Page 4086 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 18 November 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
on Northbourne Avenue. Investment can happen on Northbourne Avenue without light rail if the land is made available.
The government have been quiet in recent times about the land use benefits of light rail. In fact, we hardly hear them talk about it at all now. Developing Northbourne Avenue was the main slogan of the government at the beginning of the year. It came after their argument that light rail was a transport solution was criticised by Infrastructure Australia and the Productivity Commission. Since then, the government have focused the debate firstly on jobs and more recently on congestion. In effect, they went to transport but then that was discredited. Then they went to beefing up Northbourne, and then that was shot down. Then they went on to jobs, and that has been contested. Then they went on to the health benefits of light rail because people would have to walk a long way to get to a tram stop. And now they are talking about congestion. This is a government that does not have a very good narrative when it comes to light rail. For people using it from Gungahlin all the way to the city it is going to lead to slower travel times than current bus services.
On the issue of congestion, I am happy to point out to the government that analysis has shown that implementing light rail will not ease congestion. In fact, the government’s own environmental impact statement, released by capital metro, clearly shows that congestion is getting worse at intersections on Northbourne Avenue as a result of light rail.
In fact, Mr Rattenbury’s own department, TAMS—I understand Roads ACT may now be governed by Mr Gentleman—has noted a concern with the assessments contained in the EIS because there is no significant difference in the overall traffic network with the introduction of light rail. In effect, Roads ACT say that light rail will not ease congestion and there is no evidence to say it will. Furthermore, studies by Parsons Brinckerhoff on the proposed city to Russell route have concluded:
The introduction of the Project within the City extent of the network generally leads to further impacts to general traffic. Whilst some impacts to general traffic are expected and in some instances encouraged to facilitate a mode shift to public transport, in several locations, predominately along Northbourne Avenue and Constitution Avenue, delays and queues could compromise the performance of the wider road network.
“Delays and queues could compromise the performance of the wider road network.” This is not easing congestion; this is adding to congestion. That again brings into question the very assumptions used to get to the BCR of 1.2. The government put all their eggs in this light rail basket, saying, “It is going to ease congestion. It is going to be faster. It is going to drive better land uses.” The truth is that Dr Clifton said the land use argument is folly and Parsons Brinckerhoff and Roads ACT have said it is going to increase congestion. We also know that it is going to lead to a slower commute for people in Gungahlin, not only from Gungahlin to the city but from door to door when you add the connections as well.
If this government were serious about congestion, they would reconsider their decision to go ahead with light rail and instead focus on genuine improvements to the public transport system we currently have, which services 98 per cent of Canberrans
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video