Mr BAYLEY – Thank you, Chair. I want to move to the Tasman Bridge. We all got an update from the Premier yesterday in relation to the Tasman Bridge and the acknowledgement that the original proposal was to build wider pathways on both sides of the bridge to support more walking. It’s emerged that obviously budget funding and capacity to do those upgrades isn’t there because it requires significant structural upgrade. I’m sure you know this from your role as Infrastructure minister.
At the same time, the stadium traffic movement and other data shows that the Tasman Bridge is going to be significantly overcapacity at times and also relies heavily on a modal shift, people not driving, people walking and people bike riding, particularly from the Eastern Shore.
What’s the capacity of the budget going forward to finally invest in what is needed for the Tasman Bridge to actually undertake those active transport upgrades that were planned?
Mr FERGUSON – I really appreciate the question, Mr Bayley, thank you for asking it as appropriately as you have as well. It’s a major project for our state.
I wouldn’t like to overstep and go into another minister’s portfolio, but I can speak from some history here that that project’s very important to our state and the funding is being provided in the Budget both from state government and the Australian government. I think the figures were 65:65 $130 million towards that project.
I’ll put this as delicately as I can. It’s not for want of money, that project has had to be re‑scoped, it’s actually a technical need to, I think the word was ‘windage’ on the bridge. I’m not sure if that word was used but the fact that that modelling has shown that there’s only so much additional infrastructure you can build, including to protect pedestrians with the height that’s required, that puts unacceptable strain on the bridge. I think that that would be the bigger reason why that project is being redesigned or re-engineered to still allow those side walkways to be effective but not according to the original vision after getting that technical advice.
I hope that’s a good answer for you because it wasn’t for want of budget, because if to achieve the project objectives it was a simple matter of allocating a few more tens of millions of dollars and seeking federal support to do the same, I think the government would have been quite prepared to do that. It’s actually much more about the structural engineering advice as to what’s achievable.
Mr BAYLEY – Well, that’s right. It seems to be about the structural integrity of the base and the foundations and so forth, which will probably need attending to at some point, I would imagine, and we’ll need funding.
For my follow up question, 65:65 split with the federal government, I assume the pitch to the federal government was very much around active transport, fixing those walkways, allowing for additional modal shift of people. Now, the fact that it’s scaled back and we’re really just getting some pretty basic – really important, I acknowledge – safety upgrades, do you think it jeopardises that federal government funding in any way, shape or form? I assume that the application was very much around active transport and improving options for commuters, particularly active commuters.
Mr FERGUSON – Mr Bayley, the secretary will answer this question as well. In fact, it was as Infrastructure minister and as deputy secretary of State Growth at the time we secured that funding. I’ll let the secretary choose his own words, but really quickly acknowledge that I don’t want to overstep into another minister’s portfolio and speak more about the project than I have, but in terms of the financials and the engagement between the two governments, that would be going not via Treasury, it would be going via State Growth and the federal department.
Mr SWAIN – Treasurer, I’ll try not to go too far given it’s another agency, but it was actually more the other way around. It was more bridge strengthening project that had an active transport to mention and at that time the federal government was very nervous about the precedent setting of funding a project primarily for active transport. There was a lot of discussion around congestion and the arrangements that were occurring in other jurisdictions where there was a huge public expenditure from the federal government on congestion projects that were in the form of tunnels or large infrastructure and the conversation with the federal department was how to avoid that and modal shift was one of those. It was kind of an active transport project that was born out of bridge strengthening and not the other way around.
Mr BAYLEY – The bridge strengthening is now just for the bed of the bridge, as opposed to the foundations and the structures?
Mr SWAIN – Yes. I mean, when it was originally conceived, what was happening under the water was not anywhere near as well understood as it currently is. I’ve probably dated in my knowledge of that now, but I think there’s a much more sophisticated understanding of that than there was when we set out in the process.
