Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Katie Gallagher betrays Aranda on GDE 80kph

I-filed 3 November 2011 72

Katie Gallagher made an extraordinary statement on 666 this morning, in the course of a discussion of discontent about the 80km speed limit on the GDE.

Katie made it clear that she thinks 80kph is too low. When it was pointed out by the 666 presenter that the ACT Government had made a commitment to Aranda residents to keep the speed to 80 to avoid excessive traffic noise, this is what the Chief Minister said – verbatim: “Now that we have delivered on our commitment to the residents of Aranda to keep the speed limit to 80, the traffic authority will review the speed limit”.

In other words, don’t EVER trust any commitment an ACT Labor government makes.

I’m still bewildered at how Katie can claim that her government has “delivered” on the promise if they then immediately renege on it.

I’d also like to point out that the environmental impact of cars travelling at 100 kph is much higher than at 80. The Greens should intervene both because of the betrayal of Aranda residents, and on environmental grounds.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
72 Responses to
Katie Gallagher betrays Aranda on GDE 80kph
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
yellowsnow 11:30 pm 04 Nov 11

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Some people seem to be carrying on as if this is the most important thing to happen in their lives. Utterly bizarre. I don’t mind if they make it 100km/hr, but I really don’t care if they don’t.

+1

Wise words, succinctly put

Gungahlin Al 8:13 pm 04 Nov 11

Kent Street said :

I’m more concerned about how a government minister made that stupid commitment in the first place.
I’m assuming that it was Hargreaves.
Why didn’t he just erect a wall of noise-absorbing Al Grasby statues along the perimeters?

Gold!

I-filed 4:50 pm 04 Nov 11

Kent Street said :

I’m more concerned about how a government minister made that stupid commitment in the first place.

It’s Labor short-termism and opportunism. Julia Gillard signing off with Andrew Wilkie and then trying to figure out how not to wear the consequences is the federal equivalent.

Kent Street 4:30 pm 04 Nov 11

I’m more concerned about how a government minister made that stupid commitment in the first place.
I’m assuming that it was Hargreaves.
Why didn’t he just erect a wall of noise-absorbing Al Grasby statues along the perimeters?

Thoroughly Smashed 12:04 pm 04 Nov 11

MissChief said :

Driving at 80klm on that road feels unsafe at the moment as other drivers come off the Tuggeranong Expressway at 100klm and end up tail-gating and weaving in and out of slower more law abiding drivers. The frustration is palatable.

Better than being unpalatable, I’d have thought.

And for those struggling with the idea of there being a difference between the design speed and posted speed, this is hardly anything new.

Some people seem to be carrying on as if this is the most important thing to happen in their lives. Utterly bizarre. I don’t mind if they make it 100km/hr, but I really don’t care if they don’t.

Classified 10:30 am 04 Nov 11

aevans said :

Martlark said :

The speed limit of a road should be based on what is the safest operational speed, not the maximum possible speed. As this road has been designed for 90k, I can’t really see how it could have a 100k speed limit.

Nice in theory … but Canberra’s biggest issue is not generally law-abiding drivers that go within 10km/h of the speed limit plus or minus most of the time, but a few crazies that will go double the speed limit no matter what it is. An amazing number have a P plate on the back too.

Exactly.

shadow boxer 10:18 am 04 Nov 11

Martlark said :

The speed limit of a road should be based on what is the safest operational speed, not the maximum possible speed. As this road has been designed for 90k, I can’t really see how it could have a 100k speed limit.

It is designed for 100 kmh

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/sound-of-speed-on-gde/2345792.aspx

If it is designed for 100 why wouldn’t the speed limit be 100 ? do we not trust our road designers, presumably they know what they are doing more than any of the other vested interests.

aevans 10:06 am 04 Nov 11

Martlark said :

The speed limit of a road should be based on what is the safest operational speed, not the maximum possible speed. As this road has been designed for 90k, I can’t really see how it could have a 100k speed limit.

Nice in theory … but Canberra’s biggest issue is not generally law-abiding drivers that go within 10km/h of the speed limit plus or minus most of the time, but a few crazies that will go double the speed limit no matter what it is. An amazing number have a P plate on the back too.

Classified 10:03 am 04 Nov 11

Martlark said :

The speed limit of a road should be based on what is the safest operational speed, not the maximum possible speed. As this road has been designed for 90k, I can’t really see how it could have a 100k speed limit.

It would be very safe at 10 km/h.

aevans 10:01 am 04 Nov 11

In Calgary they put big walls around the freeways to protect communities from noise. They aren’t very pretty but they work like a charm.

Martlark 9:53 am 04 Nov 11

The speed limit of a road should be based on what is the safest operational speed, not the maximum possible speed. As this road has been designed for 90k, I can’t really see how it could have a 100k speed limit.

puggy 9:43 am 04 Nov 11

Aeek said :

I am all for 90/100 between Belconnen Way and the Barton Highway.
North of that, the intersections aren’t up to higher speeds.

I think you mean south? In any case, I was thinking exactly this last night. I’d settle for 80kph between Belconnen Way and Glenloch, and 90kph from Belconnen Way to Barton highway. Maybe that’s a good compromise?

puggy 9:40 am 04 Nov 11

yellowsnow said :

Anyways, people who move into new suburbs shouldn’t expect all services straightway. It comes with the territory – you get a new brand spanking new house but the compromise is surrounding fields of dirt, crummy services and long commutes. Then over coming decades it all eventually comes together, trees grow, and you get a decent suburb.

As for my suburb in Canberra…

Gungahlin isn’t what you’d call “new” anymore. The first suburbs began going up almost 20 years ago. Much of the problem seems to be that unlike other parts of Canberra, there was no forward planning. I remember driving up and down Drakeford Drive toward the Hyperdome when it was a single road, but seeing the large reserves of land and pre-build bridge supports running parallel, ready for the inevitable requirement of duplication.

As for your suburb. If only everyone could afford to live in your suburb. That 3 bed ex-govie in Downer that we looked at, well we couldn’t afford the $670k it went for at auction. Naturally, we looked elsewhere. Nobody is asking for special treatment of Gungahlin, just the same consideration that was given to every other development (pre self government anyway). Al isn’t fighting for extra things for Gungahlin, he’s fighting for things to be done properly.

Captain RAAF 9:34 am 04 Nov 11

Funky1 said :

To reduce the traffic noise at Aranda just extend the Bum Wall (well that’s what my kids call it) from along side the Canberra Stadium to the other end of Aranda. 🙂

Why not just wall off Aranda, Berlin style, and do everyone a favour?

Seriously, that place should be nuked from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure!

Silveras 9:11 am 04 Nov 11

Most drivers go 10 km/ph over the set limit anyway. There have been many instances where i’ve been on the GDE and sitting on 80 and there have been cars screaming past me. What I don’t get is why people have to be so dramatic about it. I don’t think there will be much of an environmental impact.

I-filed 8:48 am 04 Nov 11

IrishPete said :

Also Tony Gill was interviewed about it very shortly afterwards on the same radio station, giving a lot more information on the proposed review.

Yes, he was very much in crisis control mode following Katie Gallagher’s faux pas (to her credit and her minders’ distress, she is somewhat truthful!)

IrishPete 6:57 am 04 Nov 11

I know what I heard.

Also Tony Gill was interviewed about it very shortly afterwards on the same radio station, giving a lot more information on the proposed review. He indicated it would be many months before there is any outcome, so in the meantime the speed limit stays 80km/h which means the commitment has been delivered on, and remains in place.

IP

bd84 12:55 am 04 Nov 11

For starters, most people do at least 90kph along there already, unless you’re in the street race between the 2 commodores doing about 150kph I saw yesterday.

Secondly, Aranda already is sheltered by a huge sound wall that was constructed in the government’s first s***ty attempt to build the road.

Thirdly, your claim of a higher environmental impact of cars travelling at 100kph over 80kph is a load of crap. Cars are more fuel efficient when they can travel consistently at higher speeds. (Take a look at your fuel economy driving to Sydney, it will drop by around about 2L per 100km). Making cars speed up and slow down from the 100/90/80 zones in the case of this road and linking ones will have more environmental impact.

Stop being such a complaining NIMBY. The rest of Canberra doesn’t care.

Aeek 12:05 am 04 Nov 11

I live in central Aranda so don’t give a shit about the traffic noise.
I use the GDE to drive to Woden & the North; and to cycle to Glenoch(sometime thru!) and sometimes north. Cycling I see details that I don’t notice driving.

Belconnen Way to past the Arboretum – on/off Belconnen Way, on Aranda, a carpark on each side(northbound, just after 3 lanes merging into 2 for bonus fun) ,off Parkway (which can bank up onto the GDE), 2 ons from the parkway, and and off/on to Lady Denham.
Northbound, there is the both way lane switching at Glenoch.

Going straight through, the sensible lane choice is to stay right, legal at 80, not so if a higher speed limit.

This is not The Parkway.

I am all for 90/100 between Belconnen Way and the Barton Highway.
North of that, the intersections aren’t up to higher speeds.

I-filed 11:00 pm 03 Nov 11

IrishPete said :

Commitments don’t last forever. They certainly don’t last beyond a change of government. Perhaps they should last beyond a change of CM, but if Labor stay in power forever, is it reasonable to expect them to stick to commitments made 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago?

A commitment to residents to keep to a particular speed limit has not been “delivered” at all if it is immediately reneged on. “Delivered” means “implemented”. And yes, you would expect a commitment of at least several years – and e.g. sound barriers upon reneging. Unless you have the sound available, we’ll have to disagree on whether it was 666 or the CM who raised the commitment. I

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site