12 September 2025

Light rail will benefit heritage areas, says submission

| By Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
88
Artist's impression of the Albert Hall stop on the State Circle East route.

The Albert Hall stop on the State Circle East route. Photo: ACT Government.

Light Rail Stage 2B can enhance the National Triangle’s heritage values and improve connectivity to the home of the nation’s democracy, Parliament House, according to a submission on the project’s draft Environmental Impact Statement.

The Public Transport Association of Canberra (PTCBR) says too much weight has been given to the project’s potential negative impacts through the heritage area. Instead of what a new public transport connection will mean for those wanting to visit the national institutions and Parliament, and those who work there.

The submission also backs the direct State Circle East route, calls for uniform longer platforms to support greater capacity and urges the project managers to focus on passenger experience, comfort, and safety in the design, especially at the grade-separated stops.

It says PTCBR members, as well as many members of the general public, are frustrated by the implicit assumption light rail will have only a negative impact on key heritage sites.

PTCBR argues the National Triangle and areas surrounding Parliament House are unfriendly to those not travelling by private vehicle.

READ ALSO Duplication finally in sight for William Hovell Drive after tender awarded

It says public realm improvements will bring much-needed renewal to tired and forgotten areas in the National Triangle, encourage more foot traffic and create new connections between its important destinations.

“It is wrong that Parliament House currently sits removed from the community by wide arterial roads, lacking connected step-free footpaths for pedestrian access and served only by two suburban bus routes,” PTCBR says.

“The immense practical and symbolic significance of frequent, affordable, inclusive, and convenient public transport access to the heart of our democracy must be understood and treated seriously.”

Artist's impression of the Kings Avenue stop at Parliament House.

Too exposed: The Kings Avenue stop at Parliament House.

Light rail will also enable Canberra to provide the same level of amenity and access in significant areas found in cities around the world where heritage issues and modern life have to be balanced, such as London, Rome and Washington DC.

“In Melbourne, Parliament House – home to the first Australian Parliament – is easily accessed by a tram stop located directly at the entrance,” PTCBR says.

“There is no suggestion the presence of surrounding transport networks negatively impacts on the significance of any of these buildings and precincts.”

The submission says a route diversion to Barton will negate the strategic intent of the north-south spine, from which other branch lines can run, and which will provide a high-capacity transport mode along a central area.

“For LRS2B [Light Rail Stage 2B] to function as the southern section of a coherent north-south spine, it must offer a service that attracts high ridership, presents a reasonably fast journey time, and supports surrounding amenities and future development.”

READ ALSO Call for ACT Government to ban commissions in strata management industry

PTCBR says the route must also build in capacity but at present the plans show platforms of differing lengths – 45m and 33m – which are problematic for longer Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) that can move more passengers.

It makes sense to accept the need for longer LRVs from the start and build all stops to the length that can accommodate them, the submission says.

PTCBR also supports increasing the frequency of services from 12 services per hour to 15 services per hour, or from every five minutes to every four minutes.

The submission calls for more work to make stops more accessible, safer and comfortable for passengers, saying most stops are located in a road median in busy and/or high-speed road environments.

It recommends redesigning the road and footpath network to eliminate slip lanes where possible; install traffic lights at road crossings; eliminate island waiting areas or where necessary make them larger, create connected footpath networks and provide covered walkways where appropriate.

PTCBR says the current designs show stops that are exposed to weather and passing traffic.

It says the project should consider sound barriers and sound-deadening measures, especially at grade-separated stops; shade and side shelter, covered stairways to stops; covered walkways to and from stops; and ground surfaces that take into account frost, rain and heat.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

88
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Surely a key point justifying several billion dollars would be to improve the commute times…………..No?

The Gold Coast light rail didnt just derail. It bifurcated itself on post. Would have been horrific injuries if it was being used.

Good journalists question reports from lobby groups. Especially, lobby groups with people like Damian Haas, Senior Advisor to Chris Steel, at the helm.

Money is no object for PTCBR. They seem to think that money grows on trees.
They don’t seem to understand that fiscal equalisation will mean that Canberrans will pay the full cost ($4+ billion) because the Commonwealth “contribution” will be deducted from our share of the GST.

Shall we make road users pay a fair price for roads too? Roads are a bottomless pit

Leon Arundell10:57 am 13 Sep 25

PlainView asks, “isn’t the end result quicker and more comfortable than buses if you light rail carries more and has a set track?” Bus rapid transit could make the trip in 12 minutes, at less than half the cost of light rail. Buses using the transit lanes that cover only one third of the route did it in 18 minutes. The government estimates that light rail stage 2 would take from 27 to 32½ minutes and would REDUCE network-wide public transport travel by 5%. The light-rail-obsessed “Public Transport Association” and “Conservation Council” omitted that information from their submissions on the EIS.

Leon Arundell9:27 am 13 Sep 25

PTCBR previously called itself the ACT Light Rail Coalition. Despite the name change, PTCBR opposes any alternative to light rail. The government’s 2018 and 2019 light rail business cases provide strong evidence that supports light rail alternatives, as do its 2012 submission to Infrastructure Australia and the Auditor General’s 2021 Canberra Light Rail Stage 2a: Economic Analysis report. The EIS for light rail stage 2B must assess the performance of any alternative to light rail stage 2B. The draft EIS makes no mention of those reports. PTCBR’s submission on the draft EIS was an opportunity to ensure that the consultants preparing the EIS are aware of those four important reports. Its submission makes no mention of any of those reports.

I would question that the purpose of an EIS for a project is to consider alternatives to the project. That surely is part of the scoping study or similar.

Seems like PTCBR occupies this writers’ mind rent-free. Maybe Leon should join and seek to debate light rail versus other modes with the members.

Nope. PTCBR was founded by a bloke who is a former Labor transport Ministerial staffer. The group doesn’t live rent free in anyone’s head, yet calling them out on the odd occasion the group has media is a responsibility to the masses

Leon Arundell1:33 pm 15 Sep 25

The Scoping Document for the EIS says that it must “Provide details of any alternatives to the proposal considered in developing the proposal including a
description of: a) Any alternatives to the proposal and provide reasons for selecting the preferred option with an analysis of site selection as an attachment to the EIS; b) The criteria used for assessing the performance of any alternative to the proposal considered …”
https://www.planning.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2412646/EIS202400003-Scoping-Document.pdf

Leon Arundell1:43 pm 16 Sep 25

I tried to use an evidence-based approach to debate light rail versus other modes with PTCBR committee members Bill Gemmell and D C Haas, in the Conservation Council’s transport working group. All they could contribute was nit-picking about evidence such as the Household Travel Survey (too small a sample size) and Census journey to work statistics (only one day of data). Working group chair and Conservation Council board member Warwick Cathro responded by secretly removing me from the working group’s contact list, so that I could no longer participate.

Light rail lobby group thinks it looks good, more news at 11….

Laser sharp analysis.

“PTCBR argues the National Triangle and areas surrounding Parliament House are unfriendly to those not travelling by private vehicle.” In what way are these unfriendly? I’ve seen plenty of buses, cyclists and pedestrians passing through these areas.

A thoughtful analysis. The idea of standardising the long platforms from the start saves a lot of bother later on – that’s the point of preparing for the future now. And given there is going to be a Kingston spur off the Woden-Civic route, it makes sense to keep the most direct line through, to improve speed of service. As for the speed of buses, even if the light rail departures were every 5m instead of every 4m, (1) isn’t the end result quicker and more comfortable than buses if you light rail carries more and has a set track? And (2) in a rising population towards 750,000, does anyone think that extra express buses necessary to keep the patronage is going to find it easy through more congested traffic? And (3) won’t those buses be better placed getting people from the outer suburbs to the town hubs, changing for light rail? We know Walter Griffin assumed Canberra would have trams, (incidentally which would be free, just as lifts in buildings are free). From that point of view, modernised light rail only builds on his legacy, both from a planning heritage point of view – and also by making the National Triangle more navigable on foot, rather than faced by long tedious distances and hurtling traffic? So yes, the State East route makes sense, and although I may not reach the designated decade to watch light rail spur off to Manuka or Kingston, at least we are preparing for a sane infrastructure into the future. Good thinking!

1. Anyone thinking about the future would consider alternatives which are ignored.
2. Buses could be given similar right of way to light rail so is irrelevant.
3. Public transport usage has reduced since the first stage of light rail has been implemented across Canberra, almost like its not as simple as throwing money at a preselected solution.

Leon Arundell5:42 pm 13 Sep 25

Buses are faster than light rail stage 2B. Ordinary buses, even with transit lanes along only one third of the route, did it in 18 minutes. Bus rapid transit could travel the route in 12 minutes. The government expects light rail stage 2B to take from 27 to 32½ minutes.

I wrote a submission that focussed on the obsession with battery powered LRVs and the in my opinion way overblown concerns about the ‘visual pollution’ of overhead wiring. Low visual impact overhead wiring has been around since at least the 1980s and was used on the UK East Coast Main Line near very historically significant locations such as Durham Cathedral and the Royal Border Bridge.

And by the way- just who represents the public on the Public Transport Association of Canberra (PTCBR)? Sounds like it is named to sound like it’s inclusive!

The members. Anyone can join.

… until one is bullied out for holding an alternative view…

Anyone care to comment on the decision to abandon the Gold Coast Light Rail project in preference to busses!

Today’s report that the Gold Coast tram derailed. Fortunately no passengers at the time.

Yes I would care to comment. Cancelling stage 4 of Gold Coast Light Rail was a terrible decision!

Capital Retro9:24 am 13 Sep 25

Must have been peak hour.

The proposed extension was too expensive and the folk on the Gold Coast are sick and tired of the disruption to traffic during the current work on their light rail. 40kph on the Gold Coast Highway with frequent stops for works traffic, no parking, damage to businesses. All this will come to Canberra if Stage 2B goes ahead. If you thought stage 2A was bad, 2B will be chaos.

A fair bit of spin, here.

Any submission that argues LR would benefit the “….
National Triangle’s heritage values and improve connectivity to the home of the nation’s democracy, Parliament House….”, is really polishing a “tu?d”.

Firstly, a route through the Triangle, hasn’t been confirmed. It’s one that would raise the cost of the project and one that the Feds would have to sign-off on. Secondly, LR is a public transport system first-most. One that already is predicted to be slower than the existing R4 bus service (Woden to the City). It’s purpose shouldn’t be about enhancing the heritage of the National Triangle, it should be about moving people quickly from major Interchanges (Stations).

Dog-legging thru the triangle, would definitely pass through more work and tourist locations, however, that would be at the detriment to the speed of the service.

Like trusting The Australia Institute on economic matters :/

One protest and the transport system will be on its knees

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra 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.