19 April 2016

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

| Canfan
Join the conversation
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)

Join the conversation

171
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 …

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.

HiddenDragon5:48 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]

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.

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.

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…

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.

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…….

rubaiyat said :

There is a massive misapprehension amongst car drivers that Australia produces most of its own oil. It does not. It doesn’t even refine most of its own oil, that is done in Singapore. It doesn’t even ship most of the oil that is being bought from Singapore and other sources, that is being done by foreign shipping lines.

If we went to war most of our fleet, air force and army would be unable to move if our imports were cut off, which would be very likely. Our helicopters actually use a specialised fuel that we have no facilities to refine and would be grounded in days. Unlike most other countries we lack the foresight to maintain a strategic reserve to meet such eventualities.

There is also a misapprehension amongst car drivers that they pay their way. Of the 28 members of the OECD only Mexico, USA and Canada (all large oil producers) have lower fuel prices and lower taxes on that fuel.

The lack of refining here is as much a failure and any exposure to our national security is actually a failure of Government policy. However, I agree with u about Govt’s here not having the foresight to maintail a strategic reserve. We also don’t have a domestic gas reservation policy.

Any onshore refining ability we did have would no doubt be a prime target in the case of a large scale conflict anyway – it wouldn’t last long.

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.

Your hatred of cars, carparks & the internal Combustion engine must also extend then to trucks (which carry the majority of freight within Oz & run on those accursed roads (that you say are a “black hole” economically), planes (both passenger and freight) that need massive amounts of tarmac + diesel powered trains.

Your constant deluge of rabid “pro light rail as the saviour of us all” type postings is counter productive to your message.

Most agree that a better mass transport system is needed in Canberra. It’s just that a toy train set @ that cost for phase 1, isnt it. And as far as I heard, a proposed new Convention Centre was just a design competition type exercise – there are no plans to buld one unless the pvt sector pay for it because the ACT Gov’t can not afford it.

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.

rubaiyat said :

There is a massive misapprehension amongst car drivers that Australia produces most of its own oil. It does not. It doesn’t even refine most of its own oil, that is done in Singapore. It doesn’t even ship most of the oil that is being bought from Singapore and other sources, that is being done by foreign shipping lines.

If we went to war most of our fleet, air force and army would be unable to move if our imports were cut off, which would be very likely. Our helicopters actually use a specialised fuel that we have no facilities to refine and would be grounded in days. Unlike most other countries we lack the foresight to maintain a strategic reserve to meet such eventualities.

There is also a misapprehension amongst car drivers that they pay their way. Of the 28 members of the OECD only Mexico, USA and Canada (all large oil producers) have lower fuel prices and lower taxes on that fuel.

But our Canberra trams will still function thanks to Simon Corbell’s 90% renewable electricity supply.
Nothing else really matters.

Grrrr said :

dungfungus said :

“Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia….”
Where?

You misspelled “Sorry once again for my blatantly incorrect claims, and lack of Google-fu.”

(Answers above.)

Funny you should mention Canada – they have trams, too. In cities where it really snows. And I’m sure if you try hard enough, you’ll again find a news article relating to an isolated incident caused by the weather and ignore the millions journeys they provide successfully every year..

It’s not snow that will be the problem in Canberra, it’s ice and frost.
There can also be problems with hot weather causing lines encased in hot mix buckling and cables sagging.
In respect of the “isolated incident” syndrome, I assume you are still comfortable with flying following the disappearances/crashes/near misses/terrorist attacks in the past 12 months?

rubaiyat said :

There is a massive misapprehension amongst car drivers that Australia produces most of its own oil. It does not. It doesn’t even refine most of its own oil, that is done in Singapore. It doesn’t even ship most of the oil that is being bought from Singapore and other sources, that is being done by foreign shipping lines.

If we went to war most of our fleet, air force and army would be unable to move if our imports were cut off, which would be very likely. Our helicopters actually use a specialised fuel that we have no facilities to refine and would be grounded in days. Unlike most other countries we lack the foresight to maintain a strategic reserve to meet such eventualities.

There is also a misapprehension amongst car drivers that they pay their way. Of the 28 members of the OECD only Mexico, USA and Canada (all large oil producers) have lower fuel prices and lower taxes on that fuel.

But our Canberra trams will still function thanks to Simon Corbell’s 90% renewable electricity supply.
Nothing else really matters.

dungfungus said :

What proportion of Gungahlin even works in Canberra City where the tram is ending its journey?
It’s all part of the myth.

That is a very good question and has not been answered anywhere that I can find.

Any intelligently designed transport system should be ascertaining detailed movement of the population and then creating the most efficient and convenient network to enable that to happen.

Neither the roads nor anything else in Canberra’s topsy-turvy and incoherent planning seems to have allowed for that. Just mass speculation of whatever green space the government can flog off at any one time.

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.

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Simon Sheikh texted 666 on Thursday with the oddest rationale yet for light rail. Discussion was actually about plans for a new convention centre for Canberra – Sheikh inserted light rail into the conversation (you know, being a Green ‘n all) and his text was read out as “light rail is needed as it will get Gungahlin residents to the convention centre”. What proportion of the population of Gungahlin would be attending conventions in Canberra? Half of one per cent maybe? Drawing a veeerrryyy long bow there.

What proportion of Gungahlin even works in Canberra City where the tram is ending its journey?
It’s all part of the myth.

Why don’t you come out and have a look on any weekday morning? All the answers are there if you would actually like to understand. I know this will probably be against your belief systems but it will make you see things from an informed perspective.

There is a massive misapprehension amongst car drivers that Australia produces most of its own oil. It does not. It doesn’t even refine most of its own oil, that is done in Singapore. It doesn’t even ship most of the oil that is being bought from Singapore and other sources, that is being done by foreign shipping lines.

If we went to war most of our fleet, air force and army would be unable to move if our imports were cut off, which would be very likely. Our helicopters actually use a specialised fuel that we have no facilities to refine and would be grounded in days. Unlike most other countries we lack the foresight to maintain a strategic reserve to meet such eventualities.

There is also a misapprehension amongst car drivers that they pay their way. Of the 28 members of the OECD only Mexico, USA and Canada (all large oil producers) have lower fuel prices and lower taxes on that fuel.

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.

Masquara said :

Simon Sheikh texted 666 on Thursday with the oddest rationale yet for light rail. Discussion was actually about plans for a new convention centre for Canberra – Sheikh inserted light rail into the conversation (you know, being a Green ‘n all) and his text was read out as “light rail is needed as it will get Gungahlin residents to the convention centre”. What proportion of the population of Gungahlin would be attending conventions in Canberra? Half of one per cent maybe? Drawing a veeerrryyy long bow there.

What proportion of Gungahlin even works in Canberra City where the tram is ending its journey?
It’s all part of the myth.

Australia now imports 91% of its fuel, up from 60% in 2000, 37% of that comes from the Middle East.

Australia is recording yet another massive trade deficit, $1.256 billion in February. Most of that could be cancelled if we only tackled the issue of fuel imports in an energy rich country.

Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn reported in “Australia’s Fuel Security” that this major dependency of foreign fuel is now a major concern “Without fuel we don’t survive”.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/fuel-security/5278572

http://crudeoilpeak.info/australian-oil-and-fuel-dependency-on-the-middle-east-is-37

https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/sailing-close-to-the-wind-australias-perilous-dependence-on-imported-fuel,7171

All of that ignores the other real cost to Australia of the pollution caused by burning all the fuel that we import at huge cost.

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.

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 !

Simon Sheikh texted 666 on Thursday with the oddest rationale yet for light rail. Discussion was actually about plans for a new convention centre for Canberra – Sheikh inserted light rail into the conversation (you know, being a Green ‘n all) and his text was read out as “light rail is needed as it will get Gungahlin residents to the convention centre”. What proportion of the population of Gungahlin would be attending conventions in Canberra? Half of one per cent maybe? Drawing a veeerrryyy long bow there.

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

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?

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.

Maya123 said :

Where?
Bendigo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Bendigo

There is a photo in the Victorian Library in Melbourne of Ballarat after a heavy snowfall. The Trams appeared to be running, I could see the tracks of their passing through the snow.

Should we collect in on place every single silly excuse proving trams are impossible and the work of Satan?

Do we have enough space?

dungfungus said :

switch said :

dungfungus said :

switch said :

Also the line from Yass Junction to Yass town was called a tramway, although it used railway track, locos and rolling stock.

Once again, the debate is about mass transit so we shouldn’t muddy the waters by referring to the Yass tramway which I believe was solely for freight anyhow.

No, it did carry passengers, that was why it was built (to stop the whinging from Yass people that they had missed out on a rail connection back in the 1870’s). And what passed for “mass transit” in those days was very different to what the term generally means now. But you did ask if any inland mass transit systems had ever been built in Australia.

I stand corrected; the Yass tramway (it was a railway actually) was for carrying passengers.
I was probably thinking of a tramway somewhere else near Yass that was used for building a dam or other infrastructure.
Our government leaders should take note of a report on the Yass project and note the parallel with their Canberra project:
“The bridge represented a gross over capitalisation of a line that would prove to be operationally expensive and never showed a profit. Contractors Kerr & Cronin completed the line in July 1891 for £13,156 and McMasters’ bridge cost £5,412 in an all up cost of £27,318. So the bridge represented 20% of the final cost, just to satisfy town ego and have a grand opening ceremony in the town by the Governor, Earl of Jersey, on 20th April 1892.”
The major cost for the CMA project will be relocation of utilities and services which is still unknown (or known but not declared).

The railway I was thinking of was a 2 ft (610 mm) narrow gauge railway from the New South Wales Government Railways’ Main Southern Line at Goondah (south of Yass) to bring materials to the Burrinjuck Dam construction site. The railway was about 45 kilometres long, had a grade of 1 in 30 and some 90 foot-radius curves and took about 2 hours and 20 minutes to traverse.

dungfungus said :

I stand corrected; the Yass tramway (it was a railway actually) was for carrying passengers.
I was probably thinking of a tramway somewhere else near Yass that was used for building a dam or other infrastructure.

Burrinjuck Dam, maybe?

Our government leaders should take note of a report on the Yass project and note the parallel with their Canberra project:
“The bridge represented a gross over capitalisation of a line that would prove to be operationally expensive and never showed a profit. Contractors Kerr & Cronin completed the line in July 1891 for £13,156 and McMasters’ bridge cost £5,412 in an all up cost of £27,318. So the bridge represented 20% of the final cost, just to satisfy town ego and have a grand opening ceremony in the town by the Governor, Earl of Jersey, on 20th April 1892.”
The major cost for the CMA project will be relocation of utilities and services which is still unknown (or known but not declared).

“History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes.”

switch said :

dungfungus said :

switch said :

Also the line from Yass Junction to Yass town was called a tramway, although it used railway track, locos and rolling stock.

Once again, the debate is about mass transit so we shouldn’t muddy the waters by referring to the Yass tramway which I believe was solely for freight anyhow.

No, it did carry passengers, that was why it was built (to stop the whinging from Yass people that they had missed out on a rail connection back in the 1870’s). And what passed for “mass transit” in those days was very different to what the term generally means now. But you did ask if any inland mass transit systems had ever been built in Australia.

I stand corrected; the Yass tramway (it was a railway actually) was for carrying passengers.
I was probably thinking of a tramway somewhere else near Yass that was used for building a dam or other infrastructure.
Our government leaders should take note of a report on the Yass project and note the parallel with their Canberra project:
“The bridge represented a gross over capitalisation of a line that would prove to be operationally expensive and never showed a profit. Contractors Kerr & Cronin completed the line in July 1891 for £13,156 and McMasters’ bridge cost £5,412 in an all up cost of £27,318. So the bridge represented 20% of the final cost, just to satisfy town ego and have a grand opening ceremony in the town by the Governor, Earl of Jersey, on 20th April 1892.”
The major cost for the CMA project will be relocation of utilities and services which is still unknown (or known but not declared).

dungfungus said :

switch said :

Also the line from Yass Junction to Yass town was called a tramway, although it used railway track, locos and rolling stock.

Once again, the debate is about mass transit so we shouldn’t muddy the waters by referring to the Yass tramway which I believe was solely for freight anyhow.

No, it did carry passengers, that was why it was built (to stop the whinging from Yass people that they had missed out on a rail connection back in the 1870’s). And what passed for “mass transit” in those days was very different to what the term generally means now. But you did ask if any inland mass transit systems had ever been built in Australia.

switch said :

Also the line from Yass Junction to Yass town was called a tramway, although it used railway track, locos and rolling stock.

Once again, the debate is about mass transit so we shouldn’t muddy the waters by referring to the Yass tramway which I believe was solely for freight anyhow.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Grrrr said :

dungfungus said :

As I said, trams have never been used as mass transit in inland Australia where frosts and ice are prevalent so “engineers” don’t have templates for dealing with it.

I’d tell you to quit clutching at straws but apparently it’s your modus operandi and ain’t going to happen.

So the engineers involved in this are all Australian – none of them are working for overseas firms, perhaps in countries with weather a lot worse than ours? Like, maybe the Czech Republic? Saying that engineers involved in this project have no idea how to design both trams and rail networks suitable for the weather they’re going to operate in suggests more than you know nothing about the engineers or engineering.

Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia, and ice sufficient to disrupt trams is NOT prevalent in Canberra. Your example of Prague is also nothing like Canberra. Their winters are much colder – by 10degC or more. They spend a LOT more time below zero than us.

Your assertion that the engineers potentially

“Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia….”
Where?

Bendigo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Bendigo

I knew someone would suggest Bendigo but I did say “MASS transport”.
Let’s discuss it though.
Bendigo is a large regional city with a similar population density to Canberra and had its first trams 110 years ago. As the population increased the passenger numbers for the trams fell off, probably because there was also a public bus service and the advent of the affordable family motor car.
In the 1960s-1970s when the population of Bendigo was about 50,000, the tram passenger service was reduced to a tourist tram.
It should be noted that Canberra had an opportunity to introduce a “Federation Tram” about 12 years ago as limited tourist service but there was little support for it at government level.
There were pushes in 2008 to re-introduce commuter tram services in Bendigo when the population was about 85,000 but there was little public participation during the trial.
The trial service was tweaked to make it more attractive and it was getting some success when the government withdrew the subsidy required to run it and it ceased.
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.
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.
You need big populations and bigger subsidies to run a tram commuter service in Australia as Canberra is about to demonstrate once again.

Also the line from Yass Junction to Yass town was called a tramway, although it used railway track, locos and rolling stock.

“Limited trials have also been made in 2009 with operating commuter service, but with minimal usage by the public.[2]”

Nice, I can see it now, a tram drawing lots of tourism dollars, with loads of people coming to marvel at it, maybe even people from afar a field as Ogdenville or North Haverbrook….

dungfungus said :

“Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia….”
Where?

You misspelled “Sorry once again for my blatantly incorrect claims, and lack of Google-fu.”

(Answers above.)

Funny you should mention Canada – they have trams, too. In cities where it really snows. And I’m sure if you try hard enough, you’ll again find a news article relating to an isolated incident caused by the weather and ignore the millions journeys they provide successfully every year..

dungfungus said :

Grrrr said :

dungfungus said :

As I said, trams have never been used as mass transit in inland Australia where frosts and ice are prevalent so “engineers” don’t have templates for dealing with it.

I’d tell you to quit clutching at straws but apparently it’s your modus operandi and ain’t going to happen.

So the engineers involved in this are all Australian – none of them are working for overseas firms, perhaps in countries with weather a lot worse than ours? Like, maybe the Czech Republic? Saying that engineers involved in this project have no idea how to design both trams and rail networks suitable for the weather they’re going to operate in suggests more than you know nothing about the engineers or engineering.

Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia, and ice sufficient to disrupt trams is NOT prevalent in Canberra. Your example of Prague is also nothing like Canberra. Their winters are much colder – by 10degC or more. They spend a LOT more time below zero than us.

Your assertion that the engineers potentially

“Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia….”
Where?

Bendigo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Bendigo

dungfungus said :

“Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia….”
Where?

Bendigo (still used for tourists), Ballarat, Broken Hill.

dungfungus said :

Your assertion that the engineers potentially

“Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia….”
Where?

Ballarat and Bendigo have both had tram networks, are inland and can get pretty cold.

Grrrr said :

dungfungus said :

As I said, trams have never been used as mass transit in inland Australia where frosts and ice are prevalent so “engineers” don’t have templates for dealing with it.

I’d tell you to quit clutching at straws but apparently it’s your modus operandi and ain’t going to happen.

So the engineers involved in this are all Australian – none of them are working for overseas firms, perhaps in countries with weather a lot worse than ours? Like, maybe the Czech Republic? Saying that engineers involved in this project have no idea how to design both trams and rail networks suitable for the weather they’re going to operate in suggests more than you know nothing about the engineers or engineering.

Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia, and ice sufficient to disrupt trams is NOT prevalent in Canberra. Your example of Prague is also nothing like Canberra. Their winters are much colder – by 10degC or more. They spend a LOT more time below zero than us.

Your assertion that the engineers potentially

“Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia….”
Where?

dungfungus said :

As I said, trams have never been used as mass transit in inland Australia where frosts and ice are prevalent so “engineers” don’t have templates for dealing with it.

I’d tell you to quit clutching at straws but apparently it’s your modus operandi and ain’t going to happen.

So the engineers involved in this are all Australian – none of them are working for overseas firms, perhaps in countries with weather a lot worse than ours? Like, maybe the Czech Republic? Saying that engineers involved in this project have no idea how to design both trams and rail networks suitable for the weather they’re going to operate in suggests more than you know nothing about the engineers or engineering.

Trams have been used as mass transit in inland Australia, and ice sufficient to disrupt trams is NOT prevalent in Canberra. Your example of Prague is also nothing like Canberra. Their winters are much colder – by 10degC or more. They spend a LOT more time below zero than us.

Your assertion that the engineers potentially

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

My comments were related to light rail which would have been obvious to most.
The tram line in Canberra will be recessed to have the top of the rail level with the carriageway it is built on and if one of the drains in the furrow where the wheel flanges go blocks and the accumulated water turns to ice, then that effectively stops the tram (or derails it).
The trans-continental rail lines in Canada are laid well above the carriageway and the weight of the trains is enough to displace snow and ice lying on top. The engines are also diesel powered.

There are plenty of trams in Europe that get colder than Canberra. Canberra’s climate is really not unusual. Engineers are generally pretty smart people who think of these issues, so all the nay sayers can sleep well at night.

If I am a nay sayer then you are a denialist about the problems that cold weather can cause to tram operations.
As I said, trams have never been used as mass transit in inland Australia where frosts and ice are prevalent so “engineers” don’t have templates for dealing with it.
There were “smart” engineers who oversaw the GDE bridge that collapsed during construction and the pedestrian bridge (that no one uses) on Erindale Drive Mawson that bent in the wrong place when they mounted it.
Less than 6 months ago there was chaos in Prague: http://www.praguepost.com/prague-news/43040-video-captures-sparking-trams-in-ice
It is a fact of life that trams are exposed to problems in cold climates – I did enquire in an earlier post what CMA were going to do about it so where are all the armchair engineers that speak on their behalf?

rosscoact said :

metalblue said :

A few things to consider,

Is commercial aviation going to expand into space exploration?

Will commercial drones make land transport obsolete for light cargo?

Will retirees stay in Canberra?

Does overnight/overweekend population have significance now, and will it be any different in 5 years or 20 years?

I can help you with that.

No – there is no destination, just expensive joyrides

No – Probably not given the cost ratio

Yes, they do now and there’s no motivating factor that will change that.

Yes, no, possibly

You’re welcome.

Thanks for the honest answers. Leaving space travel to the space companies is how I think you understand it. I disagree with the joyride theory, although there are gravity reducing flights of which technically don’t go into space. Also 3D printing could drastically reduce craft costs. The destination could be a station, or perhaps even the moon. I’ve even heard people will be on Mars within 5 years.

dungfungus said :

My comments were related to light rail which would have been obvious to most.
The tram line in Canberra will be recessed to have the top of the rail level with the carriageway it is built on and if one of the drains in the furrow where the wheel flanges go blocks and the accumulated water turns to ice, then that effectively stops the tram (or derails it).
The trans-continental rail lines in Canada are laid well above the carriageway and the weight of the trains is enough to displace snow and ice lying on top. The engines are also diesel powered.

There are plenty of trams in Europe that get colder than Canberra. Canberra’s climate is really not unusual. Engineers are generally pretty smart people who think of these issues, so all the nay sayers can sleep well at night.

metalblue said :

A few things to consider,

Is commercial aviation going to expand into space exploration?

Will commercial drones make land transport obsolete for light cargo?

Will retirees stay in Canberra?

Does overnight/overweekend population have significance now, and will it be any different in 5 years or 20 years?

I can help you with that.

No – there is no destination, just expensive joyrides

No – Probably not given the cost ratio

Yes, they do now and there’s no motivating factor that will change that.

Yes, no, possibly

You’re welcome.

rubaiyat said :

metalblue said :

A few things to consider,

Is commercial aviation going to expand into space exploration?

Let’s assume it is and stop all the roads before it is too late.

Will commercial drones make land transport obsolete for light cargo?

Let’s assume everything becomes obsolete and stop all the roads before it is too late.

Will retirees stay in Canberra?

They’ll do whatever they always have, taking into account we have the good food, coffee and hospital services.

Let’s assume they stay and stop all the roads before it is too late.

Does overnight/overweekend population have significance now, and will it be any different in 5 years or 20 years?

Haven’t a clue, let’s assume it will and stop all the roads before it is too late.

STOP THE ROADS!

metalblue said :

A few things to consider,

Is commercial aviation going to expand into space exploration?

Let’s assume it is and stop all the roads before it is too late.

Will commercial drones make land transport obsolete for light cargo?

Let’s assume everything becomes obsolete and stop all the roads before it is too late.

Will retirees stay in Canberra?

They’ll do whatever they always have, taking into account we have the good food, coffee and hospital services.

Let’s assume they stay and stop all the roads before it is too late.

Does overnight/overweekend population have significance now, and will it be any different in 5 years or 20 years?

Haven’t a clue, let’s assume it will and stop all the roads before it is too late.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Canberra’s population was actually 385,00 in 2013.

The ABS has projected a LOW of 500,000 by 2034, assuming immigration is actually 20% LOWER than recorded and a high of 600,000.

If NOBODY at all moved into Canberra it will still reach 435,000 by 2034 just from our low fertility rate of 1.6 babies per woman.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/canberras-population-growth-should-be-steady-20140213-32ngl.html

Don’t ignore the fact that due to the high number of the ageing will mean a lot more of the aggregate population will die concurrently with the increase in births.
Most agencies who are involved in planning seem to ignore this.

No they don’t ignore it at all. It is all factored in.

The projected trajectory of Canberra’s growth if anything has always been shy of the reality. We will be hitting 400,000 next year.

We are no longer a country town. Time to stop the small town mentality.

Well, the costs of living here are certainly no longer at small town levels.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Canberra’s population was actually 385,00 in 2013.

The ABS has projected a LOW of 500,000 by 2034, assuming immigration is actually 20% LOWER than recorded and a high of 600,000.

If NOBODY at all moved into Canberra it will still reach 435,000 by 2034 just from our low fertility rate of 1.6 babies per woman.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/canberras-population-growth-should-be-steady-20140213-32ngl.html

Don’t ignore the fact that due to the high number of the ageing will mean a lot more of the aggregate population will die concurrently with the increase in births.
Most agencies who are involved in planning seem to ignore this.

No they don’t ignore it at all. It is all factored in.

The projected trajectory of Canberra’s growth if anything has always been shy of the reality. We will be hitting 400,000 next year.

We are no longer a country town. Time to stop the small town mentality.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Canberra’s population was actually 385,00 in 2013.

The ABS has projected a LOW of 500,000 by 2034, assuming immigration is actually 20% LOWER than recorded and a high of 600,000.

If NOBODY at all moved into Canberra it will still reach 435,000 by 2034 just from our low fertility rate of 1.6 babies per woman.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/canberras-population-growth-should-be-steady-20140213-32ngl.html

Don’t ignore the fact that due to the high number of the ageing will mean a lot more of the aggregate population will die concurrently with the increase in births.
Most agencies who are involved in planning seem to ignore this.

There are too many variables to consider to make accurate determinations about Canberra population in 2034, with each year beyond 2 election cycles the accuracy drops significantly. I do agree that transport is a huge factor in estimating growth beyond a decade.

A few things to consider,

Is commercial aviation going to expand into space exploration?

Will commercial drones make land transport obsolete for light cargo?

Will retirees stay in Canberra?

Does overnight/overweekend population have significance now, and will it be any different in 5 years or 20 years?

rubaiyat said :

Canberra’s population was actually 385,00 in 2013.

The ABS has projected a LOW of 500,000 by 2034, assuming immigration is actually 20% LOWER than recorded and a high of 600,000.

If NOBODY at all moved into Canberra it will still reach 435,000 by 2034 just from our low fertility rate of 1.6 babies per woman.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/canberras-population-growth-should-be-steady-20140213-32ngl.html

Don’t ignore the fact that due to the high number of the ageing will mean a lot more of the aggregate population will die concurrently with the increase in births.
Most agencies who are involved in planning seem to ignore this.

Canberra’s population was actually 385,00 in 2013.

The ABS has projected a LOW of 500,000 by 2034, assuming immigration is actually 20% LOWER than recorded and a high of 600,000.

If NOBODY at all moved into Canberra it will still reach 435,000 by 2034 just from our low fertility rate of 1.6 babies per woman.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/canberras-population-growth-should-be-steady-20140213-32ngl.html

dungfungus said :

” ….only 350,000…..”
I believe that is as big as it will get for many years to come no matter what stimulus and incentives are offered to prime the pump.
Accordingly, we do not need a LRT which depends on future growth and this means it is totally unviable as it now stands.

Ignoring exactly what has happened already, all the studies show Canberra is well on the way to 500,000 mid century.

Allowing for all the USUAL cycles of cut backs and re-employment.

Existing projections suggest Canberra could reach 900,000 by the end of the century as it grows with the rest of Australia and as the de facto regional capital.

Left to the stunted imagination of the few, we will not have the transport plans in place to cope with the extra population, changes of housing types and the environment.

Just as we do not have now, thanks to the car obsessed “planning” of the past.

Compare that with getting on and off a tram, generally close to your destination in any civilised and well designed system.

No descending into the bowels of some foul concrete car park, circulating endlessly for a free parking spot. Working on your ulcer whilst paying way more than a tram ticket to put your car in storage, nowhere near where everything is. Then constantly checking your watch so you can rush back to the car park before the charges escalate out of control. Forget or get delayed and you are scalped.

Instead you hop on a pleasant clean tram, watch the passing city or read/play on your laptop and hop off wherever you choose, without having to retrace your steps back to the one tonne anchor of a car.

rubaiyat said :

That should inspire us. If the Canucks can cross 4000kms of continent underground what is a piddling few kilometres of light rail up Northbourne Avenue?

The clear impossibility of trams in cold climates was clearly demonstrated in Dr Zhivago.

Has anyone posting in this thread ever seen a tram or been anywhere else?

I think some people only see the darkness in everything, regardless of what other shades there are (or facts for that matter).

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who constantly deride my posts please refer to the following link:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/metrolink-boss-apologises-tram-service-8282788
Has anyone asked CMA how many ice breaker trams they have ordered and how much they cost?

Well you are talking about poms.

The same pommie reffos who ran the National Capital Authority and created the wannabe L.A. freeway mess that Canberra has gotten hooked on.

PS My wife has just come back from dropping our car off to my son in Spence and says the traffic, even before 8am, is horrendous. We are used to what it is like in Sydney and Melbourne but she wasn’t aware of just how bad it has got in Canberra.

…and this is with a population of still only 350,000.

” ….only 350,000…..”
I believe that is as big as it will get for many years to come no matter what stimulus and incentives are offered to prime the pump.
Accordingly, we do not need a LRT which depends on future growth and this means it is totally unviable as it now stands.

dungfungus said :

Then there are the noise issues to consider. Canberra, being a really quiet city, will really notice the noise impact of the trams (as well as their ugly wirescape).
http://www.tautonline.com/is-lrt-really-the-noisy-neighbour/

Listening to you it is clear you never go anywhere, but do you even actually live in Canberra?.

You are not going to hear it in Tuggers.

What you ARE going to hear ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE within cooee of the freeways or even main suburban streets is non stop cars, trucks and buses, even in the wee hours.

Where we are you can hear Adelaide Avenue blocks away. No way I’d even know a Tram was there. They are quieter than the buses they replace.

You must be sitting on your tastebuds as well.

Cast your eye around at the hectares of carparks, street signs, parking meters, high rise Car Parks, broken curbs, refuse and roadkill filled landscape along the roads, with their broken and potholed pavements, pushed up into bitumen bomboras where the buses and trucks brake at the lights.

The merry twinkle of red, white and amber, of lines of traffic backed up for kilometres.

The inner beauty of every single shopping or office carpark must fill you with the sheer joy of being alive. To breathe in the waft of fuel and carfart, the dimly lit concrete, bitumen and dumpsters, the acres of car bodies reverberating with the echoes of brakes squealing and dusting your expresso with freshly grated brake lining.

The romance, the poetic majesty of it all!

rubaiyat said :

The same pommie reffos who ran the National Capital Authority and created the wannabe L.A. freeway mess that Canberra has gotten hooked on.

…and apparently never looked out the window to notice that the sun in Canberra is in the north …not the south.

dungfungus said :

For those of you who constantly deride my posts please refer to the following link:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/metrolink-boss-apologises-tram-service-8282788
Has anyone asked CMA how many ice breaker trams they have ordered and how much they cost?

Then there are the noise issues to consider. Canberra, being a really quiet city, will really notice the noise impact of the trams (as well as their ugly wirescape).
http://www.tautonline.com/is-lrt-really-the-noisy-neighbour/

dungfungus said :

For those of you who constantly deride my posts please refer to the following link:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/metrolink-boss-apologises-tram-service-8282788
Has anyone asked CMA how many ice breaker trams they have ordered and how much they cost?

Well you are talking about poms.

The same pommie reffos who ran the National Capital Authority and created the wannabe L.A. freeway mess that Canberra has gotten hooked on.

PS My wife has just come back from dropping our car off to my son in Spence and says the traffic, even before 8am, is horrendous. We are used to what it is like in Sydney and Melbourne but she wasn’t aware of just how bad it has got in Canberra.

…and this is with a population of still only 350,000.

metalblue said :

gasman said :

Fortunately they do not have any ice or snow in Canada where the rail system is well established.

Salt works for melting snow, not so sure about ice build up, or frost.

Also, a lot of the rail system in Canada is a subway, below ground.

That should inspire us. If the Canucks can cross 4000kms of continent underground what is a piddling few kilometres of light rail up Northbourne Avenue?

The clear impossibility of trams in cold climates was clearly demonstrated in Dr Zhivago.

Has anyone posting in this thread ever seen a tram or been anywhere else?

For those of you who constantly deride my posts please refer to the following link:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/metrolink-boss-apologises-tram-service-8282788
Has anyone asked CMA how many ice breaker trams they have ordered and how much they cost?

gasman said :

Fortunately they do not have any ice or snow in Canada where the rail system is well established.

Salt works for melting snow, not so sure about ice build up, or frost.

Also, a lot of the rail system in Canada is a subway, below ground.

gasman said :

dungfungus said :

We are accustomed to some severe frosts and icy road conditions in some parts of Canberra during the winter months.
Has anyone from CMA scoped the problems that may arise with these conditions given that their project is going to be the first inland tram (mass transit) network in Australia?
My investigations reveal that ice accumulations in flangeways (particularly at grade crossings) can lift the wheel flanges over the rail heads which, of course, can result in a derailment.
And ice can wreak all kinds of havoc on exposed wires such as signal lines and similar installations. On electrified rail-roads (tramways), ice accumulations can also prevent contact with the overhead wire or third rail which brings everything to a stop.
Not considered either is the affect that cockatoos could have in “subdividing” electrical installations and insulators.

Fortunately they do not have any ice or snow in Canada where the rail system is well established.

My comments were related to light rail which would have been obvious to most.
The tram line in Canberra will be recessed to have the top of the rail level with the carriageway it is built on and if one of the drains in the furrow where the wheel flanges go blocks and the accumulated water turns to ice, then that effectively stops the tram (or derails it).
The trans-continental rail lines in Canada are laid well above the carriageway and the weight of the trains is enough to displace snow and ice lying on top. The engines are also diesel powered.

dungfungus said :

We are accustomed to some severe frosts and icy road conditions in some parts of Canberra during the winter months.
Has anyone from CMA scoped the problems that may arise with these conditions given that their project is going to be the first inland tram (mass transit) network in Australia?
My investigations reveal that ice accumulations in flangeways (particularly at grade crossings) can lift the wheel flanges over the rail heads which, of course, can result in a derailment.
And ice can wreak all kinds of havoc on exposed wires such as signal lines and similar installations. On electrified rail-roads (tramways), ice accumulations can also prevent contact with the overhead wire or third rail which brings everything to a stop.
Not considered either is the affect that cockatoos could have in “subdividing” electrical installations and insulators.

Fortunately they do not have any ice or snow in Canada where the rail system is well established.

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

It all depends. If our tram obsessed local government decides to put a cost based price on the tram, nobody would be able to afford to ride on it. If parking is priced extra high in an attempt to push people onto trams, private parking companies will step in and start renting out more parking spaces. Do the people who advocate the tram properly understand the additional expense our city will be burdened with?

Excellent point. At last a sensible suggestion from the car lobby.

Turn the Weston duplication, Russell Overpass, Gungahlin Drive, Majura Parkway, in fact to match the fares on the Trams, Northbourne Ave, all into toll roads.

Make drivers pay for every bit of the infrastructure they use, not just the valuable inner city land the car parks occupy and see if they can afford it.

Instead of subsidising the trucking industry, make them pay the same for their fuel as everyone else and also charge them for all the deaths and damage they do.

So when you put in a toll road you tap into another bucket of money that everyone keeps out buried in the fields?
Putting in a toll road doesn’t make people have more money. Actually much less money because someone has to pay to build and operate the thing.

The tram should service somewhere where there is no current businesses / population. The cost of the tram would then be paid back directly though landsales and not though rates / ticket fares.

Roads divide people. Trams split them in half

My son has just trashed his 3rd car.

Anybody know of a cheap rent a wreck operation here in Canberra to tide him over?

All the web searches keep hitting what looks like the same US hire car broker sites.

THIS is the real cost of cars and why my son, not uniquely, has no real savings.

and I may even catch [public transport]

The segregation issue I suggested is solely because of noise pollution. If you want people to catch [public transport] instead, when they have the luxury of the noise contained in a car, then there may have to be an incentive of noise reduction or containment. Physical segregation may not be necessary, sound isolation and reverberation may need to be looked into, though.

Etiquette and chivalry are not dead, just difficult to express these days…

rubaiyat said :

metalblue said :

Some more things to consider, just brainstorming here…

Privacy of phone calls – or not being able to answer a phone call – currently not condoned on buses, will it be the same for trams?

Music or news video – should this be considered for like-minded people of whom catch the same tram/bus, instead of an incredible waste on general announcements designed to speak to everyone, and speaks to no one? Silence by default?

Diversifying and/or segregation issues – Should there be specific areas reserved for making phone calls at an extra cost?

Departmentalisation, automated decoupling and recoupling with other trams heading to a similar destination? Does more coupled trams mean saving energy? Would this be an excuse to notify destination on boarding? Change of destination during transit?

Outsourcing entertainment on longer trips? – DISCLAIMER – The MC’s expressions and opinions do not represent the views and opinions of (nor should they) the ACT Government, ACTION, or it’s subsiduaries (will they have any?) – automated voting DJ? complete with anti-rick-rolling technology (patent possibly pending)??

The Dulwich Hill Tram in Sydney is full of commuters on their laptops and iPads. The Trams all have a news service shown on screens throughout the carriages. Be easy to include WiFi.

The smooth ride makes all of this feasible on trams. Tried it on the buses to the Northern Beaches in Sydney, also a long commute, and my usually steady stomach was ready to heave in 10 minutes.

I presume they could run more carriages during peak hour and have quiet carriages if that was required, although good luck getting people to comply. They mostly don’t work on Sydney trains. The bogans and yuppies always feel they are exempt or plead ignorance of both the posted and announced messages. On the long commute from both Newcastle and Wollongong I have had all sorts of deliberate ignoring of the quiet signs. One notable example was a seemingly psychologically disturbed woman who loudly sang Russian folk songs intermixed with some Beatles all the way down from Newcastle. A three hour trip.

The ride quality of trams deteriorates as the speed increases. Above 70 kmh they start to pitch and yaw making it very difficult for passengers to operate social media devices. The priority is to “hang on” especially if standing which is what trams are designed for.
There is a “light rail tram” which runs from the airport in Lyon to the city area and it doesn’t stop along the way. It is fast but very uncomfortable to ride in. Trams (light rail) are for stop/start under 70 kmh work only.

rubaiyat said :

The Dulwich Hill Tram in Sydney is full of commuters on their laptops and iPads. The Trams all have a news service shown on screens throughout the carriages. Be easy to include WiFi.

The smooth ride makes all of this feasible on trams. Tried it on the buses to the Northern Beaches in Sydney, also a long commute, and my usually steady stomach was ready to heave in 10 minutes.

I presume they could run more carriages during peak hour and have quiet carriages if that was required, although good luck getting people to comply. They mostly don’t work on Sydney trains. The bogans and yuppies always feel they are exempt or plead ignorance of both the posted and announced messages. On the long commute from both Newcastle and Wollongong I have had all sorts of deliberate ignoring of the quiet signs. One notable example was a seemingly psychologically disturbed woman who loudly sang Russian folk songs intermixed with some Beatles all the way down from Newcastle. A three hour trip.

Personally, with my experience on ACTION buses, or any bus, or any train, the suspension could be improved dramatically. I’m not an expert in the area, however fluid compression, gas compression, a system to detect/remember bumps in the road, seperated areas working in unison for more efficient shock absorption could help in making a smooth ride even smoother.

Throw in a decent heater/cooler and I may even catch a tram when I don’t need to! (Is that a problem with high density populations?)

Noise pollution could actually be considered the automated messages themselves – however they’re useful, actually very useful to the point of being a necessity for people who don’t know the area.

The segregation issue I suggested is solely because of noise pollution. If you want people to catch the tram instead, when they have the luxury of the noise contained in a car, then there may have to be an incentive of noise reduction or containment. Physical segregation may not be necessary, sound isolation and reverberation may need to be looked into, though.

Etiquette and chivalry are not dead, just difficult to express these days…

metalblue said :

Some more things to consider, just brainstorming here…

Privacy of phone calls – or not being able to answer a phone call – currently not condoned on buses, will it be the same for trams?

Music or news video – should this be considered for like-minded people of whom catch the same tram/bus, instead of an incredible waste on general announcements designed to speak to everyone, and speaks to no one? Silence by default?

Diversifying and/or segregation issues – Should there be specific areas reserved for making phone calls at an extra cost?

Departmentalisation, automated decoupling and recoupling with other trams heading to a similar destination? Does more coupled trams mean saving energy? Would this be an excuse to notify destination on boarding? Change of destination during transit?

Outsourcing entertainment on longer trips? – DISCLAIMER – The MC’s expressions and opinions do not represent the views and opinions of (nor should they) the ACT Government, ACTION, or it’s subsiduaries (will they have any?) – automated voting DJ? complete with anti-rick-rolling technology (patent possibly pending)??

The Dulwich Hill Tram in Sydney is full of commuters on their laptops and iPads. The Trams all have a news service shown on screens throughout the carriages. Be easy to include WiFi.

The smooth ride makes all of this feasible on trams. Tried it on the buses to the Northern Beaches in Sydney, also a long commute, and my usually steady stomach was ready to heave in 10 minutes.

I presume they could run more carriages during peak hour and have quiet carriages if that was required, although good luck getting people to comply. They mostly don’t work on Sydney trains. The bogans and yuppies always feel they are exempt or plead ignorance of both the posted and announced messages. On the long commute from both Newcastle and Wollongong I have had all sorts of deliberate ignoring of the quiet signs. One notable example was a seemingly psychologically disturbed woman who loudly sang Russian folk songs intermixed with some Beatles all the way down from Newcastle. A three hour trip.

Some more things to consider, just brainstorming here…

Privacy of phone calls – or not being able to answer a phone call – currently not condoned on buses, will it be the same for trams?

Music or news video – should this be considered for like-minded people of whom catch the same tram/bus, instead of an incredible waste on general announcements designed to speak to everyone, and speaks to no one? Silence by default?

Diversifying and/or segregation issues – Should there be specific areas reserved for making phone calls at an extra cost?

Departmentalisation, automated decoupling and recoupling with other trams heading to a similar destination? Does more coupled trams mean saving energy? Would this be an excuse to notify destination on boarding? Change of destination during transit?

Outsourcing entertainment on longer trips? – DISCLAIMER – The MC’s expressions and opinions do not represent the views and opinions of (nor should they) the ACT Government, ACTION, or it’s subsiduaries (will they have any?) – automated voting DJ? complete with anti-rick-rolling technology (patent possibly pending)??

gazket said :

Labor will have to double cross the Greens and bring coal seam gas to the ACT to bring in more revenue to put towards paying for light rail.

It’s the only way to pay for it, I will bet my balls on it.

Well they will save heaps on not building new roads into Gungahlin (the GDE and then the expansion cost a lot of money and very few complained (From memory over 200 million, with no income coming from the road), earn a lot flogging off land along the transit corridor also. The total cost looks big, but just like Mr fluffy, they will recoup a lot of the initial costs.

Society can’t just sit around and do things they way they’ve been done in the past. It doesn’t work like that, the world changes.

Grail said :

watto23 said :

However my concern is a tram will never serve Tuggeranong well, because its just too far to travel by tram in a timely and efficient way. Any future tram would take close to an hour to get from Tuggeranong to the City.

It takes the buses an hour to transport me from Isabella Plains to Dickson. The buses have more transitions than a tram would need: swap busses at Tuggeranong, then again at the City. On a tram it would be tram from Tuggeranong all the way up Northbourne (since it’s going to Gungahlin), end of story.

watto23 said :

Instead the tram is really no better than a bus, maybe some marginal pros and cons each way IMO.

For me the tram only has to travel at the same average speed as a bus in order to save me about 10 minutes on a 60 minute trip.

Yes but based on the 22 minute commute time vs 25 min commute time of Tram vs bus on the Gungahlin route, you could easily say its a waste of money for such a small reduction in transit time.

The problem with this debate is that all the conservatives get on here and spout nonsense doom and gloom tales, that covers over the actual facts and issues that need to be considered.

I think there is a definite plan to save money on roads to Gungahlin, build a high density transit corridor and put a tram line in. Its actually a very good idea, because it will increase properties in Canberra, not everyone wants a backyard either. I can see why people oppose it, but the government has its ducks lined up to make sense. I can see that link extending to Kingston/Manuka. I just think that unless the transit time on public transport from Tuggeranong to the city is 30 minutes, why bother. Most Canberrans are time poor rather than money poor. Otherwise everyone would catch the buses to save money. The outrage over the lack of convenience in Barton with pay parking also suggests this.

My gripe is they have a good plan for this route, not sure the plan will extend too far though.

dungfungus said :

metalblue said :

dungfungus said :

metalblue said :

rubaiyat said :

Canberra is not Alice Springs or Ulladulla either.

It seems to be Canberra.

Point being?

My point was that Canberra is not Melbourne, and does not need to be like Melbourne. For sake of balance, I mentioned Sydney.

Canberra exists the way it is now because Melbourne and Sydney could not decide between each other which city should be the capital city. The compromise was neither Sydney nor Melbourne should be capital, result: Canberra is the capital.

Trams work in Melbourne, they may even work in Sydney. What works in Melbourne or Sydney, or Vancouver or San Francisco, does not necessarily work here.

I saw that there is a prediction for 2031 having an hours drive from Gungahlin to the city. Does this take into account driverless cars or other technologies?

Would a driverless tram being automated provide valuable information to learn from to prevent crashes and other incidents? Would there be significant dangerous risks to beta test the technology in Canberra, and does Canberra want to take that risk?

“driverless tram being automated”
Hey, get real! This is Canberra.
You know, TWU runs public transport here.
No way they would wear anything driverless.

Road drone vehicles will still require a dead-robot switch (like a dead-man switch) of which will require human presence.

Ah the diversity of Canberra; drones, dead-men and humans.

Don’t forget the fish!

metalblue said :

dungfungus said :

metalblue said :

rubaiyat said :

Canberra is not Alice Springs or Ulladulla either.

It seems to be Canberra.

Point being?

My point was that Canberra is not Melbourne, and does not need to be like Melbourne. For sake of balance, I mentioned Sydney.

Canberra exists the way it is now because Melbourne and Sydney could not decide between each other which city should be the capital city. The compromise was neither Sydney nor Melbourne should be capital, result: Canberra is the capital.

Trams work in Melbourne, they may even work in Sydney. What works in Melbourne or Sydney, or Vancouver or San Francisco, does not necessarily work here.

I saw that there is a prediction for 2031 having an hours drive from Gungahlin to the city. Does this take into account driverless cars or other technologies?

Would a driverless tram being automated provide valuable information to learn from to prevent crashes and other incidents? Would there be significant dangerous risks to beta test the technology in Canberra, and does Canberra want to take that risk?

“driverless tram being automated”
Hey, get real! This is Canberra.
You know, TWU runs public transport here.
No way they would wear anything driverless.

Road drone vehicles will still require a dead-robot switch (like a dead-man switch) of which will require human presence.

Ah the diversity of Canberra; drones, dead-men and humans.

rubaiyat said :

metalblue said :

Does this take into account driverless cars or other technologies?

Such as nuclear Airships? Teams of kangaroos pulling sleds? Giant Ferris wheels unleashed from their moorings? Rent-A-Pogosticks?

Stranger things have happened.
http://www.google.com.au/about/careers/lifeatgoogle/self-driving-car-test-steve-mahan.html

rubaiyat said :

metalblue said :

I saw that there is a prediction for 2031 having an hours drive from Gungahlin to the city. Does this take into account driverless cars or other technologies?

Such as nuclear Airships? Teams of kangaroos pulling sleds? Giant Ferris wheels unleashed from their moorings? Rent-A-Pogosticks?

If those are all feasible or even vaguely possible, lets call off everything. NOW!

Heck stuff the lot, Clean coal is just around the corner, lets go completely steampunk and go for giant mechanical spiders criss-crossing our suburbs!

Above all lets just cross our fingers and not do anything. All those very expensive freeways might actually work in Canberra, unlike everywhere else. THEY just never threw enough money, land and resources at them.

Compromising solely for the sake of being heard is what led to the cost blowout for the single lane extension (should have been dual lane from the start)

Cleaner coal is possible, especially with a certain plant, however I’m unaware of coal power plants in Canberra.

ACTION does have a possible way to continue with the efficiency the bus network had a while back: Operate at a loss. It already is, so why not keep the efficiency ACTION had when there were enough bus routes/frequency? However, operating at a loss is not a blank cheque, so financial safeguards need to be put into place, should it want to return to normal efficiency.

dungfungus said :

metalblue said :

rubaiyat said :

Canberra is not Alice Springs or Ulladulla either.

It seems to be Canberra.

Point being?

My point was that Canberra is not Melbourne, and does not need to be like Melbourne. For sake of balance, I mentioned Sydney.

Canberra exists the way it is now because Melbourne and Sydney could not decide between each other which city should be the capital city. The compromise was neither Sydney nor Melbourne should be capital, result: Canberra is the capital.

Trams work in Melbourne, they may even work in Sydney. What works in Melbourne or Sydney, or Vancouver or San Francisco, does not necessarily work here.

I saw that there is a prediction for 2031 having an hours drive from Gungahlin to the city. Does this take into account driverless cars or other technologies?

Would a driverless tram being automated provide valuable information to learn from to prevent crashes and other incidents? Would there be significant dangerous risks to beta test the technology in Canberra, and does Canberra want to take that risk?

“driverless tram being automated”
Hey, get real! This is Canberra.
You know, TWU runs public transport here.
No way they would wear anything driverless.

Road drone vehicles will still require a dead-robot switch (like a dead-man switch) of which will require human presence.

gazket said :

The mines have driver less tucks, and trains . Mercedes have been testing driver less tucks for highway use. They are already on the Autobahn . They will be here in 10 years. Robotics is about to explode

The obvious flaw in this is the huge mass of manual vehicles that will be with us probably forever as long as people keep them on the road. This makes the supposed benefits of mass synchronised lock in step traffic a long distant dream.

Frankly it is the spoiler, and it does nothing to improve the fact that car drivers are a selfish species. They rarely share their vehicles with anyone else. As the previously posted pictures show, even packed close to together cars consume vastly more road space than any other alternative. Each driver is hauling around a useless tonne of metal that they have to keep handy even when they aren’t actually using them.

It also does nothing for efficiency or pollution or addiction to imported fuels that are a cause of the geo-political/environmental mess we are currently in. Nor the need for car parks and multiple lane freeways that still congest our cities and countryside. All are the REAL costs that drivers have never paid for except as part of the same ruination of our cities that everyone has to suffer.

Cars are the monkey trap. Advertising sells a dream, which never gets delivered.

My brother-in-law sits stuck in the endless traffic jams of New York. going nowhere, raging and imagining that despite he experiences it every day, it isn’t real. One day the nightmare will lift and there will be sunshine, bluebirds and wide open roads for him to speed down to wherever he wants to go. Instead it gets worse and worse and worse. Dopey much?

Like the morbidly obese, another victim of sitting in cars, thinking there is some magic Diet Coke antidote to the greasy pizzas they simply can’t say no to.

The only real hope ever for drivers is that people would grow a brain and demand an efficient public transport system that gets you to work and covers most of your circulation needs. With a car or taxi as the exception when absolutely necessary. That is the only thing that will uncongest the roads.

In most urban centres car less residents are on the rise. In New York an amazing number of people simply use the Subway and take cabs or buses where that is not available. Same is happening in Sydney and Melbourne. It certainly is a financial, health and urban saviour. Cars suck the life out of you and your budget. Slowly killing you via obesity, diabetes and other consequences.

We feel really great after 9 days in Adelaide at the Fringe. We stayed in a hotel and flew, so had no car. We walked and took the tram, bus, and even their fairly poor train service. All possible through good but far from perfect transport design for inner city living. Perfectly doable, if the will exists, and common sense gets a say.

Transport is free in the city and Rundle Mall/Street is the core of a very vibrant inner city lifestyle.

Canberra can grow up, or try and live in the past where unending freeways and car usage have no consequences. Your choice.

rubaiyat said :

metalblue said :

I saw that there is a prediction for 2031 having an hours drive from Gungahlin to the city. Does this take into account driverless cars or other technologies?

Such as nuclear Airships? Teams of kangaroos pulling sleds? Giant Ferris wheels unleashed from their moorings? Rent-A-Pogosticks?

If those are all feasible or even vaguely possible, lets call off everything. NOW!

The mines have driver less tucks, and trains . Mercedes have been testing driver less tucks for highway use. They are already on the Autobahn . They will be here in 10 years. Robotics is about to explode

Labor will have to double cross the Greens and bring coal seam gas to the ACT to bring in more revenue to put towards paying for light rail.

It’s the only way to pay for it, I will bet my balls on it.

metalblue said :

rubaiyat said :

Canberra is not Alice Springs or Ulladulla either.

It seems to be Canberra.

Point being?

My point was that Canberra is not Melbourne, and does not need to be like Melbourne. For sake of balance, I mentioned Sydney.

Canberra exists the way it is now because Melbourne and Sydney could not decide between each other which city should be the capital city. The compromise was neither Sydney nor Melbourne should be capital, result: Canberra is the capital.

Trams work in Melbourne, they may even work in Sydney. What works in Melbourne or Sydney, or Vancouver or San Francisco, does not necessarily work here.

I saw that there is a prediction for 2031 having an hours drive from Gungahlin to the city. Does this take into account driverless cars or other technologies?

Would a driverless tram being automated provide valuable information to learn from to prevent crashes and other incidents? Would there be significant dangerous risks to beta test the technology in Canberra, and does Canberra want to take that risk?

“driverless tram being automated”
Hey, get real! This is Canberra.
You know, TWU runs public transport here.
No way they would wear anything driverless.

metalblue said :

I saw that there is a prediction for 2031 having an hours drive from Gungahlin to the city. Does this take into account driverless cars or other technologies?

Such as nuclear Airships? Teams of kangaroos pulling sleds? Giant Ferris wheels unleashed from their moorings? Rent-A-Pogosticks?

If those are all feasible or even vaguely possible, lets call off everything. NOW!

Heck stuff the lot, Clean coal is just around the corner, lets go completely steampunk and go for giant mechanical spiders criss-crossing our suburbs!

Above all lets just cross our fingers and not do anything. All those very expensive freeways might actually work in Canberra, unlike everywhere else. THEY just never threw enough money, land and resources at them.

rubaiyat said :

Canberra is not Alice Springs or Ulladulla either.

It seems to be Canberra.

Point being?

My point was that Canberra is not Melbourne, and does not need to be like Melbourne. For sake of balance, I mentioned Sydney.

Canberra exists the way it is now because Melbourne and Sydney could not decide between each other which city should be the capital city. The compromise was neither Sydney nor Melbourne should be capital, result: Canberra is the capital.

Trams work in Melbourne, they may even work in Sydney. What works in Melbourne or Sydney, or Vancouver or San Francisco, does not necessarily work here.

I saw that there is a prediction for 2031 having an hours drive from Gungahlin to the city. Does this take into account driverless cars or other technologies?

Would a driverless tram being automated provide valuable information to learn from to prevent crashes and other incidents? Would there be significant dangerous risks to beta test the technology in Canberra, and does Canberra want to take that risk?

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

If you are referring to the Fuel tax credit, it is not a subsidy – more a rebate and it is not available to everyone in the tucking industry.

Well that makes that all better. An entirely different bucket of free money!

No comment on the lack of tax on aviation fuel?

You must live a very frugal lifestyle if you shun everything about trucks. Do you refuse to buy goods that have been transported by trucks?

No, but we were almost under that truck that ran over the Canberra family heading to Sydney:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/methadone-truck-driver-vincent-george-jailed-for-killing-three-in-hume-highway-crash-20140912-10fwzh.html

We would have been about 3 or 4 cars behind the car that was flattened. The truck slowed right over the car, only the boot was sticking out.

This is the real cost of trucking. They are dead, he is in jail for doing what most truckies do. And a lot of lives, imported fuel and money goes into moving stuff from Sydney to Canberra on a regular basis, that could easily be taken off the roads with only a small amount of applied thought.

You should have declared the reason why you hate trucks earlier because it has clouded your judgement in debating this issue.

dungfungus said :

If you are referring to the Fuel tax credit, it is not a subsidy – more a rebate and it is not available to everyone in the tucking industry.

Well that makes that all better. An entirely different bucket of free money!

No comment on the lack of tax on aviation fuel?

You must live a very frugal lifestyle if you shun everything about trucks. Do you refuse to buy goods that have been transported by trucks?

No, but we were almost under that truck that ran over the Canberra family heading to Sydney:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/methadone-truck-driver-vincent-george-jailed-for-killing-three-in-hume-highway-crash-20140912-10fwzh.html

We would have been about 3 or 4 cars behind the car that was flattened. The truck slowed right over the car, only the boot was sticking out.

This is the real cost of trucking. They are dead, he is in jail for doing what most truckies do. And a lot of lives, imported fuel and money goes into moving stuff from Sydney to Canberra on a regular basis, that could easily be taken off the roads with only a small amount of applied thought.

What can go wrong when enthusiasts in government get it wrong:
http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2015/02/three_counties_hope_to_salvage_88m_solar_project_by_borrowing_more_money_officials_say.html
Big message here for Simon Corbell who is locking the ACT into hundreds of millions of dollars in guarantees to renewable suppliers to fulfill his dream.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

It all depends. If our tram obsessed local government decides to put a cost based price on the tram, nobody would be able to afford to ride on it. If parking is priced extra high in an attempt to push people onto trams, private parking companies will step in and start renting out more parking spaces. Do the people who advocate the tram properly understand the additional expense our city will be burdened with?

Excellent point. At last a sensible suggestion from the car lobby.

Turn the Weston duplication, Russell Overpass, Gungahlin Drive, Majura Parkway, in fact to match the fares on the Trams, Northbourne Ave, all into toll roads.

Make drivers pay for every bit of the infrastructure they use, not just the valuable inner city land the car parks occupy and see if they can afford it.

Instead of subsidising the trucking industry, make them pay the same for their fuel as everyone else and also charge them for all the deaths and damage they do.

“Instead of subsidising the trucking industry”……
What subsidies are you referring to?

Trucks do not pay the full excise duty on fuel, that even the rail freight industry has to pay. Aviation fuel is also exempt which is why it is so much cheaper to fly than drive or train to destinations.

Nor do they pay for the real costs of roads that are over engineered to cope with the large trucks that cause most of the damage.

Nor do they really compensate for the deaths, injuries and damaged lives they cause. Particularly the use of drugs to keep the drivers on the roads causing the deaths, injuries and damaged lives. Nor does it compensate for the damaged environment particularly in our built up urban spaces, which goes beyond the carbon and noxious pollution but the incessant noise and threat to physical well being, and the nasty divisions of the multi-lane freeways slashing through the urban fabric.

Australia currently is paying over $120 billion dollars importing fuel, principally from Singapore to keep this whole badly designed system afloat. I have pointed out at nearly every opportunity for the last 20 years that Australia could easily fix its incessant Trade Deficit at a stroke if it switched to using LPG in vehicles and took all other available measures to reduce oil dependency.

But this is one needle in the arm that is making too much money for too many people, and whizzes over the heads of the sheep in the general population that do whatever marketing tells them to.

If you are referring to the Fuel tax credit, it is not a subsidy – more a rebate and it is not available to everyone in the tucking industry.
You must live a very frugal lifestyle if you shun everything about trucks. Do you refuse to buy goods that have been transported by trucks?

Canberra is not Alice Springs or Ulladulla either.

It seems to be Canberra.

Point being?

Canberra is not Melbourne, nor Sydney.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

It all depends. If our tram obsessed local government decides to put a cost based price on the tram, nobody would be able to afford to ride on it. If parking is priced extra high in an attempt to push people onto trams, private parking companies will step in and start renting out more parking spaces. Do the people who advocate the tram properly understand the additional expense our city will be burdened with?

Excellent point. At last a sensible suggestion from the car lobby.

Turn the Weston duplication, Russell Overpass, Gungahlin Drive, Majura Parkway, in fact to match the fares on the Trams, Northbourne Ave, all into toll roads.

Make drivers pay for every bit of the infrastructure they use, not just the valuable inner city land the car parks occupy and see if they can afford it.

Instead of subsidising the trucking industry, make them pay the same for their fuel as everyone else and also charge them for all the deaths and damage they do.

“Instead of subsidising the trucking industry”……
What subsidies are you referring to?

Trucks do not pay the full excise duty on fuel, that even the rail freight industry has to pay. Aviation fuel is also exempt which is why it is so much cheaper to fly than drive or train to destinations.

Nor do they pay for the real costs of roads that are over engineered to cope with the large trucks that cause most of the damage.

Nor do they really compensate for the deaths, injuries and damaged lives they cause. Particularly the use of drugs to keep the drivers on the roads causing the deaths, injuries and damaged lives. Nor does it compensate for the damaged environment particularly in our built up urban spaces, which goes beyond the carbon and noxious pollution but the incessant noise and threat to physical well being, and the nasty divisions of the multi-lane freeways slashing through the urban fabric.

Australia currently is paying over $120 billion dollars importing fuel, principally from Singapore to keep this whole badly designed system afloat. I have pointed out at nearly every opportunity for the last 20 years that Australia could easily fix its incessant Trade Deficit at a stroke if it switched to using LPG in vehicles and took all other available measures to reduce oil dependency.

But this is one needle in the arm that is making too much money for too many people, and whizzes over the heads of the sheep in the general population that do whatever marketing tells them to.

rubaiyat said :

OpenYourMind said :

It all depends. If our tram obsessed local government decides to put a cost based price on the tram, nobody would be able to afford to ride on it. If parking is priced extra high in an attempt to push people onto trams, private parking companies will step in and start renting out more parking spaces. Do the people who advocate the tram properly understand the additional expense our city will be burdened with?

Excellent point. At last a sensible suggestion from the car lobby.

Turn the Weston duplication, Russell Overpass, Gungahlin Drive, Majura Parkway, in fact to match the fares on the Trams, Northbourne Ave, all into toll roads.

Make drivers pay for every bit of the infrastructure they use, not just the valuable inner city land the car parks occupy and see if they can afford it.

Instead of subsidising the trucking industry, make them pay the same for their fuel as everyone else and also charge them for all the deaths and damage they do.

“Instead of subsidising the trucking industry”……
What subsidies are you referring to?

OpenYourMind said :

It all depends. If our tram obsessed local government decides to put a cost based price on the tram, nobody would be able to afford to ride on it. If parking is priced extra high in an attempt to push people onto trams, private parking companies will step in and start renting out more parking spaces. Do the people who advocate the tram properly understand the additional expense our city will be burdened with?

Excellent point. At last a sensible suggestion from the car lobby.

Turn the Weston duplication, Russell Overpass, Gungahlin Drive, Majura Parkway, in fact to match the fares on the Trams, Northbourne Ave, all into toll roads.

Make drivers pay for every bit of the infrastructure they use, not just the valuable inner city land the car parks occupy and see if they can afford it.

Instead of subsidising the trucking industry, make them pay the same for their fuel as everyone else and also charge them for all the deaths and damage they do.

dungfungus said :

My point is that the first stunt like this was in 1991, when the City of Münster’s planning department paid a photographer to do the pictures.
If an ACTION bus was used, who authorised it and who paid for the photographer?

My God, he’s opening up Busgate!

The photos quickly and effectively make their point. The reason why cars are their own worst enemy is obvious and why you can never build enough roads for them no matter how much you spend on them. Also why they end up eating up our cities and landscapes. They already consume 20-25% of urban space in roads, facilties and car parking.

Don’t see you objecting to photos of the earthworks for Majura Parkway, Russell Overpass, Weston duplication, which involved a helicopter and photographer. As always you are incapable of seeing anything outside of cars are good, everything else is “too expensive” ie has ANY money spent on it.

I don’t see you getting equally

Then there is the matter of the weather and I am not skewing the debate to involve climate change.
We are accustomed to some severe frosts and icy road conditions in some parts of Canberra during the winter months.
Has anyone from CMA scoped the problems that may arise with these conditions given that their project is going to be the first inland tram (mass transit) network in Australia?
My investigations reveal that ice accumulations in flangeways (particularly at grade crossings) can lift the wheel flanges over the rail heads which, of course, can result in a derailment.
And ice can wreak all kinds of havoc on exposed wires such as signal lines and similar installations. On electrified rail-roads (tramways), ice accumulations can also prevent contact with the overhead wire or third rail which brings everything to a stop.
Not considered either is the affect that cockatoos could have in “subdividing” electrical installations and insulators.

Regarding the CMA Full Business case (for the benefit of those who have not studied it), there are some significant costs that have not been included.
Foremost is the relocation of services which could cost $100 million on the Northbourne Avenue alignment alone.
CMA commissioned an “underground services audit” along the proposed route 18 months ago but nothing more has been said about it.
Knowing the “unknown” factors in relocation of services it would be wise to add another $250 million to the project cost.
Then there is the cost of electrical head-works to energise the line.
As far as I can see, there is no contingency for this so it should be assumed that the cost of this will be capitalised into the supply charge which will already be inflated by the cost of using renewables exclusively.
When the “real” cost of this project is known and the government can see that it is total madness to proceed, they will refer to the “cost risk” outlined on p.111 of the CMA business case which states:
“Risk of exceeding budgeted contingency resulting from unforseen costs, or cost overrun during delivery.
This risk is considered as well as a market risk resulting from potentially different views from bidders with respect to the project’s budget and its relevance to the contemplated scope”

It is doubtful that the full costs will be known by the planned start date in 2016 so it is likely, if the government proceeds, that a “blank cheque” will be handed to the successful consortium to cover the excess budget contingencies.
This would be escalating the current foolish level past the madness and into lunatic territory but that won’t stop them doing it.

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

We’ve been through all of that. So is the car.

Unlike the car the equivalent of the tram, a couple of hundred cars, the tram doesn’t occupy an acre of 50m wide deadly, dirty and very very expensive and ugly bitumen/concrete. Not including all the equally dirty and ugly storage space dedicated to the car.

On that topic, remember this set of photographs?
http://the-riotact.com/the-muenster-photo-remade-in-canberra-how-much-space-do-those-cars-need/82745

Who funded that photo?

The people in it were volunteers with their own bikes and cars. I guess ACTION sent along a bus. Your point?

My point is that the first stunt like this was in 1991, when the City of Münster’s planning department paid a photographer to do the pictures.
If an ACTION bus was used, who authorised it and who paid for the photographer?

I’ve done some more research to find out who funded this mindless stunt and the following comes from the Cycling NSW website in September 2012:
“The Cycling Promotion Fund has joined with the ACT Government and Pedal Power ACT to re-create a world-renowned transport photograph that demonstrates the advantages of travel in congested cities by bus and bicycle.” (Notice cars are not mentioned)
As I have said previously on this blog, the ACT Government never runs short of ways to waste ratepayers money.

Pedal Power funded this! In your dreams. They don’t have that sort of money. The word went out for anyone who was interested to bring their bikes and cars for a photograph and then it was left up to people to volunteer. Lots of people were excited enough to do a local version of this world famous photograph to give their time freely. I know this because I received the email. However I’m not in that photograph, which is a shame, because it would have been fun to point at a dot in years to come and say, “I was there.”
The reason no doubt that you don’t get as many people seemingly supporting the tram on this site and others is that the negative attack is so negative and aggressive, is that they don’t want then to be attacked personally. Well, that’s speaking for myself.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

We’ve been through all of that. So is the car.

Unlike the car the equivalent of the tram, a couple of hundred cars, the tram doesn’t occupy an acre of 50m wide deadly, dirty and very very expensive and ugly bitumen/concrete. Not including all the equally dirty and ugly storage space dedicated to the car.

On that topic, remember this set of photographs?
http://the-riotact.com/the-muenster-photo-remade-in-canberra-how-much-space-do-those-cars-need/82745

Who funded that photo?

The people in it were volunteers with their own bikes and cars. I guess ACTION sent along a bus. Your point?

My point is that the first stunt like this was in 1991, when the City of Münster’s planning department paid a photographer to do the pictures.
If an ACTION bus was used, who authorised it and who paid for the photographer?

I’ve done some more research to find out who funded this mindless stunt and the following comes from the Cycling NSW website in September 2012:
“The Cycling Promotion Fund has joined with the ACT Government and Pedal Power ACT to re-create a world-renowned transport photograph that demonstrates the advantages of travel in congested cities by bus and bicycle.” (Notice cars are not mentioned)
As I have said previously on this blog, the ACT Government never runs short of ways to waste ratepayers money.

rosscoact said :

Solidarity said :

Everybody is going to keep driving their cars regardless.

This is why nobody supports the train – Even people who live in Gungahlin don’t support it, as you still require a way to get from outer Gungahlin to the town centre… People just won’t bother, like how right now they don’t bother with busses.

You can keep going on with your stupid train love, but the rest of us are going to stick with what works best.

Keep bleating on like a broken record… you do you, i’m now going to cruise slowly home via the best, most convenient way of transporting myself with a tune in my head… you sit here you be unhappy.

Have fun.

To come up with the statement “nobody supports the train” did you do a poll of everyone in your car? If nobody wants the train then you will get your way. If however, that statement is simply a load of codswallop then you will be left to wail at the moon about the unfairness of life.

Although I suspect that the null hypothesis would still have you baying in your back yard.

I haven’t yet met anyone that supports the tram. There are some people on this blog that support it but overwhelmingly most don’t.
What’s your situation – do you or don’t you support it?

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

We’ve been through all of that. So is the car.

Unlike the car the equivalent of the tram, a couple of hundred cars, the tram doesn’t occupy an acre of 50m wide deadly, dirty and very very expensive and ugly bitumen/concrete. Not including all the equally dirty and ugly storage space dedicated to the car.

On that topic, remember this set of photographs?
http://the-riotact.com/the-muenster-photo-remade-in-canberra-how-much-space-do-those-cars-need/82745

Who funded that photo?

The people in it were volunteers with their own bikes and cars. I guess ACTION sent along a bus. Your point?

My point is that the first stunt like this was in 1991, when the City of Münster’s planning department paid a photographer to do the pictures.
If an ACTION bus was used, who authorised it and who paid for the photographer?

OpenYourMind9:11 pm 20 Mar 15

Maya123 said :

Solidarity said :

Everybody is going to keep driving their cars regardless.

This is why nobody supports the train – Even people who live in Gungahlin don’t support it, as you still require a way to get from outer Gungahlin to the town centre… People just won’t bother, like how right now they don’t bother with busses.

You can keep going on with your stupid train love, but the rest of us are going to stick with what works best.

Keep bleating on like a broken record… you do you, i’m now going to cruise slowly home via the best, most convenient way of transporting myself with a tune in my head… you sit here you be unhappy.

Have fun.

That’s fine. If you are going to a central location pay several times the cost of a tram to park. That’s your choice.

It all depends. If our tram obsessed local government decides to put a cost based price on the tram, nobody would be able to afford to ride on it. If parking is priced extra high in an attempt to push people onto trams, private parking companies will step in and start renting out more parking spaces. Do the people who advocate the tram properly understand the additional expense our city will be burdened with?

Solidarity said :

Everybody is going to keep driving their cars regardless.

This is why nobody supports the train – Even people who live in Gungahlin don’t support it, as you still require a way to get from outer Gungahlin to the town centre… People just won’t bother, like how right now they don’t bother with busses.

You can keep going on with your stupid train love, but the rest of us are going to stick with what works best.

Keep bleating on like a broken record… you do you, i’m now going to cruise slowly home via the best, most convenient way of transporting myself with a tune in my head… you sit here you be unhappy.

Have fun.

To come up with the statement “nobody supports the train” did you do a poll of everyone in your car? If nobody wants the train then you will get your way. If however, that statement is simply a load of codswallop then you will be left to wail at the moon about the unfairness of life.

Although I suspect that the null hypothesis would still have you baying in your back yard.

Solidarity said :

Everybody is going to keep driving their cars regardless.

This is why nobody supports the train – Even people who live in Gungahlin don’t support it, as you still require a way to get from outer Gungahlin to the town centre… People just won’t bother, like how right now they don’t bother with busses.

You can keep going on with your stupid train love, but the rest of us are going to stick with what works best.

Keep bleating on like a broken record… you do you, i’m now going to cruise slowly home via the best, most convenient way of transporting myself with a tune in my head… you sit here you be unhappy.

Have fun.

That’s fine. If you are going to a central location pay several times the cost of a tram to park. That’s your choice.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

We’ve been through all of that. So is the car.

Unlike the car the equivalent of the tram, a couple of hundred cars, the tram doesn’t occupy an acre of 50m wide deadly, dirty and very very expensive and ugly bitumen/concrete. Not including all the equally dirty and ugly storage space dedicated to the car.

On that topic, remember this set of photographs?
http://the-riotact.com/the-muenster-photo-remade-in-canberra-how-much-space-do-those-cars-need/82745

Who funded that photo?

The people in it were volunteers with their own bikes and cars. I guess ACTION sent along a bus. Your point?

dungfungus said :

gasman said :

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

Cars are also 100 year-old technology. What’s your point?

I thought we were talking about new technologies to deal with 21st century mass transit issues but seeing you mention cars you should realise that 100 years ago cars were unaffordable to most people and that is why apartments were built without garages, close to main thoroughfares where trams ran. These days cars are very cheap and efficient but the people who live in the same apartments have nowhere to park them so they have no choice but to use the same trams/metro etc.
Canberra was planned to have the motor car as the main form of personal transport and no matter what the “transit hipsters” do, that will be always the way it is.

Nothing will always be the way it was, let alone Canberra’s planning.

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

We’ve been through all of that. So is the car.

Unlike the car the equivalent of the tram, a couple of hundred cars, the tram doesn’t occupy an acre of 50m wide deadly, dirty and very very expensive and ugly bitumen/concrete. Not including all the equally dirty and ugly storage space dedicated to the car.

On that topic, remember this set of photographs?
http://the-riotact.com/the-muenster-photo-remade-in-canberra-how-much-space-do-those-cars-need/82745

Who funded that photo?

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

We’ve been through all of that. So is the car.

Unlike the car the equivalent of the tram, a couple of hundred cars, the tram doesn’t occupy an acre of 50m wide deadly, dirty and very very expensive and ugly bitumen/concrete. Not including all the equally dirty and ugly storage space dedicated to the car.

On that topic, remember this set of photographs?
http://the-riotact.com/the-muenster-photo-remade-in-canberra-how-much-space-do-those-cars-need/82745

Did you see how many of millions of dollars the tram storage depot is going to cost?

gasman said :

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

Cars are also 100 year-old technology. What’s your point?

I thought we were talking about new technologies to deal with 21st century mass transit issues but seeing you mention cars you should realise that 100 years ago cars were unaffordable to most people and that is why apartments were built without garages, close to main thoroughfares where trams ran. These days cars are very cheap and efficient but the people who live in the same apartments have nowhere to park them so they have no choice but to use the same trams/metro etc.
Canberra was planned to have the motor car as the main form of personal transport and no matter what the “transit hipsters” do, that will be always the way it is.

Everybody is going to keep driving their cars regardless.

This is why nobody supports the train – Even people who live in Gungahlin don’t support it, as you still require a way to get from outer Gungahlin to the town centre… People just won’t bother, like how right now they don’t bother with busses.

You can keep going on with your stupid train love, but the rest of us are going to stick with what works best.

Keep bleating on like a broken record… you do you, i’m now going to cruise slowly home via the best, most convenient way of transporting myself with a tune in my head… you sit here you be unhappy.

Have fun.

Nicely illustrated but doesn’t show the reality of cars at speed (should they clear the traffic jams) strung out along a freeway.

Cars are convenient (until you get to your destination), but extremely expensive on all counts and they destroy our environment, particularly our cities. The noise, fumes and constant danger is all cream on the physical divisions, slashing through the landscape and covering it with bitumen, concrete and ugly, fugly car parking.

Yet car owners are reassured by incessant commercial propaganda and head nodding that it is the only choice. Put away that calculator, they are NOT expensive, wink wink.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

We’ve been through all of that. So is the car.

Unlike the car the equivalent of the tram, a couple of hundred cars, the tram doesn’t occupy an acre of 50m wide deadly, dirty and very very expensive and ugly bitumen/concrete. Not including all the equally dirty and ugly storage space dedicated to the car.

On that topic, remember this set of photographs?
http://the-riotact.com/the-muenster-photo-remade-in-canberra-how-much-space-do-those-cars-need/82745

watto23 said :

However my concern is a tram will never serve Tuggeranong well, because its just too far to travel by tram in a timely and efficient way. Any future tram would take close to an hour to get from Tuggeranong to the City.

It takes the buses an hour to transport me from Isabella Plains to Dickson. The buses have more transitions than a tram would need: swap busses at Tuggeranong, then again at the City. On a tram it would be tram from Tuggeranong all the way up Northbourne (since it’s going to Gungahlin), end of story.

watto23 said :

Instead the tram is really no better than a bus, maybe some marginal pros and cons each way IMO.

For me the tram only has to travel at the same average speed as a bus in order to save me about 10 minutes on a 60 minute trip.

watto23 said :

Yep agree that alternatives need to be looked at. The issue with the tram IMO is not the cost, we already waste a lot on action buses and any solution is likely to cost money. There will always be a high initial cost and some people regardless of project always oppose these high costs because they fear the worse. NBN is another prime example of this, where the liberals successfully used the high cost to scare enough people into opposing it. However my concern is a tram will never serve Tuggeranong well, because its just too far to travel by tram in a timely and efficient way. Any future tram would take close to an hour to get from Tuggeranong to the City.
So while a sky train or monorail type arrangement would cost a lot more, it would be a lot quicker. Same for bus rapid transit. Would cost a bit to build a network of rapid bus routes, but people would be able to get around Canberra quickly. Instead the tram is really no better than a bus, maybe some marginal pros and cons each way IMO.

We waste far more on cars, including lives and the environment.

You really should get out of your cars and actually experience something else. The light rail in L.A. actually runs over large distances very quickly. It would have been better if they had used a metro system, but they are stuck with the same mindless suburbia that we are.

The bad planning of Canberra’s sprawl is not an excuse to never fix what is broke. The planners may have shown total lack of foresight as well as a compass to tell them which way is north and where to find the sun, but we don’t have follow.

Canberra has reached a growth point and also a lifestyle change where it is time to fan out a better public transport system starting at the heart and connecting new areas as it goes along.

Leave the monorails and Skytrains for Disneyland. If you had to climb a flight of stairs to get in and out of your cars you wouldn’t be using those either. If only the real cost of cars was laid out as a single purchase like light rail, you would be screamimg “We’re all doomed!” at the status quo.

We use lifts to get from one level of a building to another. Trams are like that only horizontal. Leave the fumes, traffic jams and parking problems for someone else. Trams are what makes many cities liveable and cars unliveable and deadly.

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

We’ve been through all of that. So is the car.

Unlike the car the equivalent of the tram, a couple of hundred cars, the tram doesn’t occupy an acre of 50m wide deadly, dirty and very very expensive and ugly bitumen/concrete. Not including all the equally dirty and ugly storage space dedicated to the car.

dungfungus said :

The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

Cars are also 100 year-old technology. What’s your point?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

switch said :

dungfungus said :

What happens if they also bail out?

The ACT government will go ahead and build it on their own?

Of course they would – despite the fact that the Fed’s Infrastructure Australia knocked back the ACT Gov’t request for a funding contribution to the Canberra Light Rail because the business case (or what laughingly passed for one) didn’t stack up. Despite that, the ACT Gov’t pursued a public private partnership solution to build it instead. Same business case though. This is it :

http://www.capitalmetro.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/655650/Capital-Metro-Business-Case-In-Full.pdf

I have never seen a report with so many uses of the words “assumption” and “potential”.
There is also a lot of blue sky in the images.

From section 4.4 ‘Options analysis’, subsection 4.4.1 ‘Strategic solutions analysis and recommended strategic solution’:

“…this business case does not re-consider the already determined strategic solution or possible alternatives, such as bus rapid transit.”

Yep agree that alternatives need to be looked at. The issue with the tram IMO is not the cost, we already waste a lot on action buses and any solution is likely to cost money. There will always be a high initial cost and some people regardless of project always oppose these high costs because they fear the worse. NBN is another prime example of this, where the liberals successfully used the high cost to scare enough people into opposing it. However my concern is a tram will never serve Tuggeranong well, because its just too far to travel by tram in a timely and efficient way. Any future tram would take close to an hour to get from Tuggeranong to the City.
So while a sky train or monorail type arrangement would cost a lot more, it would be a lot quicker. Same for bus rapid transit. Would cost a bit to build a network of rapid bus routes, but people would be able to get around Canberra quickly. Instead the tram is really no better than a bus, maybe some marginal pros and cons each way IMO.

rommeldog56 said :

gasman said :

There seems to be a lot of opposition to the building of a light rail system in the ACT, and much of the criticism is based on the cost, born largely by tax and rate-payers.

I live in Vancouver for 2 years, and they had just opened a new branch of their Skytrain system – a much more ambitious elevated rail system that Vancouver has been building, extending for 20 years. The day after it opened, road traffic on that route dropped by half. Its fast, reliable, clean, driverless, safe. It runs every 5 minutes during peak hour and every 10 at other times. It is by far the quickest way into the city in Vancouver, and is loved and well-used by all walks of life in Vancouver.

Lets move into the 21st Century, Canberra!

Yep – the Canadian (or is that canadia?) Fed’s tipped in about 30% of the cost. Thats not what’s happening here. They also fund it via a fuel excise and extra land taxes.

I would love a mass transport system that moved us into the 21st centuary – but thats not what we are getting with our tram. It’s actually very little like the Skytrain in Vancouver. A driverless sky tram thingy would be great – might help replace the Skywhale over head ?

Good point.
The Euro-stylists may be capable of making a tram look like something from the 21st century but it is 100 year old technology.

HiddenDragon said :

vintage123 said :

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

I would be very surprised if any consortium would “pull out”, this project is a licence to print money. Imagine now knowing you only have one competitor left prior to the RFP stage of solicitation, from the commercial side this would have an in house code named “money train”.

Recent failures of PPPs in Australia have not been a licence to print money and massive amounts of investors’ money (including money from superannuation funds) have been lost.
The main reason for the failures with the Brisbane road tunnels has been that the initial daily user numbers were grossly underestimated and instead of building more business, the numbers fell away.
I doubt very much that there will be private investors willing to get involved with the ACT’s tram plan. This was pointed out by industry experts in 2012 but the government has ignored that advice (at our peril).
The completed tram project will lose less money if it is left idle.

Oh man I have worked in this space for twenty years and I can tell you this, with two tenderers remaining pre RFP in somewhat of a niche market, and the obvious reality that the government wants this project to happen, as well as it being located in canberra where a cost blowout business case can be summarised into a. Lack of competition and b. The high cost of wages, you will find both submissions will be nearly identical, both will have overlap of consortiums and it will be around twice the original cost schedule. Sydney and Melbourne based companies love doing business in Canberra as it pays so much more and the competition is non existent. For example in Syd, Mlb, Bris etc a company can provide a civil engineer at $1800 a day, in Canberra the standard rate is $3200 a day. Project managers similar rate distortion. In fact in Syd,Mlb,Bris truck owner operators charge $80 to $100 dollars an hour, in Canberra the average is $220. So it is very easy to see that a national company can make huge profits instantly when contracted in the ACT, especially when contracted through the Government. Like I have said, this light rail is a gravy train for industry.

All very relevant to the daydream that Canberra is going to be transformed into an internationally competitive hub of cutting edge knowledge industries – with the trams as part of that fantasy. In truth, we will muddle along as we always have – a public service-defence town/a university town/ a regional centre, of sorts – with high costs and precious few genuine competitive advantages, which means that aside from that occasional niche success stories the rest will basically be rentseeking and regulated rackets.

Thanks for that “whiff of realism”.
The other “whiff” we Tuggers people have live with is the smell of rotting garbage from the Mugga Lane Land Fill.
One has to ask the question how is a government that is incapable of managing a basic municipal task of garbage disposal going to implement a billion dollar plus project which essentially duplicates what is already available.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer on this one.

gasman said :

There seems to be a lot of opposition to the building of a light rail system in the ACT, and much of the criticism is based on the cost, born largely by tax and rate-payers.

I live in Vancouver for 2 years, and they had just opened a new branch of their Skytrain system – a much more ambitious elevated rail system that Vancouver has been building, extending for 20 years. The day after it opened, road traffic on that route dropped by half. Its fast, reliable, clean, driverless, safe. It runs every 5 minutes during peak hour and every 10 at other times. It is by far the quickest way into the city in Vancouver, and is loved and well-used by all walks of life in Vancouver.

Lets move into the 21st Century, Canberra!

Yep – the Canadian (or is that canadia?) Fed’s tipped in about 30% of the cost. Thats not what’s happening here. They also fund it via a fuel excise and extra land taxes.

I would love a mass transport system that moved us into the 21st centuary – but thats not what we are getting with our tram. It’s actually very little like the Skytrain in Vancouver. A driverless sky tram thingy would be great – might help replace the Skywhale over head ?

HiddenDragon6:01 pm 19 Mar 15

vintage123 said :

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

I would be very surprised if any consortium would “pull out”, this project is a licence to print money. Imagine now knowing you only have one competitor left prior to the RFP stage of solicitation, from the commercial side this would have an in house code named “money train”.

Recent failures of PPPs in Australia have not been a licence to print money and massive amounts of investors’ money (including money from superannuation funds) have been lost.
The main reason for the failures with the Brisbane road tunnels has been that the initial daily user numbers were grossly underestimated and instead of building more business, the numbers fell away.
I doubt very much that there will be private investors willing to get involved with the ACT’s tram plan. This was pointed out by industry experts in 2012 but the government has ignored that advice (at our peril).
The completed tram project will lose less money if it is left idle.

Oh man I have worked in this space for twenty years and I can tell you this, with two tenderers remaining pre RFP in somewhat of a niche market, and the obvious reality that the government wants this project to happen, as well as it being located in canberra where a cost blowout business case can be summarised into a. Lack of competition and b. The high cost of wages, you will find both submissions will be nearly identical, both will have overlap of consortiums and it will be around twice the original cost schedule. Sydney and Melbourne based companies love doing business in Canberra as it pays so much more and the competition is non existent. For example in Syd, Mlb, Bris etc a company can provide a civil engineer at $1800 a day, in Canberra the standard rate is $3200 a day. Project managers similar rate distortion. In fact in Syd,Mlb,Bris truck owner operators charge $80 to $100 dollars an hour, in Canberra the average is $220. So it is very easy to see that a national company can make huge profits instantly when contracted in the ACT, especially when contracted through the Government. Like I have said, this light rail is a gravy train for industry.

All very relevant to the daydream that Canberra is going to be transformed into an internationally competitive hub of cutting edge knowledge industries – with the trams as part of that fantasy. In truth, we will muddle along as we always have – a public service-defence town/a university town/ a regional centre, of sorts – with high costs and precious few genuine competitive advantages, which means that aside from that occasional niche success stories the rest will basically be rentseeking and regulated rackets.

HiddenDragon5:47 pm 19 Mar 15

dungfungus said :

Great article here from Washington DC (another country’s capital city) about the folly of their proposed tram service.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/03/05/time-pull-plug-trolley-folly/
I love that terminology “transit hipsters”.
There are uncanny parallels with the Canberra project.
I wonder if…..?
No, Andrew Barr hasn’t been to Washington DC lately, has he?

What a great link! – but problems like that could never, ever happen in Canberra, because we’re special, and different, and so much smarter…..

dungfungus said :

When Canberra reaches those parameters we too can consider something like Vancouver has.

Now that I have corrected your errors regarding the area and population density of Vancouver, and how it is actually quite similar to Canberra, you have promised to “consider something like Vancouver has”.

Please. Consider.

dungfungus said :

No, I don’t need to to do any of that stuff you suggest as I usually go places where public transport doesn’t – and I certainly wouldn’t use the “efficient public transport” method if it was going to take 90 minutes!
Do you ever read what you write before you hit the submit box?

Dungheap, you seem to be missing the point. I absolutely agree with you that Canberra’s public transport system at present is abysmal. I also hate using Canberra’s current system. Its slow, inefficient, patchy, smelly, expensive.

However, I have travelled and lived in other parts of the world, including Europe and Canada, and have been impressed with their clean, comprehensive, efficient, inexpensive public transport systems. When done well, public transport can be really good. And light rail is a great start, providing a backbone hub of public transport around which other systems can link.

Do you ever read the quotes you quote before you press the Submit button?

gasman said :

dungfungus said :

When you have to rely on semantics to debate your argument you know immediately that you have lost it.

Its not semantics, its geography.

Vancouver, as serviced by its light rail, has 20 times bigger land area than you stated, and its population density is one sixth of what you stated, and therefore much more relevant to Canberra than you stated.

You’re welcome.

There you go again!

Ghettosmurf873:45 pm 19 Mar 15

dungfungus said :

When you have to rely on semantics to debate your argument you know immediately that you have lost it.

When you have to refer to your own large mistake/error or fact as “semantics”, you know you don’t actually have any intent to debate on the facts.

Just admit you got it wrong regarding the density of the Vancouver light rail system

dungfungus said :

When you have to rely on semantics to debate your argument you know immediately that you have lost it.

Its not semantics, its geography.

Vancouver, as serviced by its light rail, has 20 times bigger land area than you stated, and its population density is one sixth of what you stated, and therefore much more relevant to Canberra than you stated.

You’re welcome.

gasman said :

dungfungus said :

The City of Vancouver encompasses a land area of about 114 square kilometres, giving it a population density of about 5,249 people per square kilometre (13,590 per square mile).
When Canberra reaches those parameters we too can consider something like Vancouver has.

A common misconception, Dungo.

The Greater Vancouver Metropolitan area is made up of 10 cities, one of which is (confusingly) called Vancouver. (its like Canberra being made up of Tuggeranong city, Woden city, Belconnen city etc)

You are referring to the small City of Vancouver (which is as you say compact and densely populated as you say), but its Skytrain system encompasses the Greater Vancouver Metropolitan area – 2700 square km with a density of about 800 people/sq km.

Canberra is 814 square km, with a population density of 428 people/sq km, but with urban infill, getting denser with each year.

As I understand your post, you would accept a light rail system if our parameters were similar to Vancouver – well they are. Thanks for accepting Canberra Light Rail, Dungy, our most recent convert!

Your welcome, Dungo. Glad to have enlightened you.

gasman

When you have to rely on semantics to debate your argument you know immediately that you have lost it.

gasman said :

dungfungus said :

Or you could chat with your co-inhabitants, something that you can’t do in a car.

…because there is no-one else in your car.

The lack of passengers supposedly in public transport seemingly deeply offends some readers here.

The lack of passengers in the dozens of cars congesting the road next to the public transport, not so much.

gasman said :

dungfungus said :

People not living in the catchment area of the proposed tram track (and that’s about 80% of Canberra) will have no choice but to continue to keep their cars.

You might need to drive your car (or walk or catch a bus or ride a bike) the few km to the nearest rail station. The Canadian system has a Park-and-Ride system with a small local car park and multiple bike lockers at each train station. Busses would link into the rail system (yes, it was all integrated) and tickets would cover the whole bus/rail combo at about $2.50 for 90 minutes of travel, with unlimited transfers.

Then you cruise the rest of the journey via light rail, while reading a book, or browsing the net on the on-board wifi network. Or you could chat with your co-inhabitants, something that you can’t do in a car.

And thats another part of efficient public transport – it builds a sense of community, rather than than increasing isolation that cars engender.

Later as the system expands (gosh!), it will cover more and more of the city.

Your welcome again, Dungo.

No, I don’t need to to do any of that stuff you suggest as I usually go places where public transport doesn’t – and I certainly wouldn’t use the “efficient public transport” method if it was going to take 90 minutes!
Do you ever read what you write before you hit the submit box?

vintage123 said :

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

I would be very surprised if any consortium would “pull out”, this project is a licence to print money. Imagine now knowing you only have one competitor left prior to the RFP stage of solicitation, from the commercial side this would have an in house code named “money train”.

Recent failures of PPPs in Australia have not been a licence to print money and massive amounts of investors’ money (including money from superannuation funds) have been lost.
The main reason for the failures with the Brisbane road tunnels has been that the initial daily user numbers were grossly underestimated and instead of building more business, the numbers fell away.
I doubt very much that there will be private investors willing to get involved with the ACT’s tram plan. This was pointed out by industry experts in 2012 but the government has ignored that advice (at our peril).
The completed tram project will lose less money if it is left idle.

Oh man I have worked in this space for twenty years and I can tell you this, with two tenderers remaining pre RFP in somewhat of a niche market, and the obvious reality that the government wants this project to happen, as well as it being located in canberra where a cost blowout business case can be summarised into a. Lack of competition and b. The high cost of wages, you will find both submissions will be nearly identical, both will have overlap of consortiums and it will be around twice the original cost schedule. Sydney and Melbourne based companies love doing business in Canberra as it pays so much more and the competition is non existent. For example in Syd, Mlb, Bris etc a company can provide a civil engineer at $1800 a day, in Canberra the standard rate is $3200 a day. Project managers similar rate distortion. In fact in Syd,Mlb,Bris truck owner operators charge $80 to $100 dollars an hour, in Canberra the average is $220. So it is very easy to see that a national company can make huge profits instantly when contracted in the ACT, especially when contracted through the Government. Like I have said, this light rail is a gravy train for industry.

Any usually unlawful practice by which producers of a commodity act together to obtain an artificially high price is considered to be “price fixing” which is different to what you have outlined.

dungfungus said :

People not living in the catchment area of the proposed tram track (and that’s about 80% of Canberra) will have no choice but to continue to keep their cars.

You might need to drive your car (or walk or catch a bus or ride a bike) the few km to the nearest rail station. The Canadian system has a Park-and-Ride system with a small local car park and multiple bike lockers at each train station. Busses would link into the rail system (yes, it was all integrated) and tickets would cover the whole bus/rail combo at about $2.50 for 90 minutes of travel, with unlimited transfers.

Then you cruise the rest of the journey via light rail, while reading a book, or browsing the net on the on-board wifi network. Or you could chat with your co-inhabitants, something that you can’t do in a car.

And thats another part of efficient public transport – it builds a sense of community, rather than than increasing isolation that cars engender.

Later as the system expands (gosh!), it will cover more and more of the city.

Your welcome again, Dungo.

vintage123 said :

Oh man I have worked in this space for twenty years and I can tell you this, with two tenderers remaining pre RFP in somewhat of a niche market, and the obvious reality that the government wants this project to happen, as well as it being located in canberra where a cost blowout business case can be summarised into a. Lack of competition and b. The high cost of wages, you will find both submissions will be nearly identical, both will have overlap of consortiums and it will be around twice the original cost schedule. Sydney and Melbourne based companies love doing business in Canberra as it pays so much more and the competition is non existent. For example in Syd, Mlb, Bris etc a company can provide a civil engineer at $1800 a day, in Canberra the standard rate is $3200 a day. Project managers similar rate distortion. In fact in Syd,Mlb,Bris truck owner operators charge $80 to $100 dollars an hour, in Canberra the average is $220. So it is very easy to see that a national company can make huge profits instantly when contracted in the ACT, especially when contracted through the Government. Like I have said, this light rail is a gravy train for industry.

All of those are also arguments against all the freeways we build instead. Look at the Weston duplication, Gungahlin Freeway, Russell overpass, and Majura Parkway.

@gasman I agree with much of what you say.

The Ancient Greeks avoided maths involving anything above a few thousands as their crude notation made it horrendously difficult to work numbers out.

We have a different barrier today. Most people now are such shockers at basic knowledge, maths, statistics or risk that they work on wild guessing, “sounds like” and fudging.

Consumers have been indoctrinated by a hundred years of advertising drubbing in the “dream” of the car, ignoring the reality. The huge slaughter, the pollution, the noise, the cities divided and massive expense are all ignored chasing the idealised billboard of the happy family cruising through open country in the pursuit of “Freedom”! In the message incessantly drubbed into you, you don’t see any other cars unless you are overtaking them.

People everywhere turn to stare enviously at your excellent choice. You are the centre of the universe. You are as near to a God as a consumer purchase can make you. Everyone else needs to remove themselves from your path you are so worthy and important.

Unfortunately everyone else has bought the same myth, zooming nowhere, sitting alone in traffic in their head turning, “special” car that looks just like all the other head turning, “special” cars.

The advertising never shows all the cars piled up one behind another in ugly roads. It is always happy proud families zooming alone through magnificent landscapes, or dragging asteroids up vertical cliff faces with their manly 4WDs.

Reality sucks, a thick schmear of delusions makes it tolerable.

The real cost both environmental and financial is swept under the carpet. Most people don’t count past the cost of the petrol. Then they buy gas guzzlers that somehow make them feel more significant, but complain about the price of the fuel to run them. Certainly they ignore the health costs. The fatter we get the fatter the cars.

In grown up cities the answer is public transport in tighter and cleaner urban environments. We are not going to get rid of cars any time soon, but as with smoking we can cut down their ill effects. Certainly we do not need to have anywhere as many cars as we do. There really should not be a need to have a car for every adult, as we are close to doing.

We need a well designed integration of urban planning and transport network.

I haven’t seen that yet, no matter how much we beg for the planners to actually plan. The irrationality is not all one sided.

Canberra was planned with little thought for what happens when it finally wastes all the land available, making everyone drive long distances to work, and the environment becomes about a lot more than just having tree lined suburban streets. We wasted almost a hundred years with short term thinking, time to go back to the drawing board and rethink what Canberra should look like to fit a cleaner, smarter future. None of that is visible in the new developments of Molonglo and the are proposals for the new section of Yarralumla all of which ignore transport, especially the extra cars they generate thanks to a lack of alternatives.

watto23 said :

rommeldog56 said :

This is going to happen – so we had better get used to it – and vote accordingly at the 2016 ACT election.

What I don’t understand is why will people vote against this any more in 2016, than they did in 2012, when it was a Labor policy. See this is the difference between the federal liberals, who didn’t share their policies before the federal election and the ACT election, where the light rail and “triple the rates” was well and truly part of the election debate.

I can’t see a swing towards the liberals, they are really despised in Canberra right now because of the stupidity of the federal liberals. It shouldn’t play a part in voting but it will and does in every state and territory election. ACT libs hopes improve if a federal election is called by early 2016 and a change of governments occur. I certainly don’t think the light rail is a vote changer for many, especially when its was 50-50 for labor with light rail and triple rates at the last election.

Hopefully this site does a good coverage of candidates like it has in the past.

1) At the last election, ACT Labor took the concept + a ball park estimate of m$614 to the election. Now the detail is far, far more clear. Thats what matters – the subsequent detail, the bodgy business case, the fact that Infrastructure Australia rejected that business case and the cost increase to m$780.

2) I agree – I doubt there will be enough swing to the Lib’s for them to form Gov’t in the own right. But there should be a swing to Libs or else its for of the same Labor decision making/fiscal priorities for decades to come.

3) At the last ACT election, it wasnt 50:50 labor/libs. Libs outpolled Labor and only got back on the back of the Greens.

4) Agree with RA doing articles on the candidates. Good stuff.

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

I would be very surprised if any consortium would “pull out”, this project is a licence to print money. Imagine now knowing you only have one competitor left prior to the RFP stage of solicitation, from the commercial side this would have an in house code named “money train”.

Recent failures of PPPs in Australia have not been a licence to print money and massive amounts of investors’ money (including money from superannuation funds) have been lost.
The main reason for the failures with the Brisbane road tunnels has been that the initial daily user numbers were grossly underestimated and instead of building more business, the numbers fell away.
I doubt very much that there will be private investors willing to get involved with the ACT’s tram plan. This was pointed out by industry experts in 2012 but the government has ignored that advice (at our peril).
The completed tram project will lose less money if it is left idle.

Oh man I have worked in this space for twenty years and I can tell you this, with two tenderers remaining pre RFP in somewhat of a niche market, and the obvious reality that the government wants this project to happen, as well as it being located in canberra where a cost blowout business case can be summarised into a. Lack of competition and b. The high cost of wages, you will find both submissions will be nearly identical, both will have overlap of consortiums and it will be around twice the original cost schedule. Sydney and Melbourne based companies love doing business in Canberra as it pays so much more and the competition is non existent. For example in Syd, Mlb, Bris etc a company can provide a civil engineer at $1800 a day, in Canberra the standard rate is $3200 a day. Project managers similar rate distortion. In fact in Syd,Mlb,Bris truck owner operators charge $80 to $100 dollars an hour, in Canberra the average is $220. So it is very easy to see that a national company can make huge profits instantly when contracted in the ACT, especially when contracted through the Government. Like I have said, this light rail is a gravy train for industry.

dungfungus said :

The City of Vancouver encompasses a land area of about 114 square kilometres, giving it a population density of about 5,249 people per square kilometre (13,590 per square mile).
When Canberra reaches those parameters we too can consider something like Vancouver has.

A common misconception, Dungo.

The Greater Vancouver Metropolitan area is made up of 10 cities, one of which is (confusingly) called Vancouver. (its like Canberra being made up of Tuggeranong city, Woden city, Belconnen city etc)

You are referring to the small City of Vancouver (which is as you say compact and densely populated as you say), but its Skytrain system encompasses the Greater Vancouver Metropolitan area – 2700 square km with a density of about 800 people/sq km.

Canberra is 814 square km, with a population density of 428 people/sq km, but with urban infill, getting denser with each year.

As I understand your post, you would accept a light rail system if our parameters were similar to Vancouver – well they are. Thanks for accepting Canberra Light Rail, Dungy, our most recent convert!

Your welcome, Dungo. Glad to have enlightened you.

gasman

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

gasman said :

One thing that has never been mentioned is that we as a community are paying a phenomenal amount for keeping our cars. At the present time, it is almost essential to have a car in Canberra because we have such a poor public transport system.

This is absolutely true, and a very good reason why we should be doing some serious research and analysis into multiple options and means for improving public transport in the ACT.

Building a light rail line that goes between two satellite centres without serious consideration of other options is gross dereliction of the ACT government’s duty to the ACT public, in my opinion.

People not living in the catchment area of the proposed tram track (and that’s about 80% of Canberra) will have no choice but to continue to keep their cars.

Maya123 said :

I used the Vancouver train recently. I also used the light rail in Seattle. That was great, being able to catch that daily into the city during my stay there. It’s so successful they are now extending it.

The City of Vancouver encompasses a land area of about 114 square kilometres, giving it a population density of about 5,249 people per square kilometre (13,590 per square mile).
When Canberra reaches those parameters we too can consider something like Vancouver has.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

switch said :

dungfungus said :

What happens if they also bail out?

The ACT government will go ahead and build it on their own?

Of course they would – despite the fact that the Fed’s Infrastructure Australia knocked back the ACT Gov’t request for a funding contribution to the Canberra Light Rail because the business case (or what laughingly passed for one) didn’t stack up. Despite that, the ACT Gov’t pursued a public private partnership solution to build it instead. Same business case though. This is it :

http://www.capitalmetro.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/655650/Capital-Metro-Business-Case-In-Full.pdf

I have never seen a report with so many uses of the words “assumption” and “potential”.
There is also a lot of blue sky in the images.

From section 4.4 ‘Options analysis’, subsection 4.4.1 ‘Strategic solutions analysis and recommended strategic solution’:

“…this business case does not re-consider the already determined strategic solution or possible alternatives, such as bus rapid transit.”

They should have incorporated a “forward-looking” disclaimer like this:
“This Business Case may contain statements that constitute forward-looking. These forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology, such as the words “expects”, “projects”, “plans”, “believes”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “estimates”, “stabilised”, “underwritten”, “vision”, “may”, “could”, “pro forma”, “budget”, “financial model” and analogous. Any such statements are inherently subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected and the actual outcome to differ materially from that expected. Such risks and uncertainties include, amongst others, general economic and business conditions, competition, changes in political, social and economic conditions, regulatory initiatives and compliance with governmental regulations, and various other events, conditions and circumstances (including acts of god, war and terrorism). No assurance is given by Capital Metro Agency in relation to any such statements. Capital Metro Agency expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to publicly release any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement contained herein to reflect any change in expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.”

rommeldog56 said :

This is going to happen – so we had better get used to it – and vote accordingly at the 2016 ACT election.

What I don’t understand is why will people vote against this any more in 2016, than they did in 2012, when it was a Labor policy. See this is the difference between the federal liberals, who didn’t share their policies before the federal election and the ACT election, where the light rail and “triple the rates” was well and truly part of the election debate.

I can’t see a swing towards the liberals, they are really despised in Canberra right now because of the stupidity of the federal liberals. It shouldn’t play a part in voting but it will and does in every state and territory election. ACT libs hopes improve if a federal election is called by early 2016 and a change of governments occur. I certainly don’t think the light rail is a vote changer for many, especially when its was 50-50 for labor with light rail and triple rates at the last election.

Hopefully this site does a good coverage of candidates like it has in the past.

I used the Vancouver train recently. I also used the light rail in Seattle. That was great, being able to catch that daily into the city during my stay there. It’s so successful they are now extending it.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back10:48 am 19 Mar 15

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

switch said :

dungfungus said :

What happens if they also bail out?

The ACT government will go ahead and build it on their own?

Of course they would – despite the fact that the Fed’s Infrastructure Australia knocked back the ACT Gov’t request for a funding contribution to the Canberra Light Rail because the business case (or what laughingly passed for one) didn’t stack up. Despite that, the ACT Gov’t pursued a public private partnership solution to build it instead. Same business case though. This is it :

http://www.capitalmetro.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/655650/Capital-Metro-Business-Case-In-Full.pdf

I have never seen a report with so many uses of the words “assumption” and “potential”.
There is also a lot of blue sky in the images.

From section 4.4 ‘Options analysis’, subsection 4.4.1 ‘Strategic solutions analysis and recommended strategic solution’:

“…this business case does not re-consider the already determined strategic solution or possible alternatives, such as bus rapid transit.”

VYBerlinaV8_is_back10:45 am 19 Mar 15

gasman said :

One thing that has never been mentioned is that we as a community are paying a phenomenal amount for keeping our cars. At the present time, it is almost essential to have a car in Canberra because we have such a poor public transport system.

This is absolutely true, and a very good reason why we should be doing some serious research and analysis into multiple options and means for improving public transport in the ACT.

Building a light rail line that goes between two satellite centres without serious consideration of other options is gross dereliction of the ACT government’s duty to the ACT public, in my opinion.

There seems to be a lot of opposition to the building of a light rail system in the ACT, and much of the criticism is based on the cost, born largely by tax and rate-payers.

One thing that has never been mentioned is that we as a community are paying a phenomenal amount for keeping our cars. At the present time, it is almost essential to have a car in Canberra because we have such a poor public transport system.

The ACT has 229,000 registered passenger vehicles (source: ABS, 2014). This does not include trucks, busses, commercial vehicles. A large percentage of this 229,000 is privately owned.

It costs over $10,000 per year to run a medium sized car (source: NRMA and RACQ Vehicle Running Costs 2014). This cost is larger than most people realise, and is based on purchase price depreciated over car lifetime, interest, full, rego, insurance, service/repairs/tyres. Annual running costs vary from about $6500 for a micro sized car to $16,000 for a large expensive car.

As a community (ACT only), we are paying about $2 billion per year, every year, to keep our cars.

In addition, we spend about $180 million per year on roads each year.

This money that we already pay dwarfs the amount that a light rail system would cost. Even if the cost of the light rail blows out the $1 billion, thats a one-off cost spread out over the build time of the system (maybe 5 years). Once built, the rail system becomes much less of a cost and would have a working life of decades.

Imagine if we as a community built a comprehensive public transport system, coupled with bike paths that connect, and de-centralised work places so we don’t all have to travel into the city. We could ditch half our cars, and save $1 billion dollars per year. We would save even more dollars with less expenditure on roads.

What could we do with an extra $1 billion per year? We could employ thousands of nurses, an extra hospital or 2 each year, eliminate hospital waiting times, house every homeless person, fix our schools and pay for more teachers, or just go on an overseas holiday.

I live in Vancouver for 2 years, and they had just opened a new branch of their Skytrain system – a much more ambitious elevated rail system that Vancouver has been building, extending for 20 years. The day after it opened, road traffic on that route dropped by half. Its fast, reliable, clean, driverless, safe. It runs every 5 minutes during peak hour and every 10 at other times. It is by far the quickest way into the city in Vancouver, and is loved and well-used by all walks of life in Vancouver.

Lets move into the 21st Century, Canberra!

rommeldog56 said :

switch said :

dungfungus said :

What happens if they also bail out?

The ACT government will go ahead and build it on their own?

Of course they would – despite the fact that the Fed’s Infrastructure Australia knocked back the ACT Gov’t request for a funding contribution to the Canberra Light Rail because the business case (or what laughingly passed for one) didn’t stack up. Despite that, the ACT Gov’t pursued a public private partnership solution to build it instead. Same business case though. This is it :

http://www.capitalmetro.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/655650/Capital-Metro-Business-Case-In-Full.pdf

I have never seen a report with so many uses of the words “assumption” and “potential”.
There is also a lot of blue sky in the images.

Great article here from Washington DC (another country’s capital city) about the folly of their proposed tram service.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/03/05/time-pull-plug-trolley-folly/
I love that terminology “transit hipsters”.
There are uncanny parallels with the Canberra project.
I wonder if…..?
No, Andrew Barr hasn’t been to Washington DC lately, has he?

vintage123 said :

I would be very surprised if any consortium would “pull out”, this project is a licence to print money. Imagine now knowing you only have one competitor left prior to the RFP stage of solicitation, from the commercial side this would have an in house code named “money train”.

Recent failures of PPPs in Australia have not been a licence to print money and massive amounts of investors’ money (including money from superannuation funds) have been lost.
The main reason for the failures with the Brisbane road tunnels has been that the initial daily user numbers were grossly underestimated and instead of building more business, the numbers fell away.
I doubt very much that there will be private investors willing to get involved with the ACT’s tram plan. This was pointed out by industry experts in 2012 but the government has ignored that advice (at our peril).
The completed tram project will lose less money if it is left idle.

switch said :

dungfungus said :

What happens if they also bail out?

The ACT government will go ahead and build it on their own?

Why not?
They have sacked Comcare and are going to set up and run their own workers’ compensation, they had previously run their own finance company (Rhodium Asset Solutions) and run their own communications company (through Actew).
They also underwrite superannuation for the public service.
They also have a lot of other commercial ventures.
None of these make any money and the massive losses incurred through their stewardship of ACTION buses qualifies them perfectly to run a tram service in direct competition to ACTION.

switch said :

dungfungus said :

What happens if they also bail out?

The ACT government will go ahead and build it on their own?

Of course they would – despite the fact that the Fed’s Infrastructure Australia knocked back the ACT Gov’t request for a funding contribution to the Canberra Light Rail because the business case (or what laughingly passed for one) didn’t stack up. Despite that, the ACT Gov’t pursued a public private partnership solution to build it instead. Same business case though. This is it :

http://www.capitalmetro.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/655650/Capital-Metro-Business-Case-In-Full.pdf

I would be very surprised if any consortium would “pull out”, this project is a licence to print money. Imagine now knowing you only have one competitor left prior to the RFP stage of solicitation, from the commercial side this would have an in house code named “money train”.

dungfungus said :

What happens if they also bail out?

The ACT government will go ahead and build it on their own?

dungfungus said :

“The expression of interest stage required consortia to demonstrate their capability in meeting five core criteria”
Nothing about probity mentioned but there are only two “contenders” left.
What happens if they also bail out?

The other bidders didn’t bail out – they would have been shortlisted out.

There is no way that the other 2 will “bail out” . Why would they ? Under a public private partnership (PPP) they are sort of guaranteed a return on their outlay by the ACT Government – courtesy of ACT Ratepayers.

Their ROI on their outlay would have to be significant enough to cover risk, dividend to investors, interest on loans + be a better ROI than they can get on other investments elsewhere.

However, the ACT Gov’t determination to contract fort this before the next Lesgslative Assembly election in late 2016 guarantees that the remaining 2 bidders will not bail out. Besides, the ACT Gov’t has the apparently bottomless financial pit of their fees, charges, GST based revenue, Annual Rates paid by ratepayers and savings from winding back municiple services & re-ordering their fiscal priorities, in order to meet the pa cost of this and other PPPs – no matter what the cost.

This is going to happen – so we had better get used to it – and vote accordingly at the 2016 ACT election.

“The expression of interest stage required consortia to demonstrate their capability in meeting five core criteria”
Nothing about probity mentioned but there are only two “contenders” left.
What happens if they also bail out?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.