Opinion piece by Dr Vicki Gardiner, General Manager - Tasmania, Engineers Australia.

Sitting in Hobart’s gridlock, I started to consider what a future Tasmania will look like.

We know the Hodgman Liberal State Government has set a population target of 650,000 by 2050.

What are the implications of that target? Where will they live? What will be the age demographic? Where will they work and in what industries?

Where are the future workplaces? How and where will people learn? And the crunch question for our gridlock: how will they travel?

All this from an increase of 150,000 people statewide.

Infrastructure can establish the basis for higher quality, sustainable and productive lives for all Australians.

Engineers Australia has been assessing Australian infrastructure since 1999. In our Infrastructure Report Card 2010, the overall status of roads was assessed as adequate, but requiring major changes to be fit for purpose.

Our latest assessment shows that cumulative road construction since 2010 was 17.5 per cent higher than in the previous five years. But according to the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, congestion has worsened rather than eased in this time, which suggests new roads or tunnels are not the answer.

Last week I attended Engineers Australia’s witness presentation to the public hearing of the Federal Parliamentary Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities inquiry into how linking transport can lift prosperity in urban and regional Australia.

Excellent connectivity seeks to discourage car use by making local trips easier and more pleasant by foot than by car. Essentially, it is changing the mindset from developing “auto cities” to “transit cities” — suggesting that more or wider roads or a tunnel are not the answer to Hobart gridlock.

Infrastructure connectivity and funding are best solved in a comprehensive, depoliticised, national infrastructure plan in which states, territories and cities play their part by integrating land use and infrastructure planning. This supports Infrastructure Australia’s recommendations.

So what does this mean for Tasmania and, in particular, Hobart’s congestion problem?

We must ensure solutions are not detrimental in the long term because related issues have been overlooked due to the non-existence of an overarching plan to solve connectivity problems.

In Hobart’s case, we need to recognise the gridlock situation now, but plan collaboratively for how the city will look and what transport corridors and systems will work best in 2020 or 2030 or 2040 and 2050.

Can all levels of government collaborate on this? Yes. Look at the way councils, state and federal governments worked to address Sydney’s transport issue. If it can happen there, surely it can happen here.

Perhaps the best start is Hobart City Council appointing Keith Midson as the head of its investigating committee. Keith is a chartered engineer whose expertise and experience is in traffic engineering. His understanding of the way population growth and economic expansion affect integrated transport connectivity will be invaluable.

Infrastructure Minister Rene Hidding has convened the southern councils to a summit to formulate an effective, co-operative plan.

In the future, our community will need to be more mobile and less restricted than now.

Council boundaries already include a mobile community, including those who live, work, learn and socialise there.

Importantly, population will grow in fringe areas that are currently transport deprived. The well-respected think tank, The Grattan Institute, has concluded that “shallow labour markets and increasingly congested transport systems are holding back productivity”.

This demonstrates that without an effective integrated transport system, Tasmania will not realise its economic growth targets, flowing on to lower than anticipated population growth.

Let’s look at the dreaded gridlock issue from the perspective of building a transit city. Because, as the evidence shows, more roads are not the answer. The type of questions the community and decision-makers need to consider include:

ARE we looking at the right problem? Should we be really asking what is the systemic cause of increased road use?

ARE the comments made by leaders reasonable? Are they encouraging a collaborative reform agenda that integrates land use and infrastructure planning that will result in depoliticised solutions?

ARE they considering all the stakeholders — other councils, state government strategies, tomorrow’s community users as well as today’s?

HAVE all options been identified and assessed for appropriateness in terms of enhancing economic expansion and population growth?

ARE decision-makers mature enough to have a discussion to address the Productivity Commission’s conclusions that current governance, taxation and institutional arrangements present challenges for coherent longer planning and investment in road infrastructure and are ultimately unsustainable?

ARE their decisions in the best interest of tomorrow’s community? Are they striving to develop a better community or are they still in the facilities (roads) development mindset?

WHAT technologies are on the horizon that need to be included in scenario planning?

In short, the long-term answer to Hobart’s congestion and, more broadly, Tasmania’s future transport needs is connectivity.

It lies at the heart of effective and efficient transport infrastructure. This can only be achieved through the adoption by all tiers of government of a comprehensive state infrastructure plan, using the blueprint developed by Infrastructure Australia. It involves a new approach to land use and infrastructure planning to radically reduce car use, saves money on infrastructure, and helps create more amenable community centres that can cater for population growth.

The appointment of Keith Midson is recognition that the engineering profession will make vital contributions to this debate.

Chartered engineers have shown creative and innovative thinking to solve issues such as people movement. And these problem-solving professionals have a vested interest — they live in the community, they travel to work and they often take kids to school.

All this and we haven’t even considered the driverless car that services three families based on their electronic calendars.

This article was first published in The Mercury.