Page 216 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Greens are asking that the government do a full assessment of the different options and their different impacts. We want to choose the best long-term option for the lane—the one that will bring the best sustainable transport outcomes to Canberra in the long run. We are therefore willing to reassess the options for the transit lane once the government does this work and reports back to the Assembly. This needs to consider all the issues, including car pooling and public transport.
As I noted, there are currently no guidelines or rules that govern when it is appropriate to operate different kinds of transit lanes. Obviously these are guidelines that are required. The guidelines should be compatible with sustainable transport policies. The intention should be for transit lanes to be used in a way that will have a positive outcome.
That is the key thing today. We need to do that work so we make sure that what we do to transport infrastructure in this city is done in an appropriate way.
To conclude, I would like to emphasise that this does not appear in my mind to be a serious motion. No analysis has been done of the impacts of immediately converting Barry Drive bus lanes to T2 lanes. This includes the impacts on bus travel, car drivers, safety, long-term sustainability and congestion. This motion also comes right after the Assembly—including the Liberals—agreed to a resolution on T2 lanes calling on the government to develop and publish guidelines for the appropriate locations and uses for transit lanes and bus lanes in the ACT, with reference to safety, congestion, and transport sustainability goals.
As to Ms Gallagher’s amendment, the Greens will support it. It reflects what I have said in my speech. This work is already underway. We need to do that work properly so that we can get the best out of transport infrastructure in the ACT and so that it can do the best for the city itself for all commuters and all travellers. The amendment recognises that and also that we will be getting that report soon. It is pre-emptive to move this sort of motion when we do not have the report yet. We need to do transport planning in a proper way in this city. If we do it in ad hoc way, it will have negative impacts on this city and on all travellers. This has to be done properly.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.22): I want to congratulate Mr Coe on the work he has done in bringing forward this policy initiative and his attempt today to try to have this government do something about addressing the transport needs of the people of Belconnen—the people that Mr Coe and I serve. The people of Belconnen have suffered for years with poor transport links because of the mismanagement of this government and its predecessors. We have suffered through two builds of the Gungahlin Drive extension because they could not get it right the first time. Now we are still in a situation where we have choke points across Belconnen caused by bad planning in relation to the Gungahlin Drive extension.
I have drawn the minister’s attention on a number of occasions to the exit from the Gungahlin Drive extension onto Parkes Way. Parkes Way is a car park most mornings from about 8 o’clock. William Hovell Drive way back to Coulter Drive is usually a car park well beyond Parkes Way most mornings from 8 o’clock onwards. The transit
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video