From: To: Date
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Page 1 Simon Truong - Submission to North Ryde Station UAP Proposal From: "Mitch Geddes" <[email protected]) To: <[email protected]> Date: 51191201310:01 AM Subject: Submission to North Ryde Station UAP Proposal CC: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, "Jeff Salvestro-Martin" <jeff.salvestro-mafü[email protected]>, "Craig Chung" <[email protected]. au), " friendsofnorthryde" <fri endso fn orthry de @ä net. net. au> Attachments: DOPI_13051 5.pdf Attention : Director, Strategic Assessment Please see attached submission as an OBJECTION regards, Mitch Geddes BE(Hons), MAuslMM, JP Glades Bay Project Management & Engineering PO Box 3131, MONASH PARK LPO, NSW 21 1 1 [email protected] 0412 894 304 - 02 9416 1491 fi1e://C:\Documents and Settings\struong\Local Settings\TempU(Pgrpwise\519CA21... 2810512013 est.1999 ABN 62 485 017 638 DOP| 130515 15 May 2013 Director, Strategic Assessment NSW Department of Planning and lnfrastructure GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2OO1 Also by email: plan [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam, NORTH RYDE STATTON PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL (THE PROPOSAL) OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL ON MULTIPLE GROUNDS This proposal falls over on many grounds, but if for no other reason, it falls over on the question of traffic. The O'Farrell Government risks a dangerous precedent here with respect to the need for any traffic studies, for any reason, in the future. Notwithstanding both the overt and covert deficiencies in the Parsons Brinckerhoff report, if ever there was a traffic study urging "proceed with extreme caution, or indeed, don't proceed at all", it is fhrs traffic study. To ignore these warnings (however carefully they may be dialled back in the report) sends the message to NSW that traffic considerations are no longer important to developers wishing to turn a dollar on Premier Barry O'Farrell's watch. The reasons for raising objection to the proposal are grouped into themes below, and reference to the North Ryde Station Precinct Planning Report uses the abbreviation 'NRSPPR". The notion of "highest and best use" and rrTOD" This proposal is a demonstration of the creeping modern view that whenever a government department identifies surplus metropolitan lands, it sees the potential for high-rise apartment blocks as "highest and best use". Without doubt, high-rise apartment blocks have great potential to add value to surplus lands - certainly for the developers who "win" the right to build them - óuf is the commercial consideration the only measure of "highest and best use"? As we continue to cram residential capacity into established cities, such as Ryde, we are entitled to ask: "when was the last time we built a new golf course?" oî "when was the last time we built a new footy park?" As our population grows, so too does the demand for such things. lt seems we are happy to have government bodies like the Department of Planning and lnfrastructure oozing buzzwords like "liveability", yet when push comes to shove, the only consideration shown is to maximise the value of the land to be sold off, and this is done by creating the zoning that maximises the profit opportunity for the developers waiting to take control of the land. So much so, that this proposal takes on the appearance of an "ambit claim", specifically drafted with overkill so that the proponent, if only getting half of what is proposed, stillgets allof what he intends. A faithful examination of alternative land uses for the precinct has not been included in the NRSPPR. The only consideration in this regard was to accept high density residential as fait accompli, and to then work out how to minimise the portion of "nil value" open space to be included in the proposal. The proposed 0.6 ha of open space at the M2 Site offends the civic design notion of "liveability", as does the fact that this "Chatswood wannabe" complex of towers is set to count as its immediate neighbours: two congested major roads, light industry, a cemetery, a crematorium, and a council tip with its history of odour complaints. Whilst set to spear through the green canopy like another Chatswood, this proposal holds none of Chatswood's reasons for actually wanting to live there. PO Box 3131,'[email protected] MONASH PARK LPO NSW 2111 office: I - Email: - Mobite: I The fact that a railway station is also located nearby does not justify building what might become a ghetto of the future. This railway station was poorly sited in the first place, and therefore has its limitations. One thing it does do very well is bring commuters from all over Sydney into the eastern end of the Macquarie Business Park Strategic Centre. The railway station has potential to do this eyen more effectively if the precinct lands were permitted to serve the function as identified in the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney, where these lands are to "maintain a strong employment focus" and to "prioritise office space over housing". Jamming maximum density housing into these Strategic Centre lands is an opportunist grab for cash with little to recommend it other than the concept of TOD. But who would choose to live there? lt is certainly a convenient place to live if you worked in Macquarie Business Park, but who needs a rail line to traveljust one stop? Who ever rides on a train for just one stop, when the easier option is to simply walk up Waterloo Road? lf the O'Farrell Government is wedded to the concept of TOD, and believes the property development sector is similarly on board, then why not set little or no parking for these proposed apartment buildings? Such a design detail would allow the private sector's appetite for TOD to be properly tested, and at the same time would demonstrate a true level of commitment to TOD held by the O'FarrellGovernment. The traffic impasse A fundamental problem with the Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) traffic study, and the way this study is incorporated into the NRSPPR, is the perspective from which the traffic impacts are viewed - as if they were arising from a private development. But this is not a private developmenf - it is a proposal for sale and development of public lands. lf viewed as a private developmenú, there is some logic to the approach used, whereby the traffic impacts of the development are compared to the "without development" condition, the differences noted, and an argument formed. Developers of private land have no duty to fix existing traffic problems, or to help improve major networks - they simply have to show that their plans are not making the existing situation unreasonably worse. Governments on the other hand, do have a duty to fix traffic problems, and to improve major networks, especially when they are examining options to unlock cash for their own spending pleasure. The approach adopted by PB amounts to a classic "infinity plus one" argument. PB uses LinSig and Paramics traffic modelling software to determine that the locality already suffers several LOS Category F intersections - the lowest LOS category attributable, with substantial "rolling queue green loss" a feature. PB then determines that the proposal, even with the minor traffic upgrades suggested as part of the proposal, "only makes a bad situation fractionally worse" (to paraphrase). That is, if the current congestion is described as "infinity", then "infinity plus one" is also "infinity" - no problem. PB does however make some redeeming observations reflecting the seriousness of the congestion, such as, at page xä: "Growth in a¡terial road traffic is expected to increase at a rate of around 1-2% per annum. lt is likely that the forecast growth in through traffic and the full future growth in Macquarie Park traffic will not be able to be accommodated on the road network." The responsible position for the O'Farrell Government (as proponent) to be taking here is to be actually looking at ways to fix existing traffic problems, rather than just adding to them - especially when the proposal potentially unlocks the cash to help fund such work. Former state governments have identified the need, and found the money, for upgrades to Lane Cove Road (route) intersections with Victoria Road, Epping Road, and Pacific Highway. The time has come, with the recent influx of employee numbers into Macquarie Park, for similar attention to now be applied to the Lane Cove Road intersection with Waterloo Road. The intersection of Lane Cove Road with Waterloo Road is just one of the LOS Category F intersections identified by PB. However the green loss suffered at this intersection, in DOPI_130515 page 2 of 7 conjunction with the Epping Road intersection (both on the arterial route running the length of the Warringah-Sutherland North/South Corridor), reduces peak-hour traffic to 5 km/h between Cox's Road and Talavera Road - thereby requiring 20 minutes to travel just 1.6 km along this major arterial. RMS appears to have "given up" with the peak-hour signal phasing at the Waterloo Road intersection, offering green to the major arterial (Lane Cove Road) just 50-55% of the time. Nothing in the proposal contemplates correcting this unacceptable congestion at the intersection of Lane Cove Road and Waterloo Road, with the suggested extra-lane works at Waterloo Road's eastern approach just a means to help egress from the M2 Site rather than address any latent problems at Lane Cove Road. The City of Ryde, and those from Greater Sydney traversing Ryde via the Warringah-Sutherland North/South Corridor (Lane Cove Road), are looking to the O'Farrell Government to step up to the plate with leadership rather than opportunism.