Rail Infrastructure Projects in the Nation's Capital: A Tale of Two Chronologies

© Depositphotos.com/@karnizz

Recently, the ACT Government's Minister for Capital Metro, Mr Simon Corbell, announced the shortlist of two consortia to build and operate Canberra's proposed light rail link.

There is a long history of interest groups supporting a light rail service for Canberra and this is fast becoming a reality.

But how can we understand what makes large infrastructure projects happen? What signals the tipping point?

This is an interesting question, and short of using a crystal ball, we may never know the answer other than in hindsight.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find out.

Often, I develop chronologies to help investigate path dependencies and tipping points in policy development. Typically, this requires the bringing together of numerous sources separated by long periods of time.

It is not uncommon to discover trajectories that commenced generations ago. These are frequently overlooked by contemporary commentators and this is the part I find most fascinating.

Here in the Australian Capital Territory, two major rail projects provide interesting cases: Capital Metro and High Speed Rail. Thankfully, chronologies for these projects are readily available.

First, the Canberra Times has produced an interactive chronology of light rail in the nation's capital - well worth a look.

Second, and while there have been recent developments in high speed rail, this 1998 chronology provides some useful information about how the policy has developed - or rather not developed - over time.

I find chronologies useful to frame my answers to an important research question: Why is Australia, one of the richest countries in the world, so slow to deploy important infrastructure?

Stay tuned!

Now they have an "app" for everything, or do they?

© Depositphotos.com/@lunamarina

While I am sure that "apps" such as Lumosity can be helpful in exercising one's brain, and MyFitnessPal is a calorie watcher's dream, I am not convinced that there is an app for everything.

But recently, the Australian Department of Defence released High Res, an app to help people manage stress.

Before I critique this approach to managing stress, I must admit that for people who spend much of their time using their mobile phone, such an app may help in the practice of emotional intelligence.

Several years ago, when I first worked on the idea of "lecturing as performance", I found, inevitably, that my emotional intelligence was tested whenever I tried anything even remotely different at the front of a lecture theatre filled with about 600 people.

As a result, I took a course on emotional intelligence to provide me with some tools to manage my emotions while "performing". It worked.

One of the tips mentioned by the instructor appears to be replicated by High Res. For example, some habitual cues such as flicking a bracelet when confronted with stressful situations might signal one to disengage from an argument, to break off in order to process what is happening, and to return at some later time with a more constructive approach to dealing with the other person and the issue at hand. 

Rather than a physical signal, I daresay High Res may provide users with a tool to do the same thing, albeit less intellectually and more perfunctorily. While I have no intention to criticise the app and the important intention behind it, I must admit that this obsession with "an app for everything" is missing the key point.

I stopped using a mobile phone at the end of 2009 after returning from my sabbatical in Jordan. Ever since then, my stress levels have decreased significantly.

When I take my dogs for a walk around my local lake, I am shocked by the number of people who walk their dogs while talking on their mobile phones. I know people who drive long distances for work and they call their friends and family to entertain them while driving. Take the time and look around - it is a rare thing to see a lone individual walking around without talking on their mobile phone.

The whole point of being alone is to rejuvenate one's spirit. To reconnect with God or the Universe or Nature or whatever it is that floats your boat. Reaching for the mobile phone destroys this important downtime, but that's what most people do whenever they are alone.

Mobile phones are an obsession. And I believe they are an unhealthy obsession. If you can't be by yourself without calling or SMSing or chatting with someone on your mobile phone, I doubt any app will help you build resilience. The problem is much deeper than that.

So while the intentions of High Res and the importance of addressing mental health issues are deserving of attention, I am not convinced that an app can help people to reduce their stress. I believe this to be superficial at best and a lost cause for addressing first principles at worst.

So stop using your mobile phone as a substitute for thinking, being punctual, and self-reflecting. Unplug. Have an app-free day. I guarantee you that your mobile phone is a cause, not a cure, for stress.

But don't believe me - try it for yourself and then tell me it didn't work out for you!

Book Notes: "The Faber Book of Exploration" by Benedict Allen

The Faber Book Of Exploration by Benedict Allen

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


This is certainly a tome. The text is very small, with introduction to each piece is written in even smaller font, with the notes in the smallest font I can read without a magnifying glass and my glasses. The book is about 3 inches thick, too, so getting through all 800 pages was no mean feat. This is an anthology of great texts, and for someone who is interested in, but not enthralled by, travel literature, the book is ideal. The "anthologer" is an ardent cultural "immerser" - a technique I enjoy - and an adventurer, so the anthology is put together rather well. Thoroughly enjoyable, and I am considerably more knowledgeable about far-off places and the extremes of geography.



View all my reviews

My Top Ten Tips for University Students

© Depositphotos.com/@karnizz

I am often asked to name my top ten tips for first-year students. You can probably guess that I am not a fan of post-modern "happy-clappy". And when the metal meets the meat, it will be your hard-earned skills that will matter, not the euphoria of being all kumbaya. Here's my top ten:

1. Read the unit outline. Twice. Then read it before you start every assignment. Then read it before you submit every assignment. Then read it once more for fun.

2. This is university. The standard is high, always, and you must lift yourself to the standard. The only way to lower the standard is to devalue your degree. Of course, you are here to prepare yourself for professional life, and it is nigh impossible to do so without a degree of some quality. Therefore, it is sound logic to lift your own standards.

3. If you have never read a journal article, you have never read an essay. If you have never read an essay, how can you expect to write one?

4. “The first draft of anything is shit” (attributed to Papa Hemingway).

5. Every unit is different. Every discipline is different. There is no such thing as “standardised” in the real world. If you expect your university education to be standardised, you are planning for a fake world. Learn the differences, however subtle, because otherwise you are not receiving the education you have signed up to receive.

6. A university degree provides you with formal proof that you can navigate your way through bureaucracy. When, and I say when, the system screws you over, and before you whinge and moan and blame everybody else as if the world owes you a living, take charge of your own life, and remember that the ability to navigate your way through bureaucracy is one of the single most important skills you will gain here and this will distinguish you in the workplace from non-graduates.

7. The way you write an email to your lecturers is how you will communicate in your professional life. If you do not get a response from your lecturer when you used twitter-speak, expect to get the same response from your bosses or your clients.

8. Before you ask: “Do we need to include references?” The answer is yes, always. Nobody ever lost marks for including references.

9. Respect your fellow students. They are paying for this, too. If you want to waste your money, do it in silence or far enough away from non-like-minded students that nobody else cares that you don’t.

10. Learn to receive feedback. The lecturers who offend you the most with their feedback will probably be those who taught you the most. If you want lollipops and rainbows, then do not listen to feedback. If you want to learn, then learn to receive feedback.

Net Neutrality: Does it really matter?

© Depositphotos.com/@mindscanner

The decision by the US Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband providers to ensure that all data traffic is treated equally has been hailed by some as a step forward in achieving net neutrality. But does forcing a common-carrier regulatory approach on internet service providers really make any difference to consumers?

Not according to Margeurite Reardon at CNet.

The basic premise of the net neutrality movement is that by preventing commercial controls over how and whose data is prioritised via the internet, the network itself can remain neutral as to how and whose data is moved. The internet has largely been unregulated for the last two decades, unlike telecommunications services which have been subjected to common carrier rules since at least the early 20th century.

The original purpose of the common carrier rule was to prevent telegraph and later telephone operators from controlling newspaper content sent via the infrastructure. This regulatory concept, among other things such as commercial agreements, became the basis for the divergence of the newspaper, telecommunications (telegraph and telephone were diverged further in North America) and later the broadcasting industry.

Traditionally, broadcast content was regulated for cultural reasons, whereas telecommunications common carriers were required to carry any message to prevent the control of information. Of course, in the age of technological convergence, the distinction between these industries has become less clear.

The debate in the US is fierce. While proponents suggest net neutrality will keep the internet free, opponents see it as nothing more than government meddling.


The trouble is that net neutrality assumes limited resources and is still somewhat based on the natural monopoly argument. That is, where one carrier dominates, it must be a common carrier to prevent the prioritisation of traffic. But with so many providers and so many ways to access the internet, it all seems rather passé

Will net neutrality keep the internet open? Better to ask if it was ever open. Does it really matter to consumers  whether some content gets delivered via fast lanes? It would seem that this would be something that consumers want. Indeed, if they did not like it then there is always another provider. Why shouldn't you be able to get what you pay for?


So despite all the brouhaha, the net neutrality decision in the US is little more than a big win for the idealists. And it won't make much difference to what happens here in Australia.

I were to make a prediction, I doubt net neutrality will survive the court appeals that will no doubt follow. Even if it does, a Republican win at the next election would probably kick it into touch anyway.

And does it really matter to consumers? Not really, other than it might mean it costs more to access the internet in the US.