Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

GDE two months early or seven years late? [With poll]

By johnboy 11 August 2011 44

The hawk-like Alistair Coe has plunged upon a tweet by Simon Corbell boasting that the mid October finish date for the Gungahlin Drive Extension will be two and a half months ahead of schedule.

“It’s startling, given that ACT Labor promised to build the road for $53 million in 2001, to be completed by 2004,” Mr Coe said.

“This is a clear attempt from ACT Labor to rewrite history and lessen the negativity surrounding this iconic failure.

“Simon Corbells promise comes from the same government which opened a two lane road in 2008, despite being advised to initially build four lanes.

“This is the same government which also declared that duplication was ‘not on the books at all and any such plan would be five to ten years away’ (Canberra Times, 12/3/2008).

“In the lead-up to the 2008 election, ACT Labor announced it would finally duplicate the road at an extra cost of $86.6 million, in response to an election promise from the Canberra Liberals to duplicate it.

“The total time since ACT Labor’s first announcement of the road is 10 years and counting. The project is $150 million over the original budget and seven years late.

Gungahlin Drive Extension completion

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
44 Responses to
GDE two months early or seven years late? [With poll]
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
m_ratt 5:49 pm 15 Aug 11

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Perhaps you could use a different road if you don’t want your time “wasted” by this one?

And anyway, your argument could be applied to any number of roads, what makes this one special?

Unnecessarily slow speed limits waste time – of course the amount of time wasted depends on how far you travel. When I drive the GDE I generally drive the whole length from Glenloch to Gungahlin.
I assume ‘Glenloch to Glenloch’ is a typo.
That a ‘significant’ portion of traffic won’t do the whole length only revises my estimate of wasted man-hours down somewhat – it doesn’t eliminate the waste

Acknowledge that in congestion, people will be driving slower anyway.

Nothing makes this road special. If this is the most efficient route for travel, why would it be necessary to drive an alternate – that would only waste more – your point is spurious.

Thoroughly Smashed 10:24 am 14 Aug 11

m_ratt said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

The difference: 80 seconds.

Meh.

80 seconds per vehicle. How many thousands of vehicles per day? How many passengers per vehicle?

80 seconds per vehicle (your estimate)
1.1 passengers per vehicle on average (my estimate)
35,000-42,000 vehicles per day. (2001 prediction for 2011/2021 – http://www.nationalcapital.gov.au/downloads/plan/gde/Traffic%20&%20Transport%20Planning%20Assessment.pdf)

That’s roughly 850 to 1000 [b]wasted[/b] man-hours (more than a man-month) each day by unnecessarily having an 80km/h limit instead of 100km/h where safe.

Hardly ‘Meh’.

On a side note: I particularly liked section 4.4.2 in the above-linked report. “The Southbound flows cannot be accommodated in 2011 within a two-lane arterial road but require a four-lane road.”

Note that 80 seconds is the difference between 80 km/hr and 100 km/hr for the entire length of the road, from Glenloch to Glenlock. A significant proportion won’t be doing that, and a significant proportion will be travelling during peak hour when it may not even be possible to do 80 km/hr on most days.

Perhaps you could use a different road if you don’t want your time “wasted” by this one?

And anyway, your argument could be applied to any number of roads, what makes this one special?

m_ratt 4:44 pm 13 Aug 11

Thoroughly Smashed said :

The difference: 80 seconds.

Meh.

80 seconds per vehicle. How many thousands of vehicles per day? How many passengers per vehicle?

80 seconds per vehicle (your estimate)
1.1 passengers per vehicle on average (my estimate)
35,000-42,000 vehicles per day. (2001 prediction for 2011/2021 – http://www.nationalcapital.gov.au/downloads/plan/gde/Traffic%20&%20Transport%20Planning%20Assessment.pdf)

That’s roughly 850 to 1000 [b]wasted[/b] man-hours (more than a man-month) each day by unnecessarily having an 80km/h limit instead of 100km/h where safe.

Hardly ‘Meh’.

On a side note: I particularly liked section 4.4.2 in the above-linked report. “The Southbound flows cannot be accommodated in 2011 within a two-lane arterial road but require a four-lane road.”

what_the 3:42 pm 13 Aug 11

qedbynature said :

My big problem with the GDE is the way it commits Canberrans to car based travel for commuting. Expanding Majura Lane is more of the same. And every time the same excuse is trotted out that alternatives like light rail are too expensive and not viable and the money goes to building and maintaining more roads. Taking people out of cars, taking cars of the roads eases the traffic congestion and reduces the need for bigger roads. In any modern large city, rail or light rail is critical to the way people can live and function.

Mate, they were doing it anyway, GDE was to reduce congestion mainly out of the one road leading out of Gunghalin. Canberra was designed for the car, and has done that succesfully. However, the downside of the layout is that it’s a terrible design for public transport.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site