COMING SHORTLY - CAST Statement on the 3 Billion Tunnel

We have opposed the concept and construction of the 3B
Tunnel from the time it was first proposed by Jim Soorley.

We're preparing a detailed statement to explain why we
continue to vigorously oppose the Tunnel, and why we urge
all motorists to boycott the Tunnel.

Keep checking this site for our full statement.

INFORMATION ALERT CIty Bus Stops relocated from Monday 8 March

Bus stops 56 and 57 on Queen Street near Post Office
Square will be temporarily closed from Monday 8
March to Wednesday 30 June due to streetscape
construction works.
Stop 58 will be moved by up to 20m in the direction
of travel and services from this stop will also be affected.

For full details of bus services affected and a map of
the location of the new stops, go to


We are continuing to make submissions on behalf of public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians to Translink, service providers and Government.

These are shown on the page below described as 'Submissions to Translink' together with current status and replies if any.

If you are aware of a transport service or systemic fault that needs to be rectified or improved, contact us and we'll follow up the issue with the relevant authority on your behalf.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Media release 16 July 2007

Beattie’s Smart City transport proposal

A group advocating sustainable transport has come out in tentative support of Premier Beattie’s vision for Brisbane as a “knowledge city” linked by pedestrian spines and light rail.

Beattie suggested on Sunday he wanted to make Brisbane one of the most pedestrian friendly cities in the world.

But Community Action for Sustainable Transport (CAST) has urged him to start implementing his vision immediately and that it must include improvements for cyclists.

They have also suggested that he fund the plan by diverting money from the costly “Airport Link”, a car tunnel that will increase congestion and pollution across Brisbane.

CAST believe if Beattie wants to achieve a pedestrian friendly city there are a number of strategies he can implement immediately at minimal cost.

(1) Reduce speed limits on roads in the CBD and inner city

(2) Enforce reduced speed limits in these areas through the installation of speed cameras

(3) More bike lanes in the CBD and inner city, linking South Brisbane, the CBD, the Valley and Bowen Hills

(4) Change traffic light phases to give pedestrians longer and more frequent green lights

“We do not need to wait years for new infrastructure to make our city pedestrian friendly – if Beattie is serious about his plan he will implement our cost-effective ideas immediately,” said CAST spokesperson Tristan Peach.

“Pedestrian friendly cities like Amsterdam in the Netherlands and Copenhagen in Denmark have already prioritised pedestrians and cyclists through measures such as these, we do not need to wait 3 years for bureaucrats to do a study before starting to make this vision a reality” said Mr Peach.

Another key aspect of making a city pedestrian friendly is to reduce car traffic, especially in areas well serviced by public transport such as the CBD and South Brisbane.

CAST have urged Beattie to implement a congestion charge and reduce car parking in the CBD to reduce unnecessary traffic and pollution.

“Reducing unnecessary car traffic is essential if we are to make the city cyclist and pedestrian friendly,” said Mr Peach.

Green bridges in Brisbane have been hugely successful with the Goodwill Bridge and Eleanor Schonell Bridge easing congestion, while Brisbane City Council reports show their proposed Hale Street Bridge will increase congestion and pollution.

“Brisbane City Council should consider aborting the misguided Hale Street Bridge project and investing in Beattie’s plan,” said Mr Peach.

“And any new Green bridges must provide adequate room for cyclists who use the bridge for commuting,” he said.

Members of the public can view the report and provide feedback (by 13 August) at or by phoning 1800021818.


Anonymous said...

This article is an instance of environmentalism and sustainable development being pretexts for the elite to force the masses to live in a controlled, restricted, low-energy, low technology, economically disadvantaged, materially diminshed lifestyle.

Slow driving, using bicycles, dependency on centrally controlled, regimented transport system, more time spent walking from place to place.

Diminishing our impact on the environment means diminishing our way of life.

The elite will not give up their lifestyle. They will only force us to. They will be the ones regulating the rest of us. They will use sustainability as a pretext for reserving the resources, energy, technology, wealth for themselves.

Like elite, environmentalist Al Gore is doing now.

Allan Moorhead

P.S. Try relying on only bus, train, bike and foot for all of your travel for two weeks to see how inconvenient CAST's ideal transport arrangements will really be. The thought of more extensive facilities for these modes of travel will not be a consolation.

CAST said...

Slow driving reduces the amount of people who die as a result of traffic accidents. Why oppose that?

Cycling and walking is very healthy, sociable, affordable and safe. Why oppose that?

Diminishing our impact on the environment is the only way to ensure we can continue living quality lives.

Myself and our president do not own cars and walk, cycle and use public transport for most trips. Improvements to our public transport system will make it even more convenient for people to make responsible travel choices like we do.

Keep driving and fighting of the so-called "elites" Allan, keep making excuses for not making responsible choices. I'm sure that the elites in Brisbane, like many of our Local Councillors, would fully agree with your viewpoints as they are working hard to keep us driving.

Your view that "elite" environmentalists want to keep normal people under control is just a red herring accusation.


Allan said...

Tristan -

Slow driving increases emissions and therefore local pollution. The slower a vehicle travels, the longer is it's trip, and the longer is the time it's motor runs for. It's also very inconvenient. I'm not advocating hooning, by the way.

You could die from falling off of your bicycle at the speed it can go. A bus or train accident could kill a hundred people all at once.

Slow and inhibited transport is just as much a threat to life and health in some ways.

The only safe place is in the arms of Jesus. Outside of that there are only varying degrees of danger.

I don't oppose cycling or walking. It is another thing, however, to facilitate cycling and walking unnecessarily at the expense of other forms of transport.

I get exercise and social interaction from many other things - work being the main one. The less time I waste on travelling the more such productive and healthy activity (whether paid or leisure) I have time for.

There are also inconveniences and dangers associated with cycling. When you get to work, you will be perspiring. You are limitted in what you can carry. Hills are difficult. You are more vulnerable in the event of accident. You have to load it onto a train or bus. You are exposed to rain and wind, or the sun. You can't travel very long distances.

The benefits and dangers are not the reason you advocate cycling or PT anyway. They are side-issues. You will argue whichever way suits your main concerns - climate change and peak oil.

Allan said...

Tristan -

Exactly how can improvements to public transport remove the inherent difficulties it involves for users? You know what they are. While those difficulties remain, we cannot use PT and have a 'quality life'.

You can only provide so many routes and stops and other facilities and increase the frequency of services so much. Beyond a certain point, the size and 'environmental footprint' of PT is great enough that everyone may as well have their own vehicle.

I use public transport and have been for years, so my criticisms of it are first-hand. I am waiting to buy a car, though the inadequacy of our roads - which SD advocates approve of - discourages me from doing so.

That is why I fight it. I am fighting not for the right to destroy the planet, but the right to individual freedom and convenience.

I don't believe that climate change and peak oil are realities - they have not been proven, and their is plenty of disproof. They persist mostly from support via the government, the media and big business (which at least publicly cooperates) and through the influence of propagandah on the public mind. I see almost no public discussion of their validity.

Your notions of both what my 'responsiblitiy' is - how much freedom I can ethically exercise - and what is necessary for a 'quality life' rest on that supposed validity.

If you think I'm a dupe of vested interests for questionning them: I was recently told by a Greenpeace activist that Greenpeace does not support the validity of peak oil. This activist, rather, described it as a fraud perpetrated by the oil companies to drive up prices. (Hubbert was a Shell Oil employee when he conceived the idea.)

Allan said...

Tristan -

The end consequence of every aspect of 'sustainable development' consistently is more regulation - more control by the government over the people. Public transport, for instance, is controlled by the government.

I have the right - the responsibility even - to ask whether government control (and through that big business control) is the end aim and fabricated environmental concerns are the means or pretext - i.e., the reverse of how it is presented. It is irresponsible NOT to ask.

This is why we must carefully question the validity of environmentalist claims. Since they do aid the interests of the elite, they are possibly elaborate frauds perpetrated by the elite. Being the elite, they could definitely do a good job of it.

SD advocates themselves often imply that government and big business together have vested interests in obstructing SD.

Being mindful of the interests of the elite is not a 'red herring'. It is the first and most important consideration.

The Brisbane elite apparently have adopted SD, and under not a lot of public pressure. They seem to be working hard to promote it (which I grant you does consume a lot of trees). If it's an act, it is such a good one that they may as well genuinely adopt it.

The fact that they lag behind your own expectations may just mean that their voters aren't ready to fully embrace it. Softly softly catchy monkey!

You can't tell what a politician definitely thinks. He has to publicly defer to the interests of the voting public, so his words and actions will be ambiguous.

Your belief that they are trying to keep us driving is your interpretation. The same applies to my own views. Behind those interpretations are what we presume the interests of both the elites and ourselves to be.

Allan said...

Tristan -

Finally, I should point out that your tone imply that there is only one valid point of view and that others are irresponsible or abberant.

That's fine to an extent, since you are a memeber of a pressure group commintted to a certain ideology and agenda. That's what you are supposed to promote.

But don't at the same time pretend that you represent the views of everyone in the community.

Representing the views of the whole community and representing what you think are the actual interests of the community are two different things. Other members of the community will have a different idea of our interests. That is the meaning of 'different views'.

By confusing these terms you will just be dictating to others and shutting out all dissenting comment. That really has resulted in despotic elites.

Because there is a diversity of views among individual members of the communty, one group with a set agenda cannot represent the views of the community, nor should it claim to.

We need careful and open discussion on issues such as these. The scare created by the notions of climate change and peak oil - whether right or wrong - has created a climate of urgency which causes us to instead think without care or caution.

Such emergencies, real or created, justify dictatorial decision-making as well as controls.

Allan said...


I visitted a CAST rally in the City and saw that the Democratic Socialist Party had a stall there. The DSP are committed Marxist-Leninists (which means they are Communist).

Of course Communists will get involved in anything if it might benefit their cause. But I spoke to one of them and found out that they agree with the whole SD agenda.

Conversely, everything I know about SD essentially agrees with everything I know about Marxism. But don't take my word for it - speak to them.

Marxist Communism is ultimately a totalitarian agenda. That is all it has resulted in everywhere it has succeeded. If Marxists agree so closely with SD, then my own interpretation of SD as being totalitarian is not so irrational.