PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Contact us | Advanced search |   search
  1. Home
  2. Hansard
  3. Legislative Assembly by date
  4. 26 June 2003

The Spit Bridge Widening

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 42 of 42 | Next Item »


About this Item
SubjectsRoads; Bridges
SpeakersBarr Mr David
BusinessPrivate Members Statements


    THE SPIT BRIDGE WIDENING
Page: 2334


    Mr BARR (Manly) [5.43 p.m.]: Tonight I want to rebut some of the arrant nonsense that has been peddled by some people, including members of this House, about the widening of The Spit Bridge. A consultant's report has gone to the two councils that straddle the area on each side of The Spit Bridge, Manly and Mosman councils. The body of the report says that contra-peak hour flow benefits will accrue from the widening of The Spit Bridge, that outside peak hour all traffic will flow more smoothly and that there will be an improvement in safety because there will be no lane changing on the approaches to the bridge. The proposal will assist bus operators to reduce travel times. The traffic engineer says there is no traffic engineering reason for refusal of the application, that the proposal is justified and there is no heritage or environmental reason for refusal. The body of the report is all favourable, but the consultant's recommendation is that the Minister withdraw the proposal.

    One of the reasons he gives is lack of public support. I question that. Last year I sent out direct mail to all my constituents that included a blue slip that I asked to be returned to me. It asked two questions and also asked for general comments. The questions were, "Do you support the widening of the bridge?" and "Do you support fewer openings?" Both of those questions were overwhelmingly supported. I received more than 2,200 responses, with 290 objections to the notion of the widening of The Spit Bridge. That indicates significant public support for the proposal. Nevertheless, that is one of the reasons the consultant, Mr James Nangle, has given for the withdrawal of the proposal. It is nonsense.

    Local Liberal Party politicians have been galvanised into action to oppose the widening of the bridge as they had another proposal: a 6.5 kilometre tunnel that they costed at $950 million. That is nonsense, given that 10 years ago the 2.3 kilometre Sydney Harbour Tunnel cost $738 million. The 2.1 kilometre cross-city tunnel will cost $680 million and the 3.4 kilometre Lane Cove tunnel will cost $815 million. The notion that a 6.5 kilometre long tunnel can be built for $950 million is nonsense. An even bigger nonsense was put forward by the Federal member for Warringah, the Hon. Tony Abbott, in his maiden speech to Parliament in 1994. He said:

    It seems that a road tunnel under Military Road with a better crossing at The Spit can be build with just $30 million of taxpayers money.

    That was in 1994, not 1894, although some people would consider Tony Abbot to be more of a 1694 man. The proposed widening would be the first major project on the surrounds of The Spit Bridge for nearly 50 years. It will bring significant improvements, yet there is active opposition to it even though the bridge works do not preclude other transport initiatives. That objection is absurd, and I regard the way local Liberal Party politicians, for selfish political reasons, have tried to undermine all the good work that has done in getting this project ready as offensive. They do not wish to have benefits flow through to Manly while that electorate is not represented by another Liberal. I find that outrageous.

    I call on the Minister to expedite this matter. I will also call for a recommissioning of the section 22 committee so that we can examine wider transport issues on the northern beaches, with particular reference to public transport and better connections between Warringah Road, Roseville Bridge, the Gore Hill expressway and the M2 motorway. There is no reason why we should try to funnel all the traffic from the northern beaches through Manly, which is what the proposed tunnel would do. That in turn would have the dramatic consequence of much more overdevelopment in the area. Those who advocate that will well and truly lose the support of the public.

    Private members' statements noted.
    The House adjourned at 5.48 p.m. until Friday 27 June 2003 at 10.00 a.m.
    _______________

         Contact us | Job opportunities | Site help | Copyright and conditions | Privacy | RSS feeds Parliament of NSW RSS feeds