Author Archives: Eddy Steenbergen

Unknown's avatar

About Eddy Steenbergen

A Tasmanian IT professional who was in the business far longer than he cares to admit, and now uses those skills to support family history research, manage web sites, and write about Glenorchy matters.

Light rail. A beautiful idea.

Leave a reply

Now that light rail has made its way into the draft Hobart City Deal in early 2019, and council has committed ten million dollars as seed money, we must take a closer look at “light rail”.

There is clearly considerable support for the idea of light rail. Many can recall using passenger trains in their younger days and wonder why they cannot be revived. And many others have walked or ridden along the cycle path, seen a slowly rusting railway line, and thought “What a waste! Why not make it useful? How hard can it be?”

So when the Mercury Newspaper (November 16, 2016) in a public survey asks voters the leading question “Do you think that Hobart needs a light rail system?“, it is not at all surprising that 62 percent said yes. On the other hand, almost 40 percent said no or didn’t care.

Even 30 percent of respondents in Burnie and Launceston answered yes to the question! What do they know of the Hobart/Glenorchy transport situation? They clearly support the idea of light rail. The idea! It is the idea that is emotionally appealing.

Suppose now that the survey provided the information that the light rail is likely to cost at least 200 million dollars. That was the value of a light rail project the state government submitted in 2017 to Infrastructure Australia for inclusion in it’s Priority List. By the way, it didn’t make it.

This number of dollars should focus the mind. It raises thoughts of money, how the project might affect you. The amount to build it, to run it, to travel on it. It raises questions of whether the light rail is worth that amount of money, whether fares should cover the cost of operation, whether there will be sufficient demand to achieve financial objectives.

The Hobart Northern Suburbs Railway Rail Action Group has played a leading role advocating for light rail. Ben Johnston, president of that group since its inception, has just resigned from that position due to work commitments. In his resignation post on the group’s Facebook page he laments about “politicians apparently passionate about the rail project prior to election, only to find they’re less enthusiastic once in Government.” That may simply be a result of being confronted by the difficulty of justifying the expense of construction and operation when you are in a position to actually make a decision.

What makes current discussions about light rail more frustrating is the secrecy behind the Hobart City Deal. The public has not seen the deal. The public has not seen any detail on the transport link proposal included in the deal.

Since we have yet to see any detailed design for an actual project, let me try to imagine some basic requirements assuming the current rail track is used and railway stations from the past are used again. These are my thoughts. If you imagine differently, share your thoughts by commenting on this post.

1. It will take a service of at least four trains an hour each way to persuade people to use it and the service must run seven days a week and run well into the night to allow people to use it for sporting or social activities.

2. To make sure the rail service can stick to its timetable, automatic traffic lights and boom gates will be required at every railway crossing giving priority to the rail service. They will stop the traffic for a minute every eight minutes. Imagine that at high volume thoroughfares such as Albert Road, Hopkins Street, Derwent Park Road, Lampton Avenue, and, worst of all, Elwick Road.

3. There will be a “station” at each stop with a platform on each side of the line. Absolute minimum facilities might be seating, all-weather shelter, good lighting, and a panic button to use in an emergency.

4. Some new tracks will be laid in passing loops located to allow trains to pass and allow a two-way service.

5. A service to Hobart will require a terminus in the Hobart CBD so people don’t need to walk far.

Council must think strategically and plan for the long-term. But it must also bring city residents along. It must show residents how they will benefit from their plans.

It must explain to residents why light rail will not follow the same path as the Derwent Entertainment Centre, why it will not become a service never making a profit and requiring a permanent subsidy. All the studies I’ve read use modelling to try to predict how many passengers we can expect. That modelling is based on a large number of debatable assumptions.

A final note on funding. It may be easy for the Glenorchy City Council to lobby for light rail. The high capital cost of construction will almost certainly be borne by the Federal Government, The cost of operation and maintenance, assuming that Metro Tasmania becomes the operator, will be largely borne by the State Government. The Council hopes to reap the benefits of an increased rate base resulting from infill development in the rail corridor at minimal cost to itself.

The light rail proposal is a risky proposal involving a very large investment. We need to be shown why we should accept that risk.

References

Many reports have been produced over the years. The list below does not include every report. It is a collection of the most significant (in my opinion).

1. “Hobart to Northern Suburbs Light Rail Business Case”, Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources, July 2011

2. “Glenorchy to Hobart CBD Transit Corridor – High level review of corridor options”; Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources; November 2011

3. “Hobart Northern Suburbs Light Rail – Business Case Peer Review”; AECOM (for Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources); Dec 2012

3. Price Waterhouse Coopers Reports on Hobart Light Rail Proposal; 2013

4. Stage 1 Light Rail Business Case (Hobart to Glenorchy), Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources; May 2013.

5. “Riverline – Hobart Light Rail Strategic Assessment”; Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources; March 2014

6. “Review of a proposed light rail system in Hobart (final advisory report)”, Infrastructure Tasmania; January 2016


					

		
		
	

							
	

				

			
						

				Rubbish is personal
			

										

					Leave a reply				

					


				

			
What does council do that affects ratepayers more than anything else? That affects them more often than any other issue?


Rubbish. Yes, rubbish. Or more precisely, making it possible for ratepayers to get rid of stuff – green stuff, glass stuff, plastic stuff, paper and cardboard stuff, stuff that is broken or unusable, stuff that is simply not needed or wanted any more – all sorts of stuff.


Most ratepayers interact with council every two weeks, when bins are emptied.




Stop a ratepayer in the street. Write a post in Facebook. If you want to get maximum response, don’t talk about rates, simply mention either the tip or the emptying of the bins. You will trigger an avalanche of complaints and suggestions.


Even if the original item wasn’t about rubbish, responses will rapidly wander from the original topic to any and all aspects of rubbish.


Why does collection cost so much? Why does using the tip cost so much, or more than other tips? Why can’t bins be emptied more often, say weekly? Why can’t we have an annual collection of big waste, such as furniture, like other councils? Why do I have to go all the way to the tip to recycle or dispose of stuff? Why can’t there be recycling stations across the city? Why can’t we have a “general & green waste free entry weekend” in January like Hobart? Why should I pay so much to go to the tip when I already pay so much in rates?


The lesson for council is that while some will obsess over rates, some will obsess over the sale (or not) of the DEC, everyone at least once a fortnight thinks about stuff and how council helps (or not) in disposing of or recycling it.


Absolutely everyone has rubbish, absolutely everyone needs a way to get rid of it. It is personal.


The Jackston Street Tip will fill up and our rubbish will start to end up somewhere outside Glenorchy (maybe Copping). Council and its ratepayers will need to adjust.


Council must work very hard to clearly explain how things will work after the Jackson Street Tip closes, all the various actions they will take to make it happen, and why. Statements like “We all need to be responsible waste managers – individuals, households, business, and Council” are not enough even if absolutely true – rubbish is personal and gets emotional reactions. Pure logic will not suffice.



					

		
		
	

							
	

				

			
						

				Wasting space
			

										

					Leave a reply				

					


				

			
A recent holiday in Italy has given me a new perspective on the way we live in the suburbs of Hobart in Tasmania.


We live in an average single storey brick veneer home with a generous amount of space between our house and the street, and an even more extensive back yard (containing a gazebo and apricot, lemon and apple trees).


The city of Naples made the biggest impact on me. Our hotel was in the centre of the city accessible only via cobblestone lanes (I hesitate to call them streets) and its reception was on the second floor reached in a tiny lift. The easiest way to get around in the city was to walk, and this allowed us to see how life went on in those lanes. No space was wasted. Behind every doorway or up or down any stairway was some business activity – café, foodshop, joinery, tourist trinket shop etc etc.


One excursion was by train to Herculaneum and then on to Sorrento for afternoon tea. Although the view from the train was generally not very attractive, the space between the line and the adjacent buildings was almost invariably covered by a garden of some sort.


This travel helped me recognize the wasteful and unproductive way in which most people here use the space around their homes. Some grow food but most simply modify their space to support their leisure activities. Flower beds, shrubs, trees, gazebos, decks, lawns. What a waste!

					

		
		
	

							
	

				

			
						

				Deliberate disruption on the roads is good
			

										

					Leave a reply				

					


				

			
We are accustomed to reading in our newspaper for calls to improve our roads whenever there is a particularly horrific accident involving death. The media always appears to scan the local population and locate a person who is quoted as saying that the location of the accident is a black spot that has needed repair or upgrade for years. Motoring organizations are often asked for an opinion and invariably make a statement that implies that the road design or driving surface were in some way substandard or inadequate.


Our roads and highways are becoming smoother and straighter. Our vehicles more often provide cruise control, and are becoming quieter (virtually silent in electric vehicles). The driver’s focus can easily move to what is inside the vehicle: their phone, iPod, or passengers. Reduced attention is almost inevitable.


This obsession with the quality of our roads and highways is misguided.


Better infrastructure encourages the public to take more risks since they perceive those risks to be lower. While risk-taking may in many other contexts help with personal development, it should not be encouraged in situations that may quickly become uncontrollable and life-threatening.


But better infrastructure also has the effect of making it more difficult for the driver to maintain a sufficient focus on what is happening outside the vehicle. This can result in complacency, but most often plain inattention. Not surprisingly, this is the most common cause of accidents on the road, bar none. The driver is distracted, and does not become aware of a potential problem while there is still time to avoid it. If the ultimate objective is to reduce accidents then the focus should be on assisting drivers to maintain their concentration and respect for the road conditions.


I advocate the deliberate introduction of defects and other devices to deliberately disrupt the driving experience. Defects might be very shallow potholes, and variations in the smoothness of the road surface. Disruptive devices might include coloured markers, possibly raised, to give tactile and visual feedback. They could also be speed limit signs placed at random locations, not only where the speed limit changes.


This disruption should be introduced into our driving infrastructure located at random intervals. A further refinement might be to move the defects or devices regularly so that drivers do not become accustomed to their location.


In our state Tasmania, a rough strip has been placed on the verges of many stretches of highway to alert drivers with a loud noise when they are in danger of leaving the road. This action reflects an acknowledgement by the road management authorities that drivers need help. My suggestion simply takes the rough verges to a more comprehensive solution.


Safe driving relies on the driver giving their driving the attention it deserves. The construction of more perfect roadways and vehicles inhibits this. The introduction of random disruption is one way to assist the driver (and the other occupants of the vehicle) to give the the driving process the attention it deserves, and survive their trip unscathed.