Key numbers and milestones to remember ahead of light rail launch

They actually increased the number of buses in Network 19 although there have been winners and losers with some areas missing out and Xpresso services being cut. And just because the current line covers Gungahlin, the inner north and Civic, and not Belconnen, Tuggeranong and the inner north, doesn’t mean those suburbs are forever excluded, as they had to start somewhere with the light rail network. And blaming the Light Rail for everything from mortgage payment to bunions is a bit of tired old argument now. Life goes on regardless and Canberra was always going to need a more diverse transport system eventually. Yes, infrastructure does cost but so does the huge road network that you probably like to use.

You have conveniently omitted to acknowledge that the tram rails are using the corridor created when the roads each side were built, so how much of that cost wasn’t picked up by the tram construction coast and if it was capitalised into the project how many more $billions would have it cost?

And I challenge your claim that “Canberra was always going to need a more diverse transport system eventually” because the tram is all about urban renewal – it has nothing to do with public transport.

No actually it’s about public transport. Just as it is in other capital cities. The urban renewal occurs along the transport corridors and accommodates a growing population. The light rail doesn’t make the population increase, that’s an economic reality.

Clutching at straws now. You are saying because Flemmington road was built with a wider median that somehow that cost (if there is actually a cost) should be added to the cost of light rail to show the true cost? Do I have that right?

Back in an alternative universe called reality many would consider that to be planning ahead. Well done to the ACT (Liberal) government at the time for designing Flemmington road with the future in mind.

At the Light Rail 2017 conference on Queensland’s Gold Coast, Duncan Edghill, deputy director-general of Transport Canberra opened his speech by saying “Why do light rail in Canberra?”. He then answered his own question by saying “for us it’s not about public transport; it’s about urban regeneration” (Source Track+Signal, April-June 2017)

Since then, his claim has been confirmed several times by others in Transport Canberra so stop trying to muddy the waters.

No, I’m not clutching at straws JC, I am stating an economic reality, that being a 4 lane, undivided road vehicle thoroughfare is much cheaper to build than one separated by a median strip and to suggest the ACT Liberal government had foresight in mind when they designed Flemington Road by including a median strip is another “milestone in fantasy” for the spin you and your minders create in defending the indefensible .

hi retro, haven’t been able to locate the quote you mentioned although if you are attempting to suggest that public transport isn’t about pubic transport I don’t think it’s going to work.

If you are suggesting I am a liar because if you are I am happy to send a copy of the article to RiotAct or better still, why don’t you ask Duncan Edghill himself, after all, he is the one that said it.

Not at all, simply stating that, without reading the speech in full, it isn’t possible to establish the context in which the sentence was made. Certainly there are more benefits to the project than just public transport but to say that this means that a light rail system isn’t public transport is lacking in logic.

Ah no it isn’t spin. The design of that area of Gungahlin was the work of the Carnell liberal government, and even as long ago as when they were in power they designed Flemington Ave as a high(er) density commuting corridor which allowed for the provision of light rail at a latter date. The extra width which allowed it to go in so easy along the Gungahlin to Well Station Drive section being obvious testament to that.

And I t is for this reason that Flemmington road runs whack bang into the centre of the town centre rather than the more logical (from an arterial road use perspective) to have run through to Mirrabei Drive and bypassed the town centre with smaller roads running off it.

It’s rather funny that many carry on about Barr being so beholden to developers, but fail to recognise all governments including liberal ones (like Carnell and the NSW libs for example) have to work with developers, in the case of the design of Flemington road it was Bob Wynell of Village Building Co who had a lot of influence over the government and the then urban services minister Tony DeDominico.

And PS I have no minder unless you are talking about my wife.

Capital Retro I am still surprised that people somehow carry on like pork chops over light rail and then come across the revelation that for the most part it was about urban renewal.

One would think for one to form such strong opposition to something like light rail then one would actually inform themselves on what the project they object to so much. In this case if said opponents had of informed themselves by reading the business case then this would not be such a revelation. It would also answer how the thing ends up with a positive cost benifit ratio which goes a long way to show how the thing “pays” its way.

I suggest you contact editorial at RiotACT as I have sent the details of Mr Edghill’s speech to them. You will be hard pressed to introduce “context” into the debate but let me know anyhow.

Your colleague astro2 still insists the Canberra light rail system is public transport. You correctly state that it is a tool in the business case for urban renewal.

It was “sold” to Canberrans as public transport initially but after the decision was made to go ahead a very dodgy business case supported by inept political enthusiasts was created to justify it.

My opposition is founded on the belief that neither a light rail or a massive urban renewal venture was needed. There will be no “positive cost benefit” to the Territory either.

I concede that the Flemington road design happened under a (rare) Canberra Liberal government but all the input was done by planners, not politicians. The Liberals wouldn’t even know that a tram is bi-directional.

Geez, Tony DeDominico, that’s real ancient history. Regards to your wife.

Hi Capital, you are confusing the benefits of the light rail project ( urban renewal) with what the light rail is (public transport). I suggest you try asking Transport ACT what the light rail is and I can assure you that they will (patiently) inform you that it is public transport. So is the light rail in Sydney, the Gold Coast and Newcastle. You may not like the light rail project but it doesn’t change the fact that it is, indeed, pubic transport.

What part of “in Canberra light rail isn’t about public transport, it’s about urban regeneration” don’t you understand?

I didn’t say it; the person in charge of Transport Canberra did.

Take it up with Mr. Edghill.

Success will be if the ACT Government meet their goal of 16% public transport trips by 2026.

We are currently around 8% ??? which “I think???” is less than the 10% we were at in Canberra, before the ACT Government stuffed the Bus routes around in the early 2000s. Another big loss of local bus to work commutes was the percentage shift of jobs from town centres like Woden and Tuggeranong out to the airport and into all the new office buildings in Civic.

Stage 2 light rail should hopefully encourage jobs back into the Woden town centre.

I’d suggest it will be considered successful if the Greens keep on supporting a Labor MLA for Chief Minister after the next election.

As far as ACT taxpayers are concerned, it’s so much more expensive than the BRT option that should have been selected that true success is not possible.

What are the metrics used to determine if the cost of the road network is successful? What sort of profit does it make? What is the loss amount per year for maintaining this costly network of roads to hook up with every single house in a the ACT?

Major road projects such as the GDE, Majura parkway, Ashley Drive duplication are designed to make transport times faster.

Presumably though we don’t get to generally see the results, the government does do a review of the projects. It is also quite obvious to the road users if the project has improved the traffic flow.

So change in commute times for all categories of user: office commuters, light industry (such as tradies), heavy industry (such as big trucks) gives good metrics as to whether a road project was successful.

I’m sure the government bean counters even have a way of assigning a dollar value to every minute of travel time.

That metric would work for major roads but would make all the hundreds of minor roads unviable. Taken as a whole the road network (as opposed to some individual well-used roads) isn’t a good economic proposition.

We should ban roundabouts then as they only produce spin.

However roads are an essential. I need them to get to my home. Tradies need them to get their equipment to my home and to businesses along the light rail route. Rubbish trucks need them to get everywhere. Ambulances, fire trucks, police cars etc need them. They can’t operate via light rail.

The light rail is not essential. It is an optional huge ticket item.

Now it may prove to be a good return on investment. But it may prove to be a white elephant. Surely before we look at extending it, or claiming it is a success, we need some way of objectively measuring that.

It seems likely the Government will claim it a success and use that claim to justify its extension, but our government is not very trustworthy. We need metrics to try and keep out government honest.

Transport is an essential but not necessarily private car transport. light rail is essential if you use it to get to work, Rail freight may be essential or it may be road freight. The road network is a huge ticket item whichever way you look at it. Most people thing their mode of transport is essential and they are probably all correct – it is essential for them.

Light rail is not essential. We didn’t have it a week ago and there are much larger cities that do not have a similar system.

Roads are essential. There are so many things that rail cannot do. It may be nice and potentially very valuable to have a rail system but not essential.
Our light rail system could be replaced by a dedicated bus route. The light rail cannot replace all the roads in Canberra.

Transport is essential and a conduit in which to conduct transport is also essential – that conduit may be rail or road. So it’s not correct to say that one is more essential than the other. It depends on the prevailing conditions as to which mode is more suitable for the purpose.

Are you serious or just being a troll?

Please explain how your rubbish would get taken away without roads, or an ambulance get to your place or five cubic metres of soil for landscaping?

That is why roads are essential.

The light rail may (and that is yet to be proven) do things better than buses would on a dedicated bus lane, but better is not the same as essential.

Private motorists users pay substantial fees and taxes for the use of roads they drive on. Their rates also contribute to maintenance of same.

I wouldn’t think that the public transport busses and the “urban regeneration” trams pay anything though.

HI Spiral, if you read my post you would see that i have said that Not all Roads are Essential. (not that roads per se are not essential) Perhaps ask yourself if mobile phones are essential. most people would say ‘Yes’. However not long ago, we didn’t have mobile phones and life went on. So as times change different commodities become essential or non-essential. The point remains that if you need to catch a train or light rail to get to work, then the rail line is essential. (Also essential in transporting minerals from mines to ports).

Road maintenance comes from general taxation. If you pay taxes, you pay for the roads regardless of whether you own one or two or a dozen motor vehicles. (Same as hospitals, if you pay taxes you pay for them regardless of whether you use them or not.) And schools. That’s how the system works.

You need to be a little more specific when you talk about cost, because this not not like building a building and handing over cash.

It is a build, operate transfer contract of which there is a build component which is not paid up front in full, which I saw on the news will end up lower than what was signed into the contract, then there is 20 years of running and finance.

It’s for this reason that many can get away with quoting figures that are plain silly like the post below that said $1.8b, even if that does end up being the price what exactly does it mean. Because the value of $1.8b when the payments are spread over 20 years is not the same as handing over $1.8b today.

Bit like buying a house and paying off a mortgage. Except for interest rate variations you payments are fixed and don’t vary, but the value of $1 when you first sign is different to the value on the day you pay it off.