The City to the Lake plan (or concept) floated by the Gallagher government in 2013 has hit an obstacle – an underwhelming cost-benefit analysis of burying Parkes Way. An analysis has found that although tunnelling and decking this major traffic artery would result in good connectivity to the lake and transport functionality, it would deliver a benefit-cost ratio of "under 0.5". That is, for each dollar of public money invested, less than 50¢ would flow in economics benefits. A further five options, including shorter tunnels, overpasses and underpasses, were examined in a report commissioned by the Land Development Agency and obtained by this newspaper under a freedom of information request.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
However, in releasing the report, the agency redacted key elements, including the costs, cost-benefit ratios, and value-for-money assessments of all six options for surmounting the obstacle posed by Parkes Way. Its reason? Such information could prejudice public debate and "affect commercial aspects of the venture".
It may surprise some Canberrans that that the City to the Lake plan is still high on the government's agenda. Katy Gallagher and Andrew Barr were suitably enthused in 2013 about better integrating the city with the lake and incorporating a new pool and stadium near West Basin, but this project has always had a long-term feel to it. It would be realised only after extensive discussion, public consultation and temperature taking.
But in fact, the government has been pushing ahead with plans to sell lakefront land in West Basin ever since the 2013 announcement. And in September 2015, the LDA paid $4.2 million for a block of land near Glebe Park it had identified as a suitable site for the relocation of stormwater control on the intersection of Parkes Way and Coranderrk Street in the event that Parkes Way was lowered.
The question of why an agency whose core business is developing and selling land on the behalf of the government should be involved in key planning matters is not immediately obvious, save that it suggests City to the Lake is regarded as a money-making venture first and foremost. Nor is it clear why a government with so much on its plate – including the Mr Fluffy asbestos clean-up, the start of light rail construction, and advanced plans for a new hospital and schools – should be investing time and money in City to the Lake.
It's axiomatic that governments should plan adequately for the future – by undertaking feasibility studies, commissioning economic analyses, and balancing competing demands for public infrastructure spending. And if governments want support for their plans, they have to be transparent in their thinking. Redacting portions of a cost-benefit study into a key aspect of the City to the Lake plan because it might cause "unnecessary confusion" is the sort of nonsense that, far from encouraging debate, only entrenches voters' cynicism.
