Locals should be tram's priority

Heavs said :

What is the effect going to be on the ‘Dickson Parklands’?

Possibly – probably. Who knows.

There is no way that current green spaces along or near the tram line will be all retained. Those will be needed for infill sooner or later. I would say that it is almost inevitable that currently underutilised sites such as the Dickson parklands, will be used for residential infill too.

So, the OP will not be able to have his cake and eat it too. I hope the OP and other pro-tramers enjoy the new “grown up” European style, Canberra.

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Replacing trams with buses down the Northbourne Avenue median strip will necessitate most of the work required for the trams namely excavations, relocations of services. Even though buses are lighter than trams they both have similar axle loadings and if there are parallel lanes/tracks extra strengthening is required.

Occassionally we agree.

Bus Rapid Transit will actually mean laying bitumen down what is now green space and a whole lot more infrastructure at the stops, because buses have a much lower capacity and crowd the stops. The lower capacity and relative disorganisation of multiple untracked vehicles actually causes congestion during peak hours as they all try to pull in and pull out.

All for the cost of not much different from Light Rail with substantially lower capacity.
.

By not much different you mean less than half right?

We’ve been over this previously, the costs from the government’s own report are:

BRT : $300-350 million
LRT: $700-$750 million

As for the rest of your complaints they’re also incorrect. The BRT system has almost the exact same performance characteristics as the tram. Complaints about buses causing congestion or capacity issues because they’re “untracked” is just wrong.

The ACT Report was for kerbside alignment for both LRT and BRT in Northbourne Ave.

The BRT option DID NOT include the cost of the Buses nor Depots so was a false comparison.

If, as proposed above, the buses run down the centre green verge in dedicated lanes, that occupies more land and would be more costly then simply excising two lanes from the existing roads. That would provide extra capacity with an additional two road lanes but would mean the buses would not be able to pass each other as suggested without extra overtaking lanes, which is extra cost and an extra several metres taken out of the verge requiring 4 lanes at the bus stops. Buses because they are untracked need wider space than Light Rail to safely run opposing lines at speed. They also have a fifth to a third of the passengers of Light Rail requiring 3 to 5 times more vehicles and drivers.

BRT can carry 4,500 to 25,000 passengers per hour per direction. The higher figure can only be achieved by a substantially upgraded system which can cost more than LRT.

LRT can carry 25,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour per direction. To achieve the higher figure the LRT needs to be fully grade separated.

Brisbane’s BRT runs 200 buses/hr carrying 9000 passengers peak. NB This is one bus passing EVERY 18 seconds on average.

The best performing BRT system, Bogotá’s TransMillenio uses 4 lanes and pedestrian bridge access, and carries 25,000 pph. ie 560 buses per hour, almost one every 10 seconds. TransMillenio’s buses are a major contributor to the city’s pollution and restrictions are placed on when and which buses can run during the day.

Running costs are lower per passenger/km with LRT.

The Canberra BRT proposal planned a substantial narrowing of the median verge to less than half the existing and culling the trees just as with the current LRT proposal. Any bitumen paving for buses in the median verge will disturb or smother tree roots and will in turn be damaged by the adjacent trees. Light rail tracks are open and can be grassed.

Peak hour congestion of buses pulling in and out of BRT stops is a known issue and why the more sophisticated and expensive BRT systems, particularly in South America build more complicated stops with more lanes to achieve a capacity closer to LRT.

All of the above ignores the qualitative differences, the reasons why LRT is preferred by passengers and adds value to real estate along its route. It is clean, quiet and less dangerous. It is also more permeable for pedestrians who can easily cross the tracks, unlike the much busier and erratic BRT. Further the access to BRTs is often hindered by the need to protect the surrounds from excessive noise and fumes, usually with heavy barrier walls.

BRT represents a substantial investment in the same polluting, uncomfortable and unsuccessful transport as we already have now. Any infrastructure for a BRT will have to be removed if upgrading later to a higher capacity and and cleaner LRT, so the cost and the disruption to the network will be double or worse.

Equivalent to building a still expensive but crippled NBN, instead of just building a long term solution in the first place.

Firstly, I thought you didn’t like roads and cars? Now you want to protect extra lanes on roads for cars over a public transport bus option?

But regardless of that, I’m really wondering why you believe that we need a transport mode capable of upscaling to 25000-40000 people per hour when the total current usage along the corridor is around 9000 per day and the Capital Metro numbers suggest that will increase to 20000 per day in 15-20 years time through densification of the area? The kind of numbers you’re talking about are a few generations away.

Why would you spend such a large amount of capital now when you could have a much cheaper option and upgrade to light rail when the demand actually materialises? Seems like a massive bet on what is a very unknown and fluid demand.

Light rail or bust?

It has nothing to do with “like”. I drive when it makes sense or I have no choice. I also fly, bus, ferry, tram, rail, escalator, lift, cycle when that makes sense, which is most of the time.

You persist in the false notion that it is black or white, when it is comparative.

I am not demanding banning anything, which is what the CanTheTram lobby are demanding. The anti-rail reactionaries do not want an alternative, because they do not want a choice. With no options they can demand ever more roads, parking and pollution, to the usual result.

I am just pointing out how bad and damaging cars and freeways are as a transport option. They do not have a future, we have pretty well reached “Peak Car” and fro now on it is down hill.

The one thing about excess capacity is that it will be used. Freeways build in excess capacity, but it is not very large and gets very quickly exceeded because most of it is wasted. The one eyed perspective of drivers ignores how badly they use the very expensive and land hogging freeways.

The driver looks at full peak rail and not so full off-peak rail and sees a “problem” where there actually is no problem, that it is in fact the correct use of resources. Fully used when demand is high, run less when not so high.

The driver does not look at the largely empty cars with just one driver, stuck in stop start peak hour traffic, the largely empty off peak roads or the thousands of empty vehicles, going nowhere, littering our streets and open spaces as a problem, even though it is a HUGE waste of resources.

I have shown over and over again, that the total cost of the light rail is a fraction of the cost of the total cost of road plus vehicles and their consequences.

Maths frightens most people, so they avoid it. If there are any more than a few separate numbers to be calculated and added up to work out the real cost they just fudge it and go “I reckon…”.

They reckon wrong. Massively wrong.

BRT is very much a dirty, noisy and unpleasant option. It is not “half the cost” because the calculations mysteriously did not cost in the vehicles, drivers or other operational cost of the buses. It is a very bad stop gap because it only adds to the ultimate cost of the solution without contributing anything but more pollution in the interim.

Now you can actually advance this debate by doing some research and calculations. No more fudging and “I say” because we can all make wild guesses or even lie about all the options till the cows come home. I wasn’t particularly happy with the governments poor efforts so went off and did my own research and found the results quite interesting.

I actually started off questioning the Light Rail because I don’t like the route, still don’t for a number of reasons I have enumerated, but, and this is a big but, it will work as a means of clean transport for Gungahlin and as an alternative to bulldozing swathes of Canberra and inflicting a lot of pollution and noise on our suburbs. It will also be the start of a broader public transport solution, which Canberra desperately needs now that it is grown into a real city, and the densification that will take the pressure of urban sprawl. So win win IMHO.

I’ve only ever presented figures that have been presented in the government’s own reports whereas you’ve consistently presented irrelevant figures comparing things like the total cost of owning cars vs light rail or overseas examples of capacity or mode.

Yes, it is all comparitive, which has been my argument all along. That the light rail cannot be justified based on demand predictions and costs in the current economic environment.

Right on!
It’s as simple as that but they still wan’t accept it.

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Replacing trams with buses down the Northbourne Avenue median strip will necessitate most of the work required for the trams namely excavations, relocations of services. Even though buses are lighter than trams they both have similar axle loadings and if there are parallel lanes/tracks extra strengthening is required.

Occassionally we agree.

Bus Rapid Transit will actually mean laying bitumen down what is now green space and a whole lot more infrastructure at the stops, because buses have a much lower capacity and crowd the stops. The lower capacity and relative disorganisation of multiple untracked vehicles actually causes congestion during peak hours as they all try to pull in and pull out.

All for the cost of not much different from Light Rail with substantially lower capacity.
.

By not much different you mean less than half right?

We’ve been over this previously, the costs from the government’s own report are:

BRT : $300-350 million
LRT: $700-$750 million

As for the rest of your complaints they’re also incorrect. The BRT system has almost the exact same performance characteristics as the tram. Complaints about buses causing congestion or capacity issues because they’re “untracked” is just wrong.

The ACT Report was for kerbside alignment for both LRT and BRT in Northbourne Ave.

The BRT option DID NOT include the cost of the Buses nor Depots so was a false comparison.

If, as proposed above, the buses run down the centre green verge in dedicated lanes, that occupies more land and would be more costly then simply excising two lanes from the existing roads. That would provide extra capacity with an additional two road lanes but would mean the buses would not be able to pass each other as suggested without extra overtaking lanes, which is extra cost and an extra several metres taken out of the verge requiring 4 lanes at the bus stops. Buses because they are untracked need wider space than Light Rail to safely run opposing lines at speed. They also have a fifth to a third of the passengers of Light Rail requiring 3 to 5 times more vehicles and drivers.

BRT can carry 4,500 to 25,000 passengers per hour per direction. The higher figure can only be achieved by a substantially upgraded system which can cost more than LRT.

LRT can carry 25,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour per direction. To achieve the higher figure the LRT needs to be fully grade separated.

Brisbane’s BRT runs 200 buses/hr carrying 9000 passengers peak. NB This is one bus passing EVERY 18 seconds on average.

The best performing BRT system, Bogotá’s TransMillenio uses 4 lanes and pedestrian bridge access, and carries 25,000 pph. ie 560 buses per hour, almost one every 10 seconds. TransMillenio’s buses are a major contributor to the city’s pollution and restrictions are placed on when and which buses can run during the day.

Running costs are lower per passenger/km with LRT.

The Canberra BRT proposal planned a substantial narrowing of the median verge to less than half the existing and culling the trees just as with the current LRT proposal. Any bitumen paving for buses in the median verge will disturb or smother tree roots and will in turn be damaged by the adjacent trees. Light rail tracks are open and can be grassed.

Peak hour congestion of buses pulling in and out of BRT stops is a known issue and why the more sophisticated and expensive BRT systems, particularly in South America build more complicated stops with more lanes to achieve a capacity closer to LRT.

All of the above ignores the qualitative differences, the reasons why LRT is preferred by passengers and adds value to real estate along its route. It is clean, quiet and less dangerous. It is also more permeable for pedestrians who can easily cross the tracks, unlike the much busier and erratic BRT. Further the access to BRTs is often hindered by the need to protect the surrounds from excessive noise and fumes, usually with heavy barrier walls.

BRT represents a substantial investment in the same polluting, uncomfortable and unsuccessful transport as we already have now. Any infrastructure for a BRT will have to be removed if upgrading later to a higher capacity and and cleaner LRT, so the cost and the disruption to the network will be double or worse.

Equivalent to building a still expensive but crippled NBN, instead of just building a long term solution in the first place.

Firstly, I thought you didn’t like roads and cars? Now you want to protect extra lanes on roads for cars over a public transport bus option?

But regardless of that, I’m really wondering why you believe that we need a transport mode capable of upscaling to 25000-40000 people per hour when the total current usage along the corridor is around 9000 per day and the Capital Metro numbers suggest that will increase to 20000 per day in 15-20 years time through densification of the area? The kind of numbers you’re talking about are a few generations away.

Why would you spend such a large amount of capital now when you could have a much cheaper option and upgrade to light rail when the demand actually materialises? Seems like a massive bet on what is a very unknown and fluid demand.

Light rail or bust?

It has nothing to do with “like”. I drive when it makes sense or I have no choice. I also fly, bus, ferry, tram, rail, escalator, lift, cycle when that makes sense, which is most of the time.

You persist in the false notion that it is black or white, when it is comparative.

I am not demanding banning anything, which is what the CanTheTram lobby are demanding. The anti-rail reactionaries do not want an alternative, because they do not want a choice. With no options they can demand ever more roads, parking and pollution, to the usual result.

I am just pointing out how bad and damaging cars and freeways are as a transport option. They do not have a future, we have pretty well reached “Peak Car” and fro now on it is down hill.

The one thing about excess capacity is that it will be used. Freeways build in excess capacity, but it is not very large and gets very quickly exceeded because most of it is wasted. The one eyed perspective of drivers ignores how badly they use the very expensive and land hogging freeways.

The driver looks at full peak rail and not so full off-peak rail and sees a “problem” where there actually is no problem, that it is in fact the correct use of resources. Fully used when demand is high, run less when not so high.

The driver does not look at the largely empty cars with just one driver, stuck in stop start peak hour traffic, the largely empty off peak roads or the thousands of empty vehicles, going nowhere, littering our streets and open spaces as a problem, even though it is a HUGE waste of resources.

I have shown over and over again, that the total cost of the light rail is a fraction of the cost of the total cost of road plus vehicles and their consequences.

Maths frightens most people, so they avoid it. If there are any more than a few separate numbers to be calculated and added up to work out the real cost they just fudge it and go “I reckon…”.

They reckon wrong. Massively wrong.

BRT is very much a dirty, noisy and unpleasant option. It is not “half the cost” because the calculations mysteriously did not cost in the vehicles, drivers or other operational cost of the buses. It is a very bad stop gap because it only adds to the ultimate cost of the solution without contributing anything but more pollution in the interim.

Now you can actually advance this debate by doing some research and calculations. No more fudging and “I say” because we can all make wild guesses or even lie about all the options till the cows come home. I wasn’t particularly happy with the governments poor efforts so went off and did my own research and found the results quite interesting.

I actually started off questioning the Light Rail because I don’t like the route, still don’t for a number of reasons I have enumerated, but, and this is a big but, it will work as a means of clean transport for Gungahlin and as an alternative to bulldozing swathes of Canberra and inflicting a lot of pollution and noise on our suburbs. It will also be the start of a broader public transport solution, which Canberra desperately needs now that it is grown into a real city, and the densification that will take the pressure of urban sprawl. So win win IMHO.

I’ve only ever presented figures that have been presented in the government’s own reports whereas you’ve consistently presented irrelevant figures comparing things like the total cost of owning cars vs light rail or overseas examples of capacity or mode.

Yes, it is all comparitive, which has been my argument all along. That the light rail cannot be justified based on demand predictions and costs in the current economic environment.

And I have shown that that is not true, complete with references and my calculations.

AGAIN you have shown nothing, just made another unsubstantiated assertion.

Given your other “facts” easily check out as only “say so” we give it the credit it is due.

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Replacing trams with buses down the Northbourne Avenue median strip will necessitate most of the work required for the trams namely excavations, relocations of services. Even though buses are lighter than trams they both have similar axle loadings and if there are parallel lanes/tracks extra strengthening is required.

Occassionally we agree.

Bus Rapid Transit will actually mean laying bitumen down what is now green space and a whole lot more infrastructure at the stops, because buses have a much lower capacity and crowd the stops. The lower capacity and relative disorganisation of multiple untracked vehicles actually causes congestion during peak hours as they all try to pull in and pull out.

All for the cost of not much different from Light Rail with substantially lower capacity.
.

By not much different you mean less than half right?

We’ve been over this previously, the costs from the government’s own report are:

BRT : $300-350 million
LRT: $700-$750 million

As for the rest of your complaints they’re also incorrect. The BRT system has almost the exact same performance characteristics as the tram. Complaints about buses causing congestion or capacity issues because they’re “untracked” is just wrong.

The ACT Report was for kerbside alignment for both LRT and BRT in Northbourne Ave.

The BRT option DID NOT include the cost of the Buses nor Depots so was a false comparison.

If, as proposed above, the buses run down the centre green verge in dedicated lanes, that occupies more land and would be more costly then simply excising two lanes from the existing roads. That would provide extra capacity with an additional two road lanes but would mean the buses would not be able to pass each other as suggested without extra overtaking lanes, which is extra cost and an extra several metres taken out of the verge requiring 4 lanes at the bus stops. Buses because they are untracked need wider space than Light Rail to safely run opposing lines at speed. They also have a fifth to a third of the passengers of Light Rail requiring 3 to 5 times more vehicles and drivers.

BRT can carry 4,500 to 25,000 passengers per hour per direction. The higher figure can only be achieved by a substantially upgraded system which can cost more than LRT.

LRT can carry 25,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour per direction. To achieve the higher figure the LRT needs to be fully grade separated.

Brisbane’s BRT runs 200 buses/hr carrying 9000 passengers peak. NB This is one bus passing EVERY 18 seconds on average.

The best performing BRT system, Bogotá’s TransMillenio uses 4 lanes and pedestrian bridge access, and carries 25,000 pph. ie 560 buses per hour, almost one every 10 seconds. TransMillenio’s buses are a major contributor to the city’s pollution and restrictions are placed on when and which buses can run during the day.

Running costs are lower per passenger/km with LRT.

The Canberra BRT proposal planned a substantial narrowing of the median verge to less than half the existing and culling the trees just as with the current LRT proposal. Any bitumen paving for buses in the median verge will disturb or smother tree roots and will in turn be damaged by the adjacent trees. Light rail tracks are open and can be grassed.

Peak hour congestion of buses pulling in and out of BRT stops is a known issue and why the more sophisticated and expensive BRT systems, particularly in South America build more complicated stops with more lanes to achieve a capacity closer to LRT.

All of the above ignores the qualitative differences, the reasons why LRT is preferred by passengers and adds value to real estate along its route. It is clean, quiet and less dangerous. It is also more permeable for pedestrians who can easily cross the tracks, unlike the much busier and erratic BRT. Further the access to BRTs is often hindered by the need to protect the surrounds from excessive noise and fumes, usually with heavy barrier walls.

BRT represents a substantial investment in the same polluting, uncomfortable and unsuccessful transport as we already have now. Any infrastructure for a BRT will have to be removed if upgrading later to a higher capacity and and cleaner LRT, so the cost and the disruption to the network will be double or worse.

Equivalent to building a still expensive but crippled NBN, instead of just building a long term solution in the first place.

Firstly, I thought you didn’t like roads and cars? Now you want to protect extra lanes on roads for cars over a public transport bus option?

But regardless of that, I’m really wondering why you believe that we need a transport mode capable of upscaling to 25000-40000 people per hour when the total current usage along the corridor is around 9000 per day and the Capital Metro numbers suggest that will increase to 20000 per day in 15-20 years time through densification of the area? The kind of numbers you’re talking about are a few generations away.

Why would you spend such a large amount of capital now when you could have a much cheaper option and upgrade to light rail when the demand actually materialises? Seems like a massive bet on what is a very unknown and fluid demand.

Light rail or bust?

It has nothing to do with “like”. I drive when it makes sense or I have no choice. I also fly, bus, ferry, tram, rail, escalator, lift, cycle when that makes sense, which is most of the time.

You persist in the false notion that it is black or white, when it is comparative.

I am not demanding banning anything, which is what the CanTheTram lobby are demanding. The anti-rail reactionaries do not want an alternative, because they do not want a choice. With no options they can demand ever more roads, parking and pollution, to the usual result.

I am just pointing out how bad and damaging cars and freeways are as a transport option. They do not have a future, we have pretty well reached “Peak Car” and fro now on it is down hill.

The one thing about excess capacity is that it will be used. Freeways build in excess capacity, but it is not very large and gets very quickly exceeded because most of it is wasted. The one eyed perspective of drivers ignores how badly they use the very expensive and land hogging freeways.

The driver looks at full peak rail and not so full off-peak rail and sees a “problem” where there actually is no problem, that it is in fact the correct use of resources. Fully used when demand is high, run less when not so high.

The driver does not look at the largely empty cars with just one driver, stuck in stop start peak hour traffic, the largely empty off peak roads or the thousands of empty vehicles, going nowhere, littering our streets and open spaces as a problem, even though it is a HUGE waste of resources.

I have shown over and over again, that the total cost of the light rail is a fraction of the cost of the total cost of road plus vehicles and their consequences.

Maths frightens most people, so they avoid it. If there are any more than a few separate numbers to be calculated and added up to work out the real cost they just fudge it and go “I reckon…”.

They reckon wrong. Massively wrong.

BRT is very much a dirty, noisy and unpleasant option. It is not “half the cost” because the calculations mysteriously did not cost in the vehicles, drivers or other operational cost of the buses. It is a very bad stop gap because it only adds to the ultimate cost of the solution without contributing anything but more pollution in the interim.

Now you can actually advance this debate by doing some research and calculations. No more fudging and “I say” because we can all make wild guesses or even lie about all the options till the cows come home. I wasn’t particularly happy with the governments poor efforts so went off and did my own research and found the results quite interesting.

I actually started off questioning the Light Rail because I don’t like the route, still don’t for a number of reasons I have enumerated, but, and this is a big but, it will work as a means of clean transport for Gungahlin and as an alternative to bulldozing swathes of Canberra and inflicting a lot of pollution and noise on our suburbs. It will also be the start of a broader public transport solution, which Canberra desperately needs now that it is grown into a real city, and the densification that will take the pressure of urban sprawl. So win win IMHO.

I’ve only ever presented figures that have been presented in the government’s own reports whereas you’ve consistently presented irrelevant figures comparing things like the total cost of owning cars vs light rail or overseas examples of capacity or mode.

Yes, it is all comparitive, which has been my argument all along. That the light rail cannot be justified based on demand predictions and costs in the current economic environment.

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Replacing trams with buses down the Northbourne Avenue median strip will necessitate most of the work required for the trams namely excavations, relocations of services. Even though buses are lighter than trams they both have similar axle loadings and if there are parallel lanes/tracks extra strengthening is required.

Occassionally we agree.

Bus Rapid Transit will actually mean laying bitumen down what is now green space and a whole lot more infrastructure at the stops, because buses have a much lower capacity and crowd the stops. The lower capacity and relative disorganisation of multiple untracked vehicles actually causes congestion during peak hours as they all try to pull in and pull out.

All for the cost of not much different from Light Rail with substantially lower capacity.
.

By not much different you mean less than half right?

We’ve been over this previously, the costs from the government’s own report are:

BRT : $300-350 million
LRT: $700-$750 million

As for the rest of your complaints they’re also incorrect. The BRT system has almost the exact same performance characteristics as the tram. Complaints about buses causing congestion or capacity issues because they’re “untracked” is just wrong.

The ACT Report was for kerbside alignment for both LRT and BRT in Northbourne Ave.

The BRT option DID NOT include the cost of the Buses nor Depots so was a false comparison.

If, as proposed above, the buses run down the centre green verge in dedicated lanes, that occupies more land and would be more costly then simply excising two lanes from the existing roads. That would provide extra capacity with an additional two road lanes but would mean the buses would not be able to pass each other as suggested without extra overtaking lanes, which is extra cost and an extra several metres taken out of the verge requiring 4 lanes at the bus stops. Buses because they are untracked need wider space than Light Rail to safely run opposing lines at speed. They also have a fifth to a third of the passengers of Light Rail requiring 3 to 5 times more vehicles and drivers.

BRT can carry 4,500 to 25,000 passengers per hour per direction. The higher figure can only be achieved by a substantially upgraded system which can cost more than LRT.

LRT can carry 25,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour per direction. To achieve the higher figure the LRT needs to be fully grade separated.

Brisbane’s BRT runs 200 buses/hr carrying 9000 passengers peak. NB This is one bus passing EVERY 18 seconds on average.

The best performing BRT system, Bogotá’s TransMillenio uses 4 lanes and pedestrian bridge access, and carries 25,000 pph. ie 560 buses per hour, almost one every 10 seconds. TransMillenio’s buses are a major contributor to the city’s pollution and restrictions are placed on when and which buses can run during the day.

Running costs are lower per passenger/km with LRT.

The Canberra BRT proposal planned a substantial narrowing of the median verge to less than half the existing and culling the trees just as with the current LRT proposal. Any bitumen paving for buses in the median verge will disturb or smother tree roots and will in turn be damaged by the adjacent trees. Light rail tracks are open and can be grassed.

Peak hour congestion of buses pulling in and out of BRT stops is a known issue and why the more sophisticated and expensive BRT systems, particularly in South America build more complicated stops with more lanes to achieve a capacity closer to LRT.

All of the above ignores the qualitative differences, the reasons why LRT is preferred by passengers and adds value to real estate along its route. It is clean, quiet and less dangerous. It is also more permeable for pedestrians who can easily cross the tracks, unlike the much busier and erratic BRT. Further the access to BRTs is often hindered by the need to protect the surrounds from excessive noise and fumes, usually with heavy barrier walls.

BRT represents a substantial investment in the same polluting, uncomfortable and unsuccessful transport as we already have now. Any infrastructure for a BRT will have to be removed if upgrading later to a higher capacity and and cleaner LRT, so the cost and the disruption to the network will be double or worse.

Equivalent to building a still expensive but crippled NBN, instead of just building a long term solution in the first place.

Firstly, I thought you didn’t like roads and cars? Now you want to protect extra lanes on roads for cars over a public transport bus option?

But regardless of that, I’m really wondering why you believe that we need a transport mode capable of upscaling to 25000-40000 people per hour when the total current usage along the corridor is around 9000 per day and the Capital Metro numbers suggest that will increase to 20000 per day in 15-20 years time through densification of the area? The kind of numbers you’re talking about are a few generations away.

Why would you spend such a large amount of capital now when you could have a much cheaper option and upgrade to light rail when the demand actually materialises? Seems like a massive bet on what is a very unknown and fluid demand.

Light rail or bust?

It has nothing to do with “like”. I drive when it makes sense or I have no choice. I also fly, bus, ferry, tram, rail, escalator, lift, cycle when that makes sense, which is most of the time.

You persist in the false notion that it is black or white, when it is comparative.

I am not demanding banning anything, which is what the CanTheTram lobby are demanding. The anti-rail reactionaries do not want an alternative, because they do not want a choice. With no options they can demand ever more roads, parking and pollution, to the usual result.

I am just pointing out how bad and damaging cars and freeways are as a transport option. They do not have a future, we have pretty well reached “Peak Car” and fro now on it is down hill.

The one thing about excess capacity is that it will be used. Freeways build in excess capacity, but it is not very large and gets very quickly exceeded because most of it is wasted. The one eyed perspective of drivers ignores how badly they use the very expensive and land hogging freeways.

The driver looks at full peak rail and not so full off-peak rail and sees a “problem” where there actually is no problem, that it is in fact the correct use of resources. Fully used when demand is high, run less when not so high.

The driver does not look at the largely empty cars with just one driver, stuck in stop start peak hour traffic, the largely empty off peak roads or the thousands of empty vehicles, going nowhere, littering our streets and open spaces as a problem, even though it is a HUGE waste of resources.

I have shown over and over again, that the total cost of the light rail is a fraction of the cost of the total cost of road plus vehicles and their consequences.

Maths frightens most people, so they avoid it. If there are any more than a few separate numbers to be calculated and added up to work out the real cost they just fudge it and go “I reckon…”.

They reckon wrong. Massively wrong.

BRT is very much a dirty, noisy and unpleasant option. It is not “half the cost” because the calculations mysteriously did not cost in the vehicles, drivers or other operational cost of the buses. It is a very bad stop gap because it only adds to the ultimate cost of the solution without contributing anything but more pollution in the interim.

Now you can actually advance this debate by doing some research and calculations. No more fudging and “I say” because we can all make wild guesses or even lie about all the options till the cows come home. I wasn’t particularly happy with the governments poor efforts so went off and did my own research and found the results quite interesting.

I actually started off questioning the Light Rail because I don’t like the route, still don’t for a number of reasons I have enumerated, but, and this is a big but, it will work as a means of clean transport for Gungahlin and as an alternative to bulldozing swathes of Canberra and inflicting a lot of pollution and noise on our suburbs. It will also be the start of a broader public transport solution, which Canberra desperately needs now that it is grown into a real city, and the densification that will take the pressure of urban sprawl. So win win IMHO.

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

And stop piling vehicles into roads that have already reached their capacity and then demand more of the same.

This is interesting. You say the roads are at capacity. That is true between the hours of “X” and “Y”, twice a day. The rest of the day you could set up a picnic in the middle lane and have tea. Instead of trying to work around a transport problem, why are we not looking at ways to eliminate the problem in the first place? Spread work hours around so that not everyone is trying to get to the same place at the same time. Work from home, seeing that most of what people do in their office could easily be done on their home internet connection. Congestion is caused mainly by gazetted work hours. The government wants to get rid of penalty rates for working after hours and weekends so make use of this philosophy and have people working around the clock on different shifts. Imagine if you could go and do a car registration at 11 PM or sort out a problem with your Centerlink payments at 3 in the morning.
If the push is on to change things and not say no simply because we don’t want change, then here is an opportunity to do something radically different that will solve a lot of issues and create some new jobs.

All fine but a distraction. If it can be done, do it. What is stopping a tradie turning up at 11pm to “sort out a problem”?

Except he can’t even turn up on time any other time of the day. If at all.

Meanwhile people still pile in their cars or whatever transport in the peak hours for all sorts of reasons.

The difference is that in public transport they don’t do it 1.2 persons per vehicle and clog up the roads.

Rail based public transport keeps on schedule in the peak as well as the off peak periods. Drivers ignore the peak problems and persist in the self delusion that that is abnormal, not normal and the off peak is normal. You can not escape that a large number of people hauling around individual heavy vehicles is extremely inefficient, polluting, dangerous and consumes a lot of real estate and creates barriers to the movement of everyone else.

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Replacing trams with buses down the Northbourne Avenue median strip will necessitate most of the work required for the trams namely excavations, relocations of services. Even though buses are lighter than trams they both have similar axle loadings and if there are parallel lanes/tracks extra strengthening is required.

Occassionally we agree.

Bus Rapid Transit will actually mean laying bitumen down what is now green space and a whole lot more infrastructure at the stops, because buses have a much lower capacity and crowd the stops. The lower capacity and relative disorganisation of multiple untracked vehicles actually causes congestion during peak hours as they all try to pull in and pull out.

All for the cost of not much different from Light Rail with substantially lower capacity.
.

By not much different you mean less than half right?

We’ve been over this previously, the costs from the government’s own report are:

BRT : $300-350 million
LRT: $700-$750 million

As for the rest of your complaints they’re also incorrect. The BRT system has almost the exact same performance characteristics as the tram. Complaints about buses causing congestion or capacity issues because they’re “untracked” is just wrong.

The ACT Report was for kerbside alignment for both LRT and BRT in Northbourne Ave.

The BRT option DID NOT include the cost of the Buses nor Depots so was a false comparison.

If, as proposed above, the buses run down the centre green verge in dedicated lanes, that occupies more land and would be more costly then simply excising two lanes from the existing roads. That would provide extra capacity with an additional two road lanes but would mean the buses would not be able to pass each other as suggested without extra overtaking lanes, which is extra cost and an extra several metres taken out of the verge requiring 4 lanes at the bus stops. Buses because they are untracked need wider space than Light Rail to safely run opposing lines at speed. They also have a fifth to a third of the passengers of Light Rail requiring 3 to 5 times more vehicles and drivers.

BRT can carry 4,500 to 25,000 passengers per hour per direction. The higher figure can only be achieved by a substantially upgraded system which can cost more than LRT.

LRT can carry 25,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour per direction. To achieve the higher figure the LRT needs to be fully grade separated.

Brisbane’s BRT runs 200 buses/hr carrying 9000 passengers peak. NB This is one bus passing EVERY 18 seconds on average.

The best performing BRT system, Bogotá’s TransMillenio uses 4 lanes and pedestrian bridge access, and carries 25,000 pph. ie 560 buses per hour, almost one every 10 seconds. TransMillenio’s buses are a major contributor to the city’s pollution and restrictions are placed on when and which buses can run during the day.

Running costs are lower per passenger/km with LRT.

The Canberra BRT proposal planned a substantial narrowing of the median verge to less than half the existing and culling the trees just as with the current LRT proposal. Any bitumen paving for buses in the median verge will disturb or smother tree roots and will in turn be damaged by the adjacent trees. Light rail tracks are open and can be grassed.

Peak hour congestion of buses pulling in and out of BRT stops is a known issue and why the more sophisticated and expensive BRT systems, particularly in South America build more complicated stops with more lanes to achieve a capacity closer to LRT.

All of the above ignores the qualitative differences, the reasons why LRT is preferred by passengers and adds value to real estate along its route. It is clean, quiet and less dangerous. It is also more permeable for pedestrians who can easily cross the tracks, unlike the much busier and erratic BRT. Further the access to BRTs is often hindered by the need to protect the surrounds from excessive noise and fumes, usually with heavy barrier walls.

BRT represents a substantial investment in the same polluting, uncomfortable and unsuccessful transport as we already have now. Any infrastructure for a BRT will have to be removed if upgrading later to a higher capacity and and cleaner LRT, so the cost and the disruption to the network will be double or worse.

Equivalent to building a still expensive but crippled NBN, instead of just building a long term solution in the first place.

Firstly, I thought you didn’t like roads and cars? Now you want to protect extra lanes on roads for cars over a public transport bus option?

But regardless of that, I’m really wondering why you believe that we need a transport mode capable of upscaling to 25000-40000 people per hour when the total current usage along the corridor is around 9000 per day and the Capital Metro numbers suggest that will increase to 20000 per day in 15-20 years time through densification of the area? The kind of numbers you’re talking about are a few generations away.

Why would you spend such a large amount of capital now when you could have a much cheaper option and upgrade to light rail when the demand actually materialises? Seems like a massive bet on what is a very unknown and fluid demand.

Light rail or bust?

rubaiyat said :

And stop piling vehicles into roads that have already reached their capacity and then demand more of the same.

This is interesting. You say the roads are at capacity. That is true between the hours of “X” and “Y”, twice a day. The rest of the day you could set up a picnic in the middle lane and have tea. Instead of trying to work around a transport problem, why are we not looking at ways to eliminate the problem in the first place? Spread work hours around so that not everyone is trying to get to the same place at the same time. Work from home, seeing that most of what people do in their office could easily be done on their home internet connection. Congestion is caused mainly by gazetted work hours. The government wants to get rid of penalty rates for working after hours and weekends so make use of this philosophy and have people working around the clock on different shifts. Imagine if you could go and do a car registration at 11 PM or sort out a problem with your Centerlink payments at 3 in the morning.
If the push is on to change things and not say no simply because we don’t want change, then here is an opportunity to do something radically different that will solve a lot of issues and create some new jobs.

rubaiyat said :

Nothing stopping us switching to electric buses when they become available. There is even a Geelong company wanting to build both electric buses and trucks. It just recently ran one from Melbourne to Sydney on one charge.

Buses can never be as efficient as Light Rail in either energy, real estate for right of way or delivering passengers. They require many times more vehicles and drivers.

Buses are useful for feeder services and the less frequented side routes.

But to clean them up requires a whole new fleet, the same deal as for a sensible change to Light Rail.

Correction. The Melbourne City bus is yet to happen, they are still testing the bus, and it is not Geelong it is Yuroke.

For those who’d like to know more:

http://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/all-electric-bus-unveiled-in-melbourne-heading-to-sydney-on-one-charge/

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/adelaide-creates-worlds-first-solar-powered-public-transport-system-32530

http://gizmodo.com/adelaides-solar-buses-could-be-the-worlds-greenest-pu-1301379604

http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/em3945/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_bus

NB The Brighsun site is extremely sketchy and the Tindo has been around for a few years now but I can see no sign of it being expanded or any reasons why not. So I am guessing early days and other factors we have not been told about.

Nothing stopping us switching to electric buses when they become available. There is even a Geelong company wanting to build both electric buses and trucks. It just recently ran one from Melbourne to Sydney on one charge.

Buses can never be as efficient as Light Rail in either energy, real estate for right of way or delivering passengers. They require many times more vehicles and drivers.

Buses are useful for feeder services and the less frequented side routes.

But to clean them up requires a whole new fleet, the same deal as for a sensible change to Light Rail.

miz said :

The whole ‘trams are greener than buses’ thing is spurious. The difference is marginal at best, given the new buses have impressive green credentials
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/new-lowemission-scania-buses-join-canberra-network-20140715-zt7r1.html

Further, using existing goods (i.e. the buses we already have) is greener than creating demand for newer goods (costly tram that simply duplicates present bus routes, only slower).
Any move to increased public transport patronage, irrespective of type, would result in fewer cars on the road, reducing emissions and congestion. The tram proponents cannot claim this aspect as their own. Most cars are increasingly low emission these days.

Why not run a good bus marketing campaign instead of depriving the bus network of funds and redirecting those funds to the expensive yet essentially redundant Capital Metro agency?

Electricity (which will power the tram) has to be generated somewhere (at the moment it’s mostly from coal – not so green). While it is commendable to seek future power from renewable sources, by the time that happens the bus fleet is likely to be incorporating electric buses, making this aspect similarly unpersuasive.

miz said :

The whole ‘trams are greener than buses’ thing is spurious. The difference is marginal at best, given the new buses have impressive green credentials
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/new-lowemission-scania-buses-join-canberra-network-20140715-zt7r1.html

Further, using existing goods (i.e. the buses we already have) is greener than creating demand for newer goods (costly tram that simply duplicates present bus routes, only slower).
Any move to increased public transport patronage, irrespective of type, would result in fewer cars on the road, reducing emissions and congestion. The tram proponents cannot claim this aspect as their own. Most cars are increasingly low emission these days.

Why not run a good bus marketing campaign instead of depriving the bus network of funds and redirecting those funds to the expensive yet essentially redundant Capital Metro agency?

Electricity (which will power the tram) has to be generated somewhere (at the moment it’s mostly from coal – not so green). While it is commendable to seek future power from renewable sources, by the time that happens the bus fleet is likely to be incorporating electric buses, making this aspect similarly unpersuasive.

Those buses are not clean, they just are less dirty: ““The Euro 6 diesel buses emit approximately 80 per cent less nitrogen oxide and 90 per cent fewer diesel particulates than the previous Euro 5 engine models.”

They are certainly just as noisy, hardly carbon free, sit in the same traffic jams with all the cars and are no way as efficient as rail which uses 2% of the energy of rubber wheels on bitumen and which will run on renewables.

Cars are still a huge contributor of greenhouse gases.

Everything gets replaced. Use common sense and stop fighting the clean up we have to have.

And stop piling vehicles into roads that have already reached their capacity and then demand more of the same.

The whole ‘trams are greener than buses’ thing is spurious. The difference is marginal at best, given the new buses have impressive green credentials
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/new-lowemission-scania-buses-join-canberra-network-20140715-zt7r1.html

Further, using existing goods (i.e. the buses we already have) is greener than creating demand for newer goods (costly tram that simply duplicates present bus routes, only slower).
Any move to increased public transport patronage, irrespective of type, would result in fewer cars on the road, reducing emissions and congestion. The tram proponents cannot claim this aspect as their own. Most cars are increasingly low emission these days.

Why not run a good bus marketing campaign instead of depriving the bus network of funds and redirecting those funds to the expensive yet essentially redundant Capital Metro agency?

Electricity (which will power the tram) has to be generated somewhere (at the moment it’s mostly from coal – not so green). While it is commendable to seek future power from renewable sources, by the time that happens the bus fleet is likely to be incorporating electric buses, making this aspect similarly unpersuasive.

Some of the complexities and practicalities of LRT vs BRT can be seen here:

http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/what-is-actual-capacity-of-brt.html

and

http://iurd.berkeley.edu/wp/2013-01.pdf

BRT of course suffers from the same problem as LRT ie it is NLC (Not Like Canberra).

Canberra has never built a BRT, so therefore it is unCanberran to even suggest it. Because no example ever given will be exactly Canberra it can therefore be ignored.

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Replacing trams with buses down the Northbourne Avenue median strip will necessitate most of the work required for the trams namely excavations, relocations of services. Even though buses are lighter than trams they both have similar axle loadings and if there are parallel lanes/tracks extra strengthening is required.

Occassionally we agree.

Bus Rapid Transit will actually mean laying bitumen down what is now green space and a whole lot more infrastructure at the stops, because buses have a much lower capacity and crowd the stops. The lower capacity and relative disorganisation of multiple untracked vehicles actually causes congestion during peak hours as they all try to pull in and pull out.

All for the cost of not much different from Light Rail with substantially lower capacity.
.

By not much different you mean less than half right?

We’ve been over this previously, the costs from the government’s own report are:

BRT : $300-350 million
LRT: $700-$750 million

As for the rest of your complaints they’re also incorrect. The BRT system has almost the exact same performance characteristics as the tram. Complaints about buses causing congestion or capacity issues because they’re “untracked” is just wrong.

The ACT Report was for kerbside alignment for both LRT and BRT in Northbourne Ave.

The BRT option DID NOT include the cost of the Buses nor Depots so was a false comparison.

If, as proposed above, the buses run down the centre green verge in dedicated lanes, that occupies more land and would be more costly then simply excising two lanes from the existing roads. That would provide extra capacity with an additional two road lanes but would mean the buses would not be able to pass each other as suggested without extra overtaking lanes, which is extra cost and an extra several metres taken out of the verge requiring 4 lanes at the bus stops. Buses because they are untracked need wider space than Light Rail to safely run opposing lines at speed. They also have a fifth to a third of the passengers of Light Rail requiring 3 to 5 times more vehicles and drivers.

BRT can carry 4,500 to 25,000 passengers per hour per direction. The higher figure can only be achieved by a substantially upgraded system which can cost more than LRT.

LRT can carry 25,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour per direction. To achieve the higher figure the LRT needs to be fully grade separated.

Brisbane’s BRT runs 200 buses/hr carrying 9000 passengers peak. NB This is one bus passing EVERY 18 seconds on average.

The best performing BRT system, Bogotá’s TransMillenio uses 4 lanes and pedestrian bridge access, and carries 25,000 pph. ie 560 buses per hour, almost one every 10 seconds. TransMillenio’s buses are a major contributor to the city’s pollution and restrictions are placed on when and which buses can run during the day.

Running costs are lower per passenger/km with LRT.

The Canberra BRT proposal planned a substantial narrowing of the median verge to less than half the existing and culling the trees just as with the current LRT proposal. Any bitumen paving for buses in the median verge will disturb or smother tree roots and will in turn be damaged by the adjacent trees. Light rail tracks are open and can be grassed.

Peak hour congestion of buses pulling in and out of BRT stops is a known issue and why the more sophisticated and expensive BRT systems, particularly in South America build more complicated stops with more lanes to achieve a capacity closer to LRT.

All of the above ignores the qualitative differences, the reasons why LRT is preferred by passengers and adds value to real estate along its route. It is clean, quiet and less dangerous. It is also more permeable for pedestrians who can easily cross the tracks, unlike the much busier and erratic BRT. Further the access to BRTs is often hindered by the need to protect the surrounds from excessive noise and fumes, usually with heavy barrier walls.

BRT represents a substantial investment in the same polluting, uncomfortable and unsuccessful transport as we already have now. Any infrastructure for a BRT will have to be removed if upgrading later to a higher capacity and and cleaner LRT, so the cost and the disruption to the network will be double or worse.

Equivalent to building a still expensive but crippled NBN, instead of just building a long term solution in the first place.

Note that the Barr Government have not mentioned charging the Snows for the airport link …

Bus Rapid Transit will actually mean laying bitumen down what is now green space and a whole lot more infrastructure at the stops, because buses have a much lower capacity and crowd the stops.
How will the tram run down Northbourne without all the ripping up of the green space you are referring to? Buses use the existing bitumen,which if made a dedicated lane increases travel time and lessens the need to be waiting around at stops. There will be no need to change the corridor to accomodate this and with increased services creates jobs for more drivers. Going with more friendly fuels and even electric is feasible just like wireless trams, with the bonus of being flexible and usable everywhere.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Replacing trams with buses down the Northbourne Avenue median strip will necessitate most of the work required for the trams namely excavations, relocations of services. Even though buses are lighter than trams they both have similar axle loadings and if there are parallel lanes/tracks extra strengthening is required.

Occassionally we agree.

Bus Rapid Transit will actually mean laying bitumen down what is now green space and a whole lot more infrastructure at the stops, because buses have a much lower capacity and crowd the stops. The lower capacity and relative disorganisation of multiple untracked vehicles actually causes congestion during peak hours as they all try to pull in and pull out.

All for the cost of not much different from Light Rail with substantially lower capacity.
.

By not much different you mean less than half right?

We’ve been over this previously, the costs from the government’s own report are:

BRT : $300-350 million
LRT: $700-$750 million

As for the rest of your complaints they’re also incorrect. The BRT system has almost the exact same performance characteristics as the tram. Complaints about buses causing congestion or capacity issues because they’re “untracked” is just wrong.

CaptainSensible said :

Call me Captain Sensible – but wouldn’t it be better to spend this money on an INTERNATIONAL grade airport upgrade AND stick the buses down the middle of Northbourne Ave?
Who’s with me?

So you want to give ACT money to Snow for his airport?

dungfungus said :

Replacing trams with buses down the Northbourne Avenue median strip will necessitate most of the work required for the trams namely excavations, relocations of services. Even though buses are lighter than trams they both have similar axle loadings and if there are parallel lanes/tracks extra strengthening is required.

Occassionally we agree.

Bus Rapid Transit will actually mean laying bitumen down what is now green space and a whole lot more infrastructure at the stops, because buses have a much lower capacity and crowd the stops. The lower capacity and relative disorganisation of multiple untracked vehicles actually causes congestion during peak hours as they all try to pull in and pull out.

All for the cost of not much different from Light Rail with substantially lower capacity.

They are used and have been more successful in third world countries where wages are lower and capital cost and technology is a bigger impediment and environmental standards much lower.

To increase their overall capacity (and complexity) some cities have experimented with angled pullovers and overtaking lanes but this creates virtual bus terminuses at nearly every stop and really chews up space, probably the whole central verge plus some. It really jacks up the cost and in practice makes just another point of congestion and physical danger to waiting passengers.

People forget we already have dedicated bus lanes, fairly comprehensive bus terminuses and not enough drivers. Doesn’t take much to look at those to see how well they work in practice and how the public loves them. Hint: Not much.

Seeing how the vast majority of opponents here of Light Rail don’t give a flying …. about the environment, I suppose there is no point in mentioning for the millionth time that buses stink, pollute, are noisy and energy inefficient. Their single redeeming feature is that given all of the above, they still are nowhere as bad as cars and freeways.

CaptainSensible said :

Call me Captain Sensible – but wouldn’t it be better to spend this money on an INTERNATIONAL grade airport upgrade AND stick the buses down the middle of Northbourne Ave?
Who’s with me?

Well, yes – having buses down the middle of Northbourne – on lanes strictly for buses (and emergency vehicles in emergency situations) – would seem to be a sensible, practical solution for a Government which is apparently losing sleep over traffic congestion, but it will never satisfy the people who like big shiny new things, and who think buses aren’t sufficiently smooth and Continental for sophisticates such as themselves.

The wide-eyed enthusiasm for trams servicing the length and breadth of Canberra (i.e. so that the “little people” out in the suburbs can have access, too), seems to be strongest amongst those who have a very idealised view of the world. Anyone who has actually lived in a suburban location in a city which has trams/trains as well as buses will know the advantages of those forms of transport as well as the disadvantages, and will understand why, in practice – as opposed to theory and spin – any likely tramline will make a marginal difference to the way the great majority of Canberrans travel around town.

What is the effect going to be on the ‘Dickson Parklands’?

CaptainSensible said :

Call me Captain Sensible – but wouldn’t it be better to spend this money on an INTERNATIONAL grade airport upgrade AND stick the buses down the middle of Northbourne Ave?
Who’s with me?

Are you related to Captain Risky? (the guy on the car insurance ads) because the logic is similar.
Even the pull of catching a tram from City to Gungahlin is not going to be the genesis of international flights to Canberra.
Ironically, the airport is already international grade but the “build it and they will come” maxim failed (like it will for the light rail).
Rarely is Canberra Airport referred to its original name of Canberra International Airport anymore.
Replacing trams with buses down the Northbourne Avenue median strip will necessitate most of the work required for the trams namely excavations, relocations of services. Even though buses are lighter than trams they both have similar axle loadings and if there are parallel lanes/tracks extra strengthening is required.

CaptainSensible said :

Call me Captain Sensible – but wouldn’t it be better to spend this money on an INTERNATIONAL grade airport upgrade

We have that already, just no airline wanting to fly here. Yet… But the rumour mill is saying Singapore very soon with Jetstar starting to fly domestic shortly (only once a day to Melbourne) and maybe to NZ.

CaptainSensible said :

Call me Captain Sensible – but wouldn’t it be better to spend this money on an INTERNATIONAL grade airport upgrade AND stick the buses down the middle of Northbourne Ave?
Who’s with me?

We already have international capability at the new airport – we just don’t have any international airlines willing to fly here.

At last something sensible.

Canberra needs to fix several things. Sprawl being top of the list.

To fix sprawl we need a different urban plan and methods of getting around.

A tram within a higher density inner area is an obvious solution. A solution which is not just a shortsighted obsession with transport, ignoring why people need or want transport in the first place.

The existing city structure is not going to go away, as many seem to think is the immediate black and white consequence, but given a choice and the correct agenda the trend to a rich inner urban lifestyle will take off. The inner city life turns the old ideas on their heads. Rather than make everything and everyone far apart and then have to deal with how to get them all together again, make them close in the first place.

Currently we have the worst of both worlds. Continued land speculation in remotest rural demolition sites, and unco-ordinated high rise anywhere and everywhere. I suspect anywhere an opportunity arises and a politician sees something in it for the government or perhaps personal support in the next election, and when I say support I do not mean from voters.

Transport networks do have a way of co-ordinating the unco-ordinated. It becomes in the interests of all concerned, the developers, the government and the ultimate purchases of residential, office and commercial accomodation to cluster around the easiest and most attractive means of getting around.

That is why the design of the transport network is key, it has long term consequences. As we can see from the network of freeways which have divided the city and repelled development anywhere near where there are busy roads. The freeways have killed the regional town centres by making the connections too far apart and too random, especially as there are too many town centres. Some with no core reason for existence other than generic shops in generic Malls. The rest with too little commercial/office space to stand on their own.

The central most visible feature of most of the town centres is the car parking or access to the car parks which blot the landscape and kill any attempts at making open urban space that people can and will use. The cars, and also the buses as a spill over transport solution, continue to make that just too unpleasant, or bring people to the wrong locations within a centre.

Light rail is an obvious choice for consolidation and civic improvement because it is clean, pleasant, reliable and can work closely within urban pedestrian spaces. It is not going to be the total solution for all transport and does not need to be, only the closer inner higher density areas, reducing the cars entering and circulating in the inner city.

Cars and freeways tear apart a city and you can see how this has happened in Canberra. The freeways circle around the residential suburbs, rarely running directly anywhere because the planners paid attention to at least some of their consequences. They are noisy and dirty and unpleasant to be near. Hiding them to the edges behind earth berms has been a half hearted solution at best. You still can hear and sometimes smell them even at a distance, and when the cars enter the suburbs they still cause the same problems in the urban streets of constant noise and danger to children and any pedestrian who dares venture out alone.

The result is nearly everyone has decided it is safer to be inside the cars that have ruined everything, not outside them, a dangerous snowballing effect. A very unhealthy result and it is showing on our young children who are now almost overwhelming inactive and obese. It has also lead to the distancing of nearly everything, to the point where to get anywhere, even the most trivial, you HAVE to get in a car.

Once you get in that car it is hard to get people to ignore the car and actually enjoy their lives. They haul them everywhere they go and have to go back to wherever they parked them so they never stray too far away from them. The reverse of the “freedom” the people think they have bought with cars. Exacerbated by the way the cars get you from A to B reasonably efficiently but ruin both the starting point, everything in between AND the destination. Classic example was Gininderra Village. Initially it was a cute rural cluster in a lovely landscaped setting, a really nice place to get away from it all. Then came the freeway, the extra car parking and ultimately Federation Square and all its car parking jammed in behind. As Joanie Mitchell said “They paved paradise to put up a parking lot”. A once favourite place on weekends that we barely go to anymore.

As a Scout leader I was dismayed to see what “camping” has become. For the kids, parents and leaders it is almost always out of the boot of the car. The consequence being either they park all over the ‘beautiful countryside” and ruin it, or never go anywhere that doesn’t have a car park. End result the kids barely walk and usually drop out of Scouting in their early teens before real exercise becomes a real possibility.

Insanity. But so normal that it appears as “the only way” for many. Evidenced by the constant diatribe on this forum and others against any suggested alternatives.

Trams support pedestrians and do it in a pleasant generally non-intrusive way. I am concerned that the proposed Light Rail line runs down the middle of 6-8 lanes of heavy traffic, with probably the same route elsewhere. It won’t be able to do what it does best, create clean, pleasant urban spaces AWAY from heavy traffic, inside and close to the higher density living spaces and the vital urban streetscapes. It can’t because the existing corridors will continue to be ruined by the torrent of cars that have killed it.

I proposed it before and propose again that there be a few loop lines running around the inner suburbs in tighter streets where cafes and apartment living has sprung up and can expand. Not the current plan. The only merit the current plan has is that it is at least a move to a cleaner transport system than we currently have and can accomodate the increasing traffic streaming out of Gungahlin, without destroying everything in its path as freeways do. Better than nothing but not THE best.

The tram is only feasible if high density developments occur along the route. Without the densification it doesn’t work, so you can’t actually be pro tram without being pro high density development in the corridor.

“If the owners of the airport now wish to have the tram join the airport, then that link should be funded by the major beneficiaries, the owners of the airport site.”

Ah, good to see you believe the main beneficiaries should pay for the tram. So seeing as the main beneficiaries of the Gungahlin to City route are landholders along the corridor, you’d obviously be supportive of a tram levy based on land value to householders in this area right?

Or is that only applicable when it’s other people that should be paying?

Not exactly the same situation as Canberra but it may be the start of a trend:
http://www.bramptonguardian.com/news-story/6058427-brampton-council-votes-down-light-rail-transit-plan/
I agree with and support your statement that the absence of trams in Canberra is a legacy of earlier planners who fell under the spell of cars, roads and Big Petrol. This was a very positive move and many cities are envious of our ability to use our cars efficiently because of this.

I’m sorry, that has to be one of the most biased surveys ever created. What every response is given, the results can only be spun for positive outlook for the subject.

Compliance planning at its very best.

Disgraceful.

Call me Captain Sensible – but wouldn’t it be better to spend this money on an INTERNATIONAL grade airport upgrade AND stick the buses down the middle of Northbourne Ave?
Who’s with me?