Only one real option for City to Woden light rail route

ChrisinTurner said :

If we want fast public transport we would have stayed with express buses. The LR vehicles being purchased have a manufacturer’s speed limit of 70 km/hr. The fastest LR in Australia is on the Gold Coast with an average operating speed of 31 km/hr. People travelling from Civic to Tuggeranong currently move at about 90 km/hr. They won’t want to wander through Parkes, Barton and Forrest at 31 km/hr, although it would suit people only going to the triangle.

Yeah, they are slow and they are roadblocks on rails for vehicular traffic that is following them, especially in the narrow streets of the triangle for example. They call that trammelling by the way. What a coincidence.

But hey, they look sexy and cool and we voted for it so nothing else matters, does it?

Yes there is, don’t build It. Spend $2 million a few more bendy busses. A few licks of paint for extra bus lanes. Save $2 billion dollars, what’s not to like.

dungfungus said :

Tim Bohm said :

Once again our government has gone out of their way to avoid our international airport. What did happen to the detailed costings provided for the 2016 “STAGE 2 Russell Extension”, why have they never been made public?

https://the-riotact.com/light-rail-winning-bid-cheaper-faster-and-with-added-trees/162102

The city – airport public transport connection is now being carried out by Action busses. I’m yet to hear any feedback on it and I doubt if many people use the service.

Most travellers using the airport still prefer to use family, friends or a taxi to get them to and from the place.

It’s not practical to use a bus if you have luggage – it’s difficult with trams too.

I’ve used the bus service to the airport. It’s quite frequent and reasonably direct. Patronage was light. The only other passenger on board went to the Qantas Club, so I’m not sure about how the demographics work. Low floor buses mean that there’s even less gravity to overcome than when one lifts luggage into the boot of a car.

The real issue with this is they are doing a piecemeal stage by stage approach. They should be consulting on routing for all stages. Then build the stages as/if required. Also given how much they are spending, I can’t imagine it would cost much more to put an express route past Parliament house also and or build a London circuit loop.
That said I have more issues with this stage. The first stage is makes more sense because of the high density housing that is being built. I can’t see there being much high density along Adelaide avenue…. A Belconnen-City-Russell-Airport link makes more sense.

I’d also prefer to give stage 1 a few years first to make sure its viable.

Tim Bohm said :

Once again our government has gone out of their way to avoid our international airport. What did happen to the detailed costings provided for the 2016 “STAGE 2 Russell Extension”, why have they never been made public?

https://the-riotact.com/light-rail-winning-bid-cheaper-faster-and-with-added-trees/162102

The city – airport public transport connection is now being carried out by Action busses. I’m yet to hear any feedback on it and I doubt if many people use the service.

Most travellers using the airport still prefer to use family, friends or a taxi to get them to and from the place.

It’s not practical to use a bus if you have luggage – it’s difficult with trams too.

chewy14 said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

It’s funny when I read the start of the article and the suggestion that there was only one potential route, I was in full agreement.

Then I read the author’s thoughts and was surprised because I was thinking the exact opposite route.

The whole point of light rail is for it to provide fast and easy public transport along major thoroughfares. If you deviate into the suburbs, it loses functionality which means people are more likely to stay in their cars.

This is why the Parliament house option is clearly superior. You need to take a bigger picture view. The efficiency of the main trunk spine can’t be compromised.

Transport around Barton and inner south could then be serviced by loop buses from the light rail line.

As for the Hospital, this would only be a spur line if it was chosen because the main trunk must continue down Athllon Dr past Mawson to Tuggeranong. In the end, I doubt a light rail line to the Hospital would really alleviate their parking issues all that much.

If you were talking about American light rail which is on the heavier side I would agree with you that it is intended to get people along trunks routes. With big park and rides etc.

But European and Australian light rail is designed to service the corridor which of course means deviating into residential and employment areas.

That of course means in the case of Woden the trunk route needs to the City and beyond needs to remain too.

I disagree here because we don’t have the density to make the light rail viable in the first place, so the only way it will work is to build the light rail to be faster and more efficient along the main route with densification of development along the route like is proposed for the first stage. With regards to the second stage, the Woden town centre and Athllon drive corridors are the main areas where this can occur meaningfully in the short term, with further development along Adelaide avenue for the medium to long term.

If you meander through Barton and the parliamentary triangle, Woden Valley and south side residents will simply not use it favouring their car as now.

Future spur lines could be created to go East through to Manuka, Kingston and to QBN but it shouldn’t be part of the main line which needs to link the town centres more effectively.

I’m specifically thinking of the long term requirements of this service rather than trying to fix a smaller problem that may seem attractive now. If the government is proposing this service to be the main public transport mode for the next century, they need to do it right the first time, thinking beyond buying votes every four years.

The latest spin from Transport Canberra is that the light rail has nothing to do with public transport – it is all about “urban regeneration”, whatever that means.

So, any debate about viability is off the table from now on despite the success or failure of the first and subsequent stages.

If we want fast public transport we would have stayed with express buses. The LR vehicles being purchased have a manufacturer’s speed limit of 70 km/hr. The fastest LR in Australia is on the Gold Coast with an average operating speed of 31 km/hr. People travelling from Civic to Tuggeranong currently move at about 90 km/hr. They won’t want to wander through Parkes, Barton and Forrest at 31 km/hr, although it would suit people only going to the triangle.

What utter nonsense this proposal is. One route (Parliament House) almost exactly duplicates the existing Intertown 300 series bus route, but will be much slower with stops along Adelaide Avenue (and good luck with moving pedestrians to the centre strip across a 6 lane, 80 km/h road). The other route (Barton) will be even slower, rattling along an extended route that will be virtually unused outside of peak hours on weekdays and on the weekend.

Of course, this classic ACT Government “consultation” is pointless anyway – as with the first stage, Chief Minister Barr will ignore logic and simply choose whichever route offers developers the greatest potential for new and redevelopment unit sites rather than what commuters may need.

Oh, and just over 6 months ago during the election, ACT Labor candidates had corflutes along Athllon Drive near Mawson promising it to be a future light rail stop… surely the next sop to potential voters has to be a Belconnen stage first?

JC said :

chewy14 said :

It’s funny when I read the start of the article and the suggestion that there was only one potential route, I was in full agreement.

Then I read the author’s thoughts and was surprised because I was thinking the exact opposite route.

The whole point of light rail is for it to provide fast and easy public transport along major thoroughfares. If you deviate into the suburbs, it loses functionality which means people are more likely to stay in their cars.

This is why the Parliament house option is clearly superior. You need to take a bigger picture view. The efficiency of the main trunk spine can’t be compromised.

Transport around Barton and inner south could then be serviced by loop buses from the light rail line.

As for the Hospital, this would only be a spur line if it was chosen because the main trunk must continue down Athllon Dr past Mawson to Tuggeranong. In the end, I doubt a light rail line to the Hospital would really alleviate their parking issues all that much.

If you were talking about American light rail which is on the heavier side I would agree with you that it is intended to get people along trunks routes. With big park and rides etc.

But European and Australian light rail is designed to service the corridor which of course means deviating into residential and employment areas.

That of course means in the case of Woden the trunk route needs to the City and beyond needs to remain too.

I disagree here because we don’t have the density to make the light rail viable in the first place, so the only way it will work is to build the light rail to be faster and more efficient along the main route with densification of development along the route like is proposed for the first stage. With regards to the second stage, the Woden town centre and Athllon drive corridors are the main areas where this can occur meaningfully in the short term, with further development along Adelaide avenue for the medium to long term.

If you meander through Barton and the parliamentary triangle, Woden Valley and south side residents will simply not use it favouring their car as now.

Future spur lines could be created to go East through to Manuka, Kingston and to QBN but it shouldn’t be part of the main line which needs to link the town centres more effectively.

I’m specifically thinking of the long term requirements of this service rather than trying to fix a smaller problem that may seem attractive now. If the government is proposing this service to be the main public transport mode for the next century, they need to do it right the first time, thinking beyond buying votes every four years.

Good article. Initial consultation with PTCBR members indicated little support for light rail to the hospital in Woden. It really isnt far to walk. It will be interesting to see what the broader community thinks.

The Barton route option delivers benefits to large federal employers and national attractions.

I have mixed views on the London Circuit options, I can see real benefits to both options.

Tim Bohm said :

Once again our government has gone out of their way to avoid our international airport. What did happen to the detailed costings provided for the 2016 “STAGE 2 Russell Extension”, why have they never been made public?

Community consultation around the Light Rail Master Plan identified four routes that were preferred, the government selected the Woden option as stage two and went to an election with that option (the one you ran in, remember?).

The airport light rail only works with connections through Russell and to the BBP. It will be built, it was one of the four preferred options and as future stages are developed it will form one of those.

JC said :

bringontheevidence said :

I don’t think the solution for going through the triangle is as cut and dried as you think. In fact I would argue that the alternative route is clearly superior.

Yes the Parkes/Barton option goes closer to many of the Government offices, but for the same reasons the route through the city is best to go to the west because the east will be served by a future Russell/Airport line, you could argue that Parkes/Barton will be better served in the future by a Kingston/Fyshwick/Queanbeyan line.

The major concern I have with the Barton route is that it will add 5-10 minutes to the commute of people coming from Woden to the city, even more compared to the current blue rapid busses that travel the western side of Parliament House. If the intention is to create a ‘trunk’ route that’s expected to serve future branch lines, it would be a disaster to send the tram off on a rambling, slow speed wander through side streets.

I am no fan of the Woden route and one reason is because it cannot replace the blue rapid service. The Woden to city link is an integral part of the Belconnen to Tuggeranong trunk route, just no way is it sensible to change one section to light rail and expect people to change. That said don’t recall any announcements saying it will replace them either.

And as for the route, through Barton is the sensible option but only if it is not a blue rapid replacement service. Though personally I think once it gets to Canberra ave it should turn left and go to Manuka, Kingston and then terminate at the railway station rather than to Woden.

I’m working on the assumption that, long term, the Trams will effectively replace the Rapid bus services, while busses will be retained for rambling suburban transport to maximise coverage.

I agree that in the short term it would be less than ideal to change at Civic if you’re travelling Woden-Belconnen, however long term there would be a lot of benefits in having a direct light rail route. The biggest benefit I can see (an its a big one) is that workers at APH and Barton could finally catch a direct, high frequency service to the city and to the south. At the moment the Blue Rapid doesn’t stop between Albert Hall and Woden, and the vast majority of Barton workers need to go via Russell to get the the city.

Once again our government has gone out of their way to avoid our international airport. What did happen to the detailed costings provided for the 2016 “STAGE 2 Russell Extension”, why have they never been made public?

https://the-riotact.com/light-rail-winning-bid-cheaper-faster-and-with-added-trees/162102

chewy14 said :

It’s funny when I read the start of the article and the suggestion that there was only one potential route, I was in full agreement.

Then I read the author’s thoughts and was surprised because I was thinking the exact opposite route.

The whole point of light rail is for it to provide fast and easy public transport along major thoroughfares. If you deviate into the suburbs, it loses functionality which means people are more likely to stay in their cars.

This is why the Parliament house option is clearly superior. You need to take a bigger picture view. The efficiency of the main trunk spine can’t be compromised.

Transport around Barton and inner south could then be serviced by loop buses from the light rail line.

As for the Hospital, this would only be a spur line if it was chosen because the main trunk must continue down Athllon Dr past Mawson to Tuggeranong. In the end, I doubt a light rail line to the Hospital would really alleviate their parking issues all that much.

If you were talking about American light rail which is on the heavier side I would agree with you that it is intended to get people along trunks routes. With big park and rides etc.

But European and Australian light rail is designed to service the corridor which of course means deviating into residential and employment areas.

That of course means in the case of Woden the trunk route needs to the City and beyond needs to remain too.

I agree with Charlotte that the Parkes-Barton option is the only sensible route, not the least because of the financial incentive available to the Commonwealth due to its ownership of significant vacant/underused land along the corridor (as I canvassed in another thread: https://the-riotact.com/the-lobby-ideas-for-future-use/200075).

From this light rail sceptic’s perspective, the extension to Woden through the Parliamentary zone and Barton is a game changer. I thought stopping the first stage at what is effectively the northern edge of Canberra’s central activity area was a fatal mistake — requiring people travelling beyond this point to change to buses, and offering tourists all the excitement of a 2 or 3 stop trip along Northborne to and from Canberra’s underwhelming ‘downtown’.

But the extension via Parkes-Barton and on to Woden and the region’s main hospital offers tram access to Canberra’s raison d’être and connects what transport planners call a ‘string of pearls’ — spots of high activity where significant numbers of people are coming and going.

I think this will be very popular initiative and overcome much of the opposition to and scepticism about light rail, including from me. Though I have to declare an interest, as my home will be within 15 minutes walk of a stop.

In response to wildturkeycanoe, I’m not sure why a light rail link to Canberra Hospital would only be of interest to people who work there and live in Deakin, Yarralumla, Curtin or Lyons. Also trams don’t do u-turns, at least not any of those I’ve travelled on in Australia and overseas. They’re double ended and bi-directional.

bringontheevidence says that Parkes and Barton will be better served in the future by a Kingston/Fyshwick/Queanbeyan line. Well, possibly if it’s ever built (and I can’t see the NSW govt let alone the Queanbeyan council or ACT govt funding a 10 km extension to a town of 50-60k people), but with major transport spines the more points of intersection the better. It doesn’t make sense to force people travelling from Woden to Kingston/Fyswick for example to go all the way to Civic first.

I know its too late but this seems window dressing, if light rail really wanted to scoop up people it would be better off extending the Gungahlin end out through Moncrief and Casey, over to West Belconnen, Dunlop etc before branching and heading to the Belconnen town centre and off through the new suburbs on the way to Weston before turning into Woden.

It just might reach a critical mass of people and actually alleviate some congestion.

It’s funny when I read the start of the article and the suggestion that there was only one potential route, I was in full agreement.

Then I read the author’s thoughts and was surprised because I was thinking the exact opposite route.

The whole point of light rail is for it to provide fast and easy public transport along major thoroughfares. If you deviate into the suburbs, it loses functionality which means people are more likely to stay in their cars.

This is why the Parliament house option is clearly superior. You need to take a bigger picture view. The efficiency of the main trunk spine can’t be compromised.

Transport around Barton and inner south could then be serviced by loop buses from the light rail line.

As for the Hospital, this would only be a spur line if it was chosen because the main trunk must continue down Athllon Dr past Mawson to Tuggeranong. In the end, I doubt a light rail line to the Hospital would really alleviate their parking issues all that much.

This latest exercise in faux-consultation reminds me of my younger days when I was focused solely on changing the layout for my Trix toy electric train set which was, by the way, fully funded from pocket money and hard work doing odd-jobs.

Whether to divert it under the bed and behind the dressing table or a high speed run down the middle of the room. I lost a lot of sleep over it.

The only thing my train had in common with our government’s proposal is that neither my toy set or their real train will be carrying any (or very few) passengers.

The differences are that my train set was paid for and being operated by a child; their’s is dependant on more billions of dollars being debited to the taxpayers and it is (apparently) being run by adults.

bringontheevidence said :

I don’t think the solution for going through the triangle is as cut and dried as you think. In fact I would argue that the alternative route is clearly superior.

Yes the Parkes/Barton option goes closer to many of the Government offices, but for the same reasons the route through the city is best to go to the west because the east will be served by a future Russell/Airport line, you could argue that Parkes/Barton will be better served in the future by a Kingston/Fyshwick/Queanbeyan line.

The major concern I have with the Barton route is that it will add 5-10 minutes to the commute of people coming from Woden to the city, even more compared to the current blue rapid busses that travel the western side of Parliament House. If the intention is to create a ‘trunk’ route that’s expected to serve future branch lines, it would be a disaster to send the tram off on a rambling, slow speed wander through side streets.

That was my first thought when seeing the 2 options – the more direct route will encourage more light rail commuting from Woden/Tuggeranong to the City in the longer term while the route through Barton would increase use in the shorter term. A key question is whether the rest of the network will end up being constructed? Given that everything seems to be suggesting stage 2 will cost more and deliver less than stage 1, the government may need to opt for the route to boost users in the shorter term to try and justify the costs.

I’m not sure why there is the suggestion that the first route option is ‘via Parliament House’. The proposed route goes via Capital Circle and then onto Adelaide Avenue, the location for the light rail stop seemingly being in the tunnel under Federation Mall, and not at the public entrance to Parliament House as suggested by this article. I really cannot see how a stop could placed on Capital Circle without significant, and unnecessary additional cost.

bringontheevidence said :

I don’t think the solution for going through the triangle is as cut and dried as you think. In fact I would argue that the alternative route is clearly superior.

Yes the Parkes/Barton option goes closer to many of the Government offices, but for the same reasons the route through the city is best to go to the west because the east will be served by a future Russell/Airport line, you could argue that Parkes/Barton will be better served in the future by a Kingston/Fyshwick/Queanbeyan line.

The major concern I have with the Barton route is that it will add 5-10 minutes to the commute of people coming from Woden to the city, even more compared to the current blue rapid busses that travel the western side of Parliament House. If the intention is to create a ‘trunk’ route that’s expected to serve future branch lines, it would be a disaster to send the tram off on a rambling, slow speed wander through side streets.

I am no fan of the Woden route and one reason is because it cannot replace the blue rapid service. The Woden to city link is an integral part of the Belconnen to Tuggeranong trunk route, just no way is it sensible to change one section to light rail and expect people to change. That said don’t recall any announcements saying it will replace them either.

And as for the route, through Barton is the sensible option but only if it is not a blue rapid replacement service. Though personally I think once it gets to Canberra ave it should turn left and go to Manuka, Kingston and then terminate at the railway station rather than to Woden.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I wonder how many people working at the Canberra Hospital actually live in or near the suburbs of Deakin, Yarralumla, Curtin or Lyons? Would it be financially worthwhile making the connection through to the hospital? Also, what happens when the tram gets to the hospital, is there sufficient space to make a U-turn or would the tram simply continue on through Yamba Drive back to the City?
Another consideration is access to the tram from Curtin, which has limited connections with Yarra Glen due to the Yarralumla Creek causeway. Similarly, both Yarralumla and Deakin have few points for pedestrian traffic to reach Adelaide Avenue, so more work will be required to remedy these obstacles. Have they been factored into any of the “estimates” of cost yet?

I don’t think the hospital option is for the workers given the shift work hours most work, rather for patients and visitors.

Also whilst single ended trams need to u-turn the more common type (in western countries) are bidirectional so essentially terminate in a single or double terminus and just turn around. So no extra space required.

I don’t think the solution for going through the triangle is as cut and dried as you think. In fact I would argue that the alternative route is clearly superior.

Yes the Parkes/Barton option goes closer to many of the Government offices, but for the same reasons the route through the city is best to go to the west because the east will be served by a future Russell/Airport line, you could argue that Parkes/Barton will be better served in the future by a Kingston/Fyshwick/Queanbeyan line.

The major concern I have with the Barton route is that it will add 5-10 minutes to the commute of people coming from Woden to the city, even more compared to the current blue rapid busses that travel the western side of Parliament House. If the intention is to create a ‘trunk’ route that’s expected to serve future branch lines, it would be a disaster to send the tram off on a rambling, slow speed wander through side streets.

I wonder how many people working at the Canberra Hospital actually live in or near the suburbs of Deakin, Yarralumla, Curtin or Lyons? Would it be financially worthwhile making the connection through to the hospital? Also, what happens when the tram gets to the hospital, is there sufficient space to make a U-turn or would the tram simply continue on through Yamba Drive back to the City?
Another consideration is access to the tram from Curtin, which has limited connections with Yarra Glen due to the Yarralumla Creek causeway. Similarly, both Yarralumla and Deakin have few points for pedestrian traffic to reach Adelaide Avenue, so more work will be required to remedy these obstacles. Have they been factored into any of the “estimates” of cost yet?

Not being a Light Rail fan (at least, not as a solution for Canberra), Im ambivalent about the City to Widen route.

However, I’m most interested in how they will cross LBG on Commonwealth Avenue bridge. The article gives that a light touch and offers no view. In terms of vehicle access across that bridge. It is the vital issue.

Anyways, I would have thought that this is the sort of planning that should have been undertaken, put on the table and costed as a budget promise, in the last ACT Legislative Assembly election. As it is, ACT voters have given ACT Labor/Greens a blank cheque to do stage 2.