Page 2216 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is interesting that of the 17 people in this place there are four that really should come out and say that they do not want the road to be built, because they have skirted all around it. They skirted all around that. I want them to actually be honest and to come out and say the road should not be built. Whether it is because of the legless lizard, the moth or an ideological objection to cars, the fact is that the four Greens should come out and say that they do not want the road to be built and that the 50,000-odd people in Gungahlin who are likely to use this road do not deserve it. They do not deserve it because that is the undertone of what the Greens are saying here.
They have tried to wheel out every excuse in the book as to why we should delay this but really they want to delay it indefinitely, which is code for canning the whole thing. What they want to do is cite every reason under the sun as a potential roadblock to construct the Majura parkway.
Look at some of the things that they have cited: they have cited problems with ACTION buses, they have cited problems with greenhouse gas emissions, with transport modal shift issues et cetera. These may well be current problems but it is not an either/or situation. I do not think that by constructing the Majura parkway suddenly that means all these problems are going to be fixed, nor does it mean that suddenly the opportunities to fix these issues, whether they be real or perceived, cannot be addressed later on.
I find it particularly interesting that in a press release of just a few days ago the Greens did cite the Victorian Auditor-General’s report into management of major roads. It is an interesting report. I think it certainly does provide some very important information and perspective on some of these issues. But, really, it is largely irrelevant when it comes to Majura parkway. Let us look in particular at the part that Ms Bresnan has singled out. She has singled out induced transport or induced traffic caused by the new road.
If you actually go to the report and you look at examples of induced traffic—that is, ways that people and business could respond to a road improvement that could actually generate more traffic—they talk about changing route, whereby drivers would make the same journey but use a new improved route. To be honest, Majura Road, as it currently is, is the only way really to get from Gungahlin to the airport and the Monaro Highway, in effect. So I do not think people are going to be suddenly switching to Majura parkway.
They talk about changing destination, whereby people will now decide to travel further because of the new road. I do not know who is going for a joy ride from Gungahlin down south other than for reasons of necessity, namely, work. We have got changing mode—that is, whereby people would now choose to drive because of the Majura parkway instead of catching a bus. I do not think there are going to be many situations where somebody getting a bus from Gungahlin out to the airport or further south is suddenly going to drive.
Then you have got making additional journeys whereby people are willing to make additional car journeys because of the improvement. Again, I do not think too many
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video