Page 1213 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 7 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
A triple bottom line evaluation … comparing their social, economic and environmental impacts to the ‘do-nothing’ scenario has shown [light rail] to provide higher benefits …
And that light rail “generates the best overall outcome for Canberra”. The point is that light rail will bring more benefits, and benefits that bus rapid transit cannot achieve. The fact is, though, that light rail is more expensive. The question is whether we are willing to pay for these additional benefits. We say embracing these unique benefits is worth it and will change our city for the better. This is all that a cost-benefit analysis means—that it is cheaper to get the benefits of BRT. BRT receives a higher cost-benefit ratio in the initial assessment. However, BRT will not bring the same type of benefits as light rail.
Mr Coe talks about the cost-benefit analysis as if it is conclusive and, in particular, as if it comprehensively models every aspect of the light rail project. It simply does not. He conveniently ignores the important explanation from the consultants that their cost-benefit analysis only assesses traditional transport benefits—things like travel-time savings, carbon emission reductions, vehicle operating costs and road accident costs. The consultants specifically point out that intangible or newer economic benefits are not included in the assessment, but note that these kinds of improvements would produce significant benefits to the Canberra community.
Light rail in particular is a mode that generates significant benefits that fall into this non-traditional category. I have spoken about these in some detail in previous debates in this place. This is becoming relatively well established around Australia and there is now a lot of work occurring amongst transport analysts and economists to try to properly monetise some of the more intangible benefits of light rail projects. The number in the cost-benefit analysis is only one narrow way of looking at the project. It is by no means conclusive and we should not act like it is.
In conclusion, I do not support abandoning the light rail project as the Canberra Liberals suggest. I accept that there are plenty of challenges with the capital metro project and we need to continue to work through these to ensure the best outcome for Canberra. But I do not accept the misinformed and somewhat hysterical criticism that has been put forward today.
Perhaps, to some extent, this is not just opposition for opposition’s sake. Perhaps it reflects a real and deep belief of the Liberal Party that there is no place for sustainable transport options in Canberra. After all, we have heard Mr Coe express a belief that the concept of peak oil is bogus. We have heard him insist that Walter Burley Griffin designed Canberra specifically for the car—despite, I might add, information I have provided from the Walter Burley Griffin Society pointing out that this is wrong. Perhaps it is about not worrying about reducing carbon emissions in the future, or running light rail on renewable energy—and we know the position that has been put forward frequently by the opposition on renewable energy initiatives.
My challenge to the Liberal Party is to actually look at the project fairly and objectively, and to look at the enormous opportunities and benefits it will bring to Canberra. By all means examine and highlight the challenges, but just do not base
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video