Page 2492 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 13 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The recent polling which showed 55 per cent support for the light rail project also polled people on the issues that are important to them. Canberrans listed health and education as most important, which are usually the top issues in these polls, but next they listed improving public transport, which was equal with the importance of improving housing affordability. That is a strong result for public transport. Canberrans recognise the benefits brought by improved public transport and expect their government to work on this issue.
The benefits of public transport to a city are well documented, just as the negatives of car dependency are clear. That is not to deny there are some advantages to cars in various situations. I have heard various members talk, for example, about the flexibility and freedom that cars bring to Canberra families, and that is a fair point. But problems arise when there is a distorted focus on cars at the expense of sustainable modes, and that is what we have experienced in Canberra.
A counter to the point is that car dependency in a city is also very exclusionary. People who cannot drive—who might be old or young or have a disability—are at risk of being socially isolated. That is a real problem that groups like ACTCOSS have raised. There is also the risk that without good public transport some families suffer from a car-dependent poverty. Again it is well documented, and we should all know how expensive it can be to buy, run and maintain a car, particularly as petrol prices are always at risk of spiking.
Just to clarify, no-one has ever said cars will not be a part of Canberra’s transport future. It is a straw man argument. What the Greens and I have always said is that governments have traditionally focused heavily on roads and cars, and it would be short-sighted to continue to do so. Especially as our city grows, we should be focused on dramatically improving sustainable transport options.
I will add some remarks in response to some of the issues raised in Mr Coe’s motion. Firstly, he talks about “advice in the 2003 Canberra public transport futures feasibility study regarding the staging of a possible ACT-wide network”. It is misleading to suggest that the 2003 Kellogg, Brown and Root report, which was published in 2004, showed that the government should be building a Belconnen to Civic light rail line before any other. The report did suggest that a light rail network could be staged. It suggested that the first stage would consist of a 55-kilometre route that would include four elements—that is, Belconnen to Civic, Gungahlin to Civic, Woden to Civic, and a Manuka-Civic loop.
The report suggests that these initial four routes could be staged according to demand. It says that “based on revenue performance” the first stage should be Belconnen to Civic. The Gungahlin to Civic line is listed last on this list, based on revenue demand.
However, it would be misleading to apply this to the present day. Yes, Belconnen to Civic garnered more public transport revenue back then, over a decade ago. But Gungahlin was only just being developed back then, and certainly transport options were limited. Of course, it did not have the highest public transport revenue at that time because of its population.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video