Page 1945 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 5 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Another big issue that came up in many of the directorates was the issue of capital metro. On page 163 there are five recommendations about capital metro. Indeed it does centre largely on the recommendation that the Assembly should be given the benefit of seeing the cost-benefit analysis and should be given the estimated total cost to the ACT, as well as the delivery model, prior to the signing of the contracts for any construction projects.
It is important that we know what the full cost will be. The government has a provision account with $1.3 billion, on which there is no detail. The Assembly should not be seen as a rubber stamp, and that is why the committee has made these decisions.
I would draw members’ attention to the work done by the adviser to the Assembly. In volume 3 there is the specialist budget adviser’s report and supplementary analysis. We have had this now for a number of budgets and it seems to be working well. In this case the committee went back and asked for further analysis. I think it is worth putting on the record the introduction from the economic analysis of capital metro, on page 13, which states:
There is little available evidence to support the economic merit of the Capital Metro, which appears to be more focused on environmental and social objectives. Based on information that is available, light rail in Canberra has a net cost to the ACT of approximately $235 million relative to a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) option.
The expected uplift in employment in the transit corridor identified in the business case is difficult to attribute directly to the construction of the light rail if land use policy implemented over the same period increases density in that area.
The expected uplift in land values in the area surrounding the transit corridor is potentially a measure of benefits to users of the land, however counting it as a benefit in addition to decreased journey time and other benefits may lead to double-counting.
Light rail does present a low emissions alternative to cars and would have lower emissions per passenger than a BRT option. However, the total discounted cost of light rail ($524.1 million) is over double that of BRT ($248.5 million) and only leads to a small additional benefit over BRT in terms of pollution.
If members have not read it, I would suggest they read the analysis given by the economic adviser. They have done a good job in supporting the committee, and I know that the committee was grateful for that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, this is a unanimous report of the committee. There are a number of themes that emerge through the recommendations—as I said, particularly looking at health and wellbeing issues of Canberra residents. It is not in any particular order as it comes up in the report. The presentation from Kippax UnitingCare about their emergency financial and material aid program was interesting. There is a recommendation from the committee that that funding be increased immediately from $315,000 to $410,000, given the need. The committee recommends a review of the emergency financial and material aid program to ascertain current
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video