Page 3748 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2013

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

The amendment removes the third point of the motion, which calls on the government to install traffic lights at this intersection. As I have said, TAMS is currently assessing the option but I also do not agree that we can let the Assembly simply decide on specific engineering options for intersections. I just do not think that is appropriate. I am starting to feel like a broken record this afternoon, but I think this is the struggle that is out there. Certainly, as the minister in partnership with Roads ACT, we need to take an evidence-based approach to these things.

I have gone through in some detail, both on the previous matter and this one, the evidence around them. There is a necessity to come up with some sort of means to prioritise these issues. I think the traffic warrant system used by TAMS is a good approach. Basically, it feeds a whole lot of data into a database and creates that ranking. But then what Roads ACT does across the top of that is also apply the element of human judgement, common sense, whatever tag you would like to put on it. So there is some flexibility in that list.

I think that, in relation to the specific intersection being addressed this afternoon, the improvements that are being made—the installation of the stop signs and the necessity to focus on the 47 intersections that currently sit ahead of it—mean that I am not able to agree to all of the things that Mrs Jones has asked for. I know that is not going to satisfy all members of the chamber this afternoon, but I would ask members to reflect on the necessity for evidence-based decision making when it comes to these matters.

I will simply conclude my remarks by moving the amendment circulated in my name. I move:

Omit paragraphs (2)(b) and (2)(c), substitute:

“(2) (b) assess the intersection and provide a report to the Assembly on the outcome of the assessment by the end of April 2014.”.

MRS JONES (Molonglo) (5.16): I am happy to speak to the amendment and conclude, if that is appropriate. I thank Minister Rattenbury for his response to this motion, and I would only add a couple of remarks. Firstly, I would be very surprised if within the Gungahlin town centre there was a more dangerous intersection. This intersection is renowned amongst residents, and people living in that area every day, driving to and fro, must also have some understanding of the safety. Given that an assessment has been undertaken into this intersection, which says that visibility is not a problem and yet it is very clear that visibility is the problem, I wonder whether the assessment took place at a time of day when there were not cars parked on the main road, because no stop sign or 40-kilometre-an-hour zone can make cars see-through. And, unfortunately, the problem is that it is impossible to see whether cars are coming down the main road.

You will understand that I will not support the amendment because I am pursuing traffic lights, if possible, for this intersection. But whatever the outcome is today, I will be glad if some more action is taken to see this intersection’s problems resolved. And I think that Gungahlin residents deserve that.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video