HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATE CYCLING STRATEGY

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:24): I move:

That the Legislative Council notes—

1. The following actions under objective 2 of the State Cycling Strategy (entitled Safety in Numbers)—

(a) include in all new urban road projects or road upgrades safe, direct and attractive cycling facilities that are planned, designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with 'Austroads, Guide to Traffic Engineering Part 14—Bicycles'; and

(b) extend and improve cycling routes along dedicated public transport corridors (e.g. Glenelg Tramway and the Willunga-Marino Rail Corridor);

2. State government investment of over $500,000 so far on creating an uninterrupted cycle pathway between Glenelg and the city as part of the City of Glenelg tramway cycling route project;

3. Strong support for a shared use pathway for pedestrians and cyclists across South Road as part of the public consultation on the South Road Upgrade Glenelg Tram Overpass project;

4. The need for major transport infrastructure in response to declining fuel supplies and the need to reduce greenhouse pollution, to include appropriate facilities for cyclists and pedestrians;

5. Poorer public health outcomes in the western suburbs of Adelaide, emphasising the importance of providing active transport opportunities; and

6. The negative impact on traffic flow along South Road if an on-demand street level crossing is provided to cyclists and pedestrians to enable safe passage across South Road;

and calls on the state government to ensure that the proposed tram overpass across South Road at Black Forest includes a shared use path for cyclists and pedestrians along the elevated platform tram corridor.

This motion calls on the state government to ensure that the proposed tram overpass across South Road includes a shared-use path for cyclists and pedestrians along the elevated platform tram corridor. This is a subject on which I asked a question in parliament recently and also a subject on which I attended a public meeting at the Unley Town Hall last evening. At that meeting, there were more than 100 people, mostly cyclists, who were very concerned about the possibility that the tram overpass across South Road will not provide adequately for cyclists and pedestrians.

Most members would be aware that the government is spending a lot of money on South Road. Members would be familiar with the Anzac Highway/South Road overpass/underpass arrangement. Another part of the South Road project is for the Glenelg tram to be put on an overpass to enable the removal of the level crossing. Apparently, some 150 trams cross South Road per day, and each of those trams disrupts the flow of traffic along South Road. That is the main purpose of the project.

In many ways, the motion I have before the council is similar to the one I moved (and this council passed) over a year ago in relation to the Bakewell Bridge (an underpass in that case). That motion, members might recall, called on the government to put in decent off-road cycle and pedestrian facilities on both sides of the underpass. As it has turned out, the government did not heed the wisdom of the Legislative Council and the underpass was constructed with a footpath on just one side. That infrastructure will be with us for a long time and, as petrol prices go up and more people want to walk and ride to combat climate change and to combat peak oil, that structure is very much a sub-optimal facility.

When it comes to the tram crossing over South Road, this is likely to be even worse than Bakewell. At least with the Bakewell underpass we have a facility on one side. The fear is that with the tram crossing we will have no facility at all.

On 24 October, in a press release announcing funding for cyclist and pedestrian crossings for the City to Glenelg Tramway Cycling Project, the minister said:

'This shared pathway, on land that was previously inaccessible, is proving to be extremely popular with commuting cyclists and walkers,' says the minister. 'It's part of our commitment to improving the safety and convenience of alternate forms of commuting. The new shared use path is part of ongoing efforts to provide a safe and convenient route for cyclists from Glenelg to the City.'

The 10-kilometre tramway cycling route is a combination of shared paths and nominated suburban streets, and it is shown on the state government's BikeDirect website. If you go to that website, it clearly shows the tramway cycling route travels along the tramway. It intersects with South Road and travels into Black Forest and then into the city. Most days, I ride along that part of the tramway bike path which is in Goodwood and which is part of my route into town.

The issue here is how cyclists and pedestrians using that path will cross South Road. When the government was undertaking its community consultation (a process that I understand is ongoing), the issue of safe and easy access across South Road was one of the key design principles that was identified by the government team as well as by people who made submissions. In fact, the number one principle listed in the December 2007 community update newsletter promoting the project is to 'provide all pedestrians, public transport users, cyclists and motorists with safe, enjoyable and easy access across South Road'.

Key actions, under another government document (the State Cycling Strategy, entitled 'Safety in Numbers'), include the following:

include in all new urban road projects or road upgrades safe, direct and attractive cycling facilities that are planned, designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with Austroads, Guide to Traffic Engineering Part 14—Bicycles; and

extend and improve cycling routes along dedicated public transport corridors (e.g. Glenelg Tramway and the Willunga-Marino Rail Corridor);

That is why I have included those two principles in the motion and that we should note those principles.

We also need to look at this project in the context of the western suburbs. The western suburbs, largely through this South Road project, are bearing the brunt of increased traffic and, in particular, freight traffic. In many ways, it is a part of Adelaide which is more poorly serviced and which has less access to many services. Health statistics show that there are poorer health outcomes (in particular, heart and lung disease) in the western suburbs than in other parts of Adelaide.

We also need to note that there is a strong demand for cycling. The census data on cycling to work shows that a considerable number of people cycle; notwithstanding the fact that census day is always mid-winter, it is often raining and that it is only every five years. Nevertheless, cycling to work has increased by about 17 per cent between the last two census dates of 2001 and 2006. During the same time, the increase in cycling in Adelaide was 28 per cent, and the average of people cycling to work was 1.6 per cent. In Adelaide, above average increases in walking to work were also recorded at 22 per cent.

Cycling and walking are things people want to do, so we have to make sure that the facilities are adequate for people to do them. I could quote other figures, but I will not go into a lot of detail. Bicycles outsell cars every year and have done so for the past eight years yet, when the government is planning a major piece of infrastructure, it very often neglects to provide for cyclists. It seems to me quite bizarre that, in an era of climate change and our facing the challenges of peak oil, we are not doing everything we possibly can to provide for cyclists.

The alternative to providing for cyclists on the proposed new overpass across South Road alongside the tramline is a push-button crossing on South Road. You only have to think about it for a minute to realise that it would entirely defeat the purpose of sending the trams across South Road to enable South Road to flow freely. If you have a push-button light, you will stop the traffic on South Road every time a cyclist or a pedestrian wants to cross.

My theory is that, even though the government is saying that that is a fallback position, it will not happen. My prediction is: there will not be a cyclist or a pedestrian crossing at grade on South Road. Bikes needs to go over the top, and the alternative is a Glenelg to city cycle corridor with an effective brick wall in the middle, because South Road is not an easy road to cross.

In fact, last night a representative from the Department for Transport pointed out that only 50 cyclists a day cross South Road in the vicinity of the tram crossing. Why only 50? Because it is so hard to do. There is no light, and it is not easy to do. It is like asking how many pedestrians try to cross North Terrace in a very busy spot where there is no median or where it is not easy to do: the numbers would be fairly low.

We are told that consultation is still occurring, but it seems to me that the government is fairly locked into building this structure without the shared pathway. I am encouraged by the noises that say it is not finalised, and I have been doing whatever I can to urge the cycling and pedestrian community to agitate to ensure that we get a proper crossing here.

The government points out that there are difficulties in providing the continuous running of trams during the construction of the overpass and, at the same time, build these facilities. However, at the end of the day, those difficulties can be overcome. We know that there is sufficient land within the corridor, which is 20 metres wide. Four metres are needed for each of the two tram tracks (eight metres); there will be a platform on the overpass in the middle of South Road (seven metres); and five metres are left. There is no doubt that there is sufficient room if the government has the will to build this facility.

I have collected a number of brochures that illustrate the facility I am talking about, and I will provide them separately to members. They will see that the first artist's impressions all include a cycle path; the later impressions do not. So, with those words, I urge all honourable members to support this motion. It makes absolute sense to insist that a piece of infrastructure that will last for half a century or more include adequate facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT