Libs offer up light rail alternatives for Northbourne

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the prejudice of most of the comments posted here, that posters here criticise the ACT Government for BOTH subsiding bus fares AND putting up the fares annually in line with inflation.

If ever the Liberals get into power, they’ll again do to the ACT economy what they did with the Canberra Hospital implosion and Bruce Stadium, by reneging on the Light Rail contracts AND putting up the ACTION bus fares.

But of course that will be done “responsibly”. Five-minute-memory Tribalism kicking in on cue.

Will this actually get posted? Let’s spin the Wheel of Fortune and see. Or if it does, see which bits get removed so as to not show exactly what the “moderators” are doing. Which is not moderating moderately or consistently.

I don’t believe any government, anywhere has ever been praised for increasing public transport bus fares.
If the Liberals get into power they will privatise ACTION, something that a Labor government could never do because of ties to the TWU.
Bring it on!

Maybe you can point us to the ACT Liberal Party policy that states that, or is that you Jeremy and you’ve let the cat out of the bag?

rubaiyat said :

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the prejudice of most of the comments posted here, that posters here criticise the ACT Government for BOTH subsiding bus fares AND putting up the fares annually in line with inflation.

If ever the Liberals get into power, they’ll again do to the ACT economy what they did with the Canberra Hospital implosion and Bruce Stadium, by reneging on the Light Rail contracts AND putting up the ACTION bus fares.

But of course that will be done “responsibly”. Five-minute-memory Tribalism kicking in on cue.

Will this actually get posted? Let’s spin the Wheel of Fortune and see. Or if it does, see which bits get removed so as to not show exactly what the “moderators” are doing. Which is not moderating moderately or consistently.

I don’t believe any government, anywhere has ever been praised for increasing public transport bus fares.
If the Liberals get into power they will privatise ACTION, something that a Labor government could never do because of ties to the TWU.
Bring it on!

I for one welcome this new development. Not that I am posting anymore. Much.

Let’s see:

“To gag or not to gag?”

Spin the Wheel, round and round we go…

rubaiyat said :

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the prejudice of most of the comments posted here, that posters here criticise the ACT Government for BOTH subsiding bus fares AND putting up the fares annually in line with inflation.

If ever the Liberals get into power, they’ll again do to the ACT economy what they did with the Canberra Hospital implosion and Bruce Stadium, by reneging on the Light Rail contracts AND putting up the ACTION bus fares.

But of course that will be done “responsibly”. Five-minute-memory Tribalism kicking in on cue.

Will this actually get posted? Let’s spin the Wheel of Fortune and see. Or if it does, see which bits get removed so as to not show exactly what the “moderators” are doing. Which is not moderating moderately or consistently.

Rubaiyat, I note that you’ve now ‘given up’ on this site but I’d like to comment just in case 🙂

I’ve been moderated here plenty. I’m not always happy about it either.

But only a fool would claim to be objective about their own work (or comments in this case). To my mind, you get more past the moderators than pretty much anyone else. In fact I once thought that you must BE a moderator.

IMHO if you are being moderated, take the hint and tone it down.

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the prejudice of most of the comments posted here, that posters here criticise the ACT Government for BOTH subsiding bus fares AND putting up the fares annually in line with inflation.

If ever the Liberals get into power, they’ll again do to the ACT economy what they did with the Canberra Hospital implosion and Bruce Stadium, by reneging on the Light Rail contracts AND putting up the ACTION bus fares.

But of course that will be done “responsibly”. Five-minute-memory Tribalism kicking in on cue.

Will this actually get posted? Let’s spin the Wheel of Fortune and see. Or if it does, see which bits get removed so as to not show exactly what the “moderators” are doing. Which is not moderating moderately or consistently.

Punter said :

Today I saw a news article announcing an increase in bus fares come the new year. I might have become a little cynical about the performance of our Government in their time, but I can’t help feeling there has been a significant effort to not only ignore promoting/arranging existing public transport options to their fullest potential but to make it seem them far less attractive option in the lead up to the upcoming “great light rail election’ in order to get this over the line.

Yep – the continual incraese in the cost of ACTION fares doesnt walk the walk of the “encourage use of public transport” talk/mantra/script so often robitically trotted out by Labor/Green MLAs and wanabees. In fact, it beggers belief. Is it any wonder there is such widespread disbelied in the tram as yet another solution to public transport.

rubaiyat said :

Nilrem said :

dlenihan said :

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

8% use public transport and 92% use something else. It’s a bit to walk from a town centre to Canberra City and not many choose to do the two wheel version either.
So, in fact most everyone drives everywhere.

Arhhh but if everyone becomes an inner city [stuff the the town centres plan] green hipster, the car problem will be solved. We can then tear down all those ugly suburbs,give the land back to nature and all enjoy sniffing our own farts at a Braddon cafe. Utopia!

An excellent demonstration of how throwing labels around contributes nothing of substance to a debate. However, it was an entertaining post.

An excellent demonstration of the “positive comments” that “contribute to the debate” and “non-abusive attacks” on posters that gets “posted more often”.

…and why I have given up on this site after having given up on that blight on the English language and education, The Canberra Times.

See you later Rubaiyat, I’m sure. But I’m pretty confident I won’t see you on a tram in Canberra.

Masquara said :

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

Cars have never been cheaper to buy and run. They are also very efficient. That is why young people are not using public transport any more.
Those who are able can ride a bike and only 8% use the buses.
And the buses aren’t cheap as the fares have to subsided with millions of dollars by fare payers and non-users alike.
That’s a big call to say “many” families in Canberra (where we possibly have the highest disposable incomes in the Western world) can’t afford a car at all. Even newly arrived refugee families can afford a car.

We are a family of 7 and we currently have 6 cars. The most used does 60,000km a year. Costs $7k total to run and is old so doesn’t depreciate much. My wife and i work long hours and our family time is far too precious to be sitting at a tram stop. I honestly can never see a time when we will not have cars if we continue to live in Canberra. Electric cars recharged by solar is what i see 10 years out. I would like someone to have the guts to predict the actual number of ACT registered vehicle reductions that will be related to the tram, and be measured later by the accuracy of those predictions.

Six cars? Please tell me that you don’t own any bicycles between you. Love it!

One each. Although because we have cars we can all participate in actual sport to keep fit. I know some very fit people who all own cars but not all own bikes so whats your point?

rubaiyat said :

Nilrem said :

dlenihan said :

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

8% use public transport and 92% use something else. It’s a bit to walk from a town centre to Canberra City and not many choose to do the two wheel version either.
So, in fact most everyone drives everywhere.

Arhhh but if everyone becomes an inner city [stuff the the town centres plan] green hipster, the car problem will be solved. We can then tear down all those ugly suburbs,give the land back to nature and all enjoy sniffing our own farts at a Braddon cafe. Utopia!

An excellent demonstration of how throwing labels around contributes nothing of substance to a debate. However, it was an entertaining post.

An excellent demonstration of the “positive comments” that “contribute to the debate” and “non-abusive attacks” on posters that gets “posted more often”.

…and why I have given up on this site after having given up on that blight on the English language and education, The Canberra Times.

You may have given up, but you just can’t resist the odd peek to check how things are going. 🙂

Nilrem said :

dlenihan said :

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

8% use public transport and 92% use something else. It’s a bit to walk from a town centre to Canberra City and not many choose to do the two wheel version either.
So, in fact most everyone drives everywhere.

Arhhh but if everyone becomes an inner city [stuff the the town centres plan] green hipster, the car problem will be solved. We can then tear down all those ugly suburbs,give the land back to nature and all enjoy sniffing our own farts at a Braddon cafe. Utopia!

An excellent demonstration of how throwing labels around contributes nothing of substance to a debate. However, it was an entertaining post.

An excellent demonstration of the “positive comments” that “contribute to the debate” and “non-abusive attacks” on posters that gets “posted more often”.

…and why I have given up on this site after having given up on that blight on the English language and education, The Canberra Times.

Today I saw a news article announcing an increase in bus fares come the new year. I might have become a little cynical about the performance of our Government in their time, but I can’t help feeling there has been a significant effort to not only ignore promoting/arranging existing public transport options to their fullest potential but to make it seem them far less attractive option in the lead up to the upcoming “great light rail election’ in order to get this over the line.

Southmouth said :

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

Cars have never been cheaper to buy and run. They are also very efficient. That is why young people are not using public transport any more.
Those who are able can ride a bike and only 8% use the buses.
And the buses aren’t cheap as the fares have to subsided with millions of dollars by fare payers and non-users alike.
That’s a big call to say “many” families in Canberra (where we possibly have the highest disposable incomes in the Western world) can’t afford a car at all. Even newly arrived refugee families can afford a car.

We are a family of 7 and we currently have 6 cars. The most used does 60,000km a year. Costs $7k total to run and is old so doesn’t depreciate much. My wife and i work long hours and our family time is far too precious to be sitting at a tram stop. I honestly can never see a time when we will not have cars if we continue to live in Canberra. Electric cars recharged by solar is what i see 10 years out. I would like someone to have the guts to predict the actual number of ACT registered vehicle reductions that will be related to the tram, and be measured later by the accuracy of those predictions.

Six cars? Please tell me that you don’t own any bicycles between you. Love it!

also, even if the extra lane wasn’t feasible, just make the left lane bus plane during peak hours leaving two for traffic, the money saved by going with a cheaper solution could be put into things like duplicating Flemington Rd and fixing up the intersection at EPIC (maybe also duplicate Horse Park Drive, free flowing intersection with Federal Hwy, duplicate Gundaroo Drive and put a flyover the roundabout for through traffic on the Barton Hwy) as well as a broader transport plan eg Belconnen Way into the city, William Hovel/Glenloch interchange appropriate number of off lanes, better bus routes eg more rapid services.

There’s definitely a peak hour problem with Northbourne-Gungahlin/Inner North, so we need a transport solution. Personally I prefer buses (cheaper, existing fleet, no need to transfer, less trees cut down etc). Of the Libs options I like #1 – ie put the bike lane down the centre, then the 1.5m or so that frees up could be combined with reclaiming another 1-2m from the verge for an extra lane that’s bus priority (unless turning left). Combine that with priority signalling at intersections, removing unnecessary intersections really close to each other (eg Elouera St Braddon, Rudd/Bunda or Alinga St, elevate Dickson bike crossing) and sequence the lights, and that should help speed up. Could even run electric buses like Adelaide is trialling if concerned about emissions and sustainability. Presumably this could be done for a whole lot less

So all those trees come down?…I thought trees were what Canberra was all about.This whole argument seems to be showing up deficiencies in the original Northbourne planning,width etc.I think if Burley-Griffin had anything to do with it,and it was left alone(unlike most of his ideas),the corridor would have been much wider from the start.

Nilrem said :

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

Cars have never been cheaper to buy and run. They are also very efficient. That is why young people are not using public transport any more.
Those who are able can ride a bike and only 8% use the buses.
And the buses aren’t cheap as the fares have to subsided with millions of dollars by fare payers and non-users alike.
That’s a big call to say “many” families in Canberra (where we possibly have the highest disposable incomes in the Western world) can’t afford a car at all. Even newly arrived refugee families can afford a car.

We are a working family and would find it difficult to fund a second car. Therefore our transport mix inlcudes public transport, cycling and Shank’s Pony. The fact that it makes us healthier and helps the environment is a little bonus. We are not green zealots. We are a family with young children trying to give our kids the best start in life. So everytime I am villified as some sort of crazy hippy for trying to improve the lot of cyclists or bus catchers it strikes me as very blinkered.

Gee, after 3 federal Labor governments in a few years I thought “werking families” would have been economically enriched.
You seem to have a good balance in using all the transport modes available including walking and that is a good outcome. You don’t sound like a crazy hippy to me.
I certainly wasn’t intending to vilify anyone through my previous comments.

dlenihan said :

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

8% use public transport and 92% use something else. It’s a bit to walk from a town centre to Canberra City and not many choose to do the two wheel version either.
So, in fact most everyone drives everywhere.

Arhhh but if everyone becomes an inner city [stuff the the town centres plan] green hipster, the car problem will be solved. We can then tear down all those ugly suburbs,give the land back to nature and all enjoy sniffing our own farts at a Braddon cafe. Utopia!

An excellent demonstration of how throwing labels around contributes nothing of substance to a debate. However, it was an entertaining post.

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

8% use public transport and 92% use something else. It’s a bit to walk from a town centre to Canberra City and not many choose to do the two wheel version either.
So, in fact most everyone drives everywhere.

Arhhh but if everyone becomes an inner city [stuff the the town centres plan] green hipster, the car problem will be solved. We can then tear down all those ugly suburbs,give the land back to nature and all enjoy sniffing our own farts at a Braddon cafe. Utopia!

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

Cars have never been cheaper to buy and run. They are also very efficient. That is why young people are not using public transport any more.
Those who are able can ride a bike and only 8% use the buses.
And the buses aren’t cheap as the fares have to subsided with millions of dollars by fare payers and non-users alike.
That’s a big call to say “many” families in Canberra (where we possibly have the highest disposable incomes in the Western world) can’t afford a car at all. Even newly arrived refugee families can afford a car.

We are a working family and would find it difficult to fund a second car. Therefore our transport mix inlcudes public transport, cycling and Shank’s Pony. The fact that it makes us healthier and helps the environment is a little bonus. We are not green zealots. We are a family with young children trying to give our kids the best start in life. So everytime I am villified as some sort of crazy hippy for trying to improve the lot of cyclists or bus catchers it strikes me as very blinkered.

dungfungus said :

Nilrem said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

8% use public transport and 92% use something else. It’s a bit to walk from a town centre to Canberra City and not many choose to do the two wheel version either.
So, in fact most everyone drives everywhere.

Don’t forget surveys such as these probably don’t cover secondary means of transport. e.g. people that drive to work, but cycle/walk to the local shops. Also it wouldn’t cover the many schoolkids who can’t legally drive and instead walk/cycle or bus to school.

I have to say as a Watson resident that option 1 sounds feasible, realistic and achievable. The bike path down the centre would be a much safer alternative to where it is now and it wouldn’t ruin the appearance of Northbourne Ave, which the other options including light rail will do. It makes sense to me to work out a solution that makes the best use of buses, bikes and cars and option 1 does that for me with space for each.

dungfungus said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

Cars have never been cheaper to buy and run. They are also very efficient. That is why young people are not using public transport any more.
Those who are able can ride a bike and only 8% use the buses.
And the buses aren’t cheap as the fares have to subsided with millions of dollars by fare payers and non-users alike.
That’s a big call to say “many” families in Canberra (where we possibly have the highest disposable incomes in the Western world) can’t afford a car at all. Even newly arrived refugee families can afford a car.

We are a family of 7 and we currently have 6 cars. The most used does 60,000km a year. Costs $7k total to run and is old so doesn’t depreciate much. My wife and i work long hours and our family time is far too precious to be sitting at a tram stop. I honestly can never see a time when we will not have cars if we continue to live in Canberra. Electric cars recharged by solar is what i see 10 years out. I would like someone to have the guts to predict the actual number of ACT registered vehicle reductions that will be related to the tram, and be measured later by the accuracy of those predictions.

Maya, I for one am completely pro-PT but think the light rail plan as put forward SUCKS, not because light rail is bad in and of itself but because the ACT Govt has put politics before common sense at every level of the alleged ‘process.’ They have ignored their own advice, manipulated cost benefit analysis data, and ‘advertised’ and ‘promoted’ the plan the SOLE GREEN wants instead of genuinely canvassing the best possible PT options for the most number of Canberrans (as a responsible government spending taxpayers’ money should). You do not have to be a genius to see this. It is the bleeding obvious.
Further, they have already spent a bucket load on this stupid project and now want to stitch Canberrans up in a death wish PPP contract that will make transparency impossible and cost a bomb to withdraw from. How is any of this good governance?
They have been presumptuous of the electorate and profligate with our money. I am completely fed up with this government, and this light rail debacle is simply the toxic icing on the local government ‘cake.’ No amount of glitter will improve the look of the mess that is this light rail venture.
PS I am a generally left leaning fully paid up Union member and was very, very angry when Unions ACT inappropriately paid some of MY membership dues to promote light rail as a wonder employer. What a crock that was, and I am hoping some auditor somewhere, maybe even the Royal Commission, is examining this issue.

Maya123 said :

Nilrem said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

+1
Often I feel many on Riot Act only talk up buses as opposition to trams. Without trams on the agenda, they wouldn’t be supporting buses. In fact, I suspect many would argue against buses. It’s just that they don’t want to be seen as too extreme anti-public transport, which I suspect is where the true agenda of many comes from. They don’t use it, it’s of little importance to them. This will never be said of course; in fact will most likely be denied, one way or another.

It pleases me to see buses full of passengers. This reflects there is a need for them.
Unfortunately this is for a few hours daily only. The rest of the time (especially at night) the buses are next to empty.
With the advent of Uber it would be cheaper and more efficient for the few people requiring buses at these times to use Uber and park the buses.
It’s called “user pays”.

Charlotte Harper said :

The fact that people own and use a car doesn’t necessarily mean they can afford it.

You could apply that logic to a lot of things like a home, for instance. I know a lot of people who spend thousands of dollars on smart phones and devices and they definitely can’t afford it.
You seem quite happy to see more millions in ratepayers money being tipped down the drain on public transport.
You need to explain this.

Charlotte Harper said :

Just out of interest, dungfungus, where do those figures come from?

The same place your figures on “many families that can’t afford a car” came from.

justin heywood said :

Maya123 said :

Often I feel many on Riot Act only talk up buses as opposition to trams. Without trams on the agenda, they wouldn’t be supporting buses. In fact, I suspect many would argue against buses. It’s just that they don’t want to be seen as too extreme anti-public transport, which I suspect is where the true agenda of many comes from. They don’t use it, it’s of little importance to them. This will never be said of course; in fact will most likely be denied, one way or another.

I often feel that many on Riot Act make too many assumptions about people who don’t agree with them.

As I said!

Maya123 said :

Nilrem said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

+1
Often I feel many on Riot Act only talk up buses as opposition to trams. Without trams on the agenda, they wouldn’t be supporting buses. In fact, I suspect many would argue against buses. It’s just that they don’t want to be seen as too extreme anti-public transport, which I suspect is where the true agenda of many comes from. They don’t use it, it’s of little importance to them. This will never be said of course; in fact will most likely be denied, one way or another.

I won’t deny I support a bus solution over a tram solution. That doesn’t mean I suddenly want to leap up and preach the virtue of buses. I, like the other 92% or whatever it is, of car driving, rate paying citizens would prefer a much cheaper bus solution. If we are going to get shafted, the option of being lightly shafted is preferential.

The fact that we are talking such a high percentage of car drivers who are also rate payers and voters and have already been severely hurt with rates rises would suggest that if this becomes an election issue, Labor/Greens are doomed.

justin heywood said :

I often feel that many on Riot Act make too many assumptions about people who don’t agree with them.

+100. It’s just a convenient way of dismissing the legitimate views of others instead of re evaluating their own position in light of a different perspective being put forward. The ACT Gov’t also does that regularly.

Maya123 said :

Often I feel many on Riot Act only talk up buses as opposition to trams. Without trams on the agenda, they wouldn’t be supporting buses. In fact, I suspect many would argue against buses. It’s just that they don’t want to be seen as too extreme anti-public transport, which I suspect is where the true agenda of many comes from. They don’t use it, it’s of little importance to them. This will never be said of course; in fact will most likely be denied, one way or another.

I often feel that many on Riot Act make too many assumptions about people who don’t agree with them.

gooterz said :

there aren’t any cities the size of Canberra that use buses.
can anyone give an example city that uses buses?

Instead we should build a deathstar down northbourne … i mean light rail

gooterz said :

there aren’t any cities the size of Canberra that use buses.
can anyone give an example city that uses buses?

Instead we should build a deathstar down northbourne … i mean light rail

Um, Edinburgh??!

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

watto23 said :

chewy14 said :

This is horrible.

How dare they look at things like alternatives or costs and benefits?

Everyone knows that the light rail is THE ONLY OPTION and must be constructed at any cost.

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away. that said this plan screams of standard liberal tactics of putting half arsed cheaper options up. It really should be two lanes to run all day. Did no one learn from the single lane GDE fiasco? I’m guessing the idea of a single lane is it runs one way am and the other way in the pm. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

Firstly you have to identify that there is actually a problem, the extent of the problem and then the best way to deal with it. And that’s the point, there are plenty of alternatives, all of which have been railroaded (geddit) for the predetermined option.

The single lane GDE example is actually a perfect example of why light rail shouldn’t be built yet.

The GDE clearly had enough demand to support the construction of two lanes from the beginning but they tried to save money upfront which ended up the debacle it was. In this case, we clearly dont have the demand to support the light rail, so they’re trying to build the final solution and then hoping that the demand arrives at some later date, mainly fuelled by redevelopment along Northbourne.

Wouldn’t be be better to accept that the motor vehicle (which Canberra was designed for) is always going to be the preferred and most practical and efficient way to travel around our city?
How much would it cost to build an elevated roadway above Northbourne Avenue to carry through traffic express to Commonwealth Bridge with exit ramps at Parkes Way? Funding by e-toll (keep the PPP for another day).
Problem solved without ripping up the median strip and the trees can stay.

No, this is simply wrong and would be far worse in the longterm.

The car is most definitely not the solution. Public transport has far higher capacity and is far more efficient and cheaper than everyone driving cars. There is no doubt that we need an effective and broadscale public transport system, but that system must be designed with an appropriate business case that fully recognises both the benefits and costs of options. It also needs to make allowances for future growth and technology improvements.

There is nothing wrong with building something in the short term with a plan to upgrade to something else in the future when the demand and economics stack up. Note, that time may differ wildly to when the “politics” stack up.

I didn’t say the car is the solution.
The problem is we need more efficient ways to get the cars around. The fact that only 8% (and falling) of Canberrans use public transport is proof that we don’t need to expand it at all.
If we do, the subsidies will rise commensurately and the electorate won’t cop that.

No, the fact that so few people use our public transport is solely a reflection of our current system, not a reflection on the benefits of public transport solutions in general.

We don’t need a better way of getting cars around, we need the best way of getting people around, which will differ from area to area[/quote

Solely a reflection? Until its more convenient or financially beneficial to take PT (this will differ from person to person not area to area) cars,bikes,walking and motorbikes are a better alternative.

Nilrem said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

+1
Often I feel many on Riot Act only talk up buses as opposition to trams. Without trams on the agenda, they wouldn’t be supporting buses. In fact, I suspect many would argue against buses. It’s just that they don’t want to be seen as too extreme anti-public transport, which I suspect is where the true agenda of many comes from. They don’t use it, it’s of little importance to them. This will never be said of course; in fact will most likely be denied, one way or another.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

watto23 said :

chewy14 said :

This is horrible.

How dare they look at things like alternatives or costs and benefits?

Everyone knows that the light rail is THE ONLY OPTION and must be constructed at any cost.

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away. that said this plan screams of standard liberal tactics of putting half arsed cheaper options up. It really should be two lanes to run all day. Did no one learn from the single lane GDE fiasco? I’m guessing the idea of a single lane is it runs one way am and the other way in the pm. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

Firstly you have to identify that there is actually a problem, the extent of the problem and then the best way to deal with it. And that’s the point, there are plenty of alternatives, all of which have been railroaded (geddit) for the predetermined option.

The single lane GDE example is actually a perfect example of why light rail shouldn’t be built yet.

The GDE clearly had enough demand to support the construction of two lanes from the beginning but they tried to save money upfront which ended up the debacle it was. In this case, we clearly dont have the demand to support the light rail, so they’re trying to build the final solution and then hoping that the demand arrives at some later date, mainly fuelled by redevelopment along Northbourne.

Wouldn’t be be better to accept that the motor vehicle (which Canberra was designed for) is always going to be the preferred and most practical and efficient way to travel around our city?
How much would it cost to build an elevated roadway above Northbourne Avenue to carry through traffic express to Commonwealth Bridge with exit ramps at Parkes Way? Funding by e-toll (keep the PPP for another day).
Problem solved without ripping up the median strip and the trees can stay.

No, this is simply wrong and would be far worse in the longterm.

The car is most definitely not the solution. Public transport has far higher capacity and is far more efficient and cheaper than everyone driving cars. There is no doubt that we need an effective and broadscale public transport system, but that system must be designed with an appropriate business case that fully recognises both the benefits and costs of options. It also needs to make allowances for future growth and technology improvements.

There is nothing wrong with building something in the short term with a plan to upgrade to something else in the future when the demand and economics stack up. Note, that time may differ wildly to when the “politics” stack up.

I didn’t say the car is the solution.
The problem is we need more efficient ways to get the cars around. The fact that only 8% (and falling) of Canberrans use public transport is proof that we don’t need to expand it at all.
If we do, the subsidies will rise commensurately and the electorate won’t cop that.

No, the fact that so few people use our public transport is solely a reflection of our current system, not a reflection on the benefits of public transport solutions in general.

We don’t need a better way of getting cars around, we need the best way of getting people around, which will differ from area to area

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

Cars have never been cheaper to buy and run. They are also very efficient. That is why young people are not using public transport any more.
Those who are able can ride a bike and only 8% use the buses.
And the buses aren’t cheap as the fares have to subsided with millions of dollars by fare payers and non-users alike.
That’s a big call to say “many” families in Canberra (where we possibly have the highest disposable incomes in the Western world) can’t afford a car at all. Even newly arrived refugee families can afford a car.

Nilrem said :

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

8% use public transport and 92% use something else. It’s a bit to walk from a town centre to Canberra City and not many choose to do the two wheel version either.
So, in fact most everyone drives everywhere.

rommeldog56 said :

watto23 said :

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away………. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

“Given no alternative” ? Surely you jest. There have been plenty of alternatives canvassed on RiotAct and elsewhere. It is the ACT Government and the pro light rail’ers who have closed their eyes to anything else but a tram. The ACT Gov’t didn’t even properly evaluate or fully cost alternatives.

Re spending $ on Infrastructure : Certainly. But it has to be affordable and sustainable. The Territory budget is already very deep in the red (a record deficit). You should not spend Ratepayers $ that u haven’t got. That will come at a cost sooner than later.

Busway Down the Middle + underpasses : A comparatively simple solution – so why was it not properly evaluated & fully costed by the ACT Gov’t ???

At the end of the day, the tram is actually not primarily about a better transport system. It is about accelerating densification along the corridor and so accelerating revenue raising in acknowledgement of poor planning in Gunners and the total failure of the ACT Gov’t to really substantially broaden the revenue raising base – except of course for bleeding apparently apathetic ACT ratepayers/voters dry, which is something so many seem happy to roll with.

Maybe its the public service mentality “lead and I will follow”.

The liberal party has not had an alternative to now on public transport. They tend to rarely offer alternatives, last election was all about scaring people about the rates. The federal election was all the big scary taxes and boats. I vote based on plans, proposals and policies and any non biased person would acknowledge the Liberal party have had few ideas on the table other than trying to win votes lately. Sorry I forgot the people of Lanyon Valley where going to get a swimming pool if they voted for Zed, because driving 5 minutes to a swimming pool is too much hassle and building new swimming pools to win votes is a far better use of public funds.

Negativity and saying no to everything the other party wants to do does not win my vote.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

watto23 said :

chewy14 said :

This is horrible.

How dare they look at things like alternatives or costs and benefits?

Everyone knows that the light rail is THE ONLY OPTION and must be constructed at any cost.

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away. that said this plan screams of standard liberal tactics of putting half arsed cheaper options up. It really should be two lanes to run all day. Did no one learn from the single lane GDE fiasco? I’m guessing the idea of a single lane is it runs one way am and the other way in the pm. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

Firstly you have to identify that there is actually a problem, the extent of the problem and then the best way to deal with it. And that’s the point, there are plenty of alternatives, all of which have been railroaded (geddit) for the predetermined option.

The single lane GDE example is actually a perfect example of why light rail shouldn’t be built yet.

The GDE clearly had enough demand to support the construction of two lanes from the beginning but they tried to save money upfront which ended up the debacle it was. In this case, we clearly dont have the demand to support the light rail, so they’re trying to build the final solution and then hoping that the demand arrives at some later date, mainly fuelled by redevelopment along Northbourne.

Wouldn’t be be better to accept that the motor vehicle (which Canberra was designed for) is always going to be the preferred and most practical and efficient way to travel around our city?
How much would it cost to build an elevated roadway above Northbourne Avenue to carry through traffic express to Commonwealth Bridge with exit ramps at Parkes Way? Funding by e-toll (keep the PPP for another day).
Problem solved without ripping up the median strip and the trees can stay.

And where are people going to park their cars? Have you seen what happens in every other city in the world? there is not a single city in the world where a car based solution works.

Let’s just make parking $20/weekday, $5 on weekends. Maybe we could get 50% less car traffic? Pump the money into more/subsidised buses. Some cities have free public transport funded by parking and congestion limits.

Charlotte Harper said :

Cars might be a practical and efficient method of getting around but they’re also expensive to buy and to run. Plenty of Canberrans I know run one car per-family meaning some family members take public transport or cycle. No doubt many families can’t afford to run a car at all.

I belong to one of those families. Something the heavily pro-car people on Riot Act need to keep in mind. Sometimes I drive. Sometimes I bus. Sometimes I ride my bicycle. Sometimes I walk. Not everyone drives everywhere.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

watto23 said :

chewy14 said :

This is horrible.

How dare they look at things like alternatives or costs and benefits?

Everyone knows that the light rail is THE ONLY OPTION and must be constructed at any cost.

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away. that said this plan screams of standard liberal tactics of putting half arsed cheaper options up. It really should be two lanes to run all day. Did no one learn from the single lane GDE fiasco? I’m guessing the idea of a single lane is it runs one way am and the other way in the pm. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

Firstly you have to identify that there is actually a problem, the extent of the problem and then the best way to deal with it. And that’s the point, there are plenty of alternatives, all of which have been railroaded (geddit) for the predetermined option.

The single lane GDE example is actually a perfect example of why light rail shouldn’t be built yet.

The GDE clearly had enough demand to support the construction of two lanes from the beginning but they tried to save money upfront which ended up the debacle it was. In this case, we clearly dont have the demand to support the light rail, so they’re trying to build the final solution and then hoping that the demand arrives at some later date, mainly fuelled by redevelopment along Northbourne.

Wouldn’t be be better to accept that the motor vehicle (which Canberra was designed for) is always going to be the preferred and most practical and efficient way to travel around our city?
How much would it cost to build an elevated roadway above Northbourne Avenue to carry through traffic express to Commonwealth Bridge with exit ramps at Parkes Way? Funding by e-toll (keep the PPP for another day).
Problem solved without ripping up the median strip and the trees can stay.

No, this is simply wrong and would be far worse in the longterm.

The car is most definitely not the solution. Public transport has far higher capacity and is far more efficient and cheaper than everyone driving cars. There is no doubt that we need an effective and broadscale public transport system, but that system must be designed with an appropriate business case that fully recognises both the benefits and costs of options. It also needs to make allowances for future growth and technology improvements.

There is nothing wrong with building something in the short term with a plan to upgrade to something else in the future when the demand and economics stack up. Note, that time may differ wildly to when the “politics” stack up.

I didn’t say the car is the solution.
The problem is we need more efficient ways to get the cars around. The fact that only 8% (and falling) of Canberrans use public transport is proof that we don’t need to expand it at all.
If we do, the subsidies will rise commensurately and the electorate won’t cop that.

creative_canberran said :

Bus lane has some merit. I recall that Adelaide had a light rail debate and ended up choosing a U-Bahn, a special busway with specially modified buses. The U-Bahn is built for later modification into a Light Rail System.

I’m in the pro-light-rail camp, but don’t believe it’s time yet. Consider the threadbare cost-benefit ratio and that the trees along Northbourne have another 20 yrs life, and it makes sense to hold off.

Ditto for me.

Not forgetting that the major part of the proposed tram route isn’t even down Northbourne. Its the far longer track out from Nourthbourne to Gunghalin that has almost everyone scratching their heads.

If Govco proposed limited the first stage to purely the Northbourne run, then both the cost (and the opposition) to the project would be halved, and most of the objectives (reduced traffic and development along Northbourne) would be achieved.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

watto23 said :

chewy14 said :

This is horrible.

How dare they look at things like alternatives or costs and benefits?

Everyone knows that the light rail is THE ONLY OPTION and must be constructed at any cost.

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away. that said this plan screams of standard liberal tactics of putting half arsed cheaper options up. It really should be two lanes to run all day. Did no one learn from the single lane GDE fiasco? I’m guessing the idea of a single lane is it runs one way am and the other way in the pm. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

Firstly you have to identify that there is actually a problem, the extent of the problem and then the best way to deal with it. And that’s the point, there are plenty of alternatives, all of which have been railroaded (geddit) for the predetermined option.

The single lane GDE example is actually a perfect example of why light rail shouldn’t be built yet.

The GDE clearly had enough demand to support the construction of two lanes from the beginning but they tried to save money upfront which ended up the debacle it was. In this case, we clearly dont have the demand to support the light rail, so they’re trying to build the final solution and then hoping that the demand arrives at some later date, mainly fuelled by redevelopment along Northbourne.

Wouldn’t be be better to accept that the motor vehicle (which Canberra was designed for) is always going to be the preferred and most practical and efficient way to travel around our city?
How much would it cost to build an elevated roadway above Northbourne Avenue to carry through traffic express to Commonwealth Bridge with exit ramps at Parkes Way? Funding by e-toll (keep the PPP for another day).
Problem solved without ripping up the median strip and the trees can stay.

No, this is simply wrong and would be far worse in the longterm.

The car is most definitely not the solution. Public transport has far higher capacity and is far more efficient and cheaper than everyone driving cars. There is no doubt that we need an effective and broadscale public transport system, but that system must be designed with an appropriate business case that fully recognises both the benefits and costs of options. It also needs to make allowances for future growth and technology improvements.

There is nothing wrong with building something in the short term with a plan to upgrade to something else in the future when the demand and economics stack up. Note, that time may differ wildly to when the “politics” stack up.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

watto23 said :

chewy14 said :

This is horrible.

How dare they look at things like alternatives or costs and benefits?

Everyone knows that the light rail is THE ONLY OPTION and must be constructed at any cost.

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away. that said this plan screams of standard liberal tactics of putting half arsed cheaper options up. It really should be two lanes to run all day. Did no one learn from the single lane GDE fiasco? I’m guessing the idea of a single lane is it runs one way am and the other way in the pm. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

Firstly you have to identify that there is actually a problem, the extent of the problem and then the best way to deal with it. And that’s the point, there are plenty of alternatives, all of which have been railroaded (geddit) for the predetermined option.

The single lane GDE example is actually a perfect example of why light rail shouldn’t be built yet.

The GDE clearly had enough demand to support the construction of two lanes from the beginning but they tried to save money upfront which ended up the debacle it was. In this case, we clearly dont have the demand to support the light rail, so they’re trying to build the final solution and then hoping that the demand arrives at some later date, mainly fuelled by redevelopment along Northbourne.

Wouldn’t be be better to accept that the motor vehicle (which Canberra was designed for) is always going to be the preferred and most practical and efficient way to travel around our city?
How much would it cost to build an elevated roadway above Northbourne Avenue to carry through traffic express to Commonwealth Bridge with exit ramps at Parkes Way? Funding by e-toll (keep the PPP for another day).
Problem solved without ripping up the median strip and the trees can stay.

So your solution would be to keep the trees but build a hideous, LA style highway above Northbourne…. I’m sure the NCA would just love that idea…..

Masquara said :

Note that the Transport Minister included the fact that they (Labor) are sewing up the light rail deal such that getting out of any contract will cost ACT residents an arm and a leg, as part of his argument against the Liberal proposal’s cost. Nuh-uh. The cost of getting out of the light rail contract will be sheeted straight home to Barr and his predecessors, Rattenbury and the transport ministers. In no particular order. We will be paying for it for a looooonnnnngggg time and the Liberals will be quite right to constantly remind us of it over what, a decade or so while we pay it off, for nothing?

This is axiomatic as the Libs are the only ones proposing to introduce sovereign risk to the ACT government transactions (likely to have its own economic and financial repercussions). If they get in then the recent Liberal playbook is to blame previous Labor governments for anything and everything for at least the first term. I seem to remember that Howard came up with that but it could have been Fraser.

However, it’s unlikely that we’ll have to put up with it for longer than four years by which time the damage will have been done.

there aren’t any cities the size of Canberra that use buses.
can anyone give an example city that uses buses?

Instead we should build a deathstar down northbourne … i mean light rail

Masquara said :

Note that the Transport Minister included the fact that they (Labor) are sewing up the light rail deal such that getting out of any contract will cost ACT residents an arm and a leg, as part of his argument against the Liberal proposal’s cost. Nuh-uh. The cost of getting out of the light rail contract will be sheeted straight home to Barr and his predecessors, Rattenbury and the transport ministers. In no particular order. We will be paying for it for a looooonnnnngggg time and the Liberals will be quite right to constantly remind us of it over what, a decade or so while we pay it off, for nothing?

Yep – I heard Mick Gentleman (ACT Labor Govt Minister for something or other – including parking) on the radio today saying that the Lib’s were being dishonest for not including the cost of tearing up the tram contracts in their costings !!!

Hello Mick – that wouldn’t be necessary if ACT Labor/Greens weren’t so bloody minded determined to sign the contracts before the election in late 2016 – would it. Don’t insult voters intelligence ACT Govt ! Enough of the spin.

Its not like there is any rush to sign the contracts anyway – the tram is being sold as a transport system that Canberra will “grow into” – its built for 20 years time. So whats the rush ?

If the contracts are torn up – I look forward to the superannuation payouts of complicate ACT Labor/Greens Ministers & MLAs being withheld as a contribution to meeting the cost of that.

In any event, what Mick Gentleman says doesn’t matter – except as a mouthpiece of the ACT Gov’t. Given the prevailing mood in Tuggeranong (where he represents), he has very little chance of being re elected anyway. As representatives for Tuggeranong ratepayers/residents, all Tuggeranong Labor MLAs are missing in action I’m afraid.

Labor/Greens don’t listen to the public, believe there own hot air and take selfies of each other and claim everyone loves them.Totally deluded.

Labor/Greens want high density in an area that has no room now to swing a cat. so Flemington rd can’t get much denser with people unless they bulldoze the already newly built cramped houses with fat kids and no yards with high rise fat kids and no yards.

Bus lane has some merit. I recall that Adelaide had a light rail debate and ended up choosing a U-Bahn, a special busway with specially modified buses. The U-Bahn is built for later modification into a Light Rail System.

I’m in the pro-light-rail camp, but don’t believe it’s time yet. Consider the threadbare cost-benefit ratio and that the trees along Northbourne have another 20 yrs life, and it makes sense to hold off.

Note that the Transport Minister included the fact that they (Labor) are sewing up the light rail deal such that getting out of any contract will cost ACT residents an arm and a leg, as part of his argument against the Liberal proposal’s cost. Nuh-uh. The cost of getting out of the light rail contract will be sheeted straight home to Barr and his predecessors, Rattenbury and the transport ministers. In no particular order. We will be paying for it for a looooonnnnngggg time and the Liberals will be quite right to constantly remind us of it over what, a decade or so while we pay it off, for nothing?

watto23 said :

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away………. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

“Given no alternative” ? Surely you jest. There have been plenty of alternatives canvassed on RiotAct and elsewhere. It is the ACT Government and the pro light rail’ers who have closed their eyes to anything else but a tram. The ACT Gov’t didn’t even properly evaluate or fully cost alternatives.

Re spending $ on Infrastructure : Certainly. But it has to be affordable and sustainable. The Territory budget is already very deep in the red (a record deficit). You should not spend Ratepayers $ that u haven’t got. That will come at a cost sooner than later.

Busway Down the Middle + underpasses : A comparatively simple solution – so why was it not properly evaluated & fully costed by the ACT Gov’t ???

At the end of the day, the tram is actually not primarily about a better transport system. It is about accelerating densification along the corridor and so accelerating revenue raising in acknowledgement of poor planning in Gunners and the total failure of the ACT Gov’t to really substantially broaden the revenue raising base – except of course for bleeding apparently apathetic ACT ratepayers/voters dry, which is something so many seem happy to roll with.

Maybe its the public service mentality “lead and I will follow”.

nealg said :

I see the Libs have only put in one bus lane in their photo. How is that going to work?
If they are honest and showed bus lanes in both directions, along with their suggested bike lanes, then that too will be encroaching on the existing trees I would think. They would end up with a wide 2 lane road down the middle of the median strip.

Their suggestion is for 1 lane only, they’re not dodgying up their concept photos to make it look prettier than the light rail alternative.

The idea is that during the morning peak buses going towards the city would use the lane and in the afternoon peak buses going toward gungahlin would use the lane. Thereby hopefully decreasing the time spent sitting in peak traffic.

I don’t know if I agree with it but that’s the idea behind it.

Bring on option 3.

chewy14 said :

watto23 said :

chewy14 said :

This is horrible.

How dare they look at things like alternatives or costs and benefits?

Everyone knows that the light rail is THE ONLY OPTION and must be constructed at any cost.

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away. that said this plan screams of standard liberal tactics of putting half arsed cheaper options up. It really should be two lanes to run all day. Did no one learn from the single lane GDE fiasco? I’m guessing the idea of a single lane is it runs one way am and the other way in the pm. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

Firstly you have to identify that there is actually a problem, the extent of the problem and then the best way to deal with it. And that’s the point, there are plenty of alternatives, all of which have been railroaded (geddit) for the predetermined option.

The single lane GDE example is actually a perfect example of why light rail shouldn’t be built yet.

The GDE clearly had enough demand to support the construction of two lanes from the beginning but they tried to save money upfront which ended up the debacle it was. In this case, we clearly dont have the demand to support the light rail, so they’re trying to build the final solution and then hoping that the demand arrives at some later date, mainly fuelled by redevelopment along Northbourne.

Wouldn’t be be better to accept that the motor vehicle (which Canberra was designed for) is always going to be the preferred and most practical and efficient way to travel around our city?
How much would it cost to build an elevated roadway above Northbourne Avenue to carry through traffic express to Commonwealth Bridge with exit ramps at Parkes Way? Funding by e-toll (keep the PPP for another day).
Problem solved without ripping up the median strip and the trees can stay.

watto23 said :

chewy14 said :

This is horrible.

How dare they look at things like alternatives or costs and benefits?

Everyone knows that the light rail is THE ONLY OPTION and must be constructed at any cost.

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away. that said this plan screams of standard liberal tactics of putting half arsed cheaper options up. It really should be two lanes to run all day. Did no one learn from the single lane GDE fiasco? I’m guessing the idea of a single lane is it runs one way am and the other way in the pm. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

Firstly you have to identify that there is actually a problem, the extent of the problem and then the best way to deal with it. And that’s the point, there are plenty of alternatives, all of which have been railroaded (geddit) for the predetermined option.

The single lane GDE example is actually a perfect example of why light rail shouldn’t be built yet.

The GDE clearly had enough demand to support the construction of two lanes from the beginning but they tried to save money upfront which ended up the debacle it was. In this case, we clearly dont have the demand to support the light rail, so they’re trying to build the final solution and then hoping that the demand arrives at some later date, mainly fuelled by redevelopment along Northbourne.

watto23 said :

chewy14 said :

…

… that said this plan screams of standard liberal tactics of putting half arsed cheaper options up. It really should be two lanes to run all day. Did no one learn from the single lane GDE fiasco? I’m guessing the idea of a single lane is it runs one way am and the other way in the pm. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent.

I’m not sure, but I’m guessing they are taking into account that the “reverse” direction away from the the “tidal flow” is uncongested, and hence currently in no need of extra capacity. For example, Google Maps trip estimate northbound in the AM peak: https://goo.gl/maps/p1Hz6PJHTy62

This is slightly different from the GDE fiasco, as two lanes south-bound were needed in the AM peak, and two lanes north-bound were needed in the PM peak from day one.

Whether it is better to bring forward expenditure before it is needed whilst interest rates are low I guess depends on whether you think it will ever be needed, or whether this is a stop gap before other approaches to urban planning (such as reducing the need for travel), changes to technology (reducing the need to travel) or transport technology (such as shared fleets of autonomous cars: http://www.projectcomputing.com/resources/cacs/ ) is the type of question I hope politicians canvas in the community.

Oh thank God, finally some constructive discussion about options.
I think I prefer Option one, with the rapid bus priority lanes to the sides (so passengers can get on and off more safely and easily instead of being in the middle of the road), and with cyclists in the middle (off the road).

I see the Libs have only put in one bus lane in their photo. How is that going to work?
If they are honest and showed bus lanes in both directions, along with their suggested bike lanes, then that too will be encroaching on the existing trees I would think. They would end up with a wide 2 lane road down the middle of the median strip.

I really dislike this “either you’re for light-rail or you’re against it” attitude the major parties are pushing. Anyone who has done their research and listened to transport engineers will know that the current iteration of the Gungahlin-to-Civic route an awful idea that is destined to fail. With that said, light rail still has a place in Canberra provided it’s done logically and the train system is initially built to link hubs of businesses with each other.

It’s pretty much transport 101 to build light rail so traffic constantly flows both ways from the get-go. It’s literally one of the first concepts people learn in any sort of transport planning education. I’m simply hoping one of the parties listens to scientific facts and reworks the light rail plan to ignore outer suburbs like Gungahlin for the moment. It would be far better to build light rail around an initial airport-civic-belconnen route considering the amount of businesses, educational institutions and tourist locations in those areas.

I think the Liberal party is making the mistake that most people are inherently against light rail in Canberra. In my experience, that’s simply not true – most people want light rail, but disagree with the plan that the Greens & Labor (and people in Gungahlin) are pushing.

Hmmmmm…package it up with a garden waste collection, switch collection schedules for recycling and regular waste bins (recycling weekly), provide a modest discount on rates for those homeowners maintaining Very Large Nature Strips, take property developers to task for shoddy and environmentally unsound design, call the whole thing Green Canberra, and I might consider it…

chewy14 said :

This is horrible.

How dare they look at things like alternatives or costs and benefits?

Everyone knows that the light rail is THE ONLY OPTION and must be constructed at any cost.

Well no a lot of that comes from those against light rail. Many people like myself have been saying given no alternative you can’t just close your eyes and make a problem go away. that said this plan screams of standard liberal tactics of putting half arsed cheaper options up. It really should be two lanes to run all day. Did no one learn from the single lane GDE fiasco? I’m guessing the idea of a single lane is it runs one way am and the other way in the pm. There is this whole idea that they can’t spend money on infrastructure, but that is exactly where taxes should be spent. An idea I had was to build a busway down the middle and underpasses of all the main intersections and green light preferences for other intersections.

This is horrible.

How dare they look at things like alternatives or costs and benefits?

Everyone knows that the light rail is THE ONLY OPTION and must be constructed at any cost.

Good to see the Libs making a positive contribution to the light rail/public transport debate. I think that a bus lane down the centre of Northbourne makes sense. It will allow express services to keep operating and become faster. One concern I always had with light rail was that commuters would have to catch a bus and then get off it and on to the tram before continuing their journey to Civic. With bus rapid transit, the express buses can keep driving all the way to the city, thus eliminating the time lost due to changing modes of transport part way, and they will get there faster than currently as they can bypass a lot of the traffic.

The other advantage with a bus lane is that if light rail later becomes viable, the work regarding moving median strip underground infrastructure has already been done, meaning that a light rail line could be constructed faster. Its always concerned me that the rail business case is wholly dependant on non-public transport gains to be viable. While land values and jobs along the line may well increase because the line is there, values & jobs in other parts of the city could well fall due to the shift to the corridor.

Finally an alternative plan.

I do see a single lane as a rather shortsighted proposal though. Should at least be a dual lane bus way.
option 2 or 3 needs to be done, but also throughout the city with priority to buses.

I do find it interesting that when Labor proposed a bus way to Belconnen the Liberal government opposed it back then also.

The paper has a lot of very poor paragraphs and comments in it, like the government not explaining why the Gungahlin tram link was first. Seriously, I thought it was very clear that its due to the high density plan for Northbourne. The tram is more about providing a high density area for people to live in, with public transport and not need to own a car.

IMO its step in the right direction for an alternative, but the paper is more about politics and less about a real solution, accusing labor of doing one thing and doing exactly the same, being vague. If they don’t believe Northbourne is the best place to “build a tram” then why build a bus lane there instead? Its kind of admitting the location does need public transport improvement and nullifies that argument.