for everyone. The Rainbow is also making them anxious.

Before that it was Reds under the bed

Before that it was the Yellow peril.

Not sure which colour will get them into high dudgeon next, but it’s worth following it just for the chuckles

Correct. It is all about politics. Labor didn’t want the thing, but had to do a deal with the Greens in order to stay in government.

The usual Labor cheerleaders are on board having decided that this is what they want after all.

Nice attempt at rewritting history. But Labor had light rail as an election platform prior to the last election. The only change they made was the date the first bit of dirt was dug.

rubaiyat said :

tim_c said :

rubaiyat said :

…Trams … run on the ACT’s own fuel supply from the solar farms which should take quite a few diesel tankers off our roads and a heck of a lot of pollution out of our air….

So I guess we’re all back to our cars on cloudy/rainy days, or during winter when it’s already dark by the time most of us are going home.

Canberra draws electricity from the Snowy Hydroelectric Scheme which can also be simply scheduled for use as needed, or used to store energy by moving water back to higher catchments.

There is a reason the Light Rail denialists sound just as ignorant as the Global Warming Denialists. They are usually one and the same.

Not quite. Canberra draws power from the grid, with electricity suppliers buying generator capacity from numerous generator companies based on what their customers are willing to pay. But agree with you for the most part.

Reply

justin heywood said :

rosscoact said :

They are colourists.

Currently it’s the Green menace ruining it for everyone. The Rainbow is also making them anxious.

Before that it was Reds under the bed

Before that it was the Yellow peril.

Not sure which colour will get them into high dudgeon next, but it’s worth following it just for the chuckles

Correct. It is all about politics. Labor didn’t want the thing, but had to do a deal with the Greens in order to stay in government.

The usual Labor cheerleaders are on board having decided that this is what they want after all.

Strange that Labor would go into the 2012 election with the Policy “Establish the ACT’s first large-scale private sector partnership to plan, finance and develop the first stage of a light rail network for Canberra – $30 million”

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/promises-promises-what-the-parties-are-offering-20121013-27ke3.html

rosscoact said :

They are colourists.

Currently it’s the Green menace ruining it for everyone. The Rainbow is also making them anxious.

Before that it was Reds under the bed

Before that it was the Yellow peril.

Not sure which colour will get them into high dudgeon next, but it’s worth following it just for the chuckles

Correct. It is all about politics. Labor didn’t want the thing, but had to do a deal with the Greens in order to stay in government.

The usual Labor cheerleaders are on board having decided that this is what they want after all.

rubaiyat said :

Congestion, massive amounts of time wasted sitting in traffic jams, childhood obesity from being ferried everywhere in cars, pollution, the largest foreign deficit ever, petroleum fuelled middle eastern wars, violence and terrorism…

Right! Not one problem!

A light rail from Gunners to Civic will address all these problems? Sign me up!

Seriously though, if the current light rail plan was a serious attempt to address the public transport needs of the city, that would an issue worth serious discussion. But the current plan is a ludicrously expensive option which doesn’t even pick the low-hanging fruit by servicing the major population centres.

The thing is so expensive (relative to our size and resource base), that any talk of this being the start of a city wide roll-out of a light rail network is pure fantasy.

We will be stuck with an odd mix of public transport. An ageing, under-resourced bus network with a gold-plated tram servicing one small part of the city.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

Need more capacity? No need to build another road, just add a carriage or two, or run it more frequently.

And when one patron of this service takes their sweet time boarding because of their walker, or a malfunction with their pre-paid ticket, or one of many possible hold ups like an acciednt, it doesn’t affect just this one tram that is bound to the tracks it sits on, it affects the entire network and brings commuting to a standstill ! If it was a bus, you would pull it over to the side and let the rest of the system continue on its allocated timetable. Can’t do that with a tram can you????
Just imagine if the internet was routed the way a tram works. One glitch and we have global chaos, followed closely with the end of everything.

Why are the conservatives on here are very flippant with their remarks. I’m not overly keen on this tram idea but even I know that trams everywhere I’ve been don’t have a driver checking people pay or tag. They have numerous machines to tag on, so boarding is efficient.

How is a tram having a glitch any different to a car accident, causing log jammed traffic?

There are many biased people on this forum. None can offer an alternative solution to the problem, except build them bigger roads so they can drive wherever they want and then build them more car parking and make it free. That is not a solution to the problem.

You are correct about tag on machines on trams, all over the world. They certainly make the boarding and egress very efficient especially with the multiple doors (which change the climate everytime they open and close).
The tag-on system also encourages mass fare evasion so that either fare inspectors have to be employed or the transport authority have to factor in about 25% revenue loss.
Buses by their design totally eliminate this problem.
Your reference to finding a solution to the “problem” is meaningless as there isn’t a problem in the first place.

Drink and drive, text and drive, negligent driving, evade parking & speeding fines, ram raid shops, blow up cafes, kill thousands and put over 34,000 people a year into hospitals with serious injuries, with many more going to hospital from the bad health induced by over dependence on automobiles, and what do police spend most of their time on?

Congestion, massive amounts of time wasted sitting in traffic jams, childhood obesity from being ferried everywhere in cars, pollution, the largest foreign deficit ever, petroleum fuelled middle eastern wars, violence and terrorism…

Right! Not one problem!

Hey, that rant would create another two verses to Billy Joel’s “We didn’t start the Fire”

rubaiyat said :

tim_c said :

rubaiyat said :

…Trams … run on the ACT’s own fuel supply from the solar farms which should take quite a few diesel tankers off our roads and a heck of a lot of pollution out of our air….

So I guess we’re all back to our cars on cloudy/rainy days, or during winter when it’s already dark by the time most of us are going home.

Canberra draws electricity from the Snowy Hydroelectric Scheme which can also be simply scheduled for use as needed, or used to store energy by moving water back to higher catchments.

There is a reason the Light Rail denialists sound just as ignorant as the Global Warming Denialists. They are usually one and the same.

They are colourists.

Currently it’s the Green menace ruining it for everyone. The Rainbow is also making them anxious.

Before that it was Reds under the bed

Before that it was the Yellow peril.

Not sure which colour will get them into high dudgeon next, but it’s worth following it just for the chuckles

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

Need more capacity? No need to build another road, just add a carriage or two, or run it more frequently.

And when one patron of this service takes their sweet time boarding because of their walker, or a malfunction with their pre-paid ticket, or one of many possible hold ups like an acciednt, it doesn’t affect just this one tram that is bound to the tracks it sits on, it affects the entire network and brings commuting to a standstill ! If it was a bus, you would pull it over to the side and let the rest of the system continue on its allocated timetable. Can’t do that with a tram can you????
Just imagine if the internet was routed the way a tram works. One glitch and we have global chaos, followed closely with the end of everything.

Why are the conservatives on here are very flippant with their remarks. I’m not overly keen on this tram idea but even I know that trams everywhere I’ve been don’t have a driver checking people pay or tag. They have numerous machines to tag on, so boarding is efficient.

How is a tram having a glitch any different to a car accident, causing log jammed traffic?

There are many biased people on this forum. None can offer an alternative solution to the problem, except build them bigger roads so they can drive wherever they want and then build them more car parking and make it free. That is not a solution to the problem.

You are correct about tag on machines on trams, all over the world. They certainly make the boarding and egress very efficient especially with the multiple doors (which change the climate everytime they open and close).
The tag-on system also encourages mass fare evasion so that either fare inspectors have to be employed or the transport authority have to factor in about 25% revenue loss.
Buses by their design totally eliminate this problem.
Your reference to finding a solution to the “problem” is meaningless as there isn’t a problem in the first place.

Drink and drive, text and drive, negligent driving, evade parking & speeding fines, ram raid shops, blow up cafes, kill thousands and put over 34,000 people a year into hospitals with serious injuries, with many more going to hospital from the bad health induced by over dependence on automobiles, and what do police spend most of their time on?

Congestion, massive amounts of time wasted sitting in traffic jams, childhood obesity from being ferried everywhere in cars, pollution, the largest foreign deficit ever, petroleum fuelled middle eastern wars, violence and terrorism…

Right! Not one problem!

rubaiyat said :

tim_c said :

rubaiyat said :

…Trams … run on the ACT’s own fuel supply from the solar farms which should take quite a few diesel tankers off our roads and a heck of a lot of pollution out of our air….

So I guess we’re all back to our cars on cloudy/rainy days, or during winter when it’s already dark by the time most of us are going home.

Canberra draws electricity from the Snowy Hydroelectric Scheme which can also be simply scheduled for use as needed, or used to store energy by moving water back to higher catchments.

There is a reason the Light Rail denialists sound just as ignorant as the Global Warming Denialists. They are usually one and the same.

Could that be because light rail isn’t needed and man-made climate change is a myth?
This is the way practical people think.
PS Snowy Hydro water is raised to higher catchments by coal fired electricity – evil!

rubaiyat said :

Holden Caulfield said :

For convenience let’s assume a daily ticket on ACTION cost $10/day.

That’s 37.5 million free daily bus rides. At least ACTION might meet their annual patronage forecasts then.

Just saying.

That is a capital expenditure and less than the cost of the Majura Parkway, which does not include the capital invested in the vehicles or their extreme running costs.

Were you equally as concerned about the freeway?

Light Rail is more durable, efficient and long lasting than roads, cleaner and healthier for its users and doesn’t hospitalise large numbers of our citizens.

Need more capacity? No need to build another road, just add a carriage or two, or run it more frequently.

The price of the fuel for the Light Rail is more likely to drop than rise and there will be no interruption to supply in the future. The fuel does not fund ongoing horrendously expensive wars nor does it finance extremist religions that send refugees fleeing to our shores.

Heck it actually seems like a really good idea…

They had monorails in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!

tim_c said :

rubaiyat said :

…Trams … run on the ACT’s own fuel supply from the solar farms which should take quite a few diesel tankers off our roads and a heck of a lot of pollution out of our air….

So I guess we’re all back to our cars on cloudy/rainy days, or during winter when it’s already dark by the time most of us are going home.

Canberra draws electricity from the Snowy Hydroelectric Scheme which can also be simply scheduled for use as needed, or used to store energy by moving water back to higher catchments.

There is a reason the Light Rail denialists sound just as ignorant as the Global Warming Denialists. They are usually one and the same.

tim_c said :

rubaiyat said :

….It is also very much a Canberra bypass and will do for Canberra what the freeway bypass of Goulburn did for Goulburn, take away business and income….

Just sayin’ 😉

Probably a better comparison would be what the M7 did to Sydney.

Divide it with an expensive, deadly tollway, often congested, submitting all its neighboring suburbs with endless noise, belching pollution, whilst hiding behind 80km of 3-4m high concrete walls?

watto23 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

Need more capacity? No need to build another road, just add a carriage or two, or run it more frequently.

And when one patron of this service takes their sweet time boarding because of their walker, or a malfunction with their pre-paid ticket, or one of many possible hold ups like an acciednt, it doesn’t affect just this one tram that is bound to the tracks it sits on, it affects the entire network and brings commuting to a standstill ! If it was a bus, you would pull it over to the side and let the rest of the system continue on its allocated timetable. Can’t do that with a tram can you????
Just imagine if the internet was routed the way a tram works. One glitch and we have global chaos, followed closely with the end of everything.

Why are the conservatives on here are very flippant with their remarks. I’m not overly keen on this tram idea but even I know that trams everywhere I’ve been don’t have a driver checking people pay or tag. They have numerous machines to tag on, so boarding is efficient.

How is a tram having a glitch any different to a car accident, causing log jammed traffic?

There are many biased people on this forum. None can offer an alternative solution to the problem, except build them bigger roads so they can drive wherever they want and then build them more car parking and make it free. That is not a solution to the problem.

You are correct about tag on machines on trams, all over the world. They certainly make the boarding and egress very efficient especially with the multiple doors (which change the climate everytime they open and close).
The tag-on system also encourages mass fare evasion so that either fare inspectors have to be employed or the transport authority have to factor in about 25% revenue loss.
Buses by their design totally eliminate this problem.
Your reference to finding a solution to the “problem” is meaningless as there isn’t a problem in the first place.

watto23 said :

There are many biased people on this forum. None can offer an alternative solution to the problem….

A solution to what problem?

Was the commute from Gunners to Civic Canberra’s biggest problem? Was the problem that buses couldn’t do the job? Was the problem the masses of high density housing along the route?

No.

The problem was how to secure the support of the man who held the balance of power. THAT was the problem.

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

Need more capacity? No need to build another road, just add a carriage or two, or run it more frequently.

And when one patron of this service takes their sweet time boarding because of their walker, or a malfunction with their pre-paid ticket, or one of many possible hold ups like an acciednt, it doesn’t affect just this one tram that is bound to the tracks it sits on, it affects the entire network and brings commuting to a standstill ! If it was a bus, you would pull it over to the side and let the rest of the system continue on its allocated timetable. Can’t do that with a tram can you????
Just imagine if the internet was routed the way a tram works. One glitch and we have global chaos, followed closely with the end of everything.

Why are the conservatives on here are very flippant with their remarks. I’m not overly keen on this tram idea but even I know that trams everywhere I’ve been don’t have a driver checking people pay or tag. They have numerous machines to tag on, so boarding is efficient.

How is a tram having a glitch any different to a car accident, causing log jammed traffic?

There are many biased people on this forum. None can offer an alternative solution to the problem, except build them bigger roads so they can drive wherever they want and then build them more car parking and make it free. That is not a solution to the problem.

rubaiyat said :

Need more capacity? No need to build another road, just add a carriage or two, or run it more frequently.

And when one patron of this service takes their sweet time boarding because of their walker, or a malfunction with their pre-paid ticket, or one of many possible hold ups like an acciednt, it doesn’t affect just this one tram that is bound to the tracks it sits on, it affects the entire network and brings commuting to a standstill ! If it was a bus, you would pull it over to the side and let the rest of the system continue on its allocated timetable. Can’t do that with a tram can you????
Just imagine if the internet was routed the way a tram works. One glitch and we have global chaos, followed closely with the end of everything.

justin heywood said :

The government does not have a mandate to saddle us with this. For those who came in late, let’s run through a brief timeline.

1. Before the 2012 election, Labor promised $30 million for a ‘series of studies’ into light rail

2. Labor promised, If elected again in 2016, to begin construction with an aim for completion by 2018.

3. After the election, in order to secure the support of the sole Green member who held the balance of power (Shane Rattenbury), Labor entered into an agreement with Rattenbury which promised to move well beyond ‘studies’ and proceed directly to procurement and tendering before 2016.

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/383476/parliamentaryagreement.pdf

Thus the long suffering Canberra ratepayer never had the chance to pass judgement on the project.

The project was and is a political fixit. If the Greens hadn’t scraped in with one seat, it’s very unlikely that Simon Corbell and the usual suspects here would be singing the praises of this project at all.

Indeed – but, of course, any Green hoping to be re-elected the next time would never support a non-Labor government, so this is a very, very high price to pay to eliminate all doubt.

Tymefor said :

switch said :

FHW said :

And to those who believe that the increases in rates etc are only due to the light rail: Mr Fluffy cost Canberra a fair bit too!

Mr Fluffy will probably turn a profit by the time they’ve bulldozed all the blocks and sold two dwellings on what used to be one house.

Well that would be a positive to come out of that mess. Maybe any profit could go towards expanding the rail network at that time. Not really sure that it will quite get to profit though. If it does im sure the feds will want it as they are loaning us the money interest free.

If any ACT government makes a profit out of Mr Fluffy, even with interest-free capital, it will make history.
Like all ACT Government commercial sector type investments it will end in tears with ratepayers again picking up the tab.

switch said :

FHW said :

And to those who believe that the increases in rates etc are only due to the light rail: Mr Fluffy cost Canberra a fair bit too!

Mr Fluffy will probably turn a profit by the time they’ve bulldozed all the blocks and sold two dwellings on what used to be one house.

Well that would be a positive to come out of that mess. Maybe any profit could go towards expanding the rail network at that time. Not really sure that it will quite get to profit though. If it does im sure the feds will want it as they are loaning us the money interest free.

FHW said :

And to those who believe that the increases in rates etc are only due to the light rail: Mr Fluffy cost Canberra a fair bit too!

Mr Fluffy will probably turn a profit by the time they’ve bulldozed all the blocks and sold two dwellings on what used to be one house.

The government does not have a mandate to saddle us with this. For those who came in late, let’s run through a brief timeline.

1. Before the 2012 election, Labor promised $30 million for a ‘series of studies’ into light rail

2. Labor promised, If elected again in 2016, to begin construction with an aim for completion by 2018.

3. After the election, in order to secure the support of the sole Green member who held the balance of power (Shane Rattenbury), Labor entered into an agreement with Rattenbury which promised to move well beyond ‘studies’ and proceed directly to procurement and tendering before 2016.

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/383476/parliamentaryagreement.pdf

Thus the long suffering Canberra ratepayer never had the chance to pass judgement on the project.

The project was and is a political fixit. If the Greens hadn’t scraped in with one seat, it’s very unlikely that Simon Corbell and the usual suspects here would be singing the praises of this project at all.

The only thing I have against light rail is that it is not ambitious enough. We need routes that go past the universities, the hospitals, the airport and the bus stations. OK we have to start small (and replicating a known route to start with is a sensible move), but there is no point having just one line. The efficiency lies in a network.

For those who say that buses are more advantageous because they are flexible, this can also be a problem. People build large businesses based on the transport available, so consistency leads to certainty leads to more stable investment.

My vote is for free buses until the light rail can be extended throughout, paid for in part by an increase in rego. At some point we are going to have to get public-transport savvy. Like most investments, the sooner we do this, the cheaper in the long run.

And to those who believe that the increases in rates etc are only due to the light rail: Mr Fluffy cost Canberra a fair bit too!

rubaiyat said :

…Trams … run on the ACT’s own fuel supply from the solar farms which should take quite a few diesel tankers off our roads and a heck of a lot of pollution out of our air….

So I guess we’re all back to our cars on cloudy/rainy days, or during winter when it’s already dark by the time most of us are going home.

rubaiyat said :

….It is also very much a Canberra bypass and will do for Canberra what the freeway bypass of Goulburn did for Goulburn, take away business and income….

Just sayin’ 😉

Probably a better comparison would be what the M7 did to Sydney.

Err, by electric I mean trolley buses so that the media Canberra people can still draw random cities out of a hat to make Canberra more like.

Electrify the rapid buses! Convert the old mate orange buses to electric if that’s all that these enviro people want. Surely that would release less bad things than whatever building a train track would do.

montana said :

ive asked it before and ill ask it again. What advantage does a tram have over a bus?

buses can go anywhere, while trams are bound by the track. both still need to stop at traffic lights.

am i missing something???

Yes, and that question has been answered over and over. Even googling ‘advantages of trams over buses’ will get 71,000 responses.

Reading the topic on Riot Act will have respondents staking a position from ‘trams are the devil incarnate and the introduction in the ACT will rend the very fabric of the universe and allow the entry of hell’s swarming minions’ through to the more moderate and considered ‘Trams might be a good idea but the ACT cannot afford the capital expenditure right now’ through to ‘Trams float on Angel wings and can be powered by butterfly sneezes’.

There are patently obvious advantages to trams over buses and 10 minutes research will tell you that. It’s up to you to decide whether the cost outweighs the advantages in your mind.

While you are doing the googling, look up ‘the economic effect of deliberate introduction of sovereign risk by incoming governments’.

montana said :

ive asked it before and ill ask it again. What advantage does a tram have over a bus?

buses can go anywhere, while trams are bound by the track. both still need to stop at traffic lights.

am i missing something???

Yes. Buses can go over existing bridges. Light rail can’t. Anyone who casually claims that the rest of Canberra will get its turn is talking out of their hat as we don’t know yet what the final cost of this first leg will be, and it won’t face the challenges of LBG.

If you support a bus solution you hate public transport, and the planet, because light rail can be electric but apparently buses will never be electric. And if you think BRT is the way to go you’re living in the last century, though if you go further back to the previous century you’re a visionary.

montana said :

ive asked it before and ill ask it again. What advantage does a tram have over a bus?

buses can go anywhere, while trams are bound by the track. both still need to stop at traffic lights.

am i missing something???

Buses emit CO2 & particulates. Our “visionary” trams will run off the Royalla Solar Farm. Not sure though what the Greens have figured on if Royalla clouds over. A huge bank of mouses in treadmills perhaps?

montana said :

ive asked it before and ill ask it again. What advantage does a tram have over a bus?

The advantage is that Trams secured the support of the sole Green in the Assembly. Nothing else mattered apparently. It costs a $ billion dollars or so? Whatever it takes.

All the rest has just been dressing up the the whole boondoggle as a rational project.

montana said :

ive asked it before and ill ask it again. What advantage does a tram have over a bus?

buses can go anywhere, while trams are bound by the track. both still need to stop at traffic lights.

am i missing something???

Well mostly you are missing the point in trying to compare a tram to a bus. You should be thinking in terms of a standard bus network vs BRT vs light rail. It’s “common” sense questions like yours, without any prior research, that destroy what could be a great debate about the best possible solution for the future.

But ill bite, as back when all this was first being talked about that’s the sort of question I had on my mind.
1. Light rail is on a track not on wheels. The track is level and straight, the ride is therefore much more comfortable, with none of the up and down of wheeled vehicles or the jolts of pulling into a bus stop and then back into traffic. This increased comfort is important for attracting more regular users and for people who suffer impairments and find transport of any kind hard.

2.Light rail is on tracks not on wheels. So even in situations where the tracks have to share the road with cars. There is no need to pull over or give way and pull back into traffic. This is important as it can shave a lot of time off a total trip vs a wheeled bus. Also this forces all traffic to give way to the tram and the passengers. Which seems to reduce accidents surrounding public transport.

3.Light rail is on tracks not on wheels. As there are no large tyres, the distance from ground to the floor level is between 10-15cm on almost every type of trolley. This also means more doors for loading. Reducing the loading time for passengers makes the overall trip much faster and reduces the frustration of passengers already on-board.

I could go on for ages. There are so many differences its stupid to even try and list them here. Wether you see these differences as important or not. That is what a debate should be about.

I would suggest you even Google “What advantage does a tram have over a bus?”.

montana said :

ive asked it before and ill ask it again. What advantage does a tram have over a bus?

buses can go anywhere, while trams are bound by the track. both still need to stop at traffic lights.

am i missing something???

Trams are visionary, vibrant and sexy. Nothing else matters.

ive asked it before and ill ask it again. What advantage does a tram have over a bus?

buses can go anywhere, while trams are bound by the track. both still need to stop at traffic lights.

am i missing something???

It is exactly what is needed. Integrating various parts making it smooth to travel.

Pork Hunt said :

I have just returned from 3 x 1 month stints of work in Melbourne. Whilst I drove to and from work from East Melbourne to Hawthorn each day, I did use the tram to and from the city and beyond. I became a fan.
I live in Qbn so the Canberra tram is of little use to but if it’s built and operating, many will love it.
The current proposal needs to go much further and needs to link all town centres (and beyond) and Queanbeyan.

The railway track doesn’t get much use, so could be easily used by light rail.

The problem is, as with everything, the absolute absence of any forward thinking.

Neither Canberra nor Queanbeyan have been designed with transport corridors and both have assumed there is only one transport possible and that is the 100% government subsidised and 100% loss making roads. So both cities have railway stations well removed from human habitation and town centres. Canberra’s train station was never built in the heart of Canberra as Walter Burley Griffin intended. It is not even a comfortable walking distance to the centre of the minor suburb of Kingston.

The notion that Canberra or even Queanbeyan or the combination of both need a ludicrous 6-7 million people to make light rail viable is obviously and absolutely ridiculous and contradicted by hundreds of easily looked up examples. But that is the level of knowledge and depth of research evident here. What we do have here over and over and over again, is the Man on the Street’s sadly “Common” knowledge and sense.

Of which we will hear much more, repeated endlessly, as if any of it is true.

Of course none of that is carved in stone. Carved in lack of imagination perhaps, but all those who always object to change just because it is different and they can not comprehend or imagine an alternative to what they have known, will eventually just have to get out of the way. They can delay and drive up the cost, but ultimately the inevitable will arrive and everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.

Pork Hunt said :

I have just returned from 3 x 1 month stints of work in Melbourne. Whilst I drove to and from work from East Melbourne to Hawthorn each day, I did use the tram to and from the city and beyond. I became a fan.
I live in Qbn so the Canberra tram is of little use to but if it’s built and operating, many will love it.
The current proposal needs to go much further and needs to link all town centres (and beyond) and Queanbeyan.

If we could get the NSW Government to contribute to the cost….but, come to think of it, why not get them to do the lot, and while they’re at it, expand their Health and Education systems to cover the ACT (the local bits could be co-ordinated from that flash new building in Monaro Street) – the bureaucratic savings could help to pay for the trams.

And let’s not forget NSW also has a highly entertaining, never-say-die, ICAC – which would doubtless like to spend some time on the Limestone Plains.

rommeldog56 said :

gosh said :

the light rail plan is precisely what Canberra needs: a visionary transformation. this will change the Northbourne corridor and inner north dramatically, for the better. The lifestyle for those living in or utilising the city area will be upgraded with more housing, shops and services and improved transport. Over the next several decades light rail around Canberra will be forthcoming if this is a success. This is what is needed to improve the bus network by offering a competitor and relieving some of their current resource issues.

I understand the suburban road developments are priority for people in those areas and they will arrive in time. I want to see government learn from the inadequate connecting infrastructure planning in new suburbs. They just don’t get it, having to go back two and three times to build the roadways people need in the suburbs of Canberra. But I don’t see any of these projects as visionary, as I see the light rail project which is why I’m so supportive of it.

Fair enough. However :

1) The current ACTION bus system is heavily subsidised and the Tram will take passengers away from it & create yet another public transport system for Ratepayers to subsidise.
2) How will you gauge the “success” of the 1st stage of the Light Rail ? The Benefits Costs Ratio was only 1 : 1.2.
3) Your comment about Light Rail being expanded to the rest of the ACT “Over the next several decades”, says it all really. Though that timeframe is not surprising, its a long, long time away so Ratepayers are very, very cynical & disbelieving about any expansion, moreso given this Government’s track record on Infrastructure projects & basic fiscal decision making/priority setting.
4) Claims that the Tram will change the “inner north dramatically” are on a wing and a prayer – its a gamble with Ratepayers money. But it will achieve its objective of infill along the corridor. But that’s not “visionary” – at that cost, it’s ultra poor decision making by an arrogant Government that stopped listening to Ratepayers years ago.
5) How does anyone expect that such a small revenue raising base as exists in the ACT is going to pay for this and other Public Private partnerships ?

Any large scale expansion of the initial Tram line isn’t going to happen beacuse of the cost. This & past ACT Gov’ts just haven’t done enough to diversify the employment & revenue raising base in order to launch expensive infrastructure projects such as this. Seen your Annual Rates, rego, parking fees, bus fees and just about every other fee increase this and in subsequent years ? Get used to it. This will pretty much be the norm now – except in the election year of course.

It’s in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but I don’t see much “visionary” in a CBD-CBD Tram (but I too think it looks “neat” and modern).

The risk of substantial and permanent damage to the ACT economy is too great. If someone on RiotAct will give me m$780+ to play with, I’m sure I can be “visionary” with it too.

The electric cars that the visionary A Better Place promised looked “neat and modern” also.
The Capital Metro plan will be A Better Place on steroids.

rommeldog56 said :

dungfungus said :

This is what we will get with light rail:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-commuters-face-chaos-this-week-as-train-drivers-threaten-to-join-tram-strike/story-fni6uo1m-1227386425332?sv=9f72bbbe5fe7ec6b9b2db4d6334618e2
Bear in mind there will first be a battle between the Tram and Train Union and the local TWU as to who eventually runs the light rail.
Do we really want this?

You will have to give up on the union V union thing Dungers, Unions ACT has come out this week in support of the tram as a jobs issue (for their members).

Given that both the TWU and the Bus Tram & Rail Union are affiliates of Unions ACT, which one will run the trams then?

JC said :

What express buses to Gungahlin? Unlike say Belconnen or Tuggeranong there are no dedicated expresses. All they have is routes like 251 which run to Gungahlin, then onto the City, Russell and Barton.

Would be no great loss if they ended in Gungahlin to be replaced by light rail.

The “red rapid” routes 200/202 are express bus services from Gunners CBD to Civic. The ACT Gov’t has said they will cease when Light Rail commences – that about the only part of the plan that makes logical/common sense actually. As long as residents in Gunners know that.

gosh said :

the light rail plan is precisely what Canberra needs: a visionary transformation. this will change the Northbourne corridor and inner north dramatically, for the better. The lifestyle for those living in or utilising the city area will be upgraded with more housing, shops and services and improved transport. Over the next several decades light rail around Canberra will be forthcoming if this is a success. This is what is needed to improve the bus network by offering a competitor and relieving some of their current resource issues.

I understand the suburban road developments are priority for people in those areas and they will arrive in time. I want to see government learn from the inadequate connecting infrastructure planning in new suburbs. They just don’t get it, having to go back two and three times to build the roadways people need in the suburbs of Canberra. But I don’t see any of these projects as visionary, as I see the light rail project which is why I’m so supportive of it.

Fair enough. However :

1) The current ACTION bus system is heavily subsidised and the Tram will take passengers away from it & create yet another public transport system for Ratepayers to subsidise.
2) How will you gauge the “success” of the 1st stage of the Light Rail ? The Benefits Costs Ratio was only 1 : 1.2.
3) Your comment about Light Rail being expanded to the rest of the ACT “Over the next several decades”, says it all really. Though that timeframe is not surprising, its a long, long time away so Ratepayers are very, very cynical & disbelieving about any expansion, moreso given this Government’s track record on Infrastructure projects & basic fiscal decision making/priority setting.
4) Claims that the Tram will change the “inner north dramatically” are on a wing and a prayer – its a gamble with Ratepayers money. But it will achieve its objective of infill along the corridor. But that’s not “visionary” – at that cost, it’s ultra poor decision making by an arrogant Government that stopped listening to Ratepayers years ago.
5) How does anyone expect that such a small revenue raising base as exists in the ACT is going to pay for this and other Public Private partnerships ? Any large scale expansion of the initial Tram line isn’t going to happen beacuse of the cost. This & past ACT Gov’ts just haven’t done enough to diversify the employment & revenue raising base in order to launch expensive infrastructure projects such as this. Seen your Annual Rates, rego, parking fees, bus fees and just about every other fee increase this and in subsequent years ? Get used to it. This will pretty much be the norm now – except in the election year of course.

It’s in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but I don’t see much “visionary” in a CBD-CBD Tram (but I too think it looks “neat” and modern). The risk of substantial and permanent damage to the ACT economy is too great. If someone on RiotAct will give me m$780+ to play with, I’m sure I can be “visionary” with it too.

rubaiyat said :

But you don’t use or know about public transport so you are only suggesting that out of a desire to sabotage any EFFECTIVE public transport.

Building a BRT has most of the costs and inflexibility of a rail system with few of the benefits such as a convenient clean commute and requires many more and hard to get drivers.

More sweeping, and incorerect statements or assumptions in support of the Tram.

Yep – i and many others have absolutely no idea about public transport. I only use it about twice per fortnight because I have other appointments/things to do that public transport – and a fixed route CBD-CBD tram – wont a allow me to do. We users of public transport are so lacking in knowledge about what works for us, we needed the ACT Gov’t (and lobbyists/developers) to decide for us it seems!

So, busses have most of the “inflexibility” of a Tram ? Not from my viewpoint purely because the ACTs Tram will go CBD-CBD. A BRT system can get to the suburbs. There are also much cleaner technologies to power buses rather than the current smoke belching ACTION buses too.

rommeldog56 said :

blisteringbarnacles said :

The Labor Gov. and Shane really have no idea! A BRT, with a cost benefit of nearly 2, would cost a total of $375 million. Imagine what the extra $500 million could be used for?

Urban in-filling along Northbourne will actually make congestion worse. Which then brings us to the Canberra bypass that will need to be built behind Watson and Hackett.

Agree. i was in Civic on Friday night to go to an eatery. it was freezing outisde. I wonder in the dead of a Canberra Winter, how many will use the tram – especially to go into Civic after hours.

I can not wait to see the masses of car parks that will be necessary in the Gunners Town Centre & presumably at Dickson (and near each stop too) for the tram “park and ride”.

Also, when the people who live outside of say 1 K either side of the corridor realise that they will lose the express bus services & so need to catch a bus that rat runs through suburbs or use a car instead, I suspect there will be even more reconsideration of the worth of Light Rail for Canberra. But, it will be too late then of course.

Light rail to reduce congestion along Northborne Ave and other places in Gunners/Nth Canberra ? Maybe a tad – initially. But ultimately, no.

This isn’t a city with 6 or 7 million residents or ratepayers to support a Light Rail network. This is an over engineered and unaffordable solution dremed suitable by the same people responsible for the planning stuffup that lead to the congestion in the first place – the current and past ACT Governments.

What express buses to Gungahlin? Unlike say Belconnen or Tuggeranong there are no dedicated expresses. All they have is routes like 251 which run to Gungahlin, then onto the City, Russell and Barton.

Would be no great loss if they ended in Gungahlin to be replaced by light rail.

I have just returned from 3 x 1 month stints of work in Melbourne. Whilst I drove to and from work from East Melbourne to Hawthorn each day, I did use the tram to and from the city and beyond. I became a fan.
I live in Qbn so the Canberra tram is of little use to but if it’s built and operating, many will love it.
The current proposal needs to go much further and needs to link all town centres (and beyond) and Queanbeyan.

dungfungus said :

This is what we will get with light rail:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-commuters-face-chaos-this-week-as-train-drivers-threaten-to-join-tram-strike/story-fni6uo1m-1227386425332?sv=9f72bbbe5fe7ec6b9b2db4d6334618e2
Bear in mind there will first be a battle between the Tram and Train Union and the local TWU as to who eventually runs the light rail.
Do we really want this?

I don’t think that a beach in Gungahlin is on the cards in any budget any time soon.

Can’t wait to see the out pooring of poor nothsiders complaining as they wind up the bus services because the tram services will be there instead or the traffic chaos when Something impinges upon any of the 12 km of track/ power outage etc. I’m sure there wouldn’t be an issue if a tram got stuck across the Barry drive intersection.

dungfungus said :

This is what we will get with light rail:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-commuters-face-chaos-this-week-as-train-drivers-threaten-to-join-tram-strike/story-fni6uo1m-1227386425332?sv=9f72bbbe5fe7ec6b9b2db4d6334618e2
Bear in mind there will first be a battle between the Tram and Train Union and the local TWU as to who eventually runs the light rail.
Do we really want this?

You will have to give up on the union V union thing Dungers, Unions ACT has come out this week in support of the tram as a jobs issue (for their members).

This is what we will get with light rail:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-commuters-face-chaos-this-week-as-train-drivers-threaten-to-join-tram-strike/story-fni6uo1m-1227386425332?sv=9f72bbbe5fe7ec6b9b2db4d6334618e2
Bear in mind there will first be a battle between the Tram and Train Union and the local TWU as to who eventually runs the light rail.
Do we really want this?

blisteringbarnacles said :

The Labor Gov. and Shane really have no idea! A BRT, with a cost benefit of nearly 2, would cost a total of $375 million. Imagine what the extra $500 million could be used for?

Urban in-filling along Northbourne will actually make congestion worse. Which then brings us to the Canberra bypass that will need to be built behind Watson and Hackett.

Agree. i was in Civic on Friday night to go to an eatery. it was freezing outisde. I wonder in the dead of a Canberra Winter, how many will use the tram – especially to go into Civic after hours.

I can not wait to see the masses of car parks that will be necessary in the Gunners Town Centre & presumably at Dickson (and near each stop too) for the tram “park and ride”. Also, when the people who live outside of say 1 K either side of the corridor realise that they will lose the express bus services & so need to catch a bus that rat runs through suburbs or use a car instead, I suspect there will be even more reconsideration of the worth of Light Rail for Canberra. But, it will be too late then of course.

Light rail to reduce congestion along Northborne Ave and other places in Gunners/Nth Canberra ? Maybe a tad – initially. But ultimately, no.

This isn’t a city with 6 or 7 million residents or ratepayers to support a Light Rail network. This is an over engineered and unaffordable solution dremed suitable by the same people responsible for the planning stuffup that lead to the congestion in the first place – the current and past ACT Governments.

the light rail plan is precisely what Canberra needs: a visionary transformation. this will change the Northbourne corridor and inner north dramatically, for the better. The lifestyle for those living in or utilising the city area will be upgraded with more housing, shops and services and improved transport. Over the next several decades light rail around Canberra will be forthcoming if this is a success. This is what is needed to improve the bus network by offering a competitor and relieving some of their current resource issues.

I understand the suburban road developments are priority for people in those areas and they will arrive in time. I want to see government learn from the inadequate connecting infrastructure planning in new suburbs. They just don’t get it, having to go back two and three times to build the roadways people need in the suburbs of Canberra. But I don’t see any of these projects as visionary, as I see the light rail project which is why I’m so supportive of it.

The Labor Gov. and Shane really have no idea! A BRT, with a cost benefit of nearly 2, would cost a total of $375 million. Imagine what the extra $500 million could be used for?

Urban in-filling along Northbourne will actually make congestion worse. Which then brings us to the Canberra bypass that will need to be built behind Watson and Hackett.

HiddenDragon said :

gazket said :

I would rather pay fro free buses ACT wide so everyone could benefit rather than a tram which will benefit a few % of ACT of people.

Yes – far more equitable for the entire Canberra community, and a much quicker and more comprehensive and flexible means of reducing (or at least reducing the growth of) traffic congestion across the city.

Other options might be free travel during the peak/busy periods on weekdays, or if that was too complicated to administer, make it free on weekdays and have an appealingly low, flat fare for weekends.

And if such a system was introduced, there really shouldn’t be any further nasty, narky increases in, or extensions to the coverage of, parking fees to recoup some of the lost revenue – MLAs and their senior courtiers are not the only people for whom public transport is not always a practical option.

btw do our MLAs pay for parking their cars in their “sequestered” parking area at the Legislative Assembly?

gazket said :

I would rather pay fro free buses ACT wide so everyone could benefit rather than a tram which will benefit a few % of ACT of people.

Yes – far more equitable for the entire Canberra community, and a much quicker and more comprehensive and flexible means of reducing (or at least reducing the growth of) traffic congestion across the city.

Other options might be free travel during the peak/busy periods on weekdays, or if that was too complicated to administer, make it free on weekdays and have an appealingly low, flat fare for weekends.

And if such a system was introduced, there really shouldn’t be any further nasty, narky increases in, or extensions to the coverage of, parking fees to recoup some of the lost revenue – MLAs and their senior courtiers are not the only people for whom public transport is not always a practical option.

rommeldog56 said :

watto23 said :

Gungahlin is not the main beneficiariy, although you can be guaranteed it will be setup as a park and ride scenario, so parents can drop kids off at school, drive to the station park and ride to the city. Or bus/cycle walk to a station/stop.

also the point about using light rail over buses. If you build a high density transit corridor the sort of people who live in it will catch light rail, so while you or I won’t that is not the point. Increased housing in the corridor will hopefully relieve pressure on the rest of Canberra.

I would have thought that any declared transit corridor – including one for rapid buses – would increase density along the route. We certainly don’t need this hyper expensive tram for that.

Buses do not have that affect anywhere that I have seen. They continue to pollute as badly as ever and repel commuters except those totally committed to public transport or have no choice. Nobody wants to live near the stink, noise and unreliability of buses or endure the bone jarring rattling and shaking ride whilst trying to read or work on your laptop or tablet.

But you don’t use or know about public transport so you are only suggesting that out of a desire to sabotage any EFFECTIVE public transport.

Building a BRT has most of the costs and inflexibility of a rail system with few of the benefits such as a convenient clean commute and requires many more and hard to get drivers. The proposed BRT from City to Belconnen got shelved for exactly that reason that it was an expensive, still unpleasant second rate substitute for real transport.

farnarkler said :

It’d be cheaper to build tunnels the whole length of Northbourne ave, much like those in Brussels. They’re not very deep, in fact the roof is at street level. The tunnels could begin at Yowani and end at the Canberra theatre and would make life a lot easier for those Gungahlinites heading over the lake.

No it would not. Excavation is expensive and will cut right through all the services buried under Northbourne Ave which would need diverting.

This all comes from no, or just plain bad planning which ignored the ultimate need for transportation corridors.

You do pay for shortsighted thinking. We are paying for the stupidity that was Mr Fluffy in multiple ways, not just financial, but the damage it has done to the occupants. We are also paying for the huge stock of badly built, badly designed, badly oriented and badly located housing that infests Canberra and continues to.

Well designed and located trams are a huge asset to a city. Being virtually in front of you at street level makes them so convenient for getting around, just like horizontal lifts. But the town planning, transport routes and architecture do need to go hand in hand. It is no coincidence that Melbourne is lively and full of restaurants, shops, activity and pleasant to get around, as opposed to nearly every American city where streets are largely empty, decayed and full of car parks surrounding rows of junk food chains.

New York and Chicago are much more lively because they still have human oriented fairly efficient transport systems. As most European city have.

Sadly we listen to the incoherent, contradictory demands of people, who are manipulated by industry marketing and just want to ride around in cars. Cars that destroy our cities and ruin the health of the populace, endangering the lives and health of everyone not in the cars, as well as the whole environment. The environment we live in that trumps all other so-called “needs” that people make up.

Typically we have the nonsense that any money spent on public transport should be “better” spent on hospitals which are having to deal with the consequence of our reliance on cars, Almost one fifth of hospital inmates are there directly because of car accidents and many of the rest are there because of health issues such as diabetes, obesity and heart problems from avoiding the day to day exercise you get from simply using public transport.

But this is how it works:

“Doctor, what can I do to fix my overweight, shortness of breath and insomnia?”

“Exercise, eat right and get some fresh air!”

“No seriously Doctor! What can I do to fix my overweight, shortness of breath and insomnia?”

It’d be cheaper to build tunnels the whole length of Northbourne ave, much like those in Brussels. They’re not very deep, in fact the roof is at street level. The tunnels could begin at Yowani and end at the Canberra theatre and would make life a lot easier for those Gungahlinites heading over the lake.

watto23 said :

Gungahlin is not the main beneficiariy, although you can be guaranteed it will be setup as a park and ride scenario, so parents can drop kids off at school, drive to the station park and ride to the city. Or bus/cycle walk to a station/stop.

also the point about using light rail over buses. If you build a high density transit corridor the sort of people who live in it will catch light rail, so while you or I won’t that is not the point. Increased housing in the corridor will hopefully relieve pressure on the rest of Canberra.

I would have thought that any declared transit corridor – including one for rapid buses – would increase density along the route. We certainly don’t need this hyper expensive tram for that.

watto23 said :

Rates increases are probably not much less under the coalition, without substantial loss of services in this city. They won’t admit that, but the only way to find out is obviously at an election. I’m almost certain any liberal government in Canberra will last a term before being voted out. I hope come the next election they put ideas and policies forward over the 3 word slogans they used last time.

I’ve gone back over my last 15 years Annual Rates notices – average is about $40pa. Municipal services were ok then !

Now $193 increase pa for the next 20+ years, give or take – with degrated municiple services and no tram coming to Tuggers any time soon (probably never actually). How on earth do you twist that situation around to claim that the Annual Rates increases under an alternative ACT Gov’t won’t be much less ?

And if an alternative ACT Gov’t doesn’t deliver the goods re fiscal responsibility and priority setting, then they can and should be voted out too. It’s like trainng puppy dogs really. Eventually ACT Gov’ts will get the message.

watto23 said :

Some valid points but the solution isn’t to build new roads and put more buses on the streets either. Its alright to bag out a strategy, but at least offer a viable alternative.

I personally think a rapid transit network between the town centres would have been good, firstly utilising buses perhaps, but with dedicated roadways with potential to upgrade to light rail. Much like the old Civic-Belconnen proposed busway from years ago.

But some of your points are not valid. The proposed tram is more about building a high density transit corridor for people to live in and commute to the city on. Gungahlin is not really the main beneficiariy, although you can be guaranteed it will be setup as a park and ride scenario, so parents can drop kids off at school, drive to the station park and ride to the city. Or bus/cycle walk to a station/stop.

Its also naive to think paid parking is not coming to Gungahlin regardless of light rail. It is in every other town centre.

also the point about using light rail over buses. If you build a high density transit corridor the sort of people who live in it will catch light rail, so while you or I won’t that is not the point. Increased housing in the corridor will hopefully relieve pressure on the rest of Canberra.

It may not be the ideal plan, but the libs haven’t got a clue on this either. Building bigger roads and putting more buses on the roads, makes the problem worse. Less car parking and more expensive car parking will then happen as well. Car parking is inefficient use of land for the return they make as well.

Rates increases are probably not much less under the coalition, without substantial loss of services in this city. They won’t admit that, but the only way to find out is obviously at an election. I’m almost certain any liberal government in Canberra will last a term before being voted out. I hope come the next election they put ideas and policies forward over the 3 word slogans they used last time.

You have to be careful when you read these “Reports” coming out of America.

1. A lot are being generated by conservative “think tanks” who are running an unannounced by surreptitious paid anti-sustainabilitity campaign for the fossil fuel industry, part of which is automatic opposition to anything public transport. Part of that is the same bus replacement for rail that they ran to get freeways in the first place. The car industry in America bought out and closed down most of the rail networks, “replacing” them with a supposed more efficient bus networks run by a stooge coach operator. This left America with virtually no public transport and what was left was the reserve of the poor black and latinos who had no choice but to use it, as bad as it was.

2. The Americans are not on the same planet as the rest of us. They are disproportionately deniers of carbon pollution problems just as they are innumerate, anti-evolutionary, voodoo economics nuts (aka we all gonna get rich quick without working) and anti-science or rational anything. They largely think the only problem with fossil fuels is getting your hands on it cheaply.

3. Most rail and public transport in the USA is not electrical it is diesel and rail is largely used for freight with public transport rail actually being run into sidings to make way for the freight trains.

4. As here, the arguments take it for granted that freeways will be built at no charge by the government but rail must fully fund itself with howls of outrage at any suggestion of government subsidy. In fact there is the irrational notion that roads are somehow private enterprise instead of government hand outs.

5. Buses can take some of the load off the roads simply because they occupy less bitumen than the 60-70 cars they replace, but they suffer because of the poor ride (it is really hard to read or work on a bus) and the fact they are part of the traffic jams and can do no better than the cars that surround them, particularly as in Canberra, because of bad town and traffic planning only 6.8% of commuters use the buses, Half the national average of public transport users.

Essentially it is useful for anti-public transport advocates to claim buses are a “solution” because they know they are no solution and therefore can be further run down as an alternative to more roads, more cars which is their real agenda.

Yes they are more flexible and can be reassigned elsewhere. Mostly reassigned to not run because they are old and run down and break down a lot but also they can be reassigned to the scrap heap as public transport gets wound down in the very face of a need to use it more both to reduce congestion and to reduce pollution. Not to mention in the face of resource security and our non-stop run-away trade deficit and financing of middle east wars and terror.

Even if you have your head buried up to the ankles on all the pretty obvious issues with over-reliance on oil driven vehicles, you should be concerned that obesity and diabetes have become a national plague and our largest killers and reasons for hospitalisation (not that that is expensive or a huge problem in itself) and the deaths and injuries from roads are a long running but ignored sore and taxpayers burden.

gazket said :

I would rather pay fro free buses ACT wide so everyone could benefit rather than a tram which will benefit a few % of ACT of people.

I never understand this attitude? In my experience almost everyone that lives in Canberra uses CIVIC. Bringing more people and their money into it therefore helps everyone……As we will all get to benefit from a more vibrant city.

I wonder why Gungahlin business aren’t more vocal about this, as most of the negatives I read about, in cities that have added corridors, tend to be how most of the restaurants and night life at the non-city ends close or move to the city end.

I would rather pay fro free buses ACT wide so everyone could benefit rather than a tram which will benefit a few % of ACT of people.

The tram from Gungahlin to the city is not even forward thinking. It’s old fashioned last century technology.

Forward thinking would be be a underground rail from Tuggeranong , Woden, City, Gungahlin with branches to Belco and Weston Creek.

If the tram hits a car (which is guaranteed to happen) the whole line will have to shut down . Then no one goes any where until a heap of buses turn up.

I think 15-20 years is a bit short for that sort of situation to develop. Double that at least.

Paul2913 said :

There are bigger issues here than just the affordability of the rail system. The proposal to increase the population density and businesses down and around Northbourne Avenue and around the rail line will cripple this city.

Northbourne Avenue is one of the main arteries into this city; the ACT Government refers to it as the “gateway to our City”. Sensible city design is to improve traffic flow along a city’s main arteries, and allow the traffic to filter from those main arteries to where it needs to go. Walter Burley Griffin’s original design of Canberra does exactly that – main arteries connecting key population and business areas.

ACT Government’s plan is to put light rail down the middle of one of this city’s main arteries. Then, because light rail is so expensive, it will increase population and business density along the rail line to justify the rail line’s existence. The ACT Government’s plan is to increase congestion along Northbourne Avenue – one of the main arteries to this city.

Let’s take Sydney as an example. Remember when the main way to get to Sydney City from Canberra was via Parramatta Road – what a nightmare that was. All the businesses and associated traffic along Parramatta Road greatly increased congestion and driver frustration. Sydney’s solution to the problem was the M4, which bypasses Parramatta Road. Now the M4 runs as smoothly as it can, and traffic filters from the M4 to where it needs to go. The NSW Government would be a laughing stock if it now decided to build businesses along the M4 and further increase the congestion along this road… it would simply be poor city design.

The people of Canberra and the Liberal Government need to stop this Labor and Greens proposal as it will cripple this city. Please don’t think I’m against infrastructure investment to bring business into Canberra, building an IT or other business hub would be great move; but artificially increasing congestion along a main city artery is nothing short of stupidity.

If this proposal is allowed to go ahead in 15 to 20 years time we’ll be discussing a bypass because the “gateway to our city” is so congested.

3 points it is affordable when the investment is spread over years as any major project will do.

2. There is no proposal to increase density along the corridor. The corridor already has the density. Flemington road in particular being designed that way.

3. We already have our M4, though I suspect you mean M5 because the M4 stops short of the city bit like the Federal Highway and Northborne. But the ACT M5 is the Majura Parkway or Gungahlin Drive etc.

There are bigger issues here than just the affordability of the rail system. The proposal to increase the population density and businesses down and around Northbourne Avenue and around the rail line will cripple this city.

Northbourne Avenue is one of the main arteries into this city; the ACT Government refers to it as the “gateway to our City”. Sensible city design is to improve traffic flow along a city’s main arteries, and allow the traffic to filter from those main arteries to where it needs to go. Walter Burley Griffin’s original design of Canberra does exactly that – main arteries connecting key population and business areas.

ACT Government’s plan is to put light rail down the middle of one of this city’s main arteries. Then, because light rail is so expensive, it will increase population and business density along the rail line to justify the rail line’s existence. The ACT Government’s plan is to increase congestion along Northbourne Avenue – one of the main arteries to this city.

Let’s take Sydney as an example. Remember when the main way to get to Sydney City from Canberra was via Parramatta Road – what a nightmare that was. All the businesses and associated traffic along Parramatta Road greatly increased congestion and driver frustration. Sydney’s solution to the problem was the M4, which bypasses Parramatta Road. Now the M4 runs as smoothly as it can, and traffic filters from the M4 to where it needs to go. The NSW Government would be a laughing stock if it now decided to build businesses along the M4 and further increase the congestion along this road… it would simply be poor city design.

The people of Canberra and the Liberal Government need to stop this Labor and Greens proposal as it will cripple this city. Please don’t think I’m against infrastructure investment to bring business into Canberra, building an IT or other business hub would be great move; but artificially increasing congestion along a main city artery is nothing short of stupidity.

If this proposal is allowed to go ahead in 15 to 20 years time we’ll be discussing a bypass because the “gateway to our city” is so congested.

“High Quality BRT” that’s the clincher there though. I don’t think a lot of the people that are advocates for BRT realise what is needed to achieve that rating. The ITDP 2014 standards applied in the northborne situation isn’t what most people are envisioning.

You need Stations not stops. That’s raised platforms with a system of paying BEFORE you get on the bus. So a gated platform or “display you’ve payed” sort of thing. Not the Myway tag on as you get on system.

Right of way at intersections must also favour the busses the most important part there that gets overlooked in a lot of commentary is the no left or right turns for parallel running traffic, eliminating those from the traffic light cycle.

“BRT creep” is a term being thrown around a lot now in regards to governments which slowly allow concessions to a BRT system to creep in. Totally destroying the point of BRT in the first place. I’ve known ACT governments to long not to KNOW that’s what would happen here.

Fritz said :

To those people who think light rail is a good idea… please, do your homework:

– The light rail proposal replaces an existing bus route from Gungahlin to Civic. To replace the existing bus route will cost around $800m in infrastructure, plus ongoing running costs that are higher than running a bus network. Quoted “it is much more expensive, on average, to move one light rail vehicle as it is one bus” from the following article http://publictransport.about.com/od/Transit_Vehicles/a/What-Are-The-True-Operating-Cost-Differences-Between-Bus-And-Light-Rail.htm. This article is just one of many.

– Light rail does not leverage more investment than buses… “high-quality BRT can leverage as
much or more economic development as LRT or streetcar systems can. But, because the
BRT corridors are cheaper to build and operate, they leverage far more TOD investment per
dollar of transit investment.”, from an extensive study in the US, see: https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/More-Development-For-Your-Transit-Dollar_ITDP.pdf.

– The environmental benefits of light rail compared to buses are fairly insignificant… “Lenzen calculated greenhouse gas intensity of bus and trains – that is, the total kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted per passenger-kilometre. He found that light rail and buses were similar at 0.2 and 0.22 kg carbon dioxide (CO2) generated per pkm respectively”…. see http://www.greenlifestylemag.com.au/features/82/train-versus-bus

– The bus and the train will take the same amount of time from Gungahlin to Civic… the train is expected to take 25 minutes (from the ACT’s Metro Rail Report), and off-peak the bus takes 24 minutes (from the bus timetable). Throw in dedicated bus lanes down Northbourne Avenue and time the lights according to traffic flow and you’ll have a fast bus trip. The person who suggested moving the current cycle lanes off the road and straight down the middle of Northbourne has the right idea… safer for cyclists, less angst from traffic, and off-road bike paths are more conducive to cycling so more people will cycle to work.

– Buses are far more flexible than trains. Buses can be rerouted during the day – that’s significantly harder for a train on a fixed track… and if a train breaks down then the whole line is dead… but it’ll be ok because the buses will take over.

– The proposal is to extend the train network across Canberra – but how will the get the trains across the lake? I assume they’re not expecting to go around the lake as that would be a fair trip. I really hope they’re not going to build a rail bridge across the lake – Ugly! I’d be in favour of a tunnel under the lake, but our population doesn’t justify the expense.

– The ACT Government is expecting more people to catch light rail than buses… why? Most people would still need to catch a bus to the light rail station, and then they need to wait to catch the train – where’s the convenience in that. People will switch from buses to light rail… that’s what Canberra will see.

– Light rail is going to destroy the look of tree-lined Northbourne Avenue… we’ll have two ugly trains, or at least train lines, going along it.

In addition:

– Have you seen all the tax increases in our budget – the Government is fund raising for light rail.

– Do you think our Government is being nice to public housing residents my moving them from their central locations on Northbourne Avenue to inconvenient areas such as Nicholls – don’t be fooled, it’s just preparing for light rail.

– I’m waiting for the ACT Government to start charging for parking in Gungahlin – they will once light rail is there.

This light rail proposal is going to be a drain on the ACT’s economy forever… it’s yet more stupidity from our ACT Labour/Greens Government.

Some valid points but the solution isn’t to build new roads and put more buses on the streets either. Its alright to bag out a strategy, but at least offer a viable alternative.

I personally think a rapid transit network between the town centres would have been good, firstly utilising buses perhaps, but with dedicated roadways with potential to upgrade to light rail. Much like the old Civic-Belconnen proposed busway from years ago.

But some of your points are not valid. The proposed tram is more about building a high density transit corridor for people to live in and commute to the city on. Gungahlin is not really the main beneficiariy, although you can be guaranteed it will be setup as a park and ride scenario, so parents can drop kids off at school, drive to the station park and ride to the city. Or bus/cycle walk to a station/stop.

Its also naive to think paid parking is not coming to Gungahlin regardless of light rail. It is in every other town centre.

also the point about using light rail over buses. If you build a high density transit corridor the sort of people who live in it will catch light rail, so while you or I won’t that is not the point. Increased housing in the corridor will hopefully relieve pressure on the rest of Canberra.

It may not be the ideal plan, but the libs haven’t got a clue on this either. Building bigger roads and putting more buses on the roads, makes the problem worse. Less car parking and more expensive car parking will then happen as well. Car parking is inefficient use of land for the return they make as well.

Rates increases are probably not much less under the coalition, without substantial loss of services in this city. They won’t admit that, but the only way to find out is obviously at an election. I’m almost certain any liberal government in Canberra will last a term before being voted out. I hope come the next election they put ideas and policies forward over the 3 word slogans they used last time.

switch said :

dungfungus said :

The economic “benefits” that light rail is bringing to Sydney: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/sydney-light-rail-businesses-fleeing-popular-shopping-strip-before-its-impact-arrives/story-fnpn0zn5-1227383606949

Sydney’s Terrorgraph bashing trains. Colour me surprised.

But Fritz’s article above should be used to hammer our useless smug pollies with a big “Please Explain!” I’d love to see a fast efficient light rail network all over Canberra. Back in the real world, we can’t afford it. And buses can do everything it offers right now, or with only minor tweaking.

Canberra is already full of empty shops and fleeing business owners and the light rail hasn’t even started construction.
What a pro-active mob we are.

dungfungus said :

The economic “benefits” that light rail is bringing to Sydney: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/sydney-light-rail-businesses-fleeing-popular-shopping-strip-before-its-impact-arrives/story-fnpn0zn5-1227383606949

Sydney’s Terrorgraph bashing trains. Colour me surprised.

But Fritz’s article above should be used to hammer our useless smug pollies with a big “Please Explain!” I’d love to see a fast efficient light rail network all over Canberra. Back in the real world, we can’t afford it. And buses can do everything it offers right now, or with only minor tweaking.

The economic “benefits” that light rail is bringing to Sydney: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/sydney-light-rail-businesses-fleeing-popular-shopping-strip-before-its-impact-arrives/story-fnpn0zn5-1227383606949

To those people who think light rail is a good idea… please, do your homework:

– The light rail proposal replaces an existing bus route from Gungahlin to Civic. To replace the existing bus route will cost around $800m in infrastructure, plus ongoing running costs that are higher than running a bus network. Quoted “it is much more expensive, on average, to move one light rail vehicle as it is one bus” from the following article http://publictransport.about.com/od/Transit_Vehicles/a/What-Are-The-True-Operating-Cost-Differences-Between-Bus-And-Light-Rail.htm. This article is just one of many.

– Light rail does not leverage more investment than buses… “high-quality BRT can leverage as
much or more economic development as LRT or streetcar systems can. But, because the
BRT corridors are cheaper to build and operate, they leverage far more TOD investment per
dollar of transit investment.”, from an extensive study in the US, see: https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/More-Development-For-Your-Transit-Dollar_ITDP.pdf.

– The environmental benefits of light rail compared to buses are fairly insignificant… “Lenzen calculated greenhouse gas intensity of bus and trains – that is, the total kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted per passenger-kilometre. He found that light rail and buses were similar at 0.2 and 0.22 kg carbon dioxide (CO2) generated per pkm respectively”…. see http://www.greenlifestylemag.com.au/features/82/train-versus-bus

– The bus and the train will take the same amount of time from Gungahlin to Civic… the train is expected to take 25 minutes (from the ACT’s Metro Rail Report), and off-peak the bus takes 24 minutes (from the bus timetable). Throw in dedicated bus lanes down Northbourne Avenue and time the lights according to traffic flow and you’ll have a fast bus trip. The person who suggested moving the current cycle lanes off the road and straight down the middle of Northbourne has the right idea… safer for cyclists, less angst from traffic, and off-road bike paths are more conducive to cycling so more people will cycle to work.

– Buses are far more flexible than trains. Buses can be rerouted during the day – that’s significantly harder for a train on a fixed track… and if a train breaks down then the whole line is dead… but it’ll be ok because the buses will take over.

– The proposal is to extend the train network across Canberra – but how will the get the trains across the lake? I assume they’re not expecting to go around the lake as that would be a fair trip. I really hope they’re not going to build a rail bridge across the lake – Ugly! I’d be in favour of a tunnel under the lake, but our population doesn’t justify the expense.

– The ACT Government is expecting more people to catch light rail than buses… why? Most people would still need to catch a bus to the light rail station, and then they need to wait to catch the train – where’s the convenience in that. People will switch from buses to light rail… that’s what Canberra will see.

– Light rail is going to destroy the look of tree-lined Northbourne Avenue… we’ll have two ugly trains, or at least train lines, going along it.

In addition:

– Have you seen all the tax increases in our budget – the Government is fund raising for light rail.

– Do you think our Government is being nice to public housing residents my moving them from their central locations on Northbourne Avenue to inconvenient areas such as Nicholls – don’t be fooled, it’s just preparing for light rail.

– I’m waiting for the ACT Government to start charging for parking in Gungahlin – they will once light rail is there.

This light rail proposal is going to be a drain on the ACT’s economy forever… it’s yet more stupidity from our ACT Labour/Greens Government.

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

It still is free parking for those who are able to bicycle (and ride a motorbike?).

Yep motorbike parking is free. Plus motorbike parking can uses free space that is not usable for much else (yes often its just in a carpark though)

At least motorcycle owners pay registration fees (but not parking fines).
Were bicycle riders penalised in any way in this last budget?

Bicycle riders are penalised every time they get knocked off their bikes by a car. Every time someone rides a bike, it’s a little bit less junk going into the air you breathe, and yes, one less car on the road, speeding up your trip by car, and reducing maintenance bills for expensive road infrastructure. I travel in all sorts of ways, car, bike and walking. The cyclist hate is pretty irrational.

Even John Wayne hated cyclists: https://youtu.be/Q6-DAk4EcF0

Even I, as a regular cyclist, hate some cyclists. Thinking in particular of the ones that dress in dark clothes, don’t wear a helmet and ride around dark suburban streets at night with no lighting whatsoever. If you want to die that’s fine, but I don’t want to have a part in your death!

bryansworld said :

The cyclist hate is pretty irrational.

Not at all.

The cyclist is after all doing something different to most road users, and if you let that continue who knows where that could lead to?

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

It still is free parking for those who are able to bicycle (and ride a motorbike?).

Yep motorbike parking is free. Plus motorbike parking can uses free space that is not usable for much else (yes often its just in a carpark though)

At least motorcycle owners pay registration fees (but not parking fines).
Were bicycle riders penalised in any way in this last budget?

Bicycle riders are penalised every time they get knocked off their bikes by a car. Every time someone rides a bike, it’s a little bit less junk going into the air you breathe, and yes, one less car on the road, speeding up your trip by car, and reducing maintenance bills for expensive road infrastructure. I travel in all sorts of ways, car, bike and walking. The cyclist hate is pretty irrational.

Even John Wayne hated cyclists: https://youtu.be/Q6-DAk4EcF0

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

It still is free parking for those who are able to bicycle (and ride a motorbike?).

Yep motorbike parking is free. Plus motorbike parking can uses free space that is not usable for much else (yes often its just in a carpark though)

At least motorcycle owners pay registration fees (but not parking fines).
Were bicycle riders penalised in any way in this last budget?

Bicycle riders are penalised every time they get knocked off their bikes by a car. Every time someone rides a bike, it’s a little bit less junk going into the air you breathe, and yes, one less car on the road, speeding up your trip by car, and reducing maintenance bills for expensive road infrastructure. I travel in all sorts of ways, car, bike and walking. The cyclist hate is pretty irrational.

Almost as irrational as thinking the numbers who do cycle are significant enough to make a noticeable and/or material improvement to the air you breathe, traffic flows and maintenance bills for expensive road infrastructure.

I cycle to work a few times a week too, but not because I believe in any of the claims above. I just want to try and keep fit.

That said, tolerance among all road users could improve and a lot of that is based on irrational grounds, I agree. But trotting out the magical virtues of cycling to someone who hates cyclists will only increase their hate, because irrational, remember.

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

It still is free parking for those who are able to bicycle (and ride a motorbike?).

Yep motorbike parking is free. Plus motorbike parking can uses free space that is not usable for much else (yes often its just in a carpark though)

At least motorcycle owners pay registration fees (but not parking fines).
Were bicycle riders penalised in any way in this last budget?

Bicycle riders are penalised every time they get knocked off their bikes by a car. Every time someone rides a bike, it’s a little bit less junk going into the air you breathe, and yes, one less car on the road, speeding up your trip by car, and reducing maintenance bills for expensive road infrastructure. I travel in all sorts of ways, car, bike and walking. The cyclist hate is pretty irrational.

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

It still is free parking for those who are able to bicycle (and ride a motorbike?).

Yep motorbike parking is free. Plus motorbike parking can uses free space that is not usable for much else (yes often its just in a carpark though)

At least motorcycle owners pay registration fees (but not parking fines).
Were bicycle riders penalised in any way in this last budget?

The more people who cycle, the easier it will be for you to find a park. Think about that next time you want measures implemented that will discourage cycling!

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

It still is free parking for those who are able to bicycle (and ride a motorbike?).

Yep motorbike parking is free. Plus motorbike parking can uses free space that is not usable for much else (yes often its just in a carpark though)

At least motorcycle owners pay registration fees (but not parking fines).
Were bicycle riders penalised in any way in this last budget?

dungfungus said :

It still is free parking for those who are able to bicycle (and ride a motorbike?).

Yep motorbike parking is free. Plus motorbike parking can uses free space that is not usable for much else (yes often its just in a carpark though)

Maya123 said :

gooterz said :

At least if the government locks in the light rail there is no reason that the north siders will need to keep them in government.

The South Side will no doubt vote against them in greater numbers, due to the parking mess.

I moved on from the parking problems and complaints years ago, by cycling or catching the bus. In my last years of work that meant either two buses or a bus and a two km walk then to work. For many years it cost to park where I worked, and although relatively not a huge cost, unless you arrived early for work, finding a park was often almost impossible. It meant driving from parking area to parking area and searching, hoping you could find one. So this discussion about parking is so last century to me. Move on; many were paying for parking last century and finding it very difficult to find a park, if they could, near their work. I solved it by cycling in fine weather and in the wet/cold catching a bus, getting off as close as I could to work and then walking the last two kms. The alternative was to get a second bus, but walking was quicker than waiting for the second bus, and I got exercise. If you live a long way from work, consider riding to a more convenient bus stop, chaining your bike there and catching the more direct bus. Trouble is, some people have been used to being spoiled with free parking, thinking that was normal. For many of us, it hasn’t been for years.

Nice story, but for those of us who live outside convenient bus routes and have to visit multiple locations in a working day it’s completely impractical.

That said, I don’t think parking is generally much of an issue for many, so I’m not hugely concerned.

Maya123 said :

gooterz said :

At least if the government locks in the light rail there is no reason that the north siders will need to keep them in government.

The South Side will no doubt vote against them in greater numbers, due to the parking mess.

I moved on from the parking problems and complaints years ago, by cycling or catching the bus. In my last years of work that meant either two buses or a bus and a two km walk then to work. For many years it cost to park where I worked, and although relatively not a huge cost, unless you arrived early for work, finding a park was often almost impossible. It meant driving from parking area to parking area and searching, hoping you could find one. So this discussion about parking is so last century to me. Move on; many were paying for parking last century and finding it very difficult to find a park, if they could, near their work. I solved it by cycling in fine weather and in the wet/cold catching a bus, getting off as close as I could to work and then walking the last two kms. The alternative was to get a second bus, but walking was quicker than waiting for the second bus, and I got exercise. If you live a long way from work, consider riding to a more convenient bus stop, chaining your bike there and catching the more direct bus. Trouble is, some people have been used to being spoiled with free parking, thinking that was normal. For many of us, it hasn’t been for years.

It still is free parking for those who are able to bicycle (and ride a motorbike?).

gooterz said :

At least if the government locks in the light rail there is no reason that the north siders will need to keep them in government.

The South Side will no doubt vote against them in greater numbers, due to the parking mess.

I moved on from the parking problems and complaints years ago, by cycling or catching the bus. In my last years of work that meant either two buses or a bus and a two km walk then to work. For many years it cost to park where I worked, and although relatively not a huge cost, unless you arrived early for work, finding a park was often almost impossible. It meant driving from parking area to parking area and searching, hoping you could find one. So this discussion about parking is so last century to me. Move on; many were paying for parking last century and finding it very difficult to find a park, if they could, near their work. I solved it by cycling in fine weather and in the wet/cold catching a bus, getting off as close as I could to work and then walking the last two kms. The alternative was to get a second bus, but walking was quicker than waiting for the second bus, and I got exercise. If you live a long way from work, consider riding to a more convenient bus stop, chaining your bike there and catching the more direct bus. Trouble is, some people have been used to being spoiled with free parking, thinking that was normal. For many of us, it hasn’t been for years.

At least if the government locks in the light rail there is no reason that the north siders will need to keep them in government.

The South Side will no doubt vote against them in greater numbers, due to the parking mess.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Meanwhile, the ACT Labor government has struggled to make ends meet, has subsidised a huge IKEA store near the airport (as if to mock them) and plans to get all ACT ratepayers to finance a toy train that will only be used by several thousand people.
I hope the residential developments behind Canberra airport are gated communities and have tax free status.

You keep repeating this Ikea nonsense, yet there is absolutely no evidence any money has changed hands to provide Ikea a reason to come here. Businesses like Ikea don’t set up because a government subsidises them. Its an unsustainable model that means the business can fail when the government money stops flowing. The government did however rezone the land so they could build straight across the road from Majura park land which they didn’t control the zoning of. Seems like some commonsense has prevailed here.

As for light rail, I say again, the proposal actually makes sense, but I’m still unsure about it. I suspect though light rail will offset the need to build more roads into and out of Gungahlin, offset the need for inefficient use of land by needing more car parking in the city also. But on paper it seems expensive, yet lots of expenses also go away if the patronage is good, which is the elephant in the room as it would need better patronage than the buses get. I don’t think free buses solve the problem because the cost of using buses is already substantially lower than driving.

Large companies like Ikea regularly get all sorts of tax breaks and concessional land deals. It is all too common in the USA and has unfortunately spread to Australia because Politicians don’t pay for the consequences but get to big note themselves when they do the ribbon cutting and claim to have brought jobs and businesses locally. Ignoring the usually greater number of jobs destroyed and taxes lost from the local businesses that did not get the same preferential deal.

The fact that land was rezoned for the convenience of Ikea rings alarm bells. Of course all of this will all be “Commercial in Confidence” another thing bureaucracies and governments love because they can hide all their stuff ups from the public who has a right to know what is happening with public assets.

I agree that free transport is generally not a good idea but it has a useful affect when applied within select core areas, as it encourages people to leave their cars at home because they can easily and quickly get around their destination. It works well with students, tourists and inner city workers, dramatically cutting the need for the wasteful soul destroying eyesores of car parks and heavy CBD traffic.

dungfungus said :

Meanwhile, the ACT Labor government has struggled to make ends meet, has subsidised a huge IKEA store near the airport (as if to mock them) and plans to get all ACT ratepayers to finance a toy train that will only be used by several thousand people.
I hope the residential developments behind Canberra airport are gated communities and have tax free status.

You keep repeating this Ikea nonsense, yet there is absolutely no evidence any money has changed hands to provide Ikea a reason to come here. Businesses like Ikea don’t set up because a government subsidises them. Its an unsustainable model that means the business can fail when the government money stops flowing. The government did however rezone the land so they could build straight across the road from Majura park land which they didn’t control the zoning of. Seems like some commonsense has prevailed here.

As for light rail, I say again, the proposal actually makes sense, but I’m still unsure about it. I suspect though light rail will offset the need to build more roads into and out of Gungahlin, offset the need for inefficient use of land by needing more car parking in the city also. But on paper it seems expensive, yet lots of expenses also go away if the patronage is good, which is the elephant in the room as it would need better patronage than the buses get. I don’t think free buses solve the problem because the cost of using buses is already substantially lower than driving.

dungfungus said :

At the time the Feds sold Canberra Airport, The ACT Government was invited to make an offer – they declined.
What has happened since?
The Snow family has built a virtual city (commerce first, residences later) which has won awards and wide acclaim. I would expect that it also gives a good return to investors and it only imposes fees on users.
Meanwhile, the ACT Labor government has struggled to make ends meet, has subsidised a huge IKEA store near the airport (as if to mock them) and plans to get all ACT ratepayers to finance a toy train that will only be used by several thousand people.
I hope the residential developments behind Canberra airport are gated communities and have tax free status.

I understand that both Labor and Liberal ACT Governments have thrown taxpayers’ money at the Airport and various failed airlines without demanding a return on that investment.

Canberra International Airport has a huge financial advantage over all external properties in that, as I understand it, they do not pay rates, got a huge serve from the “privatisation” bargain, and are in cahoots with their landlord, Infrastructure Australia, which passes projects favorable to itself but unfavorable to the population at large.

Hardly surprising Infrastructure Australia is against public transport projects that they and the Liberals unthinkingly hate because they don’t use them. Despite public transport, especially non-fossil fuel based public transport, makes excellent economic, social, environmental and strategic sense at all levels for our country and the community at large.

Holden Caulfield said :

rubaiyat said :

Light Rail is more durable, efficient and long lasting than roads, cleaner and healthier for its users and doesn’t hospitalise large numbers of our citizens.

Need more capacity? No need to build another road, just add a carriage or two, or run it more frequently.

The price of the fuel for the Light Rail is more likely to drop than rise and there will be no interruption to supply in the future. The fuel does not fund ongoing horrendously expensive wars nor does it finance extremist religions that send refugees fleeing to our shores.

Heck it actually seems like a really good idea…

In theory, light rail makes absolute perfect sense. It is a great idea, I agree with you! But in practice, in Canberra, I’m not so sure.

I assume we’re all working on the basis that improved public transport and reducing C02 emissions and traffic are the goals here.

I understand and agree with your comments regarding ongoing costs, fuel supply etc. As I said, light rail does make great sense. Common sense, in fact.

Roads networks and ACTION are inferior to the perfect light rail solution. But I don’t think we’re going to get the perfect light rail solution in Canberra, or even close to it. Ever.

So how much do you spend on a perfect scenario for a minority of residents when the infrastructure currently exists to cater to the majority with a more practical, albeit inferior, solution?

With the kind of dollars and time frame we’re talking for light rail, I think a six or 12 month trial of free ACTION rides to try and gauge customer response would have been worth a try.

I dislike the short term theory I’m suggesting, inasmuch as increased bus use will add to maintenance of road and bus infrastructure and so on. However, I just can’t help but think it is the better and more practical long term solution for all of Canberra when compared with an expensive light rail solution over our spread out city with a relatively small population density.

I agree the Light Rail could go either way.

Generally I am not in favour of the Gungahlin route and have been trying to secure the Red Rapid usage figures which disappeared earlier this year with promises that it “was being updated”.

I could be wrong because I have no real feel for what it means to commute from Gungahlin and it is quite likely that over the life of the project, the projected growth will occur as it always has in Canberra from nothing to something, just not as well planned as made out by the Government planners.

What disturbs me most is that it is not working on overall need, and no pre-planning has gone into this one solitary and to my view lower priority route. Commuter routes should go through the middle of housing and developments to bring it close to both, not on the periphery which is what you do with roads because they are so awful you want to keep them well away form everyone.

I have proposed an initial Inner North and Inner South circuit that would meet most commuter and tourist needs, to be expanded outwards as that takes on, and the deeply unimaginative finally get it.

Planning needs to plot commuter, student and tourist movements then work on a tight intimate route with potential for substantial inner urban development that will support it. The best transport system encourages close development that supplements the short movements by foot and other means.

That all leads to a much more interesting urban environment, improved retailing, restaurants and entertainment spaces, but principally a cleaner quieter city with a healthier population who gets more daily exercise and less road deaths and injuries. Financially healthier and a huge plus for environment and resources security.

rubaiyat said :

Light Rail is more durable, efficient and long lasting than roads, cleaner and healthier for its users and doesn’t hospitalise large numbers of our citizens.

Need more capacity? No need to build another road, just add a carriage or two, or run it more frequently.

The price of the fuel for the Light Rail is more likely to drop than rise and there will be no interruption to supply in the future. The fuel does not fund ongoing horrendously expensive wars nor does it finance extremist religions that send refugees fleeing to our shores.

Heck it actually seems like a really good idea…

In theory, light rail makes absolute perfect sense. It is a great idea, I agree with you! But in practice, in Canberra, I’m not so sure.

I assume we’re all working on the basis that improved public transport and reducing C02 emissions and traffic are the goals here.

I understand and agree with your comments regarding ongoing costs, fuel supply etc. As I said, light rail does make great sense. Common sense, in fact.

Roads networks and ACTION are inferior to the perfect light rail solution. But I don’t think we’re going to get the perfect light rail solution in Canberra, or even close to it. Ever.

So how much do you spend on a perfect scenario for a minority of residents when the infrastructure currently exists to cater to the majority with a more practical, albeit inferior, solution?

With the kind of dollars and time frame we’re talking for light rail, I think a six or 12 month trial of free ACTION rides to try and gauge customer response would have been worth a try.

I dislike the short term theory I’m suggesting, inasmuch as increased bus use will add to maintenance of road and bus infrastructure and so on. However, I just can’t help but think it is the better and more practical long term solution for all of Canberra when compared with an expensive light rail solution over our spread out city with a relatively small population density.

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

The Majura parkway is costing $288,000,000 with estimate usage of 40,000 drivers a day. Now for convenience lets assume the cost is spread over a year (which seems to be what you have done), that means that the government is paying $20 for each and every trip made on this road.

Reality though the cost of major projects is spread over many years and ‘cost recovery’ even longer. So even assuming Majura Parkway takes 20 years to pay off it means every trip over those 20 years has now cost $1 per trip.

Just sayin.

JC The “40,000” is not the current usage for the Majura Parkway, it is a guesstimate for 2030, the same as the Government’s projected usage for the Light Rail which has been rejected by the Light Rail denialists here.

The current estimate is 18,000 vehicles a day, again only a guess, mostly with one driver in each vehicle.

If they are getting that from visitors to Majura Park, which is on the old road, then that is that is greatly inflated.

So you can double or triple your estimate for every trip. Then add the cost of the vehicle itself which is largely born by the driver which is currently around $8 one way at current rates. So around $60-70 per trip with no recovery of the cost at all because it is as is every road in Canberra, a Freeway.

A fully government subsidised form of transport, born by all Canberrans whether they use it or not, and most will not. Producing zero income, only costs.

It is also very much a Canberra bypass and will do for Canberra what the freeway bypass of Goulburn did for Goulburn, take away business and income.

For local transport it will improve access to Brindabella Park, Majura Park and the upcoming Fairbairn Park all privately leased real estate by Canberra “International” (ROTFL) Airport, and outside the ACT Government’s jurisdiction, paying rent to the Commonwealth, ie Infrastructure Australia, the body who recommended the freeway and got the ACT government to pay half the cost to subsequently reduce the ACT’s income.

Just sayin’ 😉

At the time the Feds sold Canberra Airport, The ACT Government was invited to make an offer – they declined.
What has happened since?
The Snow family has built a virtual city (commerce first, residences later) which has won awards and wide acclaim. I would expect that it also gives a good return to investors and it only imposes fees on users.
Meanwhile, the ACT Labor government has struggled to make ends meet, has subsidised a huge IKEA store near the airport (as if to mock them) and plans to get all ACT ratepayers to finance a toy train that will only be used by several thousand people.
I hope the residential developments behind Canberra airport are gated communities and have tax free status.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Holden Caulfield said :

For convenience let’s assume a daily ticket on ACTION cost $10/day.

That’s 37.5 million free daily bus rides. At least ACTION might meet their annual patronage forecasts then.

Just saying.

I’d suggest we make the buses free. They cost us about $20M a year anyway, and if they were free (and we stopped bothering with the tech needed for payment and billing, which must cost many hundreds of thousands a year anyway) I reckon a lot more people would use them. And isn’t that the goal?

According to this SMH article:

http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/act-opposition-announces-roads-and-bus-expansion-plan-if-elected-20150531-ghcniy.html?skin=dumb-phone

The Liberal Party proposes more buses, which I am betting they will renege on. Easy to do with buses, just don’t buy them, buy less, shuffle them around, reroute them and make them vanish, hardly anyone is the wiser. We have that already with only 420 buses (many not on the road) offering a much reduced service that only 6.8% of Canberrans use because all the money goes into roads and buses are actually a worse means of using those roads.

The Liberal Party’s estimates are marginal costs (whatever that is) of $150,000 per bus plus $75,000/year lease. ie $225,000 per bus per year. One tram = 3.5 buses, and requires only one driver which are hard to get here and everywhere in Australia, and has much lower running costs. So that values a tram at approximately $750,000/year

Buses have an effective working life of about 10 years but the ACT’s set of rattlers have been on the road twice as long which explains the inordinate amount of breakdowns and extra servicing required. Buses can reduce traffic congestion only if they dramatically replace the cars they share the road with. Otherwise they are trapped in the same system with the same congestion.

Trams have a very long service life and low maintenance. They actually remove traffic from roads as they run in their own right of way, they also run on the ACT’s own fuel supply from the solar farms which should take quite a few diesel tankers off our roads and a heck of a lot of pollution out of our air. Trams also replace a considerable number lanes in our roads which will free up what is left for those who persist in driving. You’d think drivers would be for them, but then there is not much rational thought goes into running a car.

ACTION currently runs a fleet of 420 aging buses. Most are up for replacement which the government has delayed to stretch their budget. I am guessing that the Liberals will claim the normal replacement as “new” buses and since research here and in the Canberra Times is practically zilch, they will get away with it for a net improvement in ACT public transport of less than zilch.

JC said :

The Majura parkway is costing $288,000,000 with estimate usage of 40,000 drivers a day. Now for convenience lets assume the cost is spread over a year (which seems to be what you have done), that means that the government is paying $20 for each and every trip made on this road.

Reality though the cost of major projects is spread over many years and ‘cost recovery’ even longer. So even assuming Majura Parkway takes 20 years to pay off it means every trip over those 20 years has now cost $1 per trip.

Just sayin.

JC The “40,000” is not the current usage for the Majura Parkway, it is a guesstimate for 2030, the same as the Government’s projected usage for the Light Rail which has been rejected by the Light Rail denialists here.

The current estimate is 18,000 vehicles a day, again only a guess, mostly with one driver in each vehicle.

If they are getting that from visitors to Majura Park, which is on the old road, then that is that is greatly inflated.

So you can double or triple your estimate for every trip. Then add the cost of the vehicle itself which is largely born by the driver which is currently around $8 one way at current rates. So around $60-70 per trip with no recovery of the cost at all because it is as is every road in Canberra, a Freeway.

A fully government subsidised form of transport, born by all Canberrans whether they use it or not, and most will not. Producing zero income, only costs.

It is also very much a Canberra bypass and will do for Canberra what the freeway bypass of Goulburn did for Goulburn, take away business and income.

For local transport it will improve access to Brindabella Park, Majura Park and the upcoming Fairbairn Park all privately leased real estate by Canberra “International” (ROTFL) Airport, and outside the ACT Government’s jurisdiction, paying rent to the Commonwealth, ie Infrastructure Australia, the body who recommended the freeway and got the ACT government to pay half the cost to subsequently reduce the ACT’s income.

Just sayin’ 😉

Holden Caulfield said :

For convenience let’s assume a daily ticket on ACTION cost $10/day.

That’s 37.5 million free daily bus rides. At least ACTION might meet their annual patronage forecasts then.

Just saying.

That is a capital expenditure and less than the cost of the Majura Parkway, which does not include the capital invested in the vehicles or their extreme running costs.

Were you equally as concerned about the freeway?

Light Rail is more durable, efficient and long lasting than roads, cleaner and healthier for its users and doesn’t hospitalise large numbers of our citizens.

Need more capacity? No need to build another road, just add a carriage or two, or run it more frequently.

The price of the fuel for the Light Rail is more likely to drop than rise and there will be no interruption to supply in the future. The fuel does not fund ongoing horrendously expensive wars nor does it finance extremist religions that send refugees fleeing to our shores.

Heck it actually seems like a really good idea…

The Majura parkway is costing $288,000,000 with estimate usage of 40,000 drivers a day. Now for convenience lets assume the cost is spread over a year (which seems to be what you have done), that means that the government is paying $20 for each and every trip made on this road.

Reality though the cost of major projects is spread over many years and ‘cost recovery’ even longer. So even assuming Majura Parkway takes 20 years to pay off it means every trip over those 20 years has now cost $1 per trip.

Just sayin.

Im not massively against light rail on the whole for forward thinking growing (and most likely densely populated) cities, but still not convinced the case stacked up compared to doing something better with the bus services. For example reclaiming the Northbourne cycle lane and part of the verge for an extra “bus only” or T3 lane, then putting the bike lane down the centre median (which would mean no need to remove the trees people are attached to). Plus remove some of the unnecessary intersections on Northbourne (dont need so many so close to each other that turn any direction). Better more rapid bus services that either link to town centre express services or go through to where people work (eg Northside to Barton, Russell, Woden, Airport) etc) so you dont have to transfer and take 3 times as long as it takes in the car.

Holden Caulfield said :

For convenience let’s assume a daily ticket on ACTION cost $10/day.

That’s 37.5 million free daily bus rides. At least ACTION might meet their annual patronage forecasts then.

Just saying.

I’d suggest we make the buses free. They cost us about $20M a year anyway, and if they were free (and we stopped bothering with the tech needed for payment and billing, which must cost many hundreds of thousands a year anyway) I reckon a lot more people would use them. And isn’t that the goal?

Once it’s built and in use (assuming a Liberal government can’t can it), how many dollars per ticket will non-Gungahlin residents be forced to pay to subsidise the tickets?

For convenience let’s assume a daily ticket on ACTION cost $10/day.

That’s 37.5 million free daily bus rides. At least ACTION might meet their annual patronage forecasts then.

Just saying.