Page 761 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Let us look at the Canberra context. The government has outlined in its transport for Canberra policy what business as usual will mean in terms of growth and congestion compared to alternative policies which the government has chosen to adopt. The assessment undertaken using the territory’s transport model is that at the moment there are approximately 100 kilometres of roads that have a volume versus capacity ratio of more than 0.9—that is, traffic congestion—particularly during peak times. So at the moment during peak times we have around 100 kilometres of roads subject to serious congestion during peaks. By 2031 under a business-as-usual scenario, that will double to 200 kilometres of roads subject to congestion during peak time.
Is that the future we want? We know people now are unhappy with levels of congestion on some parts of our road network during peak time. If we continue with business as usual, it will double by 2031. Do you think Canberra families want to see a doubling of congestion, a doubling of the amount of time they spend in congested traffic trying to get to and from work? No, they do not. So it is the obligation of the government to put in place policies that seek to prevent that scenario from eventuating.
There are two important parts to this: one is managing demand and the other is giving people transport choice. Transport choice is around improving public transport choices and people’s ability to cycle and walk to work as an alternative to having to rely on their private motor vehicles. We also know that by putting in place such policies we reduce costs for families over time because more households over time will be able to rely on having fewer motor vehicles, which means less money spent on registration charges, petrol and maintenance costs, all of which we know have a big impact on family budgets. It is in the city’s interests to put in place over time policies that will save households money because they will not have to register and pay for two or three or four cars, which is a major cost in household budgets.
Let us talk about demand management. The government’s policy in relation to parking is a demand management approach, recognising not that everyone has to use public transport—counter to the claims by those opposite—but that those who can should have sufficient options available to them to use public transport easily and efficiently.
The government’s transport policies do not assume that everyone will stop using their cars—in fact, the government’s transport policies assume that around 70 per cent of all journeys to work will continue to be undertaken by the private motor vehicle—but that a significant number of journeys do not need to be undertaken by the private motor vehicle in terms of journeys to work and that people should be given alternatives. That is what the government’s transport policy is all about—supporting alternatives so that, whilst the overwhelming majority of journeys to work will still be by car, we can reduce congestion, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the costs for people having to buy multiple cars in their household by providing them with transport choice.
How does managing demand in terms of parking come into the equation? By providing for a price signal and sending that signal to motorists who have other choices. Not every motorist has another choice; the government acknowledges there
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video