Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory STANDING COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND URBAN SERVICES REPORT NO.67 FEBRUARY 2001 PROPOSALS FOR THE GUNGAHLIN DRIVE EXTENSION (JOHN DEDMAN PARKWAY) Executive summary and recommendations This report addresses each one of the terms of reference for the inquiry into ‘proposals for the Gungahlin Drive extension’ established by the Legislative Assembly on 21 April 1999 [the full terms of reference are reproduced after the Contents page of this report.] Information about the conduct of the inquiry is set out in chapter 1. Information about the first term of reference—which deals with the John Dedman Parkway Preliminary Assessment [or Maunsell Study] and the government’s response (set out in the Preliminary Assessment Evaluation for the JDP Proposal)—is set out in chapters 2-5. The Maunsell Study [MS] is described in chapter 2. The government’s view of the adequacy of the MS is set out in chapter 3. The view of submitters to this inquiry is shown in chapter 4. The conclusions reached by this committee are laid out in chapter 5. In essence, the committee finds that, despite some omissions and weaknesses (which are outlined in this report), the MS provides an appropriate basis for decisions about whether the John Dedman Parkway [JDP] is needed and about route options. Further, the committee considers that the government’s assessment of the MS is also ———————————————— Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services The committee was established on 28/4/98 to inquire into and report on planning and lease management, road and transport services, infrastructure and asset management and public utilities purchasing, electricity industry and regulation, construction industry policy, parks and forests, private sector employment inspectorate, building services, environment, heritage and municipal services and any other related matter (resolution of appointment, as amended on 25/11/99, 7/12/00 and 15/2/01). Committee members Mr Harold Hird MLA (Chair) Mr Dave Rugendyke MLA (Deputy Chair) Mr Simon Corbell MLA Secretary: Mr Rod Power Secretary to the Committee Office: Ms Judy Moutia For further information, contact the secretary on ph: 02 6205-0435 or fax: 02 6205-0432 or e-mail: [email protected] Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services appropriate. On the basis of these findings, the committee concludes that a further environmental assessment of the proposed route is not required. The second term of reference—which deals with ‘other transport inquiries and studies held in the ACT’—is dealt with in chapters 6-8. Chapter 6 describes key transport studies affecting ACT transport planning, particularly as it relates to Gungahlin’s transport links. Chapter 7 sets out the government’s response to these past studies. Chapter 8 contains this committee’s conclusions. The committee notes a sharp difference of view between the transport studies according priority to cars (with public transport, cycling and walking being important supplementary modes) and those studies which accord priority to public transport. This same difference is reflected in submissions to the inquiry. The committee notes that Canberra’s planning has been premised on the primacy of the car. The committee concludes that, on balance, the car-oriented strategy remains appropriate to the Gungahlin traffic task. Hence, the committee differs from those submitters and studies who consider that no further expenditure on roads should take place and that, instead, funds should be diverted solely to public transport. The committee considers that the families of Gungahlin should not be made the ‘guinea pigs’ for a predominantly public transport strategy. If greater efforts are to be made to improve public transport in the ACT, they should be made across the whole of the city and not just in relation to Gungahlin. The third term of reference—which deals with the impact of the proposals for the Gungahlin Drive extension on arterial roads—is considered in chapter 9. The committee notes that traffic flows on almost all of these roads (if not all) will worsen if the GDE is not built. The committee sets out recommendations to improve the traffic implications on important arterial roads. The fourth term of reference—‘the desirability of improving the use of public transport and other non-car modes of transport’—is considered in chapter 10. The fifth term of reference—‘the desirability of reducing the number of vehicles needing to travel between Gungahlin and southern destinations’—is briefly considered in chapter 11. A great deal of the material in earlier chapters bears on these terms of reference. The sixth term of reference, dealing with Majura Road, is considered in chapter 12. The committee concludes that Majura Road needs to be upgraded to the status of a national highway to reflect its key role in linking major highways in the south-eastern region of NSW. To the west of Majura Road (at its intersection with the Federal Highway), there is a need to promptly commence the construction of Horse Park Drive in order to provide Gungahlin families with the option of using the Majura link for at least some of their travel needs. The seventh term of reference deals with ‘a cost benefit analysis of the two options for the route of the Gungahlin drive extension to the east and west of the Australian Institute of Sport’ [AIS]. This is considered in chapter 13. The committee notes the depth of feeling on this issue, reflected in submissions to the inquiry. The committee concludes that, on balance, the most appropriate alignment of the Gungahlin Drive ii Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services extension is to the east of the AIS, with no connection to Barry Drive. This will reduce the detrimental impact of the western route upon the Bruce precinct and especially upon Bruce Stadium, the AIS, and other national institutions. The deletion of the Barry Drive link will mean that the eastern route will not detrimentally affect residences in O’Connor. The eighth term of reference, dealing with ‘any related matter’, is considered in chapter 14. The Appendix to the report lists the name of each submitter to the inquiry along with a summary of whether the submitter favoured the Gungahlin Drive extension and, if so, whether they preferred an eastern or western route. The Appendix also lists the address of submitters. The committee appreciates that the length of the report—over 60,000 words—may deter some readers. For readers wishing to gain a quick insight into the committee’s own deliberations in relation to the terms of reference, including seeing all of the committee’s recommendations, the shaded pages of the report should be read. Throughout this report the terms Gungahlin Drive extension [GDE] and John Dedman Parkway [JDP] are used interchangeably, as are the terms Maunsell Study [MS] and Preliminary Assessment [PA]. The former refer to the proposed road linking the Barton Highway/Gungahlin Drive intersection to Belconnen Way; the latter refer to the John Dedman Parkway Preliminary Assessment prepared by Maunsell Pty Ltd. List of recommendations The committee recommends [relevant page numbers are shown after each recommendation]: 1. that an additional arterial road connecting to Gungahlin Drive be constructed. 67 2. that the Gungahlin Drive extension should make effective provision for both private and public transport. 67 3. that future planning for Intertown Public Transport [IPT] routes in Canberra provide for IPT routes, wherever possible, to be along their own dedicated right of way, as currently indicated in the Territory Plan. 107 4. that planning should immediately commence for an Intertown Public Transport [IPT] route between Gungahlin and Belconnen. 107 5. that the JDP incorporate a laneway reserved for IPT transport, emergency vehicles and perhaps private coaches and taxis. 108 iii Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services 6. that the ACT government announce a timetable for constructing three northbound traffic lanes on Northbourne Avenue between Antill Street and the Barton Highway. 110 7. that the government investigate the possibility of installing lay-bys at bus stops along Northbourne Avenue in order to improve passenger and traffic safety, and facilitate the free flow of vehicular traffic. 111 8. that the project design for the intersection of Gungahlin Drive and the Barton Highway incorporate an elevated intersection in order to facilitate traffic flows on two important roads (Gungahlin Drive and the Barton Highway); and that the ACT government urgently pressure the Commonwealth government to provide appropriate funding. 111 9. that the government urgently establish a timetable for duplication of Gundaroo Drive between Mirrabei Drive and the Barton Highway, and especially for the duplication of William Slim Drive between the Barton Highway and Ginninderra Drive. 112 10. that planning commence for a grade-separated intersection at Gundaroo Drive/Barton Highway, and that the ACT government seek federal funding under the National Highway program for this work. 112 11. that the ACT government provide a grade separated interchange at the intersection of Ginninderra Drive and the Gungahlin Drive extension. 114 12. that Gungahlin Drive extension cross Belconnen Way by way of a flyover, with access and egress links to Belconnen Way. 115 13. that detailed analysis of an appropriate solution to noise and traffic problems affecting Aranda residents commence immediately, and that it include careful analysis of two key options: either lowering Caswell Drive or moving the Gungahlin Drive extension to the east of Caswell Drive. Further, the committee considers that there should be no direct access to Aranda from the Gungahlin Drive extension. 117 14. that the ACT government provide a timetable for the start of work to duplicate William Hovell Drive between Bindubi Street and Coulter Drive. 119 15. that the ACT government provide a timetable for the start of work to upgrade Parkes Way to three lanes in each direction between the Glenloch Interchange and Edinburgh Avenue.