30 August 2012

Toot Toot! Greens promise light rail rollout by 2015

| johnboy
Join the conversation
65
screenshot

Showing the other parties what policy development looks like the Greens have announced a plan for light rail as well as a handy summary:

The ACT Greens will:

— Commit to building light rail for Canberra
— $200 million initial Government funding committed to light rail;
— An ACT-wide light rail master plan, covering existing and developing areas;
— Construction on Canberra’s first light rail route beginning by 2015.

— Independently manage the project through the Canberra Urban Transit Authority, a new independent body to design, cost and manage funding and construction of light rail in Canberra.

Join the conversation

65
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

It is good to see that good old Australian “Lets do nothing because mah roads and any other infrastructure spending is for stupid hipster innercity greenies” attitude is still alive and well.

each hour I spend on public transport is an hour not spent working or doing something I enjoy

Truthiness said :

I love the idea of public transport but I still don’t catch busses. At the moment it is cheaper and quicker to drive to work, if busses were free that removes one of the impediments but not the other.

it takes a bus an hour to do a trip that takes 15 minutes in a car, and that’s a hard one to change. Unfortunately this means it is still cheaper to drive thanks to lost time. Taking the bus would cost me an hour and a half each day, i cost $60p/h, so catching the bus would cost me $450 per week in lost billable hours. There is no way I am losing that kind of time or money for the opportunity to sit for prolonged periods in an uncomfortable box which is filled with cameras, harsh lights and people all staring. Action busses have all the style, comfort and atmosphere of a centerlink office.

Maybe if they had couches, coffee and wifi, but even then, that’s an awful lot of lost hours.

Which side of the counter at Centrelink are you referring to?

How does the time taken to commute (i.e. not at work) affect your paypacket?

I love this comment from the ACT Light Rail web-site:

BullwitterAugust 18, 2012 8:48 AM
No matter how many buses and bus lanes we get, we will continue to demand light rail. If we get light rail, we won’t be demanding buses. Forget about the second best option and just go straight to light rail.

True colours shown

watto23 said :

kakosi said :

Let’s see, light rail or a hospital system that has enough qualified doctors and nurses to cope with basic daily demands…I know which one I prefer and would vote for.

Yep i’d vote for a better health care, the problem is health and education are bottomless pits. How much money to you throw at these to improve them? Also it gets to a point where you need to throw significant amounts of money for minor improvements.

Its a rather simplistic view in my opinion, one that is used to argue against the NBN also and other infrastructure projects.

Trouble is that our hospitals cannot cope with normal demands right now…if you think they are a waste of money and we have the luxury of investing in wish lists like light rail instead, wait until you or someone you love has an accident or something else happens and you and find yourself waiting for hours in emergency or in a ward where the nurses are too busy to answer your buzzer. And God forbid anything happens on a weekend when the hospitals are on skeleton doctor crews.

Gungahlin Al7:25 pm 31 Aug 12

watto23 said :

Currently Action say that the inter-city bus routes are the most popular and profitable (if that even occurs on any bus route). I can see no reason why if these were not replaced by light rail that was quicker than buses that usage wouldn’t in fact go up.

My concern though would be that any light rail network, will be like trams, stop at traffioc lights and defeat the purpose. Public transport needs to be faster and easier than using a car. Of all the people I know, the only reason most give for not catching public transport is it takes too long. Cost is rarely an issue, because to be honest a car costs more.

So a light rail proposal that cuts transit times between the cities would be a good thing. Although this could be done with buses, just bypass intersections/traffic lights etc.

The lights would be less of an issue than you may think. Once the crossover cycles are done, the through route is clear and the tram would quickly be up to speed and moving much faster than the traffic lanes.
But this depends on the rails being down the centre. If they were down the outside as per one of the options, then the side roads would present a lot of conflict points.
Same reason why the cycle lanes should be down the middle not outside.

sien said :

Any new transport plan should consider the enormous potential of self-driven vehicles. These are really coming. Have a look at reddit.com/r/self-driving cars and other places for a look at just how fast this technology is coming. Sebastiun Thrun, an expert in the technology and the guy behind the DARPA award winning car of a few years back thought you would be able to buy a self-driving car by about 2017.

If you could remove the cost of bus drivers from buses you could make public transport cheaper. You could in fact combine it with a taxi service or even just generally allow people to run self-driven cars/people movers and rent them out.

Even a well used car (i.e. driven to work every day) rarely does more than 1-2 hours per day. If you could share between just 2 commuters at different times you could save a huge amount.

Spending money on a fixed, immovable system like a tram would be very unwise right now. Still, it’s not going to happen because the Greens will not run the ACT and the ALP and Libs can do financial math and people like Tony check the Greens numbers.

Legislating to encourage self-driving vehicles would do a lot more for the ACT than trying to get in trams.

Your plan has logic; it’s a step up from the self ride bikes in Paris and other cities. The problem is that a lot of people (like me) can’t fit in most small/medium cars which would have to be an economic imperative for such a proposal. A “one size fits all” standard will eliminate a lot of potential users.
Anyone who has worked in the self-drive hire care industry would see a proposal like yours fraught with problems.

c_c said :

Has anyone seen an actual, independent business case for light rail in the ACT?

I can’t see it working with the current population. The buses, which have comparatively low initial capital expenditure, make a significant loss, so when will the ACT make it’s money back? Will it ever, or will it continue to be an expensive burden just like the Sydney Monorail is… was?

That’s the big issue isn’t it. Canberra is low density and low population… exactly the wrong conditions to support good public transport. It’s a difficult city to make environmentally friendly in terms of transport options. The best bet is to continue decentralising government offices by spreading them around the city as much as possible, put systems in place to encourage car pooling, focus on improving efficiencies in the bus system and continue improving on our already pretty good bicycle infrastructure.

A light rail sounds good, but doesn’t suit our population size or density.

I love the idea of public transport but I still don’t catch busses. At the moment it is cheaper and quicker to drive to work, if busses were free that removes one of the impediments but not the other.

it takes a bus an hour to do a trip that takes 15 minutes in a car, and that’s a hard one to change. Unfortunately this means it is still cheaper to drive thanks to lost time. Taking the bus would cost me an hour and a half each day, i cost $60p/h, so catching the bus would cost me $450 per week in lost billable hours. There is no way I am losing that kind of time or money for the opportunity to sit for prolonged periods in an uncomfortable box which is filled with cameras, harsh lights and people all staring. Action busses have all the style, comfort and atmosphere of a centerlink office.

Maybe if they had couches, coffee and wifi, but even then, that’s an awful lot of lost hours.

Any new transport plan should consider the enormous potential of self-driven vehicles. These are really coming. Have a look at reddit.com/r/self-driving cars and other places for a look at just how fast this technology is coming. Sebastiun Thrun, an expert in the technology and the guy behind the DARPA award winning car of a few years back thought you would be able to buy a self-driving car by about 2017.

If you could remove the cost of bus drivers from buses you could make public transport cheaper. You could in fact combine it with a taxi service or even just generally allow people to run self-driven cars/people movers and rent them out.

Even a well used car (i.e. driven to work every day) rarely does more than 1-2 hours per day. If you could share between just 2 commuters at different times you could save a huge amount.

Spending money on a fixed, immovable system like a tram would be very unwise right now. Still, it’s not going to happen because the Greens will not run the ACT and the ALP and Libs can do financial math and people like Tony check the Greens numbers.

Legislating to encourage self-driving vehicles would do a lot more for the ACT than trying to get in trams.

hahaha look at all the “economic rationalists” forgetting that money is printed out of nothing and the entire world is up to its eyeballs in debt already. There are plenty of banks who’d love to see the ACT government indentured to the tune of billions. I say we borrow the money and never pay it back, seems to be working for the rest of the world!

But seriously, since when have government budgets, of any political affiliation, had any relationship to the real world? Labs and Libs have always done dodgy costings, and now you’re calling it a green trait?

We all know how politicians work, that 200 million is probably just the cost of setting up an exploratory committee to investigate the feasability of a future review and assessment process.

I’m just hoping the light rail will be driverless and free to use, otherwise they’ll be as expensive and underused as the busses.

dungfungus said :

Pandy said :

dungfungus said :

Pandy said :

dungfungus said :

imagine a tram service Bungendore to Kingston return and the pressure it would take off the Kings Highway. ..

I have: What pressure???The Railway Preservation Society have railcars, why don’t they run a commuter rail from Bugendore to Kingston?
?

Trying to have a serious discussion here. ABC 3 may be more suited to you.

Toot!

You know what can not be accepted here?

If a group of enthusiasts cannot make this commuter train of yours work at a profit, what chance is there for there for a brand spanking new battery one with paid drivers?

You have answered your own question by comparing enthusiasts with businessmen.
I used to be a bank manager and regularly had to sort out the enthusiasts from the entrepreneurs. An example would be someone who had just acquired a pilot’s license and wanted a loan to buy an aircraft to start an airline because he “loved flying”. This person was an enthusiast and the loan application would be declined.
On the other hand, if a someone who was not a pilot and had a plan to acquire an interest in an airline as a business opportunity to make money, his application would be considered favourably. This person was a businessman.
I have travelled on a Railway Preservation Society’s live steam excursions to Bungendore and it is just an “excursion”; nothing more, nothing less. To compare this to a modern tram on a scheduled commuter service is a folly as I am sure you realize. You are the one that needs to “accept” this.

You have answered your own question here: no business would be able to make money on a short haul boutique rail car service between Bugendore and Kingston.

Holden Caulfield2:32 pm 31 Aug 12

watto23 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

If you made all fares on ACTION buses free and increased the frequency of services, even if buses were empty, would that have a greater effect on getting people out of cars for their daily commute than sinking millions/billions into light rail, while still also operating the existing bus service?

I can’t see how this would increase patronage. OK if it was free how many people would seriously give up the convenience of their cars? Especially when buses are cheaper now.

Frequency of services would do stuff all if it takes too long to get to your house. If a trip takes me an hour i couldn’t care less whether it leaves every 15 or 30 minutes, when it will take me an hour to get home.

I wouldn’t give up my car either, but don’t all the same issues you’ve raised there apply equally to light rail?

Pandy said :

dungfungus said :

Pandy said :

dungfungus said :

imagine a tram service Bungendore to Kingston return and the pressure it would take off the Kings Highway. ..

I have: What pressure???The Railway Preservation Society have railcars, why don’t they run a commuter rail from Bugendore to Kingston?
?

Trying to have a serious discussion here. ABC 3 may be more suited to you.

Toot!

You know what can not be accepted here?

If a group of enthusiasts cannot make this commuter train of yours work at a profit, what chance is there for there for a brand spanking new battery one with paid drivers?

You have answered your own question by comparing enthusiasts with businessmen.
I used to be a bank manager and regularly had to sort out the enthusiasts from the entrepreneurs. An example would be someone who had just acquired a pilot’s license and wanted a loan to buy an aircraft to start an airline because he “loved flying”. This person was an enthusiast and the loan application would be declined.
On the other hand, if a someone who was not a pilot and had a plan to acquire an interest in an airline as a business opportunity to make money, his application would be considered favourably. This person was a businessman.
I have travelled on a Railway Preservation Society’s live steam excursions to Bungendore and it is just an “excursion”; nothing more, nothing less. To compare this to a modern tram on a scheduled commuter service is a folly as I am sure you realize. You are the one that needs to “accept” this.

Holden Caulfield said :

If you made all fares on ACTION buses free and increased the frequency of services, even if buses were empty, would that have a greater effect on getting people out of cars for their daily commute than sinking millions/billions into light rail, while still also operating the existing bus service?

I can’t see how this would increase patronage. OK if it was free how many people would seriously give up the convenience of their cars? Especially when buses are cheaper now.

Frequency of services would do stuff all if it takes too long to get to your house. If a trip takes me an hour i couldn’t care less whether it leaves every 15 or 30 minutes, when it will take me an hour to get home.

dungfungus said :

Pandy said :

dungfungus said :

imagine a tram service Bungendore to Kingston return and the pressure it would take off the Kings Highway. ..

I have: What pressure???The Railway Preservation Society have railcars, why don’t they run a commuter rail from Bugendore to Kingston?
?

Trying to have a serious discussion here. ABC 3 may be more suited to you.

Toot!

You know what can not be accepted here?

If a group of enthusiasts cannot make this commuter train of yours work at a profit, what chance is there for there for a brand spanking new battery one with paid drivers?

Pandy said :

dungfungus said :

imagine a tram service Bungendore to Kingston return and the pressure it would take off the Kings Highway. ..

I have: What pressure???The Railway Preservation Society have railcars, why don’t they run a commuter rail from Bugendore to Kingston?
?

Trying to have a serious discussion here. ABC 3 may be more suited to you.

Holden Caulfield12:00 pm 31 Aug 12

If you made all fares on ACTION buses free and increased the frequency of services, even if buses were empty, would that have a greater effect on getting people out of cars for their daily commute than sinking millions/billions into light rail, while still also operating the existing bus service?

kakosi said :

Let’s see, light rail or a hospital system that has enough qualified doctors and nurses to cope with basic daily demands…I know which one I prefer and would vote for.

agree.

I’d prefer a doc to see me in a reasonable waiting time without having to lie about it to make the figures look good.

dungfungus said :

imagine a tram service Bungendore to Kingston return and the pressure it would take off the Kings Highway. ..

I have: What pressure???The Railway Preservation Society have railcars, why don’t they run a commuter rail from Bugendore to Kingston?
?

bigred said :

Will never be built. The TWU (who drive ACTION buses) have the ALP by the short and curlies. And the libs are beholden to the notion of individual freedom being equal to car ownership.

I suspect the issue for the Libs is more one of cost, in that they have in the past not been so sceptical. For example, in 1992 Trevor Kaine mentioned light rail as an option that would be explored, and in 2008 Steve Pratt mentioned a study into light rail.

You might be right about Labor and the TWU, but we’ll have wait and see. You never know; like the WiFi, they may come out with the same policy!

Other thing to note, the Y plan wasn’t designed for cars per se; they just didn’t have any public transport planning, so cars became the default.

The Feds started to plan for public transport in the ACT in the 70s, because they realised the growth in cars would congest the roads. They actually planned Tuggers and Gungahlin for mass public transport.

http://www.atrf.info/papers/1976/1976_Webb_Cooper.pdf

Mark of Sydney said :

Heavs said :

Tony said :

Heavs, sure I’ll do your research for you.
The Portal light rail was approved for planning and development in 1978, when the City Metro population was just shy of 400,000, and the greater metro area was still well over 1,000,000
All points still stand.

Well they don’t. The bloke jumped on having a shot at someone’s analysis when his own was just as shoddy, quoting today’s population figures when he should have been looking at the 1978 population figures. If he had argued, as you have here, that the population was closer to 1m at that point in time, and that the Greens were using selective arguments to base their case, then he may have had a point. But he didn’t do that.

Your attempts at defending the Greens’ policy making aren’t very convincing.

In quoting directly from the policy document, my point was that whoever wrote it made the common mistake of comparing a municipal population in the US with a metro population here. I don’t know when exactly Portland metro started planning for light rail, but extrapolating from the growth figures for the City of Portland over that time, they would have been basing it on a population of well over 1 million — three times that of Canberra-Queanbeyan.

In any event, you don’t think that someone preparing an election policy that commits to spending of over $200 million of taxpayers’ money has a higher duty of care in their analysis than someone like me, who spots a figure in a policy document that looks odd, and has his suspicion confirmed after half an hour of Wikipedia research?

By the way, the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAX_light_rail) says ‘Since its inception about $3 billion has been invested in light rail in Portland (as of 2004)’. Not sure how far $200 million will get us, but hey, when you’re Green good intentions is all that matters.

I value the Greens — they are the conscience of the Labor Party. But just don’t let them anywhere near the Treasury benches.

Further poor slap-dash analysis from their policy document when they try and compare Canberra populations to Tacoma and Trenton and say that they have light rail. Yes they do have light rail but the Greens are very liberal with their interpretation.

Trenton, New Jersey pop 84,913 part of Mercer County area 593km2. Sure the county has around 366k population, but it also has 6km of diesel light rail: the “River Line”. The “Rvier Line” opened in 2004 and services 3 counties (not just Trenton!) that have a combined population of over 1.3 million. Carries on average 5500 passengers per day.

Tacoma, Washington pop of 198,397, part of Pierce County that has a population of 795k. Tacoma services a population of 1 million. Yet is has only 2.6km of light rail; the “Link Light Rail”.

The Greens will have to try a lot higher than this folks.

c_c said :

Gungahlin Al said :

c_c said :

Has anyone seen an actual, independent business case for light rail in the ACT?

I can’t see it working with the current population. The buses, which have comparatively low initial capital expenditure, make a significant loss, so when will the ACT make it’s money back? Will it ever, or will it continue to be an expensive burden just like the Sydney Monorail is… was?

Here you go c__c:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/public_transport/light_rail
PriceWaterhouseCoopers study done for the IA bid, which showed that you could build the entire 54km network and be a billion dollars in front.
“…the net present value (NPV) of the Canberra light rail
project is positive under all discounting scenarios, ranging from $2,825m to
$227m, with a mid-point estimate of $1,014m (based on a seven per cent
discount rate).”

c_c said :

Something else that just occurred to me. The Greens document does not make any reference to Queanbeyan. Are they really going to push to build light rail and leave all the potential income from Queanbeyan commuters and perhaps funding contribution from NSW out?

You’d have to be quite ignorant to plan a rail network for Canberra and not take into account a very rapidly growing city right next door.

That would be a natural extension from the line to the airport. I don’t know about it being an earner though – the solution comes into it’s own when all transport costs are pooled together – including road building costs avoided or deferred. So the NSW Govt would have to come to the party.

Thanks for that link Al, I’ll take a proper look at it tomorrow.
Certainly one thing that jumps out straight away from a skim read is the fare price in the report shows promise.

The two things in the Greens own report that concern me are:
*It doesn’t indicate ticket costs
*It does allude to both private investment in the network, and to making developers somehow pay for the network in part, both of which have potential to add expenses to either commuters or Canberrans in general.
I’d like to see a bit more clarity on those two points.

That’s right about the Queanbeyan link, I was expecting it would naturally extend from the airport. Was surprised to not see anywhere even the potential of that mentioned. It doesn’t necessarily add much extra income, but it does make sense with the added pressure expected on link roads, particularly with Googong being opened up now.

Getting NSW on board would be the big hurdle, particular with the present NSW government and budget environment.

A rail link already exists between Kingston and Queanbeyan then onto Bungendore (and Royalla) Battery powered trams can run on existing heavy railway lines; imagine a tram service Bungendore to Kingston return and the pressure it would take off the Kings Highway. Similarly, a tram service from Queanbeyan to Kingston would alleviate the increasing Canberra Avenue traffic gridlock. There would be cash flow from day one and the ACT network would develop from there. In the meantime, buses could do the job to and from Kingston and the rest of Canberra. I don’t think a tram service to the airport would be viable as most airport users prefer to use their own cars or take a taxi because they are travelling directly to or from their homes and have luggage which is hard to lug on and off buses/trams. Remember the much heralded metro to Sydney Airport was a massive failure and it continues to be underutilised.

bigred said :

Will never be built. The TWU (who drive ACTION buses) have the ALP by the short and curlies. And the libs are beholden to the notion of individual freedom being equal to car ownership.

I alluded to this in #8 but I wasn’t game to mention the TWU by name. They have “resources” to deal with critics.

Corbell visited Portland in 2005 and decided light rail was too expensive for Canberra. Didn’t stop them from requesting the PWC report and bidding (albeit poorly) for light rail funds to be provided by the Rudd Government.

At the last ACT election, the Libs promised a fully funded engineering study into light rail. Not even the Greens promised that in 2008, so it is a remarkable turnaround on their part.

Mark of Sydney10:20 am 31 Aug 12

Heavs said :

Tony said :

Heavs, sure I’ll do your research for you.
The Portal light rail was approved for planning and development in 1978, when the City Metro population was just shy of 400,000, and the greater metro area was still well over 1,000,000
All points still stand.

Well they don’t. The bloke jumped on having a shot at someone’s analysis when his own was just as shoddy, quoting today’s population figures when he should have been looking at the 1978 population figures. If he had argued, as you have here, that the population was closer to 1m at that point in time, and that the Greens were using selective arguments to base their case, then he may have had a point. But he didn’t do that.

Your attempts at defending the Greens’ policy making aren’t very convincing.

In quoting directly from the policy document, my point was that whoever wrote it made the common mistake of comparing a municipal population in the US with a metro population here. I don’t know when exactly Portland metro started planning for light rail, but extrapolating from the growth figures for the City of Portland over that time, they would have been basing it on a population of well over 1 million — three times that of Canberra-Queanbeyan.

In any event, you don’t think that someone preparing an election policy that commits to spending of over $200 million of taxpayers’ money has a higher duty of care in their analysis than someone like me, who spots a figure in a policy document that looks odd, and has his suspicion confirmed after half an hour of Wikipedia research?

By the way, the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAX_light_rail) says ‘Since its inception about $3 billion has been invested in light rail in Portland (as of 2004)’. Not sure how far $200 million will get us, but hey, when you’re Green good intentions is all that matters.

I value the Greens — they are the conscience of the Labor Party. But just don’t let them anywhere near the Treasury benches.

Gungahlin Al said :

Oh by the way, neither Liberal leader Zed Seselja or Liberal Transport spokesman Alistair Coe attended the Active Transport Forum tonight. But they did send in a prepared message that was read out. It said that Canberra was designed for the car.

Which it wasn’t.

From the PWC report:
“In the days prior to mass private motor vehicle ownership, Walter Burley-Griffin’s design included the provision of trams operating in the suburbs and central areas.”

I tried to get a link of their statement from the Canberra Liberals website under “Latest News” but apparently there isn’t any latest news: http://www.canberraliberals.org.au/LATEST-NEWS/ACT-NEWS.asp

Alan, when WBG designed Canberra it was foreseen to have a population of less than 50,000 and to occupy a space around Civic, Manuka and Yarralumla of today.

From the early 60’s and the “Y-Plan” Canberra and the outlying twn centres have been designed for the car.

kakosi said :

Let’s see, light rail or a hospital system that has enough qualified doctors and nurses to cope with basic daily demands…I know which one I prefer and would vote for.

Yep i’d vote for a better health care, the problem is health and education are bottomless pits. How much money to you throw at these to improve them? Also it gets to a point where you need to throw significant amounts of money for minor improvements.

Its a rather simplistic view in my opinion, one that is used to argue against the NBN also and other infrastructure projects.

Currently Action say that the inter-city bus routes are the most popular and profitable (if that even occurs on any bus route). I can see no reason why if these were not replaced by light rail that was quicker than buses that usage wouldn’t in fact go up.

My concern though would be that any light rail network, will be like trams, stop at traffioc lights and defeat the purpose. Public transport needs to be faster and easier than using a car. Of all the people I know, the only reason most give for not catching public transport is it takes too long. Cost is rarely an issue, because to be honest a car costs more.

So a light rail proposal that cuts transit times between the cities would be a good thing. Although this could be done with buses, just bypass intersections/traffic lights etc.

Tony said :

Heavs, sure I’ll do your research for you.
The Portal light rail was approved for planning and development in 1978, when the City Metro population was just shy of 400,000, and the greater metro area was still well over 1,000,000
All points still stand.

Well they don’t. The bloke jumped on having a shot at someone’s analysis when his own was just as shoddy, quoting today’s population figures when he should have been looking at the 1978 population figures. If he had argued, as you have here, that the population was closer to 1m at that point in time, and that the Greens were using selective arguments to base their case, then he may have had a point. But he didn’t do that.

gazket said :

So where do people leave 100’s of parked cars at Gungahlin when they catch a tram to the city ? You can’t swing a cat in Gungahlin let alone find a car park.

This has got to be a joke. I could park across 3 car spots during the day if I wanted.

Gungahlin Al said :

c_c said :

Has anyone seen an actual, independent business case for light rail in the ACT?

I can’t see it working with the current population. The buses, which have comparatively low initial capital expenditure, make a significant loss, so when will the ACT make it’s money back? Will it ever, or will it continue to be an expensive burden just like the Sydney Monorail is… was?

Here you go c__c:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/public_transport/light_rail
PriceWaterhouseCoopers study done for the IA bid, which showed that you could build the entire 54km network and be a billion dollars in front.
“…the net present value (NPV) of the Canberra light rail
project is positive under all discounting scenarios, ranging from $2,825m to
$227m, with a mid-point estimate of $1,014m (based on a seven per cent
discount rate).”

c_c said :

Something else that just occurred to me. The Greens document does not make any reference to Queanbeyan. Are they really going to push to build light rail and leave all the potential income from Queanbeyan commuters and perhaps funding contribution from NSW out?

You’d have to be quite ignorant to plan a rail network for Canberra and not take into account a very rapidly growing city right next door.

That would be a natural extension from the line to the airport. I don’t know about it being an earner though – the solution comes into it’s own when all transport costs are pooled together – including road building costs avoided or deferred. So the NSW Govt would have to come to the party.

Thanks for that link Al, I’ll take a proper look at it tomorrow.
Certainly one thing that jumps out straight away from a skim read is the fare price in the report shows promise.

The two things in the Greens own report that concern me are:
*It doesn’t indicate ticket costs
*It does allude to both private investment in the network, and to making developers somehow pay for the network in part, both of which have potential to add expenses to either commuters or Canberrans in general.
I’d like to see a bit more clarity on those two points.

That’s right about the Queanbeyan link, I was expecting it would naturally extend from the airport. Was surprised to not see anywhere even the potential of that mentioned. It doesn’t necessarily add much extra income, but it does make sense with the added pressure expected on link roads, particularly with Googong being opened up now.

Getting NSW on board would be the big hurdle, particular with the present NSW government and budget environment.

Tony said :

Heavs, sure I’ll do your research for you.
The Portal light rail was approved for planning and development in 1978, when the City Metro population was just shy of 400,000, and the greater metro area was still well over 1,000,000
All points still stand.

+1

I was about to point out that all comparisons to Portland are false – but Tony did it for me. The Portland metropolitan area has 2.2million people in it. 500,000 live in the central area within the city limits alone.

Also, very much unlike Canberra, Portland is a pretty cool, innovative and far-sighted type place run by hippie types rather than amateur politicians, developers and road contruction crews. Who knows, maybe one day we too can aspire to be like them … but not just yet

Even in tram-mad continental Europe there are very few cities of Canberra’s size with trams. Tram networks there are generally thought to become viable at around the 500k to 600k mark – and that’s at densities 5 to 10 times higher than here, where 70%+ of residents live in apartments and half a million people are crammed into an area the size of the Inner North. Also, European tram networks have been in place since the late 19th C, so building infrastructure from scratch is not a factor.

I’m pretty sure a dozen bendy buses from Gungahlin to the city would suffice and be a hell of a lot cheaper than light rail. How is light rail going to get to the city without causing chaos to the road network and where in the city will it stop, the train can’t just pull up on Northbourne ave and do a u turn or go round the block. Light rail isn’t going to fix the traffic problems in Gungahlin, it would take some serious redesign of the the whole area.

How about making policies that really would make a difference to the people of Gungahlin. A dual carriage rd from Horse Park Dr to Ginninderra Dr and fix the bottle neck at the Barton Hwy roundabout with a proper flowing design . The planning of Gungahlin town centre and surrounds is a bottle neck by design .

Heavs, sure I’ll do your research for you.
The Portal light rail was approved for planning and development in 1978, when the City Metro population was just shy of 400,000, and the greater metro area was still well over 1,000,000
All points still stand.

Gungahlin Al10:13 pm 30 Aug 12

Oh by the way, neither Liberal leader Zed Seselja or Liberal Transport spokesman Alistair Coe attended the Active Transport Forum tonight. But they did send in a prepared message that was read out. It said that Canberra was designed for the car.

Which it wasn’t.

From the PWC report:
“In the days prior to mass private motor vehicle ownership, Walter Burley-Griffin’s design included the provision of trams operating in the suburbs and central areas.”

I tried to get a link of their statement from the Canberra Liberals website under “Latest News” but apparently there isn’t any latest news: http://www.canberraliberals.org.au/LATEST-NEWS/ACT-NEWS.asp

Will never be built. The TWU (who drive ACTION buses) have the ALP by the short and curlies. And the libs are beholden to the notion of individual freedom being equal to car ownership.

Gungahlin Al9:59 pm 30 Aug 12

c_c said :

Has anyone seen an actual, independent business case for light rail in the ACT?

I can’t see it working with the current population. The buses, which have comparatively low initial capital expenditure, make a significant loss, so when will the ACT make it’s money back? Will it ever, or will it continue to be an expensive burden just like the Sydney Monorail is… was?

Here you go c__c:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/public_transport/light_rail
PriceWaterhouseCoopers study done for the IA bid, which showed that you could build the entire 54km network and be a billion dollars in front.
“…the net present value (NPV) of the Canberra light rail
project is positive under all discounting scenarios, ranging from $2,825m to
$227m, with a mid-point estimate of $1,014m (based on a seven per cent
discount rate).”

c_c said :

Something else that just occurred to me. The Greens document does not make any reference to Queanbeyan. Are they really going to push to build light rail and leave all the potential income from Queanbeyan commuters and perhaps funding contribution from NSW out?

You’d have to be quite ignorant to plan a rail network for Canberra and not take into account a very rapidly growing city right next door.

That would be a natural extension from the line to the airport. I don’t know about it being an earner though – the solution comes into it’s own when all transport costs are pooled together – including road building costs avoided or deferred. So the NSW Govt would have to come to the party.

gazket said :

So where do people leave 100’s of parked cars at Gungahlin when they catch a tram to the city ? You can’t swing a cat in Gungahlin let alone find a car park.

A key part of making a network work properly is to have the feeder bus services working properly, with minimal downtime on changeover between services. Plus there are other park’n’ride opportunities such as at EPIC and Well Station Drive. Simon Corbell talked about such a fundamental rethink of the bus network tonight at the Active Transport Forum and said it would happen in 2013-14 I believe it was. My question is why take so long? They had the advice from their consultant to do just that two network updates ago.

JC said :

Deref said :

housebound said :

It’s a joke, right? Where are the Greens going to get $200 million from?

$200M? I thought the last estimate was closer to $2 billion.

Suggest you look in a dictionary for the meaning of the word initial. It is clear you don’t know what it means.

Yes – it is a commitment to start the design and build, and with a dedicated authority to resolve the required funding. Remembering that avoided road construction costs form part of this solution. This is because we have to consider our transport budget as a whole – not parts. As a whole, it becomes obvious (except to the Liberals apparently) that an investment in rail reduces other costs. Or you could keep building roads forever. Perhaps people would like to touch base with Campbell Newman about how much Brisbane City Council debt all his tunnels in Brisbane racked up when the room ran out to keep expanding roads?

kakosi said :

Let’s see, light rail or a hospital system that has enough qualified doctors and nurses to cope with basic daily demands…I know which one I prefer and would vote for.

Here’s the thing though – road building costs look (to me anyway) set to break the ACT budget. If you don’t get serious about an alternative, then there won’t be enough money to build hospitals. Or a whole lot of other things you may think are more important. It’s like deciding whether to invest in preventative health care or just continue to spend on heath treatment? These are the hard balance decisions that those you elect have to make. The strategic approach is to put some of your money into investments that actually reduce the need for ongoing expenditure. To do otherwise may work with the black/white/everything-has-a-simple-solution crowd but it is unsustainable.

I’ve been campaigning for a sustainable solution to Canberra’s transport woes for 6 years now, so I was glad to be part of today’s announcement. We’ve had empty pre-election noises about light rail from both Labor and Liberal for the last two elections and millions spent on studies gathering dust on the shelf. This is the first time a party has made a solid commitment to get things rolling (boom tish 🙂 ).
The Greens are committed to light rail because the Greens are committed to fixing Canberra’s transport problems.

OK, I’ll weigh in.
“the Greens will commit to .. . . ”
Federal, State, whatever. Until the greens can cost their promises like the major parties have to, then they have no business saying that they commit hundreds of thousands of dollars to anything.
Seriously, they might as well say that they are going to commit a couple of hundred grand to asparagus injecting rooms in some prison somewhere.
Make them say where the money is going to come from!

Let’s see, light rail or a hospital system that has enough qualified doctors and nurses to cope with basic daily demands…I know which one I prefer and would vote for.

If people can’t be bothered to walk to a bus stop 100 meters from there house, how do you possibly think that they will drive to The G, park there vehichle and then wait for a Trolley.
Get serious, build Majura parkway and that will reduce the use of Northbourne avenue for people working in Russel and Fyshwick. Canberrans can afford to drive and park, there not all tight arse cyclists you know 😉

Deref said :

housebound said :

It’s a joke, right? Where are the Greens going to get $200 million from?

$200M? I thought the last estimate was closer to $2 billion.

Suggest you look in a dictionary for the meaning of the word initial. It is clear you don’t know what it means.

So where do people leave 100’s of parked cars at Gungahlin when they catch a tram to the city ? You can’t swing a cat in Gungahlin let alone find a car park.

Tony said :

Mark of Sydney is spot on, and Heavs and Zippyzippy should check their facts (and all of them) before throwing their tripe around

When the US refers cities they are referring to the actual city area, not the axillary centres adjacent to the city.
Whereas when Australian refer to cities we include the adjacent centres.
For example; If Canberra was a US city, the City center would be called Canberra, while Tuggers, Belco, Woden etc would be their own city with their own population count.

You can see this in the following stats

Portland
City Area: 376.5 km2
City Population: 593,000km2

Canberra
City Area: 814.2 km²
City Population: 358,000

You can see that Portland has a much smaller area, with a much higher population. As per the wiki
Density:
Portland: 1,655.31/km2
Canberra: 428.6/km²

Right, so can you tell us what the Portland population was in 1982 when the light rail was planned (as per the original document) ?

Mark of Sydney is spot on, and Heavs and Zippyzippy should check their facts (and all of them) before throwing their tripe around

When the US refers cities they are referring to the actual city area, not the axillary centres adjacent to the city.
Whereas when Australian refer to cities we include the adjacent centres.
For example; If Canberra was a US city, the City center would be called Canberra, while Tuggers, Belco, Woden etc would be their own city with their own population count.

You can see this in the following stats

Portland
City Area: 376.5 km2
City Population: 593,000km2

Canberra
City Area: 814.2 km²
City Population: 358,000

You can see that Portland has a much smaller area, with a much higher population. As per the wiki
Density:
Portland: 1,655.31/km2
Canberra: 428.6/km²

Mark of Sydney3:22 pm 30 Aug 12

zippyzippy said :

Mark of Sydney said :

The Greens’ policy document claims that ‘Portland’s very successful light rail system was approved when its population was 366,000’.

A quick Wikipedia search reveals that the Portland metropolitan area on the US north-western coast has a population of 2.2 million. The area served by its Max light rail system appears to have a population of about 1.8 million, and weekday passenger numbers average about 130,000 (half the ACT’s population).

If the Greens can’t get this basic level of analysis right, what does it say about the quality of their policy making generally?

Oh desperate haters.

Do some more of your Wikipedia research and you’ll see you’re talking about an area encompassing numerous cities, called the Portland Metropolitan Area.

The city of Portland, Oregon, is currently up to a population of 583,776. So I can believe its population was 366,000 when light rail was approved there.

If you can’t get this basic level of analysis right, what does it say about the quality of your comments generally?

I don’t hate the Greens — I’ve have actually given Greens Senate candidates my first preference, and some of my best friends etc. — but this policy reinforces my scepticism about their ability to do rigorous analysis and come up with policies that are practical and cost effective.

The policy author appears to seized on the fact that the City of Portland and Canberra have similar populations, and concluded that if Portland can operate a successful 87 km light system why can’t we, but without understanding that when North Americans refer to a city’s characteristics they invariably mean a specific local government area not a metro area.

My point is that ‘Portland’s’ light rail system serves a population of close to 2 million, so using Portland as an example for Canberra is absurd. Or are the Greens suggesting that Canberra’s population will quadruple over the 5 to 10 years it will take to build a metro-wide light rail system?

c_c said :

Has anyone seen an actual, independent business case for light rail in the ACT?

I can’t see it working with the current population. The buses, which have comparatively low initial capital expenditure, make a significant loss, so when will the ACT make it’s money back? Will it ever, or will it continue to be an expensive burden just like the Sydney Monorail is… was?

My understanding is that light rail would be much cheaper to maintain and presumably staff than the current bus system. We could have 5 or 6 different trams each with a capacity of 100 or so people running the intertown route as opposed to, what? I guess that would be about 10-20 buses worth of passengers. But I don’t claim to know enough to make any definitive statement, and would not be surprised if light rail carries a multitude of costs that i have not foreseen.

Something else that just occurred to me. The Greens document does not make any reference to Queanbeyan. Are they really going to push to build light rail and leave all the potential income from Queanbeyan commuters and perhaps funding contribution from NSW out?

You’d have to be quite ignorant to plan a rail network for Canberra and not take into account a very rapidly growing city right next door.

Has anyone seen an actual, independent business case for light rail in the ACT?

I can’t see it working with the current population. The buses, which have comparatively low initial capital expenditure, make a significant loss, so when will the ACT make it’s money back? Will it ever, or will it continue to be an expensive burden just like the Sydney Monorail is… was?

Mark of Sydney said :

The Greens’ policy document claims that ‘Portland’s very successful light rail system was approved when its population was 366,000’.

A quick Wikipedia search reveals that the Portland metropolitan area on the US north-western coast has a population of 2.2 million. The area served by its Max light rail system appears to have a population of about 1.8 million, and weekday passenger numbers average about 130,000 (half the ACT’s population).

If the Greens can’t get this basic level of analysis right, what does it say about the quality of their policy making generally?

Oh desperate haters.

Do some more of your Wikipedia research and you’ll see you’re talking about an area encompassing numerous cities, called the Portland Metropolitan Area.

The city of Portland, Oregon, is currently up to a population of 583,776. So I can believe its population was 366,000 when light rail was approved there.

If you can’t get this basic level of analysis right, what does it say about the quality of your comments generally?

Intel70 said :

housebound said :

It’s a joke, right? Where are the Greens going to get $200 million from?

Same generic pool of money which the current government pulled $144 million for their contribution to the Majura Parkway?

But the Greens aren’t in government. How can they promise major spending on something that is opposed by their partners who do hold the purse strings?

This can only be a promise to lobby. It can’t be a promise to deliver.

Mark of Sydney said :

The Greens’ policy document claims that ‘Portland’s very successful light rail system was approved when its population was 366,000’.

A quick Wikipedia search reveals that the Portland metropolitan area on the US north-western coast has a population of 2.2 million. The area served by its Max light rail system appears to have a population of about 1.8 million, and weekday passenger numbers average about 130,000 (half the ACT’s population).

If the Greens can’t get this basic level of analysis right, what does it say about the quality of their policy making generally?

Comprehension fail much? There is a very important word in that first paragraph you threw up there which you seem to have overlooked in your otherwise extremely thorough wikipedia research. Read it again.

Light metro is the way to go! Grade separated, fast, frequent and automated.

Mark of Sydney1:31 pm 30 Aug 12

The Greens’ policy document claims that ‘Portland’s very successful light rail system was approved when its population was 366,000’.

A quick Wikipedia search reveals that the Portland metropolitan area on the US north-western coast has a population of 2.2 million. The area served by its Max light rail system appears to have a population of about 1.8 million, and weekday passenger numbers average about 130,000 (half the ACT’s population).

If the Greens can’t get this basic level of analysis right, what does it say about the quality of their policy making generally?

Hell yeah, bring it on! I have been waiting many years to see a proposal like this, this is the future of Canberra, the sooner the better!!

housebound said :

It’s a joke, right? Where are the Greens going to get $200 million from?

Same generic pool of money which the current government pulled $144 million for their contribution to the Majura Parkway?

I have become a supporter of a light rail network for Canberra (and beyond using existing NSW heavy rail line to Queanbeyan, Bungendore via HQJOC). The Greens are only interested in the electricity “renewable energy” concept and they haven’t examined the latest technologies available namely the battery powered/catanery free systems now running in Europe.
The light rail network example The Greens have cited in Calgary, Alberta has 30 year old technology.
The infrastructure establishment costs are halved using the battery/catanery free system and energy can be stored in a battery farm so if the sun doesn’t shine and the wind stops blowing there will be adequate standby energy modules.
I can’t understand wht ACT Labor is falling over to be seen supporting electric cars (which I believe are next to useless) but they oppose a light rail network. Perhaps the people who control ACTION feel threatened?

HiddenDragon12:32 pm 30 Aug 12

This financial year, the ACT Government is projecting a deficit of some $300 million. With the federal budget under increasing pressure, and households continuing to be cautious in their spending, the projected elimination of that deficit is looking increasingly wishful, at best. We also face the prospect of substantial Territory contributions towards the cost of federal initiatives such as the Gonski schools funding reforms, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the prospective National Injury Insurance Scheme and the dental reform package announced yesterday. Add to that existing commitments such as an increasingly expensive health system and relatively high superannuation costs for ACT public servants with defined benefit entitlments (retiring in numbers over the next 5 to 10 years, I would guess), and a $200 million down-payment for this nice idea looks very, very optimistic, indeed.

If the Greens, or anyone else, wants to show us what serious policy development looks like, tell us clearly and honestly where the money will come from. A big commitment like this could only be funded by further increases in already high rates, which will be going much higher under Mr Barr’s planned changes, and substantial specific measures including, I suspect, much higher parking fees and other imposts to “encourage” greater use of public transport.

If it was all done on a strict user pays basis – which the Greens and Labor apparently think is appropriate in other areas (e.g. green waste removal) – and with the risks borne by the private sector (ha bloody ha) in the event that it’s an expensive flop, that would be fine, in the eyes of this taxpayer.

housebound said :

It’s a joke, right? Where are the Greens going to get $200 million from?

$200M? I thought the last estimate was closer to $2 billion.

housebound said :

It’s a joke, right? Where are the Greens going to get $200 million from?

Forward budgets allocate billions of dollars for capital works. Just a matter of how it’s prioritised.

Hundreds of millions for government office blocks and new freeways?

Or a quality public transport system?

It’s amazing what the “buy your vote” season brings out in the polli parties – next you will see that pay parking will be omitted from the ACT and cyclists will have a full car sized lane on every road. It’s also amazing that so many so-called “political promises” are trying to be completed by the current dictatorship – speaking of which, $200m is no where near the initial cost that the current dictatiories advised.

housebound said :

It’s a joke, right? Where are the Greens going to get $200 million from?

Imaginationland.

Well done Greens, for one, getting cars off the roads will help save our Wildlife!

It’s a joke, right? Where are the Greens going to get $200 million from?

Daily Digest

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

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