Page 2905 - Week 13 - Thursday, 23 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
document on transport. They are conflicting. The National Capital Planning Authority is continuing to plan for Gungahlin and it is planning in the same way as it has planned other parts of Canberra; that is, it is planning for the use of buses and cars, obviously, on roads.
The GETS survey indicates that some 12,000 vehicles at peak times will move out of Gungahlin, almost 10,000 of those in a southerly direction. For that this Government will need to provide 10 arterial lanes or six freeway lanes. And where are they going? All over town, but mostly to Civic. If you have not seen the maps in this GETS document, have a look at them because they draw the roads - Dedman Parkway, the Monash Parkway, the Northbourne Avenue route - and they are all heading for Civic. They average 1.2 persons per vehicle, and, if these documents are to be believed, the occupants are going to be working in Civic.
So somewhere down the track before the year 2000 it would seem to me that, according to the NCPA planning, we are going to be expanding Civic considerably; otherwise what is the purpose of all those roads leading to Civic? It is not for shopping, because we do not need those 10 arterial lanes for shopping purposes.
So we have this trouble where other bodies are considering their planning. While the current plans - the ex-NCDC plans that are still binding on us - restrict Civic to a certain level, the plans now in development will considerably expand Civic. I would certainly seek that the Government's integrated transport strategy be followed. But how do we do that? There are great difficulties in following that through, because it is beyond the control of this chamber.
The joint parliamentary committee from the Parliament House over the lake was meeting this week, considering the national capital plan. The joint parliamentary committee will have more input and more decisions to make on the access to Civic and the roads to and from Gungahlin than our planners will. The NCPA will be the planning authority, and that raises some very interesting questions. We are the elected local representatives of this Territory.
I know Mr Moore has been closely involved, and I am sure Dr Kinloch has been, with those groups who see threats from major roads. I know I have been on my side of the old north. We are the local representatives, yet I do not know how much input we are going to have into the final planning of these roads. It is an interesting question. I think most of us in this chamber would disagree with the notion of the NCPA having so much authority in the planning of this Territory. I hope that good commonsense and sound planning will come through and there will be some changes in the proposal.
I want to make some comment about what is needed, whoever does the planning. I was very interested in one comment in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .