Page 1212 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 7 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
considered prior to an announcement on Gungahlin to the city. I believe that they were. For example, the 2008 submission to Infrastructure Australia looked at routes from Gungahlin to the city and further to Barton and Kingston; from the city to Belconnen; and from the city to Woden and beyond to Tuggeranong. The 2004 Kellogg Brown and Root study looked at a Gungahlin route, a Belconnen route, a Woden-Tuggeranong route and a Civic-Manuka route. Incidentally, this study assessed different transport modes for these corridors and it noted in its outcomes that light rail scored more highly than any other mode. I note that Mr Coe, with typical parochial double standards, tries to keep the option of light rail alive for his own electorate, suggesting that he wants a light rail line running from Belconnen into the city.
In point (1)(c) Mr Coe says that the time frame and cost of the project could blow out. Is this supposed to be a reason for abandoning the capital metro project? Time and cost overruns are, of course, a risk on any project and any project manager will be working hard to safeguard against these risks. It is a risk on capital metro, just as it is a risk on the Majura parkway project. I note, however, that Mr Coe’s approach to the Majura parkway project was to bring forward a motion calling on the government to expedite the project start date.
In point (1)(d) Mr Coe says that the cost of the light rail is likely to be significant. Yes, it is. But, of course, it is a significant investment in pursuit of a significant benefit for the Canberra community. The government is taking a sound approach to the financing of light rail through the Capital Metro Agency, with the advice of expert financial, legal and technical advisers. As Mrs Dunne wrote in the context of funding light rail:
All governments these days are now reluctant to borrow in order to fund what any sane person would regard as necessary, long-term investment … the average polity must finance at least some of its wealth-building infrastructure from borrowings.
Mrs Dunne is essentially advocating borrowing to buy long-term beneficial infrastructure. She goes on to talk about the possibilities of using value capture, private sector investment and PPPs—all elements that the government is currently investigating.
Mr Coe says that there will be minimal demand for light rail against peak-hour traffic and in off-peak times. I would not say “‘minimal” but it is obvious that off-peak and non-peak routes have less patronage than peak routes. It is just the same for the current bus network or, frankly, the road network. It is no reason to abandon public transport projects. This is also a challenge that light rail will help address as the redevelopment of the Northbourne corridor creates more density and destinations along the route.
In point (1)(g) Mr Coe suggests that the government’s own economic analysis shows that bus rapid transit, or BRT, will offer a better economic return. This point should not be made out of context. The URS light rail study that compared bus rapid transit and light rail on Northbourne clearly says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video