19 April 2016

Were alternatives to light rail fully considered?

| Arthur Davies
Join the conversation
170
light-rail

Late last year a caller to 666 Chief Minister Talkback asked then Chief Minister Katy Gallagher why letters the caller had individually addressed to each Legislative Assembly member had not been received. Ms Gallagher’s response was that the letters were opened and forwarded to the appropriate minister, as per standard practice.

These letters each contained technical information on an alternative to Canberra’s light rail system. The intention was to make each member aware that there were other options and at least one of these was both faster and cheaper than trams. If the individual members had such information, they could have participated much more meaningfully in the debate over transport options.

The interception of this information prevented meaningful and knowledgeable debate on what is a very expensive proposal. The implementation of a new transport system will inevitably change the face of Canberra permanently for good or ill, so coming to the optimum solution is imperative.

More generally, how can we have a democratic political system when first hand primary sources of information appear to be purposefully kept from our elected representatives.

This is just one example, but it leads me to question how much primary data has been diverted away from our elected Assembly members over the years. This must be seriously affecting the quality of the decisions being made by our governing body and the consequences which flow on result in our having a poorer governed community. Good decision making is only possible when all the facts are known. One can only wonder about the reasons for diverting information away from Assembly members, so that they generally have to work only on the information provided by the relevant ministers.

Subsequently the same person called 666 Chief Minister talkback earlier this year and spoke to Chief Minister Andrew Barr. The caller asked him about the lack of due process in selecting a transport system for Canberra and why transport solutions other than trams or buses were not considered.

Minister Barr appeared somewhat surprised and asked if there were alternatives. When told there were, he asked for details which the caller provided to the assembly entry that afternoon. The folder of technical information was handed to someone purporting to be from the Chief Minister’s office, who said he was aware of the Chief minister’s on-air request. On checking with the Chief Minister’s office several days later, the caller was told that the folder had disappeared.

Minister Barr’s office responded to the caller’s on-air query regarding the lack of due diligence in the selection process, but the letter did not address that issue at all. The caller then wrote a detailed answer to that letter which was then included in a third copy of the technical information folder. This folder and the letter were taken down to the ABC office in Dickson during a subsequent Chief Minister talkback. It was taken into the studio and presumably handed to the Minister Barr or his staff by an senior ABC staff member, but no acknowledgement for the technical information nor to the letter has been received to date.

As noted above, all the disappearing folders contained technical information on an alternative to the tram.

The example included in these folders was for a light weight overhead rapid transit system which would suspended on poles above the roadway. Hence it would not be slowed by other traffic, nor would it interfere with the flow of other traffic on the road below. But this is just one alternative of several which could do the job better and cheaper than trams or buses.

Any project of this magnitude should have been fully investigated before committing to any one technology. After all, the electric tram dates back to the mid 1880s, surely there has been some technical advances since then, real advances, not just jazzed up fancy bodywork on essentially 130 year old bogies.

Detailed searches did not uncover any technical investigations of transport options having been done in the past, only financial viability reports done by accounting firms on tram/light rail systems, with a bit also on the cost of express buses on bus lanes (which were a cheaper option and had similar trip times). Nothing else showed up in this search and various ministers in the past have confirmed in public meetings that trams were the only option considered.

The whole tram/light rail is saga is a dark, mysterious, dismal, impenetrable swamp. The secrecy is very likely to be hiding all sorts of hidden pitfalls and quicksand pools. The problem however is that the hidden dangers will not really affect those responsible for the pitfalls, which could well bring the project down. The defects and costs will all ultimately be sheeted home to the ACT taxpayers, who will have to pay for the flawed transport decision making process, not the perpetrators! All too often these perpetrators move on leaving the mess behind for others to face.

Before committing to any transport mode a full independent investigation of all available options available should have been carried out.

Capital costs, running costs, noise, convenience, speed/ travel times, environmental impact etc. should all have been evaluated for each transport mode and the results for each published for all to see before moving on to the design stage.

Only by fulfilling these due diligence investigations can the best solution for the long term be implemented. If a private institution were to embark on a project of the magnitude of the tram system without doing due diligence investigations and picked an inferior system which resulted in the shareholders later having to shoulder unnecessarily large debts, there would be serious consequences. The fact that far better and cheaper options were available would cause the financial watchdogs to come down on the institution’s management like a ton of bricks, large fines would be likely to be levied at the very least.

So why is the ACT Legislative Assembly able to adopt a scheme when their shareholders, the residents, have to shoulder unnecessarily large debts when a full investigation has not been done to compare all options, some of which appear to be cheaper, less damaging and faster? The system referred to above is only one of the available options which could meet our transport needs into the future & whatever we do, will transform our city forever. Without a full, transparent, independent investigation we will never know just what we may be missing, nor how much money we may have saved.

Join the conversation

170
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

JC said :

dungfungus said :

A recent Letter To The Editor of the StarTribune, Minnesota which should be read by all Canberra ratepayers:
“GREEN LINE
Fares cover 36 percent of costs; is that to be celebrated?
For months, light-rail advocates have been crowing about how popular the Green Line is. On Friday, we were reminded that light-rail riders pay none of the capital costs of the line, and only 36 percent of the operating costs (“Fares cover more than a third of Green Line expenses,” May 29). Metropolitan Council Chairman Adam Duininck called this a “strong showing.”
Given that this program has been such a success, I propose that the state give everyone a car, then pay 64 percent of the insurance, fuel, maintenance and registration costs of operating it. I bet this program will be so popular we won’t need light rail anymore.
Next, the state should give everyone a house, and pay 64 percent of the insurance, property tax, utilities and maintenance costs. I’m sure this program will be tremendously popular, too.
As light rail has proved, paying for things is overrated. Let’s just give people what they want!”

So how is this any different to any other government project? Have our rego fees gone up to cover the cost of say Majura Parkway? Do we pay a toll? Nope. So here is a road that has a large capital cost and on going maintenance liability yet is recovering recovering 0% of its true cost but that is ok isn’t it? Yet here is a project that is at least covering part of its costs so yeah maybe should be celebrated.

So why should public transport projects be any different?

You have missed the point entirely – try substituting”operating costs” for “costs”.
The capital cost of the Majura Parkway was largely funded by the Commonwealth – there is no direct funding from the Commonwealth for the tram.

dungfungus said :

A recent Letter To The Editor of the StarTribune, Minnesota which should be read by all Canberra ratepayers:
“GREEN LINE
Fares cover 36 percent of costs; is that to be celebrated?
For months, light-rail advocates have been crowing about how popular the Green Line is. On Friday, we were reminded that light-rail riders pay none of the capital costs of the line, and only 36 percent of the operating costs (“Fares cover more than a third of Green Line expenses,” May 29). Metropolitan Council Chairman Adam Duininck called this a “strong showing.”
Given that this program has been such a success, I propose that the state give everyone a car, then pay 64 percent of the insurance, fuel, maintenance and registration costs of operating it. I bet this program will be so popular we won’t need light rail anymore.
Next, the state should give everyone a house, and pay 64 percent of the insurance, property tax, utilities and maintenance costs. I’m sure this program will be tremendously popular, too.
As light rail has proved, paying for things is overrated. Let’s just give people what they want!”

So how is this any different to any other government project? Have our rego fees gone up to cover the cost of say Majura Parkway? Do we pay a toll? Nope. So here is a road that has a large capital cost and on going maintenance liability yet is recovering recovering 0% of its true cost but that is ok isn’t it? Yet here is a project that is at least covering part of its costs so yeah maybe should be celebrated.

So why should public transport projects be any different?

rubaiyat said :


All your examples of doom are because of a NON-EXISTENT Light Rail?

These are CURRENT examples of businesses failing or fleeing Canberra, so are OBVIOUSLY due to the vast amount of money that has been spent on the failed FREEWAYS!

There can be no other logical explanation.

No – not at all. If Light rail rolls connects all CBD + airport as the ACT Labor Greens Gov’t claims it will, the payments to the PPP out of the Territory budget pa for the next 25+ years can not be used to stimulate business growth and employment.

Does anyone seriously think that Light rail will bring more shoppers into the CBDs – to lug their heavy shopping bags onto/off the tram the walk to their house/unit or get on a bus ? No. It is only good for commuters + those going out on the grog so (understanberably) dont want to drive.

This will be at the expense of businesses generally.

A recent Letter To The Editor of the StarTribune, Minnesota which should be read by all Canberra ratepayers:
“GREEN LINE
Fares cover 36 percent of costs; is that to be celebrated?
For months, light-rail advocates have been crowing about how popular the Green Line is. On Friday, we were reminded that light-rail riders pay none of the capital costs of the line, and only 36 percent of the operating costs (“Fares cover more than a third of Green Line expenses,” May 29). Metropolitan Council Chairman Adam Duininck called this a “strong showing.”
Given that this program has been such a success, I propose that the state give everyone a car, then pay 64 percent of the insurance, fuel, maintenance and registration costs of operating it. I bet this program will be so popular we won’t need light rail anymore.
Next, the state should give everyone a house, and pay 64 percent of the insurance, property tax, utilities and maintenance costs. I’m sure this program will be tremendously popular, too.
As light rail has proved, paying for things is overrated. Let’s just give people what they want!”

rommeldog56 said :

Paul2913 said :

My small company is now paying an extra $12k per year due to ACT Labor raising taxes to pay for their ill-conceived train. But that’s just the beginning. When the cost overruns occur, and we find out that patronage was grossly overestimated we’ll find that this train is a perennial expense for ACT voters.

It’s a shame what ACT Labor is doing to this city.

I heard a claim on the radio from some infrastructure dude that to extend the Light Rail to all claimed CBDs will cost b$10-11 + cost of crossing LBG. Thats based on m$780 – b$1. People have to remember that on top of the capital cost being met by the PPP contractor, there will be their profit, a hedge against unplanned costs, variations in passenger numbers (unless underwritten by the ACT Gov’t), risk, etc.

I also know a small company in Mitchell (in leased premises) that was moving to QLD because cost of doing business here – including the rapidly increasing Commercial Rates (like residential Annual Rates – an ACT Gov’t charge).

At the end of the day, if u live in Canberra, you will need more $ in wages because of the rapidly increasing cost of living here (which i expect will get worse with the Light Rail costs over 20+ years, more MLAs, more PPPs, more unnecessary infrastructure projects and the Territory’s record budget deficit = increasing ACT Govt charges to cover). That will help to make the cost of labour (wages) sourced from Canberra increasingly uncompetitive to employers/businesses to remain here or establish here.

The ACTs revenue raising base to pay for Public Private Partnerships for infrastructure projects simply isn’t anywhere as large as available to the NSW/Vic/Qld, etc. We need significant federal funding for major infrastructure projects – or the cost of Canberra “growing up” will be too much. The Fed’s rejected the ACT Gov’t request for Light Rail funding.

All your examples of doom are because of a NON-EXISTENT Light Rail?

These are CURRENT examples of businesses failing or fleeing Canberra, so are OBVIOUSLY due to the vast amount of money that has been spent on the failed FREEWAYS!

There can be no other logical explanation.

Masquara said :

The ACT Government had public servants (surely on paid overtime) among the patchouli oil stands and second-hand clothing racks at the Ainslie Shops party this morning spruiking the light rail project at a stall – handing out an extraordinary ACT Government map showing light rail all over Canberra! Like, from outer Belconnen down to Lanyon – about ten times our current near-billion-dollar one leg of light rail. Clearly they think we’re all stupid and believe that Canberrans can stump up multi-billions out of our constrained budget. The spruikers couldn’t answer the most simple questioning about why buses down Northbourne Avenue are considered a worse option – when they could counter any projected congestion at less than a tenth of the cost of light rail, by simply putting on as many buses as needed, and blocking off car lanes (and keeping the trees that are visitors’ visual welcome to Canberra). Said public servant stallholders said that “the wear and tear on the ashphalt down Northbourne, and maintaining the road surface, costs more than light rail would cost”. ! Memo to Andrew Barr: if you don’t give your public servants a cogent set of talking points they just sound silly – but at least you aren’t actually controlling the message and your on-the-ground public servants do keep letting slip that they aren’t convinced themselves.

Re the comparative costs of building a light rail and maintaining Northbourne Avenue’s road surfaces, this mean we are going to be burdened with another billion dollars when it comes time to asphalting it or does it mean they are planning to close Northbourne Avenue to all road traffic?
It is time that some of these promoters of the light rail are made accountable for their outrageous claims.

Masquara said :

The ACT Government had public servants (surely on paid overtime) among the patchouli oil stands and second-hand clothing racks at the Ainslie Shops party this morning spruiking the light rail project at a stall – handing out an extraordinary ACT Government map showing light rail all over Canberra! Like, from outer Belconnen down to Lanyon – about ten times our current near-billion-dollar one leg of light rail. Clearly they think we’re all stupid and believe that Canberrans can stump up multi-billions out of our constrained budget. The spruikers couldn’t answer the most simple questioning about why buses down Northbourne Avenue are considered a worse option – when they could counter any projected congestion at less than a tenth of the cost of light rail, by simply putting on as many buses as needed, and blocking off car lanes (and keeping the trees that are visitors’ visual welcome to Canberra). Said public servant stallholders said that “the wear and tear on the ashphalt down Northbourne, and maintaining the road surface, costs more than light rail would cost”. ! Memo to Andrew Barr: if you don’t give your public servants a cogent set of talking points they just sound silly – but at least you aren’t actually controlling the message and your on-the-ground public servants do keep letting slip that they aren’t convinced themselves.

If u want to hear it from Minister Corbell himself, try this :

https://youtu.be/levOT6IB7Aw

Enjoy !!!

Paul2913 said :

My small company is now paying an extra $12k per year due to ACT Labor raising taxes to pay for their ill-conceived train. But that’s just the beginning. When the cost overruns occur, and we find out that patronage was grossly overestimated we’ll find that this train is a perennial expense for ACT voters.

It’s a shame what ACT Labor is doing to this city.

I heard a claim on the radio from some infrastructure dude that to extend the Light Rail to all claimed CBDs will cost b$10-11 + cost of crossing LBG. Thats based on m$780 – b$1. People have to remember that on top of the capital cost being met by the PPP contractor, there will be their profit, a hedge against unplanned costs, variations in passenger numbers (unless underwritten by the ACT Gov’t), risk, etc.

I also know a small company in Mitchell (in leased premises) that was moving to QLD because cost of doing business here – including the rapidly increasing Commercial Rates (like residential Annual Rates – an ACT Gov’t charge).

At the end of the day, if u live in Canberra, you will need more $ in wages because of the rapidly increasing cost of living here (which i expect will get worse with the Light Rail costs over 20+ years, more MLAs, more PPPs, more unnecessary infrastructure projects and the Territory’s record budget deficit = increasing ACT Govt charges to cover). That will help to make the cost of labour (wages) sourced from Canberra increasingly uncompetitive to employers/businesses to remain here or establish here.

The ACTs revenue raising base to pay for Public Private Partnerships for infrastructure projects simply isn’t anywhere as large as available to the NSW/Vic/Qld, etc. We need significant federal funding for major infrastructure projects – or the cost of Canberra “growing up” will be too much. The Fed’s rejected the ACT Gov’t request for Light Rail funding.

The ACT Government had public servants (surely on paid overtime) among the patchouli oil stands and second-hand clothing racks at the Ainslie Shops party this morning spruiking the light rail project at a stall – handing out an extraordinary ACT Government map showing light rail all over Canberra! Like, from outer Belconnen down to Lanyon – about ten times our current near-billion-dollar one leg of light rail. Clearly they think we’re all stupid and believe that Canberrans can stump up multi-billions out of our constrained budget. The spruikers couldn’t answer the most simple questioning about why buses down Northbourne Avenue are considered a worse option – when they could counter any projected congestion at less than a tenth of the cost of light rail, by simply putting on as many buses as needed, and blocking off car lanes (and keeping the trees that are visitors’ visual welcome to Canberra). Said public servant stallholders said that “the wear and tear on the ashphalt down Northbourne, and maintaining the road surface, costs more than light rail would cost”. ! Memo to Andrew Barr: if you don’t give your public servants a cogent set of talking points they just sound silly – but at least you aren’t actually controlling the message and your on-the-ground public servants do keep letting slip that they aren’t convinced themselves.

Unfortunately ACT Labor has a history of ignoring public comment and going its own way with its pet projects.

This light rail project is going to cost a fortune and, since ACT Labor often runs into budgetary problems, we’re likely to see this project have a cost overrun. This project isn’t very popular with the community, in-fact I don’t know anyone that supports it, and I don’t think it’s a very intelligent project.

The majority of the patronage on the train will be from bus commuters deciding to catch the train instead. I think the train will have minimal impact on road congestion particularly in an area like Gungahlin where many parents can’t catch as bus or train to work as they need their cars nearby for child transport and in case there’s a problem during the day at school.

Trains are a great idea in cities such as Melbourne when you’re visiting the shops or sight-seeing and want to go from one shopping district or attraction to another. Dickson restaurants and the City might be places where people are interested in going, but there’s little of interest in Gungahlin… actually there’s Gold Creek, but the train doesn’t go anywhere near it.

I live in Gungahlin, and apart from taking the kids on a few fun train rides each year I seriously can’t see how I would benefit from this train.

I also cringe to think that they are going to rip up the beautiful tree-lined median strip on Northbourne Avenue for this eyesore.

My small company is now paying an extra $12k per year due to ACT Labor raising taxes to pay for their ill-conceived train. But that’s just the beginning. When the cost overruns occur, and we find out that patronage was grossly overestimated we’ll find that this train is a perennial expense for ACT voters.

It’s a shame what ACT Labor is doing to this city.

wildturkeycanoe said :

rubaiyat said :

Well here is a challenge for the 3 Geniuses:
……. they still only have barely one occupant in them even during peak hours.

The simple explanation for this is that not everybody is going to the same place and public transport will not get them all to where they are going in the time frame that they are required to get there. Cars allow for flexibility, public transport is rigid in its timetables, occupancy and routes. Workplaces are also rigid in their timetables and location thus creating the need for peak hour. If only business hours were stretched out and workplaces moved to where people lived there’d be no need for major transport infrastructure of any kind. Problem solved.
Ask anyone sitting on Parks Way at 8:00 AM why they aren’t catching a bus and you’d get the same answers. They won’t pick up and drop off where the person needs to, are usually full and will not get them there in sufficient time.
Trams will be even less flexible. Certainly not a solution to any transport problem.

You need to get with the programe wildturkeycanoe and stop talking logic and common sense. This is what happens when the ACT Government, Canberra Metro and their highly paid consultants, in all their immense wisdom, do not properly and fully evaluate and compare alternative solutions – as correctly stated here by Arthur Davies. The CBD-CBD solution is just half baked and unaffordable.

wildturkeycanoe6:51 am 12 May 15

rubaiyat said :

Well here is a challenge for the 3 Geniuses:
……. they still only have barely one occupant in them even during peak hours.

The simple explanation for this is that not everybody is going to the same place and public transport will not get them all to where they are going in the time frame that they are required to get there. Cars allow for flexibility, public transport is rigid in its timetables, occupancy and routes. Workplaces are also rigid in their timetables and location thus creating the need for peak hour. If only business hours were stretched out and workplaces moved to where people lived there’d be no need for major transport infrastructure of any kind. Problem solved.
Ask anyone sitting on Parks Way at 8:00 AM why they aren’t catching a bus and you’d get the same answers. They won’t pick up and drop off where the person needs to, are usually full and will not get them there in sufficient time.
Trams will be even less flexible. Certainly not a solution to any transport problem.

wildturkeycanoe6:33 am 12 May 15

rubaiyat said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

…ONLY 1291 deaths on Australian roads…

Shows with crystal clarity the “thinking” behind the car obsessed.

Doesn’t mention the 32,500 seriously injured or the $27 billion/year cost of road crashes, which consume 18% of health expenditure and 1.8% of GDP.

https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/report_140.pdf

Ha, ha, ha….got ya nice and riled up didn’t I. As if I was using this as a serious argument for supporting motor vehicles as opposed to public transport. It was quite delighted to point out using this example that you yourself have drifted from the topic also, being primarily about alternatives to the tram rather than why cars are the root of all evil. Road death statistics do not give any weight to arguing in favor of trams over other public transport options, I hardly think anyone here is against safer transport options, but going off on an “eco-friendly, green only, cycling is the answer, the world is doomed because of fossil fuels” tangent doesn’t help us understand why the government won’t listen to reason when spending billions on something that is proven time and time again to be both ineffective at solving the problem and costs so much our grandchildren’s children will be paying it off.

Arthur Davies3:13 pm 11 May 15

rubaiyat said :

Arthur Davies said :

The major cost of “light rail” is the foundations. Have a look at images of typical systems being built, continuous heavily reinforced very thick concrete to hold the rails. Trams seem to weigh around 25t & more, pod cars weigh around 0.4T (400kg). The bored pole foundations are far smaller ? cheaper by comparison. The gold coast line even had to have deep piles below the foundations! I will check on the cost of the small stations & report further.

True trams are heavy, but extremely durable, hundred year old trams are still running happily on the museum line in S.F.

In Zurich and Graz, and I assume elsewhere, the tram lines were laid in the ground on concrete sleepers with grass laid in between. Once in place, that’s it. They need virtually no maintenance, certainly way less than roads. You get what you pay for. With trams it is up front and the benefits last forever.

The Gold Coast is built on a sandbar, everything there needs deep footings.

The pods may be light weight but that doesn’t mean the structures that support them can be. The proposal has people suspended high up, travelling at high speed. The only thing keeping them up there is the poles on the sides of roads, which do occasionally get struck by other vehicles. And I still don’t get the switching mechanism, which has no details. It instantly attracts my attention as a source of problems.

The access to the very low capacity pods is the Achilles Heel of this project, that and the B-grade 50’s Sci-Fi props the inventor shows off in his videos, the ones that aren’t knocked together 3D-Max animations by some kid using his home PC. I have to worry about this project if they can’t even competently fake the visuals.

Do you have any idea of just how much it costs to put in and maintain open air public lifts and escalators? You are asking for both on every stop for this system! The same for a 2 storey platform to hold waiting passengers. This is not a treehouse, and I still have not seen a sensible solution for getting into the pods. For safety there would have to be a cantilevered floor under where it pulls up. The “simple” elevated stops just keep growing and growing. Not that they are shown consistently anywhere in the mock-ups.

The half kilometre Tel-Aviv loop would be better built as a bike track. As if the geeks on the campus should avoid even the most minimal of exercise!

I don’t know exactly what you are getting out of this but my B.S. detector instantly flipped when you talked about yourself as some mystery third person all the time, to make it all seem more significant and less cranky.

It certainly doesn’t bode well for the overall honesty of the SkyTran Pod proposal, which as it stands is just vapourware.

I have checked the cost of the small suburban/intermediate stations, around 400,000 ea. Metro have allowed 10 or 12 stations for stage 1, I think 20 would be better for a rapid transit system. Total cost for the small stations would be around $8M, not a lot for a system which would cost around $300M all up (compared with &800M for trams).

Some of the comments seem to be getting off the main topic which was that the Govt did NOT investigate ALL the transport options before opting for trams. If trams proved to be best after proper fully documented publicly available investigations, so be it. But, I for one, think that would be a highly unlikely outcome. But the irresponsible process is the real issue.

Arthur

rommeldog56 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

In 2011, there were 1,544 deaths from melanoma of the skin, whilst there were only 1291 deaths on Australian roads in the same year. Perhaps being outside in the sun walking and cycling isn’t as healthy a transport solution as claimed.

I wouldn’t go using any sort of comparative analysis, wildyurkeycanoe. That wasn’t done to any depth for the adoption of a Gunners-City CBD-CBD toy train set, no doubt because it would get in the way of the pro spin.

We never EVER get any analysis of the repeated mistakes of throwing away billions of dollars of taxpayer money on freeways. Guaranteed to lose money because they never make any. That then cost enormous amounts of money, lives and debt to run. Unaccounted for by those who sweep the real cost under the “Road Carpet”.

Cars are a “special” unaccountable category that you throw money at, knowing they are never the ultimate solution, but people reach for, just like that instinctive greasy burger when someone mentions obesity.

But then there are the ludicrous arguments like the unconnected melanoma vs the actual deaths and injuries to road victims! Hard to argue with the incoherent.

I find it fascinating that 1291 deaths and 44,303 serious injuries, $27 billion/year hospital costs that eats up 18% of the health budget doesn’t register, just get ignored like all the other real costs of relying on fossil fuelled vehicles. We all know that the car addiction is no more looking for rational arguments than any other addiction.

There was the usual “Why don’t they spend the money on hospitals?” argument earlier. No, let’s spend billions on more cars and freeways to PUT people into the hospitals and PUT us into the mess we find ourselves in.

If we have bad suburban sprawl, traffic jams, disconnected urban planning and ridiculously expensive parking, it can’t be blamed on trams we don’t have.

Instead look at the roads that have eaten up 55% the “Garden Capital” and are still chewing into the landscape.

The usual “toy” thinking put up as “fiscal responsibility”, by conservatives who have just been off to the pawnbrokers with public assets that they don’t own to blow it all on things they claim THEY “need” and that run up huge government debt, to cause the maximum damage to the City and the environment.

wildturkeycanoe said :

In 2011, there were 1,544 deaths from melanoma of the skin, whilst there were only 1291 deaths on Australian roads in the same year. Perhaps being outside in the sun walking and cycling isn’t as healthy a transport solution as claimed.

I wouldn’t go using any sort of comparative analysis, wildyurkeycanoe. That wasn’t done to any depth for the adoption of a Gunners-City CBD-CBD toy train set, no doubt because it would get in the way of the pro spin.

wildturkeycanoe said :

…ONLY 1291 deaths on Australian roads…

Shows with crystal clarity the “thinking” behind the car obsessed.

Doesn’t mention the 32,500 seriously injured or the $27 billion/year cost of road crashes, which consume 18% of health expenditure and 1.8% of GDP.

https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/report_140.pdf

wildturkeycanoe said :

In 2011, there were 1,544 deaths from melanoma of the skin, whilst there were only 1291 deaths on Australian roads in the same year. Perhaps being outside in the sun walking and cycling isn’t as healthy a transport solution as claimed.

Melanoma?

Really!!

From sitting inside public transport?

Where are the ACTUAL Public Transport deaths? Not double counting those of the Darwin Awarders, slamming into Public Transport in their cars and trucks.

Guess that is why the melanoma furphy.

Drivers NEVER get out of their cars. Which is why the largest killer by far is heart problems and diabetes.

As usual you manage to grab the wrong end of the stick and wave it around as a distraction from the real problem.

Did you say 1,544 from melanoma? With absolutely no causal link with public transport.

What about 44,303 deaths due to cardio-vascular disease? 50% of which is directly caused by diabetes.

Here is a real causal link with public transport:

http://www.obesitypanacea.com/2009/04/public-transit-users-more-likely-to.html

http://www.drsharma.ca/tag/public-transport

https://www.saxinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/05_Key-health-benefits-associated-with-public-transport.pdf

wildturkeycanoe7:25 am 10 May 15

rubaiyat said :

The ACT averages 13 deaths and 700 injuries on its roads every year over the last decade:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-2014-road-toll-hits-double-digits-20150101-12glnp.html

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/how-canberra-police-rescued-the-baby-taken-in-a-stolen-car-20140221-335sz.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/property%20crime/motor%20vehicle%20theft.html

These were accidentally omitted as attachments to the “2015 Report on the Horrors of Public Transport” by independent consultants Dungfungus & Co..

In 2011, there were 1,544 deaths from melanoma of the skin, whilst there were only 1291 deaths on Australian roads in the same year. Perhaps being outside in the sun walking and cycling isn’t as healthy a transport solution as claimed.

rubaiyat said :

I suppose you could actually do the real costs. But will you?

1. Light Rail is a Fully Costed system, unlike roads. The first stage has to pay for all the infrastructure of a network. Including power supply, rolling stock, housing of rolling stock, maintenance and repair plus establishment of the organisation and training of staff to run the system.

2. It has to be compared with a similar capacity alternative, say road or road/bus or dedicated busway.

3. Light Rail has inbuilt an enormous capacity for expansion without requiring extra right of way. It also has extremely long life vehicles and tracks with low fuel costs. So is effectively paying up front for much lower costs later on. It soaks up the larger usage as time passes, reducing its running costs over time.

4. The style of network and location can vary the cost considerably. Calgary built and runs its light rail for half the cost of buses. Other cities it varies, particularly where major work is required in built up areas.

5. Light Rail is an all up cost. i.e. It accounts for the total capital costs such as engineering, right of way, rail, rolling stock, plus the on going costs of fuel, maintenance, finance, employees and administration.

6. It does not exist in isolation. If the light rail does not exist it must be replaced by roads, cars, buses or a mix.

People make the mistake of taking the all up cost of light rail projects and comparing that with partial, fudged or plain wrong costs for the alternatives.

Buses are more similar to Light Rail networks in that they are a Mostly Costed system, EXCEPT for the roads they run on. UNLESS they are specifically built dedicated busways. The proposed 7.5km Belconnen busway was very expensive, costing $120 million, in 2006 dollars, for the busway only. Not the buses etc to run on them.

Cars are the classical example of nobody counts the real cost, just the petrol when it runs out, and certainly don’t pay any attention to what the roads, they use, cost.

The real cost of cars includes the cost of the vehicle, finance charges, fuel, your time (you are the driver and not doing anything else), insurance, maintenance, tolls, registration, parking, garaging, deaths, accidents, signals, police patrols, fines AND then the roads. The only visible bit that anyone notices. They don’t even know or seem to care what the roads actually cost.

Adding all that up is a lot of work, but just sticking to car running costs which excludes most of the above list, and just the direct costs to you, not to the government, society at large or the environment, it is around 67-76¢/km. So your personal cost of driving a return trip from Gungahlin to the city is 24 x .67¢ with $14 parking = $30.08. This does not pay for the capital, finance, maintenance or running costs of the infrastructure you are using to make the trip. That is paid for by the ACT government and not announced anywhere where it will give you sticker shock.

If ALL you consider is the basic cost of the roads that you drive on, that swings wildly in price. The Majura Parkway is costing $24.5 million per kilometre for 4 divided lanes because it is basically out in the country unimpeded by services or other structures. The 800 metres of mere road duplication at Weston cost $14 million in 2012. The 8.5km Gungahlin Drive extension cost $200 million in 2011, on top of the original roadworks it replaced.

If you were to consider the Light Rail as a new freeway, ignoring it has vastly greater capacity than a freeway, the 12 km would cost $294 million plus the additional expense of cutting though urban Canberra. My guess is that that would easily pay for the light rail tracks (the “road”).

So we come to capacity. One light rail track is the equivalent of 6-7 freeway lanes, so to build the same capacity in roads will be 6-7 times as much. Anywhere between $1.8 to 2.1 billion for the Gungahlin link.

A freeway lane carries a maximum of 900 passengers per hour.

Light Rail depending on the configuration can carry 10-20,000 passengers per hour. If it is completely separated from the road system it carries up to 40,000 passengers per hour. That would require so much freeway to match, that the suburbs the freeway would “service” would have to be demolished to make way for the freeway.

So freeways don’t come cheap and they certainly don’t pay for themselves. They cost a lot of money to maintain and their lifespan is relatively short, usually requiring major upgrades or having to be replaced within a few decades.

So tell me that’s affordable.

Geezzzz.

There is just so much wrong with what u say & your assumptions rubaiyat, that it would take a month of Sundays to engage in that – its just too boring.

Your intollerance of cars, roads, carparks, those who obviously arn’t as smart as you because for whatever reason, they have to rely on a car(s) or just plain prefer them, is overpowering in these discussions.

There have been posts on here claiming that if the cost of Gunners-Civic light rail is m$780+, then to roll it out to the rest of Canberra (ie. CBDs to CBDs) as the Govt has stated is the intent, it will cost bout b$9-10 (+ or – for bridgework across the lake).

Clearly, in a jurisdiction the size of Canberra, with its comparatively small revenue raising base and a budget that is already deeply in the red, that won’t happen without some very substantial Federal Gov’t funding – which is common in so many Light Rail projects around the world. Thats what i mean by “affordable”. Its just not going to happen because its unaffordable.

I do understand the NEED to sacrifice our children and fellow citizens to the Great God Car.

Without the essential sacrifices the sun will not rise in the morning and we will ALL be doomed.

So a big thank you to all the Car Priests for self sacrificing to our needs.

Sorry? Oh, not themselves? You mean they are sacrificing OTHERS, to THEIR “needs”?

Well I’m sure they’d love to put themselves on the line but somebody has to take care of business as usual.

rubaiyat said :

The ACT averages 13 deaths and 700 injuries on its roads every year over the last decade:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-2014-road-toll-hits-double-digits-20150101-12glnp.html

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/how-canberra-police-rescued-the-baby-taken-in-a-stolen-car-20140221-335sz.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/property%20crime/motor%20vehicle%20theft.html

These were accidentally omitted as attachments to the “2015 Report on the Horrors of Public Transport” by independent consultants Dungfungus & Co..

Not even that bodgy, flawed & discredited ACT Gov’t Benefits Costs Ratio/Business Case mentioned or implied any reduction in deaths or injuries on roads because a few less cars are off said roads because of Light Rail – or any other public transport system. I assume that you disregard the light rail passengers that may be killed/injured whilst crossing roads to get onto/off at a tram stop ? What about if a tram crashed and kills/injures passengers ? I have not heard or seen anyone disputing that we need a well planned and cost effective public transport system that is flexible & can reach all of the Canberra urban sprawl. There is just widespread opposition and disbelief that Light Rail is that for Canberra.

I await with much anticipation to see how low this pro light rail reasoning & justifications – implied or otherwise – can go.

The ACT averages 13 deaths and 700 injuries on its roads every year over the last decade:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-2014-road-toll-hits-double-digits-20150101-12glnp.html

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/how-canberra-police-rescued-the-baby-taken-in-a-stolen-car-20140221-335sz.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/property%20crime/motor%20vehicle%20theft.html

These were accidentally omitted as attachments to the “2015 Report on the Horrors of Public Transport” by independent consultants Dungfungus & Co..

dungfungus said :

What has become a problem for California’s capital will become a problem for Australia’s capital also:
https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/sacramento-39-s-light-rail-system-struggles-to/content?oid=17033173

You’ll excuse me if I don’t find time to read all your very interesting and very informative links dungfungus.

I assume this is another of yours to incidents of road rage, car jackings, high speed car chases, stolen vehicles, ram raids, drunken driving, driving without a licence, soon drivers chucking do-nuts in quiet suburban streets, gunning engines late at night, drag racing through suburbs in the small ours of the morning, inadequate policing of traffic infringements, unpaid parking fines, hit and runs, trucks crossing over to opposite side of freeways and crushing the occupants of oncoming vehicles, etc etc.

I don’t know why you keep raising these examples of just how deadly, antisocial and unsafe fossil fuel vehicles are.

It really isn’t helping your case at all.

Excuse the double negatives, the subject matter seems to demand so many negatives, as well as billions of dollars, get swept under the “Road” carpet, I guess a few more won’t seem out of place.

In fact show me any road anywhere that hasn’t been built without government handouts, subsidies and legislation to make them “work”.

Well here is a challenge for the 3 Geniuses:

Show me ONE road project in the ACT that has made a profit, hasn’t added to our mounting public debt, and doesn’t simply have more money thrown at it and has actually reduced the traffic jams, which seem to be getting worse every year.

One public road project that is totally under-utilised except in peak hours, with vehicles that are so unprofitable that despite the owners themselves are pouring massive amounts of money into them, they still only have barely one occupant in them even during peak hours.

Can the three Geniuses account for exactly how much the fossil fuel transport system actually costs for each taxpayer and our economy as a whole? How much damage does it do to our country, how many people die just to keep it going and how much money does it send overseas every year?

Don’t give me any B.S. about “reports” written by “consultants” that claim paper benefits somehow magically appearing somewhere, but never shows a cent in the hand anywhere.

HenryBG said :

I disagree. The *major* cost of the light rail will be the inevitable overcharging and vastly inflated interest payments that are always the outcome of these sorts of private-financing initiatives. (PFIs).

A vast quantity of infrastructure in the UK was built since the late 90s on this piratical model, and it turns out that PFI results in the infrastructure’s eventual true costs blowing out by a factor of about 6x.

Katie Gallagher and her minions are going with a PFI, because the expenditure doesn’t appear on her books as money spent – instead, she signs us up to pay a much lesser annual amount (repeated for the next 25 years), by which method the cost is increased to 6x what it would have cost as a one-off piece of expenditure.

I’m thinking that Canberra needs to figure out how to attract a better class of graduate so that ridiculous decisions such as this one aren’t left in the hands of those few graduates whose skills and intelligence aren’t up to getting a job anywhere other than within the abominably low-achieving ACT Government.

Well said HenryBG ! ACT Ratepayers are now so used to such inept decision making by the ACT Labor/Greens Government that it is like water off a ducks back. Supporters of the toy train set on here seem oblivous to the cost and lack of logic, common sense, flaws in the assumptions/benefits costs ratio and lack of any real potential solution-to-solution evaluation.

It’s as though they accept that we have to plan for some sort of better public transport system (which i agree – we do), so better support this one as its being delivered on a plate. Perhaps they see it as being better than nothing.

Now, watch out for the usual deluge of responses/slogans from rubaiyat & co……….

Arthur Davies said :

The major cost of “light rail” is the foundations. Have a look at images of typical systems being built, continuous heavily reinforced very thick concrete to hold the rails. Trams seem to weigh around 25t & more, pod cars weigh around 0.4T (400kg). The bored pole foundations are far smaller ? cheaper by comparison. The gold coast line even had to have deep piles below the foundations! I will check on the cost of the small stations & report further.

Arthur

I disagree. The *major* cost of the light rail will be the inevitable overcharging and vastly inflated interest payments that are always the outcome of these sorts of private-financing initiatives. (PFIs).

A vast quantity of infrastructure in the UK was built since the late 90s on this piratical model, and it turns out that PFI results in the infrastructure’s eventual true costs blowing out by a factor of about 6x.

Katie Gallagher and her minions are going with a PFI, because the expenditure doesn’t appear on her books as money spent – instead, she signs us up to pay a much lesser annual amount (repeated for the next 25 years), by which method the cost is increased to 6x what it would have cost as a one-off piece of expenditure.

I’m thinking that Canberra needs to figure out how to attract a better class of graduate so that ridiculous decisions such as this one aren’t left in the hands of those few graduates whose skills and intelligence aren’t up to getting a job anywhere other than within the abominably low-achieving ACT Government.

dungfungus said :

About the Sydney Airport link from Wikipedia:
“Construction began on 12 February 1995 with a view to improving facilities for air travellers ahead of the 2000 Summer Olympics.”
Then again, Wikipedia shoot their mouth off sometimes.
What this has to do with the Canberra light rail proposal is that its proponents and supporters believe there is a need for it and even though they have inflated the expected user numbers it comes up short on viability so they have created all this nonsense about “value adding” through creating medium density housing along the route.
The Sydney Airport rail link and the dual carriageway completion of the Federal highway to Canberra were also driven by events that did not happen.
If you can’t see the similarities then maybe SpecSavers is the place for you.

See yet again straight onto the keyboard without reading. Even your own quote says what I’ve been saying which is the airport rail link was seperate from the Olympics (see the bit where it says it was planned with a view to open before the games, so not an Olympic project) and the primary goal was not tourists which is what your assertion is and your long bow to claim failure of that line will be repeated in Canberra. Again the line was designed as extra capacity for the east hills line. The options were a 3rd pair of tracks through Tempe, Sydeneham etc into the city or a new alignment through the airport and Mascot. That was the primary goal the airport was and still is very much secondary.

The whole line was funded very differently anyway. The tunnels and trains were government funded the stations by private with them being able to charge users a surcharge to use the station. Don’t see anything like that in the business case from Capital Metro. Nothing alike.

What has become a problem for California’s capital will become a problem for Australia’s capital also:
https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/sacramento-39-s-light-rail-system-struggles-to/content?oid=17033173

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

Couple of points. The railway line to Sydney airport was not rushed for the Olympics it was very well planned and took the best part of 5-6 years of planning and construction. Secondly it is t metro it was just an extension of the Sydney heavy rail network. Thirdly the purpose of it was two fold the main purpose was as a 2nd pair of tracks from East hills to the city rather than duplicate through Sydenham and Petersham the 2nd was to service the redevelopment of the area around Mascot and Green square.

Secondary functions were to transport workers to the airport, they get a heavy discount on the airport access fee tourists which is what you seem to think it built for was well down the list. A private company built and ran the stations hence the surcharge over a standard city rail fare and yes it did go bust due to low patronage (just as the cross city tunnel and lane cover tunnel have gone under) but since city rail took over the line has taken off and achieved results.

Getting to Canberra and light rail to the airport I don’t think anyone would get the light rail there to get a flight rather it would service the multitude of workers out there. Personally I would rather see it go to the parl triangle and if Snow inc wants it at the airport they should bloody well pay and contribute something to this town rather than build endless office buildings using a loophole in the airport sales act that means they don’t have to comply with local planning rules. A loophole that was put in place so airport related development could go forward inimpeded not so shopping centres and office buildings could be built to upset the balance of development in this town.

I don’t know where you get your information from but as usual, it is wrong.
Michael Pascoe wrote in the Business section of Crikey, 27/7/2006 about the failure of the Sydney Airport link as follows:
The original operator went into receivership six months after the link opened in 2000. It was a piece of transport infrastructure rushed into service ahead of the Olympics. Now the SMH reports Westpac trumped the Millionaire Factory (Macquarie Bank) to sign a conditional contract to buy the loss-making 10km line and four stations, two of which are at the airport.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/airport-ghost-train-back-from-dead/2006/07/26/1153816252567.html

As usual you don’t read before shifting off your mouth. Of what I wrote above there is one thing I got wrong which is the stations are still private where I got mixed up is where the government pays the access fee to green square and mascot I had thought City Rail took them over. However since that change patronage has increase 70%.

Also your claim it is a) metro and b) built in a rush for the Olympics and c) is meant for tourists is as usual very very wrong. It is heavy rail, it was built to coincide with the Olympics and nothing what so ever wrong with the construction or the line and it wasn’t meant for tourists it was mean to provide line capacity from the East Hills line into the city rather than add extra lines through Sydenham.

Not only did Michael Pascoe say what I posted but numerous other people with greater stature than you and I said the same thing.
I have a close fried who was working at the rock face during the tunnelling and he related to me that the tempo of work increased dramatically before the Olympic games in 2000 so it would be finshed.
If you were living in Canberra at that time you may recall the frenzied activity to finish the upgrading of the Federal Highway to dual carriageway so that the “thousands of tourists” could come to Canberra.
Like the passengers in the Airport tunnel, the Federal Highway ones never arrived.
The Airport tunnel barely reached 25% of the passenger estimates so even with a 70% increase it has never met the original expectations.
The City to Gungahlin light rail will meet the same fate. Those considering participating in a PPP to finance it will be aware of that.

You never read before shooting your mouth off. The airport line was built as extra tracks to the city from the east hills line. They decided to go via the airport to expand the network and provide a link via the airport but it was NEVER intended to be anything like say Heathrow Express in London. It was always just a suburban railway that went via the airport. The line was not rushed to open before the Olympics not saying it wasn’t related but that was never the main goal bit opened a few months before and technically has no issues what so ever.

Where it did have issues was in people using the stations and yes the company running the stations went his not long after opening. However since city rail started paying the access fee at green square and mascot use age of these stations has skyrocketed.

By the way in the mid to late 90’s I lived in Sydney at Tempe and having family used the federal highway all the time. I recall the construction of the new road well and yes the Olympics were the deadline I do t think anyone could argue that the road was no worthy of what they did.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Canberra and light rail. Not quite the same any of these projects really.

About the Sydney Airport link from Wikipedia:
“Construction began on 12 February 1995 with a view to improving facilities for air travellers ahead of the 2000 Summer Olympics.”
Then again, Wikipedia shoot their mouth off sometimes.
What this has to do with the Canberra light rail proposal is that its proponents and supporters believe there is a need for it and even though they have inflated the expected user numbers it comes up short on viability so they have created all this nonsense about “value adding” through creating medium density housing along the route.
The Sydney Airport rail link and the dual carriageway completion of the Federal highway to Canberra were also driven by events that did not happen.
If you can’t see the similarities then maybe SpecSavers is the place for you.

rubaiyat said :

Arthur Davies said :

The major cost of “light rail” is the foundations. Have a look at images of typical systems being built, continuous heavily reinforced very thick concrete to hold the rails. Trams seem to weigh around 25t & more, pod cars weigh around 0.4T (400kg). The bored pole foundations are far smaller ? cheaper by comparison. The gold coast line even had to have deep piles below the foundations! I will check on the cost of the small stations & report further.

True trams are heavy, but extremely durable, hundred year old trams are still running happily on the museum line in S.F.

In Zurich and Graz, and I assume elsewhere, the tram lines were laid in the ground on concrete sleepers with grass laid in between. Once in place, that’s it. They need virtually no maintenance, certainly way less than roads. You get what you pay for. With trams it is up front and the benefits last forever.

The Gold Coast is built on a sandbar, everything there needs deep footings.

The pods may be light weight but that doesn’t mean the structures that support them can be. The proposal has people suspended high up, travelling at high speed. The only thing keeping them up there is the poles on the sides of roads, which do occasionally get struck by other vehicles. And I still don’t get the switching mechanism, which has no details. It instantly attracts my attention as a source of problems.

The access to the very low capacity pods is the Achilles Heel of this project, that and the B-grade 50’s Sci-Fi props the inventor shows off in his videos, the ones that aren’t knocked together 3D-Max animations by some kid using his home PC. I have to worry about this project if they can’t even competently fake the visuals.

Do you have any idea of just how much it costs to put in and maintain open air public lifts and escalators? You are asking for both on every stop for this system! The same for a 2 storey platform to hold waiting passengers. This is not a treehouse, and I still have not seen a sensible solution for getting into the pods. For safety there would have to be a cantilevered floor under where it pulls up. The “simple” elevated stops just keep growing and growing. Not that they are shown consistently anywhere in the mock-ups.

The half kilometre Tel-Aviv loop would be better built as a bike track. As if the geeks on the campus should avoid even the most minimal of exercise!

I don’t know exactly what you are getting out of this but my B.S. detector instantly flipped when you talked about yourself as some mystery third person all the time, to make it all seem more significant and less cranky.

It certainly doesn’t bode well for the overall honesty of the SkyTran Pod proposal, which as it stands is just vapourware.

“True trams”?
Are you referring to the difference between the cardboard one used for a publicity stunt and the ones made out of plastic and steel?
There are also self-powered ultra-light trams that don’t need massive rail-beds and relocation of utilities as well as no ugly catenarys.
These weren’t considered either.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

Couple of points. The railway line to Sydney airport was not rushed for the Olympics it was very well planned and took the best part of 5-6 years of planning and construction. Secondly it is t metro it was just an extension of the Sydney heavy rail network. Thirdly the purpose of it was two fold the main purpose was as a 2nd pair of tracks from East hills to the city rather than duplicate through Sydenham and Petersham the 2nd was to service the redevelopment of the area around Mascot and Green square.

Secondary functions were to transport workers to the airport, they get a heavy discount on the airport access fee tourists which is what you seem to think it built for was well down the list. A private company built and ran the stations hence the surcharge over a standard city rail fare and yes it did go bust due to low patronage (just as the cross city tunnel and lane cover tunnel have gone under) but since city rail took over the line has taken off and achieved results.

Getting to Canberra and light rail to the airport I don’t think anyone would get the light rail there to get a flight rather it would service the multitude of workers out there. Personally I would rather see it go to the parl triangle and if Snow inc wants it at the airport they should bloody well pay and contribute something to this town rather than build endless office buildings using a loophole in the airport sales act that means they don’t have to comply with local planning rules. A loophole that was put in place so airport related development could go forward inimpeded not so shopping centres and office buildings could be built to upset the balance of development in this town.

I don’t know where you get your information from but as usual, it is wrong.
Michael Pascoe wrote in the Business section of Crikey, 27/7/2006 about the failure of the Sydney Airport link as follows:
The original operator went into receivership six months after the link opened in 2000. It was a piece of transport infrastructure rushed into service ahead of the Olympics. Now the SMH reports Westpac trumped the Millionaire Factory (Macquarie Bank) to sign a conditional contract to buy the loss-making 10km line and four stations, two of which are at the airport.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/airport-ghost-train-back-from-dead/2006/07/26/1153816252567.html

As usual you don’t read before shifting off your mouth. Of what I wrote above there is one thing I got wrong which is the stations are still private where I got mixed up is where the government pays the access fee to green square and mascot I had thought City Rail took them over. However since that change patronage has increase 70%.

Also your claim it is a) metro and b) built in a rush for the Olympics and c) is meant for tourists is as usual very very wrong. It is heavy rail, it was built to coincide with the Olympics and nothing what so ever wrong with the construction or the line and it wasn’t meant for tourists it was mean to provide line capacity from the East Hills line into the city rather than add extra lines through Sydenham.

Not only did Michael Pascoe say what I posted but numerous other people with greater stature than you and I said the same thing.
I have a close fried who was working at the rock face during the tunnelling and he related to me that the tempo of work increased dramatically before the Olympic games in 2000 so it would be finshed.
If you were living in Canberra at that time you may recall the frenzied activity to finish the upgrading of the Federal Highway to dual carriageway so that the “thousands of tourists” could come to Canberra.
Like the passengers in the Airport tunnel, the Federal Highway ones never arrived.
The Airport tunnel barely reached 25% of the passenger estimates so even with a 70% increase it has never met the original expectations.
The City to Gungahlin light rail will meet the same fate. Those considering participating in a PPP to finance it will be aware of that.

You never read before shooting your mouth off. The airport line was built as extra tracks to the city from the east hills line. They decided to go via the airport to expand the network and provide a link via the airport but it was NEVER intended to be anything like say Heathrow Express in London. It was always just a suburban railway that went via the airport. The line was not rushed to open before the Olympics not saying it wasn’t related but that was never the main goal bit opened a few months before and technically has no issues what so ever.

Where it did have issues was in people using the stations and yes the company running the stations went his not long after opening. However since city rail started paying the access fee at green square and mascot use age of these stations has skyrocketed.

By the way in the mid to late 90’s I lived in Sydney at Tempe and having family used the federal highway all the time. I recall the construction of the new road well and yes the Olympics were the deadline I do t think anyone could argue that the road was no worthy of what they did.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Canberra and light rail. Not quite the same any of these projects really.

Arthur Davies said :

The major cost of “light rail” is the foundations. Have a look at images of typical systems being built, continuous heavily reinforced very thick concrete to hold the rails. Trams seem to weigh around 25t & more, pod cars weigh around 0.4T (400kg). The bored pole foundations are far smaller ? cheaper by comparison. The gold coast line even had to have deep piles below the foundations! I will check on the cost of the small stations & report further.

True trams are heavy, but extremely durable, hundred year old trams are still running happily on the museum line in S.F.

In Zurich and Graz, and I assume elsewhere, the tram lines were laid in the ground on concrete sleepers with grass laid in between. Once in place, that’s it. They need virtually no maintenance, certainly way less than roads. You get what you pay for. With trams it is up front and the benefits last forever.

The Gold Coast is built on a sandbar, everything there needs deep footings.

The pods may be light weight but that doesn’t mean the structures that support them can be. The proposal has people suspended high up, travelling at high speed. The only thing keeping them up there is the poles on the sides of roads, which do occasionally get struck by other vehicles. And I still don’t get the switching mechanism, which has no details. It instantly attracts my attention as a source of problems.

The access to the very low capacity pods is the Achilles Heel of this project, that and the B-grade 50’s Sci-Fi props the inventor shows off in his videos, the ones that aren’t knocked together 3D-Max animations by some kid using his home PC. I have to worry about this project if they can’t even competently fake the visuals.

Do you have any idea of just how much it costs to put in and maintain open air public lifts and escalators? You are asking for both on every stop for this system! The same for a 2 storey platform to hold waiting passengers. This is not a treehouse, and I still have not seen a sensible solution for getting into the pods. For safety there would have to be a cantilevered floor under where it pulls up. The “simple” elevated stops just keep growing and growing. Not that they are shown consistently anywhere in the mock-ups.

The half kilometre Tel-Aviv loop would be better built as a bike track. As if the geeks on the campus should avoid even the most minimal of exercise!

I don’t know exactly what you are getting out of this but my B.S. detector instantly flipped when you talked about yourself as some mystery third person all the time, to make it all seem more significant and less cranky.

It certainly doesn’t bode well for the overall honesty of the SkyTran Pod proposal, which as it stands is just vapourware.

Holden Caulfield4:17 pm 07 May 15

This is the best tantrum thread that RA has seen for a while. Bravo!

Arthur Davies3:24 pm 07 May 15

rubaiyat said :

Masquara said :

Arthur Davies said :

The prefabricated stations shown are what would be provided at each community stop. They would include a small lift for wheelchair access etc. For a major stop such as Civic a much longer platform would be needed of course, but the volume of passengers would justify that, could even be as long as a tram stop if need be!

Arthur

“A small lift” – that will deal with anyone in a wheelchair, plus anyone with kids in strollers, plus anyone lugging a suitcase?

And that costs a fortune to install, maintain and run, and is frequently out of service as well as occupying a lot of footpath. Don’t forget the escalator they also show in their 3D rendering (only seems to go up however).

When I was studying architecture the lecturers used to ask for construction details, “and don’t tell us you are going to use glue”.

I’m not sure this system has even given thought as far as the glue.

To call this pie in the sky, is ignoring that it is 2 storey pie in the sky, up on the end of lifts, escalators, sliding doors and with a precarious gap between the pod and platform.

The claimed $9.5 million/km (based on what?) would be eaten up with the bulky infrastucture at every stop alone. $9.5 million worth of electrical coils in the twin tracks + supporting structures sounds like so much bunkum I just can’t believe anyone actually falls for it. Just count the poles, each excavated and set in concrete which have to avoid existing services. Let’s be generous and say the poles are every 30 metres which is quite a span, that is 33.3 /kilometre x 2 = 66 poles + the platforms + the lifts + the escalators + the services etc.

I used to make up things like this on the back of my exercise book when I was a kid, this is supposed to be a serious proposal as a transport system for Canberra? Please!

My previous comment was intended to answer the above comment, by deleting part to save space/reading it put it all into my comment, sorry if anyone got confused.

Arthur

Arthur Davies3:18 pm 07 May 15

The claimed $9.5 million/km (based on what?) would be eaten up with the bulky infrastucture at every stop alone. $9.5 million worth of electrical coils in the twin tracks + supporting structures sounds like so much bunkum I just can’t believe anyone actually falls for it. Just count the poles, each excavated and set in concrete which have to avoid existing services. Let’s be generous and say the poles are every 30 metres which is quite a span, that is 33.3 /kilometre x 2 = 66 poles + the platforms + the lifts + the escalators + the services etc.

I used to make up things like this on the back of my exercise book when I was a kid, this is supposed to be a serious proposal as a transport system for Canberra? Please!

The major cost of “light rail” is the foundations. Have a look at images of typical systems being built, continuous heavily reinforced very thick concrete to hold the rails. Trams seem to weigh around 25t & more, pod cars weigh around 0.4T (400kg). The bored pole foundations are far smaller ? cheaper by comparison. The gold coast line even had to have deep piles below the foundations! I will check on the cost of the small stations & report further.

Arthur

rubaiyat said :

The big secret of rail is that people want to live as CLOSE to it as possible.

The big dirty secret of freeways is that people want to live as FAR AWAY from it as possible.

There can be no clearer way of putting it that surely even you dungfungus can understand.

What you meant to say was “some” people want to live as close to rail as possible (like they did 100 years ago) and most people want to live as far away from it as possible.
Freeways are a bonus.
The only “dirty” secret is the way light rail is being depicted as “emission free”.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

I have a close fried who was working at the rock face during the tunnelling and he related to me that the tempo of work increased dramatically before the Olympic games in 2000 so it would be finshed.
If you were living in Canberra at that time you may recall the frenzied activity to finish the upgrading of the Federal Highway to dual carriageway so that the “thousands of tourists” could come to Canberra.
Like the passengers in the Airport tunnel, the Federal Highway ones never arrived.
The Airport tunnel barely reached 25% of the passenger estimates so even with a 70% increase it has never met the original expectations.
The City to Gungahlin light rail will meet the same fate. Those considering participating in a PPP to finance it will be aware of that.

JC is right, the line is principally the express line to East Hills, which opened up several new major suburbs and gave much improved rail transport to the city for people on that line and all the commuters from Campbelltown and south.

So what if the work was speeded up (if that is even true), everything was with the Olympics. It is the nature of the event to get it ready. You make out everything to do with public transport is somehow evil. Even meeting a deadline!

The reason that the private company failed was it so wildly overcharged for the small stretch it was clearly seen as gouging and people naturally resisted.

The ACT government is not proposing a Light Rail line that charges the equivalent of the taxi fare.

Huge difference.

But if you want to see the effect that rail has, WHICH IS RELEVANT, look at the residential developments around just Wolli Creek Train Station, let alone the entire length of the track.

“The ACT government is not proposing a Light Rail line that charges the equivalent of the taxi fare.

Huge difference.”
Yes, a taxi for each light rail passenger will be a lot cheaper than the cost of building and running the light rail.

The big secret of rail is that people want to live as CLOSE to it as possible.

The big dirty secret of freeways is that people want to live as FAR AWAY from it as possible.

There can be no clearer way of putting it that surely even you dungfungus can understand.

dungfungus said :

I have a close fried who was working at the rock face during the tunnelling and he related to me that the tempo of work increased dramatically before the Olympic games in 2000 so it would be finshed.
If you were living in Canberra at that time you may recall the frenzied activity to finish the upgrading of the Federal Highway to dual carriageway so that the “thousands of tourists” could come to Canberra.
Like the passengers in the Airport tunnel, the Federal Highway ones never arrived.
The Airport tunnel barely reached 25% of the passenger estimates so even with a 70% increase it has never met the original expectations.
The City to Gungahlin light rail will meet the same fate. Those considering participating in a PPP to finance it will be aware of that.

JC is right, the line is principally the express line to East Hills, which opened up several new major suburbs and gave much improved rail transport to the city for people on that line and all the commuters from Campbelltown and south.

So what if the work was speeded up (if that is even true), everything was with the Olympics. It is the nature of the event to get it ready. You make out everything to do with public transport is somehow evil. Even meeting a deadline!

The reason that the private company failed was it so wildly overcharged for the small stretch it was clearly seen as gouging and people naturally resisted.

The ACT government is not proposing a Light Rail line that charges the equivalent of the taxi fare.

Huge difference.

But if you want to see the effect that rail has, WHICH IS RELEVANT, look at the residential developments around just Wolli Creek Train Station, let alone the entire length of the track.

Here is the background story as to why business as usual won’t be business as usual:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/tv/Environment/Fuel-4262603.html

Also the only hoax going on is the Abbott government’s Carbon Omissions Target hoax:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/direct-actions-emissions-safeguards-designed-to-fail-grattan-institute-20150505-ggupb5.html

It has already blown 25% of its budget to supposedly achieve 15% of its target, and probably not that even. It is still paying carbon emitters on a blackmail basis: “Here, have mountains of taxpayers’ money, and pretend not to pollute so much”.

Amazing how the relatively tiny money being spent on a more sustainable transport system gets howled down in apoplectic geriatric outrage, but huge money blown on, in practice, propping up polluters gets a hand clap from the same people.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Replaced by ACTION Route 11 which provides a regular service from the City between 6.30am and 6.30pm to several stops in Brindabella Park, one just south of the Terminal.

Not the same route; or hadn’t you noticed that?

Yes. What did I write; or hadn’t you noticed that?

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

Couple of points. The railway line to Sydney airport was not rushed for the Olympics it was very well planned and took the best part of 5-6 years of planning and construction. Secondly it is t metro it was just an extension of the Sydney heavy rail network. Thirdly the purpose of it was two fold the main purpose was as a 2nd pair of tracks from East hills to the city rather than duplicate through Sydenham and Petersham the 2nd was to service the redevelopment of the area around Mascot and Green square.

Secondary functions were to transport workers to the airport, they get a heavy discount on the airport access fee tourists which is what you seem to think it built for was well down the list. A private company built and ran the stations hence the surcharge over a standard city rail fare and yes it did go bust due to low patronage (just as the cross city tunnel and lane cover tunnel have gone under) but since city rail took over the line has taken off and achieved results.

Getting to Canberra and light rail to the airport I don’t think anyone would get the light rail there to get a flight rather it would service the multitude of workers out there. Personally I would rather see it go to the parl triangle and if Snow inc wants it at the airport they should bloody well pay and contribute something to this town rather than build endless office buildings using a loophole in the airport sales act that means they don’t have to comply with local planning rules. A loophole that was put in place so airport related development could go forward inimpeded not so shopping centres and office buildings could be built to upset the balance of development in this town.

I don’t know where you get your information from but as usual, it is wrong.
Michael Pascoe wrote in the Business section of Crikey, 27/7/2006 about the failure of the Sydney Airport link as follows:
The original operator went into receivership six months after the link opened in 2000. It was a piece of transport infrastructure rushed into service ahead of the Olympics. Now the SMH reports Westpac trumped the Millionaire Factory (Macquarie Bank) to sign a conditional contract to buy the loss-making 10km line and four stations, two of which are at the airport.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/airport-ghost-train-back-from-dead/2006/07/26/1153816252567.html

As usual you don’t read before shifting off your mouth. Of what I wrote above there is one thing I got wrong which is the stations are still private where I got mixed up is where the government pays the access fee to green square and mascot I had thought City Rail took them over. However since that change patronage has increase 70%.

Also your claim it is a) metro and b) built in a rush for the Olympics and c) is meant for tourists is as usual very very wrong. It is heavy rail, it was built to coincide with the Olympics and nothing what so ever wrong with the construction or the line and it wasn’t meant for tourists it was mean to provide line capacity from the East Hills line into the city rather than add extra lines through Sydenham.

Not only did Michael Pascoe say what I posted but numerous other people with greater stature than you and I said the same thing.
I have a close fried who was working at the rock face during the tunnelling and he related to me that the tempo of work increased dramatically before the Olympic games in 2000 so it would be finshed.
If you were living in Canberra at that time you may recall the frenzied activity to finish the upgrading of the Federal Highway to dual carriageway so that the “thousands of tourists” could come to Canberra.
Like the passengers in the Airport tunnel, the Federal Highway ones never arrived.
The Airport tunnel barely reached 25% of the passenger estimates so even with a 70% increase it has never met the original expectations.
The City to Gungahlin light rail will meet the same fate. Those considering participating in a PPP to finance it will be aware of that.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

If u are using this as an example of support for the light rail – what do u expect ? Of course the airport will support anything that will bring more passengers to their airport.

Especially if they think it will be at ACT Ratepayerrs expense.

Well, since the ACTION Route 757 between Gungahlin and Brindabella Park via Dickson and Russell has been withdrawn, the airport people can’t be blamed for supporting a modal shift to trams, can they.

Replaced by ACTION Route 11 which provides a regular service from the City between 6.30am and 6.30pm to several stops in Brindabella Park, one just south of the Terminal.

Not the same route; or hadn’t you noticed that?

PeterC said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

HenryBG said :

rommeldog56 said :

If the gas powered power station/data centre adjacent to the Mugga Lane tip had proceeded hundreds of people in some Tuggeranong suburbs would be dying now from the poisonous emissions which would travel on the same regular air currents that exposed the problems at the Mugga Lane tip.
While the Mugga Lane tip problems were invisible there was the odour. The gases from the power station would also be invisible but also odourless and lethal.

Those would be the same emissions from burning gas in the heaters and cookers of every second house of every suburb? Reality check, people!

Are you rigi-didge?
If the emissions from the Mugga Lane area we are talking about were piped and vented to every second house in Canberra there wouldn’t be a problem.
We are talking about a concentration of massive amounts of emissions being focused on a small area.
Did you smell the recent odours from the garbage rearrangement at Mugga Lane TIp?
No, you didn’t so go back and think about what I have said.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

Couple of points. The railway line to Sydney airport was not rushed for the Olympics it was very well planned and took the best part of 5-6 years of planning and construction. Secondly it is t metro it was just an extension of the Sydney heavy rail network. Thirdly the purpose of it was two fold the main purpose was as a 2nd pair of tracks from East hills to the city rather than duplicate through Sydenham and Petersham the 2nd was to service the redevelopment of the area around Mascot and Green square.

Secondary functions were to transport workers to the airport, they get a heavy discount on the airport access fee tourists which is what you seem to think it built for was well down the list. A private company built and ran the stations hence the surcharge over a standard city rail fare and yes it did go bust due to low patronage (just as the cross city tunnel and lane cover tunnel have gone under) but since city rail took over the line has taken off and achieved results.

Getting to Canberra and light rail to the airport I don’t think anyone would get the light rail there to get a flight rather it would service the multitude of workers out there. Personally I would rather see it go to the parl triangle and if Snow inc wants it at the airport they should bloody well pay and contribute something to this town rather than build endless office buildings using a loophole in the airport sales act that means they don’t have to comply with local planning rules. A loophole that was put in place so airport related development could go forward inimpeded not so shopping centres and office buildings could be built to upset the balance of development in this town.

I don’t know where you get your information from but as usual, it is wrong.
Michael Pascoe wrote in the Business section of Crikey, 27/7/2006 about the failure of the Sydney Airport link as follows:
The original operator went into receivership six months after the link opened in 2000. It was a piece of transport infrastructure rushed into service ahead of the Olympics. Now the SMH reports Westpac trumped the Millionaire Factory (Macquarie Bank) to sign a conditional contract to buy the loss-making 10km line and four stations, two of which are at the airport.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/airport-ghost-train-back-from-dead/2006/07/26/1153816252567.html

As usual you don’t read before shifting off your mouth. Of what I wrote above there is one thing I got wrong which is the stations are still private where I got mixed up is where the government pays the access fee to green square and mascot I had thought City Rail took them over. However since that change patronage has increase 70%.

Also your claim it is a) metro and b) built in a rush for the Olympics and c) is meant for tourists is as usual very very wrong. It is heavy rail, it was built to coincide with the Olympics and nothing what so ever wrong with the construction or the line and it wasn’t meant for tourists it was mean to provide line capacity from the East Hills line into the city rather than add extra lines through Sydenham.

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

If u are using this as an example of support for the light rail – what do u expect ? Of course the airport will support anything that will bring more passengers to their airport.

Especially if they think it will be at ACT Ratepayerrs expense.

Well, since the ACTION Route 757 between Gungahlin and Brindabella Park via Dickson and Russell has been withdrawn, the airport people can’t be blamed for supporting a modal shift to trams, can they.

Replaced by ACTION Route 11 which provides a regular service from the City between 6.30am and 6.30pm to several stops in Brindabella Park, one just south of the Terminal.

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

HenryBG said :

rommeldog56 said :

If the gas powered power station/data centre adjacent to the Mugga Lane tip had proceeded hundreds of people in some Tuggeranong suburbs would be dying now from the poisonous emissions which would travel on the same regular air currents that exposed the problems at the Mugga Lane tip.
While the Mugga Lane tip problems were invisible there was the odour. The gases from the power station would also be invisible but also odourless and lethal.

Those would be the same emissions from burning gas in the heaters and cookers of every second house of every suburb? Reality check, people!

JC said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

Couple of points. The railway line to Sydney airport was not rushed for the Olympics it was very well planned and took the best part of 5-6 years of planning and construction. Secondly it is t metro it was just an extension of the Sydney heavy rail network. Thirdly the purpose of it was two fold the main purpose was as a 2nd pair of tracks from East hills to the city rather than duplicate through Sydenham and Petersham the 2nd was to service the redevelopment of the area around Mascot and Green square.

Secondary functions were to transport workers to the airport, they get a heavy discount on the airport access fee tourists which is what you seem to think it built for was well down the list. A private company built and ran the stations hence the surcharge over a standard city rail fare and yes it did go bust due to low patronage (just as the cross city tunnel and lane cover tunnel have gone under) but since city rail took over the line has taken off and achieved results.

Getting to Canberra and light rail to the airport I don’t think anyone would get the light rail there to get a flight rather it would service the multitude of workers out there. Personally I would rather see it go to the parl triangle and if Snow inc wants it at the airport they should bloody well pay and contribute something to this town rather than build endless office buildings using a loophole in the airport sales act that means they don’t have to comply with local planning rules. A loophole that was put in place so airport related development could go forward inimpeded not so shopping centres and office buildings could be built to upset the balance of development in this town.

I don’t know where you get your information from but as usual, it is wrong.
Michael Pascoe wrote in the Business section of Crikey, 27/7/2006 about the failure of the Sydney Airport link as follows:
The original operator went into receivership six months after the link opened in 2000. It was a piece of transport infrastructure rushed into service ahead of the Olympics. Now the SMH reports Westpac trumped the Millionaire Factory (Macquarie Bank) to sign a conditional contract to buy the loss-making 10km line and four stations, two of which are at the airport.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/airport-ghost-train-back-from-dead/2006/07/26/1153816252567.html

A point aside.

Why doesn’t the Canberra XPT run through the Airport and pick up and drop off rural passengers from the south?

I have a feeling there is all sorts of backroom shenanigans going on, that ensure good transport policy never sees the light of day.

JC said :

Couple of points. The railway line to Sydney airport was not rushed for the Olympics it was very well planned and took the best part of 5-6 years of planning and construction. Secondly it is t metro it was just an extension of the Sydney heavy rail network. Thirdly the purpose of it was two fold the main purpose was as a 2nd pair of tracks from East hills to the city rather than duplicate through Sydenham and Petersham the 2nd was to service the redevelopment of the area around Mascot and Green square.

Secondary functions were to transport workers to the airport, they get a heavy discount on the airport access fee tourists which is what you seem to think it built for was well down the list. A private company built and ran the stations hence the surcharge over a standard city rail fare and yes it did go bust due to low patronage (just as the cross city tunnel and lane cover tunnel have gone under) but since city rail took over the line has taken off and achieved results.

Getting to Canberra and light rail to the airport I don’t think anyone would get the light rail there to get a flight rather it would service the multitude of workers out there. Personally I would rather see it go to the parl triangle and if Snow inc wants it at the airport they should bloody well pay and contribute something to this town rather than build endless office buildings using a loophole in the airport sales act that means they don’t have to comply with local planning rules. A loophole that was put in place so airport related development could go forward inimpeded not so shopping centres and office buildings could be built to upset the balance of development in this town.

You took up an argument I wasn’t going to bother with. The line through Mascot is actually the express route to Campbelltown and beyond.

As to well designed, that is disputable. It is barely visible and a good walk from almost everywhere in the Airport and has an odd bland emptiness to it. Also the Wolli Creek station/s have to be one the dumbest designs by NSW Rail, and that would have a long list of contenders. Instead of being under each other with a straight stair/escalator connection they are offset with a protracted walk and climb to get between the two. The kind of thing any intelligent designer would avoid. And I would appreciate for Canberra’s rail, but probably won’t get.

For anyone who doesn’t want to pay the rip off ticket from the International terminal, Wolli Creek is a not long walk to the west, where you pay a sensible price to go into town or any other destination.

As to Canberra Airport I have mixed feelings about Terry Snow. I wish he were Mayor of Canberra (or Dictator for Life) but he has taken a lot away from us as taxpayers.

Yes, if the tram should run to the Airport, which would be a sensible move, Terry can reach into his own bulging pockets, and possible show the wannabe planners in the ACT government how it is done.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

Couple of points. The railway line to Sydney airport was not rushed for the Olympics it was very well planned and took the best part of 5-6 years of planning and construction. Secondly it is t metro it was just an extension of the Sydney heavy rail network. Thirdly the purpose of it was two fold the main purpose was as a 2nd pair of tracks from East hills to the city rather than duplicate through Sydenham and Petersham the 2nd was to service the redevelopment of the area around Mascot and Green square.

Secondary functions were to transport workers to the airport, they get a heavy discount on the airport access fee tourists which is what you seem to think it built for was well down the list. A private company built and ran the stations hence the surcharge over a standard city rail fare and yes it did go bust due to low patronage (just as the cross city tunnel and lane cover tunnel have gone under) but since city rail took over the line has taken off and achieved results.

Getting to Canberra and light rail to the airport I don’t think anyone would get the light rail there to get a flight rather it would service the multitude of workers out there. Personally I would rather see it go to the parl triangle and if Snow inc wants it at the airport they should bloody well pay and contribute something to this town rather than build endless office buildings using a loophole in the airport sales act that means they don’t have to comply with local planning rules. A loophole that was put in place so airport related development could go forward inimpeded not so shopping centres and office buildings could be built to upset the balance of development in this town.

thisisme said :

Ok, so this is the most recent light rail discussion, this may be slightly off topic, but can anyone point to plans that show where the potential traction power substations might be located along the route? According to an article I read, they ‘should’ be placed away from residences, presumably to avoid causing psychosis from the buzzing noises they will emit.

I don’t think this vital infrastructure has been costed as yet.
Imagine the ugly wire-scape that powering substations will bring.
I have asked HenryBG to supply details of the carbon footprint that “emission free” light rail creates.
Still waiting for this (like we are waiting for the next ice age).

dungfungus said :

Your knowledge of how the electricity market works is apparently very limited but it’s not up to me to spell it out for you.

Oh please, educate me how a basic, instantly transferred, commodity is bought and sold!

[Chin in hands, all ears]

rommeldog56 said :

Well, since the ACTION Route 757 between Gungahlin and Brindabella Park via Dickson and Russell has been withdrawn, the airport people can’t be blamed for supporting a modal shift to trams, can they.

Correct. In the interim, just as well there is the new Majura Parkway and other roads so workers can get to work at that massive airport office block precinct. Roads, accursed roads….and car parks.

What was stopping them before? There were roads, very good roads in fact.

All that money they blew on destroying a lot of good farming land with the Parkway, will have to be paid off by our children and their children’s children, leaving Canberra a smouldering financial crater.

Masquara said :

Hang on – if the light rail is now going to extend to the airport, how is the resultant budget blowout being managed, particularly with our GST redistribution pain?

We are doomed.

Just as Australia was when they put up the nonsense idea of building the Capital out in the middle of nowhere, where there was only sheep and paddocks.

thisisme said :

Ok, so this is the most recent light rail discussion, this may be slightly off topic, but can anyone point to plans that show where the potential traction power substations might be located along the route? According to an article I read, they ‘should’ be placed away from residences, presumably to avoid causing psychosis from the buzzing noises they will emit.

Hmm glad you raised that. Excellent point!

They need substations, located somewhere. I imagine anywhere that has a cable connecting them to the overhead power. Say the tram workshops perhaps?

Was that you who signed all the petitions against the substations in your suburb? How did that go? Any light, heat or power for your computer that you are typing this on?

dungfungus said :

Taxi costs are high the world over but when the alternative is tram/rail/bus after 30 hours of flight the focus is on getting to your hotel rapidly, securely and directly without the problems of carrying and handling luggage in and out of public transport with stairs and elevators to negotiate along the way and sometimes a connecting train to catch.
If “travelling light” and time is not an issue then public transport is obviously the way to go.
Business travellers rarely use public transport.
I don’t know about the need for a rail link from Melbourne airport to the city as whenever I have to travel to Melbourne I drive to Albury @110kmh constant and catch the train which delivers me relaxed and refreshed at Southern Cross in the centre of Melbourne. I can’t afford airfares which only get me to the outskirts of Melbourne.
I seems ironic that Melbourne with one of the largest tram networks in the world and an extensive metro/regional rail system doesn’t extend its tracks to the airport there but maybe they have looked at the failure of the Sydney airport rail link as travellers still prefer to use taxis.
It is clear that trams serve commuters better rather than travellers and the need in Canberra (as far as the airport is concerned) is for commuters.

CabCharge “donates” substantial amounts of money to the political parties in Australia to ensure that taxi licences are restricted and cost 3/4 million dollars each, maybe more now, I haven’t checked.

Also the Airports were “monopolised” by the Liberals, i.e. sold into private hands so that could squeeze usurious amounts of money out of travellers.

The same with the Sydney Airport Link, which wildly overcharges passengers for the tiny distance travelled. The big lie that private enterprise has to do this because it takes on the risk was belied by the company that went broke, theoretically letting the NSW government off the hook, but got rescued instead, maintaining the unreasonable and unpopularly high fares. What is different about that stretch of rail, that it couldn’t just be part of the entire network? Instead of being avoided.

Melbourne is now building a new rail line that passes under the city and runs to Tullamarine. Let’s hope they don’t repeat the Sydney mistake.

Now we really get down to it. It is all about those precious few “Business” travellers who squeeze in that ridiculous tiny section up front in the plane. Stuff everyone else. It is just about THEM. The weak, grey suited, grey minded, corporate lackeys towing their ridiculous pull bags zig zagging all over the place so you have to hop out of the way.

My wife and I spent 2 months in the States with cabin luggage that we could carry on our shoulders, but we aren’t the “Real” travellers that fly in fly out, at best overnight. The ones that everything has to be built to suit.

There is an Action bus to Canberra Airport but it is forced to stop around the corner, out of sight, most people don’t know about it and they want to keep it that way. As an inconvenience it doesn’t run late, particularly on weekends. Not because there are people who wouldn’t want to catch it, but because the Airport makes enormous amounts of money charging for parking and taxis.

Still Terry Snow is thinking of the big picture, even if very few others are in Canberra. Think and Big rarely appear in the same sentence with them.

Ok, so this is the most recent light rail discussion, this may be slightly off topic, but can anyone point to plans that show where the potential traction power substations might be located along the route? According to an article I read, they ‘should’ be placed away from residences, presumably to avoid causing psychosis from the buzzing noises they will emit.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.

Well it annoys me I have to take an expensive taxi to get to the airport. For overnight trips I drive, yet so many airports now have public transport connections that make accessing the airport easy. Many People in Melbourne want a train connection. I’ve used the Brisbane one also. I can confirm the rail links in Dubai, Singapore, HK, London, Frankfurt, Sofia, Casablanca work also. Yes I know Canberra is small, but if you are going to build it, the shear number of workers in defence and at the airport makes it more worthy than many other ideas. Plus they plan to build constitution avenue into a high density residential and commercial boulevard.

Taxi costs are high the world over but when the alternative is tram/rail/bus after 30 hours of flight the focus is on getting to your hotel rapidly, securely and directly without the problems of carrying and handling luggage in and out of public transport with stairs and elevators to negotiate along the way and sometimes a connecting train to catch.
If “travelling light” and time is not an issue then public transport is obviously the way to go.
Business travellers rarely use public transport.
I don’t know about the need for a rail link from Melbourne airport to the city as whenever I have to travel to Melbourne I drive to Albury @110kmh constant and catch the train which delivers me relaxed and refreshed at Southern Cross in the centre of Melbourne. I can’t afford airfares which only get me to the outskirts of Melbourne.
I seems ironic that Melbourne with one of the largest tram networks in the world and an extensive metro/regional rail system doesn’t extend its tracks to the airport there but maybe they have looked at the failure of the Sydney airport rail link as travellers still prefer to use taxis.
It is clear that trams serve commuters better rather than travellers and the need in Canberra (as far as the airport is concerned) is for commuters.

rommeldog56 said :

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

If u are using this as an example of support for the light rail – what do u expect ? Of course the airport will support anything that will bring more passengers to their airport.

Especially if they think it will be at ACT Ratepayerrs expense.

Well, since the ACTION Route 757 between Gungahlin and Brindabella Park via Dickson and Russell has been withdrawn, the airport people can’t be blamed for supporting a modal shift to trams, can they.

Correct. In the interim, just as well there is the new Majura Parkway and other roads so workers can get to work at that massive airport office block precinct. Roads, accursed roads….and car parks.

When the toy train set starts running between Gunners & Civic, there will inevitably be bus timetable/route changes in Gunners and North Canberra too.

The plot thickens.

dungfungus said :

Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.

Well it annoys me I have to take an expensive taxi to get to the airport. For overnight trips I drive, yet so many airports now have public transport connections that make accessing the airport easy. Many People in Melbourne want a train connection. I’ve used the Brisbane one also. I can confirm the rail links in Dubai, Singapore, HK, London, Frankfurt, Sofia, Casablanca work also. Yes I know Canberra is small, but if you are going to build it, the shear number of workers in defence and at the airport makes it more worthy than many other ideas. Plus they plan to build constitution avenue into a high density residential and commercial boulevard.

dungfungus said :

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

If u are using this as an example of support for the light rail – what do u expect ? Of course the airport will support anything that will bring more passengers to their airport.

Especially if they think it will be at ACT Ratepayerrs expense.

Well, since the ACTION Route 757 between Gungahlin and Brindabella Park via Dickson and Russell has been withdrawn, the airport people can’t be blamed for supporting a modal shift to trams, can they.

Correct. In the interim, just as well there is the new Majura Parkway and other roads so workers can get to work at that massive airport office block precinct. Roads, accursed roads….and car parks.

When the toy train set starts running between Gunners & Civic, there will inevitably be bus timetable/route changes in Gunners and North Canberra too.

Hang on – if the light rail is now going to extend to the airport, how is the resultant budget blowout being managed, particularly with our GST redistribution pain?

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

If u are using this as an example of support for the light rail – what do u expect ? Of course the airport will support anything that will bring more passengers to their airport.

Especially if they think it will be at ACT Ratepayerrs expense.

Well, since the ACTION Route 757 between Gungahlin and Brindabella Park via Dickson and Russell has been withdrawn, the airport people can’t be blamed for supporting a modal shift to trams, can they.

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

If u are using this as an example of support for the light rail – what do u expect ? Of course the airport will support anything that will bring more passengers to their airport. Especially if they think it will be at ACT Ratepayerrs expense.

rubaiyat said :

The Games afoot:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/airport-claims-inclusion-in-future-light-rail-plan-20150502-1mxvpg.html

Even more of this “unnecessary evil”!

Extending the light rail from City to the airport precinct (it would be preferable to build that section first) would be a great idea because mass transit to and from there is necessary to service the thousands of workers who commute there unlike the unnecessary duplication of existing bus services by putting in trams from Gungahlin to the City.
Having said that, there is no reason to have a tram service for airport passengers as most will either take a taxi, hire car or have friends deliver/collect them so they can get directly to where they are going.
Remember the underground metro that was hurriedly built to Sydney Airport for the 2000 Olympic games and the tourists that would follow? It went broke in no time and it has never been patronised to anywhere near expectations.
I used to business travel overseas a lot and I only caught an airport tram to a city once (Lyon) because I wanted to see areas not usually seen from the road route.
It was very expensive, uncomfortable and difficult to manage luggage.
Canberra Airport should be the terminus for existing rail and all bus services currently operated out of Kingston and the Jolimont Centre. It would then be a significant regional transport hub and well suited also to the VFT when it is built next century.
The government could also demand that the line run past IKEA’s front door; even insist that the railcars be painted in IKEA colour scheme.

ungruntled said :

You’re such a hopeful, happy, positive little bundle Rubalyat.
At least the pod will be cheap, clean & quiet. And it is, after all, only one of the other options that have not been evaluated by those who should be doing the research to make sure Canberra gets a good Public Transport System, not just a link between “the suburbs to the city”.

Yes, it will be cheap, clean and quiet. It is the nature of imaginary things to be what you want them to be. It is only reality that has positives and negatives to be considered. Pipe dreams are universally great.

rubaiyat said :

On further reflection, there are even more flaws in the SkyTran system.

How many escalators, lifts and stairs are you seriously going to build out in the sprawling suburbs? The suburbs this system is supposed to link to the city.

The further you are from the centre of the system the further you are from available pods.

Who gets the pod, you, or the other customer closer to the pod?

The same in peak hour when the system reaches saturation.

The closer it gets to its full capacity the less efficient it becomes as more pods are taken, and available pods become progressively further away.

Ultimately the system chokes, just as it does with cars in traffic.

When you need it most, you won’t be able to get it, just like taxis in the rain.

You’re such a hopeful, happy, positive little bundle Rubalyat.
At least the pod will be cheap, clean & quiet. And it is, after all, only one of the other options that have not been evaluated by those who should be doing the research to make sure Canberra gets a good Public Transport System, not just a link between “the suburbs to the city”.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Read: http://the-riotact.com/canberras-electric-cars-to-be-powered-by-renewables/46882
ActewAGL must have committed to buy $60 million dollars of renewable supply from somebody to sell (remember, they don’t generate large quantities of renewables) so when A Better Place folded, ActewAGL were left holding the baby to the tune of $60 million dollars.
The ACT Government owns half of ActewAGL.
All the gory details have been expunged from the internet.

Not much of a reference, the RiotACT is hardly a primary source.

Also all it it is doing is referring to green source power and ActewAGL buys and sells that anyway. Not like it has been lost.

Your knowledge of how the electricity market works is apparently very limited but it’s not up to me to spell it out for you.

After reading the ActewAGL 2012 -2103 Annual Report which is very scant on detail, I could not find any reference to A Better Place. It may be there but I couldn’t see it.
The only possible reference to electric cars is a “motherhood statement” saying: “ActewAGL will build, own, operate and maintain a number of energy-related network businesses, such as electric vehicle infrastructure.” (whatever that means)
What is interesting is revealed in the balance sheets.
There is a line under Current Liabilities which identifies “current liabilities held for sale” totalling $16,867,000.
I couldn’t see any qualification about this in the auditor’s sign off.
The total amount for this classification in the previous financial year was”0″.
I am sure there is a simple explanation for this so over to you Mark.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Read: http://the-riotact.com/canberras-electric-cars-to-be-powered-by-renewables/46882
ActewAGL must have committed to buy $60 million dollars of renewable supply from somebody to sell (remember, they don’t generate large quantities of renewables) so when A Better Place folded, ActewAGL were left holding the baby to the tune of $60 million dollars.
The ACT Government owns half of ActewAGL.
All the gory details have been expunged from the internet.

Not much of a reference, the RiotACT is hardly a primary source.

Also all it it is doing is referring to green source power and ActewAGL buys and sells that anyway. Not like it has been lost.

Your knowledge of how the electricity market works is apparently very limited but it’s not up to me to spell it out for you.

We should just make mini eclectic K class cars.

Those tiny ones that fit 1-2 people you see in japan.
Then have them cheaper parking and cheaper rego.

I see no reason why everyone has to drive a 5 seater car to work.

Anyone out there in the construction industry who can give a price on 2km of 450 ø or 600 ø diameter rolled steel or aluminium structural tubing?

eBay didn’t cover this stuff. 😉

dungfungus said :

Read: http://the-riotact.com/canberras-electric-cars-to-be-powered-by-renewables/46882
ActewAGL must have committed to buy $60 million dollars of renewable supply from somebody to sell (remember, they don’t generate large quantities of renewables) so when A Better Place folded, ActewAGL were left holding the baby to the tune of $60 million dollars.
The ACT Government owns half of ActewAGL.
All the gory details have been expunged from the internet.

Not much of a reference, the RiotACT is hardly a primary source.

Also all it it is doing is referring to green source power and ActewAGL buys and sells that anyway. Not like it has been lost.

Masquara said :

Arthur Davies said :

The prefabricated stations shown are what would be provided at each community stop. They would include a small lift for wheelchair access etc. For a major stop such as Civic a much longer platform would be needed of course, but the volume of passengers would justify that, could even be as long as a tram stop if need be!

Arthur

“A small lift” – that will deal with anyone in a wheelchair, plus anyone with kids in strollers, plus anyone lugging a suitcase?

And that costs a fortune to install, maintain and run, and is frequently out of service as well as occupying a lot of footpath. Don’t forget the escalator they also show in their 3D rendering (only seems to go up however).

When I was studying architecture the lecturers used to ask for construction details, “and don’t tell us you are going to use glue”.

I’m not sure this system has even given thought as far as the glue.

To call this pie in the sky, is ignoring that it is 2 storey pie in the sky, up on the end of lifts, escalators, sliding doors and with a precarious gap between the pod and platform.

The claimed $9.5 million/km (based on what?) would be eaten up with the bulky infrastucture at every stop alone. $9.5 million worth of electrical coils in the twin tracks + supporting structures sounds like so much bunkum I just can’t believe anyone actually falls for it. Just count the poles, each excavated and set in concrete which have to avoid existing services. Let’s be generous and say the poles are every 30 metres which is quite a span, that is 33.3 /kilometre x 2 = 66 poles + the platforms + the lifts + the escalators + the services etc.

I used to make up things like this on the back of my exercise book when I was a kid, this is supposed to be a serious proposal as a transport system for Canberra? Please!

On further reflection, there are even more flaws in the SkyTran system.

How many escalators, lifts and stairs are you seriously going to build out in the sprawling suburbs? The suburbs this system is supposed to link to the city.

The further you are from the centre of the system the further you are from available pods.

Who gets the pod, you, or the other customer closer to the pod?

The same in peak hour when the system reaches saturation.

The closer it gets to its full capacity the less efficient it becomes as more pods are taken, and available pods become progressively further away.

Ultimately the system chokes, just as it does with cars in traffic.

When you need it most, you won’t be able to get it, just like taxis in the rain.

Arthur Davies said :

The prefabricated stations shown are what would be provided at each community stop. They would include a small lift for wheelchair access etc. For a major stop such as Civic a much longer platform would be needed of course, but the volume of passengers would justify that, could even be as long as a tram stop if need be!

Arthur

“A small lift” – that will deal with anyone in a wheelchair, plus anyone with kids in strollers, plus anyone lugging a suitcase?

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said :

Damian

I have checked all the references in that batch. Almost all of them are financial studies on tram systems, a few mention buses. Only one, 2004 feasibility study, even mentions anything but trams & buses.

There is no study evaluating ALL transport options that I know of (or you apparently) which properly evaluates the comparative capital & running costs, trip times, carbon dioxide footprints, efficiency, noise, etc. To meet due diligence requirements this evaluation has to be thoroughly done, published by the Govt for review by the community & peer reviewed, BEFORE committing to any technology. Anything less is totally inadequate & can well produce a less than optimum result as well as costing the community more than is necessary for our transport needs.

Arthur

Faddish and undeveloped orphan technologies are indeed captivating for those looking for the perfect solution. The idea of a better alternative isn’t new – and the ACT Govt has looked at alternatives:

http://onfourwheels.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/1999-to-2010-no-vision-on-transport.html

The alternatives fail for several reasons, the simplest being that it is better and cheaper to use a known technology, with multiple providers, and an established knowledge base for operation and support.

Pods, electric or otherwise, also fail the ‘mass’ aspect of public transport.

It is illogical to wait for a perfect solution when the best solution right now can be procured, installed and operating within 5 years.

“…..it is better and cheaper to use a known technology, with multiple providers, and an established knowledge base for operation and support…..”.

Yes, of course,and that is why the government lost millions of dollars investing in A Better Place.

I can’t find anything substantiating that. All I can find is that ActewAGL lost a couple of mill.

Read: http://the-riotact.com/canberras-electric-cars-to-be-powered-by-renewables/46882
ActewAGL must have committed to buy $60 million dollars of renewable supply from somebody to sell (remember, they don’t generate large quantities of renewables) so when A Better Place folded, ActewAGL were left holding the baby to the tune of $60 million dollars.
The ACT Government owns half of ActewAGL.
All the gory details have been expunged from the internet.

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said :

The main purpose of the article was to let everyone that that other transport modes exist & that the Govt did not investigate them, at least in detail. However for those who are interested in the example of SkyTran, here is a short Video on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQtCBsoGUns

Arthur

Generally its not feasible to evaluate technologies that only exist as computer generated animations.

Its one video more than what we can see for light rail and what it would look like.
Katy G put a cap on the amount of light rail, next thing we know Katy is out and light rail is then 20% more expensive.

Either way the ACT tax payer in one way or another gets to foot the bill for it, and only a select few will fit the modified Drake Equation for its use.

I wonder is it still Labours position to pull out if it goes over $614 million Give or take (given 2011’s money) or was that just a lie to get though the election?

If its not true, then we damn right should have a referendum or election. Most probably the price will be double that figure. or about $600 overspend on a lie to the ACT taxpayer!

It’s all good to have carriages/pods/whatever to haul x number of people per hour but where are the people going to come from? I don’t reckon people are going to drive or bus it to a park and ride in gungahlin, then get on a train to get into Civic and do the same coming home.

It would be a lot cheaper to build a bus only road at the base of Mt’s Majura and Ainslie, turning right before Campbell high and running down Ainslie Avenue. As for the other town centres, the 333 did a pretty good job back in the 80’s. The other really big problem with a trainline is that one accident and the whole thing grinds to a halt. Say a carriage is hit by a car at Dickson. Are the managers then going to run trains to and from the nearest stations to the crash?

Arthur Davies4:26 pm 01 May 15

Forgot the promised link, sorry.

Arthur

/Users/arthur/Desktop/transport greenhouse emissions 1900 and 2000 Dobes 1995 BTE OP110.pdf

Arthur Davies4:24 pm 01 May 15

It is often useful to look at how we got to where we are as a guide to where we can go in the future. Professor Dobes wrote an excellent paper on energy used & carbon dioxide generated by transport in Australia in 1900 & in 2000, link enclosed. Several points come out of that & other research:-

Melb & Syd were twice as dense in 1900 as in 2000 (surprised me too).

Electric trams were first used in the late 1800s, first in Australia was in Hobart in 1893 I think. Back then the only form of transport was to walk or use horses. The major problem for cities back then was horse manure! 1,100 tons per day in New York, along with 270,000l of urine. The whole place must have stunk, been visually challenging, & unhealthy. Walking through that must have been horrendous. Then along came newfangled electric trams which needed no horses, riding in one above the disgusting street must have seemed bliss. No wonder trams took off in a big way.

At their peak there were 25 towns & cities throughout Australia with tram networks, but once cars appeared in substantial numbers, people found them more convenient & tram patronage shrank. Buses also appeared which could serve areas outside the tram network. Of those 25 tram systems only 2 survived, Melb & Adelaide.

Also people moved out of high density central city areas to get some room to live, they voted with their feet against high density once transport was available.

The cities then were very different when trams were viable compared to present cities, trying to fit an 1890s solution into a 2015 city seems doubtful at best. I for one, do not want to bet my money on a technology which failed 23 out of 25 times. The major factors in the tram’s demise were the convenience of door to door with cars & the reduced travel times which cars provided.

Trying to introduce trams today with their long travel time is just not going to satisfy most people (Gungahlin to Civic in 27 minutes according to Metro for 12km). The city has reached the point where traffic delays for ground based transport is becoming serious, so for distance commuting a faster alternative is needed. I can see no way to have rapid transport while it is ground based, only by elevating it above the traffic & above intersections in particular will we be able to enjoy short trip times. This & only this will tempt people out of their cars, people do not measure distance in km generally, but in minutes or hours of travel (How far away are you? About 10 minutes). Overhead rapid transit should be able to go from one end of Canberra to the other in around 10 minutes, that will get people out of their cars!

Another coming technology is autonomous cars. These will be ideal for short distances from your door to your destination, to close shops or to the nearest pod station for longer trips. When they drop you, they do not need to park, but move on to the next passenger. If these are electric cars, they will be largely carbon dioxide free if “green power” is used, they could take themselves to the closest charge point automatically when needed. However these will not be very useful for distance commuting, they are just more cars in the traffic jam.

So there is no single solution to Canberra’s transport needs, there are several, which if properly used in conjunction, will do far better than our present transport system. But we must all demand thorough investigation & implementation from our “leaders” & make sure these things happen over time, not too long a time one hopes.

Arthur

Just a few more questions off the top of my head:

What does a parent with several small children do?

What does someone with any of a number of disabilities do, starting with blind people with a guide dog?

How far does the queue for the pods on the platform extend down the stairs/escalator/lifts (you’ll need several) into the street and along the pavement? Will you need a platform to access the platform?

Where do the lifts and all its driving mechanism fit in the street and above?

When the system fails, as it inevitably will, what happens to the passengers in the pods up on the tracks?

What happens if one pod fails and blocks all the other pods?

How does the system fit into cities with tall vehicles, buildings with varying awnings, footpaths of varying width?

Where does the shopping cart/surf board go?

Arthur Davies said :

The capacity of the Skytran system is about 7000 people per hour per track, double track double it assuming people are going in opposite directions, Metro expects 20,000 per day for stage 1 so no problem with capacity. Pods can safely travel at half second intervals.

The prefabricated stations shown are what would be provided at each community stop. They would include a small lift for wheelchair access etc. For a major stop such as Civic a much longer platform would be needed of course, but the volume of passengers would justify that, could even be as long as a tram stop if need be!

Arthur

There are only 3600 seconds in every hour, 2 people per pod, that means 1 pod per second.

How long to pull in, open the sliding doors, disembark passengers, new passengers to climb on board, sliding doors to close, pod to back out (as per video) and take off?

How did that wheelchair passenger jump the gap, fold up their wheelchair and stow it (where?) in less than 1 second? Is there a safety net below?

How fast is that “small lift”, what does it cost to install and maintain, and how many people does it move in both directions, up and down, to the platform, to feed the system?

How often are the lifts out of order?

A tram platform is typically 30m long and 3m wide and for trams that take 220+ at ground level. The pods look like they are approx. 5m long and dock in longer bays so say 12 passengers, maybe less in the same space, but up 2 storeys.

Mag lev is by function extremely low friction, how does the pod get off the split rail, down then, back up another storey without a mechanical detachment device?

Are you the Sales Rep for SkyTran?

If so where do I get full documentation and engineering details with contract prices, and where may I actually ride on a functioning system? Why aren’t you showing a video of a real system in operation instead of the crude 3D animation?

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Where in Canberra are there gas-fired power stations apart from the token ones at the land fill and the peakers at Fyshwick?

Your stunningly persuasive argument presumably being, “you have to have something before you can get it”?

dungfungus said :

How can you “honestly” say there is beauty in a gas-fired power station?

This was the view from the hill near my place for 4 years, truly magnificent:
http://www.picturesofengland.com/img/X/1159004.jpg

dungfungus said :

The one that was proposed for Mugga Lane wasn’t a boutique version in a residential street, it was going to be a $2 billion 177MW one connected to the power grid.

Yes, a modern high-tech plant right next to the tip, with no residential streets anywhere in sight.

dungfungus said :

This would need 12 x 35 metre high turbine exhaust stacks

…on land at an altitude of about 650m, with an 850m metre hill right between it and the nearest suburb…..

So that’s stacks that reach less than 20% the height of the natural variation in local ground elevation.

dungfungus said :

emitting 95 million cubic metres of lung sensitive nitrogen dioxide (that’s the equivalent of 2100 cars running at full throttle 24/7!).

…or the equivalent of Canberra’s 280,000 registered vehicles running for 10 minutes 48 seconds each per day?

In any case, your figure is total fantasy – the exhaust of a gas-fired power station is mostly water and CO2, with a very, very small fraction of it being NOx.
Modern gas-fired power stations are extremely sparing with their production of sulphur and nitrogen oxides, which is one reason why we much prefer them to coal-fired power.

dungfungus said :

These emissions would follow the same path as the odour from the land fill to the adjoining suburbs but it would not be noticed as it is odourless.

“Nitrogen dioxide is a nasty-smelling gas.”

http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/publications/factsheet-nitrogen-dioxide-no2

L. O. L.

Just come out and admit you just hate technology, Dungfungus.

“…..…on land at an altitude of about 650m, with an 850m metre hill right between it and the nearest suburb…..”

This would put the NO2 emission point at the same level as the current tip face where all the odour rises from which is where allyou technocrats stumble because the same air current would channel the NO2 exactly where the odour goes.
Being a faux scientist you would know all about rotor on the lee side of a ridge so that might help you understand.

Arthur Davies2:43 pm 01 May 15

rubaiyat said :

Arthur Davies said :

The main purpose of the article was to let everyone that that other transport modes exist & that the Govt did not investigate them, at least in detail. However for those who are interested in the example of SkyTran, here is a short Video on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQtCBsoGUns

Arthur

It is pretty well the kiss of death for any proposed technology to appear on the cover of Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. Right up there with Hovercars.

I still don’t get the rated capacity of the system, considering it is a two man pod that you have to climb into from a high platform. I assume there is some barrier to stop you falling off and that it will take time to get in and out, particularly if it happens to be occupied, and you have to climb past each other.

Also the single up escalator at each stop?

The flaws look obvious. The killer being having to climb up and down to get to it instead of just stepping aboard something at ground level.

The capacity of the Skytran system is about 7000 people per hour per track, double track double it assuming people are going in opposite directions, Metro expects 20,000 per day for stage 1 so no problem with capacity. Pods can safely travel at half second intervals.

The prefabricated stations shown are what would be provided at each community stop. They would include a small lift for wheelchair access etc. For a major stop such as Civic a much longer platform would be needed of course, but the volume of passengers would justify that, could even be as long as a tram stop if need be!

Arthur

Arthur Davies2:23 pm 01 May 15

rubaiyat said :

Think about the impact the choice of transport makes.

Which would you prefer, a light rail track running past you, or a 4-6 lane divided freeway*?

Not really a fair comparison because you would need far more lanes to match the light rail.

This is a typical “yes minister” technique. The whole point of the article is that there are MORE than just the two transport options put up by the govt. Not only roads or trams, but others including overhead rapid transit.

Arthur

Oops, missed that old 100 year old elevator tucked in the corner of every single platform.

The video does an excellent job of showing off the reality of freeways as “transport”.

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said :

The main purpose of the article was to let everyone that that other transport modes exist & that the Govt did not investigate them, at least in detail. However for those who are interested in the example of SkyTran, here is a short Video on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQtCBsoGUns

Arthur

Generally its not feasible to evaluate technologies that only exist as computer generated animations.

I have no trouble evaluating this technology EASILY from the animation.

I evaluated the elevators and automated sliding doors required at every 2 storey platform and how large they showed the platform in this view, but not from the street.

I evaluated how the person in the wheel chair magically jumped the gap to the round pod dangling in front of the 2 storey drop. Somewhat obscured by the sudden change of scene at that point.

I evaluated how in another scene the able bodied passenger has to climb into the pod.

I evaluated the amazingly steady magnetically suspended pod hanging from its narrow track.

I evaluated the supposed 3.2 pods whizzing past EACH point every second.

I evaluated the suggestion that SkyTran can handle the volume of Los Angeles commuters.

I couldn’t evaluate the hundreds of people pushing to board the pods at peak hour, because it looks like virtually nobody is using them despite the 11,700 passengers/hour.

My evaluation? B.S.

…and if you can’t evaluate that, here I’ve got a Brooklyn Bridge or two for you to buy.

rubaiyat said :

Just checked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

And none of the combustion products of methane, which is what is coming off the tip, produces nitrates.

NOx aren’t a product of combustion, they are a side-effect of it, as N will oxidise at the high temperatures that are produced by combustion.

Modern gas-fired turbines deliberately cool the combustion chamber. At 1600 degrees, you get loads of nasty NOx. Methane burns at about 500 degrees.

damien haas said :

Generally its not feasible to evaluate technologies that only exist as computer generated animations.

Apparently they didn’t even do that much before “evaluating” GMOs as “safe”…

I’m not a fan of spending money on the bleeding edge, myself – I always think of the tragic fate of the De Havilland company when people enthuse about brand new technologies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

Flimsy two-seater pods zipping about at 60km/h 5 metres up in the air? What could possibly go wrong?

dungfungus said :

Where in Canberra are there gas-fired power stations apart from the token ones at the land fill and the peakers at Fyshwick?

Your stunningly persuasive argument presumably being, “you have to have something before you can get it”?

dungfungus said :

How can you “honestly” say there is beauty in a gas-fired power station?

This was the view from the hill near my place for 4 years, truly magnificent:
http://www.picturesofengland.com/img/X/1159004.jpg

dungfungus said :

The one that was proposed for Mugga Lane wasn’t a boutique version in a residential street, it was going to be a $2 billion 177MW one connected to the power grid.

Yes, a modern high-tech plant right next to the tip, with no residential streets anywhere in sight.

dungfungus said :

This would need 12 x 35 metre high turbine exhaust stacks

…on land at an altitude of about 650m, with an 850m metre hill right between it and the nearest suburb…..

So that’s stacks that reach less than 20% the height of the natural variation in local ground elevation.

dungfungus said :

emitting 95 million cubic metres of lung sensitive nitrogen dioxide (that’s the equivalent of 2100 cars running at full throttle 24/7!).

…or the equivalent of Canberra’s 280,000 registered vehicles running for 10 minutes 48 seconds each per day?

In any case, your figure is total fantasy – the exhaust of a gas-fired power station is mostly water and CO2, with a very, very small fraction of it being NOx.
Modern gas-fired power stations are extremely sparing with their production of sulphur and nitrogen oxides, which is one reason why we much prefer them to coal-fired power.

dungfungus said :

These emissions would follow the same path as the odour from the land fill to the adjoining suburbs but it would not be noticed as it is odourless.

“Nitrogen dioxide is a nasty-smelling gas.”

http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/publications/factsheet-nitrogen-dioxide-no2

L. O. L.

Just come out and admit you just hate technology, Dungfungus.

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

If the gas powered power station/data centre adjacent to the Mugga Lane tip had proceeded hundreds of people in some Tuggeranong suburbs would be dying now from the poisonous emissions which would travel on the same regular air currents that exposed the problems at the Mugga Lane tip.
While the Mugga Lane tip problems were invisible there was the odour. The gases from the power station would also be invisible but also odourless and lethal.

That was simply a blatant lie put out by the Nimby’s gleefully aided by the Libs. A complete fabrication that the easily confused fell for in their eagerness to feel put-upon yet again. There are gas-fired power stations all around the world, right in the street, in densely populated areas, that’s one of the beauties of the technology.

Honestly Dungers, please just look, observe and think. Don’t simply look for fodder to feed your own prejudices.

Putting aside dung’s hyperbole, I don’t see why the gasworks couldn’t then be set up in the inner south or in the inner north, so that all suburbs get an opportunity to host some the ‘low profile’ utility services that Canberra requires.

Arthur Davies said :

The main purpose of the article was to let everyone that that other transport modes exist & that the Govt did not investigate them, at least in detail. However for those who are interested in the example of SkyTran, here is a short Video on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQtCBsoGUns

Arthur

Generally its not feasible to evaluate technologies that only exist as computer generated animations.

Just checked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

And none of the combustion products of methane, which is what is coming off the tip, produces nitrates.

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

If the gas powered power station/data centre adjacent to the Mugga Lane tip had proceeded hundreds of people in some Tuggeranong suburbs would be dying now from the poisonous emissions which would travel on the same regular air currents that exposed the problems at the Mugga Lane tip.
While the Mugga Lane tip problems were invisible there was the odour. The gases from the power station would also be invisible but also odourless and lethal.

That was simply a blatant lie put out by the Nimby’s gleefully aided by the Libs. A complete fabrication that the easily confused fell for in their eagerness to feel put-upon yet again. There are gas-fired power stations all around the world, right in the street, in densely populated areas, that’s one of the beauties of the technology.

Honestly Dungers, please just look, observe and think. Don’t simply look for fodder to feed your own prejudices.

Where in Canberra are there gas-fired power stations apart from the token ones at the land fill and the peakers at Fyshwick?
How can you “honestly” say there is beauty in a gas-fired power station?
The one that was proposed for Mugga Lane wasn’t a boutique version in a residential street, it was going to be a $2 billion 177MW one connected to the power grid.
This would need 12 x 35 metre high turbine exhaust stacks emitting 95 million cubic metres of lung sensitive nitrogen dioxide (that’s the equivalent of 2100 cars running at full throttle 24/7!).
These emissions would follow the same path as the odour from the land fill to the adjoining suburbs but it would not be noticed as it is odourless.
If you believe this is not a problem you probably also believe asbestos is safe enough to be sprinkled as a topping on ice cream.
The only other one of this size that was planned was to be at Dalton, well away from high population areas and I understand this was abandoned due to community opposition.
I am tiring of your comments that often refer to Liberal conspiracies, fabrications, etc. The smell from the tip that we had to endure over the past 3 months was horrible – my wife is an asthmatic and it really caused her a lot of grief so don’t call me a nimby and a liar.
You may think you know everything but you are the one that needs to look and observe more and think less.

Oh Dungers, I look to the heavens and think of Proverbs 26:4 before going on my way to contribute to the economy rather than debating reality

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

If the gas powered power station/data centre adjacent to the Mugga Lane tip had proceeded hundreds of people in some Tuggeranong suburbs would be dying now from the poisonous emissions which would travel on the same regular air currents that exposed the problems at the Mugga Lane tip.
While the Mugga Lane tip problems were invisible there was the odour. The gases from the power station would also be invisible but also odourless and lethal.

That was simply a blatant lie put out by the Nimby’s gleefully aided by the Libs. A complete fabrication that the easily confused fell for in their eagerness to feel put-upon yet again. There are gas-fired power stations all around the world, right in the street, in densely populated areas, that’s one of the beauties of the technology.

Honestly Dungers, please just look, observe and think. Don’t simply look for fodder to feed your own prejudices.

Where in Canberra are there gas-fired power stations apart from the token ones at the land fill and the peakers at Fyshwick?
How can you “honestly” say there is beauty in a gas-fired power station?
The one that was proposed for Mugga Lane wasn’t a boutique version in a residential street, it was going to be a $2 billion 177MW one connected to the power grid.
This would need 12 x 35 metre high turbine exhaust stacks emitting 95 million cubic metres of lung sensitive nitrogen dioxide (that’s the equivalent of 2100 cars running at full throttle 24/7!).
These emissions would follow the same path as the odour from the land fill to the adjoining suburbs but it would not be noticed as it is odourless.
If you believe this is not a problem you probably also believe asbestos is safe enough to be sprinkled as a topping on ice cream.
The only other one of this size that was planned was to be at Dalton, well away from high population areas and I understand this was abandoned due to community opposition.
I am tiring of your comments that often refer to Liberal conspiracies, fabrications, etc. The smell from the tip that we had to endure over the past 3 months was horrible – my wife is an asthmatic and it really caused her a lot of grief so don’t call me a nimby and a liar.
You may think you know everything but you are the one that needs to look and observe more and think less.

dungfungus said :

If the gas powered power station/data centre adjacent to the Mugga Lane tip had proceeded hundreds of people in some Tuggeranong suburbs would be dying now from the poisonous emissions which would travel on the same regular air currents that exposed the problems at the Mugga Lane tip.
While the Mugga Lane tip problems were invisible there was the odour. The gases from the power station would also be invisible but also odourless and lethal.

That was simply a blatant lie put out by the Nimby’s gleefully aided by the Libs. A complete fabrication that the easily confused fell for in their eagerness to feel put-upon yet again. There are gas-fired power stations all around the world, right in the street, in densely populated areas, that’s one of the beauties of the technology.

Honestly Dungers, please just look, observe and think. Don’t simply look for fodder to feed your own prejudices.

ungruntled said :

Australia wasn’t built on the tried & true. It was built on innovation & a determination to make our country a better place to live for everyone, not just the few or the “gentry”.
Stage coaches were tried & true once upon a time. Didn’t stop us getting trams when they were cutting edge technology, though.

Exactly, so I want a full investigation of this amazing freight technology that HAS been used for hundreds of years around the world and achieved unbelievable speeds:

http://science-at-home.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/santa-sleigh.jpg

There is a working example in Scandinavia and it shouldn’t take much to adapt it to public transport in the ACT.

rommeldog56 said :

ungruntled said :

rommeldog56 said :

HenryBG said :

We need a new political party – the Evidence-Based Policy Party.

Regardless, people who drop off a Folder full of “technical” details of their wonderful invention – be it about the latest iteration of the perpetual motion machine, chemtrails, how climate change is a hoax, etc… – are nothing new in politics and are almost always extremely cranky and hence almost always ignored by default.
Calls to talkback radio are probably not the way to engage with government on policy issues.

Having said that, this sort of project should have been informed by a properly-formed committee to invite proposals and analyse all options. Was this actually done?

No – some evaluation of alternatives was apparently undertaken but certainly not a full Benefits Costs Ratio (BCR) or business case that was done for the toy train set.

Now that much more of the detail is known and post tender evaluation when the actual cost to Ratepayers is much more clear – the ACT Gov’t should go back to voters at the next election for a decision at the ballot box – not commence sign contracts before then. At the last ACT election, Labor sort of said “we reckon that Canberra needs a Light Rail and we reckon it will cost about m$614” (which was revised to m$780 even before tenders were received !).

But the punters still put them back – without knowing the detail that is now known.

Yes. They may put them back. But then, if as a community, given all the information we make a choice, be it good or bad, it’s ok. If we want a democracy, that’s what it’s about, isn’t it? We hope we’ll make a good decision, but it is at least our community decision. Not one inflicted on us from “above”.

But thats just it, ungruntled. At the 2012 ACT election, voters didn’t have anywhere the amount of information on the proposed Light Rail solution that is available now. Essentially, the proposed Light Rail is “inflicted on us from above” and unfortunately, voters seem to see it as a “its better than nothing or what we have currently got” type solution.

Voters – in a spheres, not just in the ACT – need to see through the sloganism and popularist high level policies & concepts, and ask more about detail.

“Roads, Roads, Roads”

How about that for sloganeering, and never a referendum!

ungruntled said :

rommeldog56 said :

HenryBG said :

We need a new political party – the Evidence-Based Policy Party.

Regardless, people who drop off a Folder full of “technical” details of their wonderful invention – be it about the latest iteration of the perpetual motion machine, chemtrails, how climate change is a hoax, etc… – are nothing new in politics and are almost always extremely cranky and hence almost always ignored by default.
Calls to talkback radio are probably not the way to engage with government on policy issues.

Having said that, this sort of project should have been informed by a properly-formed committee to invite proposals and analyse all options. Was this actually done?

No – some evaluation of alternatives was apparently undertaken but certainly not a full Benefits Costs Ratio (BCR) or business case that was done for the toy train set.

Now that much more of the detail is known and post tender evaluation when the actual cost to Ratepayers is much more clear – the ACT Gov’t should go back to voters at the next election for a decision at the ballot box – not commence sign contracts before then. At the last ACT election, Labor sort of said “we reckon that Canberra needs a Light Rail and we reckon it will cost about m$614” (which was revised to m$780 even before tenders were received !).

But the punters still put them back – without knowing the detail that is now known.

Yes. They may put them back. But then, if as a community, given all the information we make a choice, be it good or bad, it’s ok. If we want a democracy, that’s what it’s about, isn’t it? We hope we’ll make a good decision, but it is at least our community decision. Not one inflicted on us from “above”.

But thats just it, ungruntled. At the 2012 ACT election, voters didn’t have anywhere the amount of information on the proposed Light Rail solution that is available now. Essentially, the proposed Light Rail is “inflicted on us from above” and unfortunately, voters seem to see it as a “its better than nothing or what we have currently got” type solution.

Voters – in a spheres, not just in the ACT – need to see through the sloganism and popularist high level policies & concepts, and ask more about detail.

HenryBG said :

I was interested to read this:

dungfungus said :

It’s a shame that you are trying to muddy the waters by regularly bringing politics into this thread..

Let’s just recall a previous post by this author:

dungfungus said :

Man-made climate change is a hoax, however.

Honestly, whatever the failings of the wishful-thinking Left, the Right always manages to under-think them…

Perhaps you can tell us all about the hidden carbon footprint that results from an “emission free” light rail network.
It’s another hoax.

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said :

Damian

I have checked all the references in that batch. Almost all of them are financial studies on tram systems, a few mention buses. Only one, 2004 feasibility study, even mentions anything but trams & buses.

There is no study evaluating ALL transport options that I know of (or you apparently) which properly evaluates the comparative capital & running costs, trip times, carbon dioxide footprints, efficiency, noise, etc. To meet due diligence requirements this evaluation has to be thoroughly done, published by the Govt for review by the community & peer reviewed, BEFORE committing to any technology. Anything less is totally inadequate & can well produce a less than optimum result as well as costing the community more than is necessary for our transport needs.

Arthur

Faddish and undeveloped orphan technologies are indeed captivating for those looking for the perfect solution. The idea of a better alternative isn’t new – and the ACT Govt has looked at alternatives:

http://onfourwheels.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/1999-to-2010-no-vision-on-transport.html

The alternatives fail for several reasons, the simplest being that it is better and cheaper to use a known technology, with multiple providers, and an established knowledge base for operation and support.

Pods, electric or otherwise, also fail the ‘mass’ aspect of public transport.

It is illogical to wait for a perfect solution when the best solution right now can be procured, installed and operating within 5 years.

I checked out the connection you provided, thank you.
I noted that it is about 15 years out of date.
There have been lots of technical advances since then (e.g. permanent/super magnets in transport & computing & phones in communications are quite different to how they were 15 or so years ago).
Get with the program mate – if all we ever do is the tried & true, we are not going very far, are we?
Australia wasn’t built on the tried & true. It was built on innovation & a determination to make our country a better place to live for everyone, not just the few or the “gentry”.
Stage coaches were tried & true once upon a time. Didn’t stop us getting trams when they were cutting edge technology, though.

rommeldog56 said :

HenryBG said :

rommeldog56 said :

But the punters still put them back – without knowing the detail that is now known.

What was the punters’ alternative?
To vote for the party that irresponsibly scotched the gas-fired power station and data centre that was to be built next to the Mugga Lane tip? The party that is trying to cripple the renewable energy industry in this country? The party that has just spent million$ paying polluters to continue burning coal? The party that ditched the economically responsible carbon tax AND simultaneously retained the carbon tax compensation package, thus exposing the taxpayer to huge expense to no purpose?

Sensible people know this light rail project is destined to be a humungously expensive white elephant that will cause a dizzy climb in our already over-expensive Land Rates.

Hang on – apart from the gas fired power station and data centre, the rest of the issues cited are federal Liberal – not ACT Liberal ? I was talking about ACT politics and punters who voted at the 2012 ACT election for Labor/Greens on the back of a Light Rail wing and a prayer and an estimate of m$614 – the detail of which was unknown and there was no BCR or business case.

I agree with u about an alternative in the ACT. I hope a good independent appears – not one who can be bribed with a Ministerial/Cabinet post to help Labor form a Government. Also agree with the toy train set being a white elephant – at Ratepayers expense.

If the gas powered power station/data centre adjacent to the Mugga Lane tip had proceeded hundreds of people in some Tuggeranong suburbs would be dying now from the poisonous emissions which would travel on the same regular air currents that exposed the problems at the Mugga Lane tip.
While the Mugga Lane tip problems were invisible there was the odour. The gases from the power station would also be invisible but also odourless and lethal.

dungfungus said :

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said :

Damian

I have checked all the references in that batch. Almost all of them are financial studies on tram systems, a few mention buses. Only one, 2004 feasibility study, even mentions anything but trams & buses.

There is no study evaluating ALL transport options that I know of (or you apparently) which properly evaluates the comparative capital & running costs, trip times, carbon dioxide footprints, efficiency, noise, etc. To meet due diligence requirements this evaluation has to be thoroughly done, published by the Govt for review by the community & peer reviewed, BEFORE committing to any technology. Anything less is totally inadequate & can well produce a less than optimum result as well as costing the community more than is necessary for our transport needs.

Arthur

Faddish and undeveloped orphan technologies are indeed captivating for those looking for the perfect solution. The idea of a better alternative isn’t new – and the ACT Govt has looked at alternatives:

http://onfourwheels.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/1999-to-2010-no-vision-on-transport.html

The alternatives fail for several reasons, the simplest being that it is better and cheaper to use a known technology, with multiple providers, and an established knowledge base for operation and support.

Pods, electric or otherwise, also fail the ‘mass’ aspect of public transport.

It is illogical to wait for a perfect solution when the best solution right now can be procured, installed and operating within 5 years.

“…..it is better and cheaper to use a known technology, with multiple providers, and an established knowledge base for operation and support…..”.

Yes, of course,and that is why the government lost millions of dollars investing in A Better Place.

I can’t find anything substantiating that. All I can find is that ActewAGL lost a couple of mill.

ungruntled said :

rubaiyat said :

Think about the impact the choice of transport makes.

Which would you prefer, a light rail track running past you, or a 4-6 lane divided freeway*?

Not really a fair comparison because you would need far more lanes to match the light rail.

No it isn’t a really fair comparison.
What say we include the option of little pods travelling past quietly, powered by mag lev, high above the road & dropping down to deliver people seamlessly to their destination?

What say we include hover boards, or sleds pulled by chickens?

The rating for the SkyTran, a system that doesn’t even exist, is frankly unbelievable.

Laurie Brereton bought the “We saw you coming” monorail sales pitch for Sydney, “because it was more modern than trams”…

…and how did that turn out? Just another excuse to sabotage effective public transport.

Arthur Davies said :

The main purpose of the article was to let everyone that that other transport modes exist & that the Govt did not investigate them, at least in detail. However for those who are interested in the example of SkyTran, here is a short Video on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQtCBsoGUns

Arthur

It is pretty well the kiss of death for any proposed technology to appear on the cover of Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. Right up there with Hovercars.

I still don’t get the rated capacity of the system, considering it is a two man pod that you have to climb into from a high platform. I assume there is some barrier to stop you falling off and that it will take time to get in and out, particularly if it happens to be occupied, and you have to climb past each other.

Also the single up escalator at each stop?

The flaws look obvious. The killer being having to climb up and down to get to it instead of just stepping aboard something at ground level.

PeterC said :

Arthur has been vigorous in promoting the idea that we should have the aerial ‘pods’ although they are only alluded to more coyly here. While there are some technical advantages, it seems obvious to me that they are entirely unsalable. Given the strenuous opposition to conventional, tried and tested light rail (as is being installed or reinstated in many other places) what, seriously, are the chances that the ‘pods’ would get up? They would be lampooned mercilessly: see ‘skywhale’ reaction in these comments!

Possibly. But Skywhale had no practical use or purpose. This is not similar to that at all, I think. I suspect, that if we had someone brave enough to take on the new & exciting, with good research & assessment before it was implimented, mostly, it would be loved.

Here and elsewhere Arthur has objected to the association of light rail with high density housing along the route.

To those points I have responded:

Light rail is proven achievable electrified transport.
In the ACT it will be running on renewables-sourced electricity.
Over time it can be extended to the whole city.
Providing fixed routes (unlike bus routes that can be changed) provides certainty for public and private planning.
All very good so far!

And I would agree with you that it was so, except that when trams were introduced, the streets were at least ankle deep in horse manure (not to mention the horse carcasses!). Anything was worth trying & so we got trams. But as far as I know, trams went in to places because it was the best available. It was exciting. It was new. Isn’t it time to try something new?

Arthur has complained that high density along the route is the ‘driver’ of the project. He has said that as if to imply that somehow it is a bad thing that the government would plan for a range of high, medium and low density housing and make planning choices about how they would be located. Also, implied is that it is somehow a bad thing that local government, whose main source of income is from rates based on the value of land, should consider how to most efficiently gain the income required to provide the services that we want our government to provide.

Increased housing density along public transport corridors is:
1) an integral part of sensible urban planning, and
2) goes a long way towards off-setting the costs
3) maximises the utility of that public transport to the greatest number of residents.

1) only if you believe in infinite development
2) only if the only measure is financial – the social costs & costs in creativity are huge.
3) Only if you are not able to even contemplate the idea that all or nearly all the residents could access the transport.

So, if the government were not considering the interactions of housing density and location along with public transport they would be rightly criticised. Failing to adopt a system that is compatible with the rolling stock widely used elsewhere would also attract reasonable criticism.

How many trams systems did we get to? How many do we have now? And why is it so? Does anyone know?

In a more general complaint about high density housing, Arthur raised an argument about wild-life habitat. to this furphy, I responded: ‘Do you think the housing blocks several deep either side of Northbourne avenue are currently a unique wild-life reserve?’ A few rows more or less of standard suburbia is not going to make any difference to wildlife.

Arthur was also sceptical of emissions savings. Higher density housing can generally manage a higher energy efficiency rating than lower density. At the simplest level, just consider the physics of surface area to volume ratio for heating and cooling when multi-levels and shared walls are in the design. If the same number of people were alternatively accommodated in single-level, low-density housing distributed around a spreading urban fringe, then all would require private transport. That would necessarily result in longer trips for each of those households. It is hard to see how that would not result in greater emissions. It also increases transport costs for all. Is a person with a low income better off being able to live closer in or further out? Even if they can only get accommodation on the furthest urban fringe, it is better if that edge is closer.

Your theory is quite right. Unfortunately, in practice it is not actually so. Taller buildings cut out other people’s access to solar heat & light & only have access on one half, so all the other side of the building is poorly oriented.
While on the issue of hi density living, am I the only one who can recall the studies that were done way back when on rats? They lived happily & healthily until the population reached a certain density. Then, there was evidence of increasing disharmony, fighting, infanticide, cancers, hypertension, heart disease, infant mortality, you name it. As far as I am aware, it has not been refuted & it has been these high social costs that have caused a number of such high density developments around the world, including in GB have been demolished.

In criticising Labor and Greens for supporting light rail, Arthur has been silent on whether he seriously thinks we would get better from the Liberals. I think it would require remarkable naivety to think that Arthur’s ‘pods’ would be embraced by the Liberals. They would be lampooned even more mercilessly. A few respondents here have raised a couple of the obvious problems. Does anyone seriously think the liberals would offer anything better, and not a great deal worse?! When was the last time you saw a Liberal who was not intent on sending us backwards?

I thought what Arthur was saying was not that one political party was in any way better or worse than the other in this. I thought he was saying that the process was flawed, whoever was doing it.

rommeldog56 said :

HenryBG said :

We need a new political party – the Evidence-Based Policy Party.

Regardless, people who drop off a Folder full of “technical” details of their wonderful invention – be it about the latest iteration of the perpetual motion machine, chemtrails, how climate change is a hoax, etc… – are nothing new in politics and are almost always extremely cranky and hence almost always ignored by default.
Calls to talkback radio are probably not the way to engage with government on policy issues.

Having said that, this sort of project should have been informed by a properly-formed committee to invite proposals and analyse all options. Was this actually done?

No – some evaluation of alternatives was apparently undertaken but certainly not a full Benefits Costs Ratio (BCR) or business case that was done for the toy train set.

Now that much more of the detail is known and post tender evaluation when the actual cost to Ratepayers is much more clear – the ACT Gov’t should go back to voters at the next election for a decision at the ballot box – not commence sign contracts before then. At the last ACT election, Labor sort of said “we reckon that Canberra needs a Light Rail and we reckon it will cost about m$614” (which was revised to m$780 even before tenders were received !).

But the punters still put them back – without knowing the detail that is now known.

Yes. They may put them back. But then, if as a community, given all the information we make a choice, be it good or bad, it’s ok. If we want a democracy, that’s what it’s about, isn’t it? We hope we’ll make a good decision, but it is at least our community decision. Not one inflicted on us from “above”.

rubaiyat said :

Think about the impact the choice of transport makes.

Which would you prefer, a light rail track running past you, or a 4-6 lane divided freeway*?

Not really a fair comparison because you would need far more lanes to match the light rail.

No it isn’t a really fair comparison.
What say we include the option of little pods travelling past quietly, powered by mag lev, high above the road & dropping down to deliver people seamlessly to their destination?

Arthur Davies9:28 pm 30 Apr 15

The main purpose of the article was to let everyone that that other transport modes exist & that the Govt did not investigate them, at least in detail. However for those who are interested in the example of SkyTran, here is a short Video on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQtCBsoGUns

Arthur

dungfungus said :

It’s a shame that you are trying to muddy the waters by regularly bringing politics into this thread.You are aware how long Labor have been running things in the ACT aren’t you, so dragging the Liberals into the light rail debate is academic, especially as the Liberals stated position is they oppose it purely on cost and need. Any “problems” that have developed in the ACT in the past 12 years are totally attributable to Labor governance. The issue of light rail has nothing to do with the Federal government either. I am starting to wonder what your mission is and who is underwriting your time as your posts are becoming too regular and tedious.So much so in fact that dungfungus is capitulating on debating this issue with you and your mate JC any further.

No, no Dungers, don’t give up !

Remember when a few on here who are so violently in favor of a toy train set, when u and i complained about the smell now eminating from the Mugga Lane tip, said that “you shouldnt have purchased a place near it “. Or “don’t complain about aircraft noise if u buy under/near the airport flight path”, etc.

Well, instead of supporting the toy train set as a way of fixing/aleviating traffic congestion in & from Gunners-City, what are not those same contributors on here saying “why did the people living in Gunners buy there because they knew what the traffic congestion would be like because of the ultra poor planning by successive ACT Labor Governments”.

To be consistant, should not these same contributors be telling the poor people of Gunners in relation to traffic congestion, to just “suck it up”.

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said :

Damian

I have checked all the references in that batch. Almost all of them are financial studies on tram systems, a few mention buses. Only one, 2004 feasibility study, even mentions anything but trams & buses.

There is no study evaluating ALL transport options that I know of (or you apparently) which properly evaluates the comparative capital & running costs, trip times, carbon dioxide footprints, efficiency, noise, etc. To meet due diligence requirements this evaluation has to be thoroughly done, published by the Govt for review by the community & peer reviewed, BEFORE committing to any technology. Anything less is totally inadequate & can well produce a less than optimum result as well as costing the community more than is necessary for our transport needs.

Arthur

Faddish and undeveloped orphan technologies are indeed captivating for those looking for the perfect solution. The idea of a better alternative isn’t new – and the ACT Govt has looked at alternatives:

http://onfourwheels.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/1999-to-2010-no-vision-on-transport.html

The alternatives fail for several reasons, the simplest being that it is better and cheaper to use a known technology, with multiple providers, and an established knowledge base for operation and support.

Pods, electric or otherwise, also fail the ‘mass’ aspect of public transport.

It is illogical to wait for a perfect solution when the best solution right now can be procured, installed and operating within 5 years.

Did you actually read the sorts of comparative analysis of all the options that Arthur Davis described Damian ? The articles in your link are absolutely nothing like what Arthur Davis is asking about and nothing like what any sound, rational, comparative decision should be based on.

Arthur Davies said :

For those interested in the election Metro program, this is a flyer from the time. Note the phrase “If elected again in 2016, would actually begin construction.”

http://www.actlightrail.info/2012/10/light-rail-policy-from-parties-in-2012.html?m=1

Not sure if this will come out as a link, if not you may have to spell it out, sorry.

Arthur

Leave them alone Arthur – you wouldn’t want to let the facts in the link get in the way of their spin. It was also my understanding that construction was supposed to start after the next election (ie.2016), but i suppose ACT labor was silent on when contracts would be signed.

Arthur Davies said :

For those interested in the election Metro program, this is a flyer from the time. Note the phrase “If elected again in 2016, would actually begin construction.”

http://www.actlightrail.info/2012/10/light-rail-policy-from-parties-in-2012.html?m=1

Not sure if this will come out as a link, if not you may have to spell it out, sorry.

Arthur

PeterC said :

MyTwoCentsWorth said :

As a Belconnen resident I’d like to know if there are any plans to eventually extend light rail to the rest of Canberra…

That is the point, rail is expandable and modular, but we have to start somewhere.

Like, isnt a rapid bus transit system expandable and modular too – and far more flexible ? Yes, yes I know Rubayait and JC – those roads, those accursed roads – and car parks.

damien haas said :

Faddish and undeveloped orphan technologies are indeed captivating for those looking for the perfect solution. The idea of a better alternative isn’t new – and the ACT Govt has looked at alternatives:

It is illogical to wait for a perfect solution when the best solution right now can be procured, installed and operating within 5 years.

Alternatives received a cursory look over – no more. No one has said that we should wait for a “perfect” solution – just a better, more flexible one and lower cost.

Arthur Davies8:38 pm 30 Apr 15

For those interested in the election Metro program, this is a flyer from the time. Note the phrase “If elected again in 2016, would actually begin construction.”

http://www.actlightrail.info/2012/10/light-rail-policy-from-parties-in-2012.html?m=1

Not sure if this will come out as a link, if not you may have to spell it out, sorry.

Arthur

HenryBG said :

rommeldog56 said :

But the punters still put them back – without knowing the detail that is now known.

What was the punters’ alternative?
To vote for the party that irresponsibly scotched the gas-fired power station and data centre that was to be built next to the Mugga Lane tip? The party that is trying to cripple the renewable energy industry in this country? The party that has just spent million$ paying polluters to continue burning coal? The party that ditched the economically responsible carbon tax AND simultaneously retained the carbon tax compensation package, thus exposing the taxpayer to huge expense to no purpose?

Sensible people know this light rail project is destined to be a humungously expensive white elephant that will cause a dizzy climb in our already over-expensive Land Rates.

Hang on – apart from the gas fired power station and data centre, the rest of the issues cited are federal Liberal – not ACT Liberal ? I was talking about ACT politics and punters who voted at the 2012 ACT election for Labor/Greens on the back of a Light Rail wing and a prayer and an estimate of m$614 – the detail of which was unknown and there was no BCR or business case.

I agree with u about an alternative in the ACT. I hope a good independent appears – not one who can be bribed with a Ministerial/Cabinet post to help Labor form a Government. Also agree with the toy train set being a white elephant – at Ratepayers expense.

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said :

Damian

I have checked all the references in that batch. Almost all of them are financial studies on tram systems, a few mention buses. Only one, 2004 feasibility study, even mentions anything but trams & buses.

There is no study evaluating ALL transport options that I know of (or you apparently) which properly evaluates the comparative capital & running costs, trip times, carbon dioxide footprints, efficiency, noise, etc. To meet due diligence requirements this evaluation has to be thoroughly done, published by the Govt for review by the community & peer reviewed, BEFORE committing to any technology. Anything less is totally inadequate & can well produce a less than optimum result as well as costing the community more than is necessary for our transport needs.

Arthur

Faddish and undeveloped orphan technologies are indeed captivating for those looking for the perfect solution. The idea of a better alternative isn’t new – and the ACT Govt has looked at alternatives:

http://onfourwheels.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/1999-to-2010-no-vision-on-transport.html

The alternatives fail for several reasons, the simplest being that it is better and cheaper to use a known technology, with multiple providers, and an established knowledge base for operation and support.

Pods, electric or otherwise, also fail the ‘mass’ aspect of public transport.

It is illogical to wait for a perfect solution when the best solution right now can be procured, installed and operating within 5 years.

“…..it is better and cheaper to use a known technology, with multiple providers, and an established knowledge base for operation and support…..”.

Yes, of course,and that is why the government lost millions of dollars investing in A Better Place.

Arthur Davies said :

Damian

I have checked all the references in that batch. Almost all of them are financial studies on tram systems, a few mention buses. Only one, 2004 feasibility study, even mentions anything but trams & buses.

There is no study evaluating ALL transport options that I know of (or you apparently) which properly evaluates the comparative capital & running costs, trip times, carbon dioxide footprints, efficiency, noise, etc. To meet due diligence requirements this evaluation has to be thoroughly done, published by the Govt for review by the community & peer reviewed, BEFORE committing to any technology. Anything less is totally inadequate & can well produce a less than optimum result as well as costing the community more than is necessary for our transport needs.

Arthur

Faddish and undeveloped orphan technologies are indeed captivating for those looking for the perfect solution. The idea of a better alternative isn’t new – and the ACT Govt has looked at alternatives:

http://onfourwheels.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/1999-to-2010-no-vision-on-transport.html

The alternatives fail for several reasons, the simplest being that it is better and cheaper to use a known technology, with multiple providers, and an established knowledge base for operation and support.

Pods, electric or otherwise, also fail the ‘mass’ aspect of public transport.

It is illogical to wait for a perfect solution when the best solution right now can be procured, installed and operating within 5 years.

dungfungus said :

I am starting to wonder what your mission is and who is underwriting your time as your posts are becoming too regular and tedious.

I’ll just go get a towel to wipe the tea off my monitor. Thank you for that laugh.

Arthur Davies4:56 pm 30 Apr 15

damien haas said :

The idea that light rail appeared out of nowhere in 2012, and that other forms of mass transit public transport hadn’t been looked at, is a myth easily disproved.

http://www.actlightrail.info/p/act-transport-studies.html

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Damian

I have checked all the references in that batch. Almost all of them are financial studies on tram systems, a few mention buses. Only one, 2004 feasibility study, even mentions anything but trams & buses.

There is no study evaluating ALL transport options that I know of (or you apparently) which properly evaluates the comparative capital & running costs, trip times, carbon dioxide footprints, efficiency, noise, etc. To meet due diligence requirements this evaluation has to be thoroughly done, published by the Govt for review by the community & peer reviewed, BEFORE committing to any technology. Anything less is totally inadequate & can well produce a less than optimum result as well as costing the community more than is necessary for our transport needs.

Arthur

I was interested to read this:

dungfungus said :

It’s a shame that you are trying to muddy the waters by regularly bringing politics into this thread..

Let’s just recall a previous post by this author:

dungfungus said :

Man-made climate change is a hoax, however.

Honestly, whatever the failings of the wishful-thinking Left, the Right always manages to under-think them…

rommeldog56 said :

But the punters still put them back – without knowing the detail that is now known.

What was the punters’ alternative?
To vote for the party that irresponsibly scotched the gas-fired power station and data centre that was to be built next to the Mugga Lane tip? The party that is trying to cripple the renewable energy industry in this country? The party that has just spent million$ paying polluters to continue burning coal? The party that ditched the economically responsible carbon tax AND simultaneously retained the carbon tax compensation package, thus exposing the taxpayer to huge expense to no purpose?

Sensible people know this light rail project is destined to be a humungously expensive white elephant that will cause a dizzy climb in our already over-expensive Land Rates.

rubaiyat said :

PeterC said :

In criticising Labor and Greens for supporting light rail, Arthur has been silent on whether he seriously thinks we would get better from the Liberals. I think it would require remarkable naivety to think that Arthur’s ‘pods’ would be embraced by the Liberals. They would be lampooned even more mercilessly. A few respondents here have raised a couple of the obvious problems. Does anyone seriously think the liberals would offer anything better, and not a great deal worse?! When was the last time you saw a Liberal who was not intent on sending us backwards?

Conservatives have always objected to everything that isn’t in the past and “will cost more” and “will send us all (meaning them) broke”. From slavery, child labour, a living wage, shorter week, public education, health and safety measures, cleaning up the environment, public transport, in fact anything that will at all impact THEM. Hang the rest. In fact hanging is too good for them!

It is a mental problem that affects a huge section of the population and is always with us.

Most of them have zero imagination, don’t like change simply because it is change, are frightened of anything different, and can’t, or don’t want to, see past the ends of their noses.

Being out of habit grasping and avaricious they see that in everyone else and are afraid that someone else will take what they have, away from them. They have no problem at all with taking from others however, in fact it is a personal virtue when they do it.

Of course telling people that that is what you really think and intend is not smart, so they spend a lot of time telling everyone that they are acting out of concern for everyone else. Or bald faced lying as in our present Federal Government.

Don’t rely on them to act either for the community as a whole or for the future beyond their short term gain.

Anything worth having or doing will be despite them, not because of them.

It’s a shame that you are trying to muddy the waters by regularly bringing politics into this thread.
You are aware how long Labor have been running things in the ACT aren’t you, so dragging the Liberals into the light rail debate is academic, especially as the Liberals stated position is they oppose it purely on cost and need.
Any “problems” that have developed in the ACT in the past 12 years are totally attributable to Labor governance. The issue of light rail has nothing to do with the Federal government either.
I am starting to wonder what your mission is and who is underwriting your time as your posts are becoming too regular and tedious.
So much so in fact that dungfungus is capitulating on debating this issue with you and your mate JC any further.

rommeldog56 said :

HenryBG said :

We need a new political party – the Evidence-Based Policy Party.

Regardless, people who drop off a Folder full of “technical” details of their wonderful invention – be it about the latest iteration of the perpetual motion machine, chemtrails, how climate change is a hoax, etc… – are nothing new in politics and are almost always extremely cranky and hence almost always ignored by default.
Calls to talkback radio are probably not the way to engage with government on policy issues.

Having said that, this sort of project should have been informed by a properly-formed committee to invite proposals and analyse all options. Was this actually done?

No – some evaluation of alternatives was apparently undertaken but certainly not a full Benefits Costs Ratio (BCR) or business case that was done for the toy train set.

Now that much more of the detail is known and post tender evaluation when the actual cost to Ratepayers is much more clear – the ACT Gov’t should go back to voters at the next election for a decision at the ballot box – not commence sign contracts before then. At the last ACT election, Labor sort of said “we reckon that Canberra needs a Light Rail and we reckon it will cost about m$614” (which was revised to m$780 even before tenders were received !).

But the punters still put them back – without knowing the detail that is now known.

Show me one referendum EVER that we have done for any freeway and I’ll agree with you.

I gave you a fairly comprehensive costing above.

Let’s see what you have, or if you can do more than just make up silly names and ‘sposedtas.

watto23 said :

…but I fear Canberra just is not big enough for that.

In size it is far too big due to ill-considered sprawl but in population it is and will be plenty big enough.

We seem to agree on a tram round the inner suburbs, to the airport and up to Dickson. Gungahlin can come on line with further development.

…and yes wouldn’t it be nice to see planning support this. Instead of endless motherhood statements that are completely contradicted by what they build. Yes Molonglo, I’m looking at YOU!

PeterC said :

Increased housing density along public transport corridors is:
1) an integral part of sensible urban planning, and
2) goes a long way towards off-setting the costs
3) maximises the utility of that public transport to the greatest number of residents.

Others can criticise labor all they want about planning, but these 3 points actually show they have thought about this. I would like to see a whole of Canberra plan though. I think it really makes sense to build the first stage to Russell and then convince the airport to pay for an airport connection. Also through Barton, Kingston area also makes sense. at this stage. My gripe is I couldn’t see myself catching a light rail service from Tuggeranong to the city as it will take far longer than a car. The shear number of stops makes it slower. My thoughts were a rapid transit system between the town centres was a better option with multistory park and ride stations and bus services connecting.I just can’t see high density transit corridors through out Canberra working that well. Although many cities do combine rapid transit and light rail successfully, but I fear Canberra just is not big enough for that.

PeterC said :

In criticising Labor and Greens for supporting light rail, Arthur has been silent on whether he seriously thinks we would get better from the Liberals. I think it would require remarkable naivety to think that Arthur’s ‘pods’ would be embraced by the Liberals. They would be lampooned even more mercilessly. A few respondents here have raised a couple of the obvious problems. Does anyone seriously think the liberals would offer anything better, and not a great deal worse?! When was the last time you saw a Liberal who was not intent on sending us backwards?

Conservatives have always objected to everything that isn’t in the past and “will cost more” and “will send us all (meaning them) broke”. From slavery, child labour, a living wage, shorter week, public education, health and safety measures, cleaning up the environment, public transport, in fact anything that will at all impact THEM. Hang the rest. In fact hanging is too good for them!

It is a mental problem that affects a huge section of the population and is always with us.

Most of them have zero imagination, don’t like change simply because it is change, are frightened of anything different, and can’t, or don’t want to, see past the ends of their noses.

Being out of habit grasping and avaricious they see that in everyone else and are afraid that someone else will take what they have, away from them. They have no problem at all with taking from others however, in fact it is a personal virtue when they do it.

Of course telling people that that is what you really think and intend is not smart, so they spend a lot of time telling everyone that they are acting out of concern for everyone else. Or bald faced lying as in our present Federal Government.

Don’t rely on them to act either for the community as a whole or for the future beyond their short term gain.

Anything worth having or doing will be despite them, not because of them.

MyTwoCentsWorth said :

As a Belconnen resident I’d like to know if there are any plans to eventually extend light rail to the rest of Canberra…

That is the point, rail is expandable and modular, but we have to start somewhere.

rubaiyat said :

HiddenDragon said :

Mandate or not, such a Government should be open to competing and inconvenient views, particularly when making a decision with such massive financial and practical implications for this city.

Agreed. Personally I am for light rail, where it serves the greatest need.

This was always Light Rail for Gungahlin and has been driving a twenty year itch to fix the demonstrably bad planning of the township.

If you refer to Corbell’s comments in the previous post you will see that “Light Rail for Gungahlin” isn’t even mentioned.
Light rail is referred to as a tool for leveraging other develpments in Canberra City.

Arthur has been vigorous in promoting the idea that we should have the aerial ‘pods’ although they are only alluded to more coyly here. While there are some technical advantages, it seems obvious to me that they are entirely unsalable. Given the strenuous opposition to conventional, tried and tested light rail (as is being installed or reinstated in many other places) what, seriously, are the chances that the ‘pods’ would get up? They would be lampooned mercilessly: see ‘skywhale’ reaction in these comments!

Here and elsewhere Arthur has objected to the association of light rail with high density housing along the route.

To those points I have responded:

Light rail is proven achievable electrified transport.
In the ACT it will be running on renewables-sourced electricity.
Over time it can be extended to the whole city.
Providing fixed routes (unlike bus routes that can be changed) provides certainty for public and private planning.
All very good so far!

Arthur has complained that high density along the route is the ‘driver’ of the project. He has said that as if to imply that somehow it is a bad thing that the government would plan for a range of high, medium and low density housing and make planning choices about how they would be located. Also, implied is that it is somehow a bad thing that local government, whose main source of income is from rates based on the value of land, should consider how to most efficiently gain the income required to provide the services that we want our government to provide.

Increased housing density along public transport corridors is:
1) an integral part of sensible urban planning, and
2) goes a long way towards off-setting the costs
3) maximises the utility of that public transport to the greatest number of residents.

So, if the government were not considering the interactions of housing density and location along with public transport they would be rightly criticised. Failing to adopt a system that is compatible with the rolling stock widely used elsewhere would also attract reasonable criticism.

In a more general complaint about high density housing, Arthur raised an argument about wild-life habitat. to this furphy, I responded: ‘Do you think the housing blocks several deep either side of Northbourne avenue are currently a unique wild-life reserve?’ A few rows more or less of standard suburbia is not going to make any difference to wildlife.

Arthur was also sceptical of emissions savings. Higher density housing can generally manage a higher energy efficiency rating than lower density. At the simplest level, just consider the physics of surface area to volume ratio for heating and cooling when multi-levels and shared walls are in the design. If the same number of people were alternatively accommodated in single-level, low-density housing distributed around a spreading urban fringe, then all would require private transport. That would necessarily result in longer trips for each of those households. It is hard to see how that would not result in greater emissions. It also increases transport costs for all. Is a person with a low income better off being able to live closer in or further out? Even if they can only get accommodation on the furthest urban fringe, it is better if that edge is closer.

In criticising Labor and Greens for supporting light rail, Arthur has been silent on whether he seriously thinks we would get better from the Liberals. I think it would require remarkable naivety to think that Arthur’s ‘pods’ would be embraced by the Liberals. They would be lampooned even more mercilessly. A few respondents here have raised a couple of the obvious problems. Does anyone seriously think the liberals would offer anything better, and not a great deal worse?! When was the last time you saw a Liberal who was not intent on sending us backwards?

There is the little old matter of the energy needed to run the Light Rail.

Completely contrary to fossil fuels, which have a very long list of reasons why they are bad for us, solar and wind power is actually radically falling in price year by year. To the point that AGL, Australia’s largest power supplier, has announced it will not build another coal fired power station and will start fazing them out.

The sunshine or wind that is the ultimately source will cost the same in 40, 50, 100 years. Nothing. All we have to do is collect it.

For when they don’t operate, in Canberra we have Hydro which can also store power if run backwards.

Fossil fuels inevitably rise in price over time and will ultimately have to pay for the damage they do.

Unless of course you are one of those who DEMANDS the maximum waste and damage, so that you can feel that all is right with a world made poorer.

Arthur Davies said :

Thanks for the thoughtful comments so far.

The system I found is called SkyTran, easily Googled. It is a new system currently being installed in Tel Aviv. It is an elevated light weight system suspended from poles like light poles, by moving above the traffic it can go much faster as it is not held up by intersections. Also any user of it is someone who would otherwise be on the road, it will reduce congestion. Travel time stage one should be less than 5 minutes (tram 27 minutes). Capital cost for stage one should be less than $300M. It is very efficient, energy used for a stage one trip a bit over 1kWh, 20c or so. It operates on demand not to a timetable, just like a lift does. It is wheelchair, bike & pram friendly.

There are obviously risks in new technology, so build a small section initially & expand it as needed, but with such benefits it may just be worthwhile. When it is so fast & efficient how proud Canberrans would be of something so much better than Sydney traffic jams.

The comment on being a political decision is spot on, the govt has stated several times at public meetings that the primary purpose of the tram line is to alter land use patterns along Northbourne & allow redevelopment. Transport was a poor secondary consideration. At the last election the Govt set aside $30M to do the detailed planning of the tram system & for the contracts to be let after the next election, not to commit now.

There was no “due diligence” checking of all options, as you say the results would have then been published for all to see, they were not checked nor published. SkyTran is only one example of an alternative, there are many others & they must all be examined, costed & published before any contracts are signed.

Arthur

+ 100. But, Arthur, you are wasting your breath both on this forum and in trying to talk anything but sloganism in support of light rail here. In any event, its a done deal. Contracts will be signed before the next election and it will be too late then.

Yes – we are getting to a size where an efficient and cost effective/affordable & well planned (an oxymoron in relation to this ACT Government !) Canberra public transport system is needed. Its just that light rail from one CBD to another at that cost, isn’t the one – especially if the alternatives have not been subject to their own individual, independently prepared cost benefit ratio/business case to make an apples to apples based comparison.

HenryBG said :

We need a new political party – the Evidence-Based Policy Party.

Regardless, people who drop off a Folder full of “technical” details of their wonderful invention – be it about the latest iteration of the perpetual motion machine, chemtrails, how climate change is a hoax, etc… – are nothing new in politics and are almost always extremely cranky and hence almost always ignored by default.
Calls to talkback radio are probably not the way to engage with government on policy issues.

Having said that, this sort of project should have been informed by a properly-formed committee to invite proposals and analyse all options. Was this actually done?

No – some evaluation of alternatives was apparently undertaken but certainly not a full Benefits Costs Ratio (BCR) or business case that was done for the toy train set.

Now that much more of the detail is known and post tender evaluation when the actual cost to Ratepayers is much more clear – the ACT Gov’t should go back to voters at the next election for a decision at the ballot box – not commence sign contracts before then. At the last ACT election, Labor sort of said “we reckon that Canberra needs a Light Rail and we reckon it will cost about m$614” (which was revised to m$780 even before tenders were received !).

But the punters still put them back – without knowing the detail that is now known.

Think about the impact the choice of transport makes.

Which would you prefer, a light rail track running past you, or a 4-6 lane divided freeway*?

Not really a fair comparison because you would need far more lanes to match the light rail.

rommeldog56 said :

rubaiyat said :

It is perfectly feasible to extend a line to Belconnen, there are several planned routes if you google them.

Hills are not an obstacle, plenty of cities have far worse. What may be a problem is Belconnen’s awful town plan and no rights of way anywhere.

Yep, i suppose it is feasible. Wheter its affordable is a totally different matter. But hey, who wants to let $ get in the way of a great slogan anyway.

Cost for the 12 Ks Gunners-Civic will be m$780+. Thats been calculated to mean payments to the private partner consortium of m$75-m$100pa (but that remains to be seen if/when terders are ecaluated and contract awarded). Ok, lets assume that its a low of m$50pa for 25+ years cost to Ratepayers. Work out length of track needed to “extend” the network to all Canberra (Airport, Belco, South Canberra, Weston Creek, Woden and Tuggers) in Ks.

Work it out. Now, go on – tell me thats affordable.

Geezzzz.

I suppose you could actually do the real costs. But will you?

1. Light Rail is a Fully Costed system, unlike roads. The first stage has to pay for all the infrastructure of a network. Including power supply, rolling stock, housing of rolling stock, maintenance and repair plus establishment of the organisation and training of staff to run the system.

2. It has to be compared with a similar capacity alternative, say road or road/bus or dedicated busway.

3. Light Rail has inbuilt an enormous capacity for expansion without requiring extra right of way. It also has extremely long life vehicles and tracks with low fuel costs. So is effectively paying up front for much lower costs later on. It soaks up the larger usage as time passes, reducing its running costs over time.

4. The style of network and location can vary the cost considerably. Calgary built and runs its light rail for half the cost of buses. Other cities it varies, particularly where major work is required in built up areas.

5. Light Rail is an all up cost. i.e. It accounts for the total capital costs such as engineering, right of way, rail, rolling stock, plus the on going costs of fuel, maintenance, finance, employees and administration.

6. It does not exist in isolation. If the light rail does not exist it must be replaced by roads, cars, buses or a mix.

People make the mistake of taking the all up cost of light rail projects and comparing that with partial, fudged or plain wrong costs for the alternatives.

Buses are more similar to Light Rail networks in that they are a Mostly Costed system, EXCEPT for the roads they run on. UNLESS they are specifically built dedicated busways. The proposed 7.5km Belconnen busway was very expensive, costing $120 million, in 2006 dollars, for the busway only. Not the buses etc to run on them.

Cars are the classical example of nobody counts the real cost, just the petrol when it runs out, and certainly don’t pay any attention to what the roads, they use, cost.

The real cost of cars includes the cost of the vehicle, finance charges, fuel, your time (you are the driver and not doing anything else), insurance, maintenance, tolls, registration, parking, garaging, deaths, accidents, signals, police patrols, fines AND then the roads. The only visible bit that anyone notices. They don’t even know or seem to care what the roads actually cost.

Adding all that up is a lot of work, but just sticking to car running costs which excludes most of the above list, and just the direct costs to you, not to the government, society at large or the environment, it is around 67-76¢/km. So your personal cost of driving a return trip from Gungahlin to the city is 24 x .67¢ with $14 parking = $30.08. This does not pay for the capital, finance, maintenance or running costs of the infrastructure you are using to make the trip. That is paid for by the ACT government and not announced anywhere where it will give you sticker shock.

If ALL you consider is the basic cost of the roads that you drive on, that swings wildly in price. The Majura Parkway is costing $24.5 million per kilometre for 4 divided lanes because it is basically out in the country unimpeded by services or other structures. The 800 metres of mere road duplication at Weston cost $14 million in 2012. The 8.5km Gungahlin Drive extension cost $200 million in 2011, on top of the original roadworks it replaced.

If you were to consider the Light Rail as a new freeway, ignoring it has vastly greater capacity than a freeway, the 12 km would cost $294 million plus the additional expense of cutting though urban Canberra. My guess is that that would easily pay for the light rail tracks (the “road”).

So we come to capacity. One light rail track is the equivalent of 6-7 freeway lanes, so to build the same capacity in roads will be 6-7 times as much. Anywhere between $1.8 to 2.1 billion for the Gungahlin link.

A freeway lane carries a maximum of 900 passengers per hour.

Light Rail depending on the configuration can carry 10-20,000 passengers per hour. If it is completely separated from the road system it carries up to 40,000 passengers per hour. That would require so much freeway to match, that the suburbs the freeway would “service” would have to be demolished to make way for the freeway.

So freeways don’t come cheap and they certainly don’t pay for themselves. They cost a lot of money to maintain and their lifespan is relatively short, usually requiring major upgrades or having to be replaced within a few decades.

So tell me that’s affordable.

Geezzzz.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

“MR CORBELL: I thank Dr Bourke for his supplementary. What is important about
this project is to understand that it is not just a project around transport provision, as
critical and as important as it is. It is also an important project in the context of the
development of our city—where development takes place, where people choose to
live. If we are able to leverage the potential of a light rail project in the way many
other cities have around the world, we will see many more people choosing to live
close to this corridor.
That changes the pattern of settlement for the city. It potentially has implications as to
how rapidly and how quickly greenfields development occurs over the coming period
compared to a business-as-usual situation. It means that potentially more people are
choosing to live in apartments, townhouses, row housing and so on close to a highly
efficient, permanent and rapid public transport spine.
These are the types of issues that we need to have regard to when we look at the
overall cost-effectiveness of a business plan around the capital metro project. It is not
just about moving people; it is also about leveraging development opportunity,
changing and potentially more efficiently delivering forms of development that meet
people’s need and that are more efficient for the territory to deliver.
These are the types of issues at stake. That is why I am proud to be part of a
government that is prepared to take this step, to make the shift, towards a more
sustainable future and towards a future that focuses on transit through light rail as a
key tool in leveraging not just better public transport for people but also a more
sustainable form of development across the city.”

Seems to be perfectly sensible, reasonable and doable.

What exactly do you object to in any of that?

High rise development, which has existed for a long time in Canberra, and is growing more popular?

Or the sustainable objective?

If you feel that pollution and destruction of the environment is so important and desirable, run an open campaign where you demand that every project be non-sustainable.

See how that goes down with the electorate.

Anytime now I expect you to say “Go to your homes and await instructions”.

rubaiyat said :

It is perfectly feasible to extend a line to Belconnen, there are several planned routes if you google them.

Hills are not an obstacle, plenty of cities have far worse. What may be a problem is Belconnen’s awful town plan and no rights of way anywhere.

Yep, i suppose it is feasible. Wheter its affordable is a totally different matter. But hey, who wants to let $ get in the way of a great slogan anyway.

Cost for the 12 Ks Gunners-Civic will be m$780+. Thats been calculated to mean payments to the private partner consortium of m$75-m$100pa (but that remains to be seen if/when terders are ecaluated and contract awarded). Ok, lets assume that its a low of m$50pa for 25+ years cost to Ratepayers. Work out length of track needed to “extend” the network to all Canberra (Airport, Belco, South Canberra, Weston Creek, Woden and Tuggers) in Ks.

Work it out. Now, go on – tell me thats affordable.

Geezzzz.

Track down a dozen or so Neoplan Jumbocruisers and have two running in tandem from Gungahlin to Civic and back. Problem solved.

dungfungus said :

“MR CORBELL: I thank Dr Bourke for his supplementary. What is important about
this project is to understand that it is not just a project around transport provision, as
critical and as important as it is. It is also an important project in the context of the
development of our city—where development takes place, where people choose to
live. If we are able to leverage the potential of a light rail project in the way many
other cities have around the world, we will see many more people choosing to live
close to this corridor.
That changes the pattern of settlement for the city. It potentially has implications as to
how rapidly and how quickly greenfields development occurs over the coming period
compared to a business-as-usual situation. It means that potentially more people are
choosing to live in apartments, townhouses, row housing and so on close to a highly
efficient, permanent and rapid public transport spine.
These are the types of issues that we need to have regard to when we look at the
overall cost-effectiveness of a business plan around the capital metro project. It is not
just about moving people; it is also about leveraging development opportunity,
changing and potentially more efficiently delivering forms of development that meet
people’s need and that are more efficient for the territory to deliver.
These are the types of issues at stake. That is why I am proud to be part of a
government that is prepared to take this step, to make the shift, towards a more
sustainable future and towards a future that focuses on transit through light rail as a
key tool in leveraging not just better public transport for people but also a more
sustainable form of development across the city.”

Seems to be perfectly sensible, reasonable and doable.

What exactly do you object to in any of that?

High rise development, which has existed for a long time in Canberra, and is growing more popular?

Or the sustainable objective?

If you feel that pollution and destruction of the environment is so important and desirable, run an open campaign where you demand that every project be non-sustainable.

See how that goes down with the electorate.

HiddenDragon said :

Mandate or not, such a Government should be open to competing and inconvenient views, particularly when making a decision with such massive financial and practical implications for this city.

Agreed. Personally I am for light rail, where it serves the greatest need.

This was always Light Rail for Gungahlin and has been driving a twenty year itch to fix the demonstrably bad planning of the township.

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said :

The comment on being a political decision is spot on, the govt has stated several times at public meetings that the primary purpose of the tram line is to alter land use patterns along Northbourne & allow redevelopment. Transport was a poor secondary consideration.

This is a compete fabrication.

Provide one source that those words have been spoken by any government member.

The project has many benefits. providing better transport AND urban renewal are not mutually exclusive.

I would suggest you consider the following before claiming a fabrication.
There has been a lot of double speak about what is driving the project namely the (possible) transport potential tram tracks may deliver for commuters or the development that it will (possibly) open up.
Lately, the financial viability of the project would appear to depend on the revenue that will (hopefully) flow from the “value added” residential, commercial and community spin-offs.
After reading the following extract from Hansard of 9 April 2013 I am inclined to believe the financially unviable light rail component has become secondary to the clear necessity to reverse fund the transport part of the project through real estate developments.
Corbell states in this extract as follows:
“…..light rail as a
key tool in leveraging not just better public transport for people but also a more
sustainable form of development across the city.”

The following is the full debate:
“MR CORBELL: I thank Dr Bourke for his supplementary. What is important about
this project is to understand that it is not just a project around transport provision, as
critical and as important as it is. It is also an important project in the context of the
development of our city—where development takes place, where people choose to
live. If we are able to leverage the potential of a light rail project in the way many
other cities have around the world, we will see many more people choosing to live
close to this corridor.
That changes the pattern of settlement for the city. It potentially has implications as to
how rapidly and how quickly greenfields development occurs over the coming period
compared to a business-as-usual situation. It means that potentially more people are
choosing to live in apartments, townhouses, row housing and so on close to a highly
efficient, permanent and rapid public transport spine.
These are the types of issues that we need to have regard to when we look at the
overall cost-effectiveness of a business plan around the capital metro project. It is not
just about moving people; it is also about leveraging development opportunity,
changing and potentially more efficiently delivering forms of development that meet
people’s need and that are more efficient for the territory to deliver.
These are the types of issues at stake. That is why I am proud to be part of a
government that is prepared to take this step, to make the shift, towards a more
sustainable future and towards a future that focuses on transit through light rail as a
key tool in leveraging not just better public transport for people but also a more
sustainable form of development across the city.”

MyTwoCentsWorth said :

As a Belconnen resident I’d like to know if there are any plans to eventually extend light rail to the rest of Canberra – or is this not technically feasible because of the hilly terrain? If light rail is technically limited to this one corridor, then they should have considered a transport system that could eventually serve all of Canberra.

It is perfectly feasible to extend a line to Belconnen, there are several planned routes if you google them.

Hills are not an obstacle, plenty of cities have far worse. What may be a problem is Belconnen’s awful town plan and no rights of way anywhere.

And when the SkyTran inevitably breaks down, there will be 11,500 passengers trapped in their seats, two storeys up, peeing their pants.

MyTwoCentsWorth4:34 pm 29 Apr 15

As a Belconnen resident I’d like to know if there are any plans to eventually extend light rail to the rest of Canberra – or is this not technically feasible because of the hilly terrain? If light rail is technically limited to this one corridor, then they should have considered a transport system that could eventually serve all of Canberra.

HiddenDragon4:31 pm 29 Apr 15

Along with essentials such as the ability to sleep with one’s eyes open, political survival skills include feigning genuine interest in inconvenient views from the public – the latter seems to have been on display in this episode.

This is, and always has been, a faith-based initiative – everything about it, including the relentless determination with which it is being pursued, and the dismissive responses to any who dare to raise questions – reeks of that.

The mandate argument, which amounts to saying that at the time of the 2012 election, sufficient numbers of Canberra voters didn’t find the notion of light rail sufficiently plausible and/or rebarbative to vote against it, doesn’t sit well with the fact that this Government likes to present itself as rational, logical and evidence based. Mandate or not, such a Government should be open to competing and inconvenient views, particularly when making a decision with such massive financial and practical implications for this city.

Arthur Davies said :

Thanks for the thoughtful comments so far.

The system I found is called SkyTran, easily Googled. It is a new system currently being installed in Tel Aviv. It is an elevated light weight system suspended from poles like light poles, by moving above the traffic it can go much faster as it is not held up by intersections. Also any user of it is someone who would otherwise be on the road, it will reduce congestion. Travel time stage one should be less than 5 minutes (tram 27 minutes). Capital cost for stage one should be less than $300M. It is very efficient, energy used for a stage one trip a bit over 1kWh, 20c or so. It operates on demand not to a timetable, just like a lift does. It is wheelchair, bike & pram friendly.

There are obviously risks in new technology, so build a small section initially & expand it as needed, but with such benefits it may just be worthwhile. When it is so fast & efficient how proud Canberrans would be of something so much better than Sydney traffic jams.

The comment on being a political decision is spot on, the govt has stated several times at public meetings that the primary purpose of the tram line is to alter land use patterns along Northbourne & allow redevelopment. Transport was a poor secondary consideration. At the last election the Govt set aside $30M to do the detailed planning of the tram system & for the contracts to be let after the next election, not to commit now.

There was no “due diligence” checking of all options, as you say the results would have then been published for all to see, they were not checked nor published. SkyTran is only one example of an alternative, there are many others & they must all be examined, costed & published before any contracts are signed.

Arthur

ARTHUR DAVIES: “There are obviously risks in new technology”.

An understatement considering people are struggling with proven technology let alone Pie in the Sky technology.

Thank you, I have a photo of a “working” SkyTran:

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.co.uk%2Fmagazine%2Farchive%2F2014%2F04%2Fstart%2Foverhead-power-line&ei=W2pAVb_IKqKhmgWNuIGYDA&bvm=bv.91665533,d.dGY&psig=AFQjCNEVuVnatY2mR1OCL1KqhozNVFxUSQ&ust=1430371280454119

So basically a two seat monorail with room for slim able passengers carrying a suitcase and/or magazine?

Where do the bike and the Wheelchair go?

SkyTran’s claimed capacity is 11,500 passengers per hour

i.e. 5750 pods per hour!

or 1.6 pods/3.2 passengers/sec, passing any one point on the line.

Am I alone in doubting that figure?

Exactly how quickly are passengers entering and leaving these pods even if they are off-line?

My eye was magnetically drawn to the single two storey outdoor escalator that seems to be only going up.

One at each embarcation station? How do people get down? Who maintains them? What happens when they break down?

What is the speed and capacity of the escalators moving 11,500 people per hour?

How many waiting passengers can perch on the elevated platforms waiting to climb into the pods?

Just a few very obvious questions. I have more about the claimed cost and reliability of a long distance mag lev track.

To give you a framework:

Cars theoretically move 2,400 passengers/hr per lane. To move 20,000 requires 11 lanes, due to compounding congestion.

Buses theoretically move 7000 passengers/hr per dedicated lane.

Light Rail theoretically moves 20,000 passengers/hr.

San Francisco’s small trams move 10-13,000 passengers/hr.

Manila Light Rail moves 40,000 passengers/hr per dedicated lane. Similar to Canberra, except Canberra will cross road junctions.

damien haas said :

Arthur Davies said :

The comment on being a political decision is spot on, the govt has stated several times at public meetings that the primary purpose of the tram line is to alter land use patterns along Northbourne & allow redevelopment. Transport was a poor secondary consideration.

This is a compete fabrication.

Provide one source that those words have been spoken by any government member.

The project has many benefits. providing better transport AND urban renewal are not mutually exclusive.

If the light rail project is only viable with urban intensification along the rail route (and the CBA says it is), then they aren’t mutually exclusive, they’re inexorably linked.

Although it does seem a bit cart before the horse to be justifying the light rail on the benefits of the urban intensification, doesn’t it?

Arthur Davies said :

The comment on being a political decision is spot on, the govt has stated several times at public meetings that the primary purpose of the tram line is to alter land use patterns along Northbourne & allow redevelopment. Transport was a poor secondary consideration.

This is a compete fabrication.

Provide one source that those words have been spoken by any government member.

The project has many benefits. providing better transport AND urban renewal are not mutually exclusive.

Arthur Davies3:09 pm 29 Apr 15

Thanks for the thoughtful comments so far.

The system I found is called SkyTran, easily Googled. It is a new system currently being installed in Tel Aviv. It is an elevated light weight system suspended from poles like light poles, by moving above the traffic it can go much faster as it is not held up by intersections. Also any user of it is someone who would otherwise be on the road, it will reduce congestion. Travel time stage one should be less than 5 minutes (tram 27 minutes). Capital cost for stage one should be less than $300M. It is very efficient, energy used for a stage one trip a bit over 1kWh, 20c or so. It operates on demand not to a timetable, just like a lift does. It is wheelchair, bike & pram friendly.

There are obviously risks in new technology, so build a small section initially & expand it as needed, but with such benefits it may just be worthwhile. When it is so fast & efficient how proud Canberrans would be of something so much better than Sydney traffic jams.

The comment on being a political decision is spot on, the govt has stated several times at public meetings that the primary purpose of the tram line is to alter land use patterns along Northbourne & allow redevelopment. Transport was a poor secondary consideration. At the last election the Govt set aside $30M to do the detailed planning of the tram system & for the contracts to be let after the next election, not to commit now.

There was no “due diligence” checking of all options, as you say the results would have then been published for all to see, they were not checked nor published. SkyTran is only one example of an alternative, there are many others & they must all be examined, costed & published before any contracts are signed.

Arthur

HenryBG said :

pajs said :

You seem to assume the processes of government and the processes of political parties somehow use the same base in evidence. Light rail was a political decision, by parties, taken to an election, voted for, and now being implemented. Full costing of alternative options and then choosing the best of these… you are missing the point. It was a democratic, not a technocratic, decision.

Bugger!
Was the referendum question on Light Rail on the other side of the paper at the last election?
I must have missed it.

You must have missed the entire election period, including the numerous TV and media items covering the light rail proposals.

This might assist your memory:

http://www.actlightrail.info/2012/10/light-rail-policy-from-parties-in-2012.html

HenryBG said :

We need a new political party – the Evidence-Based Policy Party.

Regardless, people who drop off a Folder full of “technical” details of their wonderful invention – be it about the latest iteration of the perpetual motion machine, chemtrails, how climate change is a hoax, etc… – are nothing new in politics and are almost always extremely cranky and hence almost always ignored by default.
Calls to talkback radio are probably not the way to engage with government on policy issues.

Having said that, this sort of project should have been informed by a properly-formed committee to invite proposals and analyse all options. Was this actually done?

Do you know how hard it is to seek an audience with out vibrant, visionary leaders?
I reckon it would be easier to see El Papa.
BTW, climate change isn’t a hoax.
Man-made climate change is a hoax, however.

The idea that light rail appeared out of nowhere in 2012, and that other forms of mass transit public transport hadn’t been looked at, is a myth easily disproved.

http://www.actlightrail.info/p/act-transport-studies.html

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Grail said :

I look forward tomhearing about this suspended aerial mass transit system which manages to be more cost-effective than trams.

Do you have examples of such systems already in place, or is this a new technology yet to be commercially developed and proven?

OMG, Skywhale is back!

It was a done deal before the election.
Ever heard that statement “the judges decision is final and no further correspondence will be entered into”?
There was at least one more suitable light rail proposal at half the cost of the one that has been chosen and this would have also provided an industry for Canberra but after countless fruitless attempts to get an audience with Simon Corbell the consortium gave up and went elsewhere.
Remember the many trips Mr Corbell made to the Gold Coast to check out their “surfboard carriers”?
There were also photos and articles in the CT with Mr Corbell talking to the representatives of major Euro tram companies who were “interested” in the Canberra proposal.
I was thinking that the $30 million that was committed after the election to get the project “investment ready” must have been totally expended by now – and they still haven’t discovered what is under the median strip in Northbourne Avenue.
The Rhodium Asset Solutions debacle will look like a petty cash discrepancy after the tram sham gets going.

HenryBG said :

pajs said :

You seem to assume the processes of government and the processes of political parties somehow use the same base in evidence. Light rail was a political decision, by parties, taken to an election, voted for, and now being implemented. Full costing of alternative options and then choosing the best of these… you are missing the point. It was a democratic, not a technocratic, decision.

Bugger!
Was the referendum question on Light Rail on the other side of the paper at the last election?
I must have missed it.

I really didn’t recall any of the parties mentioning light rail as part of their election platform either, so I did some googling and I managed to find a helpful site here: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/ACTElection2012

You can read the whole thing yourself, but here is the relevant excerpt:

“With respect to transport, Labor committed to establishing Canberra Transport Authority and announced a ‘Capital Metro’ policy based around a privately built and operated light rail link from Civic to Gungahlin. The Greens proposed a Canberra-wide light rail system using a mix of public and private funding. Seselja said that Labor, on its record, lacked the commitment and capability to deliver on such a major infrastructure project. The Liberals committed to increasing the capital road works budget by $125 million, along with a 12-month trial of a free shuttle service in Belconnen, Gungahlin and Tuggeranong suburbs to feed into rapid bus lines, and a study on intelligent transport systems for the ACT road and public transport network.”

So I have spent the past year thinking that they were only implementing light rail to make Shane Rattenbury happy, but it was actually their policy all along. I should really pay more attention to these sort of announcements in the future…

I look forward tomhearing about this suspended aerial mass transit system which manages to be more cost-effective than trams.

Do you have examples of such systems already in place, or is this a new technology yet to be commercially developed and proven?

pajs said :

You seem to assume the processes of government and the processes of political parties somehow use the same base in evidence. Light rail was a political decision, by parties, taken to an election, voted for, and now being implemented. Full costing of alternative options and then choosing the best of these… you are missing the point. It was a democratic, not a technocratic, decision.

Bugger!
Was the referendum question on Light Rail on the other side of the paper at the last election?
I must have missed it.

This is going to be great.

Pass me some popcorn please darl!

We need a new political party – the Evidence-Based Policy Party.

Regardless, people who drop off a Folder full of “technical” details of their wonderful invention – be it about the latest iteration of the perpetual motion machine, chemtrails, how climate change is a hoax, etc… – are nothing new in politics and are almost always extremely cranky and hence almost always ignored by default.
Calls to talkback radio are probably not the way to engage with government on policy issues.

Having said that, this sort of project should have been informed by a properly-formed committee to invite proposals and analyse all options. Was this actually done?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back12:21 pm 29 Apr 15

Light rail was the price Labor paid to get the Greens in their pocket. I guess it doesn’t matter what the cost is when it isn’t your money.

You seem to assume the processes of government and the processes of political parties somehow use the same base in evidence. Light rail was a political decision, by parties, taken to an election, voted for, and now being implemented. Full costing of alternative options and then choosing the best of these… you are missing the point. It was a democratic, not a technocratic, decision.

Thank you Arthur.
You seem to have gotten it totally covered. How scarey is it to think that this research is not only not done automatically, but appears to be being avoided systematically.

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.