Page 2290 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 12 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
growth and development of our city to a more sustainable pattern of development, and it is about giving Canberrans the beginning of an efficient, rapid public transport network that can service all parts of the city.
Capital metro, of course, was an ACT Labor election commitment. We went to the last election with a detailed written policy committing to the development of the Gungahlin to city corridor. So it should be no surprise to those opposite or to those who are critical of this project that the government is implementing a written policy that it went to the last election with.
This project is critical for the future growth and development of our city. It is the right choice for Canberra. First of all, it is a project that delivers a positive cost-benefit outcome. We know that investment in the project returns more to the economy than it costs to develop. The cost-benefit ratio remains strong and positive and the government is committed to providing an up-to-date benefit-cost ratio following its consideration of the final business case in the coming months.
We know that the project delivers land development benefits. We know it delivers transport benefits and we know it delivers sustainability benefits. And all of these are sought to be captured through the economic analysis that underpins the final business case.
But it is, of course, important to note that the development of a benefit-cost ratio and the economic analysis that underpins it is only one part of the broader consideration that government must bring to these types of projects. We know from the academic research from the experts in this area that there are elements of benefit-cost ratio analysis that cannot capture some of the more intangible benefits in economic terms but which are real benefits for the broader community from an investment in this type of project.
We know, for example, that people have indicated—and there is academic analysis to back this up—that people are prepared to make a shift from motor vehicle use to public transport use if the alternative that is given to them is light rail, compared to investment in bus services. We hear from those opposite that bus rapid transit is the preferable outcome for this corridor but what we do not hear from those opposite is how they propose to put bus rapid transit into the Northbourne Avenue corridor.
Essentially they have two choices. The first choice is to reduce the number of traffic lanes for general traffic on Northbourne Avenue from three to two, to provide for the existing left-hand lane in the northerly and the southerly directions to be for buses only. So is that the position of those who advocate for bus rapid transit—to actually make congestion worse for general transport users along the corridor by providing for public transport priority for buses in the left-hand lane in each direction, north and south? Is that their position?
We hear them advocate bus rapid transit but they need to explain what bus rapid transit actually means on this corridor, because if it means reducing the number of traffic lanes on Northbourne Avenue from three to two, I do not think that is a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video