Public Works Committee: Flagstaff Road Upgrade

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:42): I move:

That the 123^rd report of the committee for the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, entitled Flagstaff Road Upgrade Project, be noted.

Flagstaff Road is located approximately 11 kilometres from Adelaide's central business district. The road is a major arterial road currently used by approximately 21,000 motorists daily to commute to work, home or other parts of the city. Flagstaff Road also facilitates travel to the Adelaide Hills and coastal plains regions.

For approximately 800 metres of its overall 3.3-kilometre length, between Hyland Avenue and Bonneyview Road, Flagstaff Road consists of only three lanes. The road was upgraded in the 1980s to three lanes, with a central lane that is reversed daily to manage traffic flows during peak periods. I understand that the member for Heysen often refers to such an arrangement as 'contraflow' and now I have come to appreciate what that means.

The size of the regional population has increased significantly since the 1980s, which has led to increased traffic flow along Flagstaff Road. There has been growing community concern for the safety of road users and calls to develop a two-way dual carriageway. In particular, the reversible nature of the centre lane can cause confusion for motorists and remains a safety risk, with the potential for head-on and sideswipe crashes.

The design of the road, including uncontrolled intersection junctions, the absence of shoulders and the reversible lane, impacts on traffic efficiency and does reduce the resilience, as it is sometimes described in bureaucratic language, of the road to incidents. I think that means, in non-bureaucratic language, that the road is dangerous.

There is currently one narrow bicycle lane 1.2 metres wide on the east side of Flagstaff Road that poses a safety risk for cyclists and there is no dedicated bicycle provision on the western side of Flagstaff Road. The Flagstaff Road upgrade proposes to install a fourth lane to the east of the current alignment, between Hyland Avenue and Bonneyview Road, making the road a permanent two-way dual carriageway. The construction of an additional lane will reduce traffic congestion and confusion and improve efficiency and safety for motorists travelling on Flagstaff Road. Cycling and pedestrian links will also be improved as part of the upgrade.

Funding of $32.9 million for the road upgrade was committed by the South Australian government, as part of the 2018-19 and 2019-20 state budgets. Construction is expected to commence in early 2021 and be completed during late 2021.

The committee examined written evidence from the department in relation to this project, advising that the project proposal had been subject to appropriate consultation. The committee is satisfied that the proposal has been subject to the appropriate agency consultation and does meet the criteria for the examination of projects, which, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are aware is described in the Parliamentary Committees Act. Based on the evidence considered and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr MURRAY (Davenport) (11:46): I thank the member for Lee for ensuring I have an opportunity not only to talk to this excellent report but to also be a guest contributor on the Dan Cregan hour.

In committing this 123^rd report of the Public Works Committee, entitled Flagstaff Road Upgrade Project, I note that the road actually commences at the intersection of Marion and South Road, some 13 kilometres from the CBD. Often mistakenly referred to as Flagstaff Hill Road, it is a major arterial road used by 21,100 motorists per day to commute to work, home or other parts of the city and, in the recent past, particularly during the Darlington works, was carrying up to 24,000 vehicles on a daily basis. The road also facilitates travel to the Adelaide Hills and coastal plains regions.

For 800 metres of its overall 3.3-kilometre length, Flagstaff Road only consists of three lanes, the middle one of which was a reversible lane, known colloquially by the locals as the 'suicide lane' for reasons which will become obvious. I say 'was' because the public works report that we are bringing to the house today was prepared from evidence provided to the Public Works Committee on 24 September 2020, almost a year ago.

The origins of the suicide lane—the middle lane—arose from work done in the late 1980s, when the road was upgraded overall but, given that providing dual lanes in both directions would have meant the removal of a large amount of rock and overburden, the temporary fix was to have an 800-metre reversible lane governed by lights and that is how it stayed for over 30 years.

The local community has overwhelmingly called for the road to be upgraded for safety reasons and two of my predecessors as the members for Davenport campaigned for it to be fixed, as did the member for Fisher, the late Dr Bob Such. I note for the record that, unfortunately the Labor Party were historically opposed to fixing the road, as evidenced in correspondence to Dr Such, and they remained opposed to fixing the road. This opposition is a matter of public record.

Fixing Flagstaff Road was a central theme of my campaign for the seat of Davenport leading up to the 2018 election. Along with campaign volunteers, I made no fewer than five trips up the 1.4 kilometres from South Road to the end of the middle lane, carrying ladders and corflutes, whilst watching where we walked so as not to disappear over a cliff. We also watched some of the safety issues from a very unique perspective, including watching in horror one night as a bus drove the entire length of the middle lane in the wrong direction against the lights.

One of the five trips was necessary to change corflutes, which we had no choice but to temporarily use, which had unfortunately been produced using the Flagstaff Hill Road name, which I referred earlier to, which I note the local federal MP has also frequently used.

Semantics aside, the road has a number of major safety issues. The committee received evidence that, in the period 2015 to 2019, there were 17 crashes on the 800-metre section, with seven involving injury. As a local who has used the road on a daily basis for over 30 years, I can attest to at least two horror fatalities on that same stretch over the years, with a surviving passenger in one of those fatal accidents suffering a broken neck.

Safety issues this upgrade fixes are that the centre lane caused confusion and the higher likelihood of head-on collisions and sideswipes. I have seen dash cam videos of near misses with head-on crashes and heard evidence of the same. One of the most notable was from a local lady driving up the road with her children on board and narrowly missing a head-on crash with a driver who was busy arguing with the driver in the vehicle next to him over who should give way and merge.

The report to the committee, as the member for Kavel has noted, made reference to the design of the road, meaning that the road lacked 'resilience'. There are no sheltered turn lanes, no road shoulders and therefore virtually no margin for error on a stretch of road which, it has to be noted, not only carries 20,000-plus vehicles on a daily basis but which has several homes on it and several side roads leading off where a considerable number of people live. As a consequence, one of the issues with the road is that when traffic is turning there is a higher propensity for collisions and, as I said, on a road that has absolutely no margin for error whatsoever.

Much of the public feedback during the design phase focused on the provision of bicycle access. The road has access on one side for bicycles, which literally then disappears at the start of the 800-metre stretch in question, and a dedicated bike lane for the entire stretch on the up-track. There are currently no footpaths on the road and, in particular, on the section in question. The upgrade to which the report refers fixes all of these safety issues. It increases the safety, the road capacity and the efficiency of Flagstaff Road. It provides for two full-time lanes in each direction, as well as bicycle lanes on both sides of the road, one of which will be a shared footpath.

Funding of $32.9 million, excluding GST, was provided for these works by the state government in both the 2018-19 and 2019-20 state budgets. Practical construction actually commenced in March of this year, 2021, with vegetation clearance followed by the removal of a large SA Water tank and the movement of a vast array of services for that SA Water infrastructure, as well as moving power, gas and telecommunications.

I also point out that a not inconsequential issue with the design for the road is the fact that the primary means by which water from the Happy Valley treatment plant, which provides anywhere up to 50 per cent of the water used in central and southern Adelaide, also traverses, in a large part, that road. That was designed to ensure that that was properly accommodated. It was a major issue in the works being completed.

Construction is due for practical completion in December this year, subject to the weather. Some time was lost moving services in recent months, I am told, as a result of the inclement weather we have had but, nonetheless, driving down what is available to locals of the three lanes—two lanes this morning—an enormous amount of work is being conducted, and it is something that I very much look forward to being able to use along with the other 20,000-plus people who use that road on a daily basis.

I am very proud to have delivered on this election commitment and this long overdue safety upgrade for this road for my community. As the local member, and also as a member of the Public Works Committee, I commend this report to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:54): I rise to speak with regard to the Flagstaff Road widening project, which has been canvassed by the Public Works Committee and reported on by its Chair, the member for Kavel.

I agree with the sentiments of the member for Davenport and also of the Chair of the committee, the member for Kavel: this road has been a vexed issue in this part of Adelaide's metropolitan road network for some years. Yes, I do agree that it was a project championed by the member for Davenport and the Liberal Party in the lead-up to the last election. There has to be some credit to the member for Davenport and to the government, in that they are now getting on and delivering what they had committed to the communities of Davenport and the associated parts of the southern suburbs.

Adelaide has had a mixed experience with contraflow roads and, as we have heard from the member for Davenport, it has been working on Flagstaff Road in a pretty suboptimal way for some time. It has created confusion—not just for motorists but apparently for bus drivers as well, I am horrified to hear—and some dangerous circumstances. A little further south from Flagstaff Road we had over 15 years of reversible road or contraflow activity on South Australia's infamous one-way Southern Expressway, which had to be repaired by the former Labor government.

I was advised when I was transport minister that reversing or improving contraflow roads to make sure they ran equally in both directions is extremely expensive and far cheaper if it is delivered right the first time. That was certainly the case with the improvements to Flagstaff Road, which, as both the members for Kavel and Davenport have said, was extensively upgraded in the 1980s but not provided with equal lane capacity in each direction.

It was certainly the case with the Southern Expressway, which I was advised would have cost less than $70 million extra when it was initially built to make sure that it ran in both directions. When Labor came, the expressway had to be upgraded at a cost of more than $400 million, so that shows the expense. What is disappointing is that the other contraflow road project has been ignored by the Liberal Party—it is not so much skin off my nose because I was not much of a proponent of this other contraflow road project, which has been cast aside in favour of Flagstaff Road—and that is the contraflow proposal put forward by the member for Unley for Unley Road.

This was something the member for Unley put forward when he was first elected in 2006. The traffic volumes on Flagstaff Road—according to the member for Davenport, 24,000 vehicles a day, or 23,200 a day according to the transport department, only a couple of hundred vehicles out from that—are actually less than the traffic volumes on Unley Road.

The member for Unley was the transport spokesperson, the shadow minister for transport, in the lead-up to the last state election. It speaks volumes about the member for Unley's standing that a new candidate, the member for Davenport, would successfully get his project committed to by the Liberal Party in the lead-up to the last election when the transport spokesman could not even get his own project in his own electorate funded to introduce the contraflow he sought there—absolutely remarkable.

It shows that there is no substitute for intellect in putting a robust case forward and getting public policy delivered here in South Australia. I take my hat off to the member for Davenport and also to the member for Kavel for prosecuting this. I guess the people who rely on Unley Road will have to wait a little bit longer until they have the benefit of stronger advocacy to get the contraflow that apparently that community has been promised by its sitting MP previously.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:58): In the brief time remaining, I wish to take this opportunity to thank members for their valuable contributions and insight. The member for Davenport in particular has been a passionate, committed advocate of this project for many years. He is closely familiar with the needs of his community at large, but particularly he has been a strong advocate for necessary improvements to infrastructure in his community. He should be very proud that this project has been brought forward, funded and will now be completed. I also wish to take this opportunity at the close of the hour to thank our committee staff and other members for their contributions.

Motion carried.