Page 643 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Infrastructure Australia project submission. As you would be aware, the economic analysis on page 29 details the benefit-cost ratio of BRT and LRT. The analysis includes both a business-as-usual land scenario and a high-density land scenario. The analysis also includes patronage, environment, social and other considerations, including that BRT delivers a better return. Given this, what were the factors not included in the economic analysis that led you to choose light rail over bus rapid transit?
MR CORBELL: I thank Mr Coe for his question. The government’s commitment to light rail is underpinned by our understanding of its capacity to see a significant transformation in urban development in our city. It is about driving uplift in urban development along the corridor and achieving a transition in the number of journeys that occur through walking, cycling and public transport compared to bus rapid transit.
Studies concluded by the government confirm that light rail is the best overall choice for our city. That is confirmed in reports which are on the public record and which Mr Coe needs to read, because clearly he is not interested in investing in a project that has the potential to transform our city.
Mr Coe: On a point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER: Sit down, Mr Corbell.
Mr Coe: The point of order is on relevance. The question was about the economic analysis which included BRT and LRT in the high-density land scenario and what factors were not included in that report which led the minister to chose light rail over bus rapid transit.
MR CORBELL: I am answering the question.
MADAM SPEAKER: Actually, I will have something to say and then you can stand up and tell me whether you are answering the question. On the point of order, Mr Coe’s question was quite precise—and this is what my notes say—because he was asking what factors were not in that report. I would ask you to be directly relevant. Can you answer the question: what factors were not in the report that Mr Coe referred to that made you come up with a particular point of view?
MR CORBELL: I do not accept the premise in Mr Coe’s question, because the assumption is that it was only that report which led to the government making its decision on light rail. The fact is that there is a body of work on light rail which dates back over the past decade and which has helped inform the government in its decision to choose light rail as the preferred transit mode for this corridor. They have been recited time and time again in this place. I would draw Mr Coe’s attention to previous debates in this place where all of those reports have been cited at length. So the premise of Mr Coe’s question is not accurate.
The government has made an assessment about the development of light rail based on a broad-ranging analysis. At the end of the day, Mr Coe seems to think that, with an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video