Page 4208 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
connections because these two things together are what will be critical in guiding our delivery of improved public transport for the city.
I want to be able to guarantee that people can expect a certain level of frequency on certain types of routes and I want to be able to guarantee that people should not have to wait any longer than a reasonable period of time in terms of connections between services, particularly between suburban services and the higher frequency services. These are important policy settings that the government is currently finalising.
The government’s first major study into mass transit options in 2004 evaluated the various mass rapid transit systems: bus rapid transit, light rail and monorail. Based on the costs and benefits of various technologies, that report recommended busways or bus rapid transit as the best short to medium-term option for the growing but dispersed population area of Canberra. The report also suggested that any thinking about mass transit should be flexible.
We tend to think of mass transit as several carriages running along an inflexible system of steel rails usually powered by overhead electricity. But the features of mass transit such as speed, reliability and fixed routes can also be achieved with buses or trolleybuses running in a dedicated lane or corridor.
As part of the research that report, the Kellogg Brown and Root report, quoted an international expert, Professor Hass-Klau, on the need for flexibility of definition. I want to quote from that report:
What is clear from Hass-Klau study is that there are a range of dedicated public transport systems functioning around the world but there is not just one formula or approach for success. Indeed, success it would seem, is a result of commitment. As such this study does not recommend a particular vehicle type and concludes that these routes should be serviced with either light rail or buses. Both should use dedicated infrastructure to achieve fast journey speeds and a high quality interchange environment. Furthermore, the vehicle type could change over time.
It is interesting looking at the latest light rail project currently under development in Australia, the Gold Coast light rail system, where there is actually community opposition to light rail. That opposition is based on concerns about land acquisition for the light rail corridor and also about the costs and the impact on interchanging between bus services and light rail.
There is a community group there arguing that instead of building light rail, bus rapid transit should be built because it will take less land. It will mean less interchanging between bus services and the light rail vehicle and, therefore, less inconvenience for commuters. So there are a range of choices open to governments and a range of policy considerations that need to be kept in mind in looking at these issues.
The government will continue with the development of its strategic public transport network plan, which was released in 2009. It led to the development of our frequent and rapid corridors and clear definitions for these. But the government is also continuing with its work in relation to the development of the transport for Canberra plan which will set out key objectives building on that previous body of work.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video