Page 3543 - Week 08 - Thursday, 18 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS LE COUTEUR: Peak oil is one of the issues. I think this really points out that we need to look at infrastructure for the future. Engineers Australia made an interesting comment in their 2010 report on Australian infrastructure. It said:
Developing and planning for appropriate light rail or other mass transit systems is an issue that needs to be considered in some jurisdictions for the future. For instance, currently, a light rail or other mass transit system in the ACT could be justified if built at sufficient scale.
It went on to say:
… as population density and numbers increase, commencement of such a network becomes more important. It is imperative that work continues to define and reserve potential corridors, identify potential technological options and work with the private sector to develop such a network.
Again, Engineers Australia is not an out-there radical organisation. It thinks light rail should be part of our future. Interestingly, in its 2010 report card it gave the ACT a B for roads infrastructure. That was the highest mark for roads infrastructure of any Australian jurisdiction. I think that possibly this MPI, while appropriately named in terms of the debate, so far has been a bit off target.
It is clear that in terms of road infrastructure the ACT is in fact very privileged. The ACT budget continues to put a lot more money into roads than into sustainable transport infrastructure. The recent budget put about 13 times as much money in for capital works for roads and road widening as it did for sustainable infrastructure. This has real issues apart from the peak oil one.
I would start off with the equity issue, which I was pleased that Mr Corbell touched on in my debate about parking yesterday. Running a car is expensive. I think that we all agree on that but the Liberal Party’s solution to this seems to be to build more roads. It is beyond me how that makes running a car cheaper. The Greens’ solution is to look at alternatives. It is to say that the people who live in Tuggeranong and Belconnen in particular, and Gungahlin to a lesser extent, should not be forced to spend more money—a lot of money—on their transport because they live a long way out. They should have access to decent public transport like the light rail I have been talking about.
From an equity point of view, it is the people who are least able to afford it who are forced to use poor quality public transport. If we are concerned about costs of living, we should be concerned about good public transport. We should also be concerned about active transport. We should be concerned about walking infrastructure and cycling infrastructure. They have major advantages. They are great for the environment but they are also really great for our health.
Canberra, as with the rest of the Western world, has a problem with obesity. If people can get a bit of gentle exercise as part of their day-to-day life, as part of their day-to-day travel, it is a win-win-win. It is a win for the people, it is a win for our health system and it is a win for the environment because we are using less fossil fuels.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video