Page 2476 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 7 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, a real concern must be that the figures used in the traffic travel figures for Athllon Drive and identified in that survey were taken from a November 1987 survey. As is stated in the committee's report, the figures identified in this survey will be more than three years out of date by the time the work has been completed.
At this point it is probably worth mentioning some traffic figures that were provided to my office only today in regard to Athllon Drive, and at the same time I want to compare them with those for Ginninderra Drive. One is a dual carriageway, the other is not, but both, I think, are described as what one would call regional arterial roads. On Athllon Drive, with a proposal for a bus lane to be added, in November 1989 traffic movement southward was 10,455 vehicles and northward was 9,553 vehicles; on Ginninderra Drive, a dual carriageway, the figures taken at Haydon Drive in November 1989 were 8,000 vehicle movements towards the city and 9,000 away from the city.
Understandably, we can see why all public submissions which were forwarded to the committee and which commented on Athllon Drive recommended a dual carriageway rather than bus-only lanes. I am sure that, if a period longer than 14 days for receipt of submissions had been available, many more would have been forthcoming on this issue. It was, I believe, unfortunate that such a short period was all that was available, this being partly due to the time taken in obtaining a copy of the proposed capital works documentation which was not, unfortunately, tabled in the Assembly. The nature of the reference will always ensure that the inquiry is a short one. However, as is stated in the report on page 2, the community must be given every opportunity to be fully involved and have adequate time to put forward submissions.
The report contains 21 recommendations. I have touched on only a few of those. As I said earlier, each one is important and will need to be addressed closely by the responsible government agency. Each one is, I believe, a positive recommendation.
The committee is also of the view that proposals to upgrade the Civic olympic pool must be identified by subprogram and that full details must be made available. The community should have been informed as to the allocation for such a
proposal. To allow a reserve amount of $22.1m, supposedly listed as a balance item being held in reserve, is neither appropriate nor acceptable, and recommendations 2 and 3 of this report address this issue well. I think it is important to read these recommendations. Recommendation 2 states:
... future new capital works programs include details of the indicative costs of projects identified as part of a reserve amount pending consideration by government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .