Page 3715 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 29 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Would someone like to present to the Assembly the analysis which suggests that Gungahlin to the city was the best place, in comparison to all the other route options, to develop a light rail system here in the ACT? Of course, all we have is the 2003 KBR study, which said, “Don’t do Gungahlin to the city first; do other routes first.” If that is out of date, so be it; but where is the actual data to suggest that that 2003 study is out of date? And if it is not out of date then why are they staging it the way that they are?
The government is failing to meet its three priority measures. Again yesterday it was confirmed that the health system is in crisis and bed occupancy rates are over 90 per cent. A crisis also remains in the emergency department waiting times and, of course, with elective surgery. In education we have known for a long time that our schools are overcrowded and often decaying. And transport apparently is also a priority for this government, but only if it is light rail. The ACTION subsidy continues to increase, yet passenger levels continue to drop. Much to the frustration of industry experts, there are simple ways that ACTION could be improved that are being ignored because of this government’s one-eyed focus on light rail.
Paragraph (2)(d) reads:
(d) the transport and urban renewal priority area is focussed on infrastructure and strategic projects across all modes of transport that provide transport choice to Canberrans and support long term land use change across the territory …
Gungahlin, and Northbourne Avenue, is actually very well served by ACTION. The most patronised route in the network, the Red Rapid 200, serves the entire proposed light rail route, and then some. Urban renewal does not require light rail. All the government is doing with light rail is shifting the same passengers who are currently on board ACTION buses onto a tram, but doing so in a slower way, because the tram is projected to take 25 minutes. If you look at the 202, in the middle of the peak hour, it takes less time than it would take for the tram to go down Northbourne Avenue. So there is going to be a less frequent service and it is going to take longer—less frequent and longer. That is what we are paying $800 million for.
Dr Bourke says it will be delivered and financed by the private sector. Well, guess who pays for it, Madam Speaker? I do not think that the private sector are going to be doing this out of goodwill. They are going to be doing so perhaps because they will take an availability payment of $100 million over 20 years. That is, in effect, the same as the ACTION subsidy for the entire network. This government is going to spend the same ACTION subsidy which gets 400 buses on the road to get 12 trams on the track. That is, in effect, what this government is doing. For the same price you can have 400 buses or one route in Canberra can have a dozen trams. That is this government’s choice. This government has told every single person in Canberra who lives beyond 500 metres of Northbourne Avenue and Flemington Road that they should sacrifice $100 million to get a dozen trams on the track. It seems to me like a warped priority.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video