19 April 2016

Tramway, Shamway, Light Rail is the Right Rail

| John Hargreaves
Join the conversation
60

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.

barcelona-jh barcelona-jh-a

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

60
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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?

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?

Take Majura parkway for example, if the cost of that road is recovered over 10 years, then the cost per vehicle of using that road is over $3.50 per trip, based on the expected daily usage. Now I am not complaining saying we don’t need it, we do, I just get the irrits when different standards are applied to roads and ANY public transport options. If roads had to genuinely pay for themselves you and everyone would get a shock. But as a society we accept we need roads, but not public transport. And this isn’t just here in Canberra, same the world over sadly.

So I think your statement has a large flaw in it.

wildturkeycanoe8:25 am 13 Sep 15

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.

But John would we have to get out of our cars!?!

And what is that I can just make out above, a tiny thin overhead cable, and is that grass between the tracks?

Where is the bitumen, the lovely parked cars and broken up concrete, the meters, the signs, the smell of stale gasoline? Will I have to sniff it from a bottle?

aussie2 said :

John-I have another idea. Seeing as Mr Barr is convinced we are all in favour of trams, let’s prove it! Start canvassing for a Light Rail bond! If those in favour support it to the right funding level, we go ahead with the project, ALL SYSTEMS GO.
If not enough money is invested, as I believe will be the case, BIG STOP! oR YOU COULD ALWAYS ASK ACT LABOR AND GREENS paid up members to pay for it-if they are so keen.

The same applies to roads. Demand a government bond for every single overpriced stretch of road and see what up take you get. 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!

John-I have another idea. Seeing as Mr Barr is convinced we are all in favour of trams, let’s prove it! Start canvassing for a Light Rail bond! If those in favour support it to the right funding level, we go ahead with the project, ALL SYSTEMS GO.
If not enough money is invested, as I believe will be the case, BIG STOP! oR YOU COULD ALWAYS ASK ACT LABOR AND GREENS paid up members to pay for it-if they are so keen.

John-all governments since self government started have never been able to CONVINCE Canberrans to MODE SHIFT and leave the car behind. We have a history of less than 7% patronage for commuters. The FACTS speak for themselves. There are two bus services in Oxford UK, and one of them has 45% patronage on a user pays basis. No businessman would seriously consider building a tram based on our history. So, how about we be a bit practical: We want better public transport but with huge patronage improvements-the past 27 years experience has been pathetic at best!

We want 2000+ homeless given a place to call home,

We want an education system that protects and encourages our kids to their fullest potential-the cage story reflects the government’s lack of funding, damning our Government’s spin!

We want to reduce the prison population-train and qualify prisoners externally with real qualifications so they stay out of prison,

We want a legal system that stops excessively speeding drivers and domestic offenders given no bail and thus protecting the innocent of our city,

We want to repurpose unoccupied buildings to provide a place to call home,

We want sports fields, community halls and indoor sporting facilities including pools.

There’s more, but above all, we want to vote on the tram CLEARLY and DEFINITELY BEFORE ANY CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED.”
Got the message!

Before talking about more routes have you costed Phase 1 to each and every household in the ACT? According to the Canberra Times Phase 1 will cost $870M and there are 151,000 households in the ACT so the cost per household will be $5,166 plus interest plus the ongoing operating losses.

Does your family really want to pay $5,166 for a rail line you may never use? You will pay, look at rising rates and parking charges.

Even in the government’s own calculations the return on investment is only half as effective as widening roads for new bus lanes.

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……..

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.

Did u read what I said ? I said it will achieve much the same result re increasing denisty along the corridors if the Gov’t says it WILL build a rapid mass transit system along the corridors in 7-10 years. 100 years ago, nor any time since, has the ACT Gov’t committed to a timeframe – without that, no one will believe it so they will not come.

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.

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.

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.

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.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA11:03 am 05 Nov 14

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?

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.

JC: “… green left vanity project”

Spot on.

Ps. In Europe a lot of light rail lines are built to go to new suburbs. I recall getting one of the Dublin lines to the end and it ended in a building site. Guess in Europe they call it planning ahead but here a waste but here a waste. But if course the same people call for multi lane roads to be built to new development well before demand can justify they and when they don’t they blame the government for a lack of hindsite and planning ahead. Nor do they expect roads to pay for themselves either. So go figure.

justin heywood said :

JC said :

…..in Europe most newly built light rail netwok connects city centres to NEW suburbs and if ever you were to visit these suburbs you would see housing density similar to what be down Northbonre Ave and Flemmington Road. .

But that’s the thing JC. The proposed density can be whatever you need to justify the project.

The planning is backwards. We’re building a European-style transport system and THEN we’re going to retrofit the city in order to justify it.

But it’s useless to argue against it. It has become a Green/Left vanity project; they have the power to do it and they don’t care about the money or the logic.

Your right to roll this out city wide would require a retrofit that will never happen. Johns comment of Athlon drive being suitable is either a dream or a common misunderstanding of what light rail is for.

But the Gungahlin corridor is NOT being retrofitted. Form intron road has been designed from the begging to be a high density corridor light rail or no light rail and Northborne ave is also high density with a number off office complexes along the way. So ideal.

But getting back to Athlon it would be ideal if you didn’t want to stop but the thing needs to stop to pick up passengers. So build Athlon as high density it will work. Oh the other common misconception is light rail is for the whole of a district. It isn’t except park and ride. It can only really service what is along that route and again the chosen corridor is the only logical route on Canberra.

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 !

justin heywood9:32 pm 04 Nov 14

JC said :

…..in Europe most newly built light rail netwok connects city centres to NEW suburbs and if ever you were to visit these suburbs you would see housing density similar to what be down Northbonre Ave and Flemmington Road. .

But that’s the thing JC. The proposed density can be whatever you need to justify the project.

The planning is backwards. We’re building a European-style transport system and THEN we’re going to retrofit the city in order to justify it.

But it’s useless to argue against it. It has become a Green/Left vanity project; they have the power to do it and they don’t care about the money or the logic.

dungfungus said :

Masquara said :

Car ownership in Barcelona is 36 per cent. In Canberra it is 58 per cent. John, do you think this fact affects your comparison?

Indeed, this is the case for most towns/cities in Europe where people live in high density apartments (most built before the advent of the motor car) along the main thoroughfare (as it was in the horse and cart days). Even if a lot of people had somewhere to park a car at their place of residence they cannot drive to work as there is rarely parking available anyhow. Consequently, trams (and buses) have to be used.
This fact, and the myth that all people in Gungahlin work in Canberra City, are two fundamentals that standing alone make the Capital Metro tram totally unviable, no matter what spin they put on it.

Funny you talk about myths because going to point out a couple of your comments that are a myth.

Firstly in Europe most newly built light rail networks connect city centres to NEW suburbs and if ever you were to visit these suburbs you would see housing density similar to what be down Northbonre Ave and Flemmington Road. Some examples I can cite that I have personally ridden on include Strasburg, Toulouse, Lyon, Paris (where they now have from memory 8 lines all in the burbs), Dublin and Nottingham. All the ones I’ve seen in these area many would appear to have cars too just no to little parking in the city centre. Bit like how Canberra is going.

You seem to be confusing historic tramways with modern light rail.

Secondly no one has ever said everyone in Gungahlin works in the City but a good many do. So not sure what your point is. For others the line may well be extended into Barton which would get most office worker commuters.

justin heywood said :

miz said :

Light rail advocates get caught up in the fact that it is a good mode of transport per se…

Yep. The other common thread in their argument is how much light rail adds to the ambience of many European cities (and it does!)

Except Canberra, with it’s low density sprawl, is not like any European city.

But I doubt it matters how much the people paying for this folly complain. Never stand in the way of small men with big dreams and and someone else’s chequebook.

I suppose we should be thankful they didn’t fall in love with Venice.

Interesting I was in Strasburg a few years back and caught a tram from the city into the burbs. It Looked pretty much like the city to Gungahlin route to be honest. Built up close to town then wide roads with apartment buildings along the side. A Maccas or two. All done very well actually. If I were home I would send in some pictures i took of the burbs.

Also done the same in Tolouse and Lyon all these towns look a lot different than they are made out to be once you get deep into the burbs where tourists generally don’t go.

justin heywood said :

I suppose we should be thankful they didn’t fall in love with Venice.

Or the London underground….

HiddenDragon11:22 am 04 Nov 14

If we keep going the way we are, we will have a Spanish-style economy, so why not fantasise about having a Spanish-style transport system and city-scape, paid for with mañana funding? The problem, of course, is that we don’t have the European Central Bank to bail us out.

This massive idiocy is clearly going through the full tawdry political metamorphosis: 1. political fix – 2. we’re committed to it and we make no apologies for it – 3. it’s the way of the future, so get on board – 4. at least we have a vision (and, you know, haters gotta hate….). There were good reasons for the separation of church and state, and this faith-based initiative is a powerful reminder that the principle should extend to secular religions, too.

dungfungus said :

Even if a lot of people had somewhere to park a car at their place of residence they cannot drive to work as there is rarely parking available anyhow.

Give them some credit! They’re working on achieving this…

Masquara said :

Car ownership in Barcelona is 36 per cent. In Canberra it is 58 per cent. John, do you think this fact affects your comparison?

Indeed, this is the case for most towns/cities in Europe where people live in high density apartments (most built before the advent of the motor car) along the main thoroughfare (as it was in the horse and cart days). Even if a lot of people had somewhere to park a car at their place of residence they cannot drive to work as there is rarely parking available anyhow. Consequently, trams (and buses) have to be used.
This fact, and the myth that all people in Gungahlin work in Canberra City, are two fundamentals that standing alone make the Capital Metro tram totally unviable, no matter what spin they put on it.

justin heywood9:13 am 04 Nov 14

miz said :

Light rail advocates get caught up in the fact that it is a good mode of transport per se…

Yep. The other common thread in their argument is how much light rail adds to the ambience of many European cities (and it does!)

Except Canberra, with it’s low density sprawl, is not like any European city.

But I doubt it matters how much the people paying for this folly complain. Never stand in the way of small men with big dreams and and someone else’s chequebook.

I suppose we should be thankful they didn’t fall in love with Venice.

Light rail advocates get caught up in the fact that it is a good mode of transport per se. But they are completely missing the point. It simply cannot possibly solve Canberra’s transport needs any better than *proper investment* in bus transit, and is in fact way, way more expensive. If proper due diligence was done instead of a fait d’accompli sales job, Canberrans would feel less like they are being done over by this government.

Car ownership in Barcelona is 36 per cent. In Canberra it is 58 per cent. John, do you think this fact affects your comparison?

Well John, Welcome Back. I have to say I am not disappointed with your views as they are what you have always said. I had hoped your trip overseas would have brought about a reality check – if I were a businessman wanting to invest lots of money in Canberra, I certainly wouldn’t spend it on public transport – the returns are ridiculously low! Canberrans are over light rail, buses etc because they have been accustomed to a failed (since self government) model that doesn’t work. Try Oxford Bus Co for a 40%+ take up rate, fully user funded. Have a nice day. Russ

Ben_Dover said :

watto23 said :

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. .

I visited Gunghalin for the first time in many moons over the weekend, (why do people go there?) I had to take my dog to the groomers. I drove there, it took 15 – 20 mins, I left her at the groomers, and picked her up later. Total travel time 1 hour max, expense $2.00.

Though in the future, to be green and save the planet, I should consider taking a bus to the tram stop, a tram to Gunghalin, and a taxi from the tram stop to the groomers, and then back. Then I should repeat the process when it’s time to collect her.

Total travel time 1 day, expense $20-30 +.

I can see the attraction, vote green!!!

PS. They will let me take my little dog on the bus/tram,/taxi, won’t they?

I can recall travelling in NSWGR dog-boxes many years ago.

Nail said :

Barcelona is one of the scummiest places in europe, why do you want us to be modelled on that hot bed of gypsy crime?

That is a bit harsh, even if it is probably true. It is worth visiting to see alone the contribution Gaudi has made to the city and beyond that the drive to the airport is something to look forward to.

watto23 said :

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. .

I visited Gunghalin for the first time in many moons over the weekend, (why do people go there?) I had to take my dog to the groomers. I drove there, it took 15 – 20 mins, I left her at the groomers, and picked her up later. Total travel time 1 hour max, expense $2.00.

Though in the future, to be green and save the planet, I should consider taking a bus to the tram stop, a tram to Gunghalin, and a taxi from the tram stop to the groomers, and then back. Then I should repeat the process when it’s time to collect her.

Total travel time 1 day, expense $20-30 +.

I can see the attraction, vote green!!!

PS. They will let me take my little dog on the bus/tram,/taxi, won’t they?

MERC600 said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

All reasonable comments but remember that we are not a concrete jungle of a city. We have a green and beautiful one which can only be enhanced by something like I saw in Barcelona.

The other cities I visited were essentially smog ridden rat holes, even if some wonderful people lived there.

I don’t mind being accused of being fanciful, being a bit parochial and a bit out there occasionally. But remember that we can leave our kids with something beautiful if we take a chance. The critics of the arboretum are silent now. A $20 million risk and now look at it!

I’m not a NIMBY but a YIMBY – yes, in my backyard….

Just 20mill on the plantation John. I thought I read a higher figure somewhere. As for it being a success. Well I wandered in one day to have a look at what my taxes were doing. It was around 1pm so into the lookout I went for a feed. Very nice egg ‘n bacon sanger, and it was packed. But I think John most people were there to check out the view; the trees don’t come into it as there aren’t any yet.
The view is spectacular, and worth the drive. But the people would come just for that. As mentioned there ain’t no trees. We could have saved a lot of money by just building the lookout ( and flogged the rest to developers. It would bring in zillions )

The “lookout” (Dairy Farmer’s Hill) has been there, as has the spectactular view, for a long time. I used to take my family there for picnics as long as 30 years ago.
A “developer” has already made a significant mark at the arboretum.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

All reasonable comments but remember that we are not a concrete jungle of a city. We have a green and beautiful one which can only be enhanced by something like I saw in Barcelona.

The other cities I visited were essentially smog ridden rat holes, even if some wonderful people lived there.

I don’t mind being accused of being fanciful, being a bit parochial and a bit out there occasionally. But remember that we can leave our kids with something beautiful if we take a chance. The critics of the arboretum are silent now. A $20 million risk and now look at it!

I’m not a NIMBY but a YIMBY – yes, in my backyard….

Just 20mill on the plantation John. I thought I read a higher figure somewhere. As for it being a success. Well I wandered in one day to have a look at what my taxes were doing. It was around 1pm so into the lookout I went for a feed. Very nice egg ‘n bacon sanger, and it was packed. But I think John most people were there to check out the view; the trees don’t come into it as there aren’t any yet.
The view is spectacular, and worth the drive. But the people would come just for that. As mentioned there ain’t no trees. We could have saved a lot of money by just building the lookout ( and flogged the rest to developers. It would bring in zillions )

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

All reasonable comments but remember that we are not a concrete jungle of a city. We have a green and beautiful one which can only be enhanced by something like I saw in Barcelona.

The other cities I visited were essentially smog ridden rat holes, even if some wonderful people lived there.

I don’t mind being accused of being fanciful, being a bit parochial and a bit out there occasionally. But remember that we can leave our kids with something beautiful if we take a chance. The critics of the arboretum are silent now. A $20 million risk and now look at it!

I’m not a NIMBY but a YIMBY – yes, in my backyard….

“smog ridden rat holes”?
But that can’t be correct John as we all know socialist Europe is leading the world in emission controls.
Appears that they are useless – just like a carbon tax.

Rollersk8r said :

Except Barcelona has more than 4 times Canberra’s population for a start…

Not forgetting 7.4 million tourist visits (in 2012,) as opposed to Canberra’s…errmmmm 2 million…

But you never know! The thrill of taking a light rail trip, (woweee, we’ve never seen one of those!!) from scenic Gunghalin to the seething hotspots of Civic, may draw in punters from Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, by the score

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.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

All reasonable comments but remember that we are not a concrete jungle of a city. We have a green and beautiful one which can only be enhanced by something like I saw in Barcelona.

The other cities I visited were essentially smog ridden rat holes, even if some wonderful people lived there.

I don’t mind being accused of being fanciful, being a bit parochial and a bit out there occasionally. But remember that we can leave our kids with something beautiful if we take a chance. The critics of the arboretum are silent now. A $20 million risk and now look at it!

I’m not a NIMBY but a YIMBY – yes, in my backyard….

How an Canberra be “enhanced” by tearing up nature strips and laying steel rails not to mention the stanchions and wires that will pollute the landscape. Canberra is on eof few cities that had the foresight to underground as much power and communication cabling as possible. That is all out the window with the “must have” visionary tram proposal.
And you have got to joking when you say “the critics of the arboretum are silent now”. And I don’t know where you got the “20 million dollar risk” figure from – it has exceeded five times that already and continues to drain on resources that should be allocated elsewhere in the community. I look at it every day and all I see is grass and strange buildings – not my idea of an arboretum.

Barcelona is one of the scummiest places in europe, why do you want us to be modelled on that hot bed of gypsy crime?

John Hargreaves Ex MLA12:47 pm 03 Nov 14

All reasonable comments but remember that we are not a concrete jungle of a city. We have a green and beautiful one which can only be enhanced by something like I saw in Barcelona.

The other cities I visited were essentially smog ridden rat holes, even if some wonderful people lived there.

I don’t mind being accused of being fanciful, being a bit parochial and a bit out there occasionally. But remember that we can leave our kids with something beautiful if we take a chance. The critics of the arboretum are silent now. A $20 million risk and now look at it!

I’m not a NIMBY but a YIMBY – yes, in my backyard….

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.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back11:57 am 03 Nov 14

We need to take the emotion and opinion out, and put the analysis back in. Is our public policy goal to encourage the use of public transport? Why or why not? What public transport options are there? What the prices, benefits and downsides.

I’m sick of hearing about this silly idea that we know will lose a pile of money for no benefits over an above (far cheaper) buses.

Rollersk8r said :

Except Barcelona has more than 4 times Canberra’s population for a start…

Not only that, look at the population density of both. As of 2011 Canberra has 450 people / km2, Barcelona has 16000 / km2.

It amazes me that people are still willing to compare European cities with Canberra with regards to infrastructure like this.

As has been said already many times over, the numbers do not stack up for a city the size of Canberra. Why are we wasting $1 billion+ duplicating services that are already provided by busses? It isn’t just madness. It is an act of fiscal stupidity.

braddonmonsta11:01 am 03 Nov 14

The light rail proposal is scarily ignorant of the compelling alternative mass transit options out there.

For example, Eugene/Springfield Oregon (pop 351,000) recently installed a bus rapid transit line – it runs in a combination of dedicated right-of-way and on normal streets, with proper ‘stations’ and with special long vehicles with doors on both sides. Looks nice too, with gardens and grass in the track: http://ti.org/EugeneBRTReal400.jpg

Except Barcelona has more than 4 times Canberra’s population for a start…

The whole thing about public transport, in whatever form, is it won’t be effective unless people are forced to use it – and it’s simutaneously so amazingly convenient that it can’t be avoided. I just can’t see those stars aligning in Canberra, even if it the project is being billed as a culture change of up to 50 years.

Many thousands of Canberrans still enjoy free parking at work – and even with changes like paid parking in the parliamentary triangle – most can afford (or are forced to afford) the hit to manage caring/family commitments.

On another level, I think it’s madness to simply duplicate the existing town centre bus network with light rail. We’re talking $1 billion for something like 12km of track initially – and it’s at least 20km from Tuggers to Civic…

John, Canberra is not Barcelona.
You, like most Canberrans who have travelled to Europe, have been seduced by the vibrancy of the way of life that the tourists experience. It is a lot different under that veneer.
Did you check on Spain’s financial position in the few moments you weren’t euphoric?
No city in Europe offers virtually unfettered use of private motor vehicles like Canberra does and an unaffordable tram network will never change that.

house_husband9:29 am 03 Nov 14

I too think light rail is a much preferred form of public transport over bus. Northbourne Ave is perfect and so are many other major thoroughfares that connect town centres. The problem is the numbers just don’t stack up for a city of Canberra’s size and layout.

I know the just released business case says it is but direct operational revenue is less than half of the cost of running the network. Even if you ignore having to pay to run it, operational revenue over 20 years is just over 10% of the estimated cost of building, not taking into account interest. So how do we pay for it?

The rest of the “benefits” are mostly intangible fluff that an economist has put a dollar value on, savings that will result in lost revenue elsewhere or things that could be achieved via other methods of development. Not many real dollars from elsewhere to divert into light rail so where will the shortfall come from? Increased rates, cut backs in other services or projects?

Also it just so happens of all the potential projects mooted at the last election, the one that was part of the deal with the Greens to form government is pushing fast ahead while others languish in the wake of Mr Fluffy. But I’m sure that’s just a co-incidence.

Daily Digest

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

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