19 April 2016

Tramway, Shamway, Light Rail is the Right Rail

3 November 2014 | John Hargreaves

I’m back form my overseas hols and am an even more ardent supporter of light rail than I was before I left.

Being a very parochially Tuggeranonite, I always wanted the Tuggers to Woden route to be the second leg of the rollout. I reckon that Athllon Drive is a made for purpose thoroughfare and that picking it as the second route would go down well with the Mexicans.

Even so, my mindset was from an experience as a kid in Melbourne where the tram is ubiquitous. To consider Melbourne without trams would be heretical. It is part of the ambience of that most cultural of cities.

I really didn’t give much thought to the relationship between buses and trams until I went to Barcelona. Here the light rail connects with buses and rail to take people anywhere they like in a most picturesque city. Getting around Barcelona is not a challenge, it is an enjoyable experience. And it is quick.

For the one ticket, I could go by tram from my hotel to the junction, get on a metro and do the specified stations, just like London, New York, Paris, or get a bus and go meandering around the suburbs on my way to my destination.

Now, there are some who don’t like the idea of a tram up the median of Northbourne. Well I was one of them once. Then I saw how you can do it.

In Barcelona, the rail lines go up the centre of the road, with a walkway/cycle path up its centre. The walkway is flanked by trees and it is a place to go and just chill out.

I’ve posted a picture of the tramway for you to gaze on. I saw mums with kids in prams, guys on skateboards, kids on roller skates, couples walking hand in hand (ah!) and I saw commuters rushing for their trams.

I saw bikes in their bike lanes, out of reach of traffic (and indulged myself in a bit of cycling) and never felt safer. On road cycle lanes are none thing but this stuff is amazing.

How about we cut the whingeing, think about how we can exploit this idea and get behind Capital Metro. If Barcelona can do it, we can!

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

MarkE11:37 pm 16 Sep 16

How many people are going to die on the level crossings all along Northbourne Ave?
So many people die on level crossings in NSW trying to beat the train.
Level crossings are DEATH TRAPS.

rubaiyat10:30 am 14 Sep 15

Rotten_berry said :

The Productivity Commission had this to say about the ACT light rail last year (page 95). Lots of copy-pasta but it’s worthy of quoting in full.
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/137280/infrastructure-volume1.pdf

In a submission to Infrastructure Australia in 2012, the ACT Government analysed a number of options including bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail rapid transit (LRT). The analysis estimated that the upfront capital costs for the BRT and LRT would be $276 million and $614 million respectively (on an undiscounted basis) (ACT Government 2012).

In its economic appraisal (which is essentially a cost–benefit analysis), the ACT Government found net present values of $243.3 million for BRT and $10.8 million for LRT. The benefit–cost ratio for BRT was estimated at 1.98, with 1.02 for LRT. In the assessment, the benefits of BRT and LRT were similar ($491.8 million against $534.9 million respectively), but the cost of BRT was less than half that of LRT ($248.5 million against $524.1 million, when discounted by 7 per cent). The cost–benefit analysis took into account a range of factors including journey times, and avoided environmental impacts and accidents (ACT Government 2012).

The ACT Government submission concluded that:
“Of the transport options, BRT is projected to deliver higher economic returns. On the other hand, the economic returns that can be delivered through LRT investment alone are likely to be economically marginal and the net economic outcome for LRT under even minor adverse circumstances is likely to result in negative economic returns. (2012, p. 29)”

Subsequently the ACT Government announced that it would proceed with LRT (Corbell 2013). In explaining the choice of light rail, reference was made to an earlier report by URS Corporation that found:
“A triple bottom line evaluation undertaken of these options [BRT and LRT], comparing their social, economic and environmental impacts to the ‘do-nothing’ scenario has shown LRT to provide higher benefits due to its higher social benefits. (URS 2012, p. 54)”

This ‘triple bottom line evaluation’ does not appear to provide a sound basis for determining the merits of the LRT and BRT options. First, it was conducted before the cost–benefit analysis discussed above, and accordingly appears to use less up-to-date information. Second, it employed a much less reliable form of analysis than cost?benefit analysis.

The triple bottom line evaluation used a qualitative rating system that involved assigning between one and five stars to a range of criteria, such as ‘reduction in car trips’, ‘upfront capital expenditure’ and ‘fit with planning and policy strategies’ (this is a type of multi-criteria analysis). For example, for upfront capital expenditure LRT was assigned five negative stars and BRT four negative stars. The number of stars for negative criteria were then subtracted from the stars for positive criteria to give an overall score. The reliability of these scores appears to be low because there seems no basis for supposing that each star is of equivalent importance.

In summary, a cost–benefit analysis showed BRT to be a greatly superior option than LRT. That a less reliable form of analysis based on less up-to-date information showed LRT to be slightly superior (the overall difference was one ‘star’), would not appear to provide a sound basis for overlooking this and deciding to proceed with light rail.

lol at the qualitative “triple bottom line” analysis.
In summary, vanity project.

I too am impressed with how bad a case the ACT Government has made.

They didn’t hire me to put the report together, probably because I have been fairly open in my opinion of the competence of the ACT Public Service.

I am also very unimpressed by the “The Productivity Commission” which seems to be a sock puppet for whatever the current Federal Government wants, just working out what shade the lipstick should be on the pig. I have noticed that their choice seems to heavily lean to petrochemical bitumen on the imported 4WD pig, with a heavy leaning to coal dust eye shadow.

All rather dark, gloomy and alarmingly shortsighted for my taste.

rubaiyat10:12 am 14 Sep 15

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat, are you on the tram payroll?

Please understand that the majority (so long as you don’t exclude Lib voters) are opposed to the tram. It’s a crap proposal for Canberra in so many ways it’s ridiculous. Arguing that a lot is spent on roads is beside the point, that money will still be spent – especially as the majority of Canberrans choose to drive a car. Replacing a busline with a crappy tram aint gonna dramatically change how Canberrans commute. How many commuters will drive to a tram station, then catch a tram and then potentially change to a bus in the city? Never mind that those living along the Southern end of Northbourne will find it quicker and easier to simply walk to the City than walk to a tram stop. The project has expensive failure written all over it. As people have constantly pointed out, technology is changing so rapidly in this space, the timing of a tram now is terrible. Let’s not send this city into greater debt and drive our rates up – let us have a proper go at deciding on this screwed up idea in the next election.

Are you on the payroll of the Liberals (ACT branch) not the Gold Coast LNP?

I am impressed by your well researched, insightful and analytical “majority”, “crap proposal”, “ridiculous”, “beside the point”, “crappy”, “ain’t gonna”, “expensive failure”, “technology is constantly changing”, “timing is terrible”, “proper go”…

Unfortunately I have also done research and laid it out here at length. It seems to be at variance with your “facts”. I can’t quite figure out why as you have so clearly done your homework and brilliantly laid out the results.

JC9:57 am 14 Sep 15

OpenYourMind said :

rubaiyat, are you on the tram payroll?

Please understand that the majority (so long as you don’t exclude Lib voters) are opposed to the tram. I

Evidence? All polls etc point to majority support. Not by much, which is not a surprise as many only think about themselves and not the territory as a whole.

Ironically just an hour or so ago I was listening to Tony Abbot going on about a new 15.5km road in Adelaide and how the main benefit to the road was the jobs it would create and the subsequent economic benefit those jobs would bring. Don’t see much of that being discussed here, even though the cost was roughly the same as Capital Metro. But here everything is about me me me and what I will get, not how many jobs it will create and the economic benefit to the territory as a whole.

OpenYourMind6:25 am 14 Sep 15

rubaiyat, are you on the tram payroll? Please understand that the majority (so long as you don’t exclude Lib voters) are opposed to the tram. It’s a crap proposal for Canberra in so many ways it’s ridiculous. Arguing that a lot is spent on roads is beside the point, that money will still be spent – especially as the majority of Canberrans choose to drive a car. Replacing a busline with a crappy tram aint gonna dramatically change how Canberrans commute. How many commuters will drive to a tram station, then catch a tram and then potentially change to a bus in the city? Never mind that those living along the Southern end of Northbourne will find it quicker and easier to simply walk to the City than walk to a tram stop. The project has expensive failure written all over it. As people have constantly pointed out, technology is changing so rapidly in this space, the timing of a tram now is terrible. Let’s not send this city into greater debt and drive our rates up – let us have a proper go at deciding on this screwed up idea in the next election.

Rotten_berry4:20 pm 13 Sep 15

The Productivity Commission had this to say about the ACT light rail last year (page 95). Lots of copy-pasta but it’s worthy of quoting in full.
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/137280/infrastructure-volume1.pdf

In a submission to Infrastructure Australia in 2012, the ACT Government analysed a number of options including bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail rapid transit (LRT). The analysis estimated that the upfront capital costs for the BRT and LRT would be $276 million and $614 million respectively (on an undiscounted basis) (ACT Government 2012).

In its economic appraisal (which is essentially a cost–benefit analysis), the ACT Government found net present values of $243.3 million for BRT and $10.8 million for LRT. The benefit–cost ratio for BRT was estimated at 1.98, with 1.02 for LRT. In the assessment, the benefits of BRT and LRT were similar ($491.8 million against $534.9 million respectively), but the cost of BRT was less than half that of LRT ($248.5 million against $524.1 million, when discounted by 7 per cent). The cost–benefit analysis took into account a range of factors including journey times, and avoided environmental impacts and accidents (ACT Government 2012).

The ACT Government submission concluded that:
“Of the transport options, BRT is projected to deliver higher economic returns. On the other hand, the economic returns that can be delivered through LRT investment alone are likely to be economically marginal and the net economic outcome for LRT under even minor adverse circumstances is likely to result in negative economic returns. (2012, p. 29)”

Subsequently the ACT Government announced that it would proceed with LRT (Corbell 2013). In explaining the choice of light rail, reference was made to an earlier report by URS Corporation that found:
“A triple bottom line evaluation undertaken of these options [BRT and LRT], comparing their social, economic and environmental impacts to the ‘do-nothing’ scenario has shown LRT to provide higher benefits due to its higher social benefits. (URS 2012, p. 54)”

This ‘triple bottom line evaluation’ does not appear to provide a sound basis for determining the merits of the LRT and BRT options. First, it was conducted before the cost–benefit analysis discussed above, and accordingly appears to use less up-to-date information. Second, it employed a much less reliable form of analysis than cost?benefit analysis.

The triple bottom line evaluation used a qualitative rating system that involved assigning between one and five stars to a range of criteria, such as ‘reduction in car trips’, ‘upfront capital expenditure’ and ‘fit with planning and policy strategies’ (this is a type of multi-criteria analysis). For example, for upfront capital expenditure LRT was assigned five negative stars and BRT four negative stars. The number of stars for negative criteria were then subtracted from the stars for positive criteria to give an overall score. The reliability of these scores appears to be low because there seems no basis for supposing that each star is of equivalent importance.

In summary, a cost–benefit analysis showed BRT to be a greatly superior option than LRT. That a less reliable form of analysis based on less up-to-date information showed LRT to be slightly superior (the overall difference was one ‘star’), would not appear to provide a sound basis for overlooking this and deciding to proceed with light rail.

lol at the qualitative “triple bottom line” analysis.
In summary, vanity project.

Rotten_berry3:18 pm 13 Sep 15

JC said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

Then apply a toll to repay the bond, because at the moment it is a free ride at the public expense. Then see how many people use it when they have to pay instead of shift it onto everyone else.

The Light Rail passengers will be paying fares. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, but hey hypocrisy and incoherent spleen venting rules!

Fuel excise, registration, insurance, GST, stamp duty….yes, drivers get a free ride don’t they. For me it costs all up around $2000 a year to drive on the roads. I think your statement has a large flaw in it.

And how much of that money actually goes directly to roads? And even if it did would it be sufficient to cover the costs of building and maintaining the roads?

Latest data I can find is here: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/AI%20Road%20 graph%202.jpg

Older more detailed data here: https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/files/is_040.pdf

The roads do pretty much pay for themselves. The tax take has levelled off due to removal of fuel tax indexation which should be fixed, and some of the recent major road projects have been pork barrels. Engineering labour costs also shot up during the mining boom years.

It doesn’t cover externalities but all transport modes have externalities which can’t be considered in isolation from the benefits. E.g. cars allow us to not live on top of each other like Barcelonians. Apartment dwellers often impose negative externalities on their neighbours through noise, smoking and firing up BBQs on balconies, etc; soundproofing is unfortunately often poorly done. According to some here roads have “no return” so let’s get rid of them all and live like this! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1_rocinha_favela_closeup.JPG Of course I’m being silly here, but there are also externalities to taking away all the roads and cars.

My main beef with the anti-sprawl crusaders is that many of them want to keep their nice ¼ acre blocks, which apparently are not part of the “sprawl problem”, while banning further “sprawl” and pushing everyone else into the vibrant utopia of tower blocks and trains. The inevitable continuing inflation of land prices from such policies is an extra bonus for the comfortable champagne socialists, as long as nobody proposes an apartment block in their back yard; then we get to hear all about the evils of profit-seeking developers concreting over the landscape.

That being said I wouldn’t mind seeing fuel tax increased towards European levels (over several years and with targeted assistance to low-income outer suburbanites stuck with old guzzling commodores etc. The yuppies with huge Audi SUVs don’t need any assistance.). The oil won’t last forever and these days there is no need for cars to be using upwards of 10 litres/100km. Half that is perfectly doable (as in Europe) and in another 10 years EVs using 20 kWh/100 km should be practical. This would drive much greater energy savings than a small mode shift to light rail, and unlike light rail will contribute to govt coffers rather than draining them.

It would also push more people towards city living but I think many people would rather downsize their cars than their homes. Densification of inner areas and transport corridors is all well and good for those who want such things, but it’s not cheap to build good-quality apartments, and the rates + strata levies are usually more than the rates on a suburban house. That’s why those “spacious, high-quality, family-friendly, well-located, well-soundproofed, 3-4 bedroom apartments with plenty of storage” that everybody wants never actually get build for an affordable price. It just costs a lot more per sqm than building detached houses.

rubaiyat11:18 am 13 Sep 15

The Light Rail is good for a hundred years or more, going by other networks.

At the current cost of JUST the polluting internal combustion engine vehicles, not accounting for all the infrastructure and maintenance to keep them operational, ACT cars will cost well over $400 billion over the next century (as if nothing will change)

The light rail looks excellent value!

rubaiyat11:06 am 13 Sep 15

wildturkeycanoe said :

Fuel excise, registration, insurance, GST, stamp duty….yes, drivers get a free ride don’t they. For me it costs all up around $2000 a year to drive on the roads. I think your statement has a large flaw in it.

No it doesn’t it costs you PERSONALLY $11,000/yr to run your car, you just pretend it away, like all the other consequences in pollution, deaths, hospitalisations, lack of exercise of your choice.

http://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/car-running-costs

THEN add on the costs to the taxpayer and everyone else who has to breath the air, listen to the incessant traffic noise, suffer the “accidents” and the environmental damage caused by excessive car use.

rubaiyat10:46 am 13 Sep 15

rubaiyat said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

….yes, drivers get a free ride don’t they.

You keep claiming that it is public transport users who get the free ride, using ACTION with MyWay costs a full fare paying adult $2793.60 per year. Less than a quarter of what it costs you to run a car for the year. A sensible choice, but not a free ride. What have you paid in tolls to use the freeways?

Correction, this is MyWAY so that should actually be $1348.80.

No parking, cleaner and safer. We have had yet another death on the roads, in how many weeks?

rommeldog566:25 pm 05 Nov 14

JC said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

Instead of the “build it & they will come” approach, why not “declare it and they will come” ?

ie. Declare what all the transit corridores will be through Canberra – not just Gunners to Civic.

State that in 7-10 years, there will be some sort of yet to be defined mass/rapid transport system along those corridores.

Population densities along those corridores will then increase substantially.

In 7-10 years, assess all options for a mass/rapid transit system – who knows what technology will be available then. There has to be something more viable and more flexible than already 90+ year old tram technology !

That is exactly what they have done along this route. It was first declared in the early 90’s, Flemmington Road was built wide enough to accommodate it and was built with higher density housing along the route. We could also go back to the original plans for Canberra too for Northborne Ave which 100 years ago was planned as a tram corridor. So really what your saying is true but now is the time to deliver. Or do you want to wait another 20 years when people, probably the same opposing light rail will be asking why nothing was done.

I agree. JC. your comments have sound reasoning not just the lazy “knock it for its own sake” approach. My comments about Athllon Drive are that it is currently (at least from Woden to Drakeford Drive) a two-way road with provision for duplication later. why not use the duplication provision for a tramway, which could accommodate the commuter cyclists as well?

The “lazy, knock it for its own sake” sector is concerned about funding the shortfall.
A lot of us are on self-funded, fixed retirement incomes, the purchasing power of which is being whittled away by increasing rates and fees without a commensurate increase in useful services.
You may be enjoying your fat, ratepayer funded pension John but we are all as fortunate as you.
By the way, forget current, 100 year old technology trams using Athlon Drive as the gradients are too steep. It would be impossible to get traction on a frosty morning, for example.

But of course you are happy to chip in your bit for an endless supply of roads.

We all already do chip in for roads and associated maintenance – its called vehicle registration, probably a proportion of the rapidly increasing Annual Rates, parking fees and revenues from all other ACT Gov’t chatges. I have no problem with that because roads extend across all of the ACT and bring tourists, trade, commerce, workers, etc. The tram on the other hand……..

dungfungus1:35 pm 05 Nov 14

JC said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

Instead of the “build it & they will come” approach, why not “declare it and they will come” ?

ie. Declare what all the transit corridores will be through Canberra – not just Gunners to Civic.

State that in 7-10 years, there will be some sort of yet to be defined mass/rapid transport system along those corridores.

Population densities along those corridores will then increase substantially.

In 7-10 years, assess all options for a mass/rapid transit system – who knows what technology will be available then. There has to be something more viable and more flexible than already 90+ year old tram technology !

That is exactly what they have done along this route. It was first declared in the early 90’s, Flemmington Road was built wide enough to accommodate it and was built with higher density housing along the route. We could also go back to the original plans for Canberra too for Northborne Ave which 100 years ago was planned as a tram corridor. So really what your saying is true but now is the time to deliver. Or do you want to wait another 20 years when people, probably the same opposing light rail will be asking why nothing was done.

I agree. JC. your comments have sound reasoning not just the lazy “knock it for its own sake” approach. My comments about Athllon Drive are that it is currently (at least from Woden to Drakeford Drive) a two-way road with provision for duplication later. why not use the duplication provision for a tramway, which could accommodate the commuter cyclists as well?

The “lazy, knock it for its own sake” sector is concerned about funding the shortfall.
A lot of us are on self-funded, fixed retirement incomes, the purchasing power of which is being whittled away by increasing rates and fees without a commensurate increase in useful services.
You may be enjoying your fat, ratepayer funded pension John but we are all as fortunate as you.
By the way, forget current, 100 year old technology trams using Athlon Drive as the gradients are too steep. It would be impossible to get traction on a frosty morning, for example.

But of course you are happy to chip in your bit for an endless supply of roads.

Roads are useful.

JC12:43 pm 05 Nov 14

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

Instead of the “build it & they will come” approach, why not “declare it and they will come” ?

ie. Declare what all the transit corridores will be through Canberra – not just Gunners to Civic.

State that in 7-10 years, there will be some sort of yet to be defined mass/rapid transport system along those corridores.

Population densities along those corridores will then increase substantially.

In 7-10 years, assess all options for a mass/rapid transit system – who knows what technology will be available then. There has to be something more viable and more flexible than already 90+ year old tram technology !

That is exactly what they have done along this route. It was first declared in the early 90’s, Flemmington Road was built wide enough to accommodate it and was built with higher density housing along the route. We could also go back to the original plans for Canberra too for Northborne Ave which 100 years ago was planned as a tram corridor. So really what your saying is true but now is the time to deliver. Or do you want to wait another 20 years when people, probably the same opposing light rail will be asking why nothing was done.

I agree. JC. your comments have sound reasoning not just the lazy “knock it for its own sake” approach. My comments about Athllon Drive are that it is currently (at least from Woden to Drakeford Drive) a two-way road with provision for duplication later. why not use the duplication provision for a tramway, which could accommodate the commuter cyclists as well?

The problem with Athlon Drive as well as Adelaide Ave and Belconnen way for example is who will use it? Light rail cannot be a substitute for the 300 series buses it only works by serving people along the route. Actually this is a miss conception about the gunners route it will only serve those within walking distance to Flemmington Road and a park and ride.

The Gungalin route however has this however (some argue still not enough) but the others unless you are going to build high density housing along the way forget it.

JC12:38 pm 05 Nov 14

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

Instead of the “build it & they will come” approach, why not “declare it and they will come” ?

ie. Declare what all the transit corridores will be through Canberra – not just Gunners to Civic.

State that in 7-10 years, there will be some sort of yet to be defined mass/rapid transport system along those corridores.

Population densities along those corridores will then increase substantially.

In 7-10 years, assess all options for a mass/rapid transit system – who knows what technology will be available then. There has to be something more viable and more flexible than already 90+ year old tram technology !

That is exactly what they have done along this route. It was first declared in the early 90’s, Flemmington Road was built wide enough to accommodate it and was built with higher density housing along the route. We could also go back to the original plans for Canberra too for Northborne Ave which 100 years ago was planned as a tram corridor. So really what your saying is true but now is the time to deliver. Or do you want to wait another 20 years when people, probably the same opposing light rail will be asking why nothing was done.

I agree. JC. your comments have sound reasoning not just the lazy “knock it for its own sake” approach. My comments about Athllon Drive are that it is currently (at least from Woden to Drakeford Drive) a two-way road with provision for duplication later. why not use the duplication provision for a tramway, which could accommodate the commuter cyclists as well?

The “lazy, knock it for its own sake” sector is concerned about funding the shortfall.
A lot of us are on self-funded, fixed retirement incomes, the purchasing power of which is being whittled away by increasing rates and fees without a commensurate increase in useful services.
You may be enjoying your fat, ratepayer funded pension John but we are all as fortunate as you.
By the way, forget current, 100 year old technology trams using Athlon Drive as the gradients are too steep. It would be impossible to get traction on a frosty morning, for example.

But of course you are happy to chip in your bit for an endless supply of roads.

dungfungus12:16 pm 05 Nov 14

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

JC said :

rommeldog56 said :

Instead of the “build it & they will come” approach, why not “declare it and they will come” ?

ie. Declare what all the transit corridores will be through Canberra – not just Gunners to Civic.

State that in 7-10 years, there will be some sort of yet to be defined mass/rapid transport system along those corridores.

Population densities along those corridores will then increase substantially.

In 7-10 years, assess all options for a mass/rapid transit system – who knows what technology will be available then. There has to be something more viable and more flexible than already 90+ year old tram technology !

That is exactly what they have done along this route. It was first declared in the early 90’s, Flemmington Road was built wide enough to accommodate it and was built with higher density housing along the route. We could also go back to the original plans for Canberra too for Northborne Ave which 100 years ago was planned as a tram corridor. So really what your saying is true but now is the time to deliver. Or do you want to wait another 20 years when people, probably the same opposing light rail will be asking why nothing was done.

I agree. JC. your comments have sound reasoning not just the lazy “knock it for its own sake” approach. My comments about Athllon Drive are that it is currently (at least from Woden to Drakeford Drive) a two-way road with provision for duplication later. why not use the duplication provision for a tramway, which could accommodate the commuter cyclists as well?

The “lazy, knock it for its own sake” sector is concerned about funding the shortfall.
A lot of us are on self-funded, fixed retirement incomes, the purchasing power of which is being whittled away by increasing rates and fees without a commensurate increase in useful services.
You may be enjoying your fat, ratepayer funded pension John but we are all as fortunate as you.
By the way, forget current, 100 year old technology trams using Athlon Drive as the gradients are too steep. It would be impossible to get traction on a frosty morning, for example.

dungfungus1:44 pm 03 Nov 14

watto23 said :

As I’ve stated in many threads, I look at it from the perspective of what is the problem and what is light rail fixing. I’m a supporter of public transport, however I can’t really see the benefits that light rail provides on the current route that a busway wouldn’t also provide. Transit times of 22-25 minutes doesn’t sound great to me either. The only reason this route might work is population density. So as a Tuggeranong resident myself, I have no issues with this route being the trial route. I’d have thought an extension to Russell/Manuka/Kingston would have made sense also, but I’m guessing the lake is the issue and expense not worth forking out for initially.

However I’m trying to understand what the problem is. People don’t use public transport because its too expensive. They don’t use it because its inconvenient and slow, compared to the car. This form of light rail isn’t more convenient or quicker than buses. I’m all for light rail and public transport, but the current proposal is a waste of time. I can drive from Tuggeranong to Civic in the time it takes the light rail to do its route at half the distance. I imagine light rail to Tuggeranong would be at least a 45-50 minute journey. I know cyclists who ride from Tuggers in that same time frame.

I personally think a rapid intercity system is what we really needed. I quite liked the idea of using buses initially and replacing with light rail over time. It needs to bypass traffic lights and intersections completely by underpasses which i believe are cheaper and easier to build than bridges

Plus all the surveys ask heavily weighted questions which most fail to point out the proposed time saved on light rail vs bus is only 3 minutes. Clearly Canberrans don’t like to waste time commuting as evidenced by the driving on display, its actually a big plus many people like about living here giving up the hour plus commutes of other cities.

I’m happy to embrace light rail if there is some logic and sound reasoning behind it. I love the trams and transport in Europe. We could have similar systems in Canberra if done properly.

I am in 100% agreement with you on this.

watto2312:25 pm 03 Nov 14

As I’ve stated in many threads, I look at it from the perspective of what is the problem and what is light rail fixing. I’m a supporter of public transport, however I can’t really see the benefits that light rail provides on the current route that a busway wouldn’t also provide. Transit times of 22-25 minutes doesn’t sound great to me either. The only reason this route might work is population density. So as a Tuggeranong resident myself, I have no issues with this route being the trial route. I’d have thought an extension to Russell/Manuka/Kingston would have made sense also, but I’m guessing the lake is the issue and expense not worth forking out for initially.

However I’m trying to understand what the problem is. People don’t use public transport because its too expensive. They don’t use it because its inconvenient and slow, compared to the car. This form of light rail isn’t more convenient or quicker than buses. I’m all for light rail and public transport, but the current proposal is a waste of time. I can drive from Tuggeranong to Civic in the time it takes the light rail to do its route at half the distance. I imagine light rail to Tuggeranong would be at least a 45-50 minute journey. I know cyclists who ride from Tuggers in that same time frame.

I personally think a rapid intercity system is what we really needed. I quite liked the idea of using buses initially and replacing with light rail over time. It needs to bypass traffic lights and intersections completely by underpasses which i believe are cheaper and easier to build than bridges

Plus all the surveys ask heavily weighted questions which most fail to point out the proposed time saved on light rail vs bus is only 3 minutes. Clearly Canberrans don’t like to waste time commuting as evidenced by the driving on display, its actually a big plus many people like about living here giving up the hour plus commutes of other cities.

I’m happy to embrace light rail if there is some logic and sound reasoning behind it. I love the trams and transport in Europe. We could have similar systems in Canberra if done properly.

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Podiatrists

The Walking Clinic

The Walking Clinic has perpetuated an attitude of excellence in foot health provision. The experienced Podiatric team provide current and innovative care to all patients.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more