Page 3564 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
trend for the government to spend millions of dollars to knock down and rebuild key travel routes in exactly the same design. The government is entrenching the existing designs instead of taking opportunities to improve the travel routes which we know need changing.
This is bad enough, given the pressing and acknowledged need to change and improve our transport networks to address climate change and peak oil and to promote active and sustainable transport. But there is an additional layer to the government’s actions as well. Not only has the government spent significant funds rebuilding roads and kerbs in exactly the same design; it has also undertaken these works on areas that are currently subject to incomplete community consultation or planning processes.
This means that we are spending millions of dollars in this city resealing and refurbishing parts of the city and this work could become redundant if the government follows its plans for redesign. I note that in the Assembly yesterday, when I asked Mr Stanhope about this issue, he said that sometimes the government undertakes roadworks and upgrades that have a short life span. But he said, “These are almost always appropriate.” That statement “always almost appropriate” suggests there are some of these short-term roadworks and upgrades which are inappropriate.
I am glad that Mr Stanhope made that admission, because I have a list of actions from recent times which appear to be inappropriate. I refer first to London Circuit. The Chief Minister talked about it yesterday in question time. He said that the works there come at significant cost—$5 million, according to him. As anyone who drove a car would know, the works involved resealing the roads. As anyone wanting to catch a bus would know, the work also involved demolishing the gutters, blocking off bus stops and then rebuilding them in exactly the same spot.
Yet at the same time, the government had out for consultation its greater Civic plan. The greater Civic plan specifically set out new design options for London Circuit. Some of the treatments in the plan included changing the median island, changing the width of the verge, adding new kerbside bus stops and adding indented car parking spaces.
If these new options are taken up then the current $5 million roadworks, which involve digging up the street and rebuilding the gutters, will be at least partially wasted. You cannot change the width of the verge without demolishing the gutters yet again. I really doubt you can add new kerbside bus stops without doing the same again. You could not widen the median strip without pulling up some of the newly rehabilitated road.
Those of us who are committed to active and sustainable transport know that London Circuit needs to prioritise transport like buses and cyclists. But this will mean changing the road and taking away some of the kerb that has just been rebuilt. So why did this expensive roadwork go ahead? Did the government undertake the works without giving any thought to the future plans for this part of the city? If that is the case, it is bad planning and a careless use of public money.
Perhaps on the other hand, the government did these roadworks with full knowledge of the plans to redesign this part of the city. But in that case, it presumably had no
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video