Brisbane traffic crisis needs an American solution

A traffic crisis

Brisbane after World War Two was at a crossroads – literally and figurately. Rapid uptake of the car had transformed city streets from being pedestrian environments to those dominated by trucks and cars. 

Between 1925 and 1965 Brisbane experienced enormous increases to car registrations – from 38,500 registrations to 462,800 in 1963. It was projected that over a million vehicles would be registered by 1981 (a pretty accurate estimation, Queensland surpassed a million vehicles for the first time in 1979).

Congestion was viewed as a system failure. Trams were demonised as slowing traffic. Residents lamented the congested roads, newspapers published story after story about traffic, demanding that state and local governments do something about it.

Property resumptions for road widening

The emerging profession of ‘traffic engineering’ told policymakers that Brisbane roads were too narrow and had too many access points, leading to low speeds that hurt productivity. 

All over the city Brisbane City Council embarked on road widening projects, trying to ease traffic congestion. From major arterials, like Gympie Road and Ipswich Road, to smaller access streets, council was resuming properties to cater for the car.

But the road widenings were never enough. More and more cars were registered every year. Council couldn’t keep up. People were anxious to know if their properties were to be impacted by road projects. Numerous letters from residents are in Brisbane City Council Archives, asking if their homes were going to be resumed.

Council and Main Roads work together for a solution

At the same time, the state government began to be interested in Brisbane’s roads. Charles Barton, the Main Roads Commissioner, visited the United States in 1960 to inspect American freeways as a traffic solution. 

In January 1963, a technical planning committee was established with representatives from Brisbane City Council and the Department of Main Roads.
This included: 

• Mr HA Lowe, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer of Queensland’s Main Roads Department
• JC Slaughter, Brisbane City Council Town Clerk
• EW Hogan, Deputy Chief Engineer – Research and Planning of Main Roads
• GW Barlow, City Engineer, Brisbane City Council
• S Schubert, Assistant Research and Planning Engineer, Main Roads Department
• LV Guthrie, Communications Officer, Brisbane City Council

They were starting from scratch. There was no road classification system, no engineering or legal standard for different types of roads, no design standards. There was no established procedure about who was responsible for construction and maintenance. 

The Joint Committee report articulated problem as “Although the responsibility of the Main Roads Department for major rural roads is clear, the responsibility of roads in cities and towns is not.” Using ‘best practice’ methodology from the United States, the Committee advised that a transportation survey required an understanding of where traffic was coming from, and where it was going, as well as a projection of future land use (number of homes and workplaces) to work out future demand. 

The objective of the transportation study was to “accommodate present and future traffic needs”

At the same time, the Joint Committee sent its junior members, Guthrie and Schubert, on a study tour of Hobart, Sydney and Melbourne, “to confer with other road authorities and representatives of consulting firms.” 

The rise of the American transport planning consultant

Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart were all using American consultants to design their transport systems. Only a small group of consultants were considered for the Melbourne transport plan– a total of four and a firm based in New Haven, Connecticut, called Wilbur Smith and Associates, had been selected. 

In Sydney, the consultant designing the Warringah Expressway was doing it from their office in the United States. In their report to the Committee, Schubert and Guthrie stated that “Standard of design being adopted are considered extremely high when compared with those in Australia. Efforts by the Department of Main Roads to modify the standards have been unsuccessful because of the reluctance of the Commissioner to alter the consultant’s proposals in view of the fact that they were originally invited because of their wide experience in the design field.” They were aware of the resumption costs – it is noted in the report that resumptions cost approximately 50% of the Warringah Expressway budget.

The advice from NSW Department of Main Roads Assistant Chief Engineer was that their consultant was “first class in design, and this he had gathered from USA contacts, but that Wilbur Smith was the top man in the projection and assignment stage of a transportation study.”

Hobart had utilised the consultant Wilbur Smith, because one of their engineers had attended a course of study at Yale run by Wilbur Smith, and because they had heard Melbourne were considering them. The report concluded by recommending Wilbur Smith and Associate as the consulting firm to undertake the transport study of Brisbane.

Wilbur Smith is the man (firm) for the job

It would appear that Wilbur Smith and Associates were the only consultants really considered for the job. Wilbur Smith was invited to present to the Joint Committee in their September 1963 meeting. Only one other proposal was considered for the transport plan, by Canadian firm, ND Lea and Associates, which were noted in the meeting minutes but “no decision on this matter”. The Committee recommended that if American consultants were to be used, “computing and processing work should be carried out in Australia, and preferably Brisbane, so that all members of the team gain as much experience as possible.” 

Wilbur Smith and Associates were selected as “this firm has had wide experience in such work in the United States and other countries. It is now carrying out transportation surveys in London, Boston and Bombay and has recently been retained to carry out similar surveys in Melbourne and Hobart also” (Letter JC Slaughter to CN Barton, January 1964).

It was agreed that the Main Roads Department would fund 80% of the cost of the transportation study, with Brisbane City Council funding the remaining 20%. By February 1964, Wilbur Smith and Associates had been appointed as consultant and were ready to embark on their study of Brisbane and to produce a recommended transport plan. 

This plan would ultimately reshape the city – but is the focus of my next blog.

Rachel Gallagher, 
2026 John Oxley Library Honorary Fellow