Page 5378 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
When he says “your”, he is referring to Minister Corbell. He continues:
Also, if there was evidence that the T2 lane on Adelaide Avenue was interfering with public transport times why didn’t you make a statement to that effect as part of the announcement to restore the bus lane and, more importantly, why was there no consideration for other trial remedial measures such as minimum speed limits, T3 lanes or off peak T2 lanes?
I agree that increased bus useage in the ACT would be an optimum environmental outcome. However, removing incentives for multiple vehicle occupancy does not necessarily achieve that objective and is environmentally regressive.
There was another email, this time directed at Mr Rattenbury and copied in to the opposition:
I am taking the unusual step (for me) of writing to express my concerns regarding the recent decision to cease the operation of the T2 lane on Adelaide Avenue. My wife and I both work in the city and use this road every day. While it doesn’t always suit us to take one car due to our various work commitments during the day, we do share as often as possible (most days), and one of the major reasons for this was the convenience of using the T2 lane. The withdrawal of this option merely means one less reason to share travel. I have no doubt that many road users will be in the same position, yet there appears to be absolutely no benefit to be gained by the move.
We have lived in several cities around the world where multi-passenger lanes are common—it is clearly an accepted approach to help reduce car travel and pollution, yet the Administration which you support has seen fit to drop it—I am yet to hear of anyone else reversing the practice!!
If you are serious about wanting to reduce the number of the cars on the road, especially in peak hour, then a simple step would be to reverse this patently illogical decision.
I look forward to either a reversal of this decision or a very solid explanation as to the benefits to be achieved by the decision. Environmentally regressive, patently illogical. This is how the community is describing this decision.
If this government is serious about getting cars off the road they need to encourage people to car pool, and they must also acknowledge that car pooling is indeed an effective method of reducing congestion.
I think these two constituents have hit the nail on the head. When it comes down to it, Canberra was designed for the motor car, and the vast majority of Canberrans will depend on cars to get around this city of ours. Canberra is a great city. We want to make Canberra an even better city. Part of that means improving road infrastructure in the ACT. That means improving arterial roads. That means improving suburban roads. But it also means making sure we have adequate parking in and around our town centres and in the city. It seems to me that this government is determined to do all it can to make it harder for motorists to travel in this city.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video