Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Buying off the plan?
View our developments

The Green transport plan for Gungahlin

By johnboy 22 June 2011 23

report cover screenshot

The Greens’ Amanda Bresnan has announced the release of a discussion paper titled: “A Better Transport Solution for Gungahlin and Wider Canberra”:

The paper argues for a greater commitment to sustainable transport and critically analyses the Government’s approach to transport planning.

“The ACT Greens want to see real transport solutions – solutions that will create convenient, sustainable and equitable ways to get around Canberra,” Ms Bresnan said.

“We are arguing for investment in and prioritisation of a rapid, high capacity public transport network. This is the long term solution for bringing convenient, effective and sustainable transport to North Canberra.

“It is troubling that the Government’s arguments for building the Majura freeway are not standing up to scrutiny. The Government hasn’t assessed issues such as the benefits that quality public transport would have compared to a freeway. Nor has it properly assessed future traffic congestion on the road, the greenhouse gas emissions it will generate, or the impacts on Canberra’s urban form.”

Dr Paul Mees, one of Australia’s leading experts on urban public transport, backed the Greens paper, saying: “At a time when other Australian capitals are giving priority to public transport, Canberra’s planners seem trapped in a 1950s mindset. Canberra should be a model of what’s good in urban planning. A first-rate public transport system would cost less, and create greater travel time savings, than the proposed parkway — and that’s before we even consider the environmental benefits.”

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
23 Responses to
The Green transport plan for Gungahlin
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
damien haas 11:25 am 29 Jun 11

The Greens paper is very well thought out and makes an excellent case for light rail. It was nice of the government to commission the research that was used in the Greens paper.

Of all the transport papers Ive seen in the last umpteen years – this is probably one of the easiest for the non transport inclined to read. Its not overlong, makes sound cases and presents sources for data used.

Im a little concerned at the mindset of some that it is EITHER light rail or Majura Rd upgrades. Both can be achieved. Majura Rd definitey needs upgrading but is that a higher priority than light rail from Gungahin to Civic? It depends on what the outcome being sought is.

‘Matters of public importance’ Issue 7-2011 reports that

“In moving his motion, Dr Bourke stated that the Majura Parkway was an important, strategic connection to the national freight network and will assist freights and vehicles bypass the central spine of Canberra.”

Clearly the main reason for Majura Rd becoming a Parkway being used is freight and the hope that Canberra Airport becomes a 24 hour airfreight hub for Sydney bound trucks. Is this a good use of territory money?

The ACT Govt is being quite cagey and careful in their wording on light rail, and I am yet to see an actual dollar commited from the Territory budget to any light rail engineering study which would be required for both Infrastructure Ausralia funding or actual costings if the Territory went it alone.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

zippyzippy 9:25 pm 23 Jun 11

Snave81 said :

Couldn’t the Greens’ paper have done with a bit more detail on costings rather than just using figures out of context and which appear lower to try and push the case of light rail over the Majura Parkway?

Putting the fact that the figures are 7 years old aside, to get the $86 million price for the Gungahlin to Civic route, you would also have to pay for the following at the same time:
– Belconnen route $96 million,
– Tuggeranong route $154 million,
– Kingston route $89 million.

And these figures were only for track work. If you wanted the actual light rail vehicles and to pay for things like depots, surveys, urban design and project management, that was another $463 million.

So the $86 million Gungahlin route was part of a $890 million cost at January 2004 prices.

Just looking at this bit as well. To be fair, the paper does point these facts out. The problem I suppose is that it would pretty speculative for the greens to try and put a new cost on all of these things themselves. I think the points they make about all of the ongoing savings to the city and to people from light rail because of things like better land use, avoiding pollution etc are all very valid. These environmental options really save money in the long run.

Postalgeek 5:33 pm 23 Jun 11

BicycleCanberra said :

puggy said :

There is no mention of the word “bicycle” in relation to Majura in that paper either (which is what I am personally looking for).

What you’ll get is a wide shoulder with no physical protection at a speed limit of 100km/h like on the Monaro Highway. A crap cheap solution like the other on road cycle lanes on ‘high speed high volume roads’.


It continues to vex me that, even though all parties would like to see cyclists and cars separated by more than a white line, separate cycle lanes are not a new concept, and that the government likes to crow about the money it sinks in cycle infrastructure, planners will not even put so much as bumps on the dividing line in all new road construction.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site