Page 97 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
transport in the ACT. There are still suburbs being built in Canberra with streets that are too narrow for a bus to travel on and, for that matter, too narrow for a garbage truck to turn around. Such things would not be happening if urban planning and transport planning were integrated.
Walter Burley Griffin’s plan for light rail was not given a mention, despite the pre-existence of planned light rail spaces along Canberra’s major arterial routes, although busway plans talk about the potential to convert to light rail. This is ironic as many other cities that do implement light rail have additional large expenses that we do not have, including the resumption of land and the building of extra infrastructure such as tunnels to avoid built-up areas. It would seem we have a natural advantage in this respect thanks to Walter Burley Griffin.
If the government were truly committed to public transport, they would look at what forms of transport attract the highest numbers of users and reduce most greenhouse gas emissions and put more effort into looking at the options for light rail. They might do a feasibility study into the broader effects of light rail on Canberra’s society, community, economy and environment, rather than just looking at the financial costs. Many of the costs of implementation of the busway, including real-time information, lane reconstructions, bus stops and so on could be redirected towards the beginnings of light rail in the ACT. In terms of the further integration of transport and planning, the government has spoken of having an office of transport, which would bring the transport functions of the Department of Urban Services and ACTPLA together into one office, and we hope this happens soon.
The targets in the sustainable transport plan for replacing car usage with cycling, walking and public transport use are really too low to be called sustainable. Given how fast things can change in the world when necessity calls, higher targets could be set, and in fact should be set because necessity calls now. We could accompany the targets with stronger strategies and incentives to shift to less car use.
The recent hike in petrol prices, which looks as though it is going to go on and on, was enough to almost bring us to the first target of public transport use—the ACT target for 2011. I note that the recent figures, very fortuitously released just before Ms Porter moved her motion, indicate that there is an increased use of ACTION buses, and that is a very good thing. In fact, one of the paragraphs in Ms Porter’s motion commends the high patronage of ACTION buses. Although commendable, it goes to show that the targets could have been set higher, rather than at the usual growth rate. We should not just sit here comfortably because 23,000 people took the bus last week. Passenger usage for 2004-05 already exceeds the target for this year, which is fantastic, but the Greens support monitoring and increasing these targets regularly.
I want to talk about car/road dependency. Another question must be asked about the government’s commitment to sustainable transport. Why are we building more roads while attempting to implement the sustainable rapid plan? If we were serious about reducing car usage, we would increase busway space and reduce the number of car lanes. If we reduced the number of roads, the numbers of cars on the roads would decrease and more people would use mass rapid transport nodes. We cannot expect people to get out of their cars and into buses while the car is so clearly the most convenient way to travel.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .