The ACT Government conducted a Feasibility Study for Active Travel infrastructure within the Gungahlin Town Centre in 2022. The final report has recently been released and identifies 12 individual community route links to improve active travel in the Gungahlin Town Centre. As detailed here – Active travel in the Gungahlin Town Centre – funding has been included in the 2023-24 budget to progress high priority segments through to detailed design.

The GCC partnered with Canberra cycling advocacy group Pedal Power to participate in the feasibility study, and provided the following joint feedback on a draft of the report. We would welcome any comments on the feasibility study or the comments below – email us at Note that references below are to section numbers in the final report.


Pedal Power ACT (PP) and the Gungahlin Community Council (GCC) have expressed concerns about the amenity of the active travel infrastructure of the Gungahlin Town Centre (GTC) on behalf of Gungahlin residents for many years, and consequently welcome the investment that has been made in this study.
PP and GCC welcome the holistic, ‘all of GTC’ approach and a focus on active travel connections both from areas surrounding GTC, and within GTC.

High Level Comments

  • The new proposed community route network proposed by the feasibility study looks very promising and when implemented will be a vast improvement on the existing arrangements. Specific changes of note are the moving of the main route away from Flemington Road and the use of the verge along the reserve to the south of the town centre
  • The feasibility study has not sufficiently addressed the significant challenges associated with access into the centre of the Town Centre and the public transports interchange at Gungahlin Place. This would seem to be a significant failing/deficiency.
  • The feasibility identifies several valid and significant “overarching issues” that PP and GCC agree should be actioned ‘prior to implementation of the recommended improvements’ (noting that they are likely beyond the scope of the study and possibly even the TCCS Directorate). These include the four points made in the Executive Summary:
    • Bus movements in Gungahlin Place represent the highest hazard to active travellers in this important area [ see also 11.3.1 ]
    • There are legacy issues that present hazards to active travellers from infrastructure inconsistent with planning and design standards [ see also section 11.3.2 ]
    • A broader study is needed that considers the speed environment on major collectors adjacent to the Town Centre such as Anthony Rolfe Avenue and The Valley Avenue to reflect their purpose and proximity to the Town Centre 
    • A mechanism is needed to protect the amenity of the verges and planned green corridors in the Town Centre area from degradation from proposed future development such as that to the east of the Town Centre [see also 11.4.1]

    And the two additional points raised in the Conclusion:

    • Blackspot funding [see also 11.4.2]
    • Connections to future facilities and developments [see also 11.4.3]


  • The activities of multiple directorates needs to be greatly improvement and coorinated to ensure better outcomes in specific locations/precincts
  • Active Travel ACT needs to be consulted about temporary seating on verges and on Development Applications as both can have significant effects on the active travel experience
  • Prioritise work on links that are less constrained by issues identified above
  • We would like to see something more specific regarding the needs of residents living within the town centre, including in existing high rise towers in the nortwest precinct
  • In denser-usage areas (in and around bus/light rail interchange), the separation between travel modes (particularly e-cycling and personal mobility devices need to be very explicit, i.e. dedicated lanes, barriers, fences, planting. Challenging, but maybe that challenge needs to be addressed, or at least considered.
  • We would like to see some serious effort applied to explore some radical ideas, eg:
    • Remove parking on one side of the Hibberson Street shared space to create a cycleway
    • Constructing a large European-style parking station for bikes, scooters etc in Gungahlin place or in one of the underground carparks close by (could even include end-of-trip facilities like showers and toilettes
    • Moving the bus interchange
  • Businesses and shopping centre operators within the town centre (including those at Yerrabi and along Link 08), need to be included in the discussions
  • Some use-case analysis needs to be undertaken on movements of people to better understand what experiences need to be accommodated.
  • There needs to be a specific focus on improving the “destination”  experience, eg.
    • possible EU-style large secure bike/PMD facility
    • better distribution of secure facilities
    • better access to and use of underground car parks (existing bike parking under shopping centres are very difficult to access

Detailed Comments

  • Section 2 – Background Information Review
    • [GCC] The outcome of the Town Centre Planning Refresh was Territory Variation 364.  GCC is strongly of the view that this variation does not address the recommedations of the Refresh; rather it has diluted several aspects of the Gungahlin Town Centre Precinct Code (e.g. removing the road and active travel hierarchy). GCC remains of the view that the Gungahlin Town Centre Precinct Code does not address the issues identified in sections 11.3.2 and 11.4.1 and the Executive Summary.
  • Section 3 – Existing Infrastructure Snapshot
    • An excellent and detailed summary that captures a very large number of issues with the existing active travel infrastructure.
  • Section 4 – Constraints, Risks, Opportunities
    • Although somewhat overwhelming in that there seem to be many more constraints and risks than opportunities, we have no specific comment on the details.
  • Section 5 – Active Travel Network Design Review
    • We strongly support the proposed community route network.
  • Section 6 – Proposed Upgrades
    • The links are logical and well argued implementations of the proposed community route network.
    • We note that most of the links proposed are subject to, part of, or adjacent to, sites that are yet to be developed and, in several cases, for which the use is yet to be determined – further engagement with numerous agencies is required:
      • Link 01 – Current Development (The Establishment), upgrade Gundarroo Drive (TC). Has any thought been given to building a pedestrian and cycling overpass over Gundaroo Drive?
      • Link 02, 08 – Affected by the Yerrabi Pond redevelopment/refurbishment (TCCS/Friends of Yerrabi)
      • Link 03 – Sale/development of adjacent blocks (SLA/TC/EPSDD)
      • Link 04 – Sale/development of Block 1 Section 228 (currently an at-grade car park) and the sales/development of East Gungahlin (SLA/EPSDD)
      • Link 05 – Current development of Burgmann School car park
      • Link 06, 08 – Bus Interchange rework (TC)
      • Link 07 – Sale/development of adjacent blocks (SLA/TC/EPSDD)
      • Link 12 – Future Linear Park and East Gungahlin (SLA/EPSDD)

      GCC and PP suggest that these may significantly affect the priority of the link projects, as will the consultations associated with these developments, most notably the SLA-led Gungahlin Town Centre East Place-Making.

    • It is important that planning controls are strengthened and enforced to deliver the proposed active network in the presence of these developments based on the issues identified in the feasibility study.
  • Section 7 – Safety in Design
    • No comment.
  • Section 8 – Budget Estimates
    • Clearly, a significant amount of (essentially remedial) funding is needed to deliver a functional active travel network.
    • It seems likely that the cost of implementing the proposed links can be substantially reduced through strengthened and enforced planning controls applied to the developments noted above.
  • Section 9 – Prioritisation of Capital Works
    • The analysis is perhaps too simplistic, and needs to factor in issues identified in the study and those noted above re future development.
    • Comments below mostly focused on packages marked HIGH.
    • Link 01 – See notes above – may be more realistic to have multiple packages; considered important but not urgent.
    • Link 02 – High (recreational) value for community – need to engage TCCS/Friends of Yerrabi.
    • Link 03 – important but not urgent – most of its value will only be realised when link 06 is done.
    • Link 04 – packages 1-3 possibly need to be HIGH; perhaps include a temporary path for Hinder-Hamer part of package 4.
    • Link 06 – this link ‘unlocks’ the value of many of the other links because it’s the ‘destination’; needs to be VERY HIGH priority to action (may be hard to deliver).
    • Link 08 – High (recreational) value for community – need to engage TCCS/Friends of Yerrabi
  • Section 11 – Conclusions and Recommendations
    • Some of the important conclusions need to be emphasised in the Executive Summary.
1 Comment
  1. I am concerned with the funding in the ACT Budget 2023-24 for active travel infrastructure in Gunghalin (else where).

    “In the 2023-24 ACT Budget, funding was provided to progress high priority segments through to detailed design.” When can we get somebody in talk about these developments and when all of it will be FINISHED. Did we not celebrate 25 years Gungahlin Town Centre yesterday. SO MUCH still needs to be done. I still would not trust my kids to cycle to the Town Centre.

    Link 6, 7 and 8 seem most important as they permit coming, going and crossing of the town centre itself. They are however not included in the 23-24 ACT Budget.

    Link 9, 12, and 11 are a north-south connection from Horse Park Drive to Harrison. Ideal for school kids – so they can avoid Flemington Road. Greenfield routes too or crossing quieter roads.

    2023-24 ACT Budget allocated funding to progress feasibility and design work for 3 intersections. Hinder Street is 2 of the 3 works. The Gungahlin Town Centre Active Travel Feasibility Study Report 2022 proposes 12 LINKS and none of them are on Hinder Street. How do we explain this disconnect between ACT Government budget allocation and the reports findings?

    The three intersections identified as part of this program of works are:

    – Hinder Street/Efkarpidis Street (preliminary sketch plans)
    – Hinder Street/Ernest Cavanagh Street (preliminary sketch plans)
    – Anthony Rolfe Avenue from Gungahlin Place to Manning Clark Crescent (feasibility study).

    The last is Link 4.

    This is another feasibility study. The steps from here are:

    1. feasibility study (FY 23-24)
    2. preliminary sketch plans
    3. detail design
    4. tender/construction

    This is a four-step process that is, at the best, funded in subsequent financial years. Far too slow in my opinion – but typical for many projects. If the ACT Government do not change the way they do the funding, Link 4 – Anthony Rolfe Avenue from Gungahlin Place to Manning Clark Crescent – may not be finished until FY 26-27.

    If all links took two years to finish, the 12 links would take 24 years.

    The track record of the ACT Government in other districts over the last 20 years has been far worse than this. In Belconnen consider Benjamin Way, Belconnen Way past Hawker, Southern Cross Drive to Kippax; bike paths along these roads have been proposed by Pedal Power at ACT Government consultations for the last 20 years, and they still have not been built. Gungahlin will likely succumb to the same fate with we cannot change the funding of active travel infrastructure. Look towards Belconnen, see how little of the pedestrian/cycling infrastructure has been improved since the 1970s. Listen to the anecdotal reports of residents who have lived in the area all that time. Do not expect the ACT Government to be proactive on this matter.

Leave a Reply