Yes to hyperloop: 14 minutes to Sydney

Warwick Bradly, Weston

It all seems a bit like The Jetsons or the Zager & Evans song In the Year 2525 (Exordium & Terminus) ("Sydney Trip in 14 Minutes?", Sunday Canberra Times, December 30, p1).

Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook, NSW

The submission to a federal government parliamentary inquiry into "automated mass transport" by Hyperloop Transportation Technologies is, on the face of it, very attractive.

It offers Australia the opportunity to replace its antiquated inter-city and interstate railway system with a truly 21st-century version. The Canberra to Sydney rail link is, frankly, embarrassingly antiquated: some inter-city train journeys in the UK, for example, were quicker in the 19th century.

The ability of the Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) system to make the Canberra-Sydney trip vastly quicker than by aircraft is particularly attractive.

It is highly regrettable that even the federal Labor transport spokesman is not interested in the Hyperloop proposal and would rather see our rail transport system remain stuck in the 20th, if not the 19th, century.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

A Canberra to Sydney travel time of 14 minutes (canberratimes.com.au, December 30) excludes time travelling to the terminal, checking in, and travelling from the terminal to the destination. It also assumes that the hyperloop can accelerate to 1223 km/h and then stop, in a total of 15 seconds. Such acceleration would likely cause blackouts. I'll stick with the bus.

Leon Arundell, Downer

As a Hall resident of 20-plus years I am disgusted at the recent actions of the Heritage Council (Sunday Canberra Times, December 30, p1, 14).

Firstly, there was Ottocliffe – a heritage cottage built sometime in the 19th century, pre-dating the establishment of Canberra. A stone cottage, partly built using leftover bluestone from the nearby St Francis Xavier's Catholic Church. This cottage ticked every heritage box but was wantonly destroyed in an action described by the Heritage Council as an "unfortunate misunderstanding".

And then there is the children's bike track, supported by a majority of Hall residents who raised thousands of dollars to pay for it. The Transport Canberra and City Services directorate performed a detailed, transparent investigation into the most suitable site, and approved the whole project, which included input from the Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation.

Then the Heritage Council got involved and vetoed this project. When asked for the reason, the it said that the meetings were out of session and therefore no minutes were available.

So the Heritage Council has made a decision to deny a kids' bike track in Hall and the decision is based on no procedural fairness, no probity, no detailed process, no audit trail, no minutes of any meetings, no records of any meetings.

Compare this to the process followed by TCCS. Perhaps an audit by the ACT Auditor-General into the processes followed by the Heritage Council is warranted.

John Burns, Hall

Your editorial "Heritage decisions need consistency" (Sunday Canberra Times, December 30, p14) is significant.

In relation to the Hall cottage demolished as a result of an "unfortunate misunderstanding", it is worth recalling that in some other jurisdictions an order would be made by the relevant minister that the building be reconstructed in its original form. From memory this has happened in recent years in both Victoria and Tasmania.

I believe the ACT Minister for Heritage has this power – please exercise it. No rebuild was required when the heritage-listed Canberra Services Club burnt down. Exactly what is stopping the government taking decisive action in these cases?

Many people with a strong interest in the protection of Canberra's fragile heritage, which is so important to the city's character and its attraction for visitors, have been left confused by many decisions made by the ACT Heritage Council.

One particular area of confusion relates to mandatory and discretionary heritage criteria for heritage-listed places. This is particularly the case where a development application clearly breaches one or more mandatory requirements but a decision has been made that the application would not "significantly diminish the heritage significance of a place". Perhaps the Heritage Council could explain why this is so?

Conversely, decisions are made to refuse development applications where a mere single discretionary criterion is not met and a reasonable case can be made that heritage is not significantly affected. If a criterion is discretionary, surely its breach would not significantly affect heritage value?

The ACT government, if it is serious about heritage, needs to take a close look at why there is concern about the inconsistency of ACT Heritage Council decisions. Unapproved demolitions, carried out between Christmas and New Year, need urgent remedial action to show heritage is important.

Nick Swain, Barton

It is becoming more and more clear that Cricket Australia (CA) used pressure on to our cricket team to win.

One could assume that the pressure was so much that some players were desperate to win, engaged themselves in illegal activities and paid a heavy price for their roles in South Africa.

But what about the CA officials? How are they feeling about the whole affair?

Sankar Kumar Chatterjee, Evatt

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 or fewer words. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).