Hale Street Link (Brisbane Transport)

Part of my purpose in life is to support the change in society which will allow us to have a safe, peacefull and prosperous future. My immediate concern is climate change and the human causes of that. Despite all the evidence as to our impact on the life on this planet, the people on this planet power on with business as usual. This post addresses the concern that we blindly continue to build roads and encourage the increase in private transport, where we know that the world cannot currently sustain the amount of greenhouse gases being released and that we must achieve a 60% reduction in greenhoue gases by 2050. Specifically it is a submission during the Impact Assessment Statement public consultation period on the Hale Street Link proposal. See Hale Street Link September 2006 newsletter for information, and the Community flyer with arguments for and against the development.

Following is my submission based on the template provided by Communities against the Hale Street Link. I encourage everyone to put in their submission against this development.

---

IAS Submission
Hale Street Link Project
GHD Pty Ltd
GPO Box 668
BRISBANE Q 4001

Hale Street Link Project IAS Submission

Dear Sir/Madam.

I oppose the HSL project, on the following grounds.

• We must accept Climate Change and adapt. If this city, country and world wishes to remain prosperous then we must reduce our greenhouse gases output by 60% by 2050 (The Australian Sept 30, 2006). Creating the infrastructure that is the Hale Street Link (and the TransApex project in general (also see the Wikipedia article)) will only encourage more private transport (this is supported by the Brisbane City Council’s Hale Street Link public information posted to residents). Residents should be encouraged to use public transport - the Brisbane City Council (BCC) and State Government should put funds into improving and increasing the public transport in Brisbane and South East Queensland.
  
  
• This project would solve no real problems. It’s not needed or wanted by local residents and would do nothing to solve Brisbane’s traffic congestion problems. Instead it would shift existing traffic congestion south of the river and actually worsen congestion city wide by inducing more private motor vehicle traffic. Any short term improvements in travel times would soon disappear. Another road bridge so close to the CBD and all the other bridges is an ineffective and wastefully expensive way to try and relieve congestion experienced for only a few hours each week.
  
  
• Investing in better public transport would ease peak hour demand far more, and have a much greater impact on citywide congestion. An adequately resourced public transport system, combined with measures and facilities to encourage more walking and cycling for shorter trips, demand management (especially for special events) and other measures to reduce nonessential use of private motor vehicles (including car pooling and car sharing schemes) has been proven worldwide to fix traffic congestion. Getting commuters out of their cars frees up our roads. Apart from a being cheaper and more effective solution, it’s also more environmentally sustainable.
  
  
• Improved cross river connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists is already being addressed by the planned Tank Street pedestrian/cycle bridge and one or more extra City Cat terminals. Another pedestrian/cycle bridge would be much cheaper and greener than HSL.
  
  
• The negative impacts of the project are serious and the mitigation measures proposed are inadequate. In particular the health and safety hazards to school children and others close to the traffic and associated exhaust emissions haven’t been properly assessed or addressed.
  
  
• The commercial viability of the project is doubtful and exposes all Brisbane ratepayers to unacceptable risk. Many of the assumptions in the Business Case and IAS are outdated (oil prices), wishful thinking (exhaust emissions), or highly questionable (costings of mitigation measures). Increased costs or reduced demand would mean higher rates, higher tolls, or both.
  
  
• The hidden ‘downstream’ costs of the health and congestion problems would be met by the State Government and therefore all taxpayers. The Business Case is invalid because it is not based on the true and complete whole of project cost.
  
  
• The project conflicts with existing State Government and Council strategies, including Queensland Transport’s Integrated Regional Transport Plan (IRTP) for South East Queensland.