Campaign for Light Rail (contributions)...

Campaign for Light Rail (contributions)...

Within these pages you will find documentation, articles and links to light rail and related topics (many of the links may refer to overseas sites as Australia has only a few commercial tram/light rail systems).

This page is not intended to be an exhaustive source of references and resources, and if you (or the organisation you represent) can provide the Gungahlin Community Council with additional information we will be happy to either link or include that information from this page.

Canberra: A Capital waiting for light rail (Kevin Connor)

This is a scanned copy (in Adobe Acrobat format) of an article that appeared in "Light Rail and Modern Tramway April 1996 Vol 59 No. 700" the official journal of the Light rail transit Association.

Click to download Canberra: A capital waiting for light Rail (PDF)

[Return to top]

Public Transport in the ACT - The "Free" Alternative (Chris Emery)

This is a paper received from Chris Emery as his contribution to the Light Rail debate and discussions.

[Return to top]

Applying UK light rail costs to the ACT (Dudley Horscroft)

This is the text of an email sent by Dudley Horscroft comparing the costs of the South Hampshire Rapid Transits costs to the local ACT  context.

I forward email correspondence I have had with South Hampshire Rapid Transit. This is promoting a light rail line from Portsmouth under Portsmouth Harbour to Gosport, and then along a disused railway line to Fareham, with short lengths of street running in both Portsmouth and Fareham, possibly also in Gosport, total length about 14 km. The text is self explanatory, but I reproduce the table at the end as modified in the light of the SHRT answers.

1	Land and Property	14,300,000
2	-	-
2a	Civils	8,926,967
2b	Trackwork	12,000,000
3	LRV Stops	2,128,040
4	Statutory Undertakers	10,600,000
5	Traffic Management	4,850,180
6	Tunnel Construction and Fit Out	42,246,335
7	Depot	7,482,029
8	Vehicles	18,750,000
9	Electrification and Mechanical Works	9,639,721
10	Environmental Measures	4,682,121
11	Design and Preparation	6,055,660
12	Contingency	7,684,682
	TOTAL	£149,345,845

Adding together the track work cost and the Electrification and Mechanical Works costs (items 2b and 9) and dividing by the track mileage (14 km double track = 28 km single track gives a figure of
GBP 772 847 per single-track km. Changing to $A at an exchange rate of GBP 0.39 = $A1, we have $A1 981 659. While he confirms that E & M covers poles, overhead, substations and feeders, I don't know how much else it covers, so we have a maximum $2M per km cost. When I was last in UK, and I don't think it has changed too much, the practical rate of exchange - ie, the cost of similar items - seemed to be nearer GBP 1 = $A1. This gives a lowest cost of about $800 000 per km. Pending any better figures from Melbourne, I think that a range of $1 M - $1.5 M per km is the sort of figure that should be quoted.

The SHRT website indicates that the overall costs have increased slightly since the application for Government approval was lodged, but there is very little change in detail or in total, about GBP 151M in toto.

Regards
Dudley Horscroft

-----Original Message-----

From: LRT Project [SMTP:lrt@hants.gov.uk]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:01 PM
To: Dudley Horscroft
Subject: RE: Query re costs of SHRT

Thanks for your enquiry, I will keep this reply straightforward, if you would like more detail please let me know although I cannot guarantee a very rapid response to detailed questions as we are extremely busy with tender documents at the moment.
E and M means electrical and mechanical, the items you mention just about cover it. "Report" is a typographical error, a big one, it should read DEPOT.

The trackwork accounts for £12 million. The other civils includes one new rail over road bridge, an underpass under Railtrack (the successors to British Rail) running lines, redecking of 3 bridges and 2 pedestrian subways. Also included are various demolition works including 5 buildings.

As is usual in the U.K the costs of alterations to the works of statutory undertakers (gas, water, electricity etc) are likely to rise. Most U.K schemes have a fair amount of street running and that always involves relocating services, you may be able to avoid this? You will also note that our land costs are significant, again this may be a U.K oddity, due to the high cost of land and our compensation law which contains wide protection provisions for landowners but no provision for
betterment, hope this helps,

Les Herbert
South Hampshire Rapid Transit
Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth

This e.mail is from Les Herbert, Land Use and Environmental Manager.

-----Original Message-----

From: Dudley Horscroft
Sent: 07 June 2002 04:56
To: LRT Project
Subject: Query re costs of SHRT

Dear Sirs

I am one of several persons hoping that we can persuade our local Government to construct a light rail route from the centre of Canberra, capital of Australia, to a newly developing suburb, Gungahlin. In order to do this, we need to be able to ascertain fairly detailed costs of Light Rail schemes being built elsewhere. Unfortunately, consultants often appear to take only the gross figures for various schemes, and then just divide by the distance involved to get a 'cost/km' which they apply to other proposals with little or no account of the special requirements involved. As an example, dividing the total cost of SHRT of about 151 GBP by 14 km would give a cost of about 10.8M GBP per km. To apply this figure to Canberra would be ludicrous, bearing in mind that nearly one third of the SHRT cost relates to the tunnel.

I reprint the table below from the SHRT site giving details of costs. Could you please advise what is meant by "E & M Works", as I have not been able to hazard a guess at this. One would think that the E stands for 'electrification' - which may just relate to the overhead, the substations and the poles and feeders, but the 'M' mystifies me in this context. Also, could you please advise what is meant by 'Report' and divide up 'Civils and Trackwork' between 'Civils' and 'Trackwork', as whatever may be understood by 'Civils' is unlikely to be replicated in Canberra, where the route is mostly in a wide median strip and across open countryside.

Any further breakdown of costs that you may be able to offer would be warmly appreciated.

Yours faithfully
Dudley Horscroft

Australian Capital Territory
AUSTRALIA

1	Land and Property	14,300,000
2	Civils and Trackwork	20,926,967
3	LPV Stops	2,128,040
4	Statutory Undertakers	10,600,000
5	Traffic Management	4,850,180
6	Tunnel Construction and Fit Out	42,246,335
7	Report	7,482,029
8	Vehicles	18,750,000
9	E and M Works	9,639,721
10	Environmental Measures	4,682,121
11	Design and Preparation	6,055,660
12	Contingency	7,684,682
	TOTAL	£149,345,845

[Return to top]

German Cities (with populations less or comparable to Canberra) with Tramways, Light Rail and Metros (Dudley Horscroft)

This is the text of an email and supporting data (document) sent by Dudley Horscroft addressing the concern that Canberra did not have a large enough population to support light rail.

In view of the concern felt by some people that Canberra is far too small to warrant a tram/light rail system, I thought it worthwhile looking at the list of German tram systems given by the LRTA in their website. This is not too far out of date - there have been some changes, I am certain,  since 1998, but not too many.

The populations have been taken from Brinkerhoff's list.

As this work is considerably changed from either of the two major sources, I do not think that  there should be any problems with copyright in putting it on the GCC web site.

Regards
Dudley Horscroft

Click to download German Cities (with populations less or comparable to Canberra) with Tramways, Light Rail and Metros (Word RTF)

[Return to top]

The Gungahlin Light Rail Project - a paper considering the rationale of costing and likely costs (Dudley Horscroft)

This is the text of an email and supporting data (document) sent by Dudley Horscroft a paper considering the rationale of costing and likely costs.

From: Dudley [mailto:dudley@effect.net.au]
Sent: Friday, 20 September 2002 23:24
To: GCC (E-mail); Ian Ruecroft (E-mail)
Cc: Planning Evans (E-mail); David Bromage (E-mail); Kathryn Maxwell (E-mail); Julia Richards (E-mail); Mark Peirce (E-mail); Graham Horn (E-mail)

Subject: Gungahlin Light Rail

Dear all

Please find attached a paper on the costs of Light Rail to Gungahlin.

For your information and comment. I have also forwarded it to Lincoln Hawkins, Helen Cross and Vicki Dunne.

Regards
Dudley

Click to download The Gungahlin Light Rail Project - a paper considering the rationale of costing and likely costs (Word RTF)

[Return to top]

Private Economics of Public Transport (Mark Loney)

This is a copy the Microsoft PowerPoint presentation as was presented at the 8th May meeting.

Click to download Private Economics of Public Transport (PDF)

[Return to top]

Gungahlin to Civic light Rail (MBA Land)

This is the text of a double sided A3 size flyer that was distributed by MBA Land as an insert in Gunsmoke prior to the February 13th Meeting.

The Gungahlin community has suffered from a low level of community infrastructure essential to building community spirit and vitality. A poor connecting road network, slow development of the town centre and community facilities and a low employment-base are evidence of this.

Gungahlin now has a chance to build a more lively, healthy and stronger community with the development of a light rail (tram) link from the Gungahlin town centre to Civic.

It will strengthen Canberra’s reputation of being a leader in town planning and complement Walter burley Griffin’s vision of modern open space networks, neighbourhoods and cycle ways.

A light rail service between Gungahlin and Civic will mean a more sustainable Canberra, bringing to the Gungahlin community the following benefits:

• Encourage higher quality and sustainable development along the route and in the Gungahlin town centre;

• Increase the employment base and community facilities in Gungahlin;

• Increase the usage of public transport;

• Relieve congestion on Gungahlin Drive, Barton Highway, Flemington Road and Northbourne Avenue;

• Create a cleaner environment by reducing vehicle emissions;

• Enhance the urban village character planned for the Gungahlin town centre; and

• Add to the sense of community for Gungahlin residents.

Light rail has been shown to encourage development wherever it has been constructed due to its permanence and reliability. Bus routes have shown to not attract a high quality development as light rail. The provision of a light rail service to Gungahlin will enhance and accelerate the development of the Gungahlin urban village, which after seven years since commencement still does not provide a significant employment-base or level of community facilities to its residents. The route between Gungahlin and Civic is uniquely placed to make light rail feasible by linking the existing commercial centres of Dickson and Mitchell as well the inner northern suburbs and EPIC to Gungahlin and Civic. Planned corridors for light rail exist along the median of Northbourne Avenue (between the rows of Eucalypts) and through Gungahlin town centre. The route would follow Flemington Road out to Gungahlin. These existing corridors will keep construction costs lower compared to retro-fitting the infrastructure to highly-developed corridors – now is the right time for the provision of light rail.

The feasibility of light rail is dependent on high-density development along the light rail route, similar to that already proposed in parts of the Gungahlin town centre. This urban village concept and development comprises well planned, attractive compact housing in areas of mixed retail/commercial/residential use with generous open spaces and car-free public areas. The urban village concept will transform development from low density car-oriented and inefficient patterns of land use.

The Tram

Initially, the tram would most likely offer a service every 15 minutes and eventually increase to every six minutes or less. It will take 18 minutes to travel 11km (Gungahlin to Civic) with around 15 tram stops. The capacity of the service would be over 1,000 passengers per hour. With additional trams, the ultimate one way capacity of 10,000 to 12,000 passengers is possible. This is roughly three times the one way capacity of Northbourne Avenue. The level of demand for the tram will obviously be far less than the ultimate capacity of the tram system, however, providing the tram early in the development of the Gungahlin town centre will influence residents’ travel habits and raise the patronage of public transport.

Overseas experience indicates that a modern tram system is a very attractive form of public transport. Transit-oriented development has proved successful in areas such as California to avoid the problems of car dominance, urban sprawl, smog and loss of community. The revitalisation of the previously depressed area of New Westminster in Vancouver, Canada, is a typical example of the beneficial effect of a light rail system.

Likely Environmental Impacts

Road Network
The light rail will reduce pressure on the existing road network and will delay the need for additional road infrastructure. The Gungahlin population has long suffered from an inadequate road network connecting Gungahlin to North Canberra and Belconnen. As bus services share the same road network, they also have also struggled to provide an efficient form of public transport. Light rail will ease the traffic burden on Gungahlin’s major roads, thereby reducing the need for additional road infrastructure.

Visual Impacts
The light rail vehicle tracks would occupy 5m of the 27m median in Northbourne Avenue. Mature trees in Northbourne Avenue. Mature trees in Northbourne Avenue will not be affected as the are generally 17m apart, giving more than adequate clearance for the tram. A small number of young trees will be affected and these can be replaced prior to construction.

Overhead cables will be supported by poles architecturally designed to blend into the general streetscape. The overhead cables will generally be hidden by foliage and are not a significant visual element.

Traffic Noise and Vibration
Modern trams are very quiet and vibration free. On both these counts, the tram is a clear winner in comparison with buses and private cars.

Construction Impacts
Construction of the track will be confined to the central area of the medians, to the intersections and to some undeveloped land along the route. Cross and turning traffic will be affected during the construction period, but normal movements would be maintained.

Effect on Residential Amenity
The introduction of a tram service will have a positive impact on residential amenity. Increased use of public transport will reduce traffic growth on Northbourne Avenue, Gungahlin Drive and Flemington Road. North Canberra residents will be protected from through traffic that would otherwise be generated by the overloading of Northbourne Avenue.

Air Quality
The tram being electrically driven will reduce air quality problems being experienced in Civic and other congested areas of the existing road network. With a 10 minute frequency of service, the trams will have the capacity to transport 1,100 passengers per hour in each direction, which is in excess of 30 percent of the capacity of Northbourne Avenue. This will increase over time with additional trams.

Intersection Adjustments
The tram should receive priority at intersections to shorten its travel times and encourage tram usage. In particular, right-turning vehicles will not be allowed to wait in the media at intersections, preventing through movement of the tram.

Tram Stops
The visual impact of tram stops will not be significant. Although many cities in Europe do not provide and form of shelter, it is desirable to provide these at most stops along the route.

The shelters should be designed to a standard appropriate to the location. Platforms would typically be 1.5m wide by 25m long. The platforms will need to be only 300mm above the track level.

Where to from here

The light rail service between Gungahlin and Civic will bring life and vitality to the Gungahlin urban village. It will attract development and assist in the establishment of an employment-base and creation of community facilities. Congestion on the existing road network will ease and the air will be cleaner.

The light rail will only happen with government input and community support. Your attendance is welcome at the next Gungahlin Community Council public meeting to be held on Wednesday 13 February 2002 at 7:30pm at the resources Centre, Gungahlin town Centre. The meeting will provide a short video and information session on the light rail as well as provide the opportunity to demonstrate community support for this project. Strong support will encourage the government to undertake a feasibility study.

[Return to top]

Light Rail for Canberra (Victor Pini)

This is the text of a letter and concept diagram sent by Victor Pini to Mr Mac Dickins (Convenor of PACTT - "Planning the ACT Together").

Attn: Mr Mac Dickins (Convenor of PACTT Planning)

Dear Sir

Following a recent headline article in the Canberra Chronicle on Canberra's possible future light rail needs I would like to offer the enclosed suggested plan which I believe would best meet Canberra's light rail needs while simultaneously creating "minimum" impact on existing traffic flow (particularly heavy vehicles)

Yours Sincerely

Victor Pini
25/2/02

Copies to :-

• Mr Simon Corbell - ACT Planning Minister

• Ms Helen Cross - Liberal Spokeswoman for Urban Services

• Mr Ted Schultheis - National Capital Planning Authority

• North Canberra Community Council

Click to download A Canberra Tramway Suggestion Offering (PDF)

[Return to top]

This Goes With That, Goes With This… (Jonathon Reynolds)

This is the text of a editorial (paid advertisement) discussing light rail that was published in Gunsmoke 65. (Jonathon Reynolds is the party president of the ACT Equality Party)

This Goes With That, Goes With This..."
(The Gungahlin Jigsaw Puzzle)

What do light rail, appropriate housing densities, employment and telecommunications all have in common? At first glance you would think there is absolutely no relationship between them, but dig a bit deeper and you start to realise how essential and interrelated each aspect is to the other.

Already there is a lot of interest starting to be generated with the potential of light rail solutions for Gungahlin and other parts of Canberra. Whilst some groups see this as the panacea to all our transport woes, such a system only becomes truly viable when a whole set of interrelated developments are coordinated with a long-term objective.

Whilst the actual cost for implementing light rail is unknown, we know it will not come cheaply. To be viable (even with a potential operating loss comparable to other public transport options such as the ACTION Bus Service) light rail will need to attract good and regular patronage. There is going to be enormous pressure to get it right the first time… but unlike a bus route you can not simply move light rail if you get the positioning wrong.

Commuters are going to need to have an incentive to use light rail in preference to cars. To take full advantage of light rail and to achieve long-term viability, it would be desirable to develop higher population densities along this route. Offering a reason for commuters to travel in both directions will assist in creating a viable light rail system and ideally the termination points should be provided with a well-developed employment and retail concentration that generates activity and focus.

If the route was to include EPIC (Mitchell), there would be a central focus and there is also potential for the EPIC parking areas to be used as a convenient park-and-ride facility for Gungahlin, North Canberra and parts of Belconnen. Mitchell could also be included as another catchment area, which may assist in invigorating the areas and recognising its importance as a trading centre.

Although there needs to be reasonable respect for all Canberra residents, it would be sad if we encounter resistance from NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) pressure groups who are prepared to fight change regardless of the long-term benefits or the needs of Gungahlin and Canberra as a whole.

So by now you are thinking what do the remaining areas of employment and telecommunications have to do with the whole situation? Well remember we said we need an incentive for people to travel or commute at each end; The Civic end of the route is handsomely catered for, but the Gungahlin end at present is still little more than a sheep paddock.

Moving ACTTAB headquarters in Gungahlin could start the ball rolling with regard to serious office-based employment opportunities for the Town Centre. ACTTAB by virtue of the nature of their operation require high capacity and quality telecommunications infrastructure, but this infrastructure is sadly currently lacking in Gungahlin. Because of this lack of decent telecommunications ACTTAB are strongly resisting the move to Gungahlin. If ACTTAB won’t move out here, how could it be expected that any other government or private enterprise find the telecommunications infrastructure acceptable? Until such time as Gungahlin gets telecommunication facilities on a par with the other town centres in Canberra there will be no serious employment development in the area.

We can’t simply slap down a light rail track and assume people will use it, nor can we assume that employment will naturally gravitate to Gungahlin Town Centre as the population grows, especially when the telecommunications infrastructure required is not in place. The government of day has to take the bull by the horns and make genuine investment in Gungahlin… we continue to hear the rhetoric about how committed they are, let’s see it actually happen!

[Return to top]

Light Rail - The Progress To Date (Ian Ruecroft)

This is the text of a editorial discussing light rail that was published in Gunsmoke 66.

The Gungahlin Community Council (GCC) hosted an information session on light rail (trams) on the 13th February 2002. The meeting was well attended, with almost 100 people present. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information to the community in a balanced way in order to let people decide the benefits or alternatives that are available now and in the near future.

The GCC has dedicated a section of our website to “light rail” in an effort to assist the community to access current information and/or provide links for people with an interest in the subject. The site can be accessed on www.gcc.asn.au and follow the links to light rail.

At the March meeting of GCC it was decided that our next step in progressing this issue would be to host a debate relating specifically to light rail and focusing on the Civic to Gungahlin route. This debate will be held on the 8th May 2002 (7.30pm to 9.30pm) in the upstairs meeting room of the Gungahlin Marketplace (enter near the bank). Note: The GCC May meeting will be held prior to this, commencing at 7pm.and concluded by 7.30pm.

The format of the meeting will be similar to 13/2/02 and we are hoping to have “Dudley the demon timekeeper” making sure we are finished by 9.30. The topics of debate will be:

• The terms of reference of the light rail feasibility study
• What are the alternatives to light rail
• What are the advantages/ disadvantages of the light rail link from Civic to Gungahlin
• One other topic selected at the meeting 8/5/02.

Note: If you would like to make a suggestion of what this topic should be, please lodge the topic on our website or phone Ian 6242 9444/ 041 7272 019 with your suggestion.

At this time speakers have not been selected, so if you know of someone who would be a suitable to promote a point of view, or if you would like to speak for, or against, one of the topics above, please contact us. It should be noted that speakers are asked to nominate prior to the meeting. Only vacant speaking positions will be available at the meeting. Where there are more speakers nominating than positions available, the group will be asked to meet so that they can select their 3 speakers or decide on a way of presentation that will take a combined time which does not exceed 9 minutes.

The proposed schedule for the debate is:

• 4 topics with 3 speakers for, and 3 speakers against.
• Each person has 3 minutes to speak.
• With 18 minutes for introduction, lost time etc, there should be about 30 minutes for questions from the floor.

At the end of the meeting we would like to have a motion that instructs the Council how to represent the Gungahlin community on this issue. In the near future the feasibility study will require the GCC to make representation on the community’s behalf. We need your instruction on whether we support the light rail concept or not. We also need an indication if there are alternatives that we should be promoting now and into the future.

If you have useful information related to light rail, or light rail alternatives, please visit our website or contact: Ian Ruecroft 6242 9444 or 041 7272 019.

[Return to top]

Light rail, is it a pipe dream or a possibility? (Ian Ruecroft)

This is the text of a editorial discussing light rail that was published in Gunsmoke 68.

On the 13th February 2002 the Gungahlin Community Council (GCC) hosted an information session on light rail (trams), this was followed by a debate on the 8th May. Like all good debates, there were strong arguments supporting and opposing the proposed concept of a light rail system.

The meeting voted to support a light rail network for the ACT. It was also agreed that the Council should be active in promoting the link from Civic to Gungahlin as the first stage of the network. The route that was supported by the meeting was the route via Northbourne Avenue to EPIC and along Flemington Road to the Gungahlin Town Centre. Information relating to light rail can be accessed on the GCC website: www.gcc.asn.au/light rail

Although light rail has been a topic of debate in the ACT for many years, the current focus on the subject has been bought about following the Government’s decisions to proceed with a Public Transport Futures Feasibility Study. After consideration of the draft document, the GCC suggested that the following items should be considered for inclusion in the terms of reference for any Public Transport Futures Feasibility Study:

1. The growth of Gungahlin is the greatest of any area in the ACT and therefore should be a significant component of any study into public transport.
2. Traffic problems are already significant and will only increase with the growth of the Gungahlin population.
3. Public transport needs and traffic corridors can be minimised by refocusing commitment to the principals of the Territory Plan, which identifies Town Centres as providing a hub for commerce and employment.
4. A long-term commitment to providing Gungahlin with equitable commercial and employment opportunities needs to be considered as part of this study.
5. The benefits for attracting employment and investment to Gungahlin should be explored with a focus on the probable impact on commercial and residential development made by commitment to a light rail link from Civic to Gungahlin.
6. The Public Transport Futures Feasibility Study should fully explore the development of a modern light rail network for the ACT, including the following considerations:

• The first link of the light rail network should be the link Civic to Gungahlin along the route as shown on the Territory Plan (ITP route).
• The study should include an economic assessment of the above route based on patronage and increased land revenue of land adjacent to the corridor (as a result of the commitment to light rail).
• Any economic assessment of the light rail option for Civic to Gungahlin should include the consideration of cost savings which can be achieved by avoiding the construction of roads which would be required to deliver equitable transport corridors for Gungahlin residents ie. the construction of Monash Drive.
• A realistic time frame for the construction of a staged light rail network should be developed as part of the study, noting that the light rail link (Civic to Gungahlin) could be designed and constructed within a timeframe of three years.
• That consideration be given to developing the EPIC car parking areas as an extensive park and ride facility that forms a hub for car, bus and light rail interchange.
• That any light rail network should be designed to be compatible and complementary to the existing (and future) ACT bus service.

The topic of light rail is an emotional subject for many people in the community. With cost estimates for the Civic to Gungahlin link ranging from $30m to $90m, there is a definite need to consider the options and make the right decision. At this time the development of a light rail link (from Civic to Gungahlin) could make a significant difference to the way the area develops. It would undoubtedly influence opportunities for attracting employment and commerce into the area.

Attracting people to use public transport is a complicated exercise. It should be recognised that there is very little chance of attracting people who are supplied with a company car or work in an area that is difficult to get to by bus or tram. Others have considerations such as childcare pickup, schooling, sporting and social commitments that make public transport fairly unattractive.

Although there are many things that make people decide to use public transport, there are some basic factors that cause people to consider it in preference to purchasing a vehicle or running a second car.

Items that attract	Items that cause consideration
Favorable travel time	Difficult traffic conditions
Attractive fare structure	Shortage of available parking
Convenience of stations	Company and Government. incentives
Frequency of service	Environmental concerns
Passenger comfort at stations and in travel	Increases in the cost of car ownership, petrol or parking

Gungahlin is at a stage where public transport could have a huge influence for purchasers of future homes. At this time there are two homes within easy walking distance of Flemington Road. In fifteen years there will be 15,000 to 30,000 people living within easy walking distance of Flemington Road. Would light rail be attractive to them?

[Return to top]

Letter - Gungahlin Light Rail (Lyn Rutherford)

This is the text of a letter received from Lyn Rutherford arguing the case against traditional light rail and in favour of monorail.

The President
Community Council Inc
PO Box 262
Mitchell ACT 2911

Dear Sir,

Re Gungahlin Light Rail

Due to Wednesday night classes I an unable to attend the meeting about the light rail. I would like to express problems I have with the promotion of the light rail as a viable alternative to car and bus travel.

1. A 20 minute trip with >15 stops along the way would require passengers to make a run at the running board on boarding and don roller blades for alighting. This quick trip was a claim made when the tram was on view at Civic a few years ago. (The girl on board had no answer to that question at that time. She claimed no one had brought it up).
   
   

2. The route takes you through the densest cluster of traffic lights in Canberra. Preventing cars from turning into crossing lanes will affect traffic from everywhere else.
   
   

3. There will need to be 2 sets of rails and room between them if the route is the same for comings and goings.
   
   

4. This is only part 1 of the journey for many workers out of Gungahlin. They still have to connect with buses to Russell Offices, Barton, Fyshwick, Woden, Queanbeyan or Tuggeranong.
   
   

5. As there are no large businesses or government offices in Gungahlin the morning peak services will be empty on the return trip and vice versa at day's end...
   
   

6. There are no houses close to the route to make late night travel a safe alternative.
   
   

7. It is bound to be dearer than ACTION fares.

Having made those observations I believe those who would make the most of it would be retirees and people with time to go shopping and meeting people in town. If it links up with the new tram in Civic, so much the better.

I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Until there is employment and (other) fun things to do here the trip to Gungahlin will be a "once only" affair. Perhaps a line to Gold Creek and Hall would be a better idea.

A monorail is still the only alternative to car travel to the CBD.

Lyn Rutherford
Palmerston 2913

[Return to top]

Bus Transport - They Way Forward (Guy Thurston)

This is the complete text of a paper that was prepared by Mr Guy Thurston (Chairman CITIA ACT & SE NSW) for the "Innovation In Mass Urban Transport" Workshop.

A Paper for the Workshop - "INNOVATION IN MASS URBAN TRANSPORT"
Bus Transport - The Way Forward - Canberra 10 August 2001
Guy Thurston - Chairman CITIA ACT & SE NSW

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to convince the policy makers, planners and decision-makers that there is a need to take a broader view in regard to the successful operation of bus services.
 

Background

Bus services in their current motorised format have been in operation since the early 1900's. History has seen these vehicles progress from horse drawn to very modern, accessible and air-conditioned vehicles. They come in many sizes and range from eight seater small vehicles through to mini, midi, standard, double decker, articulated and even bi-articulated options.

There have also been significant improvements from an environmental aspect regarding types of power. These range from low Sulphur Diesel, CNG, LPG, Fuel Cell, Electric and many forms of hybrid operation.

Buses have also seen great periods of usage, particularly prior to the major increase in car usage, as well as when buses replaced trams in a lot of cities around the world during the sixties. Unfortunately, buses have seen lean times as well and are often considered the last option for transport.

Issues

The main criteria for planners should be to identify demand corridors for public transport and set them aside as such. Buses are far more flexible than light rail or heavy rail and in many cases have the opportunity to provide the complete journey without changing. More importantly once the corridor is established, buses are able to progressively use as soon as sections are constructed and at a considerable reduction in costs (capital, operations and infrastructure). As population densities increase along corridors, buses can then be upgraded to light or fixed rail when demand is able to support the higher cost facility.

The major impact to bus services at the moment is the lack of commitment to the needs of this mode. If the bus corridor was treated the same as rail lines we would see better policing and adherence to bus lanes. Engineers and planners would not be able to downgrade bus priority to fix other problems. A major advantage of buses is that they are flexible and can be adjusted to suit changing demographics and needs. This advantage however, is also its weakness as it is too easy to compromise bus priority to solve other problems.

A perfect example of this was the introduction of bus priority on the Sydney Harbour Bridge for movements into the City. This facility was introduced in conjunction with the opening of the Sydney Harbour Tunnel in 1992.

The success of the bus lane has been outstanding and has allowed for considerable gains in reliability, comfort and reduced travel times.

Shortly after the introduction of the bus lane, saw Sydney Buses introduce new and more frequent services resulting in a 23 per cent increase in bus patronage during the morning peak hours. Between 7.30am and 8.30am on weekdays, it was reported that 8750 passengers were carried on the bus lane, 3.5 times greater than the volume of any other road lane or rail track.

However, lobbying from local residents in the Kirribilli area saw a section of the bus lane downgraded because cars from that area had to travel another 800 metres to access the bridge. If this were a light rail corridor that option would not have been an option.

I would now like to move to other aspects that significantly enhance bus transport and use some examples.

1. Bus Priority Initiatives
2. Facilities for Passengers
3. Information
4. Vehicles

Bus Priority Initiatives

There are some excellent examples of bus enhancement initiatives around the world and I will discuss each briefly.

Curitiba, Brazil
Curitiba has a mass transit operation that is very similar to a train or light rail using bi-articulated buses on grade separated corridors. It forms part of the transport plan with integrated terminals with the railway tube system. Accessibility is enhanced by modular bus terminals that are safe and weather protected.

Adelaide
The O-Bahn was introduced in Adelaide in two stages, 1986 and 1989, and has been very effective in providing line haul transport along a corridor into the Central Business District of Adelaide.

The system operates very similar to a train system with standard and articulated buses operating along a guided concrete track. At selected points there are bus stations that provide for feeder bus services and also park and ride facilities.

The system was very costly due to the track being built on a causeway. Also, the system stops short of the city where it is needed the most.

However, even with the missing link it is very effective and provides more flexibility than light rail.

Brisbane
The recent opening of the South East Busway has been a tremendous success in attracting people to enhanced bus services. The South East Busway is a two lane roadway used exclusively by buses, and when necessary by emergency vehicles. It is 16 kilometres in length stretching from Brisbane CBD via South Bank and Mater Hill to Woolloongabba, and then to Eight Mile Plains. Buses then use the Pacific Motorway to service stations at Underwood and Springwood.

There are a total of ten stations along the length of the South East Busway and have wide awning structures to provide weather protection and toughened glass screens provide open and highly transparent facilities. Stations are well lit using high lux white lighting and video recording system to improve visibility and station security.

Travel speeds along the Busway is at 80km/h and 50km/h through Busway Stations. Journey times for the 16 kilometre Busway are approximately 12 minutes and more importantly a far higher certainty of travel time.
The potential carrying capacity of the Busway is 220 buses and 11,000 passengers per hour per direction.

This Busway system would have to be deemed the most successful initiative in recent times.

The major difference between the Busway and the O-Bahn System in Adelaide is the Busway extends into the heart of the CBD of Brisbane and is grade separated for the entire 16 kilometres.

Facilities for Passengers

I would now like to concentrate on facilities for bus passengers because this is the area where I see that there is the greatest scope to improve.

One of the first examples of how to provide good facilities for bus passengers was the Queen Street Bus Station located under the Queen Street Mall in the heart of Brisbane's CBD.

Passengers wait in an air-conditioned precinct, similar to the shopping centre above, with seats, information (real time) and security. The buses operate in the concrete area of the interchange and pull up close and parallel to the bus stop where sliding doors open to allow passengers to board. In essence passengers are treated more like airline passengers in that they wait in a comfortable area until the bus arrives at the door and they then board. It is a simple concept that beats waiting for a bus in a cold, windswept concrete tunnel.

Two months ago the new Bondi Junction Bus/Rail Interchange was opened and has in a lot of respects been modelled on the Queen Street Bus Station.

The new $9M Bondi Junction interchange delivers state of the art passenger comfort facilities to one of Australia's busiest bus/rail interchange.

Ninety thousand passengers pass through the interchange every day and are enjoying similar levels of comfort and convenience experienced in the passenger lounges of international airports. Features incorporated into the interchange include:

• A fully air-conditioned passenger lounge with sun-proofed glass walls.
• 24 hour security monitoring by 38 closed circuit security cameras with direct links to police.
• 32 electronic timetable signs, which indicate bus arrival times.
• Easy access for families and people with mobility difficulties.
• Direct communication links between the bus deck and train platforms.
• Activity around bus waiting areas, whether they are interchanges, bus stations or bus stops, greatly assists as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour.

Information

One of the greatest frustrations for bus passengers is the lack of information available at bus stops and interchanges. When there is information available, there is still a lack of confidence that the bus is actually going to turn up and in most cases that situation only improves when the bus in fact arrives.

There are a number of trials currently taking place with real time information at bus stops. Two that I am aware of are Waterworks Road in Brisbane and Christchurch in New Zealand.

The Brisbane system is an intelligent transport system that provides buses with priority at traffic signals and passengers with real time information on bus arrivals (similar to what is provided for rail travellers).

The system has the ability to identify buses that have fallen behind schedule and where possible give them a green light to assist in getting them back on schedule.

Providing the right information at the right place is also critical to the system. Digital real time display signs are provided at bus stops and as each bus passes over traffic signal detection loops the time at the bus stop is adjusted.

Added benefits of the system are real, accurate information for planners and vehicle location, especially in emergency situations.

Vehicles

The latest innovation for bus travel has been developed by the Irisbus Company and is named the innovative Civis Intermediate Transit System. This new system is now in operation in Rouen, France.

This is essentially a rubber tyred transit vehicle with a number of characteristics of light rail. It runs both on reserved lanes and on the street with an automatic guidance system. It is similar to light rail without the rails.

Guidance is provided by an optical system developed by Matra. The vehicle follows a coded line marked on the road. At stations, this is capable of positioning the vehicle within 50 millimetres of the kerb.

Rouen is the first full-scale application of Civis. The infrastructure is in place and the prototype vehicle is under test; modified articulated buses are currently providing services. The system has also been sold to Grenoble, Clermont Ferrand, Las Vegas and Eugene/Springfield, Oregon. Other manufacturers are putting systems into various European cities.

The attraction of Civis is that it steps beyond conventional bus, in that it is a complete, self-contained transit system and thus has many of the attractions of light rail at about half the cost. It is clearly the next logical step forward from the bus transitway.

In appearance, and on-board, Civis looks like a light rail vehicle. It has a flat floor throughout because of its unique power system. The Rouen vehicle has a diesel-electric generator set at the rear driving electric hub-motors - there are no underfloor mechanics.

Rouen is a down-town system running on bus lanes on regular streets, just as do many light rail systems. There are stations at intervals with ticket dispensers and on-board validators (the vehicles are one-person operations).

The proposed Eugene/Springfield System will be on a segregated track.

The power plant is versatile. It can be CNG powered or even wholly electric from an overhead catenary.

Rouen expects to be operating 57 Civis units by 2006. The standard unit is an 18.5 metre articulated vehicle carrying 120 passengers, 40 seated. (Europeans are generally more tolerant of standing. In the Australian environment we would have to accept a lower standing complement).

Irisbus claims that infrastructure costs of rubber-tyred transit are about one-tenth that of light rail (but this assumes use of some pre-existing roads). The vehicles themselves are likely to be approximately half the price of light rail and twice that of bus - approximately $1M for an articulated unit.

The Rouen project was funded by the EU and the French National Government (60 per cent) and the city administration (40 per cent). The city has a payroll tax of 1.75 per cent on all business in the city; the proceeds are fully assigned to public transport. Apparently, Rouen originally consolidated its city administration in order to be able to better provide transport across the area.

Operating costs per kilometre (not including amortisation or borrowings) is FF25. Light rail is FF33, articulated bus is FF22 and conventional bus is FF19. Cost recovery is 33 per cent. The community pays the balance.

Project subsidy from national government (infrastructure) is biased towards feasible, rational systems. Civis is well regarded in this respect, but this is probably because the subsidy goes to the track and stations, not to the vehicles.

Overall, this is a very interesting system that would be a logical development of our transitway system. It certainly has more passenger appeal than conventional bus. Other manufacturers are moving into this area with a variety of guidance systems ranging from mechanical (O-Bahn) to magnetic field (like traffic light sensors), so there should be significant competition in the field. However, the simplicity of the painted line has much appeal.

If, at any time, the line is obliterated or there is an obstruction on the track, the driver has immediate steering control by taking hold of the steering wheel.

Conclusions

There is a good opportunity now to enhance bus travel as a more favoured method of transport.
The first critical issue is the one of identifying transport corridors and retaining for current or future usage.
Also suburbs need to be planned to accommodate bus services.

Travel time is a critical element of user's choice of car or public transport. Public transport should be given every opportunity to compete with the car. At congestion points public transport should be given the advantage.
In a number of European cities, public transport is able to get the closest to the CBD or a special event and this strategy should also be considered more in Australia.

In general facilities for public transport need to be upgraded to attract people out of cars. Air-conditioned and easy accessible vehicles are essential and are becoming standard.

General facilities such as bus stations or interchanges should be along similar standards tot he Queen Street Bus Station and the new Bondi Junction Bus/Rail Interchanges.

Real time information for buses has now moved beyond the trial stage and should now be seriously considered. The lack of confidence of the passenger that currently prevails needs to be improved.

Concepts such as the Civis bus system combined with real time information would accommodate most of the issues I have raised and is the possibly the future.

Public Transport has to be given every opportunity to be part of the solution for our environmental concerns.
Public Transport can provide the solution and this can be on an incremental basis. For example, identify the corridor, start with buses, increase demand and that justifies the greater expenditure on light rail or fixed rail.
Finally there is no one solution to fit all needs. Obviously we have cities and towns of different sizes, densities and degrees of congestion. However, we should not wait until it breaks to fix it.

Biography

Guy Thurston has over 30 years experience in the Transport Industry with the last 17 at the senior level. He is the Chairman of the ACT & SE NSW Section of Chartered Institute of Transport in Australia, and Vice Chairman UITP Australia and New Zealand.

Guy is currently Executive Director of ACTION Buses in the ACT and has been in this position for four years. Immediately prior to this he was General Manager Sydney Buses for a period of four years following a two year period as General Manger, Operations for State Transit that involved Bus and Ferry services in both Sydney and Newcastle.

The title of Guy's Paper is: Bus Transport- The Way Forward

[Return to top]