Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Light rail: Shortlist announced to deliver first stage of Capital Metro

By Canfan 18 March 2015 171

Two world-leading consortia have been shortlisted to deliver the first-stage of Canberra’s light rail network, which will deliver more than 3,500 jobs during construction and deliver more than $1 billion in benefits to the ACT economy, Minister for Capital Metro Simon Corbell announced today.

The two consortia, ACTivate and Canberra Metro, contain some of the world’s biggest and most respected companies when it comes to delivering major infrastructure projects and operating successful public transport networks. 

The successful consortia will now progress through to the request for proposals stage before a successful bidder is selected in early 2016 with construction to commence later that year. 

“Following a strong industry response from local, national and international companies and detailed evaluation of the four expressions of interest, I am pleased to announce ACTivate and Canberra Metro have been shortlisted,” Mr Corbell said.

“The makeup of each consortium is reflective of the high level of interest and strong market appetite for the project. The strength of the four consortia to express interest in Capital Metro stage one is reflected by the obvious high quality of the two consortia that have been selected for the RFP stage.

“To have two consortia with such a high level of experience in international and national transport projects competing to deliver this transformative infrastructure project is a fantastic result for the ACT.

“The expression of interest stage required consortia to demonstrate their capability in meeting five core criteria. They were evaluated on their experience in successfully delivering comparable projects, ability to manage safety issues, demonstrated understanding of commercial and risk management matters, financial capacity as well as meeting and understanding the aspirations of the project.”

Some of the major projects and public transport systems built, managed and operated by the companies involved in the two shortlisted consortia include:

  • Gold Coast light rail
  • Coast to Coast light rail, Adelaide
  • Yarra Trams, Melbourne
  • Dijon light rail, France
  • Bordeaux light rail, France
  • Inner West Light Rail Extension, Sydney
  • Waterloo Stage 1, Canada
  • Eskisehir, Turkey
  • North West Rail Link
  • Sydney Light Rail Inner West Extension
  • Stockholm Light Rail
  • Tram Heilbronn
  • Glenfield to Leppington Rail Link
  • TrackStar Alliance
  • Regional Rail Packages
  • Metro Tram Melbourne
  • London Overground Rail Operations Ltd (LOROL)

Capital Metro is the second major infrastructure project in the ACT to be delivered by a public private partnership.  It will deliver a modern, world-class public transport system that will help prevent a projected  57-minute average commute by car between City and Gungahlin in 2031.

 “By delivering this project through a public private partnership model, we can capitalise on the skills and knowledge of the private sector to deliver a world class light rail system befitting one of the world’s most liveable cities,” Mr Corbell said.

“Capital Metro stage one will support over 3,500 jobs during construction. These jobs will create new opportunities for local businesses and significant economic benefit for the whole of Canberra.”

Capital Metro has a local industry policy to encourage Canberra region companies to become involved in the project and the ACT Government will arrange information sessions between local businesses and both consortia in coming months.

The RFP will be issued to the shortlisted respondents in April 2015. The selection of a successful bidder to design, construct, operate, maintain and finance the light rail service from the City to Gungahlin will occur in 2016, with construction to commence later that year.

(Simon Corbell media release)


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
171 Responses to
Light rail: Shortlist announced to deliver first stage of Capital Metro
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
9
rubaiyat 7:03 pm 09 Apr 15

btw I found the 90km/hr limit on the L.A. light rail is a limitation of their signalling system not the trams themselves.

rubaiyat 5:47 pm 09 Apr 15

rubaiyat said :

None of which worries tram passengers.

Nor does having a drink with their meal, when they enjoy that pleasant night out along restaurant lined streets, free of car fumes and noise.

rubaiyat 5:44 pm 09 Apr 15

dungfungus said :

I have probably ridden on more trams than you have – I have even ridden the entire Sydney network daily on school holidays 60 years ago before the tyre and diesel salesmen convinced politicians to cover the tracks and pull down the wires and replace everything with buses.
I am one of the 92% of Canberrans that rarely travel by bus.
The standard ticketing for trams for casual travellers that I am familiar with is to buy a ticket at the platform or immediately after boarding (from an electronic dispenser). I have seen a lot of people get on trams in Europe and not buy a ticket and I have seen a lot get caught by the inspectors for not having a ticket or having a concessional ticket that is not applicable. The fines are savage. It will be a problem in Canberra just like everywhere else.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Fare-evasions-cost-Metro-Transit-up-to-28000-a-week–44082
PS Elephants have excellent memories.

Well that probably explains why you don’t like trams, even with the double doors you’d have trouble getting through the doors. 😉

The Sydney network was the largest in the world when they trashed it. It also consisted of very old toast rack trams and the connie swung around the outside collecting the fares.

At the same time cars still had cranks to start them up when they broke down.

But EVEN CARS have moved along in the intervening half decade +, and drivers face savage fines when they speed, park illegally, don’t buckle up, text or talk on their mobile phones, and run over pedestrians, bicycle riders and into each other.

None of which worries tram passengers.

dungfungus 3:48 pm 09 Apr 15

rubaiyat said :

switch said :

Look, if it make you feel better, they can be electric buses.

Electric buses are the worst of all worlds and would need most of the infrastructure and right of way of trams without the benefits.

Nothing beats the efficiency and smooth ride of steel wheels on steel rails.

Back in 2003 a train driver in Victoria took a toilet break at Broadmeadows station and failed to apply the brake correctly. The Train rolled 17 km to Spencer Street station where it hit a stationary train at 75km/hr. Ignoring the accident it clearly demonstrated just how low the friction is.

Regarding “friction”, are you referring to the rails or the toilet seat?.
And the smooth ride that some trams have quickly disappears when they are travelling above 60KMH.

dungfungus 3:43 pm 09 Apr 15

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

“The ACT would still need 3 x times the drivers. 1 Tram = 3 buses.”
But the trams will need at least one (two to be effective) ticket inspectors on each tram to detect fare evaders.
You are aware that while trams boast quick access and egress through their multiple doors they cannot control people without tickets boarding as a bus can through channelling all boarding passengers through one door under the control of the driver.
Cities already with trams estimate that 20% of passengers are fare evaders. That will hurt the Canberra
tram operator’s bottom line.

I keep having to ask you this, it is the elephant in the room that just won’t go away:

Have you EVER ridden in a tram? Or ANY public transport?

They use the same electronic ticketing systems as everything else these days.

I have probably ridden on more trams than you have – I have even ridden the entire Sydney network daily on school holidays 60 years ago before the tyre and diesel salesmen convinced politicians to cover the tracks and pull down the wires and replace everything with buses.
I am one of the 92% of Canberrans that rarely travel by bus.
The standard ticketing for trams for casual travellers that I am familiar with is to buy a ticket at the platform or immediately after boarding (from an electronic dispenser). I have seen a lot of people get on trams in Europe and not buy a ticket and I have seen a lot get caught by the inspectors for not having a ticket or having a concessional ticket that is not applicable. The fines are savage. It will be a problem in Canberra just like everywhere else.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Fare-evasions-cost-Metro-Transit-up-to-28000-a-week–44082
PS Elephants have excellent memories.

rubaiyat 2:53 pm 09 Apr 15

dungfungus said :

“The ACT would still need 3 x times the drivers. 1 Tram = 3 buses.”
But the trams will need at least one (two to be effective) ticket inspectors on each tram to detect fare evaders.
You are aware that while trams boast quick access and egress through their multiple doors they cannot control people without tickets boarding as a bus can through channelling all boarding passengers through one door under the control of the driver.
Cities already with trams estimate that 20% of passengers are fare evaders. That will hurt the Canberra
tram operator’s bottom line.

I keep having to ask you this, it is the elephant in the room that just won’t go away:

Have you EVER ridden in a tram? Or ANY public transport?

They use the same electronic ticketing systems as everything else these days.

rubaiyat 2:07 pm 09 Apr 15

dungfungus said :

You appear to be very well informed on the motives and largesse of governments.
Perhaps your sources can reveal how much money the Stanhope government lost on the ill-fated Rhodium Asset Solutions venture. A lot of the paperwork went missing on that one too.

Just did a quick search and it seems as big a stuff up as Rhodium was, it still paled into insignificance against Bruce Stadium and The Canberra Hospital implosion that killed poor Katie Bender.

btw I liked this quote by Jon Stanhope: “The Greens and Liberals were today exposed for abusing the Assembly committee processes in making an unfounded and indefensible attack on the Government.”

Those evil Greens! Always making trouble!!

I would have made more of an issue over the double mishandling of the massive bush fires in Canberra and the money that went into sweeping it all under the carpet. Bushfires that swept right through where they are currently building Molonglo. WITHOUT an integrated transport plan, nor fire emergency plan.

rubaiyat 1:55 pm 09 Apr 15

switch said :

Look, if it make you feel better, they can be electric buses.

Electric buses are the worst of all worlds and would need most of the infrastructure and right of way of trams without the benefits.

Nothing beats the efficiency and smooth ride of steel wheels on steel rails.

Back in 2003 a train driver in Victoria took a toilet break at Broadmeadows station and failed to apply the brake correctly. The Train rolled 17 km to Spencer Street station where it hit a stationary train at 75km/hr. Ignoring the accident it clearly demonstrated just how low the friction is.

rubaiyat 1:22 pm 09 Apr 15

dungfungus said :

You appear to be very well informed on the motives and largesse of governments.
Perhaps your sources can reveal how much money the Stanhope government lost on the ill-fated Rhodium Asset Solutions venture. A lot of the paperwork went missing on that one too.

I leave that up to you. Don’t make the mistake that I am for the Labor government.

I just want competent government that executes sensible policy.

switch 7:52 am 09 Apr 15

rubaiyat said :

switch said :

It does seem very strange that light rail planning continues, when they could make a lot more money by doing the medium density infill, forgetting about the silly tram and achieve the same result from just declaring a dedicated bus lane during peak hour.

Hardly the “same result”.

That would remove one lane from all the other vehicles, being either 50% or 33% less lanes in peak hour.

The ACT would still be 100% reliant on oil for transport.

The ACT would still need 3 x times the drivers. 1 Tram = 3 buses.

There would still be no overall transport planning for the future when Canberra grows in population and congestion, including the extra population in the medium density infill that still would have to rely on the existing transport infrastructure.

But I take your point that it would put things off, an excellent solution. The extra population and congestion will all go away if you ignore them.

Look, if it make you feel better, they can be electric buses.

dungfungus 7:23 am 09 Apr 15

rubaiyat said :

switch said :

It does seem very strange that light rail planning continues, when they could make a lot more money by doing the medium density infill, forgetting about the silly tram and achieve the same result from just declaring a dedicated bus lane during peak hour.

Hardly the “same result”.

That would remove one lane from all the other vehicles, being either 50% or 33% less lanes in peak hour.

The ACT would still be 100% reliant on oil for transport.

The ACT would still need 3 x times the drivers. 1 Tram = 3 buses.

There would still be no overall transport planning for the future when Canberra grows in population and congestion, including the extra population in the medium density infill that still would have to rely on the existing transport infrastructure.

But I take your point that it would put things off, an excellent solution. The extra population and congestion will all go away if you ignore them.

“The ACT would still need 3 x times the drivers. 1 Tram = 3 buses.”
But the trams will need at least one (two to be effective) ticket inspectors on each tram to detect fare evaders.
You are aware that while trams boast quick access and egress through their multiple doors they cannot control people without tickets boarding as a bus can through channelling all boarding passengers through one door under the control of the driver.
Cities already with trams estimate that 20% of passengers are fare evaders. That will hurt the Canberra
tram operator’s bottom line.

dungfungus 7:16 am 09 Apr 15

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

My source was http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/transport-companies-suck-26-billion-20130711-2ptbc.html
To clear up the misunderstanding, the cost to Victorian taxpayers for the 2012-2013 financial year was $2.6 billion dollars and the total cost since privatisation was $10 billion.

Don’t take the jumbled figures from newspapers which compare undefined periods of time and subjects.

Even good papers now seem to have the most uneducated and uncritical reporting that doesn’t pass close inspection for facts, let alone spelling and grammar.

Go to source as I have. The cost for 2013-14 was actually less than the 2012-2013 period.

The $10 billion dollars you claim, is a figure for some unknown number of years without a substantiating reference anywhere that I can find. Is it for the 15 years referred to since privatisation? In other words around $666 million per year? All without any table or chart to show what is happening?

The privatisation, an act of ideological fanaticism by the Liberal/National government is the cause of the cost blow outs. Kennett’s sole intention was to gut the Transport Workers. Lying about supposed private sector efficiencies, when dividing up an integrated network into four with no fare collection system to match was obviously doomed.

This is the same party that is making noises about what they will do to Canberra’s public transport. I wouldn’t trust them to run a chook raffle.

One thing you can count on the Liberals doing is losing all the paperwork on major public infrastructure failures as they did under Kate Carnell and the Bruce Stadium project, claiming they “couldn’t find the files”.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s200591.htm

http://www.crikey.com.au/2002/09/09/the-rare-highs-and-many-lows-of-kate-carnell/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=1

Exactly the people you would listen to and put in charge of huge amounts of public money. They have a great track record at blowing things up, and are seemingly trying to repeat history with their transport “policy”. Just as some here spend all their time either totally concocting, or blowing up ‘facts’ to suit deep seated prejudices against things they avowedly won’t use, on the sound notion that if they won’t use it nobody else should.

You appear to be very well informed on the motives and largesse of governments.
Perhaps your sources can reveal how much money the Stanhope government lost on the ill-fated Rhodium Asset Solutions venture. A lot of the paperwork went missing on that one too.

rubaiyat 2:09 am 09 Apr 15

switch said :

It does seem very strange that light rail planning continues, when they could make a lot more money by doing the medium density infill, forgetting about the silly tram and achieve the same result from just declaring a dedicated bus lane during peak hour.

Hardly the “same result”.

That would remove one lane from all the other vehicles, being either 50% or 33% less lanes in peak hour.

The ACT would still be 100% reliant on oil for transport.

The ACT would still need 3 x times the drivers. 1 Tram = 3 buses.

There would still be no overall transport planning for the future when Canberra grows in population and congestion, including the extra population in the medium density infill that still would have to rely on the existing transport infrastructure.

But I take your point that it would put things off, an excellent solution. The extra population and congestion will all go away if you ignore them.

switch 9:15 pm 08 Apr 15

HiddenDragon said :

The closing paragraph of a recent opinion piece by Jon Stanhope made interesting reading, I thought:

“I cannot imagine the Government would proceed with the project if the business case was so fragile as to require the destruction along the route of irreplaceable heritage. On that basis, I would hope that the merits of retaining the housing will be considered separately from the needs of the light rail project.”

[CityNews April 2-15, 2015 – page 10]

It does seem very strange that light rail planning continues, when they could make a lot more money by doing the medium density infill, forgetting about the silly tram and achieve the same result from just declaring a dedicated bus lane during peak hour.

Masquara 7:04 pm 08 Apr 15

Well, with Andrew announcing a massive drop in GST revenue this year, and a huge hole in the budget, perhaps this foolishness won’t be going ahead …

rubaiyat 10:36 pm 06 Apr 15

dungfungus said :

My source was http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/transport-companies-suck-26-billion-20130711-2ptbc.html
To clear up the misunderstanding, the cost to Victorian taxpayers for the 2012-2013 financial year was $2.6 billion dollars and the total cost since privatisation was $10 billion.

Don’t take the jumbled figures from newspapers which compare undefined periods of time and subjects.

Even good papers now seem to have the most uneducated and uncritical reporting that doesn’t pass close inspection for facts, let alone spelling and grammar.

Go to source as I have. The cost for 2013-14 was actually less than the 2012-2013 period.

The $10 billion dollars you claim, is a figure for some unknown number of years without a substantiating reference anywhere that I can find. Is it for the 15 years referred to since privatisation? In other words around $666 million per year? All without any table or chart to show what is happening?

The privatisation, an act of ideological fanaticism by the Liberal/National government is the cause of the cost blow outs. Kennett’s sole intention was to gut the Transport Workers. Lying about supposed private sector efficiencies, when dividing up an integrated network into four with no fare collection system to match was obviously doomed.

This is the same party that is making noises about what they will do to Canberra’s public transport. I wouldn’t trust them to run a chook raffle.

One thing you can count on the Liberals doing is losing all the paperwork on major public infrastructure failures as they did under Kate Carnell and the Bruce Stadium project, claiming they “couldn’t find the files”.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s200591.htm

http://www.crikey.com.au/2002/09/09/the-rare-highs-and-many-lows-of-kate-carnell/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=1

Exactly the people you would listen to and put in charge of huge amounts of public money. They have a great track record at blowing things up, and are seemingly trying to repeat history with their transport “policy”. Just as some here spend all their time either totally concocting, or blowing up ‘facts’ to suit deep seated prejudices against things they avowedly won’t use, on the sound notion that if they won’t use it nobody else should.

HiddenDragon 5:48 pm 06 Apr 15

The closing paragraph of a recent opinion piece by Jon Stanhope made interesting reading, I thought:

“I cannot imagine the Government would proceed with the project if the business case was so fragile as to require the destruction along the route of irreplaceable heritage. On that basis, I would hope that the merits of retaining the housing will be considered separately from the needs of the light rail project.”

[CityNews April 2-15, 2015 – page 10]

dungfungus 3:40 pm 06 Apr 15

rubaiyat said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The former has tried trams and they failed, the latter has one of the largest tram networks in the world albeit subsidised in excess of ten billion dollars a years.

Since you are making up those figures, surely that should be gazillions, not billions?

I omitted to include all public transport in Melbourne (including Metro) and regions as the recipients of that amount.
Thanks for pointing out the error – at least one other person on this thread is really interested in the light rail folly.

Not even close dungfungus, the entire budget for ALL public transport in Victoria is about $2.3 billion, of which trams are only $600 million and as has been pointed out in numerous studies that that is considerably less spent on each passenger than on cars, the real folly, in Victoria.

Correction the NET COST, the payment to the service providers, for the Victorian taxpayer for their tram system is $200 million according to the PTV 2013-14 Annual Report.

My source was http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/transport-companies-suck-26-billion-20130711-2ptbc.html
To clear up the misunderstanding, the cost to Victorian taxpayers for the 2012-2013 financial year was $2.6 billion dollars and the total cost since privatisation was $10 billion.

rubaiyat 11:42 am 06 Apr 15

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

I have written on this subject before, on huge sums of money car drivers are sending out of this country to maintain their habit.

Here is a little additional tidbit on why this is really working for us:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/energy-companys-11-billion-transfer-to-singapore-rings-tax-avoidance-alarm-bells-20150403-1me7ij.html

I know its Easter and I’ve pigged out on Easter buns and Choc’s. – but what has the link to the article got to do with “huge sums of money car drivers are sending out of this country to maintain their habit” ?

If u want to see huge sums of ACT Ratepayers $ sailing overseas, check out the consortia partners bidding for the Light Rail !

Not even close to the $110 BILLION DOLLARS motorists send to Singapore EVERY SINGLE year and growing, just for petrol, which gets passed onto the Wahabi sect to fuel Islamic fundamentalism which we then expend young lives and huge amounts of money fighting.

That inflated cost includes $11 BILLION of TAX shifting to Singapore according the Canberra Times article.

Once installed, the major part of the cost, the light rail will not produce carbon pollution, run to a steady regular schedule because it has its own right of way, relieving the load on the roads, and will be cheaper than the REAL cost of driving which according to the ATO is 65¢ – 77¢ per kilometre for the average car. Around $16 return trip plus $11 all day parking in Civic.

The light rail will charge its users so it is only partially subsidised, unlike the roads which are just a hole in the ACT government’s coffers.

The connection to a proposed new Convention Centre/Sports complex would not just be for Gungahlin residents but everybody along the route which includes Northbourne hotels and accomodation. I assume and hope that the line will be extended to the airport and be just the beginning of a network.

In the USA there is still some dogged fighting against light rail usually from the same noisy subset of Anti-Climate Change shills, but in L.A. the most car dominated city in the world, counties are now fighting to have the Light Rail come to them and getting quite irate when it goes to somewhere else instead.

There is just so much wrong with much of what u say rubiyart.

1) the b$110 you claim is not an apples to apples comparison to the Light Rail. How much petrol consumption will be saved in Canberra !
2) Roads are not a black hole in the ACT Gov’t budget. They bring commerce, goods, services, jobs, workers, tourists, etc, all of which the ACT Gov’t makes much $ out of. The Benefits Cost Ratio for Light Rail was 1:1.2.

For the Majura Parkway it is 1:4.2. End of argument.
3) For the vast of majority of conference Ive attended in my working lifetime, I’ve usually stayed at the cionference venue or a nearby hotel within wlking distance – or got a cab. To ascert that many delegates will get accommodation as far away as in Dickson & catch a tram to the convention centre is, well, unbelieveable.
4) Many argue that stage 1 of the tram should have been from Civic to the airport – but I guess there just arnt as many Labor/Greens voters travelling along that route. If stage 1 Gunners-Civic will cost min.$780M to buld + running costs/maintenance + ACT Gov’t provided infrastructure such as substations and other capital works and is estimated to cost M$50-M$75pa in payments of ACT Ratepayers $ to the tram consortia, any claims or hope that it will spread across all of Canberra are delusional. It is simply unaffordable without massive federal Gov’t funding – which was flatly rejected by the fed’s because of the weak Benefits Costs Ratio of 1:1.2.
5) Etc, etc, etc…….

1. Well let me see. Now would that be our share by population or would that be disproportionately more because of our total lack of a non-oil based transport system. Or would that be “So wrong”?

2. Yes they are. The ACT pays and everybody uses without toll or any repayment to the ACT government, except for local vehicle registry which is totally unrelated to the quantity of roads or the usage. Show me your Benefits Cost Ratio for the roads, old or recent. That’s right there wasn’t one!, unlike the Light Rail. The Majura Parkway is a public gift by the ACT Governement to people wanting to bypass Canberra. NOT bringing commerce, goods, services, jobs, workers, tourists, etc, all of which the ACT Gov’t doesn’t makes much $ out of. No way that ACT taxpayers should ever be paying for someone else’s joy rides to the snow. – Are you proposing it be a tollway? Excellent! Time to put Tolls on all the over the top expensive roadworks in Canberra, just like in Sydney. Even that 800m stretch at Weston that cost $11 million.

3. Hotels and Apartments line Northbourne Ave or just off. Be hard for you to ride a non-existent Tram ssytem, but if there was one, would you so object on religious grounds (worship of cars as the One True Transport) that it would stop you? I along with many others in Melbourne have not objected to the convenience of their trams attending whatever function was being held in the City. I fact it was by far the best option.

4. Extending the line will be propotionately less as all other infrastructure will be in place other than the tracks and power.

5. The Abbott Government objects to virtually all public transport because there is no cigar smoking allowed on board. Also being Conservatives they are in capable of thinking of anything except the next annual company report, or the “Good Old Days” under Menzies.

btw I don’t “hate” trucks in the way you seem to apparently hate public transport, or anything else that doesn’t immediately benefit you, but Blind Freddy can see the harm they cause and if they can be minimised or replaced that seems to be a patently obvious sensible objective. Having thousands of over worked, sleepless drivers, often on drugs, criss crossing and congesting our cities is blindingly obviously a bad idea. Particularly when it is causing our over dependence on oil imports and adding to our Trade Deficit and strategic insecurity.

I never said Light Rail will be saviour of us all (that is just you and you your constant exaggerations), just a good Public Transport system and planning, trams not necessarily being it, is the obvious move in the right direction.

rubaiyat 11:07 am 06 Apr 15

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

In respect of the weather, Bendigo has a mean minimum July temperature of 3.5 Celsius (Canberra is -0.1 Celsius) so there is really no comparison with the two cities there either.
What should be compared however is that Bendigo, with a current population of about 100,000 is only 2 hours away from Melbourne with a population of 4 million.
You need big populations and bigger subsidies to run a tram commuter service in Australia as Canberra is about to demonstrate once again.

Graz, Austrla my ancestral home, and also of Arnie, has population of a mere 269,000 compared with Canberra’s 385,000.

It has a comprehensive tram network that operates in almost weather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Graz

You might care to glance over the “Almost Canberra” winter weather here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graz

The weather it can’t operate in (3 metre snow drifts) seem to also adversely effect cars. But dungfungus hasn’t regaled us with scenes of multi-car pile ups for some odd reason I can’t quite put my finger on.

“Graz, Austrla my ancestral home, and also of Arnie, has population of a mere 269,000 compared with Canberra’s 385,000.”
That is the population figure for the metropolitan area. The light rail network services a population over over 500,000.

I am aware of that but like Canberra they are in smaller “dorfs” outside the Urban centre.

They do get the benefit of the Trams however when they come into Graz. The same as Queanbeyaners, Yass, etc residents would get the benefit of a better transport system in Canberra.

1. The point was you keep raising the total utter and complete nonsense that our by comparison mild weather is an obstacle to trams. Blind Freddy can spot that load of…

9

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site