| Harbour Tunnel | |
|
|
| Back to Main Menu.. |
| How the EIS addressed regional planning |
|
In the metro-regional planning framework, policies have been shaped by three documents: the Sydney Region Outline Plan (1968), the Review of the Sydney Region Outline Plan (1980) and the Centres Policy (1985). All three documents advocate a balanced road and rail transport system for the region. All three documents promote a hierarchy of centres, linked by good roads and public transport facilities. As far as can be ascertained, it is still government policy to proceed with "key by-passes of the central business area" (Sydney Region Outline Plan Review, 1980), and it is still government policy to develop a road-rail system based on a major north-south communication corridor in the region. The Sydney Harbour Bridge and the proposed Tunnel would logically form an important cross-Harbour link in that corridor. There is no firm evidence available which might suggest that the Tunnel project will be incompatible with regional plans and policies, or that it will introduce unacceptable distortion into the 1968 structure plan for the region. The 1985 Centres Policy (Department of Environment and Planning) presented a policy framework for the development of a regional hierarchy of service centres in metropolitan Sydney. Amongst it provisions, the policy is explicit in its intention to promote the Sydney city centre and North Sydney as the dominant regional centre for the Sydney region. The policy also identified Parramatta's future as the second regional centre in the Sydney area. Fourteen subregional centres are also identified, followed by thirteen secondary centres. It is considered unlikely that the Tunnel will prejudice the Centres Policy in any significant way. Although it will have an impact on the Sydney city centre - North Sydney - St Leonards - Chatswood axis, this is generally consistent with the Centres Policy. Three sub-regional centres may be affected by the Tunnel: Bondi Junction, Chatswood and St Leonards. All three stand to gain by way of improved accessibility and reduction of cross-Harbour congestion. None of the secondary centres is likely to be affected. It is likely, however, that the structure of the city centre - Chatswood axis will be affected by increased accessibility across the Harbour. With improved accessibility, it is likely that the trend which started with North Sydney becoming an extension of the Sydney central business district will be extended to Crows Nest and St Leonards and that there may be a spread of central business district functions in the axis between the city centre and Chatswood. This in not inconsistent with the Centres Policy. The extent to which the Tunnel might induce higher development densities within the sphere of influence is problematical. However, it should be recognised that a high proportion of land in areas such as North Sydney, Chatswood and St Leonards is already zoned and/or developed for higher density residential use; the area is well served by public transport; and there is probably only limited scope for further rezonings. In areas further out, it is, and has been for years, firm policy to restrict large scale growth (eg. in the Warringah peninsula). The Kirby report (1983) accepted this policy as being one which was likely to prevail until well into the next century. Kirby also considered the implications for Warringah of a second Harbour crossing. He concluded that if a second crossing is built, it may act as a stimulus to the earlier development of the Warringah peninsular; and that a second crossing (tunnel) may further delay the day - if ever - when Warringah gets a mass transit facility (eg rail). It would seem reasonable that, if and when pressure for higher density and redevelopment occurs, its implications should be assessed at that time. Kirby himself referred to the probability of future review of transport, land use and road works in the Warringah Shire as circumstances change in the longer term. If the Tunnel is built, its existence would be taken into account in any subsequent review of Warringah's transport and road needs. Most importantly, it is Centres Policy to "boost" the Sydney - North Sydney city centre employment. The Tunnel will assist achieving this policy. The growth of secondary and subregional centres will be affected by numerous factors, including the extent to which this policy is successfully implemented. In as far as the Tunnel is only one of these factors, it is considered unlikely that it will prejudice the growth of centres further out. None of these effects is considered to be negative and there are no grounds for suggesting that the proposed Tunnel should not proceed because of adverse regional land use impacts. Department of Environment and Planning (p. 20) The EIS briefly examined the compatibility of regional planning policies with the Tunnel proposal. The objectives of the regional planning policies were misinterpreted and it was wrongly concluded that "it is considered unlikely that the Tunnel will prejudice the Centres Policy in any significant way". The impact of the Tunnel on regional planning objectives can best be described by evaluating the proposal against the following key planning objectives:
Professor John Toon, Univesrity of Sydney When the harbour tunnel EIS was made public one of the first things one looked to was - how does it relate to the broader metropolitan planning framework? And it really failed rather miserably on those counts. It didn't actually fit with a whole range of other government policies. It wasn't really related to issues of metropolitan growth. It wasn't really related to the crisis points where we need to invest money in roads. Looking at the overall metropolitan strategy and how the harbour tunnel fits into that I think that one of the first things that you have got to recognise is that the growth of Sydney as it's moving westwards, is leaving the Sydney Central Business District increasingly eccentric to the centre of gravity and the whole metropolitan area... When we are looking at the metropolitan area we are looking at expansion, we are seeing the way in which the population has moved westward so the geographic centre of the metropolitan area is shifting westwards and it is now thought to be somewhere close to Parramatta, if not at Parramatta itself. With that shift in population what we as planners are trying to do is to distribute employment equitably across this much larger metropolitan area and the role that the Central Business District of Sydney has been playing in that is really to become increasingly specialised so that it becomes more concerned with finance, with law, with government and a lot of the day to day activities have in fact decentralised to Parramatta or Chatswood or Hurstville or dozens of the other district centres around the metropolitan area. Our prime aim is to get employment distributed as widely as possible and we have got major areas of deficiencies of jobs in the western centre where jobs are very hard to find and the southwest sector the same. One of the problems in those areas is that it is actually difficult to get from one part of the west to another part of the west. The radial system all moves into the Central Business District. But if you want to live in Campbelltown and work in Blacktown it is difficult to get to work unless you travel by car and that is why we really need to put money into better roads in the west to get that system much more fluid, working much better than it is doing at the present time. That is why if you look at the DMR studies, all the major congestion points are out in the west. They're not in the inner city at all. So really it is that sort of connection which would lead me to say that the Harbour Tunnel was really an indulgence, was really unnecessary. I think the argument for was a spurious argument, that the one that was put forward was to say well, this is going to be paid for by someone else, God, as it were, is going to give us this little tunnel and in a sense it is not going to cost the government money. That is really what they were saying. It is costing NSW money. It just so happens there it is a different component of the population which is paying for it in a different way... So I think that the government has said well if we are short of money for roads, we want to promote public works, here is something that we can actually promote, and we can see how it is an entity in itself and it can be charged to the users. And that I think was their rationale.
References Cameron McNamara, Sydney Harbour Tunnel: Environmental Impact Statement, Transfield-Kumagai Joint Venture, November 1986. Department of Environment and Planning, Proposed Sydney Harbour Tunnel: Environmental Impact Assessment, DEP, 1987. Interview with Professor John Toon, University of Sydney, 1990.
|
© 2003 Sharon Beder