Exactly what does Andrew Braddock have against commuters with his advocacy to bring forward Stage 2 light rail construction?
The ACT government remains understandably coy about travel times, but the redacted business case estimated 25 to 30 minutes from Woden to Civic via the fastest State Circle route, plus two to three minutes for the partial wire-free running now insisted upon by the NCA.
Let's generously assume a 28-minute trip. Before recent roadworks, the peak Rapid bus trip was timetabled at just 18 minutes.
This means a round-trip tram commute will cost a worker an extra 20 minutes each day: over 70 hours of lost personal time a year. Scale that across an anticipated 20,000 daily commuters, and this massive drag on our city's collective wellbeing and productivity is a cost mysteriously omitted from the government's business case and Mr Braddock's musings.
Electric buses utilising Stage 2A's footprint and a modest extension of transit lanes would be even quicker than 18 minutes. If Mr Braddock is sincere about efficient public transport, that is where his focus should be.
But if he doesn't give two hoots about commuters, perhaps the environmental cost will give him pause. The estimated 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases directly generated by this concrete construction project creates a massive carbon debt that will never be repaid.
Was it ever thus? Recently, mention of Vida Goldstein occurred in something I was reading. Naturally, over the years I have read quite a bit about Vida, who was the first woman to campaign for elected office for a national parliament in the English-speaking world. In the election of 1903, Vida ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in the Australian parliament.
I was taken by a quote from Vida when she returned to Australia in 1902 from the United States, having spoken at the International Woman Suffrage Conference (where she was elected secretary).
Vida was speaking to her friend, Rose Scott, a leading Sydney women's activist, and remarked that after having met with President Theodore Roosevelt, she then met with Senate members.
She summed these meetings in the US up in the following words: politics in the US "was in the hands of unscrupulous men, who have risen from the ranks and made money."
While I'm totally on board with Mark Boast's proposal that we should "take 10kmh off speed limits for safety" (Letters, May 28) the realist in me says that it won't fly with many Canberra drivers. Anyone who drives to the existing speed limits will testify that they are often passed or tailgated by other drivers who want to go faster.
Anyone crossing Commonwealth Avenue Bridge at present where there are 40kmh speed limits in place will know that a good many drivers ignore the restriction, just as they do wherever roadworks limits dictate that they slow down.
And when the 40kmh zones were brought in around the city these columns were inundated by whingers complaining that it was too hard to focus on driving and the speed limit at the same time.
So, if the ACT government takes up Boast's suggestion, expect two things to come to pass. Firstly, a wave of outraged letters to the editor and secondly, a big boost to the government's revenue from fines.
This was the scene (pictured above) at the bend in Woolley Street, Dickson on Thursday morning. I think something needs to be done about it.
It would be really easy. Impose a standard parking infringement on Lime for each case. Lime knows who the users are and has their credit details. It can recover its costs if it chooses.
The brutality exercised by the Israelis in dealing with the international aid flotilla for Gaza in international waters, as evidenced by numerous reports, can only help to illustrate how the Israelis have dealt with innocent civilians in Gaza during the war. The Israeli military itself has conceded that over 70,000 have been killed in the Gaza Strip since October 7.
All of these actions are a breach of international law. And it is hard to argue that these views are anti-Semitic.
M. Flint (Letters, May 27) suggests Australia's policies to address climate change will have a minimal impact on global emissions, be a waste of billions of dollars and threaten our economic survival from the loss of gas and coal revenues. The energy transition rather than endangering Australia's economic future is necessary to secure it.
We have to take action. While climate action could require capital investment of up to $500 billion (about 1 per cent of Australia's total GDP over the coming decade), the cost of inaction is far higher.
Modelling by the Investor Group on Climate Change indicates uncontrolled emissions could wipe up to $6.8 trillion from Australia's GDP between now and 2050, resulting in an economy 9 per cent smaller than it would be under an orderly transition. Warmer temperatures, unpredictable rainfall, and soil salination will severely reduce agricultural output. The cumulative wealth loss from reduced agricultural and labour productivity could cost $4 trillion by 2100.
Weather-related deaths will increase, and labour force productivity decrease, from extreme weather events. The government's efforts to position Australia as a clean energy superpower are essential as Australia's fossil fuel exports are projected to fall by up to $60 billion annually by 2030 from global decarbonisation and transitioning energy markets in major export destinations like China, Japan, and South Korea.
Climate change is not a "hoax" or "crap" as claimed by fraudulent politicians including the dill with a drill in the White House, but a severe threat to economic security and our fragile environment.
According to the ABC, Australians lose up to $32 billion a year to gambling, the highest per capita losses in the world. Any government with Australians' interest at heart would ban gambling ads without a second's hesitation, and any opposition with the same interest would support it. The fact that they don't, despite such spectacular obviousness, may be the most informative indicator of a fundamental flaw in Australian politics: political donations.
Political donations form one of those feedback loops: the purpose of the donation is against our interests (or else they wouldn't be necessary); parties thus make decisions against our interest because it's in their (the parties') interest; those decisions alienate voters and provoke us not to vote for them; so donors donate more to keep their tame parties in power. Rinse and repeat. Feedback loops have the tendency to grow into death spirals - look no further than the US.
Of course gambling is only one example, though it's a good one. Others, for example expanded drilling for oil and gas, can be promoted as having some benefit to Australia in the form of needed energy, potential employment, and export and tax revenue. They're classic reasons for inaction or actual support by the parties, but the gambling industry has none of those possible benefits yet governments refuse to address the issue. QED
I can regretfully endorse Mr Oliver Raymond's dissatisfaction with Commonwealth Aged Care support. Getting registered and being allocated the appropriate codes was a simple and trouble-free process, but then obtaining the approved support was another story.
The two key areas in which I sought and was authorised to receive support were physiotherapy and, yes, "Home maintenance and repairs", specifically gardening. The search for an approved physiotherapist who could fit me in took so long that the injury requiring treatment, a twisted wrist incurred during house moving, had cleared up on its own; and gardening? Well, 14 months later, I am still trying to find a provider in the ACT or the surrounding area that can visit our small plot and carry out even the most basic work.
The initial paperwork to obtain recognition of my entitlement was a breeze, but I am still waiting to see any tangible support.
In this day and age of missiles, drones and satellite surveillance, the proponents of AUKUS need to justify how a few Australian submarines will be able to provide effective protection for our supply lines in the event of conflict.
After all, the Iran War has just demonstrated to the world that the biggest navy in the world, which includes 55 nuclear attack submarines, is incapable of ensuring the safe passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.
