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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1845 ..

At paragraphs 3.24 to 3.27, the committee listed the concerns-identified by the PA-about noise assessment, residential and visual amenity, and flora and fauna assessment. At paragraphs 5.37 to 5.40, the committee set out its conclusion in relation to these matters. The committee did not 'ignore' the criticisms-it simply came to a different conclusion to Save the Ridge about their relative importance in relation to reaching a decision about the GDE [Gungahlin Drive extension].

Save the Ridge claims that 'the eastern option will undermine one of the basic tenets of the Y Plan'.

In a submission dated 17/11/00 at p.4, 'Save the Ridge' listed four benefits of the western route, namely: 'reducing traffic congestion and pollution by allowing fast uninterrupted travel; providing social equity by minimising travel time and cost; ensuring retention of significant open spaces between major town centres; [and] avoiding the push for intensive urban infill which results from one centralised employment centre (CBD) surrounded by dormitory suburbs with congested transport links serving the CBD'.

These four benefits may be said to apply equally to both the eastern and western routes for the GDE-they certainly are not benefits that apply only to the western route.

The committee notes that the Y Plan envisaged a number of districts served by a system of peripheral freeways and spinal rapid transit routes which (along with other essential infrastructure) passed through the bush corridors separating the districts. Both the eastern and western options for the GDE cross bushland between the townships of central Canberra, Belconnen and Gungahlin.

Save the Ridge claims that 'the eastern option can only be an 80kph arterial because of the topography of Bruce Ridge and the AIS, whereas the western option is capable of 100 kmp parkway standard transport link'.

The committee did not receive evidence that the western route is capable of 100 kph. Further, the committee notes that this may not be feasible because of design constraints associated with the location and manner of the GDE crossing Ginninderra Drive and Belconnen Way. More importantly, however the committee points out that the GDE-over its whole length-is designed for 80 kph, no matter whether the GDE goes to the east or the west of the AIS. Both the Maunsell study and the government have stated all along that the GDE will be an 80 kph arterial road, not a 100 kph road. However, in light of the government's acceptance of this committee's recommendations for grade-separated interchanges, it may be possible to increase the speed limit above

80 kph.

Point 2

Save the Ridge asks 'why didn't the committee direct the government to provide more detailed costing information...'?

Government witnesses told the committee at the public hearings that no more detailed costings were available than those in the Maunsell study [see paragraph 13.13 of the report]-the committee had to accept this. The committee used what information was available to estimate the cost of both

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