Page 2493 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 13 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As we know, Gungahlin has massively expanded since that time. In the decade from 2001 to 2011, the population of Gungahlin doubled from about 24,000 people to 50,000 people. More than half the population growth that occurred in all of Canberra occurred in Gungahlin. Gungahlin is growing at five times the rate of the rest of Canberra.
Since this time the Belconnen to city route has benefited from an almost complete priority bus lane, including the Barry Drive and College Street sections which I have opened during my time as minister. They give such a reliable journey that during peak hour it is actually quicker to travel from Belconnen to the city on the bus than by car. This, of course, mitigates the need for a new public transport solution in this corridor.
The report also bases its decisions on the uplift potential along the routes. A decade later, of course, this is a different situation, and development opportunities have changed. As I have discussed before, the worst congestion in the territory occurs in the Northbourne corridor. Minister Corbell made some very detailed and salient points on that, particularly about the predicted worse congestion in the future. That again places a strong emphasis on the Gungahlin to Civic corridor.
Mr Coe speaks of criticism that a range of organisations have made about the capital metro project. I think it is fair enough to raise these, and it is valuable for the project to have this scrutiny. They are certainly not, however, a reason for abandoning the project, which still has a very strong case for proceeding.
I think it is always important to analyse some of these cited criticisms and put them in some context. Infrastructure Australia’s comments, for example, are about an early submission on the Northbourne corridor that referred to bus rapid transit and light rail, and which lacked the further detailed work that is now informing the government’s approach.
The Productivity Commission’s comments related to the same Infrastructure Australia submission. It essentially says that the government did not indicate a clear reason for choosing light rail over bus rapid transit when it announced its decision in a media release. That is a valid point, and it is appropriate for the Productivity Commission to point this out given its close interest in the funding of public infrastructure and the use of cost-benefit analyses and other assessments.
As Mr Corbell has previously outlined, though, although they were not articulated in this press release, there are many reasons for choosing light rail over bus rapid transit, and they are a combination of cost and benefit assessments and broader government policy goals around mode shift, city shaping and environmental improvements, for example.
Mr Nairn was commissioned by the Liberal Party to examine the light rail project. There appear to have been some flaws in the parameters he used, because he did not have access to up-to-date information. This has been discussed before, and I do not intend to reiterate it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video