TUNNEL VISION WOULD LEAVE CITY POORERThe recently excavated suggestion of building a Davey St traffic tunnel should be dismissed out of hand for a number of reasons. The prospect has a huge price tag far beyond its worth, it is no solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it won’t reduce the volume of traffic as intended. Whilst there are peaks in traffic flows along Davey, Macquarie and other Hobart streets, there are solutions that do not involve major construction. Does a “peak hour” that is measured in minutes warrant a massive drain in public funding? A costly tunnel would not necessarily ease congestion. We know that “build them and they will come” usually works for clogging roads. An article on January 13 in the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that even with the myriad of tunnels, M3’s and M4s - usually tollways - in Sydney, the average time spent in peak hour has actually increased. According to satellite navigation company Tom Tom, some drivers spend a whopping 2 ½ hours in traffic jams. Traffic now flows more slowly. Sydney’s Auditor-General, Peter Achterstraat, found that on average Sydneysiders are spending more time on the roads in peak hour since the new tollways were built – not less. Not good for quality of life, and certainly not good for the environment. In this era where our city is looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – Hobart City Council has cut back 70% on 1990 emission levels - why would we advocate for an expensive tunnel without finding real solutions to the problem at hand? Tunnel construction alone would have huge environmental costs. A tunnel by its very purpose would encourage car useage, and not be to get more cars off the roads. The Council recently released the report by Jan Gehl “A city with people in mind”. The report, open from public comment very soon, does address the Davey-Macquarie St couplet. These two busy streets create a barrier between two parts of our city. They cut the waterfront from the main part of the city. The solutions put forward by Gehl are about treating the existing problem of levels of traffic flow, by reducing road width, enhancing the pedestrian experience and introducing safe options for bike users in an environment that reduces speed. If we want to shift the focus from being a roadway for hurtling through at high speeds cutting out city in two to rather a better experience for those moving on foot, then we can do this at a fraction of the cost of any tunnel. It is arguable that most of the recommendations put forward in Gehl’s report could be funded for a fraction of the cost of 1km of subterranean road. Hobart’s road users including those commuting to work from beyond the municipal boundary, should be provided with alternatives in order to reduce cars on the road. Commuter ferry, the often discussed park ‘n’ ride stations at the city’s fringes, a safer bike network are ways and means to this. This is what we as a Council should be advocating, working with both state and federal governments in order to achieve these realistic solutions. Another thing to learn from Sydney’s experiences is the cost of the Harbour tunnels, which run parallel for 2.3km was $550m back in 1992. Whilst longer than the 1km tunnel mooted for Hobart, if this 9-year figure is comparable for moving services, blasting through dolerite, reinforcing areas of reclaimed land, accommodating displaced services such as water mains and electricity, then e can expect that a project like this could have a $100m price tag. Tunnels around the world cost and keep costing the user. Dublin’s Port Tunnel opened in 2006, cost E752m, and is tolled. Sydney’s road systems including tunnels have been locked in by coalition governments in expensive private public partnerships which have the huge drain on public revenue. We all pay for roads through taxes. Tasmanians have not had to pay for direct use of roads through tolls for many years like our eastern state capital counterparts. A tunnel project like this would most likely attract a toll – then users would have to pay. Many Sydneysiders have not embraced the more expensive route and often take the older roads anyway to avoid paying more for their commuting, sometimes close to $80 per week. I know that I would prefer ratepayer and taxpayer funds to be considered wisely, and a costly 1km tunnel is not the way to go.
See Sydney Morning Herald article from January 13 on Sydney’s traffic woes and peak hour congestion: Advocates’ group against Sydney tollways: http://www.carr.org.au/toll%20roads.htm Dublin Port Tunnel Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Port_Tunnel Greens Alderman Helen Burnet 0417 284 267
|