The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: John SmithRaising of London Circuit
Introduction
It is clear from the NCA publication “Kings & Commonwealth Avenue Draft Design Strategy” that raising of London Circuit to form a level intersection with light rail and traffic light control is compatible with NCA thinking. This thinking conflicts with the overall low population density of Canberra in which most of the population of nearly half a million people is distributed in five towns surrounding inner Canberra and the designated areas. The preference of the majority is for their own space and car travel. Therefore, they are dependent on Commonwealth Avenue and the associated roadways as a key component of Canberra’s transport network.
The graphic art provided in the call for submissions gives perspective views of the surrounding areas. It creates a false impression (compare Google Maps and note the last paragraph of this submission).
The pedestrians that might frequent these areas will be a select few, if for no other reasons than the distances involved.
In this submission I argue two things:
(a) The impact of technology will undermine the light rail city shaping strategy of the ACT government, making the case for the proposed works tenuous.
(b) Even if it were decided to proceed with the next stage of light rail, there is a better compromise for the London Circuit – Commonwealth Avenue intersection.
1. Scope of approvals - Incremental approvals
This community consultation concerns three works one of which (Raising of London Circuit) is “in preparation for a future light rail system”. Other documents published by the ACT government show that the route of next stages (Stage 2) of the “future light rail system” runs from Civic to Woden via London Circuit, Commonwealth Avenue, State Circle and Adelaide Avenue, thus traversing an extensive designated area.
The raising of London Circuit is the first of numerous approvals that will be required for work along Commonwealth Avenue.
Given that the Commonwealth Avenue extent forms an important contiguous landscape component of the parliamentary triangle, I suggest that all the works applications for this designated extent be considered together. This would avoid some possible undesirable outcomes:
(a) Approval to raise London Circuit is given on balance of benefits over detractions, and construction is completed, only to subsequently find that work at another point on Commonwealth Avenue cannot be approved.
(b) Incremental works approvals will be given, influenced by the fait accompli of previous decisions. In hindsight, an approval for the entire project would not have been given.
The leveling of London Circuit is a retrograde action for traffic movement so its necessity should be assured before proceeding. This is not the case for the alternative development described in section 3 below.
2. Risks posed by new technology
There are serious risks to the viability of a light rail system that have increased since the decision to build Stage 1. If construction of Stage 2 proceeds the parliamentary triangle could be showcasing a white elephant and much of the implied development along Commonwealth Avenue and related designated areas would be inappropriate.
Scenario 1
Consider the e-scooter schemes which operate on the streets in parts of Canberra. The operational extent is to be rolled out across all of Canberra. It would be better for an intending rider if there was an e-scooter available without having to walk to find one. But e-scooters cannot be summoned to move to the intending rider’s location.
Substitute driverless cars (robotaxis) for e-scooters and you solve the problem of moving empty vehicles. Substitute car drivers for scooter riders and you have the basis of a public transport service that would displace private cars from the roads, eliminate the parking problem, and reduce the number of cars on the road. Robotaxis are managed by existing technology that looks after the movement of empty vehicles, allocation to hirers, ride-sharing, and access for cleaning and charging.
Robotaxis have been developed by General Motors and other large car manufacturers, and by a Google affiliate. Service prototypes already operate on the streets of San Francisco.
The development of large robotaxi fleets in Canberra would remove the justification for developing an incongrous and disruptive light rail network that involves the proposed works.
Scenario 2
The Covid pandemic has been the catalyst for hybrid work, at home or in a central office, with internet software providing infrastructure and control hubs. This has resulted in empty office space and fewer light rail riders in Canberra.
Most workers prefer working from home so it may become an option that employers are forced to offer in future recruitment.
The city shaping that is focussed on a light rail corridor with dense accommodation, offices and services conflicts with the expansive urban design of Canberra.
Working from home will promote distributed development and maintain the transport dominance of the ‘go anywhere, anytime’ car.
3. Fourth Clover Leaf
Given that the main purpose of leveling the London Circuit – Commonwealth Avenue intersection is to facilitate a light rail line, why not build a connection for light rail between the two grades in the form of a cloverleaf in the north-east quadrant? The intersection of the cloverleaf at the London Circuit grade would need traffic light control because the turning light rail lines would cross the east bound car lanes. The underpass at this location is narrow, so the light rail lines would overlap the east bound car lanes. This would not be a restriction because simultaneous light rail turn movements and east bound car movements are not possible, even with a wide underpass.
The clover leaf solution has two advantages over the current works application.
(a) the better traffic flow along the existing London Circuit grade would be retained;
(b) the degradation of the landscape of Commonwealth Avenue (section 5) would be avoided.
4. Network Routes
The ACT government has forecast building a light rail network including a route through designated areas to the airport. It appears that there has been no consideration of how the network connections would be formed near Civic. The clover leaf proposal made here in section 3 gives the option of connecting the Commonwealth Avenue line to both westward and future eastward light rail movements along London Circuit.
5. Landscape Character
The two-level symmetric geometric road layout that includes London Circuit forms a major part of the defining landscape feature of Canberra. This proposal will destroy that feature in what is a retrograde step for the roadway system.
The Landscape Works Approval document contains plans with the areas within the existing cloverleafs on the western side of Commonwealth Avenue labelled “future development”. Whatever this means it can only further detract from the Commonwealth Avenue landscape.
It is clear from the NCA publication “Kings & Commonwealth Avenue Draft Design Strategy” that raising of London Circuit to form a level intersection with light rail and traffic light control is compatible with NCA thinking. This thinking conflicts with the overall low population density of Canberra in which most of the population of nearly half a million people is distributed in five towns surrounding inner Canberra and the designated areas. The preference of the majority is for their own space and car travel. Therefore, they are dependent on Commonwealth Avenue and the associated roadways as a key component of Canberra’s transport network.
The graphic art provided in the call for submissions gives perspective views of the surrounding areas. It creates a false impression (compare Google Maps and note the last paragraph of this submission).
The pedestrians that might frequent these areas will be a select few, if for no other reasons than the distances involved.
In this submission I argue two things:
(a) The impact of technology will undermine the light rail city shaping strategy of the ACT government, making the case for the proposed works tenuous.
(b) Even if it were decided to proceed with the next stage of light rail, there is a better compromise for the London Circuit – Commonwealth Avenue intersection.
1. Scope of approvals - Incremental approvals
This community consultation concerns three works one of which (Raising of London Circuit) is “in preparation for a future light rail system”. Other documents published by the ACT government show that the route of next stages (Stage 2) of the “future light rail system” runs from Civic to Woden via London Circuit, Commonwealth Avenue, State Circle and Adelaide Avenue, thus traversing an extensive designated area.
The raising of London Circuit is the first of numerous approvals that will be required for work along Commonwealth Avenue.
Given that the Commonwealth Avenue extent forms an important contiguous landscape component of the parliamentary triangle, I suggest that all the works applications for this designated extent be considered together. This would avoid some possible undesirable outcomes:
(a) Approval to raise London Circuit is given on balance of benefits over detractions, and construction is completed, only to subsequently find that work at another point on Commonwealth Avenue cannot be approved.
(b) Incremental works approvals will be given, influenced by the fait accompli of previous decisions. In hindsight, an approval for the entire project would not have been given.
The leveling of London Circuit is a retrograde action for traffic movement so its necessity should be assured before proceeding. This is not the case for the alternative development described in section 3 below.
2. Risks posed by new technology
There are serious risks to the viability of a light rail system that have increased since the decision to build Stage 1. If construction of Stage 2 proceeds the parliamentary triangle could be showcasing a white elephant and much of the implied development along Commonwealth Avenue and related designated areas would be inappropriate.
Scenario 1
Consider the e-scooter schemes which operate on the streets in parts of Canberra. The operational extent is to be rolled out across all of Canberra. It would be better for an intending rider if there was an e-scooter available without having to walk to find one. But e-scooters cannot be summoned to move to the intending rider’s location.
Substitute driverless cars (robotaxis) for e-scooters and you solve the problem of moving empty vehicles. Substitute car drivers for scooter riders and you have the basis of a public transport service that would displace private cars from the roads, eliminate the parking problem, and reduce the number of cars on the road. Robotaxis are managed by existing technology that looks after the movement of empty vehicles, allocation to hirers, ride-sharing, and access for cleaning and charging.
Robotaxis have been developed by General Motors and other large car manufacturers, and by a Google affiliate. Service prototypes already operate on the streets of San Francisco.
The development of large robotaxi fleets in Canberra would remove the justification for developing an incongrous and disruptive light rail network that involves the proposed works.
Scenario 2
The Covid pandemic has been the catalyst for hybrid work, at home or in a central office, with internet software providing infrastructure and control hubs. This has resulted in empty office space and fewer light rail riders in Canberra.
Most workers prefer working from home so it may become an option that employers are forced to offer in future recruitment.
The city shaping that is focussed on a light rail corridor with dense accommodation, offices and services conflicts with the expansive urban design of Canberra.
Working from home will promote distributed development and maintain the transport dominance of the ‘go anywhere, anytime’ car.
3. Fourth Clover Leaf
Given that the main purpose of leveling the London Circuit – Commonwealth Avenue intersection is to facilitate a light rail line, why not build a connection for light rail between the two grades in the form of a cloverleaf in the north-east quadrant? The intersection of the cloverleaf at the London Circuit grade would need traffic light control because the turning light rail lines would cross the east bound car lanes. The underpass at this location is narrow, so the light rail lines would overlap the east bound car lanes. This would not be a restriction because simultaneous light rail turn movements and east bound car movements are not possible, even with a wide underpass.
The clover leaf solution has two advantages over the current works application.
(a) the better traffic flow along the existing London Circuit grade would be retained;
(b) the degradation of the landscape of Commonwealth Avenue (section 5) would be avoided.
4. Network Routes
The ACT government has forecast building a light rail network including a route through designated areas to the airport. It appears that there has been no consideration of how the network connections would be formed near Civic. The clover leaf proposal made here in section 3 gives the option of connecting the Commonwealth Avenue line to both westward and future eastward light rail movements along London Circuit.
5. Landscape Character
The two-level symmetric geometric road layout that includes London Circuit forms a major part of the defining landscape feature of Canberra. This proposal will destroy that feature in what is a retrograde step for the roadway system.
The Landscape Works Approval document contains plans with the areas within the existing cloverleafs on the western side of Commonwealth Avenue labelled “future development”. Whatever this means it can only further detract from the Commonwealth Avenue landscape.