Much of the discussion on light rail in Canberra seems to centre on numbers and measurable cost/benefits, as seen in both the letter from David Flannery and the article by Leo Dobes in last week's Canberra Times. All very fine, but are the right questions being addressed? Perhaps we should ask whether we can afford not to build light rail.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
We can enhance a bus service, but buses burn polluting fuel with unhealthy emissions, are subject to worsening traffic delays and use existing roads or require alternative infrastructure of their own.
Or we can build more roads. But build more roads and the infrastructure attracts more road users; so the rule of thumb of road building requires equally large construction in, from memory, eight years. The GDE is a case in point and look at the cost of that.
William Hovell Drive was known from its first planning to require enhancement. The road around Black Mountain by the lake has recently and expensively had lanes added to cope with its increasing usage. The Glenloch Interchange had to be totally rebuilt. The congestion at Barton Highway/William Slim Drive is about to get a multimillion-dollar partial solution thrown at it.
More buses and cars simply put more strain on an already overloaded system. They change nothing. If dedicated lanes are to be provided on Northbourne Avenue for buses, where is the land to be taken from? Unpaved surface would be lost the length of the roadway, be it on the verge or in the central reservation. If no dedicated lanes, transit times will become slower still.
More cars require more parking facilities, which private car users expect and are privileged to have subsidised by the community. No driver in Canberra pays the real cost of all-day parking in central areas.
The current road model is not sustainable in the long run. Fifty years ago Sydney dismantled its tramway system, and yet today it is reconstructing a light rail network to serve areas from which it was earlier removed. In 50 years time, what would Canberra residents then think if they see we today passed up the opportunity to provide a sustainable, environmentally friendly and effective light rail community service.
It also may be more positively helpful if the apparently disgruntled on the south side of the lake pressed their elected representatives (including Senator Seselja) to secure more funding to improve the chances of an early extension of a great social amenity to Woden/Tuggeranong/Weston, rather than to keep shouting "Bah! Humbug!" at a project which has the potential to transform our city.
Gerald Lynch, Hawker
Kevin Cox suggests that we should trust the judgment of "the professionals in the ACT government" in the proposed light rail (tram) project between Gungahlin and Civic (Letters, Sunday CT, October 11). These must be the "professionals" who wrote the original submission to Infrastructure Australia, which showed that the bus alternative was twice as effective and efficient as the tram alternative, but who chose the tram alternative anyway.
These must be the same "professionals" who, in that submission to IA, dismissed an electric bus option on the grounds that "it only removes the pollution problem from the bus back to the power station" – and then, with straight faces, claimed that the electric trams would run on 100 per cent "green" electricity.
These must be the same "professionals" who wrote a "business case" (based upon which tenders have been called and received) which would not pass muster as a first-year exercise in urban transportation planning and economics, as has been amply demonstrated by others.
We are surely blessed to benefit from such "professionalism". As to the government's "very extensive public consultation process", the trams were imposed on us by Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury as a non-negotiable condition for him allowing the eight Labour MLAs to form a government after the last election. Some consultation that was!
Yes, Kevin, I am male and I have exceeded three score and 10 years upon this earth but, please note, I consider myself neither old nor elderly. However, I am mature and experienced enough in life to know that if I encounter something which looks like bovine waste and smells like bovine waste, then it is bovine waste – a capability which appears to be totally lacking in "the professionals in the ACT government" and their political masters.
Paul E.Bowler, Holder
Kevin Cox asks whether the readers should trust the professionals in the ACT government or the Can The Tram. If one looks at the qualifications and previous employment of the Labor members of the ACT government, then the curricula vitae of the Can The Tram membership will outrate them overwhelmingly in the tram domain. And yes, I am an elderly male as Kevin suspects. I am an engineer who has experienced a bit over the years. I also appreciate that as a Ngunnawal resident, Kevin perhaps would support a tram line to Gungahlin.
John Simsons, Holt
Backdated rates
Amanda Vanstone's article ("Councils Avoid Hard Scrutiny", Times2, October 12, p1) rang some very large bells for the Queanbeyan Ratepayers and Residents Association. Last year the Queanbeyan City Council issued hundreds of ratepayers with bills for so-called backdated rates totalling, in many cases, several thousand dollars.
The resulting distress and outrage was highlighted by both mainstream and social media, including commentary on the council's handling of the issue, which brought the saga to the attention of the general public.
The initial reaction of the council was that they were constrained by the provisions of the NSW Local Government Act and nothing could be done. This proved to be wrong and sustained pressure from the media and several concerned individuals eventually resulted in the back-dated notices being withdrawn.
Furthermore, the issue has led to the council setting up a rates and charges review committee to examine a range of council charges. Water meter size has already been addressed by this committee. But other issues remain to be resolved, namely, multiple access charges for multi-unit developments with a single water meter and huge annual increases of 9.5 per cent for water charges and 13.5 per cent for sewer charges for every year until 2022-23.
These large charges cannot be sustained and will have a negative impact on the community.
As was demonstrated last year, the media spotlight and scrutiny of local government can have a positive impact and lead to beneficial outcomes for ratepayers.
Sue Ball-Guymer, QRRA secretary
Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.
Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).
