Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 853 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

(2) After subparagraph (1)(c), insert the following subparagraph:

"(ca) the impact on other transport modes and freight movements in and out of Canberra;".

My first amendment to Mr Corbell's motion is to make clear that this inquiry should not go back to basics about the feasibility of a high speed train; it should recognise that the Federal, ACT and New South Wales governments have already extensively studied the train proposal over a number of years, ever since the VFT was first proposed. The main contribution of this inquiry could be to assist in the evaluation of the particular bids that have been announced already for the rail link. There is considerable difference between the bids in terms of the balance between cost and speed. It would be good to study whether there are more net benefits in choosing a slower but cheaper option like the Tilt-train or in choosing the fastest but most expensive option in the Maglev proposal.

There are clear differences in the type of impact that the different options will have in the ACT, depending on the cost to the consumer and the time taken for the trip. Obviously, the more expensive option is not one that is going to lead to commuting between Canberra and Sydney on a regular basis; but if we go for a cheaper option the commuting is more likely, so therefore the impact is greater. What I am saying is that the inquiry needs to look at the different options as the context behind the impact.

I have moved the second amendment to Mr Corbell's motion because I believe that he has left out a significant impact of the high speed train, namely, the impact on other transport modes that service Canberra. There is an assumption that a high speed train would provide an alternative transport option to air travel between Sydney and Canberra, but the real environmental problem that needs addressing is the number of cars and trucks on the Hume Highway. People who can afford it might still prefer to fly if the travelling time on the train is still longer than the plane travel. People who want to use their cars at the other end of the journey may also choose to continue using their cars rather than use the train. A high speed rail link may therefore merely attract people off interstate buses and onto the train, rather than reduce the numbers of people using other transport modes. The result may just be a decimation of the interstate bus trade in Canberra.

There is also the implication of a high speed train for the Canberra Airport and the plans that have been mooted for its expansion into a regional hub and international airport. The proponents of the high speed train have stated that their project would complement and enhance the feasibility of the proposed expansion of Canberra Airport, and we would like to know whether this is in fact the case. I am sure that North Canberra and Queanbeyan residents would like to know the extent to which the construction of a high speed train will result in increased air traffic over their houses. There is also the question of whether any of the particular train proposals will make any impact on the current high levels of freight being moved between Canberra and Sydney by semitrailer. It would be a great pity if we went to all the expense of building a train that did nothing to reduce all the semitrailer traffic on the Hume Highway.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .