Wrecking Hobart’s roads, one speed reduction at a time

Incremental change hurts the transport choice of most Tasmanians, says Simon Behrakis

PUSHING forward with proposed speed limit reductions in Hobart’s CBD is bad policy that will impact on people’s ability to get around our city. It is a case of a solution in search of a problem.

Given some advocates of the proposed reductions are suggesting the motion being debated at Monday’s Council meeting is an innocuous step in the process, it is important that we are frank and upfront about this issue. What is being suggested to council is that we “endorse for consultation” a plan to significantly reduce speed limits in the CBD. What is set to accompany this plan during the consultation period is modelling and information on the effect these changes are expected to have on safety. There will not be any modelling or research on the impacts the changes would have on traffic flow or congestion. Such modelling is currently already set to be done and reported to council within weeks, However, it will not be used to inform this policy. The report presented to council also stated that of the 1011 crashes in the CBD since 2009, only 11 were serious.

The data also suggests that of the crashes included in this statistic, more than 90 per cent did not include pedestrians — hardly a statistic that would imply a need for urgent action. This much is undeniably true.

One must wonder what the thought process is given these facts. If, as it appears, the sole priority informing these changes is road safety, then surely it would be ideal to set the speed limits to 0km/h, thus guaranteeing zero incidents.

If that sounds absurd to most readers, that is because other considerations clearly have to be taken into account.

Why then have those considerations not been included in the information presented to council? Why are they not accompanying the road safety report during the consultation phase?

To only present one factor of an issue that has multiple considerations to stakeholders during this phase will undoubtedly lead to skewed results — results largely indistinguishable from pushpolling.

All well and good if the intention of this consultation process is to obtain a predetermined response. It is much less helpful at helping to inform good policy making.

There is an old adage that the best way to boil a frog, rather than dropping it in hot water and have it jump out, is to gradually increase the temperature so the frog doesn’t notice. Similarly, we heard in committee discussion that this was part of a plan for incremental change to speed limits over time, given public resistance to such changes.

This means we can expect further pushes to slow down our roads, or pedestrianise our road infrastructure. And every step of the way, the commute will get longer, and the water

will get that little bit warmer. Advocates for slowing down our roads draw parallels to other cities where such policies have supposedly been implemented successfully, as well as cities such as Amsterdam where the use of public and active transport matches their idealistic view of how things should be.

Unfortunately, Hobart is different, both topographically and demographically. What is good for Amsterdam is not necessarily workable in Hobart. Good luck to the average commuter wanting to ride their bike home to Mt Nelson or Tolmans Hill every day. More than 70 per cent of Hobartians commute in cars.

No amount of utopian storytelling can change that. Rather than taking the elitist attitude of steering the public into living their lives as set by government, democratically elected governments should be setting policy to reflect the needs and aspirations of those they represent.

The council can push these policies to make driving as inconvenient as possible in an aim to push them into other transport. However, if not reflective of the needs or aspirations of commuters, it will only mean angering those trying to navigate our city, and wasting untold dollars on pointless projects.

We should absolutely be investing in infrastructure and policies to improve public and active transport, but not at the expense of the primary mode of transport for the vast majority. What the council should be investigating is measures such as bus priority lanes or working with Metro to find ways to improve our bus network. We should be investing in infrastructure to increase our road capacity to benefit both road users and our growing public and active transport network.

These incremental changes have already proven to be overwhelmingly unpopular, even without the full knowledge of what the full plan is. Perhaps it is high time elected members got their heads out of the clouds and listened.