Page 4085 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 18 November 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and the frequent network at present, it is 3.59; with light rail, it is 1.2. In effect, if the government were to put that $800 million they are spending on light rail in buses, the return on investment would be over $2½ billion. For light rail we are looking at just $1 billion as a return on investment.
Transport for Canberra is the second report completed by the ACT government which backs investment in the bus network over light rail. It complements the government’s submission to Infrastructure Australia in August of 2012 which described light rail as “economically marginal” before comprehensively showing that the bus network would produce a greater return on investment for all Canberrans. Perhaps when the Minister for Planning next decides to release a report card on transport for Canberra, if indeed there is another report card, it should read: “Government documents supporting buses.”
The Auditor-General also notes that a very significant part of the frequent network will never be served by light rail. Even if the fanciful, inconvenient, ineffective, unaffordable and impracticable light rail master plan is built, only a quarter of Canberrans would live within walking distance of one of the proposed tram stops. To put this in perspective, close to 98 per cent of Canberrans live within walking distance of a bus stop. Let me reiterate that, Madam Speaker: 98 per cent of Canberrans live within walking distance of a bus stop; in contrast, with light rail we are looking at just two, three or four per cent of Canberrans living within walking distance of a proposed tram stop.
As I have previously noted, the problem with the light rail master plan, other than the one that I have already mentioned, is that it effectively replaces the two best buses in the ACTION network, the red and blue rapids. The government’s plan is to spend billions and billions of dollars to replace the two best buses in the network. The red and blue rapids, I believe, are quite well regarded by our community. To think that all the money should be poured into replacing those is folly. If we are going to be spending more money on public transport, it should be on improving suburban bus connections and improving suburban bus routes rather than on these trunk services.
The Auditor-General notes the advice from Dr Geoffrey Clifton, a transport planner from the University of Sydney. Most tellingly, Dr Clifton highlights that the presumption of a direct and beneficial correlation between transport developments and demand for higher density land usage is contestable. In effect, Dr Clifton is saying that there is no guarantee that land prices are going to go up if you construct public transport such as light rail. It would be interesting therefore to see what assumptions the government made in the capital metro full business case about the $381 million of land use benefits. Sadly, the government refuses to release this information and these assumptions.
On this issue, I would simply say that Northbourne Avenue is already, obviously, a desirable place to live. There is no shortage of apartment buildings which have been constructed in recent years on Northbourne Avenue. Whether you look at Axis, Space, Space 2, the Avenue, IQ, Phoenix, James Court, Haig or many other apartment buildings, these have all been constructed without light rail. It is folly for the government to say that you need to construct light rail in order to attract investment
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video