Page 2800 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
not have enough exercise. Our health would be better if we had more exercise. Active transport is a way that we can improve the health of the inhabitants of Canberra.
At the same time, we can save money for both the individual and for the government because active transport infrastructure is a lot cheaper than roads and we can create a better environment. Spending money on active transport—that is cycling, pedestrians, and the buses that interface into that—is a much better investment in our transport future than spending more and more money on roads.
I would like at this point to disagree with some of the comments that Mr Coe made in his speech. There are people who do voluntarily go on buses. Many people find them convenient. (Second speaking period taken.) I catch buses frequently, especially going to Woden. They are much more relaxing and obviously more convenient than driving a car.
Peak oil is also something that this government and, in fact, all of Canberra need to be aware of. If it has not already happened, it surely will happen in the fairly near future. It is something that we need to be planning for. We need to be planning for a transport future which is less petrol dependent. Another fact is clear: if we have a key objective of decreasing carbon emissions from our transport system then building more roads is not a sustainable approach.
This was in fact pointed out by the government’s own light rail submission. It perceptively analysed different solutions for Canberra’s sustainability and congestion problems. Building more roads came out, in fact, as the worst option. It was assessed as having a negative impact against criteria such as reducing carbon emissions, reducing accidents and improving equity.
The only criteria against which building more roads scored positively was consumer preference and, I guess given the current context I should also say, political preference.
Mr Rattenbury: It was a nationwide poll.
MS LE COUTEUR: Yes. It tells us about the government’s short-term approach to transport and environmental problems. Those people who attended the recent transport forum held in the Assembly by the Greens and the Conservation Council would have heard Dr Paul Mees, a well-known Australian transport expert and author of Canberra at the Crossroads. He lamented the continued unjustifiable focus of the ACT government on roads, a practice that will lock us into an unsustainable future.
Ms Bresnan also spoke at great length about transport, so I will wind up on transport. But I do say this: I do acknowledge that the government has made some shifts in focus in the recent budget so that sustainable transport has more priority than in previous budgets. In particular, I would like to mention the Canberra Avenue transit lane. But there is still a long way to go.
I would like now to move on to another area which has been de-prioritised and where the Greens are very disappointed. The government has removed almost all the funding for the urban forest renewal project in this budget. Canberra’s urban forest plays a key
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video