Page 4130 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 26 November 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I also add that a great deal of work is also underway to reduce utility risk. Local supplier south Canberra firm Leach Steager has been on the alignment for the last few months surveying the route to determine the location of utilities. The topographic, geotechnical and contamination works are carried out predominantly by Canberra- and Queanbeyan-based companies. Therefore it is worth emphasising local firms are already benefiting from our investment in this project.
It needs to be restated that the economy as a whole benefits through the creation of over 3,500 jobs during the construction stage of this project. This is a very large capital works project—larger than the Cotter Dam, larger than the ASIO building, larger than the Majura parkway project. Can anyone seriously doubt that these jobs will not be beneficial to Canberra at a time when we are suffering a significant economic slowdown?
Mr Coe’s initial motion has asked the Assembly to note that the cost of parking after light rail is operational is not disclosed. But this, again, is wrong. The full business case did not require or ask the government to make a decision regarding the cost of parking after light rail’s operation and nor has the government made any decisions regarding the cost of parking after light rail is operational.
Future decisions regarding parking charges will no doubt be shaped by a range of factors, from community needs to supply of parking spaces, demand in different locations and parking costs at non-government-operated sites. These are all normal issues to be taken into account.
Mr Coe calls this motion an opportunity to discuss the economic analysis of individuals who have been featured in the press. While I will not respond directly to every ad hoc calculation that has been done without the consideration of detailed technical advice on design, risk consideration or application of industry guidelines, it is evident that those who criticise this project do not recognise the land and productivity benefits associated with transport infrastructure investment.
Indeed, to suggest as Mr Hughes does that land use and productivity benefits should not be taken account of in the benefit-cost ratio ignores the different approaches that are taken commonly around the world on this question. As far back as 2001 the federal government’s then road infrastructure agency, Austroads, stated:
There is no question that transport influences land use development and that the effects of each on the other need to be considered in an evaluation.
This nonsense—and it is nonsense—we hear from Mr Hughes and Mr Coe that we should not take account of land use benefits simply flies in the face of an accepted position that even a federal government as far back as 2001 acknowledged as needing to be taken into account.
In January this year the UK department of transport provided guidelines that clearly advise that if only direct user impacts were considered, significant economic impacts would be missing from the economic appraisal. The guidelines acknowledge that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video