The following survey arises out of many opinions I’ve heard while talking to people. There’s a limit to how many people I can talk to, so please let me know by taking the survey what you think.
You can also email me if you want to talk further.
The survey is anonymous with some checks to prevent duplicate submissions.
As always, I value community opinion.
Thanks for all the responses. Watch this space for follow-ups
Why is the Kenmore bypass such a divisive issue in Moggill? Why is finding your way around such a problem for so many people?
We can divide the problem into four parts:
But first, I’d like to explain why I became involved in the issue.
We are facing an era of great change. Oil prices have only tumbled from record highs because of an economic meltdown evoking memories of 1929. Dealing with climate change will force us reduce emissions. Both forces point to reduced role for the private car. Of course, some people will still have to use cars by the nature of their work, but many others in the new energy economy will mainly use cars for recreation, and use bicycles or public transport for routine travel.
Even without these changes, though, there are good reasons to look at alternatives to building a road as a way of solving congestion. In cities like LA, where building roads was the only solution under consideration, the result is a city full of freeways and traffic gridlock. In cities such as London, Paris, Seoul and Bogota where the approach was to provide alternatives to cars, most people don’t drive, and do not miss sitting in traffic.
Let’s now go on to more detail of the problems and how I propose we tackle the problem.
Aside the problem of heavy traffic, Moggill Road has patches that are poorly designed and unsuited to their purpose. A few examples:
It is questionable whether reducing traffic alone would fix these problems; some may even be worse if it were possible to travel faster.
So these problems need to be fixed whether a bypass is put in or not. Unfortunately the bypass appears to be used as an excuse for inaction.
Too many people having to be travel can be addressed by putting more facilities and services into the outer suburbs. Kenmore High School is bursting at the seams, with many students from the outer suburbs. If we put in a new high school in Bellbowrie, we would not only cut a lot of traffic, but help build the community. If you have a medical emergency in the outer suburbs, where do you go? You have no options that do not require a long trip. A 24/7 emergency centre that could be upgraded to a full hospital would solve that problem. Add in services and entertainment, and the need for travel would be greatly reduced.
Much of the problem arises from new houses that were put in at Moggill without requiring that the developer include local services. The notion that you can build a pure dormitory suburb in an era of climate change and declining oil supply is crazy.
Much of the demand for more roads therefore arises from poor planning, a problem that must be addressed whether a new road is built or not.
Because of the shortage of services in the outer suburbs and the poor state of public transport, much of the travel through Moggill is in the same direction. Inevitably, many residents of the outer suburbs who have children head towards Kenmore because that end of the electorate is where most of the schools are. Most residents head in towards the city for work. Someone I met in Bellbowrie leaves home at 6am to be in time to find parking in Taringa, the nearest park and ride train station from the Moggill side of the river.
Public transport in Moggill is abysmal. I’ve had students as close in as Kenmore telling me it takes them an hour to get to Uni by bus. That’s not an alternative, that’s punishment. The big problem with buses on Moggill Road is that they are stuck in the same traffic as the cars. There also is no option to catch the train – unless you are willing to drive in to Taringa or Toowong to find parking.
The problem of no alternatives can be addressed in four ways:
Why are some people so upset about the proposed bypass? Because it’s not a little road, suited to a residential suburb. It’s part of a plan to construct a large freeway, many times the length of the initial plan, that will not only cut the suburb in half, but turn it into a noisy urban environment.
Here’s a picture extracted from the Department of Main Roads description of the Moggill Pocket Arterial Road/Moggill-Warrego Highway Connection.
The little red piece on the right is the Kenmore bypass; the blue part on the left is the longer-term plan. The actual map of the complete route is far too big to display on any meaningful scale on a web page. This road will start from the Centenary Highway at Fig Tree Pocket and end at the Warrego Highway at North Tivoli, cutting through Kenmore, Pullenvale, Anstead and Karalee.
So, won’t this new road (the little bit that’s already planned, the Kenmore bypass), solve all these problems? If history is a guide, no. There is a great highway down to the Gold Coast. Developers spotted the easy commute to Brisbane, and put in new housing. That great “easy commute” highway is now a parking lot at busy times.
Putting in this new road will also not address the lack of community development of the outer suburbs, or the over-crowding of Kenmore High School. It will also not address the dangerous school drop-off zones and other issues identified as problems with the road. These things need to be fixed anyway, bypass or not.
It also won’t address the problem of dependence on cars.
Of course some people do need to use their cars, a need that doesn’t go away even in cities with great public transport. But if we can reduce traffic by at least as much as in the school holidays, there is no need for a bypass. And good planning can take even more cars than that off the roads.
What’s more, this is the wrong time to be planning for an increase in use of cars. Oil supply is starting to look tenuous. Climate change not only demands that we use cars far less but that energy will become more expensive.
We would be much better off spending the money that would go towards the Kenmore Bypass and the other roads infrastructure around Brisbane that collectively adds up to many billions of dollars on better public transport, a cross-river connection to the Ipswich line, school buses and safe bike paths.
Of these solutions, school buses could be brought in fastest, and would go a long way towards reducing the dangers of school drop-off zones. As a guide to how soon a crossing to the Ipswich line could be put in, the Green Bridge (now Eleanor Schonell Bridge) at the University of Queensland, carrying buses, bicycles and pedestrians, was completed in six months. Light rail would take longer, but the quicker measures would considerably ease congestion. Constructing a new school and adding local services and entertainment would be an ongoing project. Completion of the Kenmore Bypass, by contrast, would take at least four years, during which time none of the other problems would be solved – and some would still not be solved once it was built.
So not only is the Kenmore Bypass a poor fit to the times, a poor fit to the community and unlikely to solve the problem in the long term, but other solutions could be put in place faster.
Government cash handouts irresponsible, says Greens candidate
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
“The prime minister has announced a fiscally irresponsible $40-billion stimulus package on top of his previous $10-billion dollar effort, with very little of it targeted at retooling the economy for the twenty-first century. President Obama on the other hand has outlined a clear message of hope for the future for the United States. What we need to do in Australia is sit up and take note,” says Dr Philip Machanick, Greens preselected candidate for the Queensland state seat of Moggill. “Usually government spending on this scale would be highly inflationary. The massive worldwide recession represents a once in a lifetime opportunity for governments to spend big on the future without a major inflation risk. Instead, our federal and state governments are blowing enormous sums on short-term economic stimulus. This is mind-bogglingly irresponsible, faced as we are with the twin challenges of the twenty-first century of climate change and depleting fossil fuels,” he continues.
“The United States is embarking on a massive Green New Deal, rebuilding and retooling their economy for a clean energy future. The Greens here have already started campaigning for a similar concept, with plans for solar thermal power plants, enhanced incentives for home solar power and solar hot water, and an emphasis on public transport. The long-term future of the Australian and the Queensland economy is in creating quality jobs in a clean energy economy. There is enough cause to pursue a clean energy strategy for environmental reasons, but economic reality increasingly favours going clean and green,” Dr Machanick elaborates. “The US is already one of the most protectionist economies in the world, and carbon taxes will be the trade barrier of the future, whether our industries like it or not. If we continue to produce aluminium by the dirtiest possible process, we can expect to get priced out of the market. If most of our exports are either fossil fuels, or produced by heavily emitting technologies, our industries will be increasingly uncompetitive in a carbon-taxed world market.”
Dr Machanick also emphasises the importance of diversifying Queensland’s economy. “If Queensland continues to rely so heavily on resources for state revenues, we will remain subject to the boom and bust cycles typical of commodity-based economies. Already, mines are laying off workers in the thousands. If the economic downturn continues, many more will be out of work. Sad though this is for those who’ve lost their jobs, this presents a great opportunity to follow President Obama’s lead by re-orienting the Queensland economy to the new reality of the twenty-first century. Yet the two economic stimulus packages on offer are both designed for a twentieth-century economy: more roads, more capacity to export coal, support for building old-fashioned cars, cash handouts to encourage consumerism. Where is the investment in renewable energy, in making it easier to leave your car at home, in research in technologies we can sell to the rest of the world? The odd gesture like a partial program to insulate roofs of houses and an improvement in the solar hot water rebate does not do it. The federal government claims that its roof insulation program will do the equivalent of taking 1-million cars off the road by 2020. Where is the plan that will actually take cars off the road?
“The Greens have long stood for the principle of sustainability not only as an environmental concern, but as a basis for sound economics. We are pleased that the US is now moving in the same direction we have long advocated. This is the time for Queensland to embrace the politics of hope and confidence in the future that the Greens represent.”
Dr Machanick promises to work hard at developing the solutions we need for this century. “Queensland should be both the smart and the sunshine state. We have some of the best science in the country, and some of the best solar resources. How can it be then that Germany, hardly a sunny country, has far more solar power installed than we do? Much of our best science ends up overseas, with no financial benefit to the taxpayer. At a time of economic emergency, the fiscal irresponsibility of subsidising obsolescent projects and once-off cash handouts is crazy. Money poured down a sinkhole is money wasted at the best of times; money wasted now means that much less opportunity to tackle the real problems. We need to change the focus of government from rewarding inefficiency, and launching grand projects that make neither environmental nor economic sense, to working for the future – and working smartly for the future.”
###
Background
“Greens launch green-collar jobs package for Queensland”: http://qld.greens.org.au/media-releases/greens-launch-green-collar-jobs-package-for-queensland
“Why Obama’s green jobs plan might work”: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-greenjobs4-2009jan04,0,378269.story
Contact
Contact: Dr Philip Machanick, Greens preselected candidate for Moggill
Email: greenupmoggill@gmail.com
Phone: 042 234 6909
Website: www.greenupmoggill.org
Think again.
These are the same people who ran the world’s economy into the worst economic crisis since 1929.
The Queensland economy is heavily reliant on coal revenues. Coal is about 80% of the problem of climate change, and we are a big contributor not only through our own use but our exports. However, coal is not a huge employer. Modern mining is more capital than labour intensive. Less that 3% of all Queenslanders work in mining of any description. Many more work in tourism than in coal. We should be working hard to protect our great environmental icons, like the Great Barrier Reef. We cannot do that without international cooperation. But it is crazy to expect that cooperation if we don’t set realistic emissions targets ourselves.
The next notion is that it is somehow wise to rely on coal revenues, because fossil fuels will be with us for the next 200 years or so. That kind of estimate relies on use at current rates, an unrealistic starting point since we know usage is growing. How much? The authoritative BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008 shows that energy use grew 2.4% from 2006 to 2007. One of the arguments of the pro-fossil-fuel lobby is that we mustn’t curtail use of fossil fuels because that would be unjust to developing countries, so let’s allow the growth rate to be higher to allow them to industrialise. I’ve graphed three scenarios for depletion of reserves:
fossil fuel will go faster than expected
What will happen if one of the faster depletion scenarios pans out?
First, long before any fossil fuels disappear from production, we will be subject to wild swings in price, as a combination of supply shortages and speculation push prices through the roof, only ending when the world economy crashes. Sound familiar?
Second, the various types of fuel will not deplete at the same time. Coal will be around a lot longer than oil for example. The trouble is we are increasingly being left with the dirtiest, least efficient forms of fuel. Converting coal into something like oil is expensive and emissions-intensive.
That brings me to the final problem. The faster emissions grow, the sooner we will be forced to make deep cuts. Why? Because in pre-industrial times, natural processes of carbon emission and absorption were in balance. While some extra CO2 can be absorbed, not all can; about half remains in the atmosphere in the short term. After 1000 years, almost 20% of the excess we’ve emitted will still be there. What this means is that once we’ve hit a CO2 level that is generally accepted to be the safe limit, we will have to move to world-wide zero-emissions. Anything less will continue to add to the level in the atmosphere. Worse, the biggest sponge of CO2 is the oceans. Dissolved CO2 forms an acid in water, and ocean acidification is one more threat to the Great Barrier Reef, already endangered by temperature rises.
nearly 20% of carbon emissions still present in 1,000 years
Image from letter from James Hansen to Kenvin Rudd
All of these are not only great environmental resources and Australian icons but much bigger sources of jobs than mining.
What is the alternative?
We need a coherent plan to phase out coal, and to move to renewables. If we wait until the rest of the world moves, it will be like running out of road at a cliff, and pressing the accelerator. Phasing out coal with the big investment we already have in coal power plants cannot happen fast without economic disruption. That’s why a slow phase down has to start as soon as possible. Yet we see no action on that front, nor do we see any attempt at slowing coal exports. On the contrary, exports are being ramped up. Or at least capacity is; at time of writing, demand drops as a result of the worldwide recession were resulting in job losses on the mines.
That brings me to the great opportunity the recession offers. Governments are trying to spend their way out of it. Much of the work in ushering in a new green economy is necessarily labour-intensive. We can install solar hot water on every available roof. We can pump money into research to make new initiatives like hot rocks geothermal and solar thermal power viable. We can start working on a public transport network with mostly electrical vehicles, the better to be able to convert to clean power at a flick of a switch. We can work on making Queensland not just the smart state or the sunshine state but the smart sunshine state.
Wouldn’t that be great? We are already world leaders in sporting achievement and the biological sciences. Why should we not be world leaders in the new energy economy?
Coal is holding us back. We are world leaders in exporting something that, increasingly, no one will want. Why can’t we aim to be world leaders in what everyone is going to want soon: renewable energy technologies? Coal is dirty stuff as soon as it’s out of the ground. Why don’t we keep it there, until we figure out a better use for it – and a way of using it without wrecking the environment? Coal is a complex mix of chemicals, not just carbon. Once oil runs out, we will need a source of industrial chemicals, not just stuff to burn.
If Queensland and Australia are to take their place in the world as leaders, we need to think long-term. And protecting one industry at the cost of all else is not only failing to think long term, it is stupid. Surely we can do better than that.
