Submission to the Inquiry into Commonwealth and Parliamentary approvals for the proposed Stage 2 of the Australian Capital Territory light rail project

Terms of Reference #3 Possible impacts on the Parliamentary zone and Parliamentary precincts, including any impacts on the heritage values and national importance of the Parliamentary zone and our national capital

Apart from Parliament House, sitting at the apex of the Parliamentary triangle, there are two other, overarching heritage values associated with the Parliamentary area that come to mind: the design, and the “bush capital” character.

I would argue that the Walter Burley Griffin design of is like the jewel in the crown. I am sure many Canberrans, and I would hope a great many Australians as well, harbour a sense of pride in the Walter Burley Griffin design of Canberra, and consider it, in its entirety, to be of paramount heritage value for the national capital. The Griffin design, while not limited to, includes the clean, symmetrical lines of Commonwealth Avenue and Kings Avenue, most notably where they cross the . These avenues define the two sides of the Parliamentary triangle leading to its apex, and contribute key visual heritage value to the national capital (as does the absence of any other construction across within their visual neighbourhood).

Canberra is known as the “bush capital”, and many Canberrans readily identify with this character of the national capital (see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-14/canberra-the-bush-capital-voted-new- number-plate-slogan/8353096). The visual prominence (and dominance in certain locations, for instance close to Parliament House) of a great many majestic eucalypts (as well as other grand trees) creates the irreplaceable “bush capital” warmth and charm of our national capital. Without the mass effect of friendly gums (and other more stately trees), Canberra would lose a significant aspect of its urban beauty. Big trees that can hold their own in a built environment make cities beautiful (this is no less true for really great cities of the world, such as the French capital, Paris, which also has a tram network, operating on the periphery of the city and further out).

The fundamental heritage value of Canberra’s “bush capital” character complements that of the Griffin legacy, and together these two features of the national capital allow it to stand proud in representing the nation.

The proposed Stage 2 of the ACT light rail project intends to run along a substantial part of Commonwealth Avenue. I am concerned that major engineering roadworks, bridgeworks, and other required changes along Commonwealth Avenue to support light rail will substantially detract from the heritage value of the Walter Burley Griffin design of Canberra. Apparently, there would be no overhead wires for light rail along Commonwealth Avenue, but I understand that instead some compensatory power-supply infrastructure would be needed to support the operation of the trams along this section of the track? If so, I would again be concerned at the physical and visual impacts on the heritage value.

In addition, any removal of big trees would harm the heritage value of the visual scene, by diminishing the “bush capital” character of Canberra. Sadly, one can already see the loss of the “bush capital” warmth and charm along Northbourne Avenue, which is the “front door to Canberra”, where Stage 1 of the ACT light rail project is well underway.

For JSCNCET 4/07/2018 @ 23:54 Page 1 of 5 South of the Parliamentary triangle: various other concerns

Overhead wires would be used in the vicinity of and along the drive down to Government House (and beyond). There will be a corresponding negative visual impact on the view to Parliament House, when driving towards it up Adelaide Avenue from Woden.

As it makes its way from Parliament House and The Lodge to Government House, light rail construction would have to contend with the complication of two existing overhead road bridges (at Deakin, Cotter Road exits heading south).

Are there any biodiversity concerns for the ACT’s floral emblem? Is it known to grow along the proposed Stage 2 corridor, with respect to the Parliamentary precincts? If so, and the construction of light rail were to eliminate it there, would this amount to a threat to the species or not?

General concern about noise and vibrations

In general, it seems the exact impacts of noise and vibrations from the light rail are unclear. Surely these should be determined before any approval is given for Stage 2 of the ACT light rail project to pass through the Parliamentary precincts? Waiting until Stage 1 is fully operational for a substantial period of time (e.g. one year), so that factual evidence can be gathered, would seem most appropriate.

For JSCNCET 4/07/2018 @ 23:54 Page 2 of 5 Terms of Reference #4 The identification of matters that may be of concern prior to formal parliamentary or Australian Government consideration of the project; and any other matter the Committee wishes to examine

While I appreciate that the Inquiry is not looking at the ACT light rail project as a whole, given that, for an extended period, its proposed Stage 2 will be highly disruptive of the built environment in the Parliamentary areas and beyond, and will negatively impact on the day-to-day movements of Canberrans, this must have a corresponding negative impact on federal government business. Therefore, I think it is relevant to question whether there is a compelling public transport reason for the proposed Stage 2 of the ACT light rail project to pass through any part of the Parliamentary zone or have any impact on Parliamentary precincts.

It seems counterintuitive and counterproductive to impose an inflexible and less efficient public transport mode, connecting Canberra city centre to , along a largely similar, but more circuitous, route already covered by existing rapid transit bus services. According to the ACT government, the light rail will be slower than the current rapid transit bus services operating through the Parliamentary triangle. But who would opt to take a slower tram when a much faster bus is available? What is the point of introducing light rail along traffic corridors already serviced by a more suitable public transport mode? Why not build light rail so as to complement Canberra’s existing public transport infrastructure? If there is a particular demand for public transport to service Barton and Parliament House that is not already being met, separate bus routes could be added to cater to these destinations.

Unlike Stage 1 of the ACT light rail project, which passes nearby dwellings along stretches of its route in Gungahlin and , the proposed Stage 2 exhibits an alignment that does not appear to pass within cooee of any dwellings along its route, it essentially services clusters at its end points. One wonders how much patronage the two tram stops, situated along the stretch of Adelaide Avenue from Parliament House and The Lodge to the exits for Government House, would attract.

I don’t think a light rail network is an affordable or a suitable public transport initiative for Canberra, but if the ACT government is determined to persist in its construction, it should consider an alternative light rail network which steers clear of the Parliamentary triangle altogether (crosses Lake Burley Griffin or the near the airport), complements the existing bus network, and incorporates redundancy. Canberra could take Paris as its basic model: Paris relies on rapid and flexible modes of public transport within its central districts (underground and bus), and only has trams on its periphery (see map). I have made a very simple sketch of an alternative light rail network for Canberra, with built-in redundancy (all hubs are connected to at least two other hubs); note that the ACT government’s light rail network master plan shows that the entire network forces all commuter traffic through the city centre. This seems to be a recipe for creating maximum traffic congestion in an urban area (which includes the Parliamentary precincts) that otherwise has a decentralised design seeking to minimise it.

How can diminishing the heritage values of the national capital be justified in the context of the proposed Stage 2 of ACT light rail?

For JSCNCET 4/07/2018 @ 23:54 Page 3 of 5 Map of the Paris tram network by Maximilian Dörrbecker (Chumwa) CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6815561

For JSCNCET 4/07/2018 @ 23:54 Page 4 of 5 Sketch of an initial idea for an alternative light rail network for Canberra • Note there is no passage of light rail through the Parliamentary precincts • Solid lines indicate light rail connections, dashed lines indicate rapid bus connections

For JSCNCET 4/07/2018 @ 23:54 Page 5 of 5