Recent Articles/Opinions For and Against Canberra's Light Rail

wildturkeycanoe said :

rommeldog56 said :

Masquara said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

An insight into how one of the global companies bidding for the Canberra light rail does business:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-fines-alstom-record-772-074030341.html

I expect the ACT Government will look the other way.

It’s going to be hard for the ACT Government to consider Alstom as a light rail consortium contender following more revelations about the way they do business.
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/poland-charges-five-latest-alstom-110234853.html
Where are the ACT Liberals on this?

John Hargreaves is notably silent on this issue!

ha……just in time for the “donations” to ACT political parties to be uncapped too !

In fairness to John H, he has commented on previous tram threads on Riotact. As I recall, he said he was dubious about the tram at the begining, but went for a ride on one overseas, so is now a converted supporter.

Maybe all tram scepitics should travel overseas for a ride so they too can ignore the obviously flawed business case/benefits costs ratio (only 1:1.2) and the fact that the Fed’s here won’t contribute any funding for it (unlike most of the tram systems overseas that i have looked at).

What is it with everybody wanting J.H’s opinion on everything? Does he add any more weight to an argument for some reason? I honestly take everyone’s opinion equally and if they want to contribute or don’t want to, it’s their own prerogative.
As for traveling on a tram overseas…why bother, just go to Melbourne where there’s plenty. In my opinion it was mediocre and no different to a bus ride.

Wildturkeycanoe : Re JHs opinions. Unfortunately, its probably just bait. JH is a “normal” person these days, so his opinion is of equal weight.

Re tram rides overseas Vs Melbourne. True. But we continue the Australian/Canberra cultural cringe – the business case for the light rail contains many references to the overseas experience. Also, the pro light rail brigade regularly cite the overseas experience. Apparently, Canberra has to follow that in order to “grow up”. All the ACT Government and their consultants did was to make the overseas model/experience fit the Canberra requirement – not vice versa. Thats just because they wanted it – perhaps as a legacy or a monument to their era in Government ?

Here’s an idea. Perhaps the tram carriages and tram stops should be “named” after Katy Gallagher, Shane Rattenbury, Simon Corbell, Andew Barr and every Labor MLA who voted for it – then Ratepayers will be constantly reminded of who made the decision to go ahaed with the Light Rail as the impact on the Territory’s budget gets worse and worse and ACT Gov’t fees, changes and our Annual Rates increase to cover the cost.

rommeldog56 said :

Masquara said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

An insight into how one of the global companies bidding for the Canberra light rail does business:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-fines-alstom-record-772-074030341.html

I expect the ACT Government will look the other way.

It’s going to be hard for the ACT Government to consider Alstom as a light rail consortium contender following more revelations about the way they do business.
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/poland-charges-five-latest-alstom-110234853.html
Where are the ACT Liberals on this?

John Hargreaves is notably silent on this issue!

ha……just in time for the “donations” to ACT political parties to be uncapped too !

In fairness to John H, he has commented on previous tram threads on Riotact. As I recall, he said he was dubious about the tram at the begining, but went for a ride on one overseas, so is now a converted supporter.

Maybe all tram scepitics should travel overseas for a ride so they too can ignore the obviously flawed business case/benefits costs ratio (only 1:1.2) and the fact that the Fed’s here won’t contribute any funding for it (unlike most of the tram systems overseas that i have looked at).

What is it with everybody wanting J.H’s opinion on everything? Does he add any more weight to an argument for some reason? I honestly take everyone’s opinion equally and if they want to contribute or don’t want to, it’s their own prerogative.
As for traveling on a tram overseas…why bother, just go to Melbourne where there’s plenty. In my opinion it was mediocre and no different to a bus ride.

Masquara said :

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

An insight into how one of the global companies bidding for the Canberra light rail does business:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-fines-alstom-record-772-074030341.html

I expect the ACT Government will look the other way.

It’s going to be hard for the ACT Government to consider Alstom as a light rail consortium contender following more revelations about the way they do business.
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/poland-charges-five-latest-alstom-110234853.html
Where are the ACT Liberals on this?

John Hargreaves is notably silent on this issue!

ha……just in time for the “donations” to ACT political parties to be uncapped too !

In fairness to John H, he has commented on previous tram threads on Riotact. As I recall, he said he was dubious about the tram at the begining, but went for a ride on one overseas, so is now a converted supporter.

Maybe all tram scepitics should travel overseas for a ride so they too can ignore the obviously flawed business case/benefits costs ratio (only 1:1.2) and the fact that the Fed’s here won’t contribute any funding for it (unlike most of the tram systems overseas that i have looked at).

KentFitch said :

miz said :

. . .Frankly, if Paul Malone thinks it is doomed, it is.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/caberras-light-rail-will-be-a-costly-failure-that-sets-back-public-transport-20141227-12dc52.html

Maybe there is a better way to supply good quality public transport for Canberra that doesn’t cost the earth. Although commercial autonomous cars are still slightly over the horizon, so many industry participants, commentators and governments would have to be so wrong for them not to viable by 2020. A fleet of shared electric autonomous vehicles solves the cost and range problems of privately owned electric cars. They offer 24×7, on-demand, door-to-door service at a fraction of the cost of public or private transport.

Simulations performed by Columbia Uni’s Earth Institute [ http://sustainablemobility.ei.columbia.edu/files/2012/12/Transforming-Personal-Mobility-Jan-27-20132.pdf ] seemed to good to be true, so I built one for Canberra: http://www.projectcomputing.com/resources/cacs/index.html

You can run it in your browser (unless you have an old version of IE) and change the model’s assumptions yourself. Apologies to residents of Wright and Coombs – I didnt have population information for your suburbs.

I’m far from a light-rail “hater”, but it doesn’t seem to solve any problems for Canberra, and hence is a diversion from a fruitful discussion focussed on personal mobility, transport infrastructure, urban planning, social inclusion, congestion and pollution.

Interesting stuff, KentFitch – thanks for the info. Most interesting, given that the ACT Gov’t seems hell bent in locking ACT Ratepayers into a 20-30 year public private partnership contract for an inflexible tram solution that is already neigh on 100 years old (but, dressed in a modern skin) ! IMHO, it beggers belief really. We certainly need a mass transport system, but a tram is not it.

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

An insight into how one of the global companies bidding for the Canberra light rail does business:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-fines-alstom-record-772-074030341.html

I expect the ACT Government will look the other way.

It’s going to be hard for the ACT Government to consider Alstom as a light rail consortium contender following more revelations about the way they do business.
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/poland-charges-five-latest-alstom-110234853.html
Where are the ACT Liberals on this?

John Hargreaves is notably silent on this issue!

miz said :

. . .Frankly, if Paul Malone thinks it is doomed, it is.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/caberras-light-rail-will-be-a-costly-failure-that-sets-back-public-transport-20141227-12dc52.html

Maybe there is a better way to supply good quality public transport for Canberra that doesn’t cost the earth. Although commercial autonomous cars are still slightly over the horizon, so many industry participants, commentators and governments would have to be so wrong for them not to viable by 2020. A fleet of shared electric autonomous vehicles solves the cost and range problems of privately owned electric cars. They offer 24×7, on-demand, door-to-door service at a fraction of the cost of public or private transport.

Simulations performed by Columbia Uni’s Earth Institute [ http://sustainablemobility.ei.columbia.edu/files/2012/12/Transforming-Personal-Mobility-Jan-27-20132.pdf ] seemed to good to be true, so I built one for Canberra: http://www.projectcomputing.com/resources/cacs/index.html

You can run it in your browser (unless you have an old version of IE) and change the model’s assumptions yourself. Apologies to residents of Wright and Coombs – I didnt have population information for your suburbs.

I’m far from a light-rail “hater”, but it doesn’t seem to solve any problems for Canberra, and hence is a diversion from a fruitful discussion focussed on personal mobility, transport infrastructure, urban planning, social inclusion, congestion and pollution.

dungfungus said :

An insight into how one of the global companies bidding for the Canberra light rail does business:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-fines-alstom-record-772-074030341.html

I expect the ACT Government will look the other way.

It’s going to be hard for the ACT Government to consider Alstom as a light rail consortium contender following more revelations about the way they do business.
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/poland-charges-five-latest-alstom-110234853.html
Where are the ACT Liberals on this?

miz said :

The Labor MLAs are obviously having to keep rolling the light rail t*rd in glitter so they can continue to delude themselves. Here’s an analogy: it’s like trying to justify re-mortgaging your house to buy a really ‘cool’ new car (even though you already have a pretty good Corolla that could be made more efficient if you paid more attention to it), so that your partner (for whom ‘cool’ transport is apparently a deal breaker) doesn’t leave the relationship. Why would anyone want any of this? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, I am generally centre-left myself and have in fact recently considered joining the Labor party. However I have concluded that I can never, ever do so while this light rail proposal is on the cards. It is just too stupid for words and tells me that the current ACT Labor mob are fools for whom holding on to power is more important than having managerial integrity.

Pure gold, miz.
The ACT has European street art, European traffic lights, European car number plates (optional for the wealthy European car owners) and soon we will have European trams supplied by a European cartel and the economy to match Europe.

The Labor MLAs are obviously having to keep rolling the light rail t*rd in glitter so they can continue to delude themselves. Here’s an analogy: it’s like trying to justify re-mortgaging your house to buy a really ‘cool’ new car (even though you already have a pretty good Corolla that could be made more efficient if you paid more attention to it), so that your partner (for whom ‘cool’ transport is apparently a deal breaker) doesn’t leave the relationship. Why would anyone want any of this? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, I am generally centre-left myself and have in fact recently considered joining the Labor party. However I have concluded that I can never, ever do so while this light rail proposal is on the cards. It is just too stupid for words and tells me that the current ACT Labor mob are fools for whom holding on to power is more important than having managerial integrity.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Back to the cycles on trains debate, if a cyclist can only ride 1 – 2 km to board a train but not the whole 12 km, why not chain up the bike at the tram stop and pick it up on the way home? Obviously they are going to Civic to work because that’s what the tram is promising to do. They shouldn’t need any infrastructure but their feet when they get there as everything in Civic is close and besides, aren’t there supposed to be more bus services connecting the suburbs with the tram line, thus doing away with the need fort transport to and from the rail network?. Currently there is a park n ride system for car owners that does the very same thing, because they can’t afford to park in town all day. Keep the Civic center car and bicycle free so that pedestrians will be safer?

The fact that what you have suggested is so intelligent and practical means that it will never see the light of day.
Unfortunately, there are too many cyclists in Canberra who see their bikes as extensions of their egos so the bike must be with them at all times. Some of them probably sleep with their bikes.

Back to the cycles on trains debate, if a cyclist can only ride 1 – 2 km to board a train but not the whole 12 km, why not chain up the bike at the tram stop and pick it up on the way home? Obviously they are going to Civic to work because that’s what the tram is promising to do. They shouldn’t need any infrastructure but their feet when they get there as everything in Civic is close and besides, aren’t there supposed to be more bus services connecting the suburbs with the tram line, thus doing away with the need fort transport to and from the rail network?. Currently there is a park n ride system for car owners that does the very same thing, because they can’t afford to park in town all day. Keep the Civic center car and bicycle free so that pedestrians will be safer?

Masquara said :

Ben_Dover said :

The map shows the new suburb of Molonglo may be considered for connection, as well as the nearby suburb of Weston.

Brilliant plan!! Build a new suburb, then tear it up to put in a huge white elephant rail system. Only the lunatic left could come up with something so daft.

References to taking the light rail further south are very much evidence that Andrew Barr has noticed that Canberrans outside the narrow corridor of likely users are not happy with the plan to have them subsidise this tiny inner-north folly. Rather than look at the nub of the problem, though, he is insulting our intelligence by assuming we can’t add up a tripling of the cost of light rail if he extends it further south. Are you raising Canberra’s ratepayers to three “Audis per Canberran” worth of expenditure, Andrew?

But the wi-fi is going to be free, isn’t it?

miz said :

I live a long way from any of the proposed light rail routes as I live in Tuggers and work in Barton. Unfortunately the survey made it sound as if we should all be delighted and grateful to be able to travel significantly out of my way to link to the light rail, even though that option would be far inferior to my present, almost direct ACTION Xpresso bus to work. The whole light rail design is an import from elsewhere and just won’t work in Canberra, but they are too blind to see that.

I think you’ve just explained Andrew Barr’s sudden focus on out-of-area people regarding this light rail! I expect he is regretting the inclusion of the bus question.

Ben_Dover said :

The map shows the new suburb of Molonglo may be considered for connection, as well as the nearby suburb of Weston.

Brilliant plan!! Build a new suburb, then tear it up to put in a huge white elephant rail system. Only the lunatic left could come up with something so daft.

Some simple math.

1) With the cost at m$870 + infrastructure provision costs, the Gunners-Civic stage 1 will cost min. b$1. Estimates I’ve seen are that the cost to the ACT Gov’t will be between m$75 – m$100pa to be paid to the private partner.

2) Divide b$1 by the no. of k’s the route will be Gunners-Civic. (I think its 14 ks ?).

3) Work out the no. ks for the rest of the “network” + cost of bridge(s) across lake (or covevert one lane of bridge to light rail track).

4) So if the Gunners-Civic stage 1 will cost M75-m$100pa for 20+ years, what will the rest of the “network” cost pa ?

5) Scenario : ACT Govt goes insolvent – despite AAA credit rating.

Surely, the network map unveiled by the ACT Gov’t is just a fantasy designed to get them across the line at the 2016 ACt election ?

Ben_Dover said :

The map shows the new suburb of Molonglo may be considered for connection, as well as the nearby suburb of Weston.

Brilliant plan!! Build a new suburb, then tear it up to put in a huge white elephant rail system. Only the lunatic left could come up with something so daft.

References to taking the light rail further south are very much evidence that Andrew Barr has noticed that Canberrans outside the narrow corridor of likely users are not happy with the plan to have them subsidise this tiny inner-north folly. Rather than look at the nub of the problem, though, he is insulting our intelligence by assuming we can’t add up a tripling of the cost of light rail if he extends it further south. Are you raising Canberra’s ratepayers to three “Audis per Canberran” worth of expenditure, Andrew?

The map shows the new suburb of Molonglo may be considered for connection, as well as the nearby suburb of Weston.

Brilliant plan!! Build a new suburb, then tear it up to put in a huge white elephant rail system. Only the lunatic left could come up with something so daft.

More fantasy:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/map-reveals-light-rail-could-214050557.html

miz said :

Another sensible article in CT today by Paul Malone – for some reason not evident in online edition, I had to google for it once I knew it should be there . . .

Frankly, if Paul Malone thinks it is doomed, it is.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/caberras-light-rail-will-be-a-costly-failure-that-sets-back-public-transport-20141227-12dc52.html

Paul Malone is one of the “old school” journalists who has the skills to cut through all the spin and outline the problem in a couple of sentences. When a lefty like Malone sounds a warning like he has Labor should sit up and take advice.
I don’t necessarily agree with his take on buses though as the service is pretty good. The perceived congestion in Northbourne Avenue is really a non-problem anyhow.

Another sensible article in CT today by Paul Malone – for some reason not evident in online edition, I had to google for it once I knew it should be there . . .

Frankly, if Paul Malone thinks it is doomed, it is.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/caberras-light-rail-will-be-a-costly-failure-that-sets-back-public-transport-20141227-12dc52.html

An insight into how one of the global companies bidding for the Canberra light rail does business:
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-fines-alstom-record-772-074030341.html

I expect the ACT Government will look the other way.

You’d think that fed Labor’s track record on major tenders in recent years would have the ACT Labor Govt crossing all the t’s and dot the i’s re due process, and ensuring transparency and best practice.

dungfungus said :

This important article published in the SMH but not the Canberra Times.
Fairfax Media treats us with contempt again.
There are at least two points of interest namely where are the sections of the proposed track that are likely to be “wire free” and why are the shortlisted consortiums to be the only ones to receive the results of the ACT government’s investigations into contamination, topography, geotechnical issues, heritage and archaeology and underground pipes and wires especially as ACT ratepayers are going to share the cost of moving the utilities.
Also, there is a huge qualification over the whole project being “affordability”, the threshold of which is still to be determined.

Link for article published 18th December 2104: http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/hands-are-up-to-show-expressions-of-interest-to-bid-for-canberras-tram-line-20141218-129l9q.html

This important article published in the SMH but not the Canberra Times.
Fairfax Media treats us with contempt again.
There are at least two points of interest namely where are the sections of the proposed track that are likely to be “wire free” and why are the shortlisted consortiums to be the only ones to receive the results of the ACT government’s investigations into contamination, topography, geotechnical issues, heritage and archaeology and underground pipes and wires especially as ACT ratepayers are going to share the cost of moving the utilities.
Also, there is a huge qualification over the whole project being “affordability”, the threshold of which is still to be determined.

I live a long way from any of the proposed light rail routes as I live in Tuggers and work in Barton. Unfortunately the survey made it sound as if we should all be delighted and grateful to be able to travel significantly out of my way to link to the light rail, even though that option would be far inferior to my present, almost direct ACTION Xpresso bus to work. The whole light rail design is an import from elsewhere and just won’t work in Canberra, but they are too blind to see that.

miz said :

Hey Rioters, I just received an ACT Govt telephone survey on light rail on my landline tonight (10 December 2014). I was glad of the chance to participate in this one, as I didn’t get the last one, though I did hear that it was full of annoying motherhood-type questions that skewed the answers (

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/government-survey-finds-55-support-light-rail-in-canberra-20140801-zzbsp.html )

This one also had some annoying, leading questions that required dissecting before answering – primarily because they were about whether we needed ‘improved public transport.’ (Of course we could do with better public transport, but only the brainwashed see the light rail proposal as any kind of panacea.) There was also an annoying question on whether you would be more likely to use light rail services if the line was nearby or you could access it some other way (presumably by forcing you to travel completely out of your way to connect to the light rail, which would be far less satisfactory than the present bus network). No clarifying comments could be accepted, so those questions are obviously self-serving and ripe for manipulation.

Fortunately there was one question asking whether it would be better to spend money on the existing bus network. Thank the gods for that question or I would have gone insane!
Luckily the person asking the questions was very understanding – it appears that she had already surveyed a number of frustrated Canberrans just like me!

Do you live in the route area or a long way from it?

Hey Rioters, I just received an ACT Govt telephone survey on light rail on my landline tonight (10 December 2014). I was glad of the chance to participate in this one, as I didn’t get the last one, though I did hear that it was full of annoying motherhood-type questions that skewed the answers ( http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/government-survey-finds-55-support-light-rail-in-canberra-20140801-zzbsp.html )

This one also had some annoying, leading questions that required dissecting before answering – primarily because they were about whether we needed ‘improved public transport.’ (Of course we could do with better public transport, but only the brainwashed see the light rail proposal as any kind of panacea.) There was also an annoying question on whether you would be more likely to use light rail services if the line was nearby or you could access it some other way (presumably by forcing you to travel completely out of your way to connect to the light rail, which would be far less satisfactory than the present bus network). No clarifying comments could be accepted, so those questions are obviously self-serving and ripe for manipulation.

Fortunately there was one question asking whether it would be better to spend money on the existing bus network. Thank the gods for that question or I would have gone insane!
Luckily the person asking the questions was very understanding – it appears that she had already surveyed a number of frustrated Canberrans just like me!

I love stats: Simon Corbell and Capital Metro are in dreamland!

Figures from ABS 2011 census shows that 3.5% of people catch the bus in the Gungahlin / North Canb.area, which was 3,550 people. If the population of both of these areas increases to 127,000 people in 2021, then about 4,445 people will be catching the new rail line.

Hang on a minute, Capital Metro says that 15,120 people will be catching it daily. That’s 12% of the population!! The figures are so fudged it’s unbelievable. Throwing darts would be more accurate.

dungfungus said :

Generally speaking, enthusiasts are dangerous people.

dungfungus said :

The author of the article in the Guardian link, Steven Herrick, is a cycling fanatic (has ridden 12,000 km all over the world in the past 3 years). He writes regularly about his crusade about motorists and “cycle rage” and beacause he is a fanatic I don’t give him any credibility.

Interesting. Where do you draw the line between experience and fanaticism? Do you prefer novices to give you instruction, and disinterested trainees to fly you and provide you with diagnosis? Do you apply this abjuration of passion and experience across the board?

In regards to your linked article the author Theo Merz has an immature inability to recognise that other riders might be riding greater distances at their faster pace than his own commute across 200 acres. The cycling community of London live and work where he does and share his timetable, apparently. As for his ‘third of people’ disapprove of lycra, that is a two-thirds majority who think he’s wrong. It’s an opinion that doesn’t exactly command credibility either.

I always understood that being a fanatic meant that one had lost sight of the original goal. In this case the original goal is hard to find because the waters have been muddied by opinions from enthusiasts.
Enthusiasts are dangerous when they are seeking support (especially financial) for their projects. They completely disregard the downside risks or invent scenarios to deflect the obvious deficiencies knowing they have no personal accountability.
The push by a couple of enthusiasts in the government to establish a tram track in Canberra (whatever it takes) is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

There is also the train/bus to Sydney, but mainly I was meaning ACTION (and Deans). I’m still waiting for an answer from Masquara.
I don’t know why you would be worried about people who dress in lycra to cycle. I cycle and I have never had any danger from other people who can competently cycle. Children and some people who rarely cycle (tourists on hired bikes wobbling all over the place are an example) can be a hazard, as can people with uncontrolled dogs on extender leads, as well as people walking who don’t keep left and DON’T look behind them before changing direction.

I don’t dress in lycra by the way, and I can no longer cycle very fast. In fact I am considering an electric bike because of this; but more for the increased distance and the hill problem, than to increase my speed. Despite the fact I only amble along on my bike, faster cyclists have never been a problem to me (except for jealousy), because I do keep left, whether walking or cycling, and I do look behind me before changing direction. In other words, I am aware of other users. Problems generally occur when people don’t look behind them before changing direction, don’t keep left, wear earphones so they don’t hear a person on a bike coming even if the bell is being rung several times, and generally aren’t willing to share.

Don’t worry if cycling appears too “physically demanding” for you. You should consider giving it a go, and if like me you have slowed down, consider an electric bike.

You have made some good points. Generally speaking, enthusiasts are dangerous people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10900074/Commuter-cyclists-do-you-really-need-to-wear-Lycra.html
PS That is a link to the the UK Telegraph, not the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

The other side of the coin:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/04/the-curious-effect-of-lycra-clad-cyclists-on-otherwise-rational-people
PS I don’t read the Guardian regularly. We won’t make assumptions about each other based on linked articles.

Notes about lycra:

1) Most cyclists don’t see lycra as fashionable. That is why most don’t wear it in cars, on planes, to funerals, or to the evening pub session.

2) Following from 1, cyclists put pragmatism before vanity. Cycle gear is about comfort and temperature regulation. This is why people who push themselves hard on bicycles don’t wear jeans, in the same way joggers don’t wear jeans. People who walk, or are cycling across a 200 acre park like Battersea, can wear jeans.

2a)Cyclists also put passive aggression ahead of vanity. Lycra presents an opportunity to give judgemental people the bird – we don’t revel in lycra, but haters hate it so much we will grudgingly wear it in spite of ourselves so they have to claw their own eyes out.

3) Wearing cycle knicks have nothing to do with wanting to be a part of the Tour De France. Tour De France comments are cliched and serve only to highlight the creative paucity of the commentator. Avoid that trap.

Having said all that, there are options out there for cyclists to disguise their knicks. GroundEffect does a good range of casual cycle gear with both shorts and pants that facilitate riding but you can still walk through the shops without flicking on the self-loathing arousal switch of a lycra hater.

As for e-bikes, they are growing in popularity in China and Europe. Any significant discussion of cycle infrastructure in Canberra should be considering the rise of the new class of lycra-less e-bike users.

The author of the article in the Guardian link, Steven Herrick, is a cycling fanatic (has ridden 12,000 km all over the world in the past 3 years). He writes regularly about his crusade about motorists and “cycle rage” and beacause he is a fanatic I don’t give him any credibility.
These “e-bikes” are very expensive and still require a lot of pedalling. They still have to be ridden on shared paths and that is where the problems are.

You realise of course, although they are shared paths, many wouldn’t have been built but for people cycling. They are shared, but they were put in to cater for cycling. Now you want it all to yourself.

So, based on that logic, pedestrian crossings which were once the exclusive domain of pedestrians, will now be called “shared crossing zones”?
No, I don’t want shared paths all to myself but I would like to see cyclists slow down to a leisurely pace. What’s the rush all about? If they need to go flat out they should be on the roads mixing it with motor vehicles.
Speed limiters on bicycles would be a good idea.

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

There is also the train/bus to Sydney, but mainly I was meaning ACTION (and Deans). I’m still waiting for an answer from Masquara.
I don’t know why you would be worried about people who dress in lycra to cycle. I cycle and I have never had any danger from other people who can competently cycle. Children and some people who rarely cycle (tourists on hired bikes wobbling all over the place are an example) can be a hazard, as can people with uncontrolled dogs on extender leads, as well as people walking who don’t keep left and DON’T look behind them before changing direction.

I don’t dress in lycra by the way, and I can no longer cycle very fast. In fact I am considering an electric bike because of this; but more for the increased distance and the hill problem, than to increase my speed. Despite the fact I only amble along on my bike, faster cyclists have never been a problem to me (except for jealousy), because I do keep left, whether walking or cycling, and I do look behind me before changing direction. In other words, I am aware of other users. Problems generally occur when people don’t look behind them before changing direction, don’t keep left, wear earphones so they don’t hear a person on a bike coming even if the bell is being rung several times, and generally aren’t willing to share.

Don’t worry if cycling appears too “physically demanding” for you. You should consider giving it a go, and if like me you have slowed down, consider an electric bike.

You have made some good points. Generally speaking, enthusiasts are dangerous people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10900074/Commuter-cyclists-do-you-really-need-to-wear-Lycra.html
PS That is a link to the the UK Telegraph, not the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

The other side of the coin:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/04/the-curious-effect-of-lycra-clad-cyclists-on-otherwise-rational-people
PS I don’t read the Guardian regularly. We won’t make assumptions about each other based on linked articles.

Notes about lycra:

1) Most cyclists don’t see lycra as fashionable. That is why most don’t wear it in cars, on planes, to funerals, or to the evening pub session.

2) Following from 1, cyclists put pragmatism before vanity. Cycle gear is about comfort and temperature regulation. This is why people who push themselves hard on bicycles don’t wear jeans, in the same way joggers don’t wear jeans. People who walk, or are cycling across a 200 acre park like Battersea, can wear jeans.

2a)Cyclists also put passive aggression ahead of vanity. Lycra presents an opportunity to give judgemental people the bird – we don’t revel in lycra, but haters hate it so much we will grudgingly wear it in spite of ourselves so they have to claw their own eyes out.

3) Wearing cycle knicks have nothing to do with wanting to be a part of the Tour De France. Tour De France comments are cliched and serve only to highlight the creative paucity of the commentator. Avoid that trap.

Having said all that, there are options out there for cyclists to disguise their knicks. GroundEffect does a good range of casual cycle gear with both shorts and pants that facilitate riding but you can still walk through the shops without flicking on the self-loathing arousal switch of a lycra hater.

As for e-bikes, they are growing in popularity in China and Europe. Any significant discussion of cycle infrastructure in Canberra should be considering the rise of the new class of lycra-less e-bike users.

The author of the article in the Guardian link, Steven Herrick, is a cycling fanatic (has ridden 12,000 km all over the world in the past 3 years). He writes regularly about his crusade about motorists and “cycle rage” and beacause he is a fanatic I don’t give him any credibility.
These “e-bikes” are very expensive and still require a lot of pedalling. They still have to be ridden on shared paths and that is where the problems are.

You realise of course, although they are shared paths, many wouldn’t have been built but for people cycling. They are shared, but they were put in to cater for cycling. Now you want it all to yourself.

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

There is also the train/bus to Sydney, but mainly I was meaning ACTION (and Deans). I’m still waiting for an answer from Masquara.
I don’t know why you would be worried about people who dress in lycra to cycle. I cycle and I have never had any danger from other people who can competently cycle. Children and some people who rarely cycle (tourists on hired bikes wobbling all over the place are an example) can be a hazard, as can people with uncontrolled dogs on extender leads, as well as people walking who don’t keep left and DON’T look behind them before changing direction.

I don’t dress in lycra by the way, and I can no longer cycle very fast. In fact I am considering an electric bike because of this; but more for the increased distance and the hill problem, than to increase my speed. Despite the fact I only amble along on my bike, faster cyclists have never been a problem to me (except for jealousy), because I do keep left, whether walking or cycling, and I do look behind me before changing direction. In other words, I am aware of other users. Problems generally occur when people don’t look behind them before changing direction, don’t keep left, wear earphones so they don’t hear a person on a bike coming even if the bell is being rung several times, and generally aren’t willing to share.

Don’t worry if cycling appears too “physically demanding” for you. You should consider giving it a go, and if like me you have slowed down, consider an electric bike.

You have made some good points. Generally speaking, enthusiasts are dangerous people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10900074/Commuter-cyclists-do-you-really-need-to-wear-Lycra.html
PS That is a link to the the UK Telegraph, not the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

The other side of the coin:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/04/the-curious-effect-of-lycra-clad-cyclists-on-otherwise-rational-people
PS I don’t read the Guardian regularly. We won’t make assumptions about each other based on linked articles.

Notes about lycra:

1) Most cyclists don’t see lycra as fashionable. That is why most don’t wear it in cars, on planes, to funerals, or to the evening pub session.

2) Following from 1, cyclists put pragmatism before vanity. Cycle gear is about comfort and temperature regulation. This is why people who push themselves hard on bicycles don’t wear jeans, in the same way joggers don’t wear jeans. People who walk, or are cycling across a 200 acre park like Battersea, can wear jeans.

2a)Cyclists also put passive aggression ahead of vanity. Lycra presents an opportunity to give judgemental people the bird – we don’t revel in lycra, but haters hate it so much we will grudgingly wear it in spite of ourselves so they have to claw their own eyes out.

3) Wearing cycle knicks have nothing to do with wanting to be a part of the Tour De France. Tour De France comments are cliched and serve only to highlight the creative paucity of the commentator. Avoid that trap.

Having said all that, there are options out there for cyclists to disguise their knicks. GroundEffect does a good range of casual cycle gear with both shorts and pants that facilitate riding but you can still walk through the shops without flicking on the self-loathing arousal switch of a lycra hater.

As for e-bikes, they are growing in popularity in China and Europe. Any significant discussion of cycle infrastructure in Canberra should be considering the rise of the new class of lycra-less e-bike users.

The author of the article in the Guardian link, Steven Herrick, is a cycling fanatic (has ridden 12,000 km all over the world in the past 3 years). He writes regularly about his crusade about motorists and “cycle rage” and beacause he is a fanatic I don’t give him any credibility.
These “e-bikes” are very expensive and still require a lot of pedalling. They still have to be ridden on shared paths and that is where the problems are.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

There is also the train/bus to Sydney, but mainly I was meaning ACTION (and Deans). I’m still waiting for an answer from Masquara.
I don’t know why you would be worried about people who dress in lycra to cycle. I cycle and I have never had any danger from other people who can competently cycle. Children and some people who rarely cycle (tourists on hired bikes wobbling all over the place are an example) can be a hazard, as can people with uncontrolled dogs on extender leads, as well as people walking who don’t keep left and DON’T look behind them before changing direction.

I don’t dress in lycra by the way, and I can no longer cycle very fast. In fact I am considering an electric bike because of this; but more for the increased distance and the hill problem, than to increase my speed. Despite the fact I only amble along on my bike, faster cyclists have never been a problem to me (except for jealousy), because I do keep left, whether walking or cycling, and I do look behind me before changing direction. In other words, I am aware of other users. Problems generally occur when people don’t look behind them before changing direction, don’t keep left, wear earphones so they don’t hear a person on a bike coming even if the bell is being rung several times, and generally aren’t willing to share.

Don’t worry if cycling appears too “physically demanding” for you. You should consider giving it a go, and if like me you have slowed down, consider an electric bike.

You have made some good points. Generally speaking, enthusiasts are dangerous people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10900074/Commuter-cyclists-do-you-really-need-to-wear-Lycra.html
PS That is a link to the the UK Telegraph, not the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

The other side of the coin:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/04/the-curious-effect-of-lycra-clad-cyclists-on-otherwise-rational-people
PS I don’t read the Guardian regularly. We won’t make assumptions about each other based on linked articles.

Notes about lycra:

1) Most cyclists don’t see lycra as fashionable. That is why most don’t wear it in cars, on planes, to funerals, or to the evening pub session.

2) Following from 1, cyclists put pragmatism before vanity. Cycle gear is about comfort and temperature regulation. This is why people who push themselves hard on bicycles don’t wear jeans, in the same way joggers don’t wear jeans. People who walk, or are cycling across a 200 acre park like Battersea, can wear jeans.

2a)Cyclists also put passive aggression ahead of vanity. Lycra presents an opportunity to give judgemental people the bird – we don’t revel in lycra, but haters hate it so much we will grudgingly wear it in spite of ourselves so they have to claw their own eyes out.

3) Wearing cycle knicks have nothing to do with wanting to be a part of the Tour De France. Tour De France comments are cliched and serve only to highlight the creative paucity of the commentator. Avoid that trap.

Having said all that, there are options out there for cyclists to disguise their knicks. GroundEffect does a good range of casual cycle gear with both shorts and pants that facilitate riding but you can still walk through the shops without flicking on the self-loathing arousal switch of a lycra hater.

As for e-bikes, they are growing in popularity in China and Europe. Any significant discussion of cycle infrastructure in Canberra should be considering the rise of the new class of lycra-less e-bike users.

housebound said :

Bikes on trams … maybe an admission from Corbell that he won’t get the passenger numbers he’s been spruiking. Otherwise, how will all those projected passengers fit on all those trams with all those bikes?

My, those private business partners will be glad the ink dried on the deal before Katie and Simon twigged to the numbers/cyclists/space/charging cyclists PR vortex!

Bikes on trams … maybe an admission from Corbell that he won’t get the passenger numbers he’s been spruiking. Otherwise, how will all those projected passengers fit on all those trams with all those bikes?

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

HiddenDragon said :

It has gone a bit quiet on the tram front, but it would be a courageous politician who took (relative) silence for consent. With the Wayne Goss memorial service held earlier today, it is timely to remember his wonderfully pithy comment about people waiting with their baseball bats….

Just wait till some responsible public servant with the ACT ratepayers’ welfare in mind leaks just how much normal people will have to pay to subsidise those paragons of entitlement, the cycling fraternity (and yes, fraternity not sorority is used advisedly!). Katie Gallagher will have to weigh up whether to charge Gungahlin light rail users directly, through increased ticket prices, for the subsidising of this mythical 40 per cent to use up expensive square metreage, or further infuriate Tuggeranong dwellers by charging them via their land rates for public transport that will not benefit them by a razoo. Or, imagine how well a “sustainability levy” to enable cyclists to cart their beasts for free will go down. I guess Katie will be figuring out how to make sure Shane Rattenbury gets the blame. Attaching the terms “Green” or “Sustainable” might work: the ‘Greens’ Light Tram Cyclist Enabler Tax’ would have just the right ring to it, non?

Just for interest, Masquara, how often do you use public transport? I’m trying to get an idea where this rant comes from. Or is it that you don’t like people using bicycles, and any excuse to rant against people cycling will do? People who cycle are normal people, and saying they aren’t makes me think you have a very distorted dislike of ordinary people, who want to get to work, live in houses, go to work, have families, just like…well an ordinary member of society. Or is it that anyone who doesn’t live as you do, is not normal? And is thinking that way normal? Lots of use of ‘normal’ here, but you used it first.
I do not live in Gungahlin and am not likely to have much use of a light rail to Gungahlin, but I can accept that this rail line needs to start from somewhere. It can’t easily start from every corner of Canberra at once, so that everyone will get immediate benefit from near their front door.

I’m against this light rail developer-driven fiasco, and I’m against cyclists being excused the “user pays” scenario applied by this government in all other contexts. I don’t like cyclists, who cycle across pedestrian crossings with more and more impunity. They are disrespectful, and yet they expect special concessions just for being cyclists. Just pay up for whatever space you use on public transport. Or cycle the 12 kilometres. Cyclists have built up zero cred on considerate behaviour, with the Canberra travelling public. They deserve equivalent consideration.

Okay, so this establishes that you don’t like ordinary, normal people who cycle, but you didn’t answer all my questions, so I’ll repeat it.
“Just for interest, Masquara, how often do you use public transport?”

You mean ACTION of course (it is the only form of public transport in the Territory).
I am sure I read somewhere that only 8% of our population use ACTION regularly. I rarely use it because it is not convenient – a light rail would be no improvement. I use my car or a taxi. I would like to ride a bike but that would be to physically demanding for me and I believe that other bike riders (the lycra clad speedsters) would be a safety threat to me anyhow (as they are to pedestrians).
BTW, I agree entirely with masquara’s previous post.

There is also the train/bus to Sydney, but mainly I was meaning ACTION (and Deans). I’m still waiting for an answer from Masquara.
I don’t know why you would be worried about people who dress in lycra to cycle. I cycle and I have never had any danger from other people who can competently cycle. Children and some people who rarely cycle (tourists on hired bikes wobbling all over the place are an example) can be a hazard, as can people with uncontrolled dogs on extender leads, as well as people walking who don’t keep left and DON’T look behind them before changing direction.

I don’t dress in lycra by the way, and I can no longer cycle very fast. In fact I am considering an electric bike because of this; but more for the increased distance and the hill problem, than to increase my speed. Despite the fact I only amble along on my bike, faster cyclists have never been a problem to me (except for jealousy), because I do keep left, whether walking or cycling, and I do look behind me before changing direction. In other words, I am aware of other users. Problems generally occur when people don’t look behind them before changing direction, don’t keep left, wear earphones so they don’t hear a person on a bike coming even if the bell is being rung several times, and generally aren’t willing to share.

Don’t worry if cycling appears too “physically demanding” for you. You should consider giving it a go, and if like me you have slowed down, consider an electric bike.

You have made some good points. Generally speaking, enthusiasts are dangerous people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10900074/Commuter-cyclists-do-you-really-need-to-wear-Lycra.html
PS That is a link to the the UK Telegraph, not the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

Another one of those Fairfax Media Canberra light rail articles appearing in the SMH but not the Canberra Times. http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/join-the-party–canberra-city-bar-owners-welcome-labors-light-rail-20141121-11r3ss.html
There is an assumption that the route chosen for the first leg of the light rail network is Gungahlin because that is where all the drunks live.
I can imagine the 1.00am “last tram from Civic” – the police will probably end up driving it.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

HiddenDragon said :

It has gone a bit quiet on the tram front, but it would be a courageous politician who took (relative) silence for consent. With the Wayne Goss memorial service held earlier today, it is timely to remember his wonderfully pithy comment about people waiting with their baseball bats….

Just wait till some responsible public servant with the ACT ratepayers’ welfare in mind leaks just how much normal people will have to pay to subsidise those paragons of entitlement, the cycling fraternity (and yes, fraternity not sorority is used advisedly!). Katie Gallagher will have to weigh up whether to charge Gungahlin light rail users directly, through increased ticket prices, for the subsidising of this mythical 40 per cent to use up expensive square metreage, or further infuriate Tuggeranong dwellers by charging them via their land rates for public transport that will not benefit them by a razoo. Or, imagine how well a “sustainability levy” to enable cyclists to cart their beasts for free will go down. I guess Katie will be figuring out how to make sure Shane Rattenbury gets the blame. Attaching the terms “Green” or “Sustainable” might work: the ‘Greens’ Light Tram Cyclist Enabler Tax’ would have just the right ring to it, non?

Just for interest, Masquara, how often do you use public transport? I’m trying to get an idea where this rant comes from. Or is it that you don’t like people using bicycles, and any excuse to rant against people cycling will do? People who cycle are normal people, and saying they aren’t makes me think you have a very distorted dislike of ordinary people, who want to get to work, live in houses, go to work, have families, just like…well an ordinary member of society. Or is it that anyone who doesn’t live as you do, is not normal? And is thinking that way normal? Lots of use of ‘normal’ here, but you used it first.
I do not live in Gungahlin and am not likely to have much use of a light rail to Gungahlin, but I can accept that this rail line needs to start from somewhere. It can’t easily start from every corner of Canberra at once, so that everyone will get immediate benefit from near their front door.

I’m against this light rail developer-driven fiasco, and I’m against cyclists being excused the “user pays” scenario applied by this government in all other contexts. I don’t like cyclists, who cycle across pedestrian crossings with more and more impunity. They are disrespectful, and yet they expect special concessions just for being cyclists. Just pay up for whatever space you use on public transport. Or cycle the 12 kilometres. Cyclists have built up zero cred on considerate behaviour, with the Canberra travelling public. They deserve equivalent consideration.

Okay, so this establishes that you don’t like ordinary, normal people who cycle, but you didn’t answer all my questions, so I’ll repeat it.
“Just for interest, Masquara, how often do you use public transport?”

You mean ACTION of course (it is the only form of public transport in the Territory).
I am sure I read somewhere that only 8% of our population use ACTION regularly. I rarely use it because it is not convenient – a light rail would be no improvement. I use my car or a taxi. I would like to ride a bike but that would be to physically demanding for me and I believe that other bike riders (the lycra clad speedsters) would be a safety threat to me anyhow (as they are to pedestrians).
BTW, I agree entirely with masquara’s previous post.

There is also the train/bus to Sydney, but mainly I was meaning ACTION (and Deans). I’m still waiting for an answer from Masquara.
I don’t know why you would be worried about people who dress in lycra to cycle. I cycle and I have never had any danger from other people who can competently cycle. Children and some people who rarely cycle (tourists on hired bikes wobbling all over the place are an example) can be a hazard, as can people with uncontrolled dogs on extender leads, as well as people walking who don’t keep left and DON’T look behind them before changing direction.

I don’t dress in lycra by the way, and I can no longer cycle very fast. In fact I am considering an electric bike because of this; but more for the increased distance and the hill problem, than to increase my speed. Despite the fact I only amble along on my bike, faster cyclists have never been a problem to me (except for jealousy), because I do keep left, whether walking or cycling, and I do look behind me before changing direction. In other words, I am aware of other users. Problems generally occur when people don’t look behind them before changing direction, don’t keep left, wear earphones so they don’t hear a person on a bike coming even if the bell is being rung several times, and generally aren’t willing to share.

Don’t worry if cycling appears too “physically demanding” for you. You should consider giving it a go, and if like me you have slowed down, consider an electric bike.

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

HiddenDragon said :

It has gone a bit quiet on the tram front, but it would be a courageous politician who took (relative) silence for consent. With the Wayne Goss memorial service held earlier today, it is timely to remember his wonderfully pithy comment about people waiting with their baseball bats….

Just wait till some responsible public servant with the ACT ratepayers’ welfare in mind leaks just how much normal people will have to pay to subsidise those paragons of entitlement, the cycling fraternity (and yes, fraternity not sorority is used advisedly!). Katie Gallagher will have to weigh up whether to charge Gungahlin light rail users directly, through increased ticket prices, for the subsidising of this mythical 40 per cent to use up expensive square metreage, or further infuriate Tuggeranong dwellers by charging them via their land rates for public transport that will not benefit them by a razoo. Or, imagine how well a “sustainability levy” to enable cyclists to cart their beasts for free will go down. I guess Katie will be figuring out how to make sure Shane Rattenbury gets the blame. Attaching the terms “Green” or “Sustainable” might work: the ‘Greens’ Light Tram Cyclist Enabler Tax’ would have just the right ring to it, non?

Just for interest, Masquara, how often do you use public transport? I’m trying to get an idea where this rant comes from. Or is it that you don’t like people using bicycles, and any excuse to rant against people cycling will do? People who cycle are normal people, and saying they aren’t makes me think you have a very distorted dislike of ordinary people, who want to get to work, live in houses, go to work, have families, just like…well an ordinary member of society. Or is it that anyone who doesn’t live as you do, is not normal? And is thinking that way normal? Lots of use of ‘normal’ here, but you used it first.
I do not live in Gungahlin and am not likely to have much use of a light rail to Gungahlin, but I can accept that this rail line needs to start from somewhere. It can’t easily start from every corner of Canberra at once, so that everyone will get immediate benefit from near their front door.

I’m against this light rail developer-driven fiasco, and I’m against cyclists being excused the “user pays” scenario applied by this government in all other contexts. I don’t like cyclists, who cycle across pedestrian crossings with more and more impunity. They are disrespectful, and yet they expect special concessions just for being cyclists. Just pay up for whatever space you use on public transport. Or cycle the 12 kilometres. Cyclists have built up zero cred on considerate behaviour, with the Canberra travelling public. They deserve equivalent consideration.

Okay, so this establishes that you don’t like ordinary, normal people who cycle, but you didn’t answer all my questions, so I’ll repeat it.
“Just for interest, Masquara, how often do you use public transport?”

You mean ACTION of course (it is the only form of public transport in the Territory).
I am sure I read somewhere that only 8% of our population use ACTION regularly. I rarely use it because it is not convenient – a light rail would be no improvement. I use my car or a taxi. I would like to ride a bike but that would be to physically demanding for me and I believe that other bike riders (the lycra clad speedsters) would be a safety threat to me anyhow (as they are to pedestrians).
BTW, I agree entirely with masquara’s previous post.

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

HiddenDragon said :

It has gone a bit quiet on the tram front, but it would be a courageous politician who took (relative) silence for consent. With the Wayne Goss memorial service held earlier today, it is timely to remember his wonderfully pithy comment about people waiting with their baseball bats….

Just wait till some responsible public servant with the ACT ratepayers’ welfare in mind leaks just how much normal people will have to pay to subsidise those paragons of entitlement, the cycling fraternity (and yes, fraternity not sorority is used advisedly!). Katie Gallagher will have to weigh up whether to charge Gungahlin light rail users directly, through increased ticket prices, for the subsidising of this mythical 40 per cent to use up expensive square metreage, or further infuriate Tuggeranong dwellers by charging them via their land rates for public transport that will not benefit them by a razoo. Or, imagine how well a “sustainability levy” to enable cyclists to cart their beasts for free will go down. I guess Katie will be figuring out how to make sure Shane Rattenbury gets the blame. Attaching the terms “Green” or “Sustainable” might work: the ‘Greens’ Light Tram Cyclist Enabler Tax’ would have just the right ring to it, non?

Just for interest, Masquara, how often do you use public transport? I’m trying to get an idea where this rant comes from. Or is it that you don’t like people using bicycles, and any excuse to rant against people cycling will do? People who cycle are normal people, and saying they aren’t makes me think you have a very distorted dislike of ordinary people, who want to get to work, live in houses, go to work, have families, just like…well an ordinary member of society. Or is it that anyone who doesn’t live as you do, is not normal? And is thinking that way normal? Lots of use of ‘normal’ here, but you used it first.
I do not live in Gungahlin and am not likely to have much use of a light rail to Gungahlin, but I can accept that this rail line needs to start from somewhere. It can’t easily start from every corner of Canberra at once, so that everyone will get immediate benefit from near their front door.

I’m against this light rail developer-driven fiasco, and I’m against cyclists being excused the “user pays” scenario applied by this government in all other contexts. I don’t like cyclists, who cycle across pedestrian crossings with more and more impunity. They are disrespectful, and yet they expect special concessions just for being cyclists. Just pay up for whatever space you use on public transport. Or cycle the 12 kilometres. Cyclists have built up zero cred on considerate behaviour, with the Canberra travelling public. They deserve equivalent consideration.

Okay, so this establishes that you don’t like ordinary, normal people who cycle, but you didn’t answer all my questions, so I’ll repeat it.
“Just for interest, Masquara, how often do you use public transport?”

Masquara said :

I’m against this light rail developer-driven fiasco, and I’m against cyclists being excused the “user pays” scenario applied by this government in all other contexts. I don’t like cyclists, who cycle across pedestrian crossings with more and more impunity. They are disrespectful, and yet they expect special concessions just for being cyclists. Just pay up for whatever space you use on public transport. Or cycle the 12 kilometres. Cyclists have built up zero cred on considerate behaviour, with the Canberra travelling public. They deserve equivalent consideration.

Good to see you remain the champion of the Canberra travelling public and gross generalisations.

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

HiddenDragon said :

It has gone a bit quiet on the tram front, but it would be a courageous politician who took (relative) silence for consent. With the Wayne Goss memorial service held earlier today, it is timely to remember his wonderfully pithy comment about people waiting with their baseball bats….

Just wait till some responsible public servant with the ACT ratepayers’ welfare in mind leaks just how much normal people will have to pay to subsidise those paragons of entitlement, the cycling fraternity (and yes, fraternity not sorority is used advisedly!). Katie Gallagher will have to weigh up whether to charge Gungahlin light rail users directly, through increased ticket prices, for the subsidising of this mythical 40 per cent to use up expensive square metreage, or further infuriate Tuggeranong dwellers by charging them via their land rates for public transport that will not benefit them by a razoo. Or, imagine how well a “sustainability levy” to enable cyclists to cart their beasts for free will go down. I guess Katie will be figuring out how to make sure Shane Rattenbury gets the blame. Attaching the terms “Green” or “Sustainable” might work: the ‘Greens’ Light Tram Cyclist Enabler Tax’ would have just the right ring to it, non?

Just for interest, Masquara, how often do you use public transport? I’m trying to get an idea where this rant comes from. Or is it that you don’t like people using bicycles, and any excuse to rant against people cycling will do? People who cycle are normal people, and saying they aren’t makes me think you have a very distorted dislike of ordinary people, who want to get to work, live in houses, go to work, have families, just like…well an ordinary member of society. Or is it that anyone who doesn’t live as you do, is not normal? And is thinking that way normal? Lots of use of ‘normal’ here, but you used it first.
I do not live in Gungahlin and am not likely to have much use of a light rail to Gungahlin, but I can accept that this rail line needs to start from somewhere. It can’t easily start from every corner of Canberra at once, so that everyone will get immediate benefit from near their front door.

I’m against this light rail developer-driven fiasco, and I’m against cyclists being excused the “user pays” scenario applied by this government in all other contexts. I don’t like cyclists, who cycle across pedestrian crossings with more and more impunity. They are disrespectful, and yet they expect special concessions just for being cyclists. Just pay up for whatever space you use on public transport. Or cycle the 12 kilometres. Cyclists have built up zero cred on considerate behaviour, with the Canberra travelling public. They deserve equivalent consideration.

Masquara said :

HiddenDragon said :

It has gone a bit quiet on the tram front, but it would be a courageous politician who took (relative) silence for consent. With the Wayne Goss memorial service held earlier today, it is timely to remember his wonderfully pithy comment about people waiting with their baseball bats….

Just wait till some responsible public servant with the ACT ratepayers’ welfare in mind leaks just how much normal people will have to pay to subsidise those paragons of entitlement, the cycling fraternity (and yes, fraternity not sorority is used advisedly!). Katie Gallagher will have to weigh up whether to charge Gungahlin light rail users directly, through increased ticket prices, for the subsidising of this mythical 40 per cent to use up expensive square metreage, or further infuriate Tuggeranong dwellers by charging them via their land rates for public transport that will not benefit them by a razoo. Or, imagine how well a “sustainability levy” to enable cyclists to cart their beasts for free will go down. I guess Katie will be figuring out how to make sure Shane Rattenbury gets the blame. Attaching the terms “Green” or “Sustainable” might work: the ‘Greens’ Light Tram Cyclist Enabler Tax’ would have just the right ring to it, non?

Just for interest, Masquara, how often do you use public transport? I’m trying to get an idea where this rant comes from. Or is it that you don’t like people using bicycles, and any excuse to rant against people cycling will do? People who cycle are normal people, and saying they aren’t makes me think you have a very distorted dislike of ordinary people, who want to get to work, live in houses, go to work, have families, just like…well an ordinary member of society. Or is it that anyone who doesn’t live as you do, is not normal? And is thinking that way normal? Lots of use of ‘normal’ here, but you used it first.
I do not live in Gungahlin and am not likely to have much use of a light rail to Gungahlin, but I can accept that this rail line needs to start from somewhere. It can’t easily start from every corner of Canberra at once, so that everyone will get immediate benefit from near their front door.

HiddenDragon said :

It has gone a bit quiet on the tram front, but it would be a courageous politician who took (relative) silence for consent. With the Wayne Goss memorial service held earlier today, it is timely to remember his wonderfully pithy comment about people waiting with their baseball bats….

Just wait till some responsible public servant with the ACT ratepayers’ welfare in mind leaks just how much normal people will have to pay to subsidise those paragons of entitlement, the cycling fraternity (and yes, fraternity not sorority is used advisedly!). Katie Gallagher will have to weigh up whether to charge Gungahlin light rail users directly, through increased ticket prices, for the subsidising of this mythical 40 per cent to use up expensive square metreage, or further infuriate Tuggeranong dwellers by charging them via their land rates for public transport that will not benefit them by a razoo. Or, imagine how well a “sustainability levy” to enable cyclists to cart their beasts for free will go down. I guess Katie will be figuring out how to make sure Shane Rattenbury gets the blame. Attaching the terms “Green” or “Sustainable” might work: the ‘Greens’ Light Tram Cyclist Enabler Tax’ would have just the right ring to it, non?

rommeldog56 said :

Some interesting questions, Masquara . As the Light Rail is obviously going ahead, the “design phase” (presumably of the carriages), announced last week by the ACT Govt, seems to me to be a bit out of sync ? Personally, I would have thought that catering for x number of bikes per tram should have been in the business case/tender doc’s as it will inevitably affect costs.

In any event, last week the ACT Govt also said that the results of a “survey” was that 40% of potential tram passengers wanted to take a bike onboard too. That seems like a lot to me. Makes you wonder who was surveyed – maybe Pedal Power ?

Will be interesting to see what the design of the carriages throws up.

Hopefully it will be a flexible layout because they will have to cater for passengers in wheelchairs too.

And women/men/others with prams, strollers and walkers. Thank goodness there will not be surfboards like on the Gold Coast.

rommeldog56 said :

Some interesting questions, Masquara . As the Light Rail is obviously going ahead, the “design phase” (presumably of the carriages), announced last week by the ACT Govt, seems to me to be a bit out of sync ? Personally, I would have thought that catering for x number of bikes per tram should have been in the business case/tender doc’s as it will inevitably affect costs.

In any event, last week the ACT Govt also said that the results of a “survey” was that 40% of potential tram passengers wanted to take a bike onboard too. That seems like a lot to me. Makes you wonder who was surveyed – maybe Pedal Power ?

Will be interesting to see what the design of the carriages throws up.

Hopefully it will be a flexible layout because they will have to cater for passengers in wheelchairs too.

“Personally, I would have thought that catering for x number of bikes per tram should have been in the business case”
I would hope so too, as people with bikes are another source of passengers and therefore income. Exclude them and exclude some income stream. At times I have a reason I want to use my bike in a far suburb to where I live. I am often happy to put my bike on the bus (tram) and then cycle when I get there. If I couldn’t that’s one passenger lost, as I would take the car. Multiply that by others with bikes. Yes, bikes on trams should have been in the business case, especially for off peak when trams won’t be full. For those worried about crowding, there are only so many bikes that will fit in an alcove. But perhaps there is a business case to be made for allowing more bikes on beside those in the limited space of the alcove, outside of peak hour when the tram/light rail carriage will have lots of room.

Some interesting questions, Masquara . As the Light Rail is obviously going ahead, the “design phase” (presumably of the carriages), announced last week by the ACT Govt, seems to me to be a bit out of sync ? Personally, I would have thought that catering for x number of bikes per tram should have been in the business case/tender doc’s as it will inevitably affect costs.

In any event, last week the ACT Govt also said that the results of a “survey” was that 40% of potential tram passengers wanted to take a bike onboard too. That seems like a lot to me. Makes you wonder who was surveyed – maybe Pedal Power ? Will be interesting to see what the design of the carriages throws up. Hopefully it will be a flexible layout because they will have to cater for passengers in wheelchairs too.

rosscoact said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

I recently (last month) rode the well patronised light rail in Seattle, USA. They allow bikes aboard and I never saw any problem with this. They are expanding their network by the way.
I have also shared train carriages with bikes in Europe without any problems.
It’s strange how the same situation doesn’t cause any problems and worry to some people, but a few others get so uptight about it. I think it isn’t so much bikes aboard public transport, but what people feel about bikes in general that colours opinions.

This is what will happen without bikes:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mumbai-express-is-a-standing-joke-number-of-seats-on-sydneys-north-west-rail-link-could-be-drastically-cut/story-fni0cx12-1227073324575?nk=506aaf00ed62e9b57bc65d52d1c6fa58

Ah, so you are a Daily Telegraph reader.

I’m pretty sure this isn’t a surprise 🙂

You people should take a long, hard look at yourselves.
I have repeatedly advised on this blog that I don’t “read the DailyTelegraph” – I look at at it if it is available (like at the hairdresser which is where I read the article I have linked to).
I do get the Canberra Times by subscription and tolerate the imbalance in reporting that Fairfax Media dishes up. I also watch/listen to the ABC 99% of the time. Accordingly, one has to read widely to get all the facts that are so often missing from the aforementioned media outlets.
You will recall that in the past two weeks I have commented on a couple of threads about a story (link was provided) in the SMH about the massive cost increases in the Sydney light rail project and how this wasn’t reported on in the Canberra Times even though they are both in the Fairfax Media stable.
I notice no comment was made by you about this.
I am not going to call you hypocrites but you really should take off your blinkers and try not to ridicule people like me that present (and back up) a view that you don’t necessarily want to hear.

Masquara said :

Has the government been transparent about the cost of transporting cyclists in the light rail carriages? Recent reports on the NSW government allocating standing-room-only for up to 70 per cent of rail commuters for reasons of cost, makes it important to know whether the ACT Government’s costings incorporated room for bicycles. A seated commuter plus their bicycle multiplied by whatever the real cyclist-commuter numbers throw up, could potentially add a helluva lot to the costings. Adding a bicycle to a standing commuter would at least triple the space needed. Cyclists will need to pay extra for their bicycles, unless the plan is already for mainstream commuters to subsidise the cyclists’ light rail transport …. something I’m sure commuters would object to.

It makes economic sense to recover cost of passenger space given up for a “free” bike trip but economic sense was the first casualty of this light rail proposal.
Wait for the cost blowouts and the spin that goes with that.

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

The latest is that the Canberra trams will allow bikes on board. This is a radical but not unexpected move given the clout that Pedal Power has over this minority government.

I’d hardly call it ‘radical’:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bicycle and light rail

http://www.munidiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/4332939495_d1403a6623.jpg

https://www.acm.jhu.edu//~sthurmovik/Railpics/08-08-01_SAN_JOSE_VTA/VTA_Light-Rail-bicycle-rack.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/26/36607757_45a0153fe6_z.jpg?zz=1

https://as.sjsu.edu/asts/images/bikelrt.jpg

http://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/riderservices/photo_bikeontrain_2.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~phyilla1/sstrails/ontransit.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4332722131_ed3d2e6da5.jpg

And so on.

If they are suggesting that standing (and sitting) passengers be used as bike racks, then yes, I understand your consternation, but they may adopt a different approach.

Whatever “approach” they adopt, the bikes have to be brought onto the tram and taken off. This is impossible if the tram is full (unlikely for the proposed Canberra tram, I know).
This will create mayhem with entering an exiting passengers.Given this and the fact that it happens no where else in Australia is why I referred to it as “radical”. I could have said “stupid” but that would be disrespectful.

Maya123 said :

There is a special alcove for the bikes.

Will the”before bikes included” and “bikes included” ticket pricing differential be made available for public perusal one wonders.

Has the government been transparent about the cost of transporting cyclists in the light rail carriages? Recent reports on the NSW government allocating standing-room-only for up to 70 per cent of rail commuters for reasons of cost, makes it important to know whether the ACT Government’s costings incorporated room for bicycles. A seated commuter plus their bicycle multiplied by whatever the real cyclist-commuter numbers throw up, could potentially add a helluva lot to the costings. Adding a bicycle to a standing commuter would at least triple the space needed. Cyclists will need to pay extra for their bicycles, unless the plan is already for mainstream commuters to subsidise the cyclists’ light rail transport …. something I’m sure commuters would object to.

rommeldog56 said :

Maya123 said :

I recently (last month) rode the well patronised light rail in Seattle, USA. They allow bikes aboard and I never saw any problem with this. They are expanding their network by the way.
I have also shared train carriages with bikes in Europe without any problems.
It’s strange how the same situation doesn’t cause any problems and worry to some people, but a few others get so uptight about it. I think it isn’t so much bikes aboard public transport, but what people feel about bikes in general that colours opinions.

How do the bikes enter/exit the tram ? Or are they in a bike cage in a dedicated carriage at the back ? If inside the tram next to the owner, how does that work in terms of available space and other tram passengers ? Will entry/exit of bikes mean longer stops and so, a longer journey ?

BTW – construction of the Seattle tram was/is heavily federally funded and additional revenues to offset the cost are raised by special taxes – as far as I recall. But yes, it is supposed to expand.

The only time I have travelled with bikes and their riders was on regional trains in France. The owner of the bike stays with the bike all the way in the standing area. The bike takes up standing room for two passengers and the pedals and handlebars stick into anyone close by. The bikes can create havoc with older passengers who haven’t got the balance and agility of younger people.
When the train stops the bikes create havoc by blocking passengers entering and leaving. This generally delays the train.
Given that regional trains have far fewer stops than trams one can imagine what will happen in bikes are allowed on Canberra trams – the tram will never get to its destination in good time.
Any wonder why bikes are not allowed on trams almost everywhere else in Australia?

dungfungus said :

The latest is that the Canberra trams will allow bikes on board. This is a radical but not unexpected move given the clout that Pedal Power has over this minority government.

I’d hardly call it ‘radical’:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bicycle and light rail

http://www.munidiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/4332939495_d1403a6623.jpg

https://www.acm.jhu.edu//~sthurmovik/Railpics/08-08-01_SAN_JOSE_VTA/VTA_Light-Rail-bicycle-rack.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/26/36607757_45a0153fe6_z.jpg?zz=1

https://as.sjsu.edu/asts/images/bikelrt.jpg

http://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/riderservices/photo_bikeontrain_2.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~phyilla1/sstrails/ontransit.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4332722131_ed3d2e6da5.jpg

And so on.

If they are suggesting that standing (and sitting) passengers be used as bike racks, then yes, I understand your consternation, but they may adopt a different approach.

rommeldog56 said :

Maya123 said :

I recently (last month) rode the well patronised light rail in Seattle, USA. They allow bikes aboard and I never saw any problem with this. They are expanding their network by the way.
I have also shared train carriages with bikes in Europe without any problems.
It’s strange how the same situation doesn’t cause any problems and worry to some people, but a few others get so uptight about it. I think it isn’t so much bikes aboard public transport, but what people feel about bikes in general that colours opinions.

How do the bikes enter/exit the tram ? Or are they in a bike cage in a dedicated carriage at the back ? If inside the tram next to the owner, how does that work in terms of available space and other tram passengers ? Will entry/exit of bikes mean longer stops and so, a longer journey ?

BTW – construction of the Seattle tram was/is heavily federally funded and additional revenues to offset the cost are raised by special taxes – as far as I recall. But yes, it is supposed to expand.

The bikes enter through the normal door. There is a special alcove for the bikes. Bikes can be got on and off trams quicker than some people can get on and off. Wheeled in; wheeled out.

Maya123 said :

I recently (last month) rode the well patronised light rail in Seattle, USA. They allow bikes aboard and I never saw any problem with this. They are expanding their network by the way.
I have also shared train carriages with bikes in Europe without any problems.
It’s strange how the same situation doesn’t cause any problems and worry to some people, but a few others get so uptight about it. I think it isn’t so much bikes aboard public transport, but what people feel about bikes in general that colours opinions.

How do the bikes enter/exit the tram ? Or are they in a bike cage in a dedicated carriage at the back ? If inside the tram next to the owner, how does that work in terms of available space and other tram passengers ? Will entry/exit of bikes mean longer stops and so, a longer journey ?

BTW – construction of the Seattle tram was/is heavily federally funded and additional revenues to offset the cost are raised by special taxes – as far as I recall. But yes, it is supposed to expand.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

I recently (last month) rode the well patronised light rail in Seattle, USA. They allow bikes aboard and I never saw any problem with this. They are expanding their network by the way.
I have also shared train carriages with bikes in Europe without any problems.
It’s strange how the same situation doesn’t cause any problems and worry to some people, but a few others get so uptight about it. I think it isn’t so much bikes aboard public transport, but what people feel about bikes in general that colours opinions.

This is what will happen without bikes:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mumbai-express-is-a-standing-joke-number-of-seats-on-sydneys-north-west-rail-link-could-be-drastically-cut/story-fni0cx12-1227073324575?nk=506aaf00ed62e9b57bc65d52d1c6fa58

Ah, so you are a Daily Telegraph reader.

I’m pretty sure this isn’t a surprise 🙂

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

I recently (last month) rode the well patronised light rail in Seattle, USA. They allow bikes aboard and I never saw any problem with this. They are expanding their network by the way.
I have also shared train carriages with bikes in Europe without any problems.
It’s strange how the same situation doesn’t cause any problems and worry to some people, but a few others get so uptight about it. I think it isn’t so much bikes aboard public transport, but what people feel about bikes in general that colours opinions.

This is what will happen without bikes:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mumbai-express-is-a-standing-joke-number-of-seats-on-sydneys-north-west-rail-link-could-be-drastically-cut/story-fni0cx12-1227073324575?nk=506aaf00ed62e9b57bc65d52d1c6fa58

Given my lack of knowledge about trains which you’ve kindly pointed out a couple of times I’m afraid I’ll need you to explain the relationship between bikes on Canberra light rail and that article. You could answer a couple of my earlier questions posed to you while you’re at it.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

I recently (last month) rode the well patronised light rail in Seattle, USA. They allow bikes aboard and I never saw any problem with this. They are expanding their network by the way.
I have also shared train carriages with bikes in Europe without any problems.
It’s strange how the same situation doesn’t cause any problems and worry to some people, but a few others get so uptight about it. I think it isn’t so much bikes aboard public transport, but what people feel about bikes in general that colours opinions.

This is what will happen without bikes:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mumbai-express-is-a-standing-joke-number-of-seats-on-sydneys-north-west-rail-link-could-be-drastically-cut/story-fni0cx12-1227073324575?nk=506aaf00ed62e9b57bc65d52d1c6fa58

Ah, so you are a Daily Telegraph reader.

Maya123 said :

I recently (last month) rode the well patronised light rail in Seattle, USA. They allow bikes aboard and I never saw any problem with this. They are expanding their network by the way.
I have also shared train carriages with bikes in Europe without any problems.
It’s strange how the same situation doesn’t cause any problems and worry to some people, but a few others get so uptight about it. I think it isn’t so much bikes aboard public transport, but what people feel about bikes in general that colours opinions.

This is what will happen without bikes:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mumbai-express-is-a-standing-joke-number-of-seats-on-sydneys-north-west-rail-link-could-be-drastically-cut/story-fni0cx12-1227073324575?nk=506aaf00ed62e9b57bc65d52d1c6fa58

I recently (last month) rode the well patronised light rail in Seattle, USA. They allow bikes aboard and I never saw any problem with this. They are expanding their network by the way.
I have also shared train carriages with bikes in Europe without any problems.
It’s strange how the same situation doesn’t cause any problems and worry to some people, but a few others get so uptight about it. I think it isn’t so much bikes aboard public transport, but what people feel about bikes in general that colours opinions.

Canberroid said :

dungfungus said :

Canberroid said :

dungfungus said :

Comment on the fantasy tram is never far away especially when Minister Corbell has another brain explosion about the added benefits trams will bring.
The latest is that the Canberra trams will allow bikes on board. This is a radical but not unexpected move given the clout that Pedal Power has over this minority government.

Allowing bikes on the trams will substantially increase the accessibility of the route for people who live a bit far to walk to tram stops but within an easy riding distance (and same again at their destination). That is not currently a realistic option with Action buses since it’s a crapshoot as to whether your bus will have space on the two-bike rack for your bike, if it has a bike rack at all.

dungfungus said :

I have shared standing areas a with bikes on regional trains in Europe (a most uncomfortable experience) and there is no way I would contemplate sharing the same thing on a tram in Australia.

Given your pessimism over the whole project I’m surprised that you’d contemplate using the train, let alone having to share the train with so many other commuters that you’d need to stand up.

You obviously know little about trams/trains. Trams and some regional trains are designed predominantly for standing passengers (not bikes).
As you correctly point out it is not a realistic option on an Action bus and the same applies to the proposed tram.
Cyclists in the ACT are already cosseted with an abundance of paths so why on earth would a cyclist go out of their normal way to get on a stop/start tram with their bike?

Will Canberra’s train be designed predominately for standing and have enough passengers to fill all seats though? That’s the case we’re talking about here that might force you to share standing space with those cyclists and their nasty bikes.

A cyclist might go out of their normal way to get on a stop/start tram with their bike because they aren’t capable or inclined to ride 10 or 20km to work (and as such are not currently a cyclist), but would ride 1 or 2km to the train.

Why are you so opposed to sharing space with bikes? Is is really that much of an inconvenience to you that no one should be allowed to bring their bikes along?

“Why are you so opposed to sharing space with bikes? Is is really that much of an inconvenience to you that no one should be allowed to bring their bikes along?”
Are you fair-dinkum?
Why do you think they are banned in Adelaide and (partially) in Melbourne?
I think you actually know less about trams/trains than I suggested earlier.

So the trams will have mostly standing space so you can ride ur bike. And yet space so sit down so you can use a laptop . And its only 12 km so shouldn’t take longer than 10 minutes.

How hard is it to ride the 12km?
It wont take you long to get fit to do it.

dungfungus said :

Canberroid said :

dungfungus said :

Comment on the fantasy tram is never far away especially when Minister Corbell has another brain explosion about the added benefits trams will bring.
The latest is that the Canberra trams will allow bikes on board. This is a radical but not unexpected move given the clout that Pedal Power has over this minority government.

Allowing bikes on the trams will substantially increase the accessibility of the route for people who live a bit far to walk to tram stops but within an easy riding distance (and same again at their destination). That is not currently a realistic option with Action buses since it’s a crapshoot as to whether your bus will have space on the two-bike rack for your bike, if it has a bike rack at all.

dungfungus said :

I have shared standing areas a with bikes on regional trains in Europe (a most uncomfortable experience) and there is no way I would contemplate sharing the same thing on a tram in Australia.

Given your pessimism over the whole project I’m surprised that you’d contemplate using the train, let alone having to share the train with so many other commuters that you’d need to stand up.

You obviously know little about trams/trains. Trams and some regional trains are designed predominantly for standing passengers (not bikes).
As you correctly point out it is not a realistic option on an Action bus and the same applies to the proposed tram.
Cyclists in the ACT are already cosseted with an abundance of paths so why on earth would a cyclist go out of their normal way to get on a stop/start tram with their bike?

Will Canberra’s train be designed predominately for standing and have enough passengers to fill all seats though? That’s the case we’re talking about here that might force you to share standing space with those cyclists and their nasty bikes.

A cyclist might go out of their normal way to get on a stop/start tram with their bike because they aren’t capable or inclined to ride 10 or 20km to work (and as such are not currently a cyclist), but would ride 1 or 2km to the train.

Why are you so opposed to sharing space with bikes? Is is really that much of an inconvenience to you that no one should be allowed to bring their bikes along?

Canberroid said :

dungfungus said :

Comment on the fantasy tram is never far away especially when Minister Corbell has another brain explosion about the added benefits trams will bring.
The latest is that the Canberra trams will allow bikes on board. This is a radical but not unexpected move given the clout that Pedal Power has over this minority government.

Allowing bikes on the trams will substantially increase the accessibility of the route for people who live a bit far to walk to tram stops but within an easy riding distance (and same again at their destination). That is not currently a realistic option with Action buses since it’s a crapshoot as to whether your bus will have space on the two-bike rack for your bike, if it has a bike rack at all.

dungfungus said :

I have shared standing areas a with bikes on regional trains in Europe (a most uncomfortable experience) and there is no way I would contemplate sharing the same thing on a tram in Australia.

Given your pessimism over the whole project I’m surprised that you’d contemplate using the train, let alone having to share the train with so many other commuters that you’d need to stand up.

You obviously know little about trams/trains. Trams and some regional trains are designed predominantly for standing passengers (not bikes).
As you correctly point out it is not a realistic option on an Action bus and the same applies to the proposed tram.
Cyclists in the ACT are already cosseted with an abundance of paths so why on earth would a cyclist go out of their normal way to get on a stop/start tram with their bike?

dungfungus said :

Comment on the fantasy tram is never far away especially when Minister Corbell has another brain explosion about the added benefits trams will bring.
The latest is that the Canberra trams will allow bikes on board. This is a radical but not unexpected move given the clout that Pedal Power has over this minority government.

Allowing bikes on the trams will substantially increase the accessibility of the route for people who live a bit far to walk to tram stops but within an easy riding distance (and same again at their destination). That is not currently a realistic option with Action buses since it’s a crapshoot as to whether your bus will have space on the two-bike rack for your bike, if it has a bike rack at all.

dungfungus said :

I have shared standing areas a with bikes on regional trains in Europe (a most uncomfortable experience) and there is no way I would contemplate sharing the same thing on a tram in Australia.

Given your pessimism over the whole project I’m surprised that you’d contemplate using the train, let alone having to share the train with so many other commuters that you’d need to stand up.

Comment on the fantasy tram is never far away especially when Minister Corbell has another brain explosion about the added benefits trams will bring.
The latest is that the Canberra trams will allow bikes on board. This is a radical but not unexpected move given the clout that Pedal Power has over this minority government.
It should be noted that in Melbourne, only folding (collapsible) bikes are allowed on trams and in Adelaide (where Ms Thomas the CEO of Capital Metro Agency was a tram expert) bikes are not allowed at all. Some potential conflict here perhaps?
I have shared standing areas a with bikes on regional trains in Europe (a most uncomfortable experience) and there is no way I would contemplate sharing the same thing on a tram in Australia.
I think Corbell has totally lost the plot on this. He should be making his retirement plans now.

It has gone a bit quiet on the tram front, but it would be a courageous politician who took (relative) silence for consent. With the Wayne Goss memorial service held earlier today, it is timely to remember his wonderfully pithy comment about people waiting with their baseball bats….