Page 1822 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
today. Initiatives such as perhaps putting a bus lane down Northbourne Avenue may or may not be economically viable. There would have to be some pretty serious studies done into that, in addition to many other different transport proposals that have been mooted in this motion either directly or indirectly.
Of particular concern would be, for instance, prioritising pedestrians, cyclists and public transport in planning traffic and urban design policies and funding them appropriately. I do not think that we could necessarily prioritise that for all the people in Canberra. It might be, for some people in Canberra, we are able to make such a priority but, for other people, it is simply not going to be possible. It seems to me that the underlying sentiment in this motion really is a vendetta on the car. Of course a vendetta on the car is a vendetta on families. It seems to me that this motion is far more about moral high ground than it is about genuine transport policy. We all know that, if this policy was to be implemented in full, it would have a detrimental effect on the vast majority of Canberrans who depend on their cars to actually operate on a daily basis.
There may well be some barriers in Canberra for walkers, riders and public transport users but there are also some barriers for people who drive cars. I think anyone driving down the GDE would see that as a pretty big barrier for cars when you are actually caught in a traffic jam near a car park in the morning or in the evening. So to that end, I think we do have to be consistent and we do have to be reasonable when applying these policies.
I understand that Mr Stanhope’s amendments will remove 2 (c) (ii) and 2 (c) (iii), which state:
(ii) removing the mandatory minimum car parking requirements for new suburban developments, but encouraging space for car sharing; and
(iii) introducing a sustainable transport contributions fund to allow developers to limit parking spaces in city and town centres;
Let us have a look at that one. Subparagraph 2 (c) (ii) is removing the mandatory minimum car parking requirements for new suburban developments but encouraging space for car sharing. This, to me, seems to be totally inconsistent with what the Greens say they stand for when they want high density.
It is all very well to have high density on transport corridors—and that is something that the opposition firmly believes in—but we also think that people who live in high density should have the option to have a car. Whilst living on a transport corridor may well make it more convenient to actually catch a bus or to use other public transport should it be available in the future, I do not think such people should ever be denied the opportunity to have a car if that is their wish. So to that end I am very glad that Mr Stanhope’s amendments will be removing 2 (c) (ii).
The Canberra Liberals do have a proud history when it comes to cycling and we are very proud of the policy we took to the last election. Indeed it was a policy that was widely supported by Canberra’s cycling community and one that I do hope will be implemented. That policy talked about connecting missing links in the off-road
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video