I would like to make known my objection to the RMS’s EIS for the F6 Stage 1. I am not an engineer and I only intend to object to the parts of the proposal that I am informed enough to speak to.
At a macro level the entire premise of criss-crossing our city with an ever larger network of toll roads is fundamentally at odds with all evidence regarding congestion outcomes. The entire notion that we can build our way out of congestion in a large and rapidly growing city is inconsistent with the experience here (it was not so long ago that the first incarnation of the M5 East opened) and internationally. It seems that the planners at the RMS are either unfamiliar with, or willfully ignorant of, the concept of induced demand.
This project, like so many before it, is being touted on the grounds that is fulfills a ‘missing link’ in Sydney’s motor transport infrastructure. This is neither the case, nor particularly relevant. If the F6 Stage 1 is indeed a missing link, it’s a missing link between Scarborough Park, immediately south of where the new road will dead end onto President Avenue, and an as yet unbuilt Stage 3 of Westconnex. In reality it is a 4 lane tollway that will open as a stand alone road linking Kogarah and St Peters. Hardly a ‘missing link’.
The health implications of car-centric transport planning
In considering the impacts of this project I was pleased to see that the RMS are aware of the health challenges facing our community as outlined in NSW Health’s publication ‘South Eastern Sydney Local Health District. Our Community, Our Services… A Snapshot’. It is great to see that the architects behind this project taking the relationship between transport infrastructure and health into consideration. They have rightly highlighted that the key health issues facing our community are obesity, alcohol consumption and respiratory problems. These are three major health issues that are exacerbated by car use and car-centric planning. I refer you to here to the Heart Foundation’s work on the myriad health issues associated with automobility.
Obesity is a huge health problem in Australia, especially with rising commute times eating into free time that might’ve been spent exercising. Luckily for many there is a solution. People that commute on foot, bicycle or by public transport are significantly more likely to reach the recommended weekly target of at least 150 minutes of moderate activity than those that commute by car.
Alcohol consumption is a part of life here as in much of the world, and with a higher rate of risky drinking and hospitalisations from alcohol in St George it would be preferable to provide transport options that accept this reality. Investing in public transport at all times of day and night would help minimise these risks.
Respiratory problems are exacerbated by car and truck fumes, a problem which pushing vehicles underground does not solve. As the city grows we should be encouraging those that can make trips by other modes to do so, which in turn would leave space on the road for those that need to be there. This benefits the health of the commuter and helps us all to breathe a little easier.
Misunderstanding the potential of public transport
It is disappointing, but not surprising, to see that the RMS has an entirely outdated view of the basics of public transport network design. Perhaps some cross departmental liaison could have benefited this project. The EIS claims that “with about 60 per cent of employment dispersed across the Sydney metropolitan area, public transport alone cannot viably serve many of these locations.” The idea that, in a city of close to 5 million, demand is only sufficient for CBD radial public transport infrastructure is archaic. Yes, our public transport network as it currently stands is extremely radial, but this need not be the case. An efficient public transport system is one that operates as a network. Where users can interchange between lines and services to make their way across the city.
20 years ago a train line was proposed by the NSW Government to connect Hurstville to Strathfield, interchanging with the East Hills and Bankstown Lines on the way. This sort of project would provide the type of public transport connection from St George to those dispersed locations that we all seek. It would also reduce the number of unnecessary trips through the CBD, increasing capacity on our train lines.
Investing in public transport infrastructure should not be seen as a competing priority to free-flowing roads. The majority of road users are in single occupancy vehicles on their way to work at a fixed address. These users can and will opt for public transport if it is the quicker, more comfortable or cheaper. Doing so frees up road capacity for trucks and tradies who need to be on the road all day.
A token gesture to active transport
Finally, I am extremely disappointed to see that a project of this scale, estimated to cost over $2 billion for Stage 1 alone, includes such poor provision for active transport. Cycling is not only a healthy and emission free form of transportation and recreation. Well implemented active transport infrastructure can encourage people out of their cars, leaving room on the road for those that need to be there.
The F6 corridor is absolutely begging for the sort of long distance, separate-grade cycleway that runs alongside the M7 or the NW T-Way. The path alongside Botany Bay is beautiful, but it is busy with cars and people enjoying the beach front. It suffers an extremely long detour in Kyeemagh around Muddy Creek and thus does not provide a useful commuter active transport link to the area. Commuting cyclists tend to favour the Francis-Crawford-O’Connell-Chuter route to San Souci. At Bestic Street this route connects with the Cooks River cycleway allowing riders a trip almost entirely safe from cars all the way to Sydney CBD via Bourke Road or Parramatta CBD via Homebush.
It is great to see the F6 extension includes an active transport exclusive bridge over President Avenue. From the EIS it sounds like it will be designed as part of an active transport corridor, rather than to facilitate local trips across President Avenue. It is also good to read that pedestrian access across President Avenue will be retained at O’Connell and West Botany Streets. Separate grade alternatives are great, but maintaining safe street level crossing points is essential to ensuring the Avenue won’t become a car-choked wall dividing the suburb as the Grand Parade separates us from the Bay.
Unfortunately the route outlined for the active transport corridor north of President Avenue is ridiculous. If anyone is expected to seriously consider leaving their car at home in favour of cycling, new cycleways must adhere to the same standards as car or rail infrastructure. A route is only as strong as its weakest link, and running a wide, graded path onto a series of suburban streets and trafficable roads defeats the purpose of the exercise entirely. The lack of planning or willingness to make hard decisions regarding route alignment will undermine any potential uplift in active transport participation in the area. In the EIS the RMS mention the F6 corridor alignment that has been set aside for transport in the area for over 60 years. Building the active transport corridor that our area needs only requires utilisation of an alignment set aside for this purpose. How great it would be to see the corridor manifest as a tree lined cycleway rather than the motorway that was initially intended.
If 5 houses stood in the way of a road project it would be considered a small price to pay. This isn’t hypothetical. 2016 estimates indicated that over 400 properties were to be acquired to build Westconnex. If the RMS is serious about promoting active transport in St George the route needs to be considered in the same way as any other piece of transport infrastructure, even if this involves property acquisitions. The current route is totally unacceptable and shows the tokenistic mention of active transport for what it is.
There’s no doubt that Southern Sydney is calling out for better transport infrastructure. But the F6 is a project of its time, the postwar period. It isn’t popular with the electorate. The State Opposition have come out and said that they will stall the F6 project in favour of investigating public transport alternatives. I implore the NSW Government to reconsider how they are implementing new transport projects in St George and across the state and to look to 21st century solutions that emphasise public and active transport.
Submissions to the F6 Stage 1 EIS can be made until Friday the 14th of December on the Department of Planning and Environment website.