Canberra: A spectacular transport policy failure

When an academic titles a chapter in his public transport policy assessment paper ‘Canberra: A spectacular transport policy failure’ don’t expect there to be too much good news in it. Paul Mees is an academic with a particular focus on public transport and has been following the issue in Canberra from a distance for many years.

Many of his assessments on public transport policy in this paper are correct. All governments since self-government have abjectly neglected ACTION and focussed on road construction. The lack of investment has seen the frequency of ACTION services decline, especially outside peak hour and off the major routes. This service failure has led to patronage declines.

In his executive summary, Mees concludes:

Canberra has experienced a sustained decline in public transport, and a steady rise in car driving, for the last two decades (apart from a temporary reversal during 2001-06). The current car driving rate is the highest ever recorded, something that has not occurred in any other capital city except Hobart. Public transport mode share actually declined slightly in the five years to 2011: Canberra was the only one of the seven cities where this occurred. The problems are the result of poor transport policies, which have focussed on road construction, while reversing the successful public transport approach employed in Canberra until the late 1980s.

Mees is also correct that the focus on investment on roads over public transport needs to be addressed, but its not one or the other - that’s a simplistic view which has led to the current public transport system failings. The ACT government needs to consider road and public transport funding as infrastructure. Improve public transport and car drivers may return to the public transport system. The ACTION system can be improved, but its future as a mass transit system is in the past.  

It is important when assessing this paper, to look at previous works from the same author. Mees has written papers critical of ACT Public Transport policy before, his most recent contribution on ACTION bus failure coming in 2012. He views investment in roads as bad, and investment in public transport as good.  

This simplistic approach doesn’t take into account changes in society and employment mobility. Canberra is a spread out city, and the ACTION bus approach has not served that geography well. As it grows, it is likely that employment centres may change from the present focus on Civic and the Parliamentary Triangle. Decreasing service frequencies outside peak hours and long circuitous routes that increase travel times are valid criticisms.

The public has sampled this service and voted with its cars. Arresting this decline in patronage has proved difficult by successive governments, reluctant to invest in changes to a public transport system that they can’t figure out how to improve. As the cost to acquire a car has declined, its become more viable for a person to buy one and bypass poor public transport. 

ACT Light Rail has long argued that the best way to improve public transport in the ACT is to build light rail as a mass transit backbone, increase local bus services to feed passengers to light rail, and properly integrate light rail and buses. Paul Mees’ main objection seems to be that there is only one light rail route planned.

This is not the case. There is only one light rail route under immediate consideration – from Gungahlin to Civic – but there is a plan for light rail to be the territories long term mass transit solution. It’s a massive change in policy direction from the ACT Government and Capital Metro is a plan that needs political and financial support.

If the Capital Metro plan receives funding and construction begins within the current Assembly term, then a future version of this paper may contain a vastly different assessment. Canberra has the potential to lead the way in showing how a medium sized city can reverse car usage and deliver sustainable public transport. 

You cant excuse government policy failure from the past, but credit needs to be given to present policy initiatives - and people need to ensure that these policies move from election platform promises to properly funded projects.

The major failing of Mees paper is that it doesn’t recognize that the policy shift has occurred, and that it requires support. 

Ring roads and buses - welcome to Congested Canberra 2031

A new ACT Transport strategy 'Transport for a Sustainable City 2012-2031' was released by the ACT Government yesterday. Naturally there was a strong focus on the ACTION network, and how this can be improved and attract more patronage. Some of the proposals are quite positive. It is good to see a 7 day network, hopefully this will do away with ridiculous route renumberings on the weekends which confuse even seasoned public transport users. Increased frequency is also welcome. The broad plans to improve the ACTION network are welcome. 

You can download the full document here. 

Media release here.

No commitment to light rail

Reading the entire document brings a sense of disappointment. Ultimately the new strategy squibs real commitment to public transport infrastructure. It continues to hedge bets and attempt to mollify public transport advocates by mentioning light rail in association with bus rapid transit. Light Rail as a standalone issue is not mentioned in the document until page 15 - where the abandoned and ill-supported bid to Infrastructure Australia is listed as under 'Transport Highlights 2001-2011'. That the ACT Government regards failure as a highlight in relation to public transport would be funny if it weren't so reflective of this governments approach to public transport. The spin is spun, and you and I ride the results every day. 

While the work on establishing the rapid routes is to be commended, the government is only setting itself up for long term failure in its stated public transport objectives. It continues to use these rapid transport corridors and promised results, in its push to rapidly densify Canberra - especially along the transport corridors. 

Unless a proper mass transit technology - the most logical being light rail - is built simultaneously to the now occurring densification, the resultant road congestion will further clog Canberra's road arteries. The report even states that private car ownership is still rising in percentage terms - defying its 2004 policy projections. 

The strongest 'committment' to light rail in this new policy is the following statement from p.22 

All our infrastructure feasibility studies include assessments of alternative public transport technology. For example, the City to Gungahlin transit corridor study will see the ACT Government work in partnership with the National Capital Authority and the Canberra community and business sector to create a vision for a transit- oriented corridor. Mass public transport will make the most of the development opportunities from existing land use settings and highlight the national significance of this entry to Canberra. The ACT Government will continue to explore funding opportunities for light rail and bus rapid transport with the Australian Government and private sector, and planning for light rail (or bus rapid transit designed for later conversion to light rail) is at the centre of planning for this corridor. 

In other words - the ACT Government want someone else, anybody else really except themselves, to pay for light rail.  The message is clear and consistent from the Stanhope through to the Gallagher government. Road funding is fine - public transport is secondary - make that last.  

While the 2012-2031 Transport Strategy maintains that all future planning must make provision for light rail, the real truth is that there is no financial commitment to this goal. All planning and infrastructure engineering is based on buses and recently on-road cycle paths. There has been no engineering study conducted on a light rail network in Canberra. This has consistently been asked for by ACT Light Rail. 

Infrastructure Australia guidelines required this most basic level of planning for its bids - yet the ACT Government submitted a bid without knowing what they actually needed, or how much it could cost. More has been spent on engineering plans for on-road cycle paths than light rail routes. 

Ring roads - the future of ACT transport infrastructure spending

Roads and road spending have always been a favourite photo opportunity for our local politicians. Who can forget all local ALP politicians standing in front of a scale model of the Infrastructure Australia funded Majura Parkway? Well hang on for the ride because the 2012-2031 Transport Strategy tells us that the future transport infrastructure major spending commitment in Canberra wont be public transport but -  a ring road. 

Ironically, this announcement on p.46 of the 2012 Transport Strategy is on the same page as a long dissertation on the economic detriment that road congestion causes the economy. The ACT Governments own submission on light rail to Infrastructure Australia pointed out that Light Rail would reduce congestion. The solution to road congestion is not to build more roads. Ask anyone using the GDE. 

The increasing densification along the 'transport corridors' will result not only in more road congestion, but also in increased rates as the high-rise building corridors begin to fill with residents. That this ratepayers money will build ring roads, and not public transport infrastructure is a cruel joke. light rail along these transport corridors will reduce road congestion. More roads will not. 

If the government had a serious commitment to reducing road congestion it could start by eliminating the causes of that congestion before it arises. The new Molonglo development is a prime example. This was an opportunity for the Government to show commitment to public transport by either constructing a light rail route linking Molonglo to Civic or a dedicated bus way, that could be converted to light rail at a later stage. 

By providing visible public transport prior to residents populating the new town of Molonglo, the residents would be able to choose this ahead of their private car. Instead the government has decided to go with on-road buses. The investment in public transport in Molonglo is minimal. It follows consistent public transport policy failure in Gungahlin - which despite having buses at capacity - still cant decrease the number of people using their private car for work trips. 

Show leadership by funding public transport not more roads

The ACT Government needs to show real leadership and commitment to Canberra's future transport needs and build Light Rail. It needs to begin by committing to an engineering study, then establishing a method to fund light rail construction, beginning with one route. We do not need more studies, They occur every electoral cycle. 

Bus-ness as usual: draft 'Transport for Canberra' policy released

Last week the ACT Government released its draft ‘Transport for Canberra’ policy plan and it is underwhelming.  The ACT Government is pursuing a medium to high density housing strategy, and using the ‘public transport, ‘transit route’ etc reasoning to justify it. The policy has no funding models attached to it and states several times that buses are the future for Canberra’s public transport. Where light rail is mentioned, it is scant, and promises a ‘study’. Not once is the Infrastructure Australia bid for light rail funding from only two years ago mentioned.

The draft policy plan discusses openly the aim that medium and high density housing will be built along ‘transit corridors’ which means bus routes. By encouraging medium and high density housing, without providing the proper public transport to support it, Canberra will experience all the disadvantages of high density housing, and none of the advantages.

Aiming low and redefining success

Sadly, the draft transport policy, which is meant to guide ACT transport planning until 2031, aims low. The percentage of people the ACT government predict will use public transport in 2031 is 16%. Up from what they claim is 9% right now. That’s an amazingly low target. By failing to deliver a world class mass transit system in the form of light rail, our government is content to allow Canberra to continue as a car-centric, increasingly congested city. Our nations capital deserves better.

On page 22 of the draft policy they say:

“The government has committed to increasing the public transport share of all work trips to 9 per cent by 2011, 12 percent by 2016, and 16 per cent by 2026”

By focussing on ‘work trips’ this allows the policy makers to ignore the following members of our society: school children, the aged, stay at home parents using public transport during the day and others. This tricky language doesn’t fool anyone. Public transport is not just satisfying peak hour commuting, it is a social obligation.

Page 6 of the draft policy has an interesting graph. The ACT Government forecast that in 2026 there will be 277,000 jobs – and that only 80,000 of these workers will choose public and active transport.

In the draft policy plan, they also see ‘active transport’ (walking and cycling) growing to 14%. The Canberra Times reports:

Minister for the Environment Simon Corbell launched the plan yesterday at Belconnen bus interchange, saying he wanted 30 per cent of Canberra journeys to work to be taken by sustainable transport, foot, bicycle or public transport, by 2026.

In the draft policy a table supporting this aim appears on page 54:

By aiming this low, it means that in 2031, our half million residents of a compact city of high density housing will still see 70 people in every 100 driving to work. As our population is expected to rise from 330,000 in 2011, that is not less reliance on cars, that is MORE cars. Very sustainable.

Minister Corbell also redefines success, and promises less services for people in Canberra’s suburbs. It is accepted wisdom among transport planners that to increase patronage you must offer frequent, reliable and attractive public transport. What does Minister Corbell announce:

'There will be a frequency of 15 minutes or less on the rapid and frequent service corridors, new guarantees about how long people have to wait to interchange.''

The plan calls for ''coverage'' service that feeds into the ''frequent network'' and ensures every home would be within 500m of a service of at least 60-minute frequency, putting a regular bus route within a short walk of every home in Canberra.

Yes, people waiting for a bus in Amaroo to connect them to a 15 minute service will have to wait up to an hour for a local service.

Simply put – a once an hour bus service will not attract commuters to public transport.

By contrast, ACT Light Rail propose building light rail as a mass transit backbone and increasing local service frequency for buses connecting to local transport nodes (such as park and rides) to a 20 minute frequency.

The same Canberra Times article also discusses light rail:

He said that a ''business as usual approach'' to Canberra's transport mix would result in a doubling of congestion on the city's roads by 2031 and pledged to continue to study the possibility of light rail on major road corridors.

Yet another study into light rail

Yes, what Canberra needs is yet another study into light rail. This study comes less than two years after the ACT Governments submission to Infrastructure Australia asking for federal funding for light rail. The light rail bid that was at that time the leading bid. Where the Chief Ministers media release stated 'Stanhope lists light rail as ACT Priority for Commonwealth infrastructure funding'.

The only bid from that exercise that our local politicians pursued with any vigour was the bid for more road funding to build Majura parkway.

As the new study will show, light rail has several advantages over buses including higher passenger capacity per vehicle (and driver), lower cost over total life, greater passenger comfort, reduced journey times (over buses on roads), less energy per passenger kilometre and provides investment certainty along transport corridors because of infrastructure commitment. In addition, light rail improves property values, and increases rental and retail income. These factors appeal to property developers who have demonstrated globally their willingness to invest in Transit Oriented Development along light rail routes.

Bus-ness as usual

It is crystal clear from reading this draft ‘Transport for Canberra’ policy that this government sees Canberra’s transport future as cars and buses. It is ‘Bus-ness as usual’. This does not come as a surprise. By pursuing this bus-only public transport strategy, the public transport patronage figure will only rise by a small amount. If the ACT Government truly want to bring about a medium to high density ‘compact city’, they need to plan proper mass transit using light rail, and then encourage Transit Oriented Development. Not only will the proposed bus only plan fail to deliver transit oriented development, it will fail to attract increased patronage.

ACTION buses are being asked to do two things – act as a mass transit intertown service using limited capacity buses (requiring more and more of them) and serve as a local area coverage feeding the intertown services.

ACT Light Rail suggests that light rail provide the mass transit backbone, and ACTIONs fleet is retasked to provide a higher frequency local area service. This makes best use of the advantages of both transport technologies. The greater carrying capacity and higher speed of light rail, and the flexibility of buses to serve new areas and routes and pass within 500 metres of resident’s homes.

Although it may appear that light rail is dealt with casually in this new transport policy, at least it is being discussed. Compared to the 2004 Sustainable Transport Plan – which claimed buses could deliver all the benefits of light rail – this Transport Plan now discusses light rail. ACT Light Rail would like to take some credit for that, but we aren’t the only group that have been telling the ACT Government that buses, and continued reliance upon them for mass transit – wont work. It is a message that the general public has delivered, through numerous polls, and also at the Time to Talk exercise.

It was obvious at the ‘Time to talk’ public consultation sessions that the public are aware that light rail is required. That process was very focussed on planting a meme that medium and high density was OK, and that we needed to convince people to believe that. ACT Light Rail do not have a position on urban densities, but light rail will provide a true magnet for transit oriented development. This is something the government talks up, but will find that it can’t attract by relying on bus routes. 

Why light rail can deliver TOD and buses cannot

Fixed rails bring investment. This is proved time and time again especially in US based urban renewal where light rail has been introduced. The only transit oriented development that bus rapid transit brings is at the site of the actual bus stations. It does not lead to transit oriented development along the bus routes.

It is positive that the Draft report talks about light rail in several places, it shows that the ACT Government now realise the benefits that light rail can deliver - although they still talk up bus rapid transit (BRT). Take page 27, section 2.4 for example:

The 2031 network has been designed for the current bus-based fleet, but will be adaptable to and supportive of mass public transport technology like light rail, bus rapid transit, monorails or other technology. To help plan for mass public transport, we will focus on defining the Frequent Network in policy and planning so other city-building activities can respond to it.

Its clear from reading the entire document that buses are the ONLY mode this government are planning on. By mentioning monorails it really cheapens the credibility of the document. The authors would be well aware that there are no monorail systems anywhere in the world, or even any in planning, that are used as mass transit public transport systems.

Where is the vision?

Overall it is disappointing that the report, while very densely stocked with positive goals and aspirational objectives, lacks a clear vision (focussing solely on the public transport aspect).  Active transport is a great thing to encourage but there are several problems with it. In winter cycling rates plummet, and by closing local schools and centralising super schools, the opportunity for children to walk or ride to school declines, and the requirement for parents to drop kids off to school, and then drive to work increases.

The increased residential density in the Inner north is also leading to a rising rate in ‘active transport’ i.e. – walking, not through any ACT Government policy, but because it is putting homes closer to peoples workplaces.

Just as this years Infrastructure Plan didn’t really have any single vision for public transport, this plan is the same. Piecemeal bus priority lanes added to roads which surge with traffic from new developments in Molonglo will continue for the life of this plan. A suspicious person could think that this is really more road spending hidden as bus transit way spending – although there are no funding figures associated with the report at all.

What the plan also fails to understand is that for a true shift to public transport there needs to be a modal shift. Buses will not provide the shift. The graph on P.62 of the draft policy would have us believe that there will be 16% of people using PT in 2026! That’s an amazingly low target. Why is it low? Because the ACT Government knows that by continuing to rely on buses, PT patronage will not grow. 

How can the ACT Government increase public transport patronage and grow our city in a sustainable way?

If the ACT Government provided a proper public transport system using a mass transit technology like light rail as its backbone, the percentage of workers or other residents would rise above 20%. It would then continue to rise as transit oriented development grew along the light rail routes, feeding more commuters into the system and establishing public transport use as an ingrained value. By providing a viable alternative to the private car, many families could shift from being two car families to single car families – saving an estimated $10,000 a year (NRMA figure). Active transport would also grow as people are able to more easily take bicycles on light rail vehicles, and will be more open to walking.

No money for public transport infrastructure

The draft policy plan also fails to commit to any real public transport infrastructure funding. After a sell off of buses in 2006, the government has been rebuilding the bus fleet and building piecemeal bus lanes on existing road – these bus lanes are referred to by this government as ‘transit ways’. 

In a 'Bus News' article , the Minister was quoted as saying:

“The policy provides options that support growth of the ACT economy by creating a safer, more efficient and more sustainable transport system, with ring road options for cars and freight, and public transport corridors for people,” he says.

"The ACT Government has already invested more than $1 billion in the transport system in the past 10 years, with over $120m committed in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 Budgets to roll out Transport for Canberra projects.”

Sadly this money is not going to build an initial light rail route in the ACT, or even bus rapid transit. It is the normal ongoing spending associated with the ACTION fleet, and incremental bus lanes. And of course more roads.

Conclusions from the draft policy

Although the draft ‘Transport for Canberra’ policy plan is underwhelming in its vision and aims, it does contain some positive aspects. Light rail is at last discussed positively in a strategic policy plan coming out of the ACT bureaucracy. The ACT also desperately needs a clear plan for its existing bus network.

One should not dismiss the tremendous amount of progress that has been made in recent years – especially with the introduction of the Red and Blue Rapid and Expresso bus services. These are good examples of smart transport planning. It is hoped that they lead to an increase over the longer term of bus patronage.

“IF” the public transport trip percentage hits 16% that would be the best argument for light rail – as ACTIONs fleet will be bursting at the seams. It is already at capacity on some routes. Buses out of Gungahlin in 2011 are so crowded during peaks that they have to drive past commuters waiting at stops.

“If “the 16% target were achieved, this would mean that the ACTION fleet would have to double. That is twice the amount of drivers and twice the amount of buses, mainly to serve the peaks. It is more logical to build light rail – and use the increased passenger carrying capacity and decreased staffing, that would bring. The highest cost of public transport (after infrastructure provision) is ongoing staffing.

So to sum up:

Positives:

• Report actually discusses light rail as an alternative to bus rapid transit
• Has a plan to expand the bus network (although I’m doubtful it will actually increase patronage)

Negatives:

• Heavy on motherhood statements
• Light on empirical data to allow us to reach our own conclusions
• Yet another ‘light rail study’
• Sets low goals.
• No clear vision.
• No plan to provide a proper mass transit system (even BRT)
• No mention of funding (doubling the number of buses and bus drivers wont be cheap).
• ACT Government see Canberra’s transport future as cars and buses.
• Guarantees a continuing car culture.
• Will see more road congestion.

ACT Light Rail will be putting in a submission on the draft ‘Transport for Canberra’ policy plan. We welcome your feedback. Our submission will be lodged before the November 11 date, so any input must be received at least a week prior to that closing date. 

Talking to the Tuggeranong Community Council about Light Rail

On March 1st I was the guest speaker at the Tuggeranong Community Councils monthly meeting. The topic I spoke on was 'Is Canberras Light Rail Still On Track?'. I ran through the benefits of light rail for the ACT and the Capital region, then talked about the current state of light rail in ACT policy and how it can be progressed. 

Title slide from my talk to the Tuggeranong Community Council

After my talk, I fielded questions from the crowd, including local Legislative Assembly member Steve Dozspot from the ACT Liberal Party. Amanda Bresnan from the Greens was also at the meeting. The crowd was quite diverse and asked well informed questions. 

Darryl Johnson, President of the Tuggeranong Community Council had emailed me a few light rail route proposals and I was happy to include them in my presentation, I dont have a personal preference for light rail routes, but it certainly helps people understand how light rail would operate when you can show people a map. 

Darryl Johnson, TCC President, Light Rail route proposal

The TCC will be placing my slides online, and I will link to them when that occurs.

If you would like  me to speak to your organisation about light rail, please email me at dchaas67 at gmail dot com

Electric Vehicle festival 2010 - Part One - Homebuilt EV Cars, Motorbikes and electric bicycles

Today I travelled from Belco to the lawns of Old Parliament House on a crisp spring Canberra morning in my LPG powered V8 Panelvan, and setup the ACT Light Rail stall at the 2nd Annual Canberra Electric Vehicle Festival. Last years festival was Canberra's turn at hosting the National EV Festival, and was such a hit that the local chapter of the EV Society decided to hold an annual Canberra EV Show. 

The main difference between the 2009 and 2010 EV Festivals was the increase in commercially available EV's. Mitsubishi, Toyota, Blaze and Tesla were all selling ADR compliant, registrable and insurable vehicles supported by a dealer network and factory parts and support. The chinese electric bicycle factories have also improved and increased their offerings. The electric motorbikes also look practical and stylish. This technology has moved on from nerd to mainstream.  

I have decided to divide this years report into five parts, so I could look at the commercial vehicles in a little more detail. Please check back to read them as I finish them off. The parts are divided as follows:

Part One - Homebuilt EV Cars,  Motorbikes and Electric Bicycles (this post)

Part Two - Toyota , Mitsubishi and Better Place

Part Three - Blade Electron

Part Four - Mitsubishi Canter and Tesla

Part Five - Segway

Cross membership of the EV Society and ACT Light Rail ensured that we were issued an invite to promote the benefits of sustainable public transport. It was a truly beautiful day, in a stunning venue, the lawns of Old Parliament House. I helped put the tent up and then manned the stall.

ACT Light Rail stall - Ian awaiting interested parties to inform of the benefits of light rail.

Ian explaining to an electric bicycle owner how the proposed Rapid Bus routes serve as excellent routes for light rail.

For ACT Light Rail the day was a success. We sold over 60 light rail bumper stickers, gave away over 200 information leaflets and discussed the benefits of light rail with many interested people. The concept of light rail was  overwhelmingly enthusiastically supported by 99% of the people we spoke to. It was also a good opportunity to let people know that we continue to lobby for better public transport in the Capital region. We were also able to let people know about our website and Facebook page. If any school or community groups are interested, I am happy to come and talk to you about light rail in the ACT. 

Crowds were busy all day. 

I manned the ACT Light Rail booth in the morning, and when Ian arrived wandered off to look at the various displays. I first headed over to look at the homebuilt cars and motorcycles. 

This Volkswagen was interesting. It cost the owner $3500 to convert to electric power. It features a D&D ES-15A-6 72 VDC Series wound single shaft motor, four speed manual gearbox (no clutch), with a Alltrax 72 volt, 450 amp (max) controller and seven 12V sealed lead acid batteries, totaling 84 volts. Range, estimated at 50 KMs with a top speed of 85 kmh (est). 

Mazda MX5. This conversion is so good, it looks like it came from the factory.

Daewoo

Mazda light truck with Warp 9 electric motor, powered by 45 Thundersky 90AH batteries, 5 speed manual. Range 60km. Estimated cost - $12,000.

Daihatsu EV doing some circle work. 

The numbers of homebuilt EV's was down on last years, but this is because 2009 was a national event and attracted interstate participants, whereas 2010 was a Canberra specific event, and the homebuilts on display were local cars. I was impressed at the workmanship, that they were registered, and that they looked like normal cars I could just jump into and drive off in. 

Onto the homemade electric bicycles and motorbikes. Im not sure where some of these actually sit definition wise - bicycles or motorcycles ? A regulatory challenge for our policy makers I think. 

Thats not a radiator, its a bank of batteries.

Commercial EV motorbikes. 

There were several locally based commercial electric bicycle vendors displaying their range of electric bicycles. 

These people had a unique marketing approach. A free two day trial of any of their bikes.

I asked about this bike, and I could hear it quaking in fright fearing my buttocks descending upon its frail seat. Its actually driven from the front hub, see the teeth on the rim. I think the battery is in the rectangular frame.

Effing recumbents. I hate these things. A group of recumbent bikes is known as an idiot of recumbents. Anyway.... these ones were electric and pedal powered. 

Battery pack under the seat, throttle on left hand grip.

Motor in hub. 

More in Part Two - Toyota and Better Place

Other relevant posts:
Part two - Toyota, Mitsubishi and Better Place
Last years (2009) EV Festival

Light Rail for Canberra Facebook page

ACT Light Rail now has a facebook page called 'Light Rail for Canberra'. Please visit the facebook page and link to it or become a friend of Light Rail for Canberra.

Privatising ACTION buses

Last Friday the Canberra Times published an article on the Auditor Generals report into ACTIONs inefficient and money wasting management practices. This sparked a flurry of angry letters to the editor - several suggesting that privatisation of ACTION, or spending public transport money on MORE ROADS would 'solve' these problems. Today, I emailed the following:

Dear Editor,

Readers suggesting that improving public transport by privatising ACTION or even better – spending money on more roads, completely miss the point. The aim of public transport is to deliver people from where they live to where they work.  ACTIONs main problem is that it is a local bus service and a mass transit service, taking passengers across Canberra on increasingly congested roads - a not insignificant distance of some 50 kilometres. Your own reporter discovered this can take over three hours.

To improve public transport and travelling times, a modal shift is required – to light rail. Rapid transit between town centres on grade-separated routes will slash travelling time. Park and ride nodes would act as hubs for local bus services. The ACT Governments own consultants recommend light rail, point out its economic benefits and suggest that it would attract patronage. The issue is funding – Mr Stanhope refuses to consider funding this infrastructure unless someone else pays for it.

Continued reliance on buses for public transport in Canberra is counter productive. It drives passengers off public transport and into cars, often carrying one person and then sitting idle in a car park for nine hours a day. Provide a reliable, frequent and attractive alternative – light rail, and this trend will be reversed. Privatising ACTION or building more roads as a solution to Canberra’s public transport problems makes as much sense as putting a saddle on a fish and riding it to work.

Damien Haas

Chair, ACT Light Rail

New ACT Light Rail website

Websites come and websites go. One thing which is certain is that technology marches forward, and sometimes those out on the trailing edge of technology get caught out. The ACT Light Rail website is hosted using Wordpress, but the version of Wordpress we have been using has become outdated and difficult to maintain.  

The old ACT Light Rail website front page.

If you go to our url you will see that we have now upgraded our Wordpress version, and in the next few weeks we will be putting up our new website with the new theme, and with updates on ACT Light Rail lobbying and activities which have occurred since August 2009. Embarrassingly, thats the last time the old website was upgraded. 

Fortunately, our old website has been stored for posterity at the National Library of Australia's 'Pandora' project, and will be linkable into the foreseeable future. Public transport lobbying can be  hard slog at times, but i'm glad that the effort that we have put into keeping the idea of light rail in the public mind , and the corporate knowledge of that lobbying effort will be available for future public transport lobbyists to use.

UPDATE: (from Jonathon Reynolds) The previous iteration of the website was created using a very old version of the Open Source CMS platform Joomla 1.3 that had been highly customised and was showing stability issues and proving very difficult to add to and maintain (hence the hiatus in article online). Several attempts had been made to successfully migrate the data intact to the latest version of Joomla but to no avail. A decision was finally made to bite the bullet and start again using Wordpress 3.x which should offer higher data integrity, stability and security.

If you have suggestions on what you would like to see on the new website, please leave a comment.