Traffic Planning Pty Ltd
“Relevance of the Kyeemagh-Chullora Road Inquiry Finding
1980-81”
June 1987 (Prepared for DMR)
CONFIDENTIAL
INTRODUCTION
This study has investigated the written recommendations of
the Kyeemagh - Chullora Road Inquiry (known as the Kirbyt Report) and
identified the relevance of those recommendations to the present day. The Kyeemagh
-Chullora Road Inquiry (herein known as the Inquiry) produced four volumes of
material in 1980/81 which related to the information and comment directed to
the Commission of Inquiry into the Kyeemagh - Chullora Road (Commissioner, Mr
D.S. Kirby).
The four volumes related to the following topics:
Volume 1: Containers
Volume 2 &.3: Criteria for
Evaluation
Volume 4: The Options
This study provides a summary of the original recommendations
of each topic and identifies the objectors at the time of the Inquiry as well
as highlighting some of the findings since that time.
Part A of this study deals with the main topic of container
traffic. Part B of this study briefly discusses the Criteria for Evaluation and
Part C discusses The (Road) Options. Part D summarises this study’s findings.
A. CONTAINERS
A.1 INTRODUCTION
The standard shipping container is 20 feet (6.1m) long, 8
feet (2.4m) wide and 8 feet (2.4m) high and invariably there are two of them
loaded on the back of a semi-trailer which makes them obvious to the public.
The tractor unit, trailer and containers result in a large, noisy road vehicles
(semi-trailers are invariably the noisiest vehicle on the road) which is psychologically
intimidating to other road users. Even if there were very few containers
transported on the road they would always be obvious.
-2-
The problem of road containers and the relevance to the Inquiry
is that in late 19080 the Port Botany area had the first container terminal
opened which was followed by second in 1982. At the time of the Inquiry the Commissioner
and the public were dealing with an unknown problem in so far as the scale and
mode of delivery and collection of containers'
The Inquiry suggested that by transferring container
operations away from White Bay, Mort Bay and Darling Harbour and concentrating
the container operations into Botany Bay and Glebe Island and there would be a
shift away from rail to road. The Inquiry also suggested that the change in
mode split would also result in increased levels of truck activity on roads
leading to the new Port.
The location of the port adjacent to Botany Bay would mean a
change in truck routes. Suburbs not previously exposed to container traffic
would suddenly be confronted by container trucks in increasing numbers.
The new ANL terminal at Port Botany was to replace the ANL
terminal at Mort Bay on the Balmain peninsula. The Mort Bay terminal meant that
containers were road freighted through the narrow and densely populated suburbs
of Balmain. Obviously when the new terminal facilities were proposed many of
the residents along roads which might be used by container trucks considered
their conditions might be similar to those people in Balmain and made
representation to the Commissioner. The theme of 1500 or so objections was that
container trucks should be removed from the road system and that any scheme
that achieved that end had merit. The public, and to a certain extent some of
the authorities concerned, were trying to avoid an unknown problem.
The Inquiry was looking to identify an immediate solution to
the problem of container traffic on the roads of the South Western suburbs of
Sydney and this immediacy was reflected in the solutions that were offered
which were as follows:
(a) the free-market case - do nothing to divert containers away from road to rail.
-3-
(b) four decentralized depots which would rail containers to the nearest depot to their destination (and the same arrangement in reverse for containers destined for the Port).
(c) The Western Suburbs Scheme which created an artificial zone whereby containers with a destination in the western areas of Sydney would have to be railed to a depot at Villawood or Chullora.
From the above summary it is apparent that road schemes did not feature as a solution to container trucks because of the immediacy of the problem.
Rather than regurgitate the comments and findings of the Inquiry the above options need to be discussed. However, before such a discussion an appreciation of the problem since the Inquiry is provided in order to identify the actual container operation rather that the hypothetical situation of 10 years ago (the data base for the Inquiry).
A.2 DATA AVAILABLE
SINCE THE INQUIRY
The Inquiry cited a number of topics which were generated as
indicative of the likely environmental impacts to be suffered by residents in
the study. These topics have been reviewed on the basis of hindsight and actual
data rather than estimates made at the Inquiry.
The topics are as follows:
(i)
growth in container trade through the Port of
Sydney
(ii)
shift in container trade from Port Jackson to
Port Botany
(iii)
future container trade through Port Jackson and
Port Botany
(iv)
the mode split for Port Jackson
(v)
the mode split for Port Botany
(vi)
truck movements generated at Port Botany
(vii)
type of vehicle used at Port Botany
(viii)
peak periods for container trucks
-4-
(i) Growth in Container Trade Through the Port
of Sydney
At the Inquiry a forecast of future container traffic
through Sydney ports was made on the basis of the Simblist Inquiry in 1976.
There was a substantial growth in container traffic in
Sydney from 1969 to 1981 which was the period of hindsight that the Inquiry was
looking at. In the period 1969 to 1981 container traffic grew almost fivefold
in terms of Twenty Foot Equivalents (TEUs) moved through the Port of Sydney.
The Maritime Services Board was contacted for details of container traffic using Port Botany and Port Jackson for the five year period 1981 to 1986 (the latest period available for data) with Table A.1 giving the actual container trade for Port Jackson (Port of Sydney) and Port Botany and the estimates used by the inquiry.
Table A.1 Container Trade at Port of Sydney and Port of Botany Bay
(Expressed in No. of TEUs)
Estimate
|
Port
of Sydney
|
Port
of
Botany Bay |
Total
|
|
1981/82
|
366,000
|
258,944
|
149,848
|
408,792
|
1982/83
|
382,000
|
170,890
|
200,877
|
371,767
|
1983/84
|
400,000
|
171,713
|
232,661
|
404,374
|
1984/85
|
418,000
|
192,815
|
268,010
|
460,825
|
1985/86
|
--
|
178,168
|
255,085
|
433,253
|
1989/80
|
529,000
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
It is apparent that there have been fluctuations in
container activity between 371,767 TEUs in ‘82/83 to 460,825 TEUs in 84/85. The
average annual trade for the two ports over the period 1981 to 1986 was 415,802
TEUs per year. The container traffic in Port Jackson has decreased and this has
been matched by an increase in container traffic at Port Botany. However the overall
trend is reasonably static within a range of +11% of the five year average
figure. Figure A.1 indicates how container traffic has increased since 1969 in
Sydney between 1976 and 1986.
-5-
(ii) Shift in Container Trade from Port Jackson to
Port Botany
At the Inquiry, the State Transport Study Group (STSG)
estimated that in 1985 Port Botany would handle 65% (259,160 TEUs) of total
Sydney container traffic (estimated to be 418,000 TEUs) and Port Jackson would
be responsible for the remainder. The Maritime Services Board (MSB)
independently estimated a likely range for Port Botany container throughput of
between 256,000 and 269,000 TEUs for 1985. The two sets of estimates (STSG and
MSB) were made prior to the full operation of the two Port Botany container terminals.
(ANL and CTAL).
From data supplied by the MSB for 1985, the total throughput
for Sydney container ports was 449,060 TEUs. Port Botany was responsible for
the throughput of 264,366 TEUs (59%).
It is apparent that the expected shift from Port Jackson to
Port Botany had not occurred in terms of the proportion of Sydney’s total
container traffic even though overall container growth in Sydney had occurred.
Terminal such as Glebe Island (18%) and Darling Harbour (18%) still provide a
significant contribution to container activity. These two terminals have
provided (and it is anticipated that they will continue to provide) significant
container terminal facilities in the Port of Sydney.
The MSB and STSG estimates for Port Botany container traffic
were extremely accurate, but their estimates of the proportion using Port
Botany were over estimates.
-6-
(iii) Future Container Trade Through Port Jackson
and Port Botany
In the Inquiry, the STSG estimated that the proportion of
container traffic using Port Botany would be approximately 65% of Sydney
container traffic for 1985. That situation has not occurred. The two facilities
at Port Botany (ANL terminal and CTAL) have catered for between 55 an 59% of
the container traffic through Sydney in
the period 1982-86. It should be remembered that shipping lines have strong
affiliations with terminal operators so the range of choice in the use of
terminals is not completely free. Since the two Port Botany terminals were
fully operational (i.e. 1982) the proportion of the total container market has
remained fairly constant (i.e. 55 to 59%). If the proportion of the market did
increase to the 65% figure the increase on an annual basis of 400,000 TEUs
would be 23,000 TEUs.
In the case of Port Jackson the best indicator of yearly
fluctuations for Port Jackson is the Glebe Island container terminal
operations. Glebe Island container terminal operation has been in continuous
operation from 1972. The number of containers at Glebe Island has fluctuated
from a peak of 99,796 TEUs in 1978/9 to a low of 51,125 TEUs in 1983/4. This
figure has picked up in the past two years to an average figure of 86,263 TEUs.
The effect of the Port Botany terminals has been fully
established and yet approximately 40% of container throughput continues to use
the Port Jackson terminals of Glebe Island, Darling Harbour, Pyrmont and White
Bay and this is expected to continue. There are no estimates available on
future container traffic by the Ministry of Transport, or the Maritime Services
Board, for the period to the year 2000 for Port Botany or Port Jackson. However
contact with the terminal operators suggested that the estimated optimistic
growth was unlikely to exceed 2% per annum. Using a more realistic estimate,
terminal operators anticipated a throughput closet to the existing level of
operations for the foreseeable future (i.e. next 5 years).
-7-
Table A.1 also provides a comparison of actual container
traffic and the previous estimates. An estimate of future movements to 1989/90
was carried out for the Inquiry, but these are unlikely to be met if industry
estimates are taken as valid.
The substantial growth in container traffic attributed to
the growth in a new technology must now be seen as having been completed. The
growth in container traffic for the immediate future (i.e. to 1995) must be
viewed with a lot more pessimism that the Inquiry had The slowing down of the
Australian economy has resulted in a reduced level of imports which in turn has
reduced container movements. A lot of
existing container customers have learnt to be more economical with their
shipping and are packing more goods into containers thus reducing the total
number of movements.
There are potential increases in the ISO maximum weight of
containers which would allow greater weights if commodities to be moved and
hence reduce the numbers of container movements.
From the above remarks it is unlikely that a growth of 20% is likely to occur in the next ten years and the growth figures presented at the Inquiry for 1989/90 are likely to be considerably in excess of present estimates.
(iv) The Mode Split
for Port Jackson
From data supplied by the MSB as estimate of the mode split
for Port Jackson has been established.
All container movements to and from Pyrmont, Darling Harbour, and White Bay are road based. Only Glebe Island Terminal has a rail facility.
For the period 1982-1985 the Glebe Island Terminal was
responsible for a range of container movements varying from 47,225 TEUs in 1983
to 81,653 TEUs in 1985. The proportion of rail movements varied over the same
period from 16% in 1984 to 21% in 1982.
-8-
(v) The Mode Split
for Port Botany
The two container terminals at Port Botany are:
(i)
the ANL terminal, and
(ii)
the CTAL terminal.
Table A.2 provides a breakdown of container traffic of both
the above terminals and the mode used to move the container from the terminal
for the period 1982 to 1985 inclusive.
From this table it is apparent that there are fluctuations
in the amount of road and rail traffic for each of the Port Botany container
terminals. The ANL terminal fluctuated between 19% and 25% by rail whereas CTAL
fluctuated between 31% and 47% by rail.
When both terminals are considered collectively the average
rail haulage is approximately 26%. This figure is exactly the proportion of
rail haulage that the STSG predicted for the Free Market Case. However, it
should be remembered that there have been fluctuations in rail which have meant
that in some years and at one of the terminals the proportion of rail haulage
of containers has reached the level which is almost double the average. This
higher level of rail transport (i.e. 47%) is exactly the level predicted for
the Western Suburbs scheme.
In numerical terms the number of containers hauled by rail
may vary between 44,000 and 52,000 TEUs each year compared with the road hauled
range of 145,000 and 214,000 TEUs.
-9-
TABLE A.2: Port Botany Container Traffic By Mode
Year
|
ANL Terminal
|
CTAL Terminal
|
||||||
Road
|
Rail
|
Road
|
Rail
|
|||||
Rec.
|
Del.
|
Rec.
|
Del.
|
Rec.
|
Del.
|
Rec.
|
Del.
|
|
1982
|
38,440
|
65,784
|
14,097
|
11,567
|
18,449
|
23,290
|
12,087
|
7,397
|
Total
|
104,224
|
25,664
|
41,739
|
19,475
|
||||
1983
|
38,494
|
64,636
|
11,282
|
9,418
|
25,353
|
37,762
|
13,352
|
10,173
|
Total
|
103,130
|
20,700
|
63,115
|
23,525
|
||||
1984
|
47,631
|
75,226
|
13,689
|
10,246
|
32,058
|
50,644
|
14,664
|
10,995
|
Total
|
122,857
|
23,935
|
82,702
|
25,689
|
||||
1985
|
48,000
|
78,502
|
13,100
|
11,297
|
32,976
|
54,918
|
16,332
|
11,129
|
Total
|
126,502
|
24,397
|
87,894
|
27,461
|
||||
(vi) Truck Movements Generated
at Port Botany
From the information produced in Table A.2 it is apparent
that the road hauled containers to and from Port Botany vary from 145,000 and
214,000 TEUs each year. If these containers were delivered evenly on each of
the 5 working days of the 52 working weeks the daily truck movements would vary
from 558 to 823 trips to and from the Port. This range would assume that each
TEU is carried on a single unit and this is certainly not the case as many of
the articulated vehicles can carry two twenty foot containers. Obviously forty
foot containers must be carried on the articulated type of vehicle in order to
conform with the vehicle length restrictions.
The Inquiry suggested that each container generates an
average of 3.5 truck movements over a period of time which may be the case, but
at the terminal an empty truck arrives to pick up a container (whether FCL or
LCL) and leaves with the appropriate container. Once the container has left the
terminal it is most likely there will be a number of truck trips; to the
importer, taking the container to a container park, from the container park to
a depot, from the depot to the terminal.
-10-
Consequently the containers leave Port Botany and disperse
into the region en route to the relevant depots. In terms of the impact on the
road network in the South Western area an optimistic estimate of average daily
movements is 660 (based on 40% of trucks carrying 40 ft containers or two 20 ft
units and 823 containers per day). The idea of an even supply of containers
being received at the port or being dispatched after the vessel docking is most
unlikely. In the case of a large container vessel docking at the Port, the depositing
and loading of containers results in a peak activity which is substantially
greater than the average case.
At the ANL terminal, the largest vessel to dock is the MV
Akdate which has a capacity of 2400 TEUs and at Port Botany could discharge as
many as 900 TEUs and load as many as 500 TEUs. The minimum loading/unloading
period is dictated by the capacity of the three cranes (which is approximately
700 TEUs per day). A turnaround time of 48 hours is applicable for the Akdate,
so an optimistic estimate of 660 TEUs per day is applicable. If the Akdate was
docking at the ANL terminal it is unlikely a similar vessel will be at the CTAL
terminal. For the sake of example, if two such vessels were being loaded and
unloaded at the rate of 700 TEUs per day each approximately 2800 trips (1 tri
to and 1 trip from the terminals) would be generated.
These figures can be compared with a survey of the Port
Botany container terminals between September and November 1984 which identified
a range of road based containers varying from 1 to 982 container movements per
day (the mean throughput was 615 containers). From this survey it is apparent
that a vast range of container truck activity is being generated by Port
Botany. A single day’s survey (17th April 1985) identified 795
containers moving into and out of Port Botany and an estimated 175 containers
(22%) from Port Botany passing through Bexley.
(vii) Type of Vehicle
Used at Port Botany
The Inquiry estimated approximately 70% of container
vehicles being semi-trailers and this was borne out by inspection of the 1987
operations. The opportunity for containers to legitimately carry higher loads
in the future may mean that the use of semi-trailers even for single 20 ft
units would soon be mandatory. Consequently the existing proportion of
container vehicles being semi-trailers would seem likely to increase in the
future.
-11-
(viii) Peak Periods
for Container Trucks
A survey of container trucks was carried out by the
Department at Forest Road, Bexley in April, 1985 to establish the level of
container traffic in the south western suburbs of Sydney. This survey identified
two daily peaks; a morning peak between 9.00 and 11.00 am and an afternoon peak
between 1.00 and 2.00 pm. The absolute peak hour container truck activity was
72 trucks (two-way).
On a road such as Forest Road, Bexley the hour traffic flows can be in excess of 2000 vehicles per hour, so to put the above peak activity in perspective container trucks are less then 4% of the total vehicular traffic (or 1 vehicle in 25 might be a container truck).
From the Department surveys it was apparent that container
trucks operate in the morning peak hour traffic as the Port and other
generators of container activity are open from 7.30 am but close in the late
afternoon (4.00 pm or thereabouts). Consequently there is a decline in
container truck traffic after 3.00 pm on each weekday.
From surveys of the ANL and CTAL terminals it was noted that
peak truck traffic occurred in the period 7.30 am and 10.00 am. During this
period approximately 30% of daily truck traffic took place. However the
terminal surveys identified no substantial hourly variations in truck traffic between
7.00 am and 3.00 pm. After 3.00 pm there was very little road based deliveries
as consignees do not accept delivery (or collection) of containers after this
time. Hence, container trucks will be on the road on weekdays from between 7.00
am and 3.30 pm and it would take a significant restricting of the industry to
change that arrangement. There is very little weekend activity (except during
peak periods of container vessels).
-12-
The implications of the peak truck activity are as follows:
- Although container trucks are obvious by their size and design they do not constitute a substantial proportion of the total traffic flow.
- The existing truck activity does coincide with the morning peak hour so the operation of peak hour traffic will be hampered by large slower moving vehicles such as container trucks.
- The peak periods (i.e. 7.30 am - 4.00 pm) do not interfere with local residents sleep which might be the case if practices were changed.
- The peak truck activity will vary with the number of containers being loaded and unloaded at the port, which in turn is governed by the characteristics of each vessel (i.e. size, destination etc.)
- Port Botany is only one of many generators of container truck activity in the south-western suburbs and to alter the peak period traffic of this one source might not significantly alter the overall container truck traffic in other locations.
A.3 CONTAINER TRUCK
SURVEYS
As mentioned in section (vi) the surveys of container trucks at Port Botany indicated a substantial range of container traffic. The average daily container throughput was 615 containers and the average load per truck is 1.2 containers (from truck surveys) so the average truck traffic at Port Botany is approximately 515 trucks per day. From truck surveys at Port Botany and Bexley it was established that on two separate days (17/4/85 and 12/6/85) between 7.00 am and 5.30 pm, 464 and 243 container trucks were recorded in Forest Road, Bexley. Of these trucks 175 (38%) and 101 (42%) respectively were estimated to have origins or destinations at Port Botany.
-13-
The implications of such surveys and analysis would appear
to be that even if the Port Botany container trucks use a new road such as the
South Western Freeway I is possible that as much as 60% of container traffic
would still permeate the area using the existing road system.
The number of non-port related container movements is explained by the movement of empty containers, the movement of railway based containers (i.e. from rail freight yards) and the movement of containers between freight forwarders.
A.4 STATE GOVERNMENT
POLICY ON TRUCK ROUTES
The Traffic Authority of New South Wales as the responsible government department does no have a system of truck routes established for Sydney or other areas of New South Wales. When contacted, officers od the Traffic Authority (TA) said that there is no intention at this stage to implement truck routes (i.e. routes which are specifically designated for truck use). Their suggestion for truck routing was that under the Sydney Road Hierarchy Plan (published by the Traffic Authority) all roads designated “Arterial” and “Sub-Arterial” are suitable for the passage of heavy vehicles. This arrangement is a “de facto” truck route system but perhaps not that the pubic are expecting.
If the provision of a designated and signed truck route does not appear likely, there is the opportunity that the Road transport Association could be contacted by the Department and the TA to suggest that trucks destined for the Port should adhere to specific routes. The technique of identifying suitable routes for regular journeys has worked successfully for road-borne coal haulage in both Newcastle and Wollongong. These two examples are relevant as coal trucks are another instance of highly visible road haulage operations which have perceived environmental impact on land uses adjacent to the roads concerned.
-14-
A.5 MINISTRY POLICY
ON FREIGHT TRANSPORT
The Minister of Transport does not have a well defined written policy on the transport of containers but elements of the policy include:
(i) Compulsory Railing of Containers
The Ministry of Transport had a policy of trying to deregulate the transport industry by not putting barriers in the way of the road or rail freight network. The Ministry is aware that the railways are creating a market for themselves hauling containers (and other commodities) for longer distances. The Ministry is trying to create an arena of complementary transport rather than competition over the same market.
(i) Road Development
The Ministry of Transport is in favour of the development of new roads such as the F5, as it would provide a properly designed road to accommodate the movement of freight to and from destinations like Port Botany.
(ii) Dangerous Goods
The DEP identified the scale of dangerous goods road traffic and the Dangerous Goods Group (Department of Industrial Relations) is responsible for the issuing of licences (for both vehicles and drivers) which indicates that vehicles, and drivers, are being regulated. An Australian Standard had been recently developed to accommodate the design of vehicles for the cartage of hazardous and corrosive goods. As far as the Ministry of Transport is concerned, the provision of better designed roads can only help the safety of road-borne freight.
-15-
A.6 UNION INVOLVEMENT
IN CONTAINER TRANSPORT
Basically there are two groups of unions involved in the transport of containers.
The Transport Workers Union, representing the road trucking industry expressed a policy of opposition to the compulsory railing of containers. The TWU was quick to see that compulsory railing would reduce the work available for their members and had a resolution moved and seconded which contained the following remarks:
“We say again to the NSW
Government any form of compulsion will not now of ever will be tolerated by the
Transport Workers’ Union, NSW Branch”.
The above statement was fairly succinct and this policy has not changed since the date of the resolution (4th March 1982). This resolution is supported by the Waterside Workers Federation.
The Federated Clerks Union and the Federated Storemen and Packers Union are both in favour of the compulsory railing of containers, as it would provide greater job opportunities and security for their members.
The conflict between the two groups resulted in a “work ban” on the movement of containers between Port Botany and the depots at Chullora, Villawood and Alexandria in 1982. This was resolved by the State Government by postponing the policy of compulsory railing of containers.
It was interesting to note the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemens Association did not take a firm stance on the compulsory railing of containers.
A.7 SUCCESS IN IMPLEMENTING COMPULSORY RAILING OF CONTAINERS
After the findings of the Kirby Report, the then Minister for Transport Mr P. Cox, forwarded advice to the Premier on the 19th October 1981 which suggested the following:
-16-
- The compulsory railing scheme is not practicable in terms of enforcement or industrial relations; as well it increases the cost of transport for those using Port Botany and Glebe Island.
- There are no opportunities for rail subsidies for rail haulage of Western Suburbs Full Container Loads. The main cost penalties were expected to be in the cost of double handling at the depots as well as increased delays.
- It was suggested that even free rail haulage would only induce a small transfer to rail.
- A truck levy would require such a penalty to truck haulage so as to penalize Sydney port operations to such an extent that would threaten the port’s success.
The above remarks were provided, but on the 9th
February 1982 Cabinet decided to introduce a compulsory railing scheme for FCL
containers between Port Botany and depots at Villawood and Chullora (in keeping
with the Kirby recommendations).
As soon as such proposals were announced the Transport Workers Union (with the support of the Waterside Workers Federation) imposed a two week ban on the handling of containers destined for the depots at Chullora, Villawood and Alexandria. The action brought the container industry almost to a complete standstill and was imposed because the TWU anticipated that the carriage of containers by rail would threaten the security of their membership.
After a meeting on 3rd March 1982 the Government postponed the policy of compulsory railing of containers due to the industrial conflict that was operating. Chamber of Commerce representatives, acting on behalf of various sectors of the container handling industry, also tried hard to influence the Government against the compulsory rail transport of containers. The Chamber of Commerce wanted to explore the operation of a voluntary railing scheme but, despite attempts by the Chamber and industry representatives, a satisfactory voluntary railing scheme did not eventuate.
-17-
At the time of the Kirby Inquiry a number of significant
organisations were opposed to anything but the free market case. The
organisations included the Maritime Services Board, ANL, CTAL, Glebe Island Terminals
Pty Ltd, Liner Services Pty Ltd, the Australian Chamber of Shipping and the New
South Wales Road Transport Association. There is no reason to believe that the
views of these organisations have changed with the passage of time.
As very few organisations are in favour of the compulsory railing, it is postulated that such a concept would not be accepted favourably today.
A.8 THE SRA POINT OF VIEW ON RAILING CONTAINERS
If the answer to the problem of environmental intrusion is the railing of containers to outer metropolitan depots then the SRA would be responsible for such a task. The SRA already provide rail freight facilities for the transporting of containers. The existing SRA operation involves the hauling of full train loads of containers between Port Botany and various depots. In addition to the rail hauling of containers to local depots there are full trainloads to interstate destinations such as Melbourne and Brisbane.
The SRA Rail Freight Manager suggested that the SRA would prefer to transport full trainloads of containers from Port Botany for long distances rather than short trips. It had not been said but it would appear from conversations with SRA officers that the breakeven freight distance is in excess of 50 km. On journeys less than 50 km, the loading and unloading time is more than the travel time, which must lead to inefficiencies and inability to compete with road transport. The rail distance between Port Botany and Chullora is approximately 15 km, which could suggest that to transport containers this sort of distance by rail would be uneconomic.
The idea of heavier containers would cause problems to the SRA. At present its flat top wagons can accept four 20 ft containers or two 40 ft units. If the SRA wanted this practice to continue then it would be necessary to increase the carrying capacity of the rolling stock, with resulting substantial capital investment in new wagons.
-18-
The SRA would not like to see the regulatory control of
container movements for its freight market but would like to provide
complementary services with road haulage with a better market image.
If the rail container traffic from Port Botany was to
increase there would be a need to upgrade the Botany Goods Railway Line (BGRL),
which still has at least one at-grade level crossing.
The SRA has no proposals to upgrade BGRL as there are other railway issues in the area to be resolved, such as the Very Fast Train (VFT) and a railway link to Sydney Airport. A report by consultants suggested that the most efficient public transport connection for Sydney Airport would be a shuttle bus service, which does appear to be very successful at present.
A.9 PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS ON TRANSPORT ISSUES SINCE THE INQUIRY
From inquiries to the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Transport it was established that, although the Kirby Inquiry attracted over 1500 submissions, the level of subsequent activity has dropped to a relatively small number.
The main source of comment relating to transport since the Kirby Inquiry had been the efforts of the Botany Bay CAC (Chairman Hans Westerman, School of Town Planning at UNSW). The main topics continually raised by BBCAC are:
- the Kirby Report – hopes raised but no action
- no resolution to the establishment of truck routes
- no resolution to the carriage of dangerous goods
- no resolution to the problem of railing containers.
The Minister has received submissions on road freight issues
since the Kirby Report was published, but the level of interest in the solution
of transport problems in the South-West of Sydney has been sporadic.
-19-
B. CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION
Volumes II and III of the Inquiry report contain a great deal of comment on the methodology used in assessing the “worth” of the options proposed.
Much of the material produced in these two volumes would appear to be the Commissioner, or his staff, showing the reader and the public at large that there was a level of understanding of the components of highway planning and environmental impact assessment. As far as future road schemes are concerned, the relevance of these two volumes has been a “user-friendly” handbook on the components of road planning (and how to criticise it).
Rather than discuss the individual compenents of each volume the contents pages of the two volumes have been reproduced in Appendix A. There is very little public comment on the criteria but more a strp by step logic in the thinking of the Commissioner (it is assumed). The section headings, and sub-headings, provide a comprehensive checklist for future highway planning in Sydney. For major schemes, such as F5, these issues may need to be addressed as part of the exhibition of an EIS.
It should be remembered that some of the senior officers of the Department still involved in highway planning (e.g. Dobinson, Bliss) are quoted liberally in the documents.
-20-
C. THE OPTIONS
A set of options were put before the Inquiry which were designed to cater for the following needs:
(i)
the growth of commuter traffic (i.e. journey to
work trips)
(ii)
truck traffic, specifically container truck
traffic from Port Botany.
The following road options were proposed:
- The Cooks River Option - along the Cooks River Valley
- The Bexley Road Option – of which there were two sub-options, namely:
- The Bestic Street/Villiers Street, Rockdale alternative- The Bay Street/Harrow Road, Rockdale alternative
- The South-Western Option – along the Wolli Creek Valley.
The Inquiry was critical of the lack of options which used
the existing road system (with spot improvements). The most frequent suggestion
by the public was that public transport
would appear a viable alternative for the commuter traffic so perhaps a public
transport option should have been included, if only as a part solution (as
trucks are not catered for).
As the Inquiry progressed it was suggested that a revised alignment of the South-Western option should be considered. A set of drawings, and associated material, was produced during the Inquiry proceedings. Some, namely the DEP, thought that the revised alignment was “only marginally better than the original design” but the Inquiry was impressed by the improvements made.
The main options are discussed hereafter and as the future F5 is likely to be using a corridor similar to the South-Western Freeway corridor, this option is discussed in more detail in terms of environmental impact.
-21-
C.1 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE OPTIONS
The Inquiry produced a report which discussed a considerable amount of philosophy regarding environmental impact and the need for transport improvements before any transport solutions were discussed.
The report suggested that the existing Metropolitan road system would continue to function and be able to cope even if the Department did nothing, but then went on to list a series of negatives of the existing transport process such as:
(i)
new roads increase travel rather than reduce it
– providing a good quality road link could easily allow the generation of
latent trips (i.e. those that would not be made without the new link in place).
This sort of logic infers that governments should not build roads as it
encourages movement (would the same argument be used against other government
works such as education, health or housing?)
(ii)
new roads tend to increase trip length – if the
road is located in an efficient location it is quite likely that trip lengths
could be significantly shorter
(iii)
new roads tend to encourage people to desert
public transport in favour of their cars – this is certainly true and will
continue to be so unless operating costs escalate drastically or trip-end
characteristics (i.e. parking) change for the study area, which is unlikely.
This argument is based on the concept that the road is built for commuters alone.
Obviously roads are also used for commercial trips which are not easily catered
for by public transport
(iv)
new roads encourage the expansion of the urban
fringe. Such an argument is quite true but in the instance of the study area
the urban fringe has already expanded. The planning authorities have already
identified areas for residential expansion. Unfortunately the location of home
and job are not always adjacent which encourages trip making and the location
of industry is not solely related to the proximity of the workforce.
-22-
(v)
new roads encourages growth in a directions
[sic] which ought to be discouraged. The availability of land suitable for
residential and industrial development is restricted in the Sydney metropolitan
area. These constraints along with utility available and transport links are
considered in the identification of new growth areas. These growth areas have
already been identified by the planning authorities. The Department of Main
Roads is only responding to the needs of the growth community. The above
argument assumes that growth is not planned and takes place in a haphazard
manner.
The above philosophies question the Department’s logic in suggesting road options. The Department’s attitude to congestion (i.e. in general demand for travel should be met by a supply) was discussed. Firstly, a discrepancy between demand and existing capacity is an indicator of future congestion. Secondly, where there is a discrepancy in supply should that discrepancy be answered by:
(i)
a transport solution – a new road, road
improvement, or traffic management scheme
(ii)
a public transport solution
(iii)
a land use solution.
The Inquiry questioned the Department’s logic of building roads only to have them filled up by motorists. An example of the CBD is not really valid where trip end constraints are likely, public transport networks already operate and there is no large scale commercial trip operation.
The Inquiry suggested that if a land use solution and a public transport solution have been eliminated, a transport solution is appropriate, but the following questions need to be answered:
-23-
- is the need pressing (compared with other Metropolitan needs)?
- if there is a need, is the solution disproportionate in cost to the problem?
- if the problem is a local one, should large amounts of funds be spent on it?
- are there cheaper ways of solving the problem?
The Inquiry thought that a range of solutions should have
been examined, not just the three road construction solutions (discussed
below).
C.2 THE COOKS RIVER OPTION
The Cooks River Route (CRR) was established in 1951 and was known as the Kyeemagh-Chullora Road which followed a route along the Cooks River Valley.
The initial route involved a proposed freeway which in 1977 was estimated to cost $88M. This amount was thought to be too expensive so a major arterial route was later proposed with at grade intersections.
The route contained two variations:
(i)
the ‘minimum property affect’ alignment ($50M),
and
(ii)
the ‘maximum open space’ alignment option
($51M).
Apart from the two alignments there was the topic of the eastern terminus of the route which was depicted on plan as the junction of Tancred Avenue and General Holmes Drive.
The need for the Cooks River Route was based on “the transport in Marrickville and Ashfield” and the ability to “fill a gap in the arterial road network”.
-25-
C.3 BEXLEY ROAD
The Bexley Road option involved a relatively low cost solution using the by-passes of Rockdale and Campsie connected by a link between these two destinations. The link between the two by-passes encompasses the Bexley North shopping centre and would pass through the Bardwell Valley and Wolli Creek Valley.
The Inquiry saw this route as the most unacceptable for the following reasons.
Bexley Road (and its adjacent areas) have rolling grades which are unsuitable for heavy vehicles in operational and safety terms. Bexley Road has many adjacent residential and educational land uses.
Many of the schools objected to the Bexley Road proposal (see list on p. 181 of Vol. IV) as well as the Department of Education. Substantial increases in the traffic would take place on Bexley Road including the shopping centre.
The Bexley Road proposal would mean substantial changes to the traffic on Bexley Road itself but would not contribute to other routes in the Study Area. The only location of traffic relief would have been Beamish Street, Campsie and the Rockdale shopping centre, whereas many areas suffered from increased congestion as a result of constructing the road.
Bexley Chamber of Commerce (BCC) made submissions to the Inquiry, both the individual members and a group, and the tone of their comment was the poor conditions of the existing centre and increased traffic would make trading impossible. From these comments it could be construed that a reduction in traffic would have the approval of the BCC.
The Bexley Road scheme was opposed by four Councils; Rockdale, Canterbury, Kogarah and Hurstville and large numbers of local residents objected to the Bestic Street/Villiers Street alignment.
In general the Bexley Road option was objected to on
a number of grounds which included the following:
-26-
(i) it did not provide a major role in transportation terms i.e. did not relieve congestion. In fact it aggravated it in some instances.(ii) it did not provide better levels of accessibility to the Central Industrial Area and the Port;(iii) it increased in traffic levels on Bexley Road(iv) acquisitions (both full and partial) were substantial(v) noise and air pollution(vi) no group appeared to benefit from the road.
The option did produce a BCR of approximately 1.5 but Prof.
Beesley suggested that a BCR of 2 was applicable in South Australia as a
suitable basis for economic investment.
C.4 THE SOUTH WESTERN (FREEWAY) OPTION
The South Western Freeway option was a problem to the Inquiry as the section to the east of King Georges Road (Beverly Hills to Tempe) was in the study area but the section west of King Georges Road (Beverly Hills to Campbelltown) was covered by the Terms of Reference but was not subject to the public participation programme.
The major focus of the Inquiry was in the section of the road from Beverly Hills to Tempe.
The option as described by the Department was a two stage option:
Stage 1 – a two lane road (one side of a two lane dual carriageway) operating without medians.
Stage 2 – both sides of a dual two lane carriageway in operation with a central median.
-27-
The Inquiry questioned the lack of alternative alignments
proposed by the Department. The Inquiry asked if the road could not be placed
alongside the railway line (as close as possible).
During the Inquiry a revised alignment was produced which reduced the impact of the road on a number of significant locations , i.e. the stone terraces in Jackson Place, Earlwood, the sandstone cliffs in Undercliffe area, and the Wolli Creek. Even with the revised alignment the Inquiry thought “the devastation to the valley would still be considerable”.
The Inquiry favoured the “eastern” carriageway alignment if the road was to be constructed rather than the “western” alignment on the “western” side of the valley.
N.B. In true geographic terms “eastern” means southern and “western” means northern.
The Inquiry criticized the South Western Freeway for a
number of potential implications which are summarized below:
(i)
South Western Freeway is radial in orientation,
which was against the URTAC principles set out in 1976, which favoured
circumferential routes
(ii)
South Western Freeway would accentuate the
attraction of Sydney’s CBD for special services relative to competing centres such as Hurstville
and Bankstown (it also violates the
URTAC philosophy to direct growth away from the CBD)
(iii)
South Western Freeway would accentuate Central
Idusrtial Area’s attraction
(iv)
South Western Freeway would encourage longer
journeys (derived from the traffic modelling exercise)
(v)
South Western Freeway will allow greater
corridor capacity in a corridor that the Inquiry thought should be discouraged
(vi)
South Western Freeway would be in direct
competition with the East Hills railway line for passengers
-28-
(vii)
South Western Freeway does not provide a
solution to an immediate problem but a solution to a long term problem
(viii)
South Western Freeway does not phase easily
“limited opportunity to construct idependent and usable stages” and does not
produce early benefit
(ix)
the maximum BCR is 1.5 – the Inquiry questioned
the cost estimates which could have resulted in a reduced value. In addition,
the trip tables included population growth in the South-West which the Inquiry
did not believe would take place.
(x)
the number of dwellings demolished (113 to 158
depending on the option selected)
(xi)
the grave effects of the route on the Wolli
Creek Valley (“an area where children and adults can experience nature without
being confronted by the fingerprints of man”)
(xii)
the level of visual intrusion of the route in
the area between Turrella and Bexley North. The Inquiry thought that the South
Western Freeway option was the worst of the three options in terms of visual
intrusion.
(xiii)
the amount of open space lost (36 ha) both in
terms of quantity and quality.
The Inquiry favoured the following course of action: that “the corridor (to the east of King Georges Road, and at least as far as the Princes Highway) may be released”. Later in the report the following recommendations were made:
(i) “The Inquiry recommends against this (SWF) option
(ii) rather than spend money on one major project it would be more efficient and effective to spend money on spot improvements
-29-
(iii) implement a road hierarchy at the same time as SCATS
(iv) produce a network of truck routes as part of the road hierarchy after consultation with local councils and trucking organisations.”
The Inquiry suggested that if the Government was to decide to construct the route a number of features should be included (see Section C.9 for details).
C.5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR SWF
As the South Western Freeway proposal is similar to the latest preferred option, some of the comments on the economic performance of the South Western Freeway are set down below.
The Inquiry questioned the accuracy of the costs (i.e. understated) and the exclusion of such costs as relocation costs, loss of profits for relocated businesses, etc. The estimate of property values should be based on recent sales in the immediate area and not general costing.
The Inquiry made reference to the “solatium” (compensation payment) covered by the E.P. and A. Act (5.116) which would, it was suggested, add another 20% to cost estimates.
In addition the monetary effects of the road drawing patronage from the railway was not considered.
Finally the perennial discussion topic of the value of open space was mentioned and came out in favour of the use of opportunity cost rather than a value estimate for open space land. A comment by the Inquiry on the need to standardise all costings to the same reference date was made.
A discount rate of 10% was used (although sensitivity tests at 7% and 15% were also used).
-30-
Much of the evidence focused on
various values, base dates and … [missing text]... that was out of phase.
The Joint Study Report produced a BCR of 1.16 for the South Western Freeway and as the Inquiry thought the costs were underestimated a revised estimate of CBR of 0.95 was suggested by the Inquiry. Prof. Beesley quoted a S.A. standard of a minimum CBR of 2 for urban arterial roads and said “the eastern part of the South Western Freeway and Cooks River Options would be highly doubtful investments in (benefit/cost) terms when measured correctly”.
The idea of poor economic performance was supported by M. Conroy (DEP) and Peterson (STSG).
The conclusions drawn from the Inquiry were based on the concept that “a scheme which significantly affects the environment must yield ‘high economic or other benefits’.”
C.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE SOUTH WESTERN FREEWAY
It was appreciated by the Inquiry that the road would be constructed in parts (or phases) but the environmental impact was discussed as a total entity.
The Inquiry was primarily concerned with the route east of King Georges Road which resulted in a bias of responses for that area. The Crown Lands Office saw the route as inevitable and as such what any evaluation was misleading. The Inquiry assumed that the freeway would be dual 3 lanes with a median but it criticized the Department for not providing a model (visual of the scheme).
The use of the railway easement in part was suggested by Rockdale Council as a means of reducing the impact of the route (and not effecting the operation of the railway) but then disowned the idea when the additional noise to residents on the eastern side of the valley was considered.
-31-
The Inquiry focused on a number of
environmental impact issues which are as follows:
(i) Displacement of people and property(ii) Accidents(iii) Severance(iv) Noise(v) Air pollution(vi) Ecological consequences(vii) Visual intrusion(viii) Open Space
(a)
Displacement
of People and Property
Between 113 and 158 dwellings were to be demolished including a row of stone houses Jackson Place, Earlwood which could have some historical significance (not included on the most recently published National Trust or Heritage Lists). The aforementioned figure of dwellings demolished could drop to 73 if the Macquarie Road spur is dropped and if changes in the alignment were made. The Community Resources Centre of Bardwell Park made a plea on behalf of the low income people who would be displaced.
(b) Accidents
The Inquiry was adamant about the inclusion of a median in the road for safety reasons. The simple modelling that went on for the route identified that accident costs would go up on the new road compared with the existing road network but this is assumed to be as a result of increased vehicle miles rather than increased accident rates. The Commissioner was keen to identify the need for feeder roads to the Freeway to be upgraded in order to cope with additional traffic and reduce accident potential. (The additional costs of upgrading these feeder roads were not included in the benefit/cost analysis.)
-32-
(c)
Severance
The three areas of potential severance are:
(i) Tancred Avenue, Kyeemagh between General Holmes Drive and Undercliffe
(ii) Between Turrella and Kingsgrove Road, (Wolli Creek Valley)
(iii) The section between Kinsgrove and King Georges Road, especially in the area of Coolangatta Road, Beverly Hills.
Under existing proposals area (i) above would not be constructed. The area of the Wolli Creek
Valley (area (ii) above) is already
a community boundary. The Arncliffe Progress Association (APA) admitted that
“Socially the south-west option (SWF) would have much less impact that
alternative road options”. The Department of Education, commenting in relation
to schools and their drawing areas said “Cooks River routes and South Western
routes were accepted as causing the least amount of interference at schools
located on route in terms of school sites
involved and their pupil drawing areas”.
The Inquiry accepted that as far as the Wolli Creek Valley is concerned between Turrella and Kingsgrove the social impact is minimised except for some pedestrian trails near Turrella Station, Bexley Road and Kingsgrove Road.
At Turrella Station the Inquiry thought some pedestrian linkage was necessary but one resident (Taylor) plus the APA thought the embankment plus footbridge would involve much pedestrian effort to climb.
The area ((iii) above) would suffer severance by the closing of Coolangatta Road. The Beverly Hills Progress Association (BHPA) objected on the basis of increased travel distance (an estimated additional 3600km per annum). John Bliss said in evidence that Hurstville Council would like the road closed. The Inquiry thought that pedestrian access across the freeway corridor should be maintained at Coolangatta Road. The closure of the road was a matter that the Inquiry thought should be discussed with the community, including BHPA.
-33-
(d)
Noise
The Inquiry acknowledged that in the Wolli Creek area that the valley might act as an amphitheatre but the valley already contained the railway line which is a source of noise. The distance between residences and the road would allow attenuation especially if natural surfaces were used. In addition the free flowing nature of the traffic and the shallow grades would reduce the noise generation. The Beverly Hills North P&C complained if the existing (and future) noise levels in the school.
The Inquiry concluded that the SWF would induce more travel on the road network so that the net effect would be more traffic and hence more noise.
(e)
Air
pollution
The distance between residences and the road help to diffuse the pollutants but the remaining open space would be less attractive. The Community Resources Centre at Bardwell Park suggested that the Wolli Creek would act as a funnel for pollutants. Arnett from Marrickville Council suggested that the Wolli Creek Valley would become an air pollution reservoir.
(f) Ecological consequences
The Inquiry looked at the following areas of interest:
(i) the nature of the area(ii) the value to the community(iii) change due to road construction
-34-
(i) The Nature of the Area
The Arncliffe Progress Association was critical of the value of the Wolli Creek Valley commenting on the run-off problems, sewerage discharge points, the lantana and the existing devastation (by trail bikes). The Inquiry in its “views” were impressed by the sandstone cliffs, rock outcrops and the bush trails. The National Trust summarised a number of individual submissions by noting that “the intrinsic qualities of bushland give it a high educational, scenic and recreational value.” The bushland is rare in the area and the Joint Study Report acknowledged this by the following comments: “The scarcity of such bushland in densely populated areas increases its value to the local community.” “This buhland provides a habitat to over 90 species of native birds plus introduced species.”
(ii) Value to the Community
From the above comments the value has already been expressed. St George Labour Group, the Riverview Road, Earlwood Community Action Committee and other residents and workers gave evidence to the value and existing use of the Wolli Creek Valley.
(iii) Change due to Road Construction
The Joint Study Report identified the outcome of the construction by suggesting that “(the area) would require extensive cut and fill in order to minimize the length of road on structure”. “The creek would require realignment in several places, causing the natural features to be lost.” Much of the sandstone cliffs would be lost whih is summarised by the Joint Study Report as “causing the natural features to be lost”. The Inquiry suggested that “the original alignment would devastate the valley. The altered alignment had some improvement but the DEP identified the impact of the route near the railway line of disturbing the “important marshlands and wetlands.”
(g)
Visual
Intrusion
The Inquiry identified the impact that a road on structure would have on the local area. Comments in the Inquiry report such as “The structure would be visible far and wide… … some people would find this offensive. Others would find it visually attractive. It (visual intrusion) is not regarded by the Inquiry as a serious impediment to the South Western Route”.
-35-
(h)
Open
Space
The South Western Freeway option consumed 36 ha (89 acres) of open space. The Inquiry identified that the quality of open space was important as well as the quantity and that even the area west of Bexley Road could have been more attractive had it not been blighted by the presence of the road corridor. The Crown Lands office advocated the compensation to the community for loss of space by the Department. The compensation could be in the form of additional open space such as reserves which could be separate or joined to existing facilities. The Cooks River Advisory Committee advocated a similar compensation. The DEP suggested an area that could be provided as open space locked-in by the Cooks River Route.
In summation of the environmental impact of the South Western Freeway a number of remarks contained in the Inquiry report are worthy of repeating:
“We have been charmed by the Wolli Creek Valley and especially that part between Undercliffe and Bexley North. Much of it (and especially the sandstone cliffs) must be counted a precious part of our national heritage. In our judgement the consideration of any option involving the destruction of these cliffs should be excluded.”
“…this area is the last remnant of natural vegetation in an area of intensive urbanization makes it more imperative that it should be preserved.”
“It has not been established that there is no prudent or feasible alternative. We are not persuaded that a series of rather more specific projects, aimed at particular problems (such as the Bexley Shopping Centre) may not be far more effective. Such a programme would not carry with it the unfortunate land-use consequence which rule out the South Western Freeway.”
C.7 PUBLIC TRANSPORT ALTERNATIVE
The Inquiry suggested that the public was not given an explanation of why public transport was not given a greater emphasis to meet to transport requirements of the study area. The Joint Study Report failed to address the issue and the public felt uninformed as to the feasibility of a public transport alternative.
-36-
The use of an upgraded Botany Goods Line as an alternative source of public transport was not discussed at the Inquiry (but was mentioned). The Inquiry stated the following: “If there is a need for a road, it is created by trucks and their accessibility demands and not the clamour of commuters journeying to work. Therefore, a passenger service by public transport does not arise as an alternative”.
From the above comments it is obvious that in any future road proposal local people will want to see the public transport argument discussed and the reasons why such an alternative is not viable.
C.8 INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SOUTH WESTERN FREEWAY
In Inquiry recommended against the adoption of this option. It suggested that spot improvements (e.g. intersection widening, turning lanes, road widening, reconstructing shopping centres away from main roads) be carried out as an alternative to the South Western Freeway. In addition a road hierarchy and the SCATS system be implemented in the area (both now complete) as well as a truck route network be established (see separate notes (in A4 above).
A separate section on the recommendation of the road is adopted follows [sic].
C.9 IF THE SOUTH WESTERN FREEWAY OPTION IS ADOPTED
The Inquiry provided a number of provisos if the recommendation for the road not to go ahead was overruled. The road should include the following features:
- The southern alignment – the link to General Holmes Drive – should not be pursued
- The route should proceed to the north of the airport with access to the Port still provided. The precise alignment of the route would require extensive study
-37-
- the spur into Carrington Road should be abandoned
- the spur into Riverview Road, Earlwood should be abandoned
- there should be a pedestrian underpass at Turrella Station
- the route should follow the altered alignment
- the possibility of improving the altered alignment should be pursued. In particular a lower standard of road and one which takes advantage of the railway easement should be considered
- consideration of a pedestrian tunnel through the embankment in the section between Bexley Road and Kingsgrove Road should be investigated
- a tunnel for pedestrians should be constructed at Coolangatta Road. The vehicle access issue should be the subject of a community survey
- the road should be constructed with a median
- there should be a landscape plan which would be the joint responsibility of the Department and the DEP, Local Councils and community groups should be consulted
- a number of ameliorative measures such as earth berms, noise insulation, pedestrian facilities, conversion of remnant areas of open space to parks and gardens.
-38-
D. CONCLUSIONS
As a result of reading the four volumes of the Inquiry Report of the Kyeemagh-Chullora Road Inquiry and discussions with public authorities the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The Inquiry received over 1500 submissions from the planning authorities, affected public bodies and local residents which gave it an insight into the transport related problems of the South-Western Area of Metropolitan Sydney.
2. The Inquiry really focused on two major areas of activity:
(i) Container Movements(ii) Road Options in the South-West
3. As far as container movements are concerned the following conclusions are appropriate:
(i) both Port botany container terminals are now open and operational (which was not the case at the time of the Inquiry);
(ii) the recommended strategy of the Inquiry to compulsory rail containers to and from the port did not go ahead. This strategy did not meet with the approval of the various Unions involved;
(iii) the volume of container traffic was basically as projected to the mid 1980s but future growth is likely to be limited;
(iv) the growth of Port Botany has not been at the expense of other Sydney container terminals they have continued to flourish;
(v) containers have been transported to and from Port Botany by rail (9-25%p.a.);
-39-
(vi) road movements of containers continue to operate at significant levels but the evidence suggests that Port Botany containers are distributed throughout the Metropolitan Area rather than being focused on the South West. (Approximately 40% could pass through the South-West);
(vii) there is a relatively high occurrence of semi-trailers and dog trailers used in container road haulage. This could reduce in the future if greater weights of containers are allowed;
(viii) the morning peak hour traffic coincides with road based container traffic but the evening peak period is not an attractive time for road based container movements;
(ix) the State Government does not have a separate policy on container movements or on the provision of truck routes;
(x) the SRA are not keen on the idea of compulsory railing of containers for relatively short distances;
(xi) there has not been a great deal of public protest in the container transport issue since the Inquiry.
(xii) the criteria for evaluating the future road proposal have not altered since the late 1970s. The Inquiry does provide a comprehensive checklist of impacts to be addressed.(xiii) three main options were considered in the Inquiry. The South-Western option was contained basically within the Country Road corridor which has been gazette for some considerable time (early 1950s).
(xiv) the options included the Cooks River route and the Bexley Road option which are still on the Departments list of works to be considered for the future.
-40-
(xv) the Inquiry made a great deal of emphasis on the increased use of private transport, increased areas of urban development without these arguments being substantiated.
(xvi) public transport options were not considered in the supportive material and the Inquiry suggested that more work should be carried out on this topic.
(xvii) none of the road options faired particularly well as far as BCR was concerned. (South-Western Freeway = 1.5)
(xviii) the South Western Freeway would have a number of environmental impacts but the loss of the Wolli Creek Valley environment was the most significant.
(xix) The Inquiry recommended using the area adjacent to the railway corridor.
(xx) The Inquiry provided a list of requirements that should be met if the South-Western Freeway was constructed and it would be likely that under todays scheme these conditions could be met.
(xxi) The Inquiry provided an in-depth investigation into transport options in a metropolitan area that is unlikely to be repeated for a long time to come. However many of the areas of investigation and consequently the findings would be relevant to a road proposal instigated today.
-the end-
