Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 4 Hansard (4 May) . . Page.. 1300..


(4) What was the cost to the Government for travel expenses related to inspections of similar installations in Sydney and Melbourne as outlined in the answer to part (2) of question on notice No 740;

(5) How many ACT Government employees attended the inspections in (a) Sydney and (b) Melbourne and how many inspections took place and where did they take place;

(6) Did any individuals who are not ACT Government employees accompany the people identified in part (5); if so, (a) how many, (b) what is their relationship to those identified in part (5) and (c) were any of their expenses covered by the ACT Government;

(7) Further to the reply to part (3) of question on notice No 740, (a) who was the design consultant for the project, (b) what other traffic noise attenuation options were investigated by the design consultant, (c) what was the estimated cost of each of the investigated options and (d) why were each of the options investigated not accepted as viable noise attenuation measures;

(8) How many complaints have been made to the ACT Government regarding the noise attenuation panels.

Mr Barr

: The answer to the member's question is as follows:

(1) The perspex panels satisfy the ACT guidelines covering traffic noise (traffic noise levels no greater than 58 dB in private open space at 1.0 metre inside the property boundary and 63 dB at 1.0 metre from building façade);

(2) (a) Yes traffic noise levels were in the 63 -65 dB range. (b) Currently being measured;

(3) Measured by the use of a noise logger for a period of 24 hours over 7 days. Prior testing conducted by Richard Higgies and Associates (an acoustic consultant) and subsequent testing in progress by Marion Burgess, an acoustic expert;

(4) Nil;

(5) (a) One during two private visit to Sydney and inspected at M5 Freeway, (b) One during a private visit to Melbourne and inspection of the South Eastern Freeway;

(6) No;

(7) (a) Brown Consulting ACT Pty Ltd, (b) concrete barriers, (c) preliminary estimate for perspex panels was $350,000 and concrete option was not progressed further due to its aesthetics impact, (d) refer to (c);

(8) Two reported directly to Roads ACT.

Emergency Services Authority—communications systems

(Question No 993)

Mr Pratt asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, upon notice, on 9 March 2006:


Next page . . . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search