And today, Guy Chester told Newsport that EcoSustainAbility had prepared the report (in 2004) for the then Rainforest Cooperative Research Centre.

“We had two collaborators, and as the report was a multidisciplinary work, it would need to involve similar team members again,” said Chester, a Director of EcoSustainAbility.

“In short, EcoSustainAbility would be more than happy to update the Daintree Ferry Report. We are not in a position to do this ‘pro bono’, however, I am sure we could offer a competitive proposal, involving suitable expert team members.

“Until we finalised a scope of work – especially the level of engineering investigations to costing options and form of any community consultation/user surveys – we could not offer a likely budget.

“I would expect that we could provide a report, updating from previous with a current user survey and updated construction cost estimates for options for substantially less than $100,000,” he said.

In response to the Chester offer, a Council spokesperson said council does not have funds allocated in the 2018/19 budget to complete a Daintree Ferry traffic analysis report.

“Staff are currently considering how to progress this matter without a budget allocation to cover the cost of the analysis.”

When Newsport reported the $100,000 bid in April, it raised many eyebrows considering there is a reported $4 million sitting in a ferry fund; the view that Guy Chester’s (from the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management) 2004 report should be totally disregarded despite many of his predictions still holding true 14 years later; and elements of the Daintree Gateway Master Plan – an initiative of the Cairns Regional Council to improve the user experience and visual appearance of the Daintree Gateway precinct and tabled in July 2011 – not be overlooked.

At the time of the submission to the state government in April, Mayor Julia Leu said the proposed grant would provide a prime opportunity for a robust assessment of the river crossing.

“An up-to-date traffic analysis is prudent financial management for all residents who live in Douglas Shire,” she said.

But Leu made it clear that the Chester report needed to be updated.

“Council makes decisions on unbiased and factual data so it is absolutely crucial we have accurate statistics that reflected the current state of play,” she said.

Leu said she was disappointed that the grant had been rejected.

“Council works diligently on its grant applications and believed the funding could help provide a robust traffic analysis of the river crossing, but accepts not all grant applications can be successful.”

In Chester’s 2004 report, he provided four projections of visitors to the Daintree, and based it upon a population of 2000 and 1000. The scenarios were determined for 2011 as the peak year.

The four scenarios in the 2004 study were:

1 – 2000 population, 500,000 self-drive, 275,000 tour passengers
2 – 1000 population, 500,000 self-drive visitors, 275,000 tour passengers
3 – 2000 population, 450,000 self-drive, 300,000 tour passengers
4 – 1000 population, 450,000 self-drive, 300,000 tour passengers.

Council felt that the aforementioned figures have not been realised adding that recent data suggests the population over the river is between 700 and 800 people.

It was pointed out at the April Council meeting that the 2004 information is out of date and it would not be prudent to go back to the report.

Leu said at the time that Council anticipated road carrying capacity, peak hour demand and duration of the peak would be accurately determined in the proposed report.

“The assessment aims to detail current congestion issues and model high level solutions, such as a second ferry, bridge or other travel demand initiatives. This will then be developed into a strategic transport plan,” she said.

Join the conversation

What are your thoughts?

Let us know with a thumb up or thumb down or make a comment below.

* Readers are encouraged to use their full details below to ensure comment legitimacy. Comments are the opinions of readers and do not represent the views of Newsport or its staff. Comments containing unlawful, obscene, defamatory, personal or abusive material will not be published.