Page 2746 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The government have attempted to argue that the Majura freeway is not an either/or proposition. That is, they say that they can build a Majura freeway and also make Canberra a leader in sustainable transport. There are some serious flaws with that argument. Firstly, I am sure the government knows very well that our sustainable transport outcomes depend on the balance of transport options that are provided. Building a new freeway skews our transport balance. This freeway is inextricable from issues around modal shift and greenhouse gas emissions, despite Mr Corbell’s claim that they are unrelated. Prioritising sustainable transport options gives people excellent travel while also addressing the need for modal shift.
A second problem with the argument that we can build a Majura freeway and make Canberra the sustainable travel leader is the evidence of the budget itself. Obviously we only have a finite amount of money. Put hundreds of millions of dollars into a freeway, and correspondingly there is less money to use for sustainable transport. In fact, the budget makes this direct relationship quite clear. The budget estimates provide that if the Majura freeway project goes ahead, there will be only very limited funds for other new TAMS capital works initiatives in the later years of the forward estimates. In the final year of the estimates, only $2.74 million has been allocated to other TAMS capital works projects.
There is a direct relationship between funding for the freeway and funding for potential sustainable transport initiatives. Light rail is one of these alternatives, but it is something that the government always couches in terms of high costs and limited funds. Even the most recent response from the government to my estimates questions said “even with the possible re-staging of light rapid transit or bus rapid transit to be investigated in the Northbourne Avenue study, a project of this size would still be a considerable investment for a small jurisdiction like the ACT”. That is, the government is citing cost issues even for a staged approach to light rail. The same issues exist for the Majura freeway; it is just that the government is comfortable putting money into one at the expense of another.
As I have said before, the bill that we are debating today only appropriates money for the upcoming year. So this year there is actually no money being appropriated for the freeway. We will debate that appropriation starting next year, unless something changes between now and then.
The Greens do believe that work needs to be done on the existing Majura Road, including safety upgrades. However, there are problems with the Majura freeway project as proposed. I repeat the call we made in the motion last week that the government should delay committing any funds to building a new freeway until it has engaged an independent expert in sustainable transport planning to analyse a variety of important issues that have been ignored and overlooked. These include the costs and benefits of building the proposed freeway compared to building new high-quality public transport options such as light rail; the impacts of the road in terms of induced traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, transport modal shift, economic costs and the urban form of Canberra; and alternative options to a new freeway, such as targeted upgrades to the existing Majura Road intersections and choke points.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video