Page 2145 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We also heard from the elderly that the groups that rely on buses are those that have been most affected by the timetable changes; that is, the young who do not yet have licences, or who do not yet have cars. The elderly have real concerns, in particular, about a lot of the suburb-to-suburb routes. We heard that it can take up to three hours to get from one suburb to an adjoining suburb on the bus, which makes it difficult.
I acknowledge the challenge facing Mr Hargreaves and ACTION. I point out that the TAMS officials and ACTION officials appeared before us. The overlay of the map of Sydney with the map of Canberra, which shows how Canberra is spaced out, brought into stark focus the challenge we have in the area of public transport delivery. It will always be something that is very difficult to deliver efficiently, in a cost-effective way, and in a way that keeps those who most need buses happy, or at least adequately catered for.
So I acknowledge that challenge but I do not think there is an easy answer. We must find ways of making it work better. I understand that we subsidise ACTION to the tune of about $70 million a year—I am not sure whether that is the exact figure, but John Hargreaves tells me that it might be $60 million—which is over $1 million a week. That is a big subsidy for a small jurisdiction. We must make sure that that $60 million, or $1 million a week plus investment, is used in the best possible way. It seems from a lot of the feedback that that is not happening at the moment.
I wish to refer to a couple of issues that I made in my additional comments. One relates to recommendation No 16; that is, pay parking in all major employment centres. I think that highlights the issue concerning hospital parking. Presumably, if we were to take up that recommendation, it would mean reintroducing pay parking at the hospital. I think that was a disastrous process and I am sure most Canberrans would acknowledge that it was a disastrous process.
Unbelievably, we managed to lose money on pay parking at the hospital—half a million dollars in net terms. We have just gone through a disastrous process that negatively affected many patients and many Canberrans visiting the hospital, caused a lot of heartache and lost money for taxpayers, so the idea of reinstating it now seems a bit odd.
As I said in my additional comments, I do not necessarily think that the recommendation relating to real-time bus information is a bad idea; I just do not think it should be a priority when we are experiencing the kinds of network difficulties that were highlighted in our hearings and that have been broadly canvassed in the community. I think this is something for better times. Once we get on top of the network, that is the sort of thing you bring in over the top to improve the system. I think it might have some merit down the track, but I do not think that now is the time.
There is also a recommendation relating to busways. I point out for the record that I think my additional comments referred to a draft that had different numbering, so when I refer to recommendation No 41 I think it should be recommendation No 42, which relates to busways. My concerns about the busway are well known. Over $3.5 million has spent looking into the Civic to Belconnen busway, money that should not have been spent and that has been wasted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .