OPINION: Transport impacts of renewal not assessed

THE draft Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy presents what appears to be  highly desirable upgrades for our city’s public spaces and buildings.

Artists’ impressions paint an inviting picture. Who wouldn’t want what’s on offer? 

Vistas of newly refurbished squares and parks such as Wheeler Place and Birdwood Park. A restored Victoria Theatre and sympathetically redesigned Stegga’s Emporium. Cafes, boutique bars, shops and lively small businesses. Attractive new housing developments catering for the full range of residents from urban professionals to students and those on low incomes?  

We are also told the strategy is based on low car use, the provision of frequent and reliable public transport as well as generous provision for cyclists and pedestrians.  

The success of the draft strategy relies on the coming together of “stakeholder” groups, including state government, local government, the private sector and the community. Newcastle residents will be watching closely to see whether we really can have a Hunter Street that is vibrant and welcoming with activity nodes along its length, well-planned cycleways, affordable housing and environmentally sustainable developments.

They will also be keen to be involved and to have their contributions heard and acted upon. 

Yet this document will become a legislative framework that will, in practice, remove most of the elected council’s powers to plan for the city centre once it is finalised.

Despite pre-election promises, the O’Farrell government is actually accelerating the removal of local council and community power to engage in planning negotiations once planning instruments are adopted by them.

This draft strategy is a first step in that process. Once the  consultation period is over, Newcastle residents will get no further input. 

Apart from objecting to the state government robbing us of our planning rights, one of the first questions we need to ask is, “How will we pay for all this?”  

The strategy estimates the cost of the  upgrades to parks, plazas and public buildings to be around $58million. Newcastle City Council’s  financial status does not allow such large outlays, so we will have to raise it from developer contributions (known as Section 94A contributions).

Those contributions won’t flow in time to make those upgrades feasible, especially given  the draft strategy also recommends  council delays collecting that money from developers.

Indeed, the draft strategy is heavily reliant on hypothetical developments, which may or may not eventuate. 

On the other hand, the state government’s Hunter Investment and Infrastructure Fund will provide $60million towards closing the  safe and reliable rail transport into the city centre.

That money would be just enough to cover most of the public upgrades recommended by the draft strategy, but will provide less than 20per cent of funds required to  close the rail. 

The only thorough-going analysis so far of the feasibility and cost estimates of closing the rail line at Wickham has been provided by a study commissioned by the previous state government.

The AECOM study, published in 2010, estimated the cost of safely removing the railway to be somewhere between $374.5million and $504.5million . 

The draft strategy also insists that public transport is key to successful revitalisation.

Indeed, mixed-use developments in the East End  are slated to have lower requirements for car-parking spaces because of the anticipated resurgence of demand for public transport.  

So the second question we have to ask is: “What public transport?” Especially given the decision to close the rail line at Wickham and replace it with buses. 

Closure of the  line at Wickham will not only cost taxpayers dearly and cause major problems for thousands of public transport users, it will also mean significant disruptions to parts of the city away from the centre.

The most feasible method of cutting the rail line at Wickham, according to the AECOM study, would require the closure of both the Beaumont Street and Railway Street level crossings at Hamilton and Wickham . 

A closed level crossing at Beaumont Street will have deleterious effects on Hamilton businesses, to say nothing of inconvenience to nearby residents.

The alternative would be to stop all trains from Sydney at Broadmeadow,  disrupting smooth connection between the Maitland line and the Newcastle-Sydney line.

Neither option is public-transport friendly. 

The strategy document mentions no plans to increase the number of available buses necessary to create the public transport implied in the proposed measures.

There will just be more buses moved to the city centre to provide the frequent services promised. 

This state government has clearly not thought through the economic and infrastructure implications of this strategy, particularly its decision to close the rail line.  

The Newcastle community needs  more time to consider and respond to the detail and implications of the draft strategy.

They also deserve to be heard with  more respect than  so far.  

Therese Doyle is a Greens councillor for Ward 2, Newcastle City Council.


Discuss "OPINION: Transport impacts of renewal not assessed"

Please note: All comments made or shown here are bound by the Online Discussion Terms & Conditions.