Prime Minister - what about public transport for Ipswich?
Since the March 5 announcement that the Federal Government would be investing $2.3 billion into the Goodna Bypass, Community Action for Sustainable Transport (CAST) have been waiting for the Prime Minister and Federal Minister for Transport to announce how much they would be spending on public transport, freight rail, walking and cycling to “solve” Ipswich traffic needs.
“We believe the decision by the Federal Government to only fund road infrastructure is socially inequitable, economically irresponsible, environmentally destructive and will lead to more road accidents in the future. They must take responsibility for providing a balanced solution” said CAST spokesperson Tristan Peach.
Socially inequitable
Funding private transport is discriminatory. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for 2001 show that 9.21% of Ipswich households did not have a car (1). 28% of Ipswich people are 16 years or younger meaning they cannot drive (2) and research in the Goodna/Gailes area has found that many unemployed people cannot access work due to lack of public transport to surrounding factories (3).
Economically irresponsible
Investing exclusively in road infrastructure at a time when global oil prices are expected to continue rising is economically irresponsible. Households will be paying more for road transport in the future. Research (4) has shown that people in the outer areas of cities, who travel the furthest and have the poorest access to public transport, will be the worst affected. And as fuel costs for road freight increases the cost of goods will also increase.
Environmentally destructive
The Goodna Bypass is an investment in two of the most greenhouse intensive modes of transport. At a time when the Federal Government are attempting to reduce greenhouse emissions they should be investing in transport solutions to increase the proportion of people travelling to work via public and active transport from 9.19% in 2001 (5) to at least 20%.
Road safety
Cars and trucks are dangerous forms of urban transport. Planning for massive increases in use will not reduce the amount of road accidents. International comparisons (6) show that Queensland has 8 road deaths per 100,000 people while places with higher use of public and active transport had lower rates. The Netherlands has 4.9, Sweden 5.3, Switzerland 6.9 and the United Kingdom 5.6.
End notes
(1) ABS Ipswich Local Government Area table b29 - note 49 of these households owned 1 or more motorcycles/scooters.
(2) ABS Ipswich Local Government Area table x01 Age by Sex
(3) Big Road, no transport: a report of the Goodna and Gailes community mapping for transport improvements study page 36 http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/urp/urp_publications/monographs/UPPRM6_Goodna_Johnson.pdf
(4) Oil Vulnerability in the Australian City www.griffith.edu.au/centre/urp/urp_publications/research_papers/URP_RP6_OilVulnerability_Final.pdf
(5) ABS Ipswich Local Government Area table x30 Mode of travel to work (employed persons)
(6) Australian Transport Safety Bureau ‘International road safety comparisons: the 2004 report’ http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2006/Int_Comp_03.aspx
Monday, April 02, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You may find this blog interesting as it confronts the key challenges in Melbourne transit:
Gamut:Public Debate re Melbourne's Public Transport system
But I find your blog a bit confusing as it is primarily press releases. Do you do any campaign work? What "community action"; what "grassroots"?
Dave Riley GL:LG
Campaign work -
Organised the Walk for Sustainable Transport held in Brisbane on February 17 - attended by approx 200 people
Lobbying state and local government on various issues such as improving crossings for pedestrians in the CBD
Meeting with public transport authorities to lobby for various improvements to public transport system
Post a Comment