Home of the bin chicken. Visit our friends:
When I was bike commuting across that bridge, I'd always use the road lane anyway. Getting on and off the path at either end was a pain. However, closing down both paths without a replacement is not on. Giving up a lane doesn't seem unreasonable. Why are both paths closed? They always used to do path maintenance one side at a time.
Edit: I did a bit of searching, and the answer seems to be No Good Reason. Baffling.
Yeah they've known since 2016 that significant maintenance was required of the shared paths. They neglected to do it. Then, after Alfred, they did another analysis and found the condition is serious enough that they had to close them entirely.
There are also serious structural issues with the main bridge that mean it'll probably need to be closed to heavy vehicles within a decade and closed down entirely within 2. And BCC hasn't budgeted for that either. Currently they're mooting a private toll or begging the state and federal government for funding to get that fixed.
Does the city council actually manage the bridge? I would have thought a major road into the city would come under Transport and Main Roads.
Yes, the state government handed it off to BCC in 1947.
There's been some misinformation going around about this, because the road over it, the Bradfield Highway (incidentally the shortest highway in Australia—though for some reason many sites claim the 300 metres–longer Chandler Highway in Melbourne is the shortest) is a "state route". But it's actually quite common for something gazetted as a state route to be managed by the Council.
Good intel, ta. I've not had any information or misinformation on this matter - over here in Perth this just isn't a news story.
This does then beg the question: "Why does a local council manage such a major artery for the state?" If it's going to cost upwards of a Billion dollars to repair, I can see why a local council is unable to attempt that work. They just don't have that sort of budge to spend on a bit of road.`
over here in Perth this just isn’t a news story
It's a local council issue 3,600 km away. I would be deeply concerned if it was!
Why does a local council manage such a major artery for the state?
Not really sure why. The state originally owned it, but sold it to the council in 1947.
If it’s going to cost upwards of a Billion dollars to repair, I can see why a local council is unable to attempt that work.
It was built on the cheap during the depression, with only a 100 year planned lifespan. So they've had a long time to develop a sinking fund to help do more significant maintenance or plan a rebuild. The specific issues we're talking about now have been known since at least 2016, which is the date of the report that they released showing they knew about this issue.
Unfortunately, because of ideological opposition to good governance and an obsession with cutting rates bills (they very proudly spruik their below-inflation rates increases annually), they're close to bankrupt, and haven't planned for this at all.
The going theory at the moment is that their hope is to let it get to a crisis point, at which point they can use the crisis to strongarm the state or federal governments into funding the repair/replacement, or use the crisis as an excuse to sell tolling rights off to private business, since the BCC LNP are even more obviously corrupt than the Coalition is federally. And BCC has been continuously under full LNP control since 2008, and they've had the Lord Mayoralty (which is directly elected city-wide) since 2004. A run that started with the famous slash-and-burner Campbell Newman who went on to destroy the state's public service in his one-term state government 2012–2015. Council elections being optional preferential instead of compulsory preferential like state and federal elections is part of the reason for this, since Greens and Labor voters sometimes split the vote. But another big part is how low-profile Council is: it results in a much stronger incumbency bias than other levels of government, where they can do pretty much whatever they want and get away with it, because nobody talks about the abuse of power or the shortsightedness.
Reads like a Beetoota headline.
It really does, hey.
I thought it sounded a bit like the council was trying to claim sovereign citizenship.
And if you aren't able to join the march or you are nervous about it, don't forget you can sign this petition calling on Council to show some common sense and install a temporary shared path on one of the traffic lanes:
https://www.epetitions.brisbane.qld.gov.au/petition/view/pid/1451
Earlier this week, Kathryn submitted a Notice of Intent, satisfying the requirements to make this a legal protest under the Peaceful Assemblies Act. However, the Queensland Police Service, together with Brisbane City Council quickly lodged an objection, and will apply to take the matter before a magistrate in an effort to shut down the protest. (In a mediation session this morning, the parties did not reach agreement on an alternative approach). They will attempt to argue that briefly closing the bridge to motor vehicle traffic while hundreds of people walk across is likely to jeopardize the safety of persons, cause serious public disorder, or excessively interfere with the rights or freedoms of others.
Unless a magistrate makes an order against the assembly, or Brisbane City Council takes a sensible long-term approach and allocates one of the kerbside lanes for people to safely walk and cycle across the Story Bridge, we’ll be joining the protest walk on Friday. Feel free to bring your bike or scooter (but you will need to walk with it, not ride), or a stroller, trolley or pram. Dress up, carry a sign, or just come along and join with others in claiming space for people.
Oh good, not just BCC but QPS too.
ACAB.
QPS just being too lazy to provide some traffic control?
