Corbell to include Russell in light rail application

switch said :

Maya123 said :

Please enlighten me where this has happened. Especially for the whole length of a road, as per what I wrote.

Streeton Drive was “singled” to provide a bike lane for most of its length. Another road I was on yesterday was obviously two lanes in the past (sorry, don’t know the road’s name) and is not now. And I’m not impressed with them taking a lane from Adelaide Ave as it swings around Capital Hill where Canberra Ave merges with it to provide a bike lane I’ve never seen a bike on. Makes it a particularly dangerous intersection nowadays, given how polite Canberra drivers are at merging. The three lanes there was much safer.

They were two examples I would have quoted and don’t forget how the roadway over Scrivener Dam wall was narrowed for a cycleway, as was indeed Northbourne Avenue.

Maya123 said :

Similar things been done in Canberra already to create lanes for the exclusive use of cyclists.

I am unaware of any whole car lane that has been taken from cars and changed into a lane for people to cycle on. Please enlighten me where this has happened. Especially for the whole length of a road, as per what I wrote.

Captain Cook and Jerrabomberra Ave are two examples, although both are only in one direction.

Maya123 said :

Please enlighten me where this has happened. Especially for the whole length of a road, as per what I wrote.

Streeton Drive was “singled” to provide a bike lane for most of its length. Another road I was on yesterday was obviously two lanes in the past (sorry, don’t know the road’s name) and is not now. And I’m not impressed with them taking a lane from Adelaide Ave as it swings around Capital Hill where Canberra Ave merges with it to provide a bike lane I’ve never seen a bike on. Makes it a particularly dangerous intersection nowadays, given how polite Canberra drivers are at merging. The three lanes there was much safer.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

ungruntled said :

“So 25 minutes from Gungahlin to civic, would make it almost an hour to Russel.”
Now that’s such a good goal! An hour to Russsel!

“but there is no doubt that once you open the length of the route from Gungahlin to Russell and then cross the lake to Inner South with clean, quiet regular transport, you are going to get development blossom all along the way.”
Where did you ever get the idea that trams would be clean, quiet & regular! They are heavy, noisy, expensive – financially, socially and environmentally.

“That is going to change Canberra and is what is at the heart of the objections from people who don’t want change. They are already having to pretend extremely hard that the inevitable change is not happening, this is change they can actually try and stop.”
Not from this person. For me it’s a matter of way out of date technology, won’t serve most of the population (only about 10% when all across the city), way too expensive what ever way you look at it (per person kilometer when installed, to initially build, to the environment both in the building & the running).
I would welcome some real change. Look at the new technologies. See what is up & coming. What is exciting. What will actually meet our public transport needs

“Too many people feel that if someone else gets something, that it is being taken away from them, leading to howls of outrage. The dog in the manger!”
Using community money to improve transport is a really good thing to do. I have no issue with that In fact I favour it, even if I don’t personally get to use it.
If somebody was really getting something out of this, you might be right. But no-one is going to win with this. Everyones rates will go up – quite a lot! Few will get good transport (maximum 10% NOT minimum, will be able to utilise it). The rail trip times are significantly longer than express buses. The trees & appeal of Northbourne Ave will have to be sacrificed. Vehicular traffic will be very badly effected – that’s not just evil cars, it is all sorts of people going about their businesses including buses, taxis & delivery services. People who currently take a bus all the way to Civic will need to get a bus to the tram, tram to civic & maybe a bus from there.

There’s also the problem of putting it over the bridges to get it south. There are only 2 ways to do it. One (which is the current plan) is to substitute one vehicular lane in each direction for a tram lane. That’s going to make moving around the city really great – grating! The other option will be to build another bridge or two. That will really skyrocket the costs for something we already cannot afford.

There are other options. We can do better. We must do better.

“The rail trip times are significantly longer than express buses.”

It seems that you have never been caught in a bus in heavy, banked up traffic in peak hour, attempting to get across Commonwealth Bridge. The weakness with buses, is that they share the road with other road traffic. Unless they are given a lane of the road for their exclusive use, all the way, they will be stopped by heavy traffic. Imagine the uproar here if that was done. Say, a lane given to buses down Northbourne Avenue and other traffic forced into two lanes!
” Imagine the uproar here if that was done. Say, a lane given to buses down Northbourne Avenue and other traffic forced into two lanes!”
Similar things been done in Canberra already to create lanes for the exclusive use of cyclists.

I am unaware of any whole car lane that has been taken from cars and changed into a lane for people to cycle on. Please enlighten me where this has happened. Especially for the whole length of a road, as per what I wrote.

Maya123 said :

ungruntled said :

“So 25 minutes from Gungahlin to civic, would make it almost an hour to Russel.”
Now that’s such a good goal! An hour to Russsel!

“but there is no doubt that once you open the length of the route from Gungahlin to Russell and then cross the lake to Inner South with clean, quiet regular transport, you are going to get development blossom all along the way.”
Where did you ever get the idea that trams would be clean, quiet & regular! They are heavy, noisy, expensive – financially, socially and environmentally.

“That is going to change Canberra and is what is at the heart of the objections from people who don’t want change. They are already having to pretend extremely hard that the inevitable change is not happening, this is change they can actually try and stop.”
Not from this person. For me it’s a matter of way out of date technology, won’t serve most of the population (only about 10% when all across the city), way too expensive what ever way you look at it (per person kilometer when installed, to initially build, to the environment both in the building & the running).
I would welcome some real change. Look at the new technologies. See what is up & coming. What is exciting. What will actually meet our public transport needs

“Too many people feel that if someone else gets something, that it is being taken away from them, leading to howls of outrage. The dog in the manger!”
Using community money to improve transport is a really good thing to do. I have no issue with that In fact I favour it, even if I don’t personally get to use it.
If somebody was really getting something out of this, you might be right. But no-one is going to win with this. Everyones rates will go up – quite a lot! Few will get good transport (maximum 10% NOT minimum, will be able to utilise it). The rail trip times are significantly longer than express buses. The trees & appeal of Northbourne Ave will have to be sacrificed. Vehicular traffic will be very badly effected – that’s not just evil cars, it is all sorts of people going about their businesses including buses, taxis & delivery services. People who currently take a bus all the way to Civic will need to get a bus to the tram, tram to civic & maybe a bus from there.

There’s also the problem of putting it over the bridges to get it south. There are only 2 ways to do it. One (which is the current plan) is to substitute one vehicular lane in each direction for a tram lane. That’s going to make moving around the city really great – grating! The other option will be to build another bridge or two. That will really skyrocket the costs for something we already cannot afford.

There are other options. We can do better. We must do better.

“The rail trip times are significantly longer than express buses.”

It seems that you have never been caught in a bus in heavy, banked up traffic in peak hour, attempting to get across Commonwealth Bridge. The weakness with buses, is that they share the road with other road traffic. Unless they are given a lane of the road for their exclusive use, all the way, they will be stopped by heavy traffic. Imagine the uproar here if that was done. Say, a lane given to buses down Northbourne Avenue and other traffic forced into two lanes!
” Imagine the uproar here if that was done. Say, a lane given to buses down Northbourne Avenue and other traffic forced into two lanes!”
Similar things been done in Canberra already to create lanes for the exclusive use of cyclists.

ungruntled said :

There’s also the problem of putting it over the bridges to get it south. There are only 2 ways to do it. One (which is the current plan) is to substitute one vehicular lane in each direction for a tram lane. That’s going to make moving around the city really great – grating! The other option will be to build another bridge or two. That will really skyrocket the costs for something we already cannot afford.

The beauty of the tram is that we only need one. After you build the first one the cost is so large that no one would ever want to extend it anywhere else.

Which solves the 2nd problem that the tram couldn’t go over the bridge because the angles are too great.

Ultimately two things are too steep.. bridges and price.

ungruntled said :

“So 25 minutes from Gungahlin to civic, would make it almost an hour to Russel.”
Now that’s such a good goal! An hour to Russsel!

“but there is no doubt that once you open the length of the route from Gungahlin to Russell and then cross the lake to Inner South with clean, quiet regular transport, you are going to get development blossom all along the way.”
Where did you ever get the idea that trams would be clean, quiet & regular! They are heavy, noisy, expensive – financially, socially and environmentally.

“That is going to change Canberra and is what is at the heart of the objections from people who don’t want change. They are already having to pretend extremely hard that the inevitable change is not happening, this is change they can actually try and stop.”
Not from this person. For me it’s a matter of way out of date technology, won’t serve most of the population (only about 10% when all across the city), way too expensive what ever way you look at it (per person kilometer when installed, to initially build, to the environment both in the building & the running).
I would welcome some real change. Look at the new technologies. See what is up & coming. What is exciting. What will actually meet our public transport needs

“Too many people feel that if someone else gets something, that it is being taken away from them, leading to howls of outrage. The dog in the manger!”
Using community money to improve transport is a really good thing to do. I have no issue with that In fact I favour it, even if I don’t personally get to use it.
If somebody was really getting something out of this, you might be right. But no-one is going to win with this. Everyones rates will go up – quite a lot! Few will get good transport (maximum 10% NOT minimum, will be able to utilise it). The rail trip times are significantly longer than express buses. The trees & appeal of Northbourne Ave will have to be sacrificed. Vehicular traffic will be very badly effected – that’s not just evil cars, it is all sorts of people going about their businesses including buses, taxis & delivery services. People who currently take a bus all the way to Civic will need to get a bus to the tram, tram to civic & maybe a bus from there.

There’s also the problem of putting it over the bridges to get it south. There are only 2 ways to do it. One (which is the current plan) is to substitute one vehicular lane in each direction for a tram lane. That’s going to make moving around the city really great – grating! The other option will be to build another bridge or two. That will really skyrocket the costs for something we already cannot afford.

There are other options. We can do better. We must do better.

“The rail trip times are significantly longer than express buses.”

It seems that you have never been caught in a bus in heavy, banked up traffic in peak hour, attempting to get across Commonwealth Bridge. The weakness with buses, is that they share the road with other road traffic. Unless they are given a lane of the road for their exclusive use, all the way, they will be stopped by heavy traffic. Imagine the uproar here if that was done. Say, a lane given to buses down Northbourne Avenue and other traffic forced into two lanes! Or the same across Commonwealth Bridge.

“So 25 minutes from Gungahlin to civic, would make it almost an hour to Russel.”
Now that’s such a good goal! An hour to Russsel!

“but there is no doubt that once you open the length of the route from Gungahlin to Russell and then cross the lake to Inner South with clean, quiet regular transport, you are going to get development blossom all along the way.”
Where did you ever get the idea that trams would be clean, quiet & regular! They are heavy, noisy, expensive – financially, socially and environmentally.

“That is going to change Canberra and is what is at the heart of the objections from people who don’t want change. They are already having to pretend extremely hard that the inevitable change is not happening, this is change they can actually try and stop.”
Not from this person. For me it’s a matter of way out of date technology, won’t serve most of the population (only about 10% when all across the city), way too expensive what ever way you look at it (per person kilometer when installed, to initially build, to the environment both in the building & the running).
I would welcome some real change. Look at the new technologies. See what is up & coming. What is exciting. What will actually meet our public transport needs

“Too many people feel that if someone else gets something, that it is being taken away from them, leading to howls of outrage. The dog in the manger!”
Using community money to improve transport is a really good thing to do. I have no issue with that In fact I favour it, even if I don’t personally get to use it.
If somebody was really getting something out of this, you might be right. But no-one is going to win with this. Everyones rates will go up – quite a lot! Few will get good transport (maximum 10% NOT minimum, will be able to utilise it). The rail trip times are significantly longer than express buses. The trees & appeal of Northbourne Ave will have to be sacrificed. Vehicular traffic will be very badly effected – that’s not just evil cars, it is all sorts of people going about their businesses including buses, taxis & delivery services. People who currently take a bus all the way to Civic will need to get a bus to the tram, tram to civic & maybe a bus from there.

There’s also the problem of putting it over the bridges to get it south. There are only 2 ways to do it. One (which is the current plan) is to substitute one vehicular lane in each direction for a tram lane. That’s going to make moving around the city really great – grating! The other option will be to build another bridge or two. That will really skyrocket the costs for something we already cannot afford.

There are other options. We can do better. We must do better.

switch said :

maragle said :

Yes well if you are talking about running light rail to Kingston then thought should be given to utilising the existing rail infrastructure to extend the service to Queanbeyan and even perhaps to Bungendore.

Tram wheels and rail wheels are not compatible for everyday use…

Tram wheels would be OK on the existing heavy rail between Kingston and Queanbeyan and at this stage it would appear that the Canberra trams will be battery powered so no need for all those ugly wires and poles (and the expense that goes with it).

switch said :

maragle said :

Yes well if you are talking about running light rail to Kingston then thought should be given to utilising the existing rail infrastructure to extend the service to Queanbeyan and even perhaps to Bungendore.

Tram wheels and rail wheels are not compatible for everyday use…

For the most part your right, the profile of a tram and train wheel is different. But there are hybrid systems out there where the trams operate on standard heavy rail profile and tram tracks, the wheel profile just needs to be designed to suit.

switch said :

maragle said :

Yes well if you are talking about running light rail to Kingston then thought should be given to utilising the existing rail infrastructure to extend the service to Queanbeyan and even perhaps to Bungendore.

Tram wheels and rail wheels are not compatible for everyday use…

Glad you noticed that. It’s a matter of the roundness!

maragle said :

rubaiyat said :

Obvious targets are Manuka/Manuka Oval and the higher density apartments of Kingston/ Kingston Foreshore as well as all the tourist attractions and Barton Offices of the Parliamentary triangle.

A more comprehensive scheme is more likely to garner support than just the fairly restricted Gungahlin to City route.

Most Canberrans don’t see themselves riding to Gungahlin, even though there are attractions en route, but circulating from the City around the lake is something they could see themselves doing and it will make Canberra a much more Tourist friendly destination.

Whilst Gungahlin is unlikely to entice outsiders, Epic could become a great venue, for much more than the present rough and ready attractions, accessible by all of North, City and Inner South, if people don’t have to drive and park.

rubaiyat said :

Obvious targets are Manuka/Manuka Oval and the higher density apartments of Kingston/ Kingston Foreshore as well as all the tourist attractions and Barton Offices of the Parliamentary triangle.

A more comprehensive scheme is more likely to garner support than just the fairly restricted Gungahlin to City route.

Most Canberrans don’t see themselves riding to Gungahlin, even though there are attractions en route, but circulating from the City around the lake is something they could see themselves doing and it will make Canberra a much more Tourist friendly destination.

Whilst Gungahlin is unlikely to entice outsiders, Epic could become a great venue, for much more than the present rough and ready attractions, accessible by all of North, City and Inner South, if people don’t have to drive and park.

Yes well if you are talking about running light rail to Kingston then thought should be given to utilising the existing rail infrastructure to extend the service to Queanbeyan and even perhaps to Bungendore.

As I have already posted twice in the past week, Rattenbury said early October because cross border issues were difficult to tackle.
This means he has ruled out any light rail to Queanbeyan but if it ever happens under his watch it probably won’t be on the existing rail corridor which instead will become a cycleway.

maragle said :

Yes well if you are talking about running light rail to Kingston then thought should be given to utilising the existing rail infrastructure to extend the service to Queanbeyan and even perhaps to Bungendore.

Tram wheels and rail wheels are not compatible for everyday use…

rubaiyat said :

Obvious targets are Manuka/Manuka Oval and the higher density apartments of Kingston/ Kingston Foreshore as well as all the tourist attractions and Barton Offices of the Parliamentary triangle.

A more comprehensive scheme is more likely to garner support than just the fairly restricted Gungahlin to City route.

Most Canberrans don’t see themselves riding to Gungahlin, even though there are attractions en route, but circulating from the City around the lake is something they could see themselves doing and it will make Canberra a much more Tourist friendly destination.

Whilst Gungahlin is unlikely to entice outsiders, Epic could become a great venue, for much more than the present rough and ready attractions, accessible by all of North, City and Inner South, if people don’t have to drive and park.

rubaiyat said :

Obvious targets are Manuka/Manuka Oval and the higher density apartments of Kingston/ Kingston Foreshore as well as all the tourist attractions and Barton Offices of the Parliamentary triangle.

A more comprehensive scheme is more likely to garner support than just the fairly restricted Gungahlin to City route.

Most Canberrans don’t see themselves riding to Gungahlin, even though there are attractions en route, but circulating from the City around the lake is something they could see themselves doing and it will make Canberra a much more Tourist friendly destination.

Whilst Gungahlin is unlikely to entice outsiders, Epic could become a great venue, for much more than the present rough and ready attractions, accessible by all of North, City and Inner South, if people don’t have to drive and park.

Yes well if you are talking about running light rail to Kingston then thought should be given to utilising the existing rail infrastructure to extend the service to Queanbeyan and even perhaps to Bungendore.

rubaiyat said :

Which is your favourite part? The noise the cars make, the pollution, the deaths, the injuries, the bad health, the debt, the green spaces killed, the city divided, the time we spend in them crossing long distances, the dead shopfronts lining the roads, the huge part of our incomes needed to sustain them, the huge amounts of money we send overseas…?

My favorite parts are spending a lot of time my time in the car, the noise it makes [if only there weren’t limits on exhaust noise 🙁 ] and listening to my music loudly on my stereo. Love it!

Maya123 said :

Rotten_berry said :

rubaiyat said :

Has anyone been out to the new suburbia?

That mythical 1/4 acre block is now down to 1/10th an acre, and shrinking.

Not only that but a considerable part of the new developments are the same “crappy appartments” people are supposedly escaping from. But NOT within walking distance of anything interesting or worthwhile, instead a long commute along much the same roads, to the same destinations, with the same car parks.

Wake up. That filet mignon you were promised is just a cheeseburger.

1/16th acre is actually pretty common these days. I don’t like it either. The planners call it “more efficient utilisation of land”or somesuch; in reality is just combines the bad points of both sprawl and density. Those apartment blocks miles away from anything interesting are a bit sad. Funny how we mananged this in a country with so much empty land.

The real reason is that it allows the govt to extract more $/sqm of land.

Maybe the solution is to allow urban sprawl, but increase the rates for those that insist on living so far from the centre of the city, to help pay for the many extra kms of roads, gutters, empty buses (don’t supply them and listen to the uproar), etc they will then want. I somehow think that urban sprawl would then become suddenly very unpopular with those that demand it.

User pays does make sense here. The gutters and local roads are usually done by developers, and headworks charges are levied on developers for infrastructure. Between those and the raw land price I suspect the govt makes plenty from flogging off land. Which is why they do it.

You could also argue that big blocks near the centre should be wacked with higher rates because the oppertunity cost of using that land “inefficiently” is much higher. I’m sure that will go down a treat with inner north/south residents, most of whom seem to think that their suburbs magically appeared without any costs or environmental impacts.

Go to the airport.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

I suspect besides the head in the sand Anti-Environmentalists, much of the opposition to public transport is because you can’t smoke on public transport.

Well, that’s supposed to be the rule in Europe too – but many still smoke on public transport with impunity.

“Europe” covers many countries. I was in the UK this year and used trains. I never saw one person smoking on them. Or, I don’t think, inside enclosed stations either.

Fair comment, but I don’t consider the UK to be part of Europe. It is geographically part of The British Isles and while it may be economically and politically part of the EU it is not one of the Schengen states.
My worst experience with smokers was on a non-smoking train travelling from Paris to Frankfurt.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

I suspect besides the head in the sand Anti-Environmentalists, much of the opposition to public transport is because you can’t smoke on public transport.

Well, that’s supposed to be the rule in Europe too – but many still smoke on public transport with impunity.

“Europe” covers many countries. I was in the UK this year and used trains. I never saw one person smoking on them. Or, I don’t think, inside enclosed stations either.

Maya123 said :

Rotten_berry said :

rubaiyat said :

Has anyone been out to the new suburbia?

That mythical 1/4 acre block is now down to 1/10th an acre, and shrinking.

Not only that but a considerable part of the new developments are the same “crappy appartments” people are supposedly escaping from. But NOT within walking distance of anything interesting or worthwhile, instead a long commute along much the same roads, to the same destinations, with the same car parks.

Wake up. That filet mignon you were promised is just a cheeseburger.

1/16th acre is actually pretty common these days. I don’t like it either. The planners call it “more efficient utilisation of land”or somesuch; in reality is just combines the bad points of both sprawl and density. Those apartment blocks miles away from anything interesting are a bit sad. Funny how we mananged this in a country with so much empty land.

The real reason is that it allows the govt to extract more $/sqm of land.

Maybe the solution is to allow urban sprawl, but increase the rates for those that insist on living so far from the centre of the city, to help pay for the many extra kms of roads, gutters, empty buses (don’t supply them and listen to the uproar), etc they will then want. I somehow think that urban sprawl would then become suddenly very unpopular with those that demand it.

We should stop this nonsense that the roads are somehow free.

Trouble is people scream like banshees if they are made to pay for them with tollways. It spoils “The Dream”.

They don’t notice what it is doing to their lives and the countryside until it is too late and then they convince themselves with all sorts of crazy arguments that they have no choice.

Maya123 said :

Rotten_berry said :

rubaiyat said :

Has anyone been out to the new suburbia?

That mythical 1/4 acre block is now down to 1/10th an acre, and shrinking.

Not only that but a considerable part of the new developments are the same “crappy appartments” people are supposedly escaping from. But NOT within walking distance of anything interesting or worthwhile, instead a long commute along much the same roads, to the same destinations, with the same car parks.

Wake up. That filet mignon you were promised is just a cheeseburger.

1/16th acre is actually pretty common these days. I don’t like it either. The planners call it “more efficient utilisation of land”or somesuch; in reality is just combines the bad points of both sprawl and density. Those apartment blocks miles away from anything interesting are a bit sad. Funny how we mananged this in a country with so much empty land.

The real reason is that it allows the govt to extract more $/sqm of land.

Maybe the solution is to allow urban sprawl, but increase the rates for those that insist on living so far from the centre of the city, to help pay for the many extra kms of roads, gutters, empty buses (don’t supply them and listen to the uproar), etc they will then want. I somehow think that urban sprawl would then become suddenly very unpopular with those that demand it.

Why do you insist that everyone needs to travel to “the centre of the city”?
I live in one of those “urban sprawl” suburbs and find no necessity to travel to the “centre of the city” for any service that isn’t already available in the town centres and suburban shopping centres.
The government is also subscribing to the false premise that everyone in Gungahlin works in the centre of Canberra to justify the light rail. Like most Canberrans, I find no need to use the buses.

Maya123 said :

Rotten_berry said :

rubaiyat said :

Has anyone been out to the new suburbia?

That mythical 1/4 acre block is now down to 1/10th an acre, and shrinking.

Not only that but a considerable part of the new developments are the same “crappy appartments” people are supposedly escaping from. But NOT within walking distance of anything interesting or worthwhile, instead a long commute along much the same roads, to the same destinations, with the same car parks.

Wake up. That filet mignon you were promised is just a cheeseburger.

1/16th acre is actually pretty common these days. I don’t like it either. The planners call it “more efficient utilisation of land”or somesuch; in reality is just combines the bad points of both sprawl and density. Those apartment blocks miles away from anything interesting are a bit sad. Funny how we mananged this in a country with so much empty land.

The real reason is that it allows the govt to extract more $/sqm of land.

Maybe the solution is to allow urban sprawl, but increase the rates for those that insist on living so far from the centre of the city, to help pay for the many extra kms of roads, gutters, empty buses (don’t supply them and listen to the uproar), etc they will then want. I somehow think that urban sprawl would then become suddenly very unpopular with those that demand it.

Yes this. If you want to live on a huge block then you should be willing to subsidise those who have less of an impact. It’s a privilege that costs everybody, not a birthright.

Rotten_berry said :

rubaiyat said :

Has anyone been out to the new suburbia?

That mythical 1/4 acre block is now down to 1/10th an acre, and shrinking.

Not only that but a considerable part of the new developments are the same “crappy appartments” people are supposedly escaping from. But NOT within walking distance of anything interesting or worthwhile, instead a long commute along much the same roads, to the same destinations, with the same car parks.

Wake up. That filet mignon you were promised is just a cheeseburger.

1/16th acre is actually pretty common these days. I don’t like it either. The planners call it “more efficient utilisation of land”or somesuch; in reality is just combines the bad points of both sprawl and density. Those apartment blocks miles away from anything interesting are a bit sad. Funny how we mananged this in a country with so much empty land.

The real reason is that it allows the govt to extract more $/sqm of land.

Maybe the solution is to allow urban sprawl, but increase the rates for those that insist on living so far from the centre of the city, to help pay for the many extra kms of roads, gutters, empty buses (don’t supply them and listen to the uproar), etc they will then want. I somehow think that urban sprawl would then become suddenly very unpopular with those that demand it.

rubaiyat said :

Has anyone been out to the new suburbia?

That mythical 1/4 acre block is now down to 1/10th an acre, and shrinking.

Not only that but a considerable part of the new developments are the same “crappy appartments” people are supposedly escaping from. But NOT within walking distance of anything interesting or worthwhile, instead a long commute along much the same roads, to the same destinations, with the same car parks.

Wake up. That filet mignon you were promised is just a cheeseburger.

1/16th acre is actually pretty common these days. I don’t like it either. The planners call it “more efficient utilisation of land”or somesuch; in reality is just combines the bad points of both sprawl and density. Those apartment blocks miles away from anything interesting are a bit sad. Funny how we mananged this in a country with so much empty land.

The real reason is that it allows the govt to extract more $/sqm of land.

rubaiyat said :

I suspect besides the head in the sand Anti-Environmentalists, much of the opposition to public transport is because you can’t smoke on public transport.

I suspect that much of the opposition to trams is that the opponents don’t use public transport. Now they are laughingly endorsing buses (but only because of possible trams), when I suspect that most don’t use them either.

Public transport is for…other people, whoever they are.

Now what is it that makes “fare evaders” P.C.?

rubaiyat said :

I suspect besides the head in the sand Anti-Environmentalists, much of the opposition to public transport is because you can’t smoke on public transport.

Well, that’s supposed to be the rule in Europe too – but many still smoke on public transport with impunity.

dungfungus said :

My favourite part is when you are driving in canola country.

We are as one on that. 🙂

But then perhaps it is the canola, not car.

Sitting in heavy traffic that is ruining Canberra doesn’t have the same effect.

Spot on. All this unsustainable office buildings in distant townships and increased housing in open countryside seems to be a way for the government to justify the construction of all the freeways, creating ever more problems that didn’t exist.

With all the extra activity concentrated in the far distant suburbs, will that not surely increase traffic flow rather than reduce it? The whole plan relies on everybody living in the area requiring several cars per family to get anywhere. It is a big gamble to build something so expensive that relies on people’s habits never changing and never noticing they have been short changed, especially when the benefits are so overwhelmingly underwhelming.

If cars are so wonderful for the users, why not charge more for petrol and make the freeways tollways?

$4-5 per ride rather than the present “free”?

dungfungus said :

gazket said :

Light rail is for suits and shiny bums only. No light rail will work for the average man.

It will work for the fare evaders too.

Sorry I was not comprehensive enough:

Not for the car thieves, car jackers, speeding fine evaders, illegal parkers, rat runners, drag racers, licenceless drivers, ram raiders, hit and runners, drink drivers, drivers on ice, drivers dozing off at the wheel, drivers talking on phones, speeding hoons burning donuts in the road in your suburb, angry honkers, drivers who like to rev their engines late at night, road hogs, defective car drivers or road ragers.

rubaiyat said :

miz said :

Rubaiyat the inner city lifestyle only suits certain demographics. I like many others lived the city apartment lifestyle when I was young and single, and even for a while when I was newly married, but it was so unsatisfactory once children were on the scene that we were glad to move back to Canberra and its fabulous, quintessential suburbia, which we still celebrate and love. As do most Canberrans, as evidenced by the market for detached dwellings in Canberra despite being overpriced.
Unfortunately large parts of Gungahlin, which may ostensibly appear to have a smaller footprint, ironically has loads of black roofs and there is not even room to grow a shade tree. Here in suburbia my power bills are actually very low because I have room for a microclimate and can grow my own food sustainably.
I get that you are keen to change Canberra. Sure we all would like to change the world to fit our own ideals, but to change things one must accept and understand where we are now. We currently have a low density city that needs significantly improved public transport across the whole city, as soon as possible, to get people out of their cars more often. While trams ‘seem’ cool, it is impossible for the proposed tram plan to deliver what we actually need across the city, because

it is so costly (despite being a PPP and being the cheapest place to start because there is less land to resume)
its high cost casts serious doubt on any future expansion without begging to the feds (who are likely to say no because IA has already assessed it as unviable)
it can only be done in small portions at a time because of construction costs and time needed, greatly limiting the benefits and causing significant costs and inconvenience to businesses
Canberra’s idiosyncrasies (low density etc) make it different from, e.g., the Gold Coast or Parramatta, and
to rub salt into the wound, the first leg was actually a foolish choice as it will not provide any additional benefit whatsoever to what is already provided by buses.

Further, the government has absolutely no credibility left in the public transport space because it signed away any possibility of clear decision making in exchange for political expediency. The latter does not go down well in a politically savvy city.

You may think older people (who may to may not wear bifocals) are less intelligent and more negative than you, but in actual fact older Canberrans have years of experience often in relevant fields, which makes them wise about this issue. Canberrans *know* stuff – we are actually the smartest constituency in Australia – though I doubt that will stop you scoffing at people who do not agree with you.

I have years of dealing with the “smartest constituency” in Australia and if I am less than circumspect when expressing what I truely think, my posts aren’t posted. Despite the fact that it seems OK for others to say more or less the same thing with whomever they consider not up to the mark intellectually, or are part of some conspiracy to ruin civilisation as we know it, ie driving around angrily in cars.

I don’t have to change the world, the world is changed/changing, just some don’t seem to notice. Both with the way our cities are built and the consequences of our lifestyles both to our lives and our environment. That the “smartest constituency” speaks and acts as if both don’t exist says more about their observational and thinking abilities than I can say that will get me censored.

I observe many things, a lifelong habit. I observe how the precious money we never seem to have for public transport gets squandered on yet more bitumen and concrete eg The new Majura Parkway that slashes through excellent farming land and duplicates an existing road which is still required to get to where you used to go but is actually hindered now by the new Parkway.

The Parkway has destroyed a lovely part of the Majura Pine Plantation where I used to take my kids Mountain biking and has cut close to the excellent Majura Valley Wines. This has been done at huge expense, almost half of what a fully functional Light Rail will cost running from Gungahlin to the City. The stupidity of this road shows no bounds. Due to the need to still get to anything useful along the way, Majura Road still exists with several bridges and underpasses to cross the now impassable Majura Parkway to get to what you used to easily be able to get to on the western side of the Parkway. So at one point there are 4 roads parallel to each other. The old Majura Road, the dual carriageway of the Parkway and a new road of lovely shiny bitumen on the west side of the Parkway.

You would think you can determine the actual purpose of this excessive engineering just by looking at it. Which would seem it is to maximise the amount of road kill. They have radically reduced the chance of any wildlife surviving several roads all closely parallel to each other, and of course that solitary cross on the side of the road which I imagine is not there for the dead Kangaroos that line the roads.

“We currently have” a small but significant city that used to be much smaller (change happens).

“We currently have” a remote suburbia whose MacMansions are so jammed into tiny blocks that they may as well have common walls and certainly do not have the mythical backyard for the kids to play in. All part of a massive Bait and Switch on the Great Australian Dream.

“We currently have” a city whose high rise apartments are growing faster than the rest of the City.

“We currently have” a city which is becoming much more interesting and clever in the heart where it usually happens ie in the high rise areas.

“We currently have” a city with similar density to the Gold Coast which has the first leg of their “impossible” Light Rail and is now going for the second.

“We currently have” yet more remote housing destroying yet more green countryside, yet further from work with yet more cars as the only viable transport method. Cars which will pile up along all the inner roads and into all the existing car parks to make a bad situation massively worse.

“Have we currently” paid any attention at all to my costings for roads and cars? Why are you still claiming the Light Rail is expensive compared with the direct alternative. In fact it is a bargain.

“Have we currently” paid any attention at all to the magic unicorn dust the cars run on and what then subsequently comes out of their exhaust pipes which make that pleasant odour and noise that pervades every corner of Camberra?

Which is your favourite part? The noise the cars make, the pollution, the deaths, the injuries, the bad health, the debt, the green spaces killed, the city divided, the time we spend in them crossing long distances, the dead shopfronts lining the roads, the huge part of our incomes needed to sustain them, the huge amounts of money we send overseas…?

My favourite part is when you are driving in canola country.

I suspect besides the head in the sand Anti-Environmentalists, much of the opposition to public transport is because you can’t smoke on public transport.

wildturkeycanoe said :

If indeed the number of vehicles diminishes from our roads as you so fervently wish, the revenue to fund road maintenance will also plummet.

And if the number of smokers is reduced the cost of ash trays and oxygen tents for the remaining smokers will rise.

Never thought of that! You are right what a major drawback!

Look on the bright side: less cars, less maintenance, less people in hospitals, leaving more beds for the smokers.

Has anyone been out to the new suburbia?

That mythical 1/4 acre block is now down to 1/10th an acre, and shrinking.

Not only that but a considerable part of the new developments are the same “crappy appartments” people are supposedly escaping from. But NOT within walking distance of anything interesting or worthwhile, instead a long commute along much the same roads, to the same destinations, with the same car parks.

Wake up. That filet mignon you were promised is just a cheeseburger.

miz said :

Rubaiyat the inner city lifestyle only suits certain demographics. I like many others lived the city apartment lifestyle when I was young and single, and even for a while when I was newly married, but it was so unsatisfactory once children were on the scene that we were glad to move back to Canberra and its fabulous, quintessential suburbia, which we still celebrate and love. As do most Canberrans, as evidenced by the market for detached dwellings in Canberra despite being overpriced.
Unfortunately large parts of Gungahlin, which may ostensibly appear to have a smaller footprint, ironically has loads of black roofs and there is not even room to grow a shade tree. Here in suburbia my power bills are actually very low because I have room for a microclimate and can grow my own food sustainably.
I get that you are keen to change Canberra. Sure we all would like to change the world to fit our own ideals, but to change things one must accept and understand where we are now. We currently have a low density city that needs significantly improved public transport across the whole city, as soon as possible, to get people out of their cars more often. While trams ‘seem’ cool, it is impossible for the proposed tram plan to deliver what we actually need across the city, because

it is so costly (despite being a PPP and being the cheapest place to start because there is less land to resume)
its high cost casts serious doubt on any future expansion without begging to the feds (who are likely to say no because IA has already assessed it as unviable)
it can only be done in small portions at a time because of construction costs and time needed, greatly limiting the benefits and causing significant costs and inconvenience to businesses
Canberra’s idiosyncrasies (low density etc) make it different from, e.g., the Gold Coast or Parramatta, and
to rub salt into the wound, the first leg was actually a foolish choice as it will not provide any additional benefit whatsoever to what is already provided by buses.

Further, the government has absolutely no credibility left in the public transport space because it signed away any possibility of clear decision making in exchange for political expediency. The latter does not go down well in a politically savvy city.

You may think older people (who may to may not wear bifocals) are less intelligent and more negative than you, but in actual fact older Canberrans have years of experience often in relevant fields, which makes them wise about this issue. Canberrans *know* stuff – we are actually the smartest constituency in Australia – though I doubt that will stop you scoffing at people who do not agree with you.

I have years of dealing with the “smartest constituency” in Australia and if I am less than circumspect when expressing what I truely think, my posts aren’t posted. Despite the fact that it seems OK for others to say more or less the same thing with whomever they consider not up to the mark intellectually, or are part of some conspiracy to ruin civilisation as we know it, ie driving around angrily in cars.

I don’t have to change the world, the world is changed/changing, just some don’t seem to notice. Both with the way our cities are built and the consequences of our lifestyles both to our lives and our environment. That the “smartest constituency” speaks and acts as if both don’t exist says more about their observational and thinking abilities than I can say that will get me censored.

I observe many things, a lifelong habit. I observe how the precious money we never seem to have for public transport gets squandered on yet more bitumen and concrete eg The new Majura Parkway that slashes through excellent farming land and duplicates an existing road which is still required to get to where you used to go but is actually hindered now by the new Parkway.

The Parkway has destroyed a lovely part of the Majura Pine Plantation where I used to take my kids Mountain biking and has cut close to the excellent Majura Valley Wines. This has been done at huge expense, almost half of what a fully functional Light Rail will cost running from Gungahlin to the City. The stupidity of this road shows no bounds. Due to the need to still get to anything useful along the way, Majura Road still exists with several bridges and underpasses to cross the now impassable Majura Parkway to get to what you used to easily be able to get to on the western side of the Parkway. So at one point there are 4 roads parallel to each other. The old Majura Road, the dual carriageway of the Parkway and a new road of lovely shiny bitumen on the west side of the Parkway.

You would think you can determine the actual purpose of this excessive engineering just by looking at it. Which would seem it is to maximise the amount of road kill. They have radically reduced the chance of any wildlife surviving several roads all closely parallel to each other, and of course that solitary cross on the side of the road which I imagine is not there for the dead Kangaroos that line the roads.

“We currently have” a small but significant city that used to be much smaller (change happens).

“We currently have” a remote suburbia whose MacMansions are so jammed into tiny blocks that they may as well have common walls and certainly do not have the mythical backyard for the kids to play in. All part of a massive Bait and Switch on the Great Australian Dream.

“We currently have” a city whose high rise apartments are growing faster than the rest of the City.

“We currently have” a city which is becoming much more interesting and clever in the heart where it usually happens ie in the high rise areas.

“We currently have” a city with similar density to the Gold Coast which has the first leg of their “impossible” Light Rail and is now going for the second.

“We currently have” yet more remote housing destroying yet more green countryside, yet further from work with yet more cars as the only viable transport method. Cars which will pile up along all the inner roads and into all the existing car parks to make a bad situation massively worse.

“Have we currently” paid any attention at all to my costings for roads and cars? Why are you still claiming the Light Rail is expensive compared with the direct alternative. In fact it is a bargain.

“Have we currently” paid any attention at all to the magic unicorn dust the cars run on and what then subsequently comes out of their exhaust pipes which make that pleasant odour and noise that pervades every corner of Camberra?

Which is your favourite part? The noise the cars make, the pollution, the deaths, the injuries, the bad health, the debt, the green spaces killed, the city divided, the time we spend in them crossing long distances, the dead shopfronts lining the roads, the huge part of our incomes needed to sustain them, the huge amounts of money we send overseas…?

rubaiyat said :

Part of that lifestyle has to be a clean quiet safe sustainable method of getting around.

No, trams are not for “getting around”, they are only for getting from point A to point B and anywhere between. It does not allow the passenger to get away from the condensed mini-city it serves. Buses to and from this area will be necessary, as will cars which you already admitted will not be eliminated from the garages of all the new tram patrons.
If indeed the number of vehicles diminishes from our roads as you so fervently wish, the revenue to fund road maintenance will also plummet. Soon the other 75% of Canberrans who don’t have access to light rail for day to day requirements will have an even more neglected transport system. What do you think will happen to the death toll then, after traffic lights malfunction, street lighting doesn’t work and safety signs aren’t replaced after damage? What about the cost to society for repairs to vehicles, from the myriad of unfilled potholes? What of the political backlash when government is seen to be funneling what is left of transport revenue to the tram, at the expense of the rest of the A.C.T? Surely the bus network will suffer with all this lack of funding. Either that or land rates simply keep going up and drive away all the people the light rail promised to attract.
What cost really, is this model train going to bear on the future generations of our capital city?

Let’s not forget that this “light rail to Russell” is just the Canberra Airport developers getting half the light rail to the airport paid for by the public. Tell Andrew Barr and Simon Corbell to get the Snows to fund their own light rail to their private airport. If it was about getting public servants to work, the light rail would be heading further south, not to a single (albeit large) workplace that doesn’t have “on-travel” options to large worker populations in the south.

rubaiyat said :

Paul2913 said :

Ian said :

Well that completely fails to answer my question. I guess the answer is we have no idea and we’ll worry about that later on, probably when it’s somebody else’s problem.

In asking that question I was more interested in how the government thinks it is going to be able to address NCA concerns (eg it’s ugly, detracts from the national capital characteristics of the area, blah blah blah). I would expect it is eminently technically feasible to get a tram line over a bridge, but how to do it in a way that doesn’t piss off stakeholders like the NCA, like car drivers and others. And then how to get it through the parliamentary zone in Parkes, also in a way that is acceptable to the NCA and other stakeholders.

I’d have thought having at least a fair idea of answers to these, and the costs of doing them is fairly fundamental to planning to get the tram over to the southside, which is fundamental to it being a key part of a city transit system, as opposed to a single isolated (novelty?) line.

If I were the government I’d be damn sure I’d want to know whether a city wide tram system was going to cost me $5b, $10b, $50b or whatever, before spending $1b on one line and then finding taking it any further was unfeasible for whatever reasons or simply unaffordable for the city.

I totally agree Ellen. Without having a decent plan for the future of this project the project should not commence. How the tram progresses to the south of Canberra is essential to the long term viability of this project and the Government seems to have no idea how this will be done.

At the moment we have a tram proposal that will replace a Red Rapid bus route from Gungahlin to the City… and all of a sudden they are suggesting that the tram will be cost-effective where the buses fail. Buses are an essential utility for a sector of our community, so if they make a loss then that’s life – they are required. A tram, that doesn’t have the route flexibility of a bus seems like a total waste of money to me.

What’s more, to help justify the tram, the ACT Government is looking to increase residential congestion along Northbourne Avenue so that more people (potential commuters) are in the tram’s neighbourhood. My issue with this is that Northbourne Avenue is one of the main arteries into our city – we should be reducing congestion along this road not increasing it.

Overall, I think the train proposal suffers from poor planning. Someone in Government missed out on a train set when they were young and are making up for it now.

Firstly we are already spending much more than those figures, which have been plucked from nowhere, every single year on cars. We spend over $4 billion dollars JUST on the cars alone every single year. That does not include the roads, parking and other infrastructure they require, nor the deaths and massive number of serious injuries every single year. Yet another parent has ran over another child in their driveway.

Secondly how can anyone be concerned by a supposedly “ugly” barely there tram when we are surrounded by in your face gross ugliness of cars, traffic jams, concrete lined freeways and roads and massively disgusting car parks, which start off by just parking the cars all over the greenery that once dominated inner Canberra?

Cars have so dominated our lives for so long that the noise, pollution, ugliness and massive scarring they inflict on our cities has become “normal”. We fail to notice them or what they do to us and the place we live.

We haul them round like 2 tonne security blankets. When all we really need is to move is just us, we spend inordinate amounts of time sitting in these things which make it easy to get from A to B (so long as we aren’t all trying to do it at the same time) but in the process ruin A and B and everything in between.

Canberra has grown up. A lot of people haven’t noticed but it is no longer the country bumpkinish teenager playing in the mythical quarter acre block There is now a substantial population, still unfortunately mowing down the countryside whenever it feels like it, but also starting to move into the inner city and beginning to enjoy an inner city lifestyle. Part of that lifestyle has to be a clean quiet safe sustainable method of getting around. Cars are not that. Trams are and are quite liberating for the people who will use them and the city they service. Starting with the inner north. If it extends out from that all the better.

Time to stop playing with the matchbox cars and grow up. Those cars are killing us and our city.

It’s a trade off though. It’s nice to be able to walk to shops, interesting bars and cafes, etc, and to be able to casually invite your dates in “for tea” afterwards ’cause you’re only a short walk away. But apartment living sucks otherwise. Noise through walls, floors, pipes that bang cause the builders cut corners, smoke drifting in from your pothead neighbour, people who can’t close their sliding doors without creating a huge bang that makes you jump, junk dumped in common areas when people move out, I could go on and on. These days I much prefer the mythical quarter acre block (more like 1/8 acre actually), even if it means more driving.

Unfortunately when everyone makes that same life choice you end up with lots of roads and carparks. So I’m happy to see the inner areas densify if that ‘s what people want. Hopefully the new complexes are better built than the older complexes I’ve lived in, which seemed to be made of rendered cardboard. And if trams are so wonderful for the users, why not charge more for tickets? The CMA business case seems to indicate an average of just over $1 per fare, which might be a typo but seems way too low. Would people be willing to pay $4-5 a ride rather than $2.70 for a bus?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Paul2913 said :

What’s more, to help justify the tram, the ACT Government is looking to increase residential congestion along Northbourne Avenue so that more people (potential commuters) are in the tram’s neighbourhood. My issue with this is that Northbourne Avenue is one of the main arteries into our city – we should be reducing congestion along this road not increasing it.

Spot on. All this future business and increased housing along the proposed corridor seems to be a way for the government to justify the construction of the tram, rather than the tram being the solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
With all the extra activity concentrated on a narrow stretch 12km long, will that not surely increase traffic flow rather than reducing it? The whole plan relies on everybody living in the area to take up public transport. It is a big gamble to build something so expensive that relies on changing people’s habits and perceptions, especially when the benefits are not overwhelmingly convincing.

The development is happening along the corridor, light rail or not. In fact much of it has already happened, so the problem does already exist to an extent.

So in some way the government is actually forward planning. You know that thing they get criticised for all the time when they build a single carriageway road to somewhere and everyone says should have done it properly and built it dual carriageway to start with. But of course different rules for roads and public transport.

Now if you object to the re-development of Northborne Ave due to all this congestion it will bring, what is your answer to that congestion, or an alternative location to house these people?

Rubaiyat, one tram line serving one part of Canberra won’t achieve much of that. That’s why I’d have thought it’s important for the government to have a decent idea of how some of the significant problems it will face are likely to be solved, and how much we’re going to be up for to build the city wide system.

At the moment it seems like lets build the first bit, for $1b-ish, then we’ll worry about the rest later, without an idea of whether indeed that is feasible nor whether its a $10b, or $50b investment.

My suspicion is that the goverment will be happy to tick the box saying “yep, light rail achieved” with the one line down Northbourne Ave, and it will never be extended beyond that.

Rubaiyat the inner city lifestyle only suits certain demographics. I like many others lived the city apartment lifestyle when I was young and single, and even for a while when I was newly married, but it was so unsatisfactory once children were on the scene that we were glad to move back to Canberra and its fabulous, quintessential suburbia, which we still celebrate and love. As do most Canberrans, as evidenced by the market for detached dwellings in Canberra despite being overpriced.
Unfortunately large parts of Gungahlin, which may ostensibly appear to have a smaller footprint, ironically has loads of black roofs and there is not even room to grow a shade tree. Here in suburbia my power bills are actually very low because I have room for a microclimate and can grow my own food sustainably.
I get that you are keen to change Canberra. Sure we all would like to change the world to fit our own ideals, but to change things one must accept and understand where we are now. We currently have a low density city that needs significantly improved public transport across the whole city, as soon as possible, to get people out of their cars more often. While trams ‘seem’ cool, it is impossible for the proposed tram plan to deliver what we actually need across the city, because

it is so costly (despite being a PPP and being the cheapest place to start because there is less land to resume)
its high cost casts serious doubt on any future expansion without begging to the feds (who are likely to say no because IA has already assessed it as unviable)
it can only be done in small portions at a time because of construction costs and time needed, greatly limiting the benefits and causing significant costs and inconvenience to businesses
Canberra’s idiosyncrasies (low density etc) make it different from, e.g., the Gold Coast or Parramatta, and
to rub salt into the wound, the first leg was actually a foolish choice as it will not provide any additional benefit whatsoever to what is already provided by buses.

Further, the government has absolutely no credibility left in the public transport space because it signed away any possibility of clear decision making in exchange for political expediency. The latter does not go down well in a politically savvy city.

You may think older people (who may to may not wear bifocals) are less intelligent and more negative than you, but in actual fact older Canberrans have years of experience often in relevant fields, which makes them wise about this issue. Canberrans *know* stuff – we are actually the smartest constituency in Australia – though I doubt that will stop you scoffing at people who do not agree with you.

Paul2913 said :

What’s more, to help justify the tram, the ACT Government is looking to increase residential congestion along Northbourne Avenue so that more people (potential commuters) are in the tram’s neighbourhood. My issue with this is that Northbourne Avenue is one of the main arteries into our city – we should be reducing congestion along this road not increasing it.

Spot on. All this future business and increased housing along the proposed corridor seems to be a way for the government to justify the construction of the tram, rather than the tram being the solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
With all the extra activity concentrated on a narrow stretch 12km long, will that not surely increase traffic flow rather than reducing it? The whole plan relies on everybody living in the area to take up public transport. It is a big gamble to build something so expensive that relies on changing people’s habits and perceptions, especially when the benefits are not overwhelmingly convincing.

Paul2913 said :

Ian said :

Well that completely fails to answer my question. I guess the answer is we have no idea and we’ll worry about that later on, probably when it’s somebody else’s problem.

In asking that question I was more interested in how the government thinks it is going to be able to address NCA concerns (eg it’s ugly, detracts from the national capital characteristics of the area, blah blah blah). I would expect it is eminently technically feasible to get a tram line over a bridge, but how to do it in a way that doesn’t piss off stakeholders like the NCA, like car drivers and others. And then how to get it through the parliamentary zone in Parkes, also in a way that is acceptable to the NCA and other stakeholders.

I’d have thought having at least a fair idea of answers to these, and the costs of doing them is fairly fundamental to planning to get the tram over to the southside, which is fundamental to it being a key part of a city transit system, as opposed to a single isolated (novelty?) line.

If I were the government I’d be damn sure I’d want to know whether a city wide tram system was going to cost me $5b, $10b, $50b or whatever, before spending $1b on one line and then finding taking it any further was unfeasible for whatever reasons or simply unaffordable for the city.

I totally agree Ellen. Without having a decent plan for the future of this project the project should not commence. How the tram progresses to the south of Canberra is essential to the long term viability of this project and the Government seems to have no idea how this will be done.

At the moment we have a tram proposal that will replace a Red Rapid bus route from Gungahlin to the City… and all of a sudden they are suggesting that the tram will be cost-effective where the buses fail. Buses are an essential utility for a sector of our community, so if they make a loss then that’s life – they are required. A tram, that doesn’t have the route flexibility of a bus seems like a total waste of money to me.

What’s more, to help justify the tram, the ACT Government is looking to increase residential congestion along Northbourne Avenue so that more people (potential commuters) are in the tram’s neighbourhood. My issue with this is that Northbourne Avenue is one of the main arteries into our city – we should be reducing congestion along this road not increasing it.

Overall, I think the train proposal suffers from poor planning. Someone in Government missed out on a train set when they were young and are making up for it now.

Firstly we are already spending much more than those figures, which have been plucked from nowhere, every single year on cars. We spend over $4 billion dollars JUST on the cars alone every single year. That does not include the roads, parking and other infrastructure they require, nor the deaths and massive number of serious injuries every single year. Yet another parent has ran over another child in their driveway.

Secondly how can anyone be concerned by a supposedly “ugly” barely there tram when we are surrounded by in your face gross ugliness of cars, traffic jams, concrete lined freeways and roads and massively disgusting car parks, which start off by just parking the cars all over the greenery that once dominated inner Canberra?

Cars have so dominated our lives for so long that the noise, pollution, ugliness and massive scarring they inflict on our cities has become “normal”. We fail to notice them or what they do to us and the place we live.

We haul them round like 2 tonne security blankets. When all we really need is to move is just us, we spend inordinate amounts of time sitting in these things which make it easy to get from A to B (so long as we aren’t all trying to do it at the same time) but in the process ruin A and B and everything in between.

Canberra has grown up. A lot of people haven’t noticed but it is no longer the country bumpkinish teenager playing in the mythical quarter acre block There is now a substantial population, still unfortunately mowing down the countryside whenever it feels like it, but also starting to move into the inner city and beginning to enjoy an inner city lifestyle. Part of that lifestyle has to be a clean quiet safe sustainable method of getting around. Cars are not that. Trams are and are quite liberating for the people who will use them and the city they service. Starting with the inner north. If it extends out from that all the better.

Time to stop playing with the matchbox cars and grow up. Those cars are killing us and our city.

OpenYourMind said :

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

rubaiyat said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

All this talk of adding another route to what is already a flawed and unaffordable concept has been enough to make me decide to join canthetram.org

Both of you will be very happy together

What ironic names some posters have here! 🙂

Open and shut, shortly after.

rubaiyat said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

All this talk of adding another route to what is already a flawed and unaffordable concept has been enough to make me decide to join canthetram.org

Both of you will be very happy together

What ironic names some posters have here! 🙂

Open and shut, shortly after.

I’m very open minded. Even caught the light rail when I stayed on the Gold Coast a few months ago. I’ve also used light rail across the world and lived in Europe. I still think a tram for Canberra is a cr*p idea. I’m open minded enough to embrace new and exciting technology that will make trams with wires look like the century old solution it is. I, like other practically minded people, recognise Canberra is not Vienna and has a low population density and a relatively successful current and long term road system and a bus system that does its best to service the low density (something a tram won’t do).

It doesn’t have to be Vienna. Norrköping, a Swedish city around 1/3 of Canberra’s size, has well-patronised light rail network with two lines and trains running every 10 minutes.

gazket said :

Light rail is for suits and shiny bums only. No light rail will work for the average man.

It will work for the fare evaders too.

gazket said :

Light rail is for suits and shiny bums only. No light rail will work for the average man.

It will work for the average woman though!

Ian said :

Well that completely fails to answer my question. I guess the answer is we have no idea and we’ll worry about that later on, probably when it’s somebody else’s problem.

In asking that question I was more interested in how the government thinks it is going to be able to address NCA concerns (eg it’s ugly, detracts from the national capital characteristics of the area, blah blah blah). I would expect it is eminently technically feasible to get a tram line over a bridge, but how to do it in a way that doesn’t piss off stakeholders like the NCA, like car drivers and others. And then how to get it through the parliamentary zone in Parkes, also in a way that is acceptable to the NCA and other stakeholders.

I’d have thought having at least a fair idea of answers to these, and the costs of doing them is fairly fundamental to planning to get the tram over to the southside, which is fundamental to it being a key part of a city transit system, as opposed to a single isolated (novelty?) line.

If I were the government I’d be damn sure I’d want to know whether a city wide tram system was going to cost me $5b, $10b, $50b or whatever, before spending $1b on one line and then finding taking it any further was unfeasible for whatever reasons or simply unaffordable for the city.

I totally agree Ellen. Without having a decent plan for the future of this project the project should not commence. How the tram progresses to the south of Canberra is essential to the long term viability of this project and the Government seems to have no idea how this will be done.

At the moment we have a tram proposal that will replace a Red Rapid bus route from Gungahlin to the City… and all of a sudden they are suggesting that the tram will be cost-effective where the buses fail. Buses are an essential utility for a sector of our community, so if they make a loss then that’s life – they are required. A tram, that doesn’t have the route flexibility of a bus seems like a total waste of money to me.

What’s more, to help justify the tram, the ACT Government is looking to increase residential congestion along Northbourne Avenue so that more people (potential commuters) are in the tram’s neighbourhood. My issue with this is that Northbourne Avenue is one of the main arteries into our city – we should be reducing congestion along this road not increasing it.

Overall, I think the train proposal suffers from poor planning. Someone in Government missed out on a train set when they were young and are making up for it now.

Light rail is for suits and shiny bums only. No light rail will work for the average man.

Ellen Harvey said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

We received a response from Minister Corbell regarding the above question. The response is pasted below:

The Capital Metro Agency is primarily focussed on the planning, design and delivery of stage one between Gungahlin and the City, however, as part of the ACT Government’s commitment to deliver a city-wide light rail network, an extension option from the City through to Russell has been included in the stage one procurement process and the two shortlisted consortia have submitted proposals that include this option. This decision responds to strong business and community support for a light rail extension to Russell.

When evaluating the bids to select a preferred consortium, the ACT Government will decide whether including the extension to Russell is a strong investment decision. From Russell we would be perfectly placed to extend to other key parts of our city, including the airport, the parliamentary triangle and other destinations south of the lake.

In addition to the work being done to assess the feasibility of an extension of stage one to Russell, the Environment and Planning Directorate continues to work on the development of the Light Rail Master Plan which examines options for a future light rail network on key transit corridors within Canberra. The plan will guide the delivery of a city-wide integrated public transport network. Detailed considerations of the engineering feasibility and costs of light rail crossing the lake will be completed to inform the finalisation of the final light rail master plan. The ACT Government will need to work closely with the National Capital Authority on developing this option.

Well that completely fails to answer my question. I guess the answer is we have no idea and we’ll worry about that later on, probably when it’s somebody else’s problem.

In asking that question I was more interested in how the government thinks it is going to be able to address NCA concerns (eg it’s ugly, detracts from the national capital characteristics of the area, blah blah blah). I would expect it is eminently technically feasible to get a tram line over a bridge, but how to do it in a way that doesn’t piss off stakeholders like the NCA, like car drivers and others. And then how to get it through the parliamentary zone in Parkes, also in a way that is acceptable to the NCA and other stakeholders.

I’d have thought having at least a fair idea of answers to these, and the costs of doing them is fairly fundamental to planning to get the tram over to the southside, which is fundamental to it being a key part of a city transit system, as opposed to a single isolated (novelty?) line.

If I were the government I’d be damn sure I’d want to know whether a city wide tram system was going to cost me $5b, $10b, $50b or whatever, before spending $1b on one line and then finding taking it any further was unfeasible for whatever reasons or simply unaffordable for the city.

rubaiyat said :

Eggs_from_onions said :

Some ideas on this thread describe the concept of “build it and they will come” –

Like Canberra? Like Gungahlin?

btw

Population of Queanbeyan 37,991, Pop. density 210/km.

Population of Gungahlin 46,971 to rise to 60,000 by 2016, Pop. current density 519/km.

There already exists a rail line between Queanbeyan and Kingston, unfortunately not from the heart of Queanbeyan to the heart of Canberra. Two governments running a project will simplify it seems unlikely.

What about Canberra? Where did the idea of Canberra come from?

After some time, each of the new state governments committed to the idea of Canberra as the Commonwealths’ national capitol as the concept of federation came into being. It was the will of communities that empowered governments to develop the city as the national seat of parliament. Value was not based on developers ideals, rather on the expressed need of the Australian people.

Governments do work together as the boundaries and constraints are conceived only – if there is a will there is a way. Comment such as “two governments running a project will simplify it seems unlikely” is cynically hiding behind a suggestion of dysfunction. A sound program will stand on merit and the will of the community it affects. Politics is seperate from the discussion.

On the establishment of the national capitol, light rail was envisioned and proposed as the X plan – Tharwa to Queanbeyan & Williamsdale to Hall. Time has certainly moved on from that proposal as Tralee never eventuated and the airport has now become a greater concern (athough Jerrabomberra has developed).

As Canberra grows, so does our region. Tharwa seems a future ideal as the Murrumbidgee will need to be crossed at some point if there be ongoing demand to have choice for “sustainable communities” and “high density developments” tied to our workplaces. Light rail may go further to Yass and alleviate the commute along the Barton Highway for those working in Canberra – the commodity being transported today is people, not grain, wool, cattle or timber. It is true that those “outside” of Canberra are not ratepayers however are contributors and consumers of “our” services – even “our” water. Broader thinking and broader contribution may go further to inspire appropriate funding for a viable regional transport network other than roads if that is what people truely want.

Kings avenue bridge was designed to leave enough space for future public transport between the roads, and it would easily support the weight of a tram on the existing spans. It will probably need new pylons to be dropped into the lake, but that’s not rocket science. You can’t easily just sling the rail line between the existing spans, because that loads the beams in torsion, which they are not designed for.

This design would be very suitable to carry the trams over LBG.
The transit hipsters would love the challenge of balancing their lattes in one hand and holding the grab bar with the other.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1398508

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

RadioVK said :

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

Only a damn fool would notice the large loaded trucks, including cement trucks full of wet cement, that cross both bridges regularly each weighing more than any tram weighs and with the load less evenly spread.

But I get where you are coming from, and that doesn’t fit your agenda.

And as has been noted here previously, the bridges were load tested when they were constructed, which usually consists of parking as many full dump trucks on them as can fit. The real problem is all the “damn fools” who have no idea how anything is done or works but keep interjecting anyway.

I like to hear other opinions. Lately, you seem to dominate most threads. We all know where you are coming from.

“I like to hear other opinions.”

Okay, as requested. Like a lot of people smothered by the organised vocal Canthetram group, or whatever they are called, I am very much in favour of the tram. There…another opinion.

Most contributors to this blog who oppose the tram project were doing so long before the Can The Tram group (or whatever they were called) started their campaign.
Come to think of it, you only appeared on this blog recently and most of your comments have be pro-tram.
As I said earlier, we know where you are coming from – toot toot!

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

Well, I am only going on my experience in planning logistics to move personnel and materiel. My bosses really, really like it when ideas are based on evidence and testing. But, if you can take a look at the thin air between two bridges and confidently predict the load carrying capacity, fill your boots.

Two simple spans. Even if they were only the same as the existing structures, you may as well be asking if the bridges can support the weight of Double B trucks, which weigh considerably more than trams when loaded. Which obviously they can, because they do.

But oddly your hesitant doubt doesn’t stretch to roads or what runs on those, only Light Rail.

Sigh. OK, try this test.
Pick up an apple between your thumb and forefinger. Now hold it close to your body near your navel. Simple huh? Like, I could hold this here all day.
Now extend your arm at right angles from your body. As far as you can. Make sure the apple is between your thumb and forefinger. Try that for four hours and see if it is the same. The apple’s the same mass, but it feels different because … sciencey.

Its a moot point anyway, Kings Ave would have about 100 metres, with about 4 pylons and heaps of room between road surfaces. No biggie, first year project stuff.

chewy14 said :

Although I agree with your general point here be careful with those figures. Firstly the population figures are old and secondly, those density figures for Queanbeyan are for the whole city area which includes vast tracts of so far undeveloped land which artificially lowers the figure. The density figure for the central city area of Queanbeyan is much higher.

2011 was the last census and I’ll put money on Gungahlin growing faster than Queanbeyan, whose growth way out at Googong and Jerrabombera is not helping their density figures.

There is no higher density accomodation in Queanbeyan that I know of, certainly none to compare with Gungahlin’s.

rubaiyat said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

Well, I am only going on my experience in planning logistics to move personnel and materiel. My bosses really, really like it when ideas are based on evidence and testing. But, if you can take a look at the thin air between two bridges and confidently predict the load carrying capacity, fill your boots.

Two simple spans. Even if they were only the same as the existing structures, you may as well be asking if the bridges can support the weight of Double B trucks, which weigh considerably more than trams when loaded. Which obviously they can, because they do.

But oddly your hesitant doubt doesn’t stretch to roads or what runs on those, only Light Rail.

Sigh. OK, try this test.
Pick up an apple between your thumb and forefinger. Now hold it close to your body near your navel. Simple huh? Like, I could hold this here all day.
Now extend your arm at right angles from your body. As far as you can. Make sure the apple is between your thumb and forefinger. Try that for four hours and see if it is the same. The apple’s the same mass, but it feels different because … sciencey.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

There was even a suggestion that Simon Corbell would make the ACT light rail network a different rail gauge to ensure there would not be any opportuinty to “marry” the existing standard gauge from Kingston and Queanbeyan and beyond.

Suggestion by whom? You?

It was reported on another thread on this blog a while ago.

http://region.com.au/canberra-railway-station/118209
Post # 19

rubaiyat said :

RadioVK said :

rubaiyat said :

RadioVK said :

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

Only a damn fool would notice the large loaded trucks, including cement trucks full of wet cement, that cross both bridges regularly each weighing more than any tram weighs and with the load less evenly spread.

But I get where you are coming from, and that doesn’t fit your agenda.

And as has been noted here previously, the bridges were load tested when they were constructed, which usually consists of parking as many full dump trucks on them as can fit. The real problem is all the “damn fools” who have no idea how anything is done or works but keep interjecting anyway.

I’ll certainly admit that I’m no structural engineer, which is why I’d be sure to seek the advice of someone who is before making broad assumptions about what is and isn’t possible if I were the one planning the project. Particularly if I was planning to locate the tracks between the bridge spans as opposed to on them.

I’m not saying that the light rail can’t or shouldn’t go across the existing bridges, only that the plan shouldn’t be based on the assumption that they can.

As for my “agenda”, given this is the only comment I’ve made on this site in regards to light rail, I’d be fascinated to know how you are so sure what does and doesn’t fit my agenda.

You have made two presumptions.

1. That the bridges can’t take the load, simple observation shows that to be obviously false.

2. That no-one will actually do the full engineering due diligence when it comes to laying actual track.

Wrong on both counts I’m afraid. I’m not presuming anything. That’s exactly my point.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

RadioVK said :

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

Only a damn fool would notice the large loaded trucks, including cement trucks full of wet cement, that cross both bridges regularly each weighing more than any tram weighs and with the load less evenly spread.

But I get where you are coming from, and that doesn’t fit your agenda.

And as has been noted here previously, the bridges were load tested when they were constructed, which usually consists of parking as many full dump trucks on them as can fit. The real problem is all the “damn fools” who have no idea how anything is done or works but keep interjecting anyway.

I like to hear other opinions. Lately, you seem to dominate most threads. We all know where you are coming from.

“I like to hear other opinions.”

Okay, as requested. Like a lot of people smothered by the organised vocal Canthetram group, or whatever they are called, I am very much in favour of the tram. There…another opinion.

rubaiyat said :

Eggs_from_onions said :

Some ideas on this thread describe the concept of “build it and they will come” –

Like Canberra? Like Gungahlin?

btw

Population of Queanbeyan 37,991, Pop. density 210/km.

Population of Gungahlin 46,971 to rise to 60,000 by 2016, Pop. current density 519/km.

There already exists a rail line between Queanbeyan and Kingston, unfortunately not from the heart of Queanbeyan to the heart of Canberra. Two governments running a project will simplify it seems unlikely.

Although I agree with your general point here be careful with those figures. Firstly the population figures are old and secondly, those density figures for Queanbeyan are for the whole city area which includes vast tracts of so far undeveloped land which artificially lowers the figure. The density figure for the central city area of Queanbeyan is much higher.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

RadioVK said :

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

Only a damn fool would notice the large loaded trucks, including cement trucks full of wet cement, that cross both bridges regularly each weighing more than any tram weighs and with the load less evenly spread.

But I get where you are coming from, and that doesn’t fit your agenda.

And as has been noted here previously, the bridges were load tested when they were constructed, which usually consists of parking as many full dump trucks on them as can fit. The real problem is all the “damn fools” who have no idea how anything is done or works but keep interjecting anyway.

I like to hear other opinions. Lately, you seem to dominate most threads. We all know where you are coming from.

The research Dept.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

There was even a suggestion that Simon Corbell would make the ACT light rail network a different rail gauge to ensure there would not be any opportuinty to “marry” the existing standard gauge from Kingston and Queanbeyan and beyond.

Suggestion by whom? You?

It was reported on another thread on this blog a while ago.

rubaiyat said :

RadioVK said :

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

Only a damn fool would notice the large loaded trucks, including cement trucks full of wet cement, that cross both bridges regularly each weighing more than any tram weighs and with the load less evenly spread.

But I get where you are coming from, and that doesn’t fit your agenda.

And as has been noted here previously, the bridges were load tested when they were constructed, which usually consists of parking as many full dump trucks on them as can fit. The real problem is all the “damn fools” who have no idea how anything is done or works but keep interjecting anyway.

I like to hear other opinions. Lately, you seem to dominate most threads. We all know where you are coming from.

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

Well, I am only going on my experience in planning logistics to move personnel and materiel. My bosses really, really like it when ideas are based on evidence and testing. But, if you can take a look at the thin air between two bridges and confidently predict the load carrying capacity, fill your boots.

Two simple spans. Even if they were only the same as the existing structures, you may as well be asking if the bridges can support the weight of Double B trucks, which weigh considerably more than trams when loaded. Which obviously they can, because they do.

But oddly your hesitant doubt doesn’t stretch to roads or what runs on those, only Light Rail.

dungfungus said :

There was even a suggestion that Simon Corbell would make the ACT light rail network a different rail gauge to ensure there would not be any opportuinty to “marry” the existing standard gauge from Kingston and Queanbeyan and beyond.

Suggestion by whom? You?

RadioVK said :

rubaiyat said :

RadioVK said :

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

Only a damn fool would notice the large loaded trucks, including cement trucks full of wet cement, that cross both bridges regularly each weighing more than any tram weighs and with the load less evenly spread.

But I get where you are coming from, and that doesn’t fit your agenda.

And as has been noted here previously, the bridges were load tested when they were constructed, which usually consists of parking as many full dump trucks on them as can fit. The real problem is all the “damn fools” who have no idea how anything is done or works but keep interjecting anyway.

I’ll certainly admit that I’m no structural engineer, which is why I’d be sure to seek the advice of someone who is before making broad assumptions about what is and isn’t possible if I were the one planning the project. Particularly if I was planning to locate the tracks between the bridge spans as opposed to on them.

I’m not saying that the light rail can’t or shouldn’t go across the existing bridges, only that the plan shouldn’t be based on the assumption that they can.

As for my “agenda”, given this is the only comment I’ve made on this site in regards to light rail, I’d be fascinated to know how you are so sure what does and doesn’t fit my agenda.

You have made two presumptions.

1. That the bridges can’t take the load, simple observation shows that to be obviously false.

2. That no-one will actually do the full engineering due diligence when it comes to laying actual track.

rubaiyat said :

RadioVK said :

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

Only a damn fool would notice the large loaded trucks, including cement trucks full of wet cement, that cross both bridges regularly each weighing more than any tram weighs and with the load less evenly spread.

But I get where you are coming from, and that doesn’t fit your agenda.

And as has been noted here previously, the bridges were load tested when they were constructed, which usually consists of parking as many full dump trucks on them as can fit. The real problem is all the “damn fools” who have no idea how anything is done or works but keep interjecting anyway.

I’ll certainly admit that I’m no structural engineer, which is why I’d be sure to seek the advice of someone who is before making broad assumptions about what is and isn’t possible if I were the one planning the project. Particularly if I was planning to locate the tracks between the bridge spans as opposed to on them.

I’m not saying that the light rail can’t or shouldn’t go across the existing bridges, only that the plan shouldn’t be based on the assumption that they can.

As for my “agenda”, given this is the only comment I’ve made on this site in regards to light rail, I’d be fascinated to know how you are so sure what does and doesn’t fit my agenda.

Eggs_from_onions said :

Some ideas on this thread describe the concept of “build it and they will come” – bring in the developer dollars along our uncluttered avenues and corridores. Is that truely the ideal of value? should community endorsement be the singular view and driver for value? Canberra is a regional city and reflects all of the surounding communities – small thinking does not cut the mustard for connected communities.

Why not start from Queanbeyan to the airport and then the city? Set maintenance facities and workshops in NSW and share the cost of development to a broader base. It will further provide an appropriate location for light industry start ups other than Fyshwick, Hume or Exhibition Park…

Shane Rattenbury said in a press release titled “Shane Rattenbury rules out light rail between Queanbeyan and Canberra” published in the CT 3rd October 2015 that “cross border issues were difficult to tackle”.
Only a couple of years ago the was much hoopla and smiling photos when then Chief Minister Katy Gallagher signed a cross-border cooperation understanding to make it easy to develop regional projects.
There was even a suggestion that Simon Corbell would make the ACT light rail network a different rail gauge to ensure there would not be any opportuinty to “marry” the existing standard gauge from Kingston and Queanbeyan and beyond.

HiddenDragon said :

From a review of that excellent reality TV series, Utopia:

“Utopia – in which white elephants are passed off as nation-building – is significant. Satire is revealing because, as the 18th century historian Edward Gibbon pointed out, it is funny only when the audience knows it to be true”

How is that other white elephant, Canberra going so far?

The engineer who built the Kalgoorlie Water Pipeline, was hounded to suicide. Nobody had ever built such a long pipeline before. Certainly not between Perth and Kalgoorlie.

Jørn Utzon was railroaded out of Australia by the Liberals. Nobody had ever built the Sydney Opera House before. Certainly not in Sydney.

The current Gold Coast LNP Lord Mayor was totally against the Gold Coast Light Rail. Now he is in power and it is built, he is all for it.

For those who can imagine nothing, nothing is possible unless it has been done before. Well news just in, Light Rail has been done MANY times before.

White elephants are extremely rare, perhaps it is pink elephants you think you are seeing.

Eggs_from_onions said :

Some ideas on this thread describe the concept of “build it and they will come” –

Like Canberra? Like Gungahlin?

btw

Population of Queanbeyan 37,991, Pop. density 210/km.

Population of Gungahlin 46,971 to rise to 60,000 by 2016, Pop. current density 519/km.

There already exists a rail line between Queanbeyan and Kingston, unfortunately not from the heart of Queanbeyan to the heart of Canberra. Two governments running a project will simplify it seems unlikely.

Some ideas on this thread describe the concept of “build it and they will come” – bring in the developer dollars along our uncluttered avenues and corridores. Is that truely the ideal of value? should community endorsement be the singular view and driver for value? Canberra is a regional city and reflects all of the surounding communities – small thinking does not cut the mustard for connected communities.

Why not start from Queanbeyan to the airport and then the city? Set maintenance facities and workshops in NSW and share the cost of development to a broader base. It will further provide an appropriate location for light industry start ups other than Fyshwick, Hume or Exhibition Park…

Postalgeek said :

When evaluating the bids to select a preferred consortium, the ACT Government will decide whether including the extension to Russell is a strong investment decision. From Russell we would be perfectly placed to extend to other key parts of our city, including the airport, the parliamentary triangle and other destinations south of the lake.

So if they do manage to cross the lake, are they saying that anyone travelling from the north to parliamentary triangle will have to dogleg it over to Russell in order to cross the lake?

most likely to Russell and past the airport cross a narrow part of the Molonglo river into Fyshwick then Kinston and the Triangle. Toot Toot.

rubaiyat said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

Well, I am only going on my experience in planning logistics to move personnel and materiel. My bosses really, really like it when ideas are based on evidence and testing. But, if you can take a look at the thin air between two bridges and confidently predict the load carrying capacity, fill your boots.

From a review of that excellent reality TV series, Utopia:

“Utopia – in which white elephants are passed off as nation-building – is significant. Satire is revealing because, as the 18th century historian Edward Gibbon pointed out, it is funny only when the audience knows it to be true”

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

rubaiyat said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

All this talk of adding another route to what is already a flawed and unaffordable concept has been enough to make me decide to join canthetram.org

Both of you will be very happy together

What ironic names some posters have here! 🙂

Open and shut, shortly after.

rubaiyat said :

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

All this talk of adding another route to what is already a flawed and unaffordable concept has been enough to make me decide to join canthetram.org

Both of you will be very happy together

What ironic names some posters have here! 🙂

Open and shut, shortly after.

I’m very open minded. Even caught the light rail when I stayed on the Gold Coast a few months ago. I’ve also used light rail across the world and lived in Europe. I still think a tram for Canberra is a cr*p idea. I’m open minded enough to embrace new and exciting technology that will make trams with wires look like the century old solution it is. I, like other practically minded people, recognise Canberra is not Vienna and has a low population density and a relatively successful current and long term road system and a bus system that does its best to service the low density (something a tram won’t do).

RadioVK said :

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

Only a damn fool would notice the large loaded trucks, including cement trucks full of wet cement, that cross both bridges regularly each weighing more than any tram weighs and with the load less evenly spread.

But I get where you are coming from, and that doesn’t fit your agenda.

And as has been noted here previously, the bridges were load tested when they were constructed, which usually consists of parking as many full dump trucks on them as can fit. The real problem is all the “damn fools” who have no idea how anything is done or works but keep interjecting anyway.

RadioVK said :

rubaiyat said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

Consider that when the Commonwealth Avenue bridge was built B Double articulated trucks were not even conceived yet toady dozens of them pass over the bridge.
An engineer who worked on the construction of that bridge told me that the axle loadings for a tram are less than those on a B Double so the bridge will have the integrity to carry the trams and the rails that will be embedded in the exiting roadway. A third rail may be a problem however, so, given that the NCA will not allow overhead wiring to power the trams crossing the lake, they will have to be battery powered or fitted with supercapacictors ON ALL TRAMS which will increase their price and curtail their range and use of HIVAC.
It may be a bridge too far, even the visionary Capital Metro Minister.

RadioVK said :

rubaiyat said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

The light rail is exactly that, I have almost zero doubt that they can use the existing bridges. The difficult thing may be the technology used for the tram and the construction cost. I wonder what the NCA would think of a centenary system over the lake.

RadioVK said :

rubaiyat said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

Given they would know exactly what was in those piers and that 50 years ago they managed to send a man to the moon, I’m thinking that the sciencey people might be able to work something out.

Yes Eggs from Onions, a light rail route including the airport would have been a far more useful and viable ‘first leg’ than the Gunners to Civic commuter route, which is already far better serviced by existing buses than the light rail will ever be able to achieve.

rubaiyat said :

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

You’re assuming that the bridges can support the extra load, but that may not be the case. Admittedly, given when they were built, they probably can. The key word here is “probably”.

Only a damn fool would plan a project around the assumption that the bridges will “probably” be strong enough.

All well and good to think inside the square – how about further linking the tram from the airport to Queanbeyan? Consider the regional funding deal from NSW government and the Feds might also kick in as national infrastructure…

Might even hit another electorate.

A fair and simple question from Ian, totally unanswered by Corbell’s office.

We keep hearing that the tram is not just for Northsiders and will be able to extend to the Parliamentary Triangle, Woden and beyond in years/decades/centuries to come. But no-one can even reasonably suggest how, or at what cost.

The existing Commonwealth Ave or Kings Ave bridges would need to have an existing lane or lanes removed for general traffic, if they could even be used for a purpose for which they were not engineered. Or would it require a whole new bridge over the lake, with all the planning and construction delays and costs that would add?

When evaluating the bids to select a preferred consortium, the ACT Government will decide whether including the extension to Russell is a strong investment decision. From Russell we would be perfectly placed to extend to other key parts of our city, including the airport, the parliamentary triangle and other destinations south of the lake.

So if they do manage to cross the lake, are they saying that anyone travelling from the north to parliamentary triangle will have to dogleg it over to Russell in order to cross the lake?

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

We received a response from Minister Corbell regarding the above question. The response is pasted below:

The Capital Metro Agency is primarily focussed on the planning, design and delivery of stage one between Gungahlin and the City, however, as part of the ACT Government’s commitment to deliver a city-wide light rail network, an extension option from the City through to Russell has been included in the stage one procurement process and the two shortlisted consortia have submitted proposals that include this option. This decision responds to strong business and community support for a light rail extension to Russell.

When evaluating the bids to select a preferred consortium, the ACT Government will decide whether including the extension to Russell is a strong investment decision. From Russell we would be perfectly placed to extend to other key parts of our city, including the airport, the parliamentary triangle and other destinations south of the lake.

In addition to the work being done to assess the feasibility of an extension of stage one to Russell, the Environment and Planning Directorate continues to work on the development of the Light Rail Master Plan which examines options for a future light rail network on key transit corridors within Canberra. The plan will guide the delivery of a city-wide integrated public transport network. Detailed considerations of the engineering feasibility and costs of light rail crossing the lake will be completed to inform the finalisation of the final light rail master plan. The ACT Government will need to work closely with the National Capital Authority on developing this option.

rosscoact said :

OpenYourMind said :

All this talk of adding another route to what is already a flawed and unaffordable concept has been enough to make me decide to join canthetram.org

Both of you will be very happy together

What ironic names some posters have here! 🙂

Open and shut, shortly after.

OpenYourMind said :

All this talk of adding another route to what is already a flawed and unaffordable concept has been enough to make me decide to join canthetram.org

Both of you will be very happy together

tuco said :

rubaiyat said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Really? Two concrete bridges that can easily support Light Rail and a gap between easily wide enough for two tracks?

But maybe you would like to explain what exactly it is you don’t understand. Not all of it of course. there is only so much space in this forum.

gooterz said :

So 25 minutes from Gungahlin to civic, would make it almost an hour to Russel.

“strong investment decision” Why is stage 2 people picked as an investment decision when stage 1 was a clear pork barrel?

Light rail between Manuka and civic makes more sense. Then if people want to go out drinking and make a night of it they can have the selection of Manuka for dinner and civic for drinks after.

Going out for a drink is one of the few actual reasons many will use light rail.

Is city to the lake still a thing?

I agree that the objective should be the Parliamentary Triangle and the Kingston/Manuka area. The Parliamentary Triangle has most of the tourist attractions, Kingston has the foreshore, restaurants, higher density apartments and the railway. Manuka has the oval, shops and restaurants.

We do however hit the eternal problem of the bad inconsistent planning in Canberra where so much is oddly located, so far apart.

But we can fill in the gaps, and will.

Russell will add a lot of commuters to the Light Rail and makes sense. The route along Constitution Ave passes the Convention Centre, Glebe Park, the CIT, Anzac Parade leading up to the War Memorial and several other tourist attractions. It is also ripe for densification and new office buildings its entire length so Light Rail will be formative.

So many here can’t see past the ends of their noses except to peer over their bifocals and object, but there is no doubt that once you open the length of the route from Gungahlin to Russell and then cross the lake to Inner South with clean, quiet regular transport, you are going to get development blossom all along the way. The developers are already salivating. I can’t see them supporting the Liberals on this one, despite their personal prejudices.

That is going to change Canberra and is what is at the heart of the objections from people who don’t want change. They are already having to pretend extremely hard that the inevitable change is not happening, this is change they can actually try and stop.

Too many people feel that if someone else gets something, that it is being taken away from them, leading to howls of outrage. The dog in the manger!

Wow! Does it howl and howl and howl and howl…

gooterz said :

So 25 minutes from Gungahlin to civic, would make it almost an hour to Russel.

“strong investment decision” Why is stage 2 people picked as an investment decision when stage 1 was a clear pork barrel?

Hardly a pork barrel when there is no votes to be gained and plenty to be lost elsewhere.

Simple fact is of all possible routes in the ACT the Gungahlin route IS the most logical and the one route that could well justify the investment and lead to a change in the way people live and get around.

All this talk of adding another route to what is already a flawed and unaffordable concept has been enough to make me decide to join canthetram.org

Am I the only pork hunt who can see that beyond Russell lies the airport? Your council (I live in NSW) simply seeks to give the residents of hideous Gungahlin* an avenue to escape their woes via the CIA.
* Remember Nullarbor Avenue? Definition of Avenue being “tree lined street”.

So 25 minutes from Gungahlin to civic, would make it almost an hour to Russel.

“strong investment decision” Why is stage 2 people picked as an investment decision when stage 1 was a clear pork barrel?

Light rail between Manuka and civic makes more sense. Then if people want to go out drinking and make a night of it they can have the selection of Manuka for dinner and civic for drinks after.

Going out for a drink is one of the few actual reasons many will use light rail.

Is city to the lake still a thing?

“The ACT Government has sent a strong message to the anti-light rail lobby today by announcing it will lodge a development application for the optional extension to Russell….”

There may have been more information in later updates today, but as of this morning’s news reports, the strong message did not include even an estimate of the (financial) cost of the extension.

rubaiyat said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

I’m not sure that’s how engineering works. It’s a bit more sciencey …..

Citizen Phil said :

Between the existing carriageway on the Commonwealth Avenue bridge would be the logical place

Between the bridges is thin air unless I’m thinking about different bridges on a different lake. Solid place for this government to start all it’s policies it seems.

If you put a beam between pylons it ceases to become thin air. Simple engineering if the existing columns have the capacity.

rosscoact said :

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

Between the existing carriageway on the Commonwealth Avenue bridge would be the logical place

Far to early to speculate – they will cross that bridge when they come to it.
Also, it has been discussed several times before on this blog namely the road carriageway on the Commonwealth Avenue bridge was strengthened during its building to accommodate heavy construction plant that was used to prepare the site of the new Parliament House.
A bit of rare future planning.
The trams will have to share with the buses and any cars left in Canberra.

Between the existing carriageway on the Commonwealth Avenue bridge would be the logical place

Between the bridges is thin air unless I’m thinking about different bridges on a different lake. Solid place for this government to start all it’s policies it seems.

While a route to Russell *sounds like* a far more appropriate first stage for a prospective light rail, I note many unsuccessful attempts have been made in the past to get Defence staff to use public transport and light rail will be no different – in fact will probably be less convenient (slower, less direct and involving changing), than the Xpresso buses that already go past it.
All this tells me is that the government is still back pedalling – i.e. trying to build a case after the event because they are cornered politically. Frankly I don’t like their chances: they would have more political cred if they were honest with the people and ‘found a technicality’ that enabled them to get out of the whole palaver. Just think of the public transport we could all benefit from for that money that is basically going down the toilet!

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

What’s the problem, there are already two solid concrete bridges or sufficient gap between them to lay tracks?

Ian said :

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

Between the existing carriageway on the Commonwealth Avenue bridge would be the logical place

I’d love to know how the government envisages getting the tram across the lake and into and through the Parliamentary zone working, and how much it will cost? To me this is the difference between it being an isolated one off novelty or part of something actually useful.

dungfungus said :

The government initially believed almost everyone in Gungahlin works in the City.
They now are thinking that the others work at Russell.
Both assumptions are totally unfounded but hey, why let facts spoil the fantasy.

All the reports I read actually pointed out the large number of employees that commute to Russell right from the beginning. They had all that from the bus stats.

Your “The government initially believed almost everyone in Gungahlin works in the City”, cost, noise, substations, falling off cambered tracks, inability to cross the bridges etc. statements are not true either.

The government initially believed almost everyone in Gungahlin works in the City.
They now are thinking that the others work at Russell.
Both assumptions are totally unfounded but hey, why let facts spoil the fantasy.

Obvious targets are Manuka/Manuka Oval and the higher density apartments of Kingston/ Kingston Foreshore as well as all the tourist attractions and Barton Offices of the Parliamentary triangle.

A more comprehensive scheme is more likely to garner support than just the fairly restricted Gungahlin to City route.

Most Canberrans don’t see themselves riding to Gungahlin, even though there are attractions en route, but circulating from the City around the lake is something they could see themselves doing and it will make Canberra a much more Tourist friendly destination.

Whilst Gungahlin is unlikely to entice outsiders, Epic could become a great venue, for much more than the present rough and ready attractions, accessible by all of North, City and Inner South, if people don’t have to drive and park.