HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:49): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes—

(a) The packed public meeting on Monday night at the Blackwood High School called by the Greens to discuss alternative services for commuters on the Belair train when the train line is closed from 2013 for up to eight months;

(b) The serious concerns expressed at the meeting about the impact of the closure of the Belair line (along with the Noarlunga and Tonsley lines) on traffic congestion on southern arterial roads and the subsequent reliability of the substitute bus timetable;

(c) The range of positive alternative solutions proposed by the community, including boosting existing regular bus services along Shepherds Hill and Unley Roads, more scheduled express bus services and improved siting of the Eden Hills bus stop.

(d) The deep disappointment expressed at the meeting that the transport department had failed to adequately talk to the community first about what alternative services would work best for commuters; and

(e) That keeping the train running between Belair and Mitcham is not only technically viable, but cost comparable and delivers many benefits for commuters, and that this option, not surprisingly, remains the most popular alternative for Mitcham Hill residents.

2. Calls on the transport services minister to deliver on a range of options canvassed at the meeting, including—

(a) More scheduled express bus services in a revised timetable that is both credible and reliable;

(b) An increase in the number of scheduled existing bus services, including the G30 and 195/196 services;

(c) A review of the location of the proposed Eden Hills station substitute bus stop; and

(d) A commitment to consult better with affected commuters before, during and after the proposed rail closure.

I was very pleased to have been involved in such a successful public meeting as the one held in Blackwood on Monday night at the high school auditorium. It is always a bit hit and miss when, as members of parliament, we invite constituents to express their views on a topic. You never know whether you are going to get a room with six people in it or whether you are going to get something more substantial. What so pleased me was that, with not a huge amount of effort and not a considerable advertising budget, the Blackwood High School auditorium was full to almost overflowing. There were a couple of empty seats in a 300-seat auditorium, and on a week's notice that is a pretty impressive public meeting.

The people who attended were passengers and the parents and relatives of passengers who routinely use the Belair train line and who, like me, have been very nervous that the closure of that line next year would not be adequately managed by government and ultimately result in a mass departure from public transport. There were commuters there, there were schoolkids there, and a range of people well known in public circles. I will not embarrass them by going through the names, but there were quite a few people who are regular commentators on politics and other issues on radio. A large number of scientists were there and, overall, it was a well-attended meeting.

The frustration I have is: why do the Greens have to call a meeting like that when the government has known for months and months and months that they were going to have to deal with the consequences of closing the railway line? It was not something that snuck up on people, and the fact that I had to call a meeting just over a month out from the closure of the railway line is quite a disgrace, really, because we were doing the job the government should have done.

The anger in the room was palpable, but the people of the Mitcham Hills were restrained as always, and transport minister, Chloe Fox, did not require an undue level of protection, notwithstanding, as I say, the anger that was in the room. The concerns expressed by people fall into a number of categories. The first thing that people were worried about was that, when the train lines are out, including the Noarlunga line and the Tonsley line, traffic congestion is going to increase. Some people are simply resigned to that; others rail against it (no pun intended) because they see it as an unnecessary consequence. If we can keep people on public transport, that reduces congestion on our roads.

People were concerned that the replacement bus timetable offered was the same as the failed timetable that was introduced in 2009. I say 'failed' because most people tried it once, maybe they tried it twice, and then they never used it again because it was a complete disaster. It was unreliable and it took three times as long to get anywhere. There was concern expressed in relation to the fire danger period and what road congestion would mean to that relatively small number of arterial roads that provide escape routes from the Mitcham Hills.

The meeting was positive to the extent that people were putting forward alternative ideas as to how the situation could be managed. These ideas included providing more facilities for people with disabilities or with limited mobility. Issues were raised around the buses on winding, hilly roads and how we could minimise the prospect of people getting ill on those buses, and that was a common theme. People took the opportunity to raise all manner of issues around the existing bus services through the Mitcham Hills and how inadequate they were. In fact, a large list of concerns was raised.

The main outcome of the meeting, I think, was that the commuters on the Belair line went into the meeting with the offer of only stopping all-stations milk runs that were going to take well over an hour from the Mitcham Hills into the city. They came out of the meeting with the minister having promised 14 express buses. As that issue was explored further, it was revealed that they might not really be express buses because they were still going to stop at about four or five places before they got to the city, but the point is that if the Greens had not called a public meeting and attracted 300 people the government would not have offered these extra 14 services, so that is a win.

Some of the easier and in many ways more logical improvements were not embraced by the government, and they include the option of boosting the existing regular bus services that run along Shepherds Hill Road and Unley Road—services such as the G30 and the 195/196. What upset people more than anything was that, having put these ideas forward, the only response from the department was that it would monitor the situation.

People were quite incredulous at the idea that passengers could be expected to turn up to a train station, wait for the replacement bus, not know whether it would be an express or a milk run, and for decisions about where they went and how long it would take to be made on the spot, yet that was the service the government was offering.

There was deep disappointment at the meeting that the transport department failed to talk adequately to the community, first, about what alternative services would work best. In fact, much was made of the fact that some 800 people provided feedback to the government on its feedback forms, yet the substitute services offered were pretty much identical to the discredited services from 2009. That had people wondering what was the point of making those submissions.

It is an example of the 'announce and defend' model being used when the 'consult and decide' model would have been more appropriate. I have no doubt that, if the government had spoken genuinely with the community first, it would have come up with a far better alternative service. People were angry that they were not asked about what would work for them but were told what they could have.

Another revelation that came from the meeting (and I will not speak to it at great length, because it was actually the subject of another notice of motion I put on the agenda), with the idea of keeping the train running between Belair and Mitcham, was that the government admitted that not only was it technically viable but that it was cost comparable to the replacement bus services they were offering, and that it delivered a great many benefits for commuters.

So, notwithstanding the explanation from Mr Rod Hook and a wealth of other bureaucrats at the meeting, having heard all the arguments for and against, the vast majority of people thought that that was still the best option. That is, in some ways, counter-intuitive because I am sure transport planners think you avoid having to change services, but the people of Mitcham Hills were saying that they wanted the train to keep going to Mitcham and that they would get on a bus from there.

On Monday prior to the meeting I received an email from a constituent. I do not have his permission to name him, because he is a fairly recently retired senior public servant in the transport area. However, I will read some of what he had to say about the viability of that option, as follows:

I have some considerable experience in the suburban train network and would be very surprised if a limited service of trains continued between Belair and Mitcham, connecting with bus services, could not be established with a 'can-do' attitude. There is capacity at Belair and Blackwood to store enough rail cars for the service which with a small amount of timetabling work could be set up. Refuelling can be done by mini road fuel tanker as adapters are available for the special railcar fuel caps.

If rail cars which had just undertaken their 'F' or major service were selected, they could be quarantined at Belair for the duration of the closure, with daily and other safety checks made at the Belair depot. There is a capacity to have a surplus of rail cars at Belair, as there would be less required for a daily service as suggested during the closure, than is required for the current daily service into Adelaide. Again a simple timetabling exercise would establish this, thus providing some 'spares' at Belair.

Barring any catastrophic failures, the railcars should be reliable enough to last the six months with regular minor safety checks and servicing. This I am certain would deliver a much better outcome for commuters on the Belair line and at a lesser cost to government than managing more buses into the hills, which may experience exposure to significant fire danger periods early next year during the train line closure.

We know after having received that email the government confirmed that it is a cost comparable option. It is technically feasible. The risk of breakdown can be minimised through the maintenance regime and it is the option with overwhelming support in the community. Finally—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: You don't have to be railroaded, the Hon. Mr Parnell. No pun intended. I'm out of order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No, I won't be railroaded. Finally, this motion calls on the transport services minister to deliver on a range of options that were canvassed at the meeting. I will run quickly through what they were: more scheduled express bus services in a revised timetable that is both credible and reliable, increase in the scheduled existing bus services including the G30 and the 195/196, review the location of the Eden Hills stop, and a commitment to consult better with affected commuters before, during and after the rail closure. That is important because we need to make sure that the services meet needs.

It is a colossal waste of everyone's time and money for empty buses to be trundling through the winding streets of the Mitcham Hills. The government can and must do much better. From the Greens' point of view, I will be watching the revised timetable that comes out hopefully in the next few days. I am pleased that the community has managed to achieve some clawback via the promise from minister Chloe Fox for express services. Whilst I am disappointed that it had to be the Greens to call a public meeting and extract this concession, I am pleased that we have at least got that small change, but we will not be satisfied until we are confident that the government is listening to the people affected by its decisions.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.


[Sitting suspended from 18:02 to 19:46]


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