Katie Gallagher betrays Aranda on GDE 80kph

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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!)

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

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.

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.

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

Gungahlin Al said :

Yes how dare we buy land where the ACT Government was selling land and then have the temerity to expect that same government to complete those new areas with infrastructure approaching those enjoyed by existing areas? How dare our areas get “showered with money” to build this infrastructure in the same way that your area was showered with money to build your infrastructure? So what if the lion’s share of the ACT budget is being propped up with our money from buying our blocks out here? Where the hell do we get off? Troll.

LOL! Not troll – fairy.

Now if only I had a magic wand to make all who disagree with me go away

Anyways, people who move into new suburbs shouldn’t expect all services straightway. It comes with the territory – you get a new brandspanking 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. That’s how it was in SW sydney, where I grew up (though admittedly my suburb just kept going downhill till it became a no-go ghetto). People just accepted the way things were. When good roads got built they welcomed them, even if they were accompanied by a hefty toll; they didn’t rant week after week after week about how the road is 80kmh but it should be 100kmh. Then again we didn’t have riot act. Only way to have our say back then was pay off or blackmail a councillor, or throw a brick through a window.

As for my suburb in Canberra – only money it seems to be showered with these days is for hideous sculptures and school closures. Add to that increased traffic from rat runners from beyond the pale and we’re pretty much going backwards.

There’s a problem here, and if you had heard the interview on 666 you would know what it is:

It was the Chief Minister who informed the interviewer that the reason for the 80km/h limit was the commitment given to Aranda residents. (Oddly, this is a different reason from the ones she gave on CM talkback on 666 last Friday, but perhaps she had “taken advice” in the meantime).

The way the OP puts it, it sounds like she was reneging on a commitment. She wasn’t – she informed the interviewer of the commitment (if she hadn’t, the interviewer would never have known about it, and the interviewer did not challenge her about it), but also said that in the light of all the feedback since the road was finished, it would be reviewed.

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?

And governments of late have even shown a liking for retrospective legislation, which makes commitments disappear as if they never existed.

IP

yellowsnow said :

chewy14 said :

I’m using the time I saved in driving to work to post. How about you?
Arguing that shorter travel times don’t cost money is completely illogical.
It’s like saying that smoker’s taking smoko’s don’t cost their companies any money because hey what’s a few minutes here and there?

Funny how all these people are suddenly concerned with workplace productivity. If time is so precious, and commuting such a chore … why the hell live out in Gungahlin? If losing time to the daily community is such an imposte, sounds like it’s time to move closer to work. If it’s walking distance or a bike or bus ride – you stand to save lots of $$ too.

Where did I say I lived in Gungahlin? I dont
As for the rest of your post, I agree with Gungahlin Al.

yellowsnow said :

chewy14 said :

The road was designed with a 100km/hr design speed for a posted speed limit of 90km/hr which is what it was meant to be set at all along.

Correction – road has a design speed of 90kmh, for a posted limit of 90kmh

Anyone else sick of all these Gungahlin folk whingeing? You guys have wrecked traffic flows for the rest of us, on the northside in particular, are showered with govt funds like there’s not tomorrow, yet continue to whinge and act like roads exist solely for the benefit of Gungalistas, and stuff everyone else. One only has to look at rat run traffic to witness the disregard for local residents just so as to avoid traffic lights

I say if the speed limit is to be increased – make it a toll road. Make the users pay for it. ACT must be the only jurisdiction in the country where high quality urban freeways are not built by the private enterprise and paid for by users. Instead, in the ACT the taxpayer insists on subsidise expensive freeways like the GDE, siphoning money that could invested in public transport for example

We only rat run because the inner city folks whinged and managed to get the two planned arterial roads canned.

If you had of just shut up there would be two, multi lane freeways around the base of Mt Ainslie and next to Dryandra street. no rat running, minimal traffic on officer cr, moatt and majura ave and a much improved amenity in the inner north.

That was always the plan since Burley Griffin’s days and you guys are reaping what you sowed.

yellowsnow said :

Anyone else sick of all these Gungahlin folk whingeing? You guys have wrecked traffic flows for the rest of us, on the northside in particular, are showered with govt funds like there’s not tomorrow, yet continue to whinge and act like roads exist solely for the benefit of Gungalistas, and stuff everyone else. One only has to look at rat run traffic to witness the disregard for local residents just so as to avoid traffic lights

I say if the speed limit is to be increased – make it a toll road. Make the users pay for it. ACT must be the only jurisdiction in the country where high quality urban freeways are not built by the private enterprise and paid for by users. Instead, in the ACT the taxpayer insists on subsidise expensive freeways like the GDE, siphoning money that could invested in public transport for example

Yes how dare we buy land where the ACT Government was selling land and then have the temerity to expect that same government to complete those new areas with infrastructure approaching those enjoyed by existing areas? How dare our areas get “showered with money” to build this infrastructure in the same way that your area was showered with money to build your infrastructure? So what if the lion’s share of the ACT budget is being propped up with our money from buying our blocks out here? Where the hell do we get off? Troll.

Sgt.Bungers said :

That all being said, since when has the A.C.T Government ever been concerned about road noise? Does this set a precedent for any resident whose local street has a noisy chip seal surface to be able to demand proper resurfacing of the road?

Hear hear! For example, the significant noise jump when that crap was laid over sections of Horse Park Drive. And Hindmarsh Drive. And a whole bunch of suburban streets.

chewy14 said :

I’m using the time I saved in driving to work to post. How about you?
Arguing that shorter travel times don’t cost money is completely illogical.
It’s like saying that smoker’s taking smoko’s don’t cost their companies any money because hey what’s a few minutes here and there?

Funny how all these people are suddenly concerned with workplace productivity. If time is so precious, and commuting such a chore … why the hell live out in Gungahlin? If losing time to the daily community is such an imposte, sounds like it’s time to move closer to work. If it’s walking distance or a bike or bus ride – you stand to save lots of $$ too.

HTFU Aranda.

housebound said :

…Impressions from the public meetings of Aranda residents were that most concerns were about noise and, from memory, there was something to do with what caused the ridiculous mess of access from Bandjalong Cres into the GDE…

That’s a fatality waiting to happen.

steveu said :

What would make real sense would be to reduce the speed limit to 80 on the entire parkway when it is raining (use electronic signs like on the M7). Bring it up to 100 again the entire length (excluding the genloch interchange) when the road is dry.

But since when has the local council done anything that makes sense?

This.

Why can’t we apply some actual brains to the situation?

chewy14 said :

I thought we covered this before, they only count for ‘a s***load of money’ if you can actually prove you would have made any extra money in that 2 minutes. I am yet to see anyone actually manage to show that they would be actively making more money in that 2 minutes.

If you are going to use that claim, then you need to stop posting on here, becuase time is money.

I’m using the time I saved in driving to work to post. How about you?
Arguing that shorter travel times don’t cost money is completely illogical.
It’s like saying that smoker’s taking smoko’s don’t cost their companies any money because hey what’s a few minutes here and there?

I post at random times of day when I get a chance. I also don’t have lunch breaks and work from home for no extra $$. I am pretty sure my posts are not resulting in lost productivity for my company.

BTW the smokers in my office have shorter lunch breaks or work longer to account for smoke breaks. If you choose to slowly kill yourself, you do it on your own time. The days of company sponsored smokos every hour are long gone around here. It irritates new staff who are smokers to no end until they get used to it, but that is their problem not mine.

djk said :

qbngeek said :

I thought we covered this before, they only count for ‘a s***load of money’ if you can actually prove you would have made any extra money in that 2 minutes. I am yet to see anyone actually manage to show that they would be actively making more money in that 2 minutes.

If you are going to use that claim, then you need to stop posting on here, becuase time is money.

Ah petal. Perhaps you should have a whinge about the other things that take up (at least) a minute of your life too – like sifting through junk mail, the amount of ads on TV, the speed of your internet, boring friends and relatives, doorknockers. I could go on but my minute’s up..

So where do you draw the line? I am sure going 80 instead of a more sensible 70 would only save a minute or so as well, so why not reduce the limit to 70 as no-one is going to be doing anything productive in that extra minute anyway. And then having a 70 limit instead of 60 would only save about 1.5 minutes which no-one will use, so why not reduce it to 60? Etc, etc.

I have only been to Gungahlin twice, and never used the GDE. But in saying that I support the increase in the speed limit because it is obviously too low. I also believe our major highways should be at least 160kmh. I have been on the European Autobahns etc and they are in a lot worse condition than the majority of the Hume Highway. And this is the country where we should be travelling faster because of the massive distances we need to travel to get anywhere.

My point is that the time lost equals money lost argument is pointless in this case because you are not actually losing any money. If the speed limit was 40kmh the argument would be different.

Will an increase to the speed matter when the conservative drivers out there are unable to grasp the skill of merging at 80 or even 100 km/h?

Its not about saving a minute here or there, its about being efficient. If everything all day is done efficiently you’ll make up quite a bit of time for more useful things.

You all know that Save the Ridge took the government to court over the GDE, don’t you? Not Aranda people.

Impressions from the public meetings of Aranda residents were that most concerns were about noise and, from memory, there was something to do with what caused the ridiculous mess of access from Bandjalong Cres into the GDE.

So the government promised to address the noise issue with barriers, moving the road over ever so slightly (I think), and by limiting speeds.

Finally, regardless of your political religion, any politician who says they have delivered, and so now they can do what they want (undeliver?) should be severely punished at the polls. Not that she hasn’t done it before.

chewy14 said :

The road was designed with a 100km/hr design speed for a posted speed limit of 90km/hr which is what it was meant to be set at all along.

Correction – road has a design speed of 90kmh, for a posted limit of 90kmh

Anyone else sick of all these Gungahlin folk whingeing? You guys have wrecked traffic flows for the rest of us, on the northside in particular, are showered with govt funds like there’s not tomorrow, yet continue to whinge and act like roads exist solely for the benefit of Gungalistas, and stuff everyone else. One only has to look at rat run traffic to witness the disregard for local residents just so as to avoid traffic lights

I say if the speed limit is to be increased – make it a toll road. Make the users pay for it. ACT must be the only jurisdiction in the country where high quality urban freeways are not built by the private enterprise and paid for by users. Instead, in the ACT the taxpayer insists on subsidise expensive freeways like the GDE, siphoning money that could invested in public transport for example

What would make real sense would be to reduce the speed limit to 80 on the entire parkway when it is raining (use electronic signs like on the M7). Bring it up to 100 again the entire length (excluding the genloch interchange) when the road is dry.

But since when has the local council done anything that makes sense?

Mysteryman said :

“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”.

Thank goodness for common sense!

“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.”

I couldn’t care less about the NIMBYs in Aranda. They’re responsible for a HUGE part of this shamozzle and the wasted money. Raise the limit, screw Aranda.

Agree totally. A select row of houses who were worried about the impact of the GDE on their property values (lets face it, they really didnt care about a bunch of gumtrees did they?) cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars, and contributed to the significant delay in getting the road built. An absolute farce.

djk said :

qbngeek said :

I thought we covered this before, they only count for ‘a s***load of money’ if you can actually prove you would have made any extra money in that 2 minutes. I am yet to see anyone actually manage to show that they would be actively making more money in that 2 minutes.

If you are going to use that claim, then you need to stop posting on here, becuase time is money.

Ah petal. Perhaps you should have a whinge about the other things that take up (at least) a minute of your life too – like sifting through junk mail, the amount of ads on TV, the speed of your internet, boring friends and relatives, doorknockers. I could go on but my minute’s up..

So where do you draw the line? I am sure going 80 instead of a more sensible 70 would only save a minute or so as well, so why not reduce the limit to 70 as no-one is going to be doing anything productive in that extra minute anyway. And then having a 70 limit instead of 60 would only save about 1.5 minutes which no-one will use, so why not reduce it to 60? Etc, etc.

This is exactly the issue – where do you set the speed limit so that it is an appropriate blend of safety and utility. I’m a support of the ’85th percentile’ approach, as this seems to lead to lower speed differences between vehicles while traveling, and thus traffic is calmer with less overtaking and lane changing.

djk said :

So where do you draw the line? I am sure going 80 instead of a more sensible 70 would only save a minute or so as well, so why not reduce the limit to 70 as no-one is going to be doing anything productive in that extra minute anyway. And then having a 70 limit instead of 60 would only save about 1.5 minutes which no-one will use, so why not reduce it to 60? Etc, etc.

There’s room for more on my 0kph bandwagon.

Think about it, if the speed limit is 0kph then nobody will be able to move and we can decommission every single speed camera in the ACT.

Everyone wins!

I thought we covered this before, they only count for ‘a s***load of money’ if you can actually prove you would have made any extra money in that 2 minutes. I am yet to see anyone actually manage to show that they would be actively making more money in that 2 minutes.

If you are going to use that claim, then you need to stop posting on here, becuase time is money.

I’m using the time I saved in driving to work to post. How about you?
Arguing that shorter travel times don’t cost money is completely illogical.
It’s like saying that smoker’s taking smoko’s don’t cost their companies any money because hey what’s a few minutes here and there?

qbngeek said :

I thought we covered this before, they only count for ‘a s***load of money’ if you can actually prove you would have made any extra money in that 2 minutes. I am yet to see anyone actually manage to show that they would be actively making more money in that 2 minutes.

If you are going to use that claim, then you need to stop posting on here, becuase time is money.

Ah petal. Perhaps you should have a whinge about the other things that take up (at least) a minute of your life too – like sifting through junk mail, the amount of ads on TV, the speed of your internet, boring friends and relatives, doorknockers. I could go on but my minute’s up..

So where do you draw the line? I am sure going 80 instead of a more sensible 70 would only save a minute or so as well, so why not reduce the limit to 70 as no-one is going to be doing anything productive in that extra minute anyway. And then having a 70 limit instead of 60 would only save about 1.5 minutes which no-one will use, so why not reduce it to 60? Etc, etc.

“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”.

Thank goodness for common sense!

“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.”

I couldn’t care less about the NIMBYs in Aranda. They’re responsible for a HUGE part of this shamozzle and the wasted money. Raise the limit, screw Aranda.

If it’s only to appease Aranda residents, why is it 80klm all the way along?

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.

Seems to me the majority vote is 100. The short distance of road past Aranda will just be travelled quicker with noise for a lesser period of time.

Do you folk in Aranda actually get any road noise? Is the road noise comparable to the sound of the wind through the trees on a breezy day? I just want to quantify the noise level to get a better understanding of the issue (beyond “politician breaks promise, film at 11”).

puggy said :

I drove on it yesterday. Driving at 80 meant that I had about a minute less to sit on my butt at the other end. I don’t live along side the GDE or know anyone who does but it’s not hard to have some respect for their needs. Also, are those people now advocating for more expensive sound barriers, so everyone can drive that little bit faster, the same ones that moaned about the money already spent on the road?

Two points. First, everyone is already driving 90kph+ on it anyway. There would be no increase in noise regardless. Second, why can the residents of Aranda, which backs onto some 1.2km of the GDE, determine the speed limit of an 8km stretch of road?

Precisely! I dare say the south-bound lane of the GDE as it connects to the Parkway at Glenloch is of absolutely no concern to the precious residents of Aranda. Similarly, the dual-carriage dual lane section running along side Bruce Stadium isn’t terribly close to these precious residents either.

The whole project was a colossal mess due to listening to these residents initially. Why they even get mentioned in these discussions now is beyond me. It’s one promise that I’m glad that Katy has the swingers to ignore.

I think some credit to Katie Gallagher is due here, it is obvious to everyone that uses the road that 80kmh is to slow.

Rather than digging in her heels and refusing to note an obvious mistake or hiding behind some excuse common sense looks to be prevailing.

If it was a liberal polly making the comment then it would be ok because they now make Predictions, not Promises. How can you break a Prediction??

All she said was that the traffic authority would review the limits. She hasn’t broken any promises – yet.

I drove on it yesterday. Driving at 80 meant that I had about a minute less to sit on my butt at the other end. I don’t live along side the GDE or know anyone who does but it’s not hard to have some respect for their needs. Also, are those people now advocating for more expensive sound barriers, so everyone can drive that little bit faster, the same ones that moaned about the money already spent on the road?

Two points. First, everyone is already driving 90kph+ on it anyway. There would be no increase in noise regardless. Second, why can the residents of Aranda, which backs onto some 1.2km of the GDE, determine the speed limit of an 8km stretch of road?

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. 🙂

chewy14 said :

I drove on it yesterday. Driving at 80 meant that I had about a minute less to sit on my butt at the other end. I don’t live along side the GDE or know anyone who does but it’s not hard to have some respect for their needs. Also, are those people now advocating for more expensive sound barriers, so everyone can drive that little bit faster, the same ones that moaned about the money already spent on the road?

No, we’re advocating for the poor little princesses in Aranda to HTFU because the extra noise will be inconsequential.

Tens of thousands of cars every day multiplied by those two minutes adds up to a s***load of time and money.

I thought we covered this before, they only count for ‘a s***load of money’ if you can actually prove you would have made any extra money in that 2 minutes. I am yet to see anyone actually manage to show that they would be actively making more money in that 2 minutes.

If you are going to use that claim, then you need to stop posting on here, becuase time is money.

“in other words don’t ever trust any commitment any government makes.”

I fixed that for you.

Classified said :

It’d be far more effective to target noisy vehicles (motorbikes without mufflers, modified cars with noisy exhaust, etc) that to try to make everyone drive more slowly.

That. +1

I drove on it yesterday. Driving at 80 meant that I had about a minute less to sit on my butt at the other end. I don’t live along side the GDE or know anyone who does but it’s not hard to have some respect for their needs. Also, are those people now advocating for more expensive sound barriers, so everyone can drive that little bit faster, the same ones that moaned about the money already spent on the road?

No, we’re advocating for the poor little princesses in Aranda to HTFU because the extra noise will be inconsequential.

Tens of thousands of cars every day multiplied by those two minutes adds up to a s***load of time and money.

If a promise of an 80 km/h speed limit was to be kept, then the road should have been designed to have a speed limit of 80 km/h from the start. It hasn’t been, thus an 80 km/h speed limit cannot be realistically set on the road.

With the vast majority of motorists disobeying the current 80 km/h speed limit thanks to the design of the road, residences near the road are going to be experiencing increased road noise anyway from motorists who are travelling at a safe speed for the road environment (despite breaking the law).

Road noise barriers are far more effective at reducing noise than an artificially low speed limit. Given that such barriers already exist along the majority of the GDE (either as an earth barrier or a fence), to complete barriers along the rest of the road will not be a major operation.

That all being said, since when has the A.C.T Government ever been concerned about road noise? Does this set a precedent for any resident whose local street has a noisy chip seal surface to be able to demand proper resurfacing of the road?

It’d be far more effective to target noisy vehicles (motorbikes without mufflers, modified cars with noisy exhaust, etc) that to try to make everyone drive more slowly.

Time to install a helipad at Calvary so the precious residents of Aranda share some noise with residents of Garran and Woden.

Pathetic whingers

I would have thought that any increase in noise would be more than offset by the 12% less time cars spent traversing the GDE at a higher speed.

It should be more than 80. Like many places in Canberra, sticking exactly to the speed limit will see 95% of cars overtake you. And not just at 85 or 90 – most people are still sitting on 100 or more after coming off the parkway. I’m not saying speeding is acceptable in all cases – but it’s a big, wide, new road – let us go faster.

The speed limit won’t be lifted to 100km/hr anyway.

The road was designed with a 100km/hr design speed for a posted speed limit of 90km/hr which is what it was meant to be set at all along.

its ridiculous to think that a bunch of NIMBY’s should be able to dictate to the government and Roads ACT what they want the speed limit of this road to be set at.

I-filed said :

You don’t think there’s a broader issue with a government blatantly breaking a commitment while still describing it as “delivered”?

Shelf-life for statements in general these days is about 3 days. A week, tops. Not saying I think it’s right, but that’s how it is. A little galling to hear Gallagher being so blase about it, though.

Same in the business world. When I hear down the management line that there are no sackings planned, I know I’m OK … until next week.

Well, they have delivered, right up to the time they raise the limit. At which point they will not have delivered.

Along the lines of “I’m immortal. So far”.

While this might be a little sad for those few Aranda residents in the envelope which might see increased sound, I would rather they just up the limit and deal with it (don’t tell my friend who’s house backs onto the GDE that I said that).

As for the environmental costs… I suggest that increased fuel use/tire wear/etc which the faster speeds might cause could well be offset by the efficiencies gained by freer flowing traffic and time spent on the road.

I’d also like to point out that the environmental impact of cars travelling at 80kph is much higher than when stationary.

Noise reduction is also much greater at 0kph.

Accidents causing death and serious injury will be virtually nil.

The fluffy nosed wombat will be saved.

I think this would be of benefit to all. Especially the cute wombat.

Make it so Katie!

PS. Would that be the greens who drive V8 Land Cruisers, or the ones in smokey 35 year old s*** boxes?

I’d like to see the govt. commit to its original idea of taking the NIMBY’s houses to pay for the failed court action.
They were warned of the consequences when they proceeded with the action, but the govt didn’t follow through.
Why should the rest of Canberra’s tax payers foot the bill for the failed court action & subsequent years of delay?

Goog god, another group of NIMBY’s complaining about the GDE, when does it end.

Seriously the difference in noise between 80 and 90 from 100 metres would be almost unmeasurable.

Aranda residents were the lot trying to stop the GDE in the first place.

Admit defeat heathens!

buzz819 said :

Bah….

There are more people complaining about the low speed limit then there are that live in Aranda…

Oooh the environmental impact… bah bah bah…

She is listening to the people who want change.

You don’t think there’s a broader issue with a government blatantly breaking a commitment while still describing it as “delivered”?

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

Really I wouldn’t be trusting any commitment made by any government anywhere in Australia.

“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.”

Can you elaborate please? Some cars might use more fuel traveling at 100km/h relative to 80km/h, but I’m pretty sure that would be negligible.

Bah….

There are more people complaining about the low speed limit then there are that live in Aranda…

Oooh the environmental impact… bah bah bah…

She is listening to the people who want change.

http://www.realestate.com.au/find-agent/in-aranda,+act+2614/list-1