Page 3423 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR CORBELL: It is not all about stick. It is not all about that. It is about providing alternatives, and alternatives that work, for those low income households. I have never for one moment professed that the provision of public transport, walking or cycling, will meet all of the transport needs of our community. Individual mobility provided by the private motor vehicle will always play a very considerable part of the transport task in our city.
That is why the government are supportive of moves to ensure that individual mobility through the motor vehicle can be achieved through more sustainable mechanisms such as electric vehicles. And that is why we are investing considerable effort in encouraging the deployment of electric vehicles and why we are investing in and supporting measures that will see Canberra become the first city in the country with an electric vehicle network.
But equally, it is essential that the government invest in making sure that some of those journeys that are currently reliant on the car can be undertaken by other transport modes. It should not be the case that children, for example, of high school age have to be dropped off at their school. They should be able to catch a bus, walk or cycle. They should be able to get on a transit for that journey. And all members of this place would notice what happens to the traffic when the school holidays are happening. There is a reduction in traffic and there is a reduction in demand for car parking.
So that surely tells us that there are a number of journeys that can and should be able to be accommodated by alternative transport modes. Not only is this good in terms of utilising our existing infrastructure more efficiently and making sure there are car parking spaces available when they are needed for people who are driving to the shops, who are driving to the hospital, who are driving to the medical appointment and so on, who are driving to work, but it is also good for the health of our population. If people are catching transit, public transport, however that is delivered, and if they have the reliability and the frequency that allow them to make that choice, then the health benefits are significant. It means people are walking more. It means people might be biking and riding as well as catching transit. It means that we are helping to tackle issues around obesity in our community. And the obesity epidemic is one of the most significant public health challenges of our time.
So I reject absolutely the assertion that if you are opposed to the car, you are opposed to the family and you are not interested in helping low income households. Quite the contrary, if you are an advocate for public transport, if you are an advocate for walking and cycling, you are an advocate for helping low income households, to give them a choice and to make sure they can break out of the expensive dependency that can exist where it is not one car but where it is two or three or more cars in the household.
There will always be some journeys that will be undertaken by the private vehicle. They will be those complex, multi-destination journeys that might involve an infant or might involve an elderly person or might involve a family in certain circumstances. But if you can get more people commuting to work without needing to use their car, if
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video