Page 3154 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 24 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
years. It takes account of development along the corridor over that time. It takes account also of reasonable assumptions about mode switching that we know do occur with light rail but certainly do not occur in anywhere near the same magnitude with buses.
Those are all the factors that come into play in relation to those patronage calculations. I am pleased to be able to put those facts on the record because those reports in the Canberra Times this morning, unfortunately, are certainly not the full picture and are not an accurate assessment of patronage.
Finally, we have to focus on this project for the long-term growth and development of our city. It was interesting to see a presentation recently about the French city of Nantes that has built a city-wide light rail network, except for one bit. They decided that instead of building light rail for the last bit, which was about 10 or 12 kilometres—similar to ours—they were going to build a BRT route. They built a BRT route and then they realised that the buses were getting too full after a very short period of time and they had to either decide to completely replace their bus fleet with new buses, bigger buses, or—
Mr Coe: Like our buses? Like our ones?
MR CORBELL: No, like triples—or, alternatively, they admitted they were having to consider whether or not to upgrade to a light rail route along that line because the BRT was not meeting the capacity. This is a very good illustration of the long-term thinking that is needed for this form of infrastructure. It is very easy to criticise a project like this. It is very easy to play the negative game, and very easy to try and knock it down. But these big decisions are long-term decisions that influence and shape the growth and development of our city. And we have to decide what sort of city we want. Do we want a city that can grow sustainably for the long term, that can meet population growth and meet transport for the long term, that can manage congestion for the long term, or do we decide that it is all too hard? Do we decide that it is all too easy to play the short-term political game, the negative game, criticising a project or do we commit to an investment that will have wide-ranging benefits for our city for many years to come?
This government has taken the decision that this is the right investment decision for our city. It delivers a positive economic return. It is a long-term investment in better public transport that will shift people away from our overweening level of car dependence, and that is critical for the future sustainability of our city.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.54): I will not be supporting Mr Coe’s motion today and the reason for that—and it is reflected in the amendment that I have circulated—is that Mr Coe’s motion fails to take account of announcements the government has already made but also it is simply not practical in terms of timing. And that is the basis on which the amendment is written. I move the amendment circulated in my name:
Omit all words after “That this Assembly”, substitute:
“(1) notes that:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video