An Infrastructure Australia assessment of the ACT government’s transport plans has cast doubt on whether the territory has enough traffic congestion to warrant federal funding for light rail or rapid buses.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The report, which resulted in Capital Metro missing out on a place on the national infrastructure priority list last month, also said the ACT government had not made a strong case for favouring light rail over buses.
But Sustainable Development Minister Simon Corbell said on Thursday light rail was “the best choice for Canberra’s future” because it would bring more development to the Civic to Gungahlin corridor than buses.
The ACT government’s submission to Infrastructure Australia was made last year before it had decided to build a light rail network along the 12 km stretch.
The government announced last month it would make a new submission later this year for $15 million in federal funding for the project.
Mr Corbell said the submission would make a stronger case for the project’s national significance by arguing Northbourne Avenue was “the front door” to Australia’s capital.
Infrastructure Australia’s assessment suggests a transport project for the city to Gungahlin corridor be included at the “early stage” of its priority list.
The report says the government had provided limited evidence that there was a “nationally significant problem” along the corridor in terms of “access, congestion or amenity”.
“The proponent has not demonstrated the scale and impact of the problem, taking into consideration the decision to proceed with construction of the Majura Parkway, a largely parallel corridor on Canberra’s east which is likely to redirect at least some traffic from the Northbourne Avenue corridor,” the report says.
The assessment found that congestion on Northbourne Avenue was “not as significant as congestion on urban roads in other cities”.
“The extent of the problem identified seems unlikely to justify significant capital investment in the short term,” it said.
The report said the case for light rail over buses had also not been strongly made, particularly when the government’s economic analysis showed buses would deliver a greater cost benefit than light rail.
But Mr Corbell said the government’s new submission would address Infrastructure Australia’s concerns about the capital metro project and would show that light rail would bring a level of development to the corridor that buses could not.
“It’s the only transport mode that will achieve the density, that will achieve the housing choice, that will achieve the value uplift along the corridor in terms of rates and charges… and at the same time provide the capacity to carry growing numbers of people well into the future,” he said.
“We’re going to highlight that this is a project for the national capital.
“It’s not desirable to have the front door to the national capital congested with cars in five years’ time, 20 years’ time, 30 years’ time.”
Opposition urban services spokesman Alistair Coe said it was difficult for the government to make the case for light rail “given their own document suggests that bus rapid transit returns $4.70 and light rail returns $2.30.”
“By their own document, buses are double as efficient, double as effective as light rail,” Mr Coe said.
