This aint gonna end well...

I pulled over to take a call on my mobile phone yesterday and as I was talking I noticed a family of ducks pecking away at the side of the road. Occasionally the mother duck would dart out to the white line  - oh no - this was not going to end well I thought...

 Checking the road

 Looking left and right

 Off we go...

 A near miss, but traffic is fortunately very light

 Another near miss, but we are almost there...

Success! No lives lost. The ducks then pecked away in the median strip. This is probably not the best place for a duck family yo live. Either ducks will lose their lives at some point, or cars will brake suddenly to avoid a duck and perhaps cause a rear-end collision. I use this road at least once a week, so i will look for duck carcasses around this area for the next few weeks. 

Canberra ranked 7th out of 8 in 'motorist unfriendly' capital cities

A recent article in the Age newspaper ranked Canberra as 7th out of 8 Australian capital cities that are motorist unfriendly. This must be wonderful news for the people who claim that Canberra was a city designed for car use.

The Age article is based on a report issued by Virgin Car Insurance and is typically motorist focussed using variables such as tolls and parking fees etc to compile its rankings. It concluded Sydney was the most 'motorist unfriendly' capital city.

Disappointingly for Canberra motorists, the report concluded that Canberra was the most expensive capital city to buy petrol in, has the most expensive car registration and, the highest rate of car theft.

Virgin concluded in its report that livability is based on how easy it is to drive your car around saying:

• "Sydney may be well regarded as one of the world's most liveable cities, but that's certainly not the case for those who own a car."
• "Skyrocketing costs when it comes to tolls, parking and fines means more pain for Sydney drivers.
• "The cost of running a car in Sydney is undoubtedly putting pressure on the family budget and may well be starting to push people off the road" 

If the cost of running a car is causing people to investigate public transport, that can be viewed as a good thing. I don't think that punishing motorists is the right way to encourage public transport use, but in Sydney and Canberra we see the bizarre case where motorists are punished financially, yet there is no real increase in public transport use.

The only proven way to reduce road congestion is to offer proper mass transit public transport linking employment and population centres. If there is no alternative, people will drive.

Pedestrians versus Cars - The Bowen Place traffic safety submission

Lake Burley Griffin is an iconic Canberra presence and a walk around it, and especially the popular central basin, is a 'must' for a resident or visitor. During the day it is heavily trafficked by people walking and jogging around it, and after work it is also used heavily by people walking and riding home. On the weekends it is used by people for exercise, or just walking and riding around the lake for sheer enjoyment. The lakeside path provides ready access to many national treasures including the National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery, High Court and National Library. You can then walk a kilometer or two along it and visit the Glass Works and the Old Bus Depot Markets. Its a little piece of Canberra that has stunning views, things to see and visit and has been steadily upgraded and improved, especially in the last ten years. 

Walking around the central basin of Lake Burley Griffin using both bridges is very popular

One part of this popular circuit which has remained an afterthought is Bowen Drive and Bowen Place. It is the most dangerous part of the walk as you have to cross Bowen Drive to walk onto the Kings Avenue Bridge to cross the lake to access the Russell side. There have been many pedestrians injured here over the years. 

About ten years ago, a pedestrian crossing was built, but it is in a bizarre place, and still forces people to cross Bowen Drive. Traffic is limited 80 KM in this area but is particularly dangerous, especially at night. Pedestrian do not have right of way, and it is difficult to cross in heavy traffic. Cyclists often race in front of cars, as few dismount (although they are required to). It is a suboptimal road/pedestrian interface for both pedestrian and driver. 

The fact that it is located in the Parliamentary Triangle, and subject to special planning laws, and not administered by the ACT, complicates matters somewhat. 

Bottom left of corner is where current pedestrian access from lake path to bridge occurs, using a path that takes pedestrians directly across Bowen Drive.

Recently, the National Capital Authority initiated a consultation process on their proposed solution, and designs for, an upgraded access point to connect the lake path to Kings Avenue Bridge. Annoyingly the public consultation phase only began following the shortlisting of three designs. This poor decision means that three suboptimal designs have been pre-selected, and the public can only really comment on the least worst of the three design solutions.  

As a person who used this area frequently when I lived in Campbell and worked in Russell, I decided to make a submission on the best way to design an access point for pedestrians transiting from the path around the lake to Kings Avenue Bridge. The National Capital Authority have shortlisted three designs, all of which are substandard and very expensive. My proposal is more straightforward and does not impact upon Bowen Drive at all, in fact I suggest that a ramp and stairs rise directly from the path alongside the lake, to the bridge. 

I have no doubt this submission will be ignored, and that one of the options already shortlisted will be chosen, but I felt it was important that I present my ideas. Im sure the designers are competent and experienced, but as  person who used this dangerous crossing hundreds of times over the years, I am pretty sure I have a considered opinion on the matter.

This is the submission I made to the National Capital Authority concerning the Bowen Place traffic/pedestrian consultation process.  

I thank the National Capital Authority for the opportunity to comment on the proposed safety upgrades to the Bowen Place area. This area is one I am very familiar with as a former resident of Campbell, when I used this crossing every night for some years. My use predates the existing pedestrian crossing, and also the various attempts to prevent walking up the steep bank where the NO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS sign is placed on the Kings Avenue Bridge.

As a long time user of this area, I have given considered thought to solving safety and access issues and the conclusion I have reached is different from yours.

All three of the proposals on the NCA website are sub-optimal, with the Footbridge over Bowen Place being the least worst of the three short listed design proposals.

I would suggest that a far simpler and more user friendly option would also be the simplest – construction of a ramp and stairs rising directly from the path running alongside Lake Burley Griffin, up to the Kings Avenue Bridge itself. This would negate the need to cross Bowen Place at all.

I am attaching three simple proposals where these stairs and ramp could be sited on the following pages. I would suggest that although you have already pre-determined that only one of the three short listed proposals be adopted, you instead consider a far simpler and more logical proposal.

Proposal 1 - Ramp or stairs rising from existing cycle/pedestrian path running alongside the lake, to the Kings Avenue Bridge.

Proposal 2 - Ramp or stairs rising in a semi-circular fashion from the existing path to the Kings Avenue Bridge.

Proposal 3 - Ramp or stairs rising adjacent from the existing path to the Kings Avenue Bridge.

Yours sincerely

Damien Haas

Senior Consultant

MFP Consulting

PO Box 1043

Kaleen, ACT

Proposal 1 - Ramp or stairs rising from existing cycle/pedestrian path running alongside the lake, to the Kings Avenue Bridge.

Proposal 2 - Ramp or stairs rising in a semi-circular fashion from the existing path to the Kings Avenue Bridge.

Proposal 3 - Ramp or stairs rising adjacent to the existing path rising to the Kings Avenue Bridge.

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

1999 to 2010. No vision on transport issues in Canberra

Today’s ( 29 August 2010) Sunday Canberra Times carries a story on cabinet deliberations of the Carnell Government in the 1999/2000 period. Two of the items ‘exposed’ are still relevant to the residents of Canberra who suffer from the same stunted thinking of today’s ACT Government. Nothing in politics has changed from 1999.

The first one concerns the predictions that traffic coming out of Gungahlin would cause traffic problems and congestion as Gungahlins population increased. Cabinet were told in 1999 that duplicating Flemington Road would cause ‘rat runs’ (they did it anyway). The government were told about the congestion problems with inadequate roads and increased construction and still permitted building without adequate road infrastructure (let alone public transport infrastructure) in place.

The second, and of even greater interest is the revelation that Bishop Austrans were ‘enticed’ to set-up in the ACT, with some vague promise by the Carnell government of payroll tax refunds. Its not totally clear what other promises were made. The article also mentions that a Civic, Airport, Parliamentary Triangle circuit was mooted. Its not entirely clear how far along these discussions went, but Bishop Austrans never moved to Canberra and the Carnell government was strongly anti-public transport in general, so this part of the Canberra Times story really requires further explanation.

But lets go back to 1999. Gungahlin in 1999 was mainly just Palmerston and a burger van in the town centre. Its real growth only came post 2002. Even in 1999 traffic was heavy in the ‘peak hour’ with Gungahlin Drive and Gundaroo Drive being the only real roads in and out. These roads were, and continue to be, jammed solid during peak times, even with the Gungahlin Drive extension (single lane, as is ACT Roads penny pinching way) in place.

The inability to properly construct access roads to a new town of 30,000 people is something that the Carnell Government should always be remembered for, but the Stanhope Government has continued its ‘small vision’ approach since it was elected. Its preferred solution is to construct single lane access roads, and then several years later perhaps upgrade them to dual lane. A single vehicle accident on these roads blocks traffic completely.

A proper planning approach would be to firstly build proper dual lane road access in and out of a new town with multiple access points, and with connections to other major roads. Starting off with single lane and then upgrading continually for ten years is a ridiculous waste of money. Flemington Roads is at present being upgraded again, with roads surfaces laid down, torn up and re-laid again. Several times as each annual upgrade plan is funded.

‘Bigger’ vision would be to build proper mass transit infrastructure like light rail to link major employment, education and residential centres. This would allow transport-oriented development around the light rail network, and delay or negate entirely the need to build or upgrade roads.

The Carnell government could have built light rail from Gungahlin to Civic in 1999 – a much better idea than a fanciful Civic, Airport, Parliamentary Triangle loop using a proprietary transport technology. Many years of stress free commuting and guided transport oriented development would have then followed. The GDE may not even have been required.

Sadly the Stanhope Government will repeat this farce in Molonglo. In a submission by ACT Light Rail on the Molonglo Development it was noted that the ACT Governments own advice to itself is that at each stage of its development, the access to Molonglo via Parkes way will be at capacity. 18 months after the submission, and with a proposal also put forward by the Greens, no real commitment to improve access or public transport in Molonglo has been announced, apart from some vague promise to run a bus route in and out. The outcome of congested roads and endless upgrades is predictable.

 Bishop Austrans passenger vehicle, 9 to 18 passenger capacity (promotional photo).

Now lets look at Bishop Austrans. As a public transport solution it has advantages and disadvantages. The Bishop Austrans system is a driverless small vehicle system, which is summoned on demand and can run 24x7. It has a capacity of nine to eighteen people. Driverless vehicles would certainly solve the problem of frequency, as staff numbers in and out of peak times would not vary. Theoretically the system could operate 24 hours a day. Sadly, the Bishop Austrans system is yet to be installed in service anywhere. Driverless vehicle technology can work well, and I have used it in places like JFK Airport in New York (and even this system is light rail capacity in size) but I do not know of any large scale rollouts of this technology.

The article also mentioned that a Civic, Airport, Parliamentary Triangle circuit was suggested. Such a small circuit would justify a small carriage such as the Bishop Austrans. The toylike Sydney Monorail that serves the tourist trade is an example. Larger capacity required to serve as a rapid transit system from say Gungahlin to Civic and then onto the Parliamentary Triangle, would require larger vehicles than Bishop Austrans. How anyone viewed a system that consisted of vehicles carrying 18 people as suitable for Canberra is beyond me.

To place this in perspective – ACTION buses transport 30,000 passengers a day (2002 figures), in buses with 60-120 passenger capacity. You simply could not replace a barely functioning and unpopular bus network with a proprietary small vehicle replacement. Somehow the practical issue of dealing with volume and frequency and a summon on demand system remained theoretical. Apart from a small test track, Bishop Austrans remains on paper – 10 years later.

It should also be remembered that around this 1999 period, bus industry boosters in Canberra and ACTION management were heavily promoting guided bus technology. The heavily pushed system of preference was the European Civis guided bus system. This troubled proprietary technology is promoted as bus rapid transit. Yet it features all the disadvantages of buses and none of the advantages of light rail. Fortunately for Canberras rate-payers and public transport users, this has now fallen out of favour. 

 Promotional photo of a 'hands free' guided bus. 

Canberra does not need to trial new technologies to solve its transport problems. It can easily invest in a proven, off the shelf technology and have it up and running in less than twelve months. The Stanhope Government commissioned a consultant to examine light rail and it reported that introducing light rail would not only enhance the public transport system, promote increased use of public transport – but it would also boost productivity. After reading this report, the Stanhope government concluded that the report said light rail was too expensive. The report said no such thing, yet it’s a claim oft repeated by the Chief Minister and never challenged by the media.

Following this discovery that public transport infrastructure would require more than a sign on a pole saying ‘bus stop’ the Stanhope Government then made a submission to Infrastructure Australia requesting 2 billion dollars. No engineering plan was submitted, and no real costings were provided. The submission guidelines were not met, and the bid was doomed before it was submitted. Professor Paul Mees recently advised that the costings were out by a factor of at least three. It is no surprise that two years later no word has come down from Infrastructure Australia advising that the ACT will get its money, or that it hasn’t. The whole subject has just been ignored. By saying that a light rail network will cost 2 billion dollars, and Canberra cant afford it on its own – the Stanhope Government neatly handballs the issue to someone else.

Realistically, no transport network is funded to be fully constructed in one funding cycle. A sound approach would be to identify one or two logical starting points that could be funded over a 2 to 5 year period. These routes have already been identified by the consultant engaged to prepare the Canberra Transport Plan (due first quarter of 2010, six months ago). This could cost as little as 200 million dollars, or 40 million a year for five years. This is achievable and would make better reading in the 2020 Canberra Times report on schemes funded by the Stanhope Government.

Basic rules for driving in Canberra

(from www.xfalcon.com )

1. Indicators will give away your next move. A real Canberra driver never uses them.

2. Under no circumstances should you leave a safe distance between you and the car in front of you, or somebody else will fill in that space, putting you in an even more dangerous situation.

3. Crossing two or more lanes in a single lane change is considered "going with the flow."

4. The faster you drive through a red light, the less chance you have of getting hit.

5. Never get in the way of an older car that needs extensive repairs. The other guy doesn't have anything to lose.

6. Braking is to be done as hard and as late as possible to ensure that your ABS kicks in, giving a nice, relaxing foot massage as the brake pedal pulsates. For those of you without ABS, it's a chance to stretch your legs.

7. Speed limits are arbitrary figures, given only as suggestions and apparently not enforceable in the metro area during rush hour.

8. Please remember that there is no such thing as a shortcut during rush-hour traffic in Canberra.

9. Always slow down and rubberneck when you see an accident or even someone changing a tyre.

10. Everybody thinks their vehicle is better than yours, especially 4WD drivers.

11. Learn to swerve abruptly. Canberra is the home of High-Speed Slalom Driving thanks to the Urban services, which puts potholes in key locations to test drivers' reflexes and keep them on their toes, not forgetting the 'Test your skill' chicanes in suburbs.

12. It is traditional in Canberra to honk your horn at cars that don't move the instant the light changes.

13. Seeking eye contact with another driver revokes your right of way.

14. Never take a green light at face value. Always look right and left before proceeding.

15. Remember that the goal of every Canberra driver is to get there first, by whatever means necessary.

16. Real Canberra women drivers can put on pantyhose and apply eye makeup at 75 kph in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

17. Real Canberra men drivers can remove pantyhose and a bra at 95 kph in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

18. Heavy fog and rain are no reasons to change any of the previously listed rules. These weather conditions are God's way ensuring a natural selection process for panel beaters, junkyards, and new vehicle sales. It is an acceptable practice to increase your speed in comparison to the rate of rain fall, i.e.: the harder it rains, the faster you go.

19. There is a commonly held belief in Canberra that high-speed tailgating in heavy traffic reduces petrol consumption as you get sucked along in the slipstream of the car in front.

20. It's OK to cut off fully loaded semi-trailers, road trains and buses because, hell - they have brakes.

21. It is an essential duty of the driver to preserve the life of his passengers. Hence no matter how much of an inconvenience it may be, always find a detour around The Causeway, Lower Kambah, Lower Wanniassa, Scullin, Areas of Ainslie, and Oaks Estate.

22. Always anticipate oncoming traffic while driving down a one-way street.

23. It's O.K when driving in Belconnen's suburbs to air your grievances at bad drivers by giving the "one finger salute" while screaming out "#%*#". However, it is imperative you are driving at least a 5-litre V8 with a crow bar in your lap.

24. Canberra drivers are experts at merging, when in two or more lanes travelling in the same direction, ensure that if you see someone politely indicating, waiting slowly trying to merge into your lane, show them that they must 'Wait their turn' to use your lane. Speed up, try to cut them off, should they succeed and get into your lane never mind that it was actually legal for them to do that, ensure that your flash your lights, honk your horn, use extreme hand gestures, even tailgate them, just to let them know, IT WAS YOUR LANE.

25. Ensure that when merging into traffic travelling at any more than 40kph that you stop in the merging lane, backing up traffic for miles behind you, ensuring that you have given yourself or no-one else that opportunity to merge. Again, forget that the traffic handbook states that you should speed up to meet traffic speed then merge. If you are travelling in a lane near a merge lane, don't changes lanes to make it easy for them, instead see rule 24, after all they deserve it.

26. While using Canberra roundabouts, particularly two lane roundabouts, ENSURE that you are in the left lane to turn right, or the right to turn left, hell lets keep those people in those other lanes on their toes.

27. Roundabouts are actually stop signs. Stop at the roundabout even if there are no other cars entering or in the roundabout when you arrive. This keeps the motorists behind you on their toes because they, having checked there is nothing coming, stupidly expect you to keep going only to find with a hair's breadth to spare that you didn't.

28. If you are an Action bus driver, you must win at all costs, getting to your destination prior to any other driver is life and death. Never worry about your passengers bouncing round in the back like tennis balls, hell it's a cheap form of theme park, in fact Canberra's very own.

29. Canberra Cabs, see rule 27, except you are now qualifying for the GMC 400.

30. Pedestrian crossings - What are they?

31. If you are a cyclist, remember YOU ARE INVINCIBLE, you are stronger than ANY vehicle travelling at speed, MAKE SURE you take the whole lane for yourself, and at night NEVER use lights, remember They Will See You

Cruise control and idiots

Driving today is safer than it has ever been. Despite the bleatings of transport ministers and Police, I dont believe speed cameras or police 'blitzes' are responsible for this dramatic increase in mortality. I believe the lives saved have been due to engineering advancements from both the vehicle and road technology arenas.

One development that has not made the road safer is that humans are idiots, and no amount of engineering short of creeping darwinian evolution will change that.

I offer as my first piece of evidence the use of cruise control. Over long distances, cruise control is very useful. It allows concentration on the road and ones surrounds, instead of focussing on the speedo. In the hands of idiots however, the cruise control can lead to accidents. 

How so?

Idiot behaviour 1:  

When entering the highway, the cruise control overtaker studiously sets the cruise control to 100 kmh and there it stays. When coming up behind a slower vehicle, the cruise control overtaker will swing out into the right lane, blithely unconcerned that a person traveling at 110 in that lane has just had to apply the brakes to avoid a collision.

Idiot behaviour 2:

Just as in Idiot behaviour one, when entering the highway, the cruise control overtaker  sets the cruise control to 100 kmh and when overtaking a slower vehicle, even if that vehicle is doing 99.5 kmh, the cruise control overtaker slowly, oh so slowly, crawls past almost defying the laws of physics. This is particularly annoying when the vehicle being overtaken is a triple trailered road train. No amount of passive aggressive tail-gating will make this idiot drive at say 105 kmh. Thats dangerous speeding. 

Idiot behaviour 3:

With the cruise control set to 110 kmh, the cruise control idiot comes up behind your car traveling at 100 kmh and moments before ramming your rear bumper, suddenly brakes. Causing a near bowel evacuation as you stare bug eyed in your rear view mirror imagining the crew of the SS Idiot behind you getting ready to board after ramming. 

Sadly, I cant see that any amount of technology will help change idiot behaviour. Im not sure if crash reports are made public, but I would like to know if variables like 'cruise control on' are reported upon when the causes of accidents are being investigated. I recall speaking to a policeman 20 years ago at a party, he told me that at many road accidents he had attended, a cassette was found floating about the car interior obviously being ejected or inserted by the driver moments before the accident. This was never reported in the stats either.