Page 3083 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Labor understands these concerns. We know we need to take long-term decisions to respond to them. That is why Labor chose light rail as the best choice for our city. It is why we announced and campaigned on the development of the capital metro project. It is why in this budget we are delivering on that election promise, investing in the establishment of the capital metro agency, laying the foundations for the design, procurement and delivery of this project, which can transform the way our city develops into the future.
Development of capital metro will respond to Canberrans’ concerns about congestion. Analysis undertaken as part of the Gungahlin to city transit corridor business case demonstrates that currently peak period delays on Northbourne Avenue are 16 minutes from Gungahlin to the city. That is the extra period of delay due to congestion. Put another way, this equates to a morning peak journey time along the corridor of 26 minutes southbound and about 20 minutes northbound.
By 2031, unless we act and deliver rapid transit on that corridor, travel times in the morning peak will be 57 minutes southbound and 27 minutes northbound. That is right: in less than 20 years it will take people living in Gungahlin an hour to get to the city or points south using Northbourne Avenue.
If capital metro is built, the current delay of 16 minutes during peak periods is estimated to reduce by more than half, to approximately six minutes, a greater time saving than can be achieved by buses, a greater time saving than can be achieved by bus rapid transit. And we know also that total journey times will decrease. By 2031, with capital metro operating, southbound journey time in the am peak will be only 41 minutes, instead of the 57 minutes anticipated under the business as usual scenario.
Yet the Liberals say that bus rapid transit is better, despite the inferior travel time savings compared to light rail. And the Liberals have other questions to answer about bus rapid transit. How do they propose it will work? Where will the bus lane go? Down the middle of the Northbourne Avenue median? Is Alistair Coe going to be proposing that the median be bulldozed to build a two-lane road? Does he seriously think that the National Capital Authority would approve such a redevelopment?
Instead, perhaps the Liberals want to turn one of the two traffic lanes along Northbourne Avenue in each direction into a bus lane. Perhaps that is what they want to do, reducing traffic lanes from three to two? Perhaps, given their previous form on also wanting cars to use bus lanes, they are going to allow cars to operate along the same lane that is apparently to be used for bus rapid transit. How is that going to work? How is that going to work in improving travel times for commuters and reducing congestion? How will it work when it comes to offering a fast, convenient and alternative public transport service along the corridor?
The real question is: why should anyone believe the Liberals when they say they support bus rapid transit, given that they opposed bus rapid transit on the Belconnen to city corridor in 2005? They have form, Madam Speaker. They have form, and they have a clear lack of any commitment to giving public transport priority.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video