Back when Canberra's trams were just months away from their first glides up and down Northbourne Avenue, one of the project directors predicted we would stop arguing the merits of light rail within months.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The red trams would become a fact of Canberra life so quickly most of us would struggle to remember why we ever doubted the project in the first place.
That project manager would turn out to be quite wrong. She obviously didn't know Canberra well enough.
Five years have passed since the first excited passengers boarded the capital's first trams, and Canberra is still mired in a seemingly endless debate about the future of the light rail network.
This is despite the fact the network has, by most metrics, been a resounding success thus far.
A five-year analysis found it had encouraged more than $2 billion worth of construction work, attracted new passengers to public transport, driven up land values and cut motor vehicle traffic.
This is all bad news for the persistent naysayers. The ACT Labor government's persistent stubbornness and drive to get the thing done appears to have been vindicated.
But, with stage 2A in full swing, and stage 2B somewhere, barely visible, on a distant horizon, the success of the first stage shouldn't prevent city planners from being flexible in the future as technology changes.
One of the most persistent - and valid - arguments against light rail is the fact it's hideously expensive to build, and will take many decades to pay off.
The construction process is also hugely disruptive, with long-term major roadworks and unpredictable traffic diversions a fact of life for anyone driving into the city centre.
There are interesting, alternative ways to achieve many of the same benefits, as long as certainty of the transport corridor can be maintained.
Electric buses and trackless trams are cheaper and more versatile, and are used to great effect elsewhere.
Stubbornness can be a good trait in politics, but can turn pig-headed when policymakers fail to keep up with technology.
Ultimately, the argument should always be about mass transit and what's best for Canberra, rather than one form of transport over another.
Naysayers have complained mainly about the cost, without necessarily pointing to a failsafe solution.
But both sides of the argument will need to widen its scope to remain truly relevant.
Will the election creeping closer, it's well past time to start sharpening the debate with an eye to the future, rather than harping on the present.
Send us a letter to the editor
- Letters to the editor should be kept to 250 or fewer words. To the Point letters should not exceed 50 words. Reference to The Canberra Times reports should include a date and page number. Provide a phone number and address (only your suburb will be published). Responsibility for election comment is taken by John-Paul Moloney of 121 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. Published by Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd.
