Transport idealism gets its reality check on a hot day

Under Planning Minister Mick Gentleman's future vision for Canberra, where the car is no longer accepted as a viable means of transport, today's outing would not have occurred. It would have taken us over two hours to ride the round trip (noting we are both in our 60s and it was 32 degrees) or nearly two and a half hours on public transport (which would include a total of 66 minutes walking - in 32 degree heat).

Canberra's urban spread, that is now part of its historic design, makes it impractical for many Canberrans to visit many areas in Canberra without a car - let alone contemplate how they would get to the coast next time we wanted to visit.

I implore the ACT government to rethink its idealistic, but impractical proposal, to build future units without car parking spaces.

How good it was to see the fit young couple and their Dutch cargo e-bikes featured in The Canberra Times of February 11. I note that even they have a car, and presumably somewhere to park it, so they can travel to the coast with their children.

If you are forced to buy a unit without a carpark, how do you travel to the coast, mountains or elsewhere in our wider region? Would our commercial long distance bus services get you to and from Congo or Cowra or Wagga Wagga for the weekend or school holidays?

If car use is to be usefully limited a good starting point would be to discourage the chaotic and risky school pick up and drop off ritual that annoys so many residents near schools. Why are these children not riding their bikes to school or being delivered in cargo bikes? Why do so many parents have to get their children to school by car? Is it to do with school bus services being cut contrary to policy to encourage bus use or active travel?

Thank you, Mick Gentleman, for your article "We're not trying to rid cars from Canberra" on February 9. The article however is based on theory. Mick appears to have no surveys on the car-parking and driving issues in Canberra. Mick's policy of allowing developers to build units in Canberra without car parking is flawed.

Independent surveys are required on the issues of carparking in and around unit developments, car access to and from the town centres, schools etc and car access to the highways in and out of Canberra. I inspect at least one unit complex every two weeks, and my experience is that after 5 o'clock the car parking spaces in the surrounding streets are full, many tradie vehicles simply won't fit in the unit complex car park, and their families need another vehicle anyway. Town centre car access is poor.

Gungahlin, for example, is a planning disgrace, no direct access into the town centre and two of the three access routes have schools on them. The car access to the highways in and out of Canberra is poor, the internal arterial roads are fragmented, studded with traffic lights, and don't connect up properly to the highways out of town. Travelling from Canberra to Sydney now can be travelled at a minimum of 100km/h except for the first 10km in Canberra and with no traffic lights except the 14 sets in Canberra. For too long Canberra planners have squandered the legacy left by the NCDC.

Mick Gentleman, ACT Minister for Planning and Land Management, writes that under the intended new "outcomes-based" planning system "assessors won't be hamstrung by a stack of rigid rules" (February 9, p28).

Doubtless developers too would be delighted to be freed from the "stack of rigid rules" and would show the ACT government their appreciation. But I believe such change would be contrary to the general community interest. A competently administered rules-based system underlies a fair and orderly society.

If the minister approves the removal of "rigid rules" from planning, would he and his government also advocate "lax rules" traffic, tax and criminal law systems?

If not, why not?

As a supporter of legal access to voluntary assisted dying (VAD), I agree with David Swanton (Forum, February 11) that any legislation introduced in the ACT must be ethical, best practice and consistent with human rights principles. Much, of course, depends on how we define these principles and standards.

I'm concerned that in rejecting a medical model that limits access to VAD to those with a terminal illness who are suffering unbearably, Mr Swanton may inadvertently give ammunition to those opposed to VAD on the grounds it may be too readily accessible to people who may benefit from other interventions. Clearly there is room for discussion in what constitutes "unbearable suffering" but I believe that before we grant access to medically assisted death, the threshold must be higher than the suggested reduction in quality of life below what the sufferer considers to be an "acceptable threshold".

In rejecting a medical model, Mr Swanton acknowledges doctors "might" have a role in administering drugs but dismisses other responsibilities - including potentially those involving the exploration of options to reduce suffering and improve quality of life, particularly for those who are not suffering a terminal illness.

In determining requirements for accessing a legally assisted death, surely a model would look beyond the person being well informed, having decision making capacity and voluntarily deciding to end their life.

Contrary to assertions made in Dr McKenzie's letter (February 11), the $50 million a year or so the government spends on the next stages of the tram is not being diverted away from the hospital upgrades (which are also currently being paid for). The traffic he complains of will be far worse as Canberra's population increases: leading to more drivers, leading to more damage to roadways, leading to more costly and disruptive roadworks, forever.

In his review on February 11 of Ian Hodges' book He belonged to Wagga: the Great War, the AIF and returned soldiers in an Australian country town, your reviewer Michael McKernan downgrades farmer soldiers with his statement, "The brash bush soldier was largely a myth". I was born in Wagga Wagga and lived my early and teenage years on the family farm in Junee Reefs, half way between Junee and Temora. There is a very well maintained war memorial next to the Junee Reefs Community Hall. It lists the names of all from the district who served in each World War, and identifies those who were killed. The mortality rate of local men in World War I was 30 per cent, causing great grief to those families and to the community.

Simon Cowan (Forum, February 11) proposes that critics of "neoliberalism" misunderstand the nature of "markets". He states that they are "the ultimate democratic institution" because businesses compete for the choices (votes) of consumers. What Cowan conveniently overlooks is that consumer choices depend on individual wealth, education and privilege: there isn't "one person, one vote" when it comes to purchasing power! So his claim that "markets are the ultimate democratic institution" is demonstrably false.

Judith Erskine (Letters, February 10.) asks whether it would have been smarter to replace the War Memorial cameras without all the "brouhaha". Judith, the cynical among us would also query Senator Paterson's public announcement (among many others about China) around the same time that a 72,000 tonne shipment of Australian coal arrived in China and was awaiting Customs clearance - the first such shipment for a number of years.

The cynical could well asks themselves whether this "announcement" was a coincidence and took in to account a possible adverse reaction from the Chinese. We could also ask which country would benefit by replacing our shipment should the Chinese once again decide to impose bans in retaliation for the camera debacle and whether our good friends and eternal allies the Americans would "reluctantly" fill the void as they did not so long ago with a range of our banned exports.

The cynical could well ask about the beginnings of this US-inspired campaign against all things China which it could be surmised originated during the Trump "mal-administration". Our former prime minister seemed to have willingly taken up the cause.

Re the removal of "Made in China" cameras in the Australian War Memorial. Just wondering how many "Made in China" speed cameras are in use on Australian roads and should also be removed immediately?

The Russian spring offensive in Ukraine begins. It doesn't matter how many resources the West throw at the problem, if Ukraine runs out of manpower to use them, there's your problem. A tank without a crew is just scrap metal. NATO boots on the ground just got a step closer.

My heart sang when I first saw the headline "Barr blocks big rises". At last, I thought, he has seen the light and there will be no more trashing our bush capital with ugly high-rise developments. Then I read the detail. Alas, it turns out it is simply time for the ACT public service to take a kicking.

I've always enjoyed the cool soundtrack playing when I've passed through the Woden Interchange. Hope they keep it in the new one.

I agree with Anthony Bruce (Letters, February 13) that there is now only one Australia. The Indigenous Australia I referred to was the 65,000 years before 1788 - which is as worthy of continuing recognition and celebration as the 235 years since.

I refer to Garry Linnell's column on February 4 where he states that the cinema industry is dying with the worlds second largest chain filing for bankruptcy. Given the above, can the Manuka Capitol Theatre developer give us all an assurance that the new complex, when finished, will still house a picture theatre hub as was stated in the lead up to the redevelopment application?

A subjective or objective view of the Indian cricket pitch would show that it was prepared to benefit one team, the Indian team but it's not a surprise. Australia should have trained in Darwin or gone early to prepare for the expected pitch.

Let me get this right, Brittany Higgins cannot testify in a criminal trial because of mental health issues but can testify in one or more civil cases.

Has Sharon Bishop (Letters, February 8) been asleep since the Uluru Statement from the Heart was released? Have a read of it Sharon, and catch up with the public discussion since, and you'll be enlightened. Plus, voting in referendums is simple: we vote on the principle, not the legislative details. Always has been the deal.

The RBA says "...the path to achieving a soft landing remains a narrow one". The catchphrase "soft landing" was widely used by macroeconomic officials in the lead in to the 1990 Great Recession. Enough said?