Public Works Committee: Port Road, West Lakes Boulevard and Cheltenham Parade Intersection Upgrade

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:35): I move:

That the 26^th report of the committee for the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, entitled 'Port Road, West Lakes Boulevard and Cheltenham Parade intersection upgrade', be noted.

This project will upgrade the existing intersection that joins Port Road, West Lakes Boulevard and Cheltenham Parade. All three arterial roads are major commuter routes for the residential areas of the north-western suburbs. The upgrade to this intersection will address existing safety issues and capacity issues that have been identified. The upgrade is also expected to provide better integration with the adjacent Grange railway line crossing to the south-east of the intersection.

The intersection upgrade is expected to include the extension of dual lanes on West Lakes Boulevard in a southbound direction as well as a new northbound through lane from West Lakes Boulevard to the Port Road median. It is also expected that the project will involve road widening on the Port Road and Cheltenham Parade section, upgraded pedestrian crossings and dedicated bicycle lanes on all approaches of the intersection and through the intersection.

It is expected that this project will improve safety for road users at the intersection of Port Road, West Lakes Boulevard and Cheltenham Parade as well as improving the efficiency of vehicle movements through this intersection. The estimated cost of the intersection upgrade is $6 million, with construction expected to be complete in late 2020.

The Public Works Committee has examined written and oral evidence in relation to this project. The committee has been assured by officials from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure that the appropriate agencies have been consulted regarding this project and an acquittal has been received from the Crown Solicitor. The committee is satisfied that the proposal has been subject to the appropriate agency consultation and meets the criteria for examination of projects, as described in the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991.

Based on the evidence considered and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (11:38): I also take the opportunity to speak to the 26^th report of the Public Works Committee regarding the Port Road, West Lakes Boulevard and Cheltenham Parade intersection upgrade. As the member for Kavel noted, the primary purpose of this upgrade is to improve the safety at what is quite a busy and complicated intersection. Not only does it incorporate the busy Port Road, West Lakes Boulevard and Cheltenham Parade but it is also in quite close proximity to a rail line crossing that comes from West Lakes and crosses over Port Road. Because it is so close, there are also certainly some considerations around that in terms of queueing and making sure that, as traffic comes from the city down Port Road, cars do not bank up and end up queueing over the train line itself because of its proximity.

In terms of some daily traffic numbers, there was a 2016 traffic survey undertaken to look into traffic flows. Along Port Road there were approximately 42,700 vehicles on an average daily volume. Of that, about 3.5 per cent were commercial vehicles along Port Road. That is the Old Port Road section to West Lakes Boulevard and Cheltenham Parade. Approximately 30,200 cars go past. Again, it is quite similar in terms of make-up, with commercial vehicles making up 3.5 per cent of those.

Along West Lakes Boulevard, from Port Road to Clark Terrace there were traffic volumes of 22,600. The commercial vehicle percentage is around 4.6 per cent. Finally, on Cheltenham Parade, the Port Road to Outer Harbor train line section has approximately 19,800 vehicles go past on a daily basis. Of those, 7.5 per cent are commercial vehicles. As I said, quite a large number of vehicles go through there. Port Road itself is certainly an important link into the metropolitan road network. It intersects with many other DPTI arterial roads but also some local roads that are under the care and control of the City of Charles Sturt as well.

The main design or purpose of the upgrade is to improve greater safety for all users, not only cars but also for the rail intersection and pedestrians. The committee examined the crash history at the intersection between 2013 to 2017. Unfortunately, it included one fatality. In terms of those types of crashes, there are various numbers. Rear-end crashes featured prominently in terms of that damage.

There were 29 total crashes, 12 of those resulting in casualties, principally rear-ends with cars having to stop suddenly. The make-up of the intersection is quite busy. There are narrow areas where cars can queue. The resulting effect is cars have to stop to try to avoid queueing, resulting in rear-end crashes. A lot of drivers, having to turn right, navigate what is a different intersection from most throughout the metropolitan network.

In terms of right-angle crashes, there were seven total crashes, three resulting in casualties. Other types of crashes included hitting fixed objects. There are quite a few Stobie poles around there. There are also trees. I think there is also Crows Corner there, so it might be a bit distracting for some of the Crows' supporters, especially in days gone by on the way back from Footy Park, or AAMI Stadium as it was later called. Other types of crashes involved sideswipes.

Overall, 44 crashes had occurred at this complicated insertion, 17 of those resulting in casualties, so there is a real impetus to upgrade the intersection to try to reduce that number of crashes, especially those resulting in casualties. DPTI advised the committee that the proposed upgrade to this intersection joining Port Road, West Lakes Boulevard and Cheltenham Parade will address those safety concerns and also the capacity issues around that. As I mentioned previously, it will provide better integration with the adjacent Grange railway line crossing to the south-east of the intersection.

DPTI is proposing to deliver these works. The key aims are to improve, as I said, the capacity of the intersection, particularly the right-turn movements from West Lakes Boulevard onto Port Road. There is that section in between the traffic going towards Port Adelaide and then the returning traffic back into the city. There is that narrow bridge that spans the normal median area that goes along Port Road and most of the way down, so this is trying to improve that.

It is also looking to improve the capacity of the intersection regarding the left-turn movements from Port Road onto West Lakes Boulevard and, again, to improve the safety of the intersection regarding the left-turn movements from Cheltenham Parade onto Port Road. There has been increased traffic near what is now the Bunnings. Previously, it was a disused warehouse, but Bunnings is now there and so attracts further traffic. We are also looking to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists who use this intersection and, in so doing during this design, minimise impacts on key stakeholders of this intersection.

In terms of what the proposed treatment will be, the proposed works for the intersection will include an extension of dual lanes on West Lakes Boulevard for southbound traffic; a new through lane northbound, from West Lakes Boulevard to the Port Road median, and having the extra lane will stop a lot of the queuing that occurs in that median; new and upgraded pedestrian ramps and footpaths on both sides of the Port Road median; road widening on Port Road, which will in turn provide new dual left-turn lanes westbound into West Lakes Boulevard, which is the section between the Grange railway line and West Lakes Boulevard; and an extension of the dual lane southbound on West Lakes Boulevard.

Additionally, there will be road widening in the central Port Road median to provide two through lanes and a new dedicated right-turn lane from West Lakes Boulevard to Port Road. There will also be road widening on Cheltenham Parade to provide two through lanes and a dedicated left-turn lane from Cheltenham Parade onto Port Road, which will help traffic flows; new and upgraded traffic signals and also road lighting to make it safer at night-time; and dedicated bike lanes on all approaches to the intersection and through the intersection.

It is not only getting new asphalt and treatment to make it smoother for the bicycles that go through at present but it will also incorporate bike lanes, which will assist in trying to make it safer for cyclists who are navigating their way through this intersection. In addition, there will be some kerbs and gutters where the road widening is occurring around the whole intersection itself.

There has been consultation with a number of parties, principally the City of Charles Sturt and also local businesses around the area, including CMI Toyota Cheltenham, National Storage, CastStone, Lofty Building Group, Tradelink, Bunnings, Harvey Norman and Statesman Windows. There are a number of commercial operations around there that need to be advised of these works.

Finally, in the time remaining, I will look at the public value of doing this, and I have talked through the safety improvements. Certainly adopting these solutions will improve not only the safety of road users but also the capacity and efficiency of vehicle movements. I think it was apparent through evidence presented to the committee that having these road widenings will certainly increase efficiency because no longer will traffic have to bank up because one car wants to turn left and has to wait for pedestrians to go past before it can continue on its journey and, in so doing, back traffic up, principally along Cheltenham Parade.

So there are certainly benefits for road users and, as I explained, also for pedestrians and cyclists. I could go into more detail, but the committee examined the evidence and out of that evidence recommends that the proposed public works proceed.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:48): I rise also to talk about this important road traffic upgrade. This is a project that was provided with budget funding and committed to in the 2017-2018 Mid-Year Budget Review. Money was allocated by the former Labor government for this important project because we realised the importance of this intersection upgrade for people living in the western suburbs.

The member for Morphett is right—this is a bottleneck. In its current configuration, this intersection is a significant road safety risk and it needs upgrading, and that is why money was provided by the former Labor government in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Review. Mr Speaker, you might be aware that that document was handed down nearly two years ago to the day and only now are we seeing this new Liberal government get on with the job of delivering yet another Labor project.

It is clear that this intersection upgrade suffered the same fate as so many other infrastructure projects that were fully funded and provided for by the former Labor government. It is absolutely clear that the member for Schubert, on assuming the role of Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, immediately stopped these projects.

The other projects that were also included in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Review, other road upgrades that were fully funded, were the Golden Grove upgrade for $20 million in 2017-18. Do you know when that project was due to be completed? By now. That is when it was due to be completed. What the Labor government thought that road upgrade needed was government funding. We did not think it needed a local member who would go back to their old council, capitulate and demand that council provide money for a state road upgrade.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What kind of local advocacy—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I caution the member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In what regard, sir?

The SPEAKER: By accusing a member of capitulating. I am prepared to accept a fair bit of political argy-bargy to a point. I am just going to caution the member.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Your caution is duly noted, sir, and I thank you for it.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What we thought was that the state government should pay for the upgrade of a state road. What it should not see is a government go to a council and demand $2 million of funding, threatening the sword of Damocles to hang over the project: that if they did not accede they would withdraw funding from the Golden Grove Road upgrade.

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, there is a point of order. One moment.

Mr PEDERICK: The Golden Grove intersection has nothing to do with this motion.

The SPEAKER: Point of order: relevance, member for Hammond?

Mr PEDERICK: Relevance.

The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully to the member for Lee. The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I was saying, that Golden Grove Road upgrade project was funded in the same package of works as the Port Road, Cheltenham Parade, West Lakes Boulevard project. I can understand that the member for Colton is agitated about it: of course, this would be an improvement for the people of the western suburbs, something that he is not familiar with—advocating for his local community. Because that is what Labor governments do: they approve infrastructure for people who live in their communities.

I will tell you another project that was funded as a package in that Mid-Year Budget Review, and that was the Port Dock rail spur. Not only was it fully funded but the contract was awarded. There was a legal agreement between the government and the contractor to deliver that upgrade, which was torn up by the new Liberal government. Why? Because that project had the temerity to be located in a safe Labor seat where those opposite thought that they could not gain political advantage. Well, shame on those opposite.

We see the politics that they play with local communities when it comes to infrastructure funding. Not only are they reluctant to do things to support Labor electorates but they do it to their own members: Golden Grove upgrade, closing the Modbury Service SA centre—

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —cancelling the park-and-ride upgrade at Modbury.

Mr Patterson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: One moment, member for Morphett. Member for Lee, I ask you to come back now to the report.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, it is all part of the same thing, sir.

The SPEAKER: Yes, please come back to the report. When we start talking about Service SA centres we are drawing a long bow, with respect to the member for Lee. Thank you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Are we? I will come back to those road infrastructure projects. Not only was the Port Road, Cheltenham Parade, West Lakes Boulevard upgrade part of the same infrastructure package included in that Mid-Year Budget Review, along with the Golden Grove upgrade, which has still not started, the Port Dock rail spur was cancelled by this government, even though it was fully funded and a contract was signed for its delivery. There was no risk to the government, but they cancelled it because it was in a Labor seat.

This project we are talking about, this intersection upgrade, was stalled; it should be complete by now. It was funded at the time by the former Labor government to coincide with the end of the stormwater upgrade works, which were occurring in the middle of Port Road and being conducted by the City of Charles Sturt. That was the other reason it was funded and timed to be funded at that point in time.

You can go and ask the council. They stopped doing any further work at that intersection. They stopped any landscaping work. They stopped any further improvements, like getting rid of that shocking relic of history from that intersection, that sign that says Crows Corner, that brief moment of success from that football team of last millennium. They did not address that. They did not address that because they thought this project was going to be completed.

The SPEAKER: Be careful, member for Lee! Be very careful.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mr Speaker, if you want an example of a germane contribution, then this is it, sir.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: You are provoking the member for Cheltenham.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Even the member for Mawson said, 'Go your hardest!' That is right: this is a rare show of bipartisanship in these fractious days.

That was why this project was timed for that. It should be complete now because constituents in my electorate, constituents who live in the suburbs of Royal Park, Seaton, West Lakes, Tennyson, West Lakes Shore and Semaphore Park know how difficult it is to navigate through this intersection, particularly during morning peak-hour traffic. If you time your run incorrectly in the morning, it can take up to five or six changes of lights to get from West Lakes Boulevard successfully through the intersection to turn right onto Port Road. That is a huge choke on traffic in the western suburbs.

The catchment that I have just informed the house of is thousands and thousands and thousands of households, and at the same time, when this government is attempting to push more and more commuters off train services by denuding the rail service on the Grange train spur, removing security guards so women, schoolchildren and other vulnerable commuters feel less safe in using that train service, what other choice do they have but to be pushed into car transport, further exacerbating the traffic problems that this current intersection configuration provides? I think the house should be aware of the history of this project, that it was deliberately stalled by this government merely because it served to benefit predominantly Labor electorates, just like the Port Dock railway upgrade.

There is one other thing that I might also say, and I think it is important that this is put on the record: a local member of parliament—again, not a member of the government—attempted to attend the community consultation process for this project and was denied entry. Are we to think that this government believes that members of parliament are not members of the community? What a farce! Not only are they a member of the community but they represent the community. Why would you not want them at these community consultation sessions?

Do you think we turned people away from the community consultation sessions on the projects that we successfully delivered, such as the O-Bahn or Torrens to Torrens? Of course not. We welcomed them in because we wanted their feedback. We were happy to hear what they had to say so that we could improve those projects. With the O-Bahn project in particular, I was in receipt of representations from the member for Dunstan, now the Premier, about some of the changes that he wanted made, and, where we could, we made them for the benefit of his constituents.

But that is not the approach of those opposite. They delay projects which happen to suffer the fate of being located in Labor electorates, or they cancel them, and if they do proceed with them belatedly then they stop local MPs from attending community consultation sessions. I say shame on this government for taking that approach to important infrastructure projects that are solely designed to benefit the local communities in which they are located.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:58): What a thin gruel of rhetoric we have just had: the suggestion that somehow in the western suburbs nothing is being done, but, of course, in 16 years there was an opportunity to resolve this issue and so many others, and was that issue resolved? No, it was not. To impute an improper motive to any member of this place in relation to this project or any other is entirely unacceptable. This committee has been working diligently to bring forward this project and many others.

Members interjecting:

Mr CREGAN: We listened carefully and politely to the member while he was making his contribution, wrong as it was, and now is my opportunity to respond, if the member would do me the justice of allowing me to do that, notwithstanding that time is against me. What is incredibly frustrating is that no project has been delayed for political reasons, no evidence is before the committee in relation to that issue on this project, and I refute any suggestion that this committee has acted improperly. It has not. There is no evidence in relation to the matters that the member now wishes to bring before this house.

Motion carried.

Mr COWDREY: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: