report to general manager subject ... - north sydney council · item cis04 reports 4/12/17 no rt h...

ITEM CiS04 REPORTS 4/12/17

N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S

Report to General Manager Attachments:

Nil

SUBJECT: Response to the Draft Future Transport Strategy AUTHOR: Nigel Turner, Strategic Transport Planner ENDORSED BY: Joseph Hill, Director City Strategy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In October 2017, TfNSW released its Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 for consultation. The Draft Future Transport Strategy is described as an “update” to the Long Term Transport Masterplan, 2012 developed to support the land use aspirations of the Greater Sydney Commission’s Draft Regional Plan: A Metropolis of Three Cities. A separate report has been prepared that responds to the Draft Regional Plan and the North District Plan. On-line Draft Future Transport Strategy resources are available at: https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/react-feedback/future-transport-strategy-2056/ A printable version the Draft Future Transport Strategy is available at: https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/plans/Future-Transport-Strategy-2056.pdf The following issues are considered in this report: • the legibility and consistency of the Regional Plan, District Plan, Future Transport

Strategy and Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan land use and transport planning framework;

• how existing transport networks have been considered in the development of the Draft Regional Plan and Draft Future Transport Strategy;

• the clarity of the Draft Future Transport Strategy “Vision”; • the identification of objectives and targets to help deliver the Draft Future Transport

Strategy’s “Vision”; • the assessment of projects, trends, and technologies against the Draft Future Transport

Strategy “Vision”; • a rational and consistent action plan to efficiently deliver the Draft Future Transport

Strategy “Vision”; and • processes for the ongoing assessment of the action plan over the 20 to 40-year life of the

Draft Future Transport Strategy. In addition, while the aspirations of the Draft Future Transport Strategy partially reflect the objectives of the North Sydney Transport Strategy, it does not address many of the potential impacts of the strategy on NSW communities. Further analysis of the compatibility of the Draft Future Transport Strategy with the North Sydney Transport Strategy is provided in this report.

https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/react-feedback/future-transport-strategy-2056/

https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/plans/Future-Transport-Strategy-2056.pdf


Report of Nigel Turner, Strategic Transport Planner Re: Response to the Draft Future Transport Strategy

(2)

This assessment concludes that the draft strategy does not deliver:

• a clear “Vision” for land use and transport planning in NSW; • consistency with other layers of the NSW land use and transport planning framework; • it “reacts to” rather than “collaborates with” the Greater Sydney Commission’s Regional

Plan; • it fails to address key impacts of transport planning; and • it does not identify timelines or processes for monitoring the success of the strategy.

These outputs are all critical to ensuring effective transport planning and management for NSW in an era of unprecedented technological, economic, social and demographic change. Furthermore, any strategy based on a “predict and provide” approach to land use and transport planning is destined to replicate and reinforce mistakes of the past. A progressive approach that focuses on a clear, vision-led strategy based on strategic principals rather than transport-specific outcomes is preferred. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council make a submission to Transport for New South Wales’ draft document, Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056, consistent with the discussion contained in this report.


(3)

LINK TO DELIVERY PROGRAM The relationship with the Community Strategic Plan is as follows:

BACKGROUND In 2012, the NSW Government launched the Long Term Transport Masterplan (2012 Masterplan). The 2012 Masterplan guided NSW investment and decision making to deliver significant changes to the NSW transport network to 2017. As part of the 2012 Masterplan, Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) committed to a “thorough review” of this document every 5 years (pg. 412). Now described as an “update” of the 2012 Masterplan, TfNSW initiated the development of a Draft Future Transport Strategy (Transport Strategy) with a Future Transport Summit in 2016. Input from the Summit was distilled into the Future Transport Technology Roadmap. Released in late 2016, the Roadmap was billed as:

“…the first step to putting NSW at the forefront of using innovation and emerging technologies to deliver better transport services”

Direction: 1. Our Living Environment Outcome: 1.4 Improved environmental footprint and responsible use of natural resources 1.5 Public open space, recreation facilities and services that meet community

needs Direction: 2. Our Built Environment Outcome: 2.1 Infrastructure, assets and facilities that meet community needs 2.3 Vibrant, connected and well maintained streetscapes and villages that build

a sense of community 2.5 Sustainable transport is encouraged 2.6 Improved traffic management 2.7 Improved parking options and supply Direction: 3. Our Economic Vitality Outcome: 3.1 Diverse, strong, sustainable and vibrant local economy Direction: 4. Our Social Vitality Outcome: 4.1 Community is connected 4.7 Community is active and healthy 4.9 Enhanced community safety and accessibility Direction: 5. Our Civic Leadership Outcome: 5.1 Council leads the strategic direction of North Sydney


(4)

How We Plan Transport was also released in 2016. The transport planning methodology detailed in this document reflects methodologies that Council has previously recommended for current TfNSW projects: B-Line, Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link as follows:

• define the problem; • identify a vision for addressing this problem based on strategic principals; • undertake community consultation to identify potential solutions; and • undertake an options assessment, based on vision-based assessment criteria.

This methodology appears to have been largely overlooked in the development of the Transport Strategy. In June 2017, TfNSW used a suite of “innovative on-line tools” to engage communities and businesses regarding the Roadmap and Transport Strategy content. An invite to provide feedback via a web-based questionnaire was extended to Council in the first week of June 2017. The submission dead-line did not allow for a formal report to be submitted to Council within normal meeting timeframes. However, a submission, based on the North Sydney Community Strategic Plan and the Draft North Sydney Transport Strategy, was made on 30 June 2017. From July 2017, TfNSW developed the Transport Strategy in partnership with the Greater Sydney Commission to address the land use aspirations of the Draft Regional Plan: A Metropolis of Three Cities (Regional Plan) as well as the future challenges and opportunities identified through their innovative public consultation processes. The Transport Strategy is intended to be a 20 to 40-year strategy focusing on customer needs and rapid technological, economic and social change. On-line Draft Future Transport Strategy resources are available at: https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/react-feedback/future-transport-strategy-2056/ A printable version The Draft Future Transport Strategy is available at: https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/plans/Future-Transport-Strategy-2056.pdf TfNSW released the Draft Future Transport Strategy for consultation in October 2017. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS Community engagement is not required.

https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/react-feedback/future-transport-strategy-2056/




(5)

SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT The following table provides a summary of the key sustainability implications: QBL Pillar Implications Environment On average, transport accounts for the highest proportion of Australian

household greenhouse gas emissions (34%), more than the next two highest household greenhouse gas emissions producers: water heating and lighting combined. The Transport Strategy will define the NSW Government’s approach to transport planning and management over the next 20 to 40 years. While the aspirations of the Transport Strategy partially reflect the objectives of the North Sydney Transport Strategy, the ambiguity of the Transport Strategy’s Vision and a lack of objectives/targets is likely to limit its ability to: affect reductions in transport related greenhouse gas emissions; improve local air and water quality; and reduce transport related noise.

Social The ambiguity of the Transport Strategy’s Vision and a lack of objectives/targets for reducing private vehicle mode share/traffic demand is likely to limit its ability to improve the livability of North Sydney. e.g. increasing traffic on Military Road will reduce the livability of Neutral Bay and Cremorne

Economic The Transport Strategy describes the “sustainability” of transport systems both in terms of their environmental impact and their “financial sustainability”. It is concerning that the Transport Strategy appears to advocate for “monetary costs” to be considered alongside “environmental sustainability” but offers no clear methodology for incorporating externalities (hidden costs such as road safety, health, local environments, access to parking, etc.) into cost-benefit analysis. While it may be possible to partially recoup the significant cost of the WestConnex suite of motorways from Public Private Partnerships, hidden costs to the community will significantly outstrip any potential “cost savings” this achieves. The World Health Organisation’s Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) suggests that health disbenefits associated with road based infrastructure investment: sedentary lifestyles, respiratory illness associated with local air pollution, the mental health impacts of noise, etc. can comprise over half of the total cost of this type of project. Conversely, the health benefits of projects that promote walking and cycling, such as public transport improvements, can double the value of this type of infrastructure investment.

Governance Originally billed as a “thorough review” of the 2012 Masterplan, the Transport Strategy is now described as an “update” to the 2012 Masterplan. Practically, this means that the Transport Strategy has not re-assessed 2012 Masterplan projects to determine their consistency with the updated Regional Plan “Vision” and objectives. This confusion between historic and current land use and transport planning priorities is exactly the kind of impasse that the Greater Sydney Commission was appointed to address. Not undertaking this re-assessment of historic projects brings in to question the validity of Regional/District Plan and Future Transport Strategy methodologies as well as the ability of the Greater Sydney Commission to deliver a holistic land use and transport strategy for Greater Sydney.


(6)

DETAIL

1. “Thorough Review” vs “Update” The Draft Future Transport Strategy (Transport Strategy) is described as an “update” to the Long Term Transport Masterplan (2012 Masterplan), developed to support the land use aspirations of the Regional Plan. While there is an obvious case for considering the previous work of the 2012 Masterplan in the development of the Transport Strategy, delivering an “update” has meant that TfNSW has not delivered the “thorough review” promised in their 2012 Masterplan.

“Every five years, there will be a thorough review of the Master Plan.” (pg. 412) This “thorough review” is critical to ensuring that projects carried forward into the Transport Strategy are consistent with the aspirations of the whole Regional/District Plan, Future Transport Strategy and Greater Sydney Service and Infrastructure Plan land use and transport planning framework. A review of existing transport commitments and projects in the “planning pipeline” (e.g. Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link) may identify that the delivery of these projects is at odds with the aspirations of the Regional Plan and/or Transport Strategy. Opportunities for adaptation of existing transport assets and projects under development should be a key output of the Transport Strategy. In addition, the Transport Strategy does not provide an update of the 2012 Masterplan’s existing transport network analysis to determine the impact of the Regional Plan’s “Three Cities” land use planning paradigm, population forecasts and associated travel demand growth on current and proposed transport networks. 2. Existing Transport Networks Similarly, while the development of the Regional Plan’s land use strategy underpinned the development of the Transport Strategy, the reverse should also have been true. Sydney’s existing transport networks and the opportunity to deliver a world class “connected and integrated” transport network should have underpinned the development of a land use planning paradigm for Greater Sydney that capitalised upon Sydney’s existing transport networks.

Figure 1: Extract from the Long Term Transport Masterplan pg. 54


(7)

3. “A Vision for Transport” Instead of an overarching vision for transport to 2056 based on strategic principles, the Transport Strategy identifies a number of state-wide transport “outcomes” intended to guide an “agile” approach to transport investment, policy and service provision reform to 2056. Focusing on “outcomes” in order to maintain flexibility without providing a clear vision for the future of transport in NSW results in a lack of clarity/legibility in the Transport Strategy. The overall length of the Transport Strategy also detracts from its readability/accessibility. In order to maintain consistency with the Regional Plan, the Transport Strategy should reiterate and/or develop its own version of the Livability, Sustainability and Productivity based “Vision” detailed in the Regional Plan. The delivery of a 30-minute city is identified as the key to integrated land use and transport planning for Greater Sydney in this document.

“The vision for Greater Sydney is one where people can conveniently access jobs and services. The 30 minute city is a guiding principal that provides people with access to education, jobs and services within 30 minutes by public transport regardless of where they live. This means that people can reach their nearest Metropolitan and Strategic Centres within 30 minutes 7 days a week.”

Once a clear and consistent Transport Strategy “Vision” is identified, the Transport Strategy should then identify specific objectives and targets* to support the delivery of this “Vision”. These objectives/targets should then be used to assess the effectiveness of different actions, initiatives, infrastructure, technology, etc. in delivering the aspirations of the Transport Strategy. *Targets should be: specific, measurable, aspirational but realistic, as well as time specific and should be evaluated and reviewed more regularly than the proposed 20-40 year Transport Strategy timeframe. 4. Objectives and Targets

In general, the Transport Strategy appears based on an assumption that transport systems will continue to expand at historical rates to meet population led travel demand. While there is some agreement that agglomerated urban activity precincts will continue to be key determinates of travel demand, the linear nature of this relationship is unclear, particularly in view of recent rapid advances in communication technology. 4.1. Non-Transport/Policy Interventions While direct transport planning and management interventions are broadly considered in the Transport Strategy, there are many other social, health and economic mega-trends that are likely to have an even more dramatic impact on underlying travel demand. These include: • automation, jobs contraction, commercial floor space and commuter demand; • hot desking, activity based working and team neighbourhoods; • the sharing economy, cryptocurrency and disruption; • environmentally affected population movement; • health and longevity/life-expectancy; • business incubators and co-working spaces; • changing agricultural practices and food security; and • rural population contraction.


(8)

It is unclear how the assessment of emerging trends/technologies and the strategies outlined in the Transport Strategy address these broader social, health and economic trends. 4.2. Walking Walking is humanity’s most fundamental travel mode and supports all other travel modes. Increased urban density and increased land use diversity facilitates local living, increases demand for walking infrastructure and more walkable centres. Facilitating walking for local journeys by improving local walking networks should be a key consideration of the Transport Strategy. Providing high quality/connected public transport networks accessible within a short walk of all of Sydney’s major residential precincts should also be a key consideration of the Transport Strategy. 4.3. Cycling Cycling is an increasingly important component of multi-modal transport network planning. It offers mobility benefits without the serious social, health and financial impositions of the private car. Increased urban density and increased land use diversity facilitates local living, increases demand for cycling infrastructure and more cycle-able centres. Facilitating cycling for local journeys by improving local and regional cycling networks should be a key consideration of the Transport Strategy. Providing high quality/connected public transport networks accessible within a short ride of all of Sydney’s major residential precincts should also be a key consideration of the Transport Strategy.


(9)

4.4. Public Transport A connected/automated mass transit network will continue to offer better capacity, social, health and economic outcomes than the expansion of the road network within and between NSW’s metropolitan city, strategic and regional centres. This is especially relevant in the context of the rapid growth of the Sydney Metropolitan area, which is planned to accommodate an additional 725,000 dwellings and 817,000 jobs in the next 20 years. Providing high quality/connected public transport networks that connect all of NSW’s major precincts (potential Sydney Metro network below) should be a key focus of the Transport Strategy. Ensuring that competitive travel times between private vehicle journeys and public transport will increase the uptake of public transport and maximise positive social, health and economic benefits.

Figure 2: A “connected transport network” alternative to the “Three Cities” land use planning paradigm.

4.5. Freight/Deliveries Maximising the uptake of regional rail freight should still be considered a desirable outcome in terms of minimising the impact of freight vehicles on regional road networks. Delivering the majority of regional freight movement via an automated regional rail freight network and providing “last mile” pick up/deliveries via aggregated freight service providers should be a key consideration of the Transport Strategy. 4.6. Private Vehicles Consideration should be given to whether a more targeted approach to “connected and automated vehicles” is required that addresses the negative impacts of potential increases in traffic due to automation: empty running, access for non-drivers (youth, disability, etc.) and increased use due to reduced cost.

“Enable connected and automated vehicles: support vehicles and enabling infrastructure that improves mobility services, efficiency and reliability and safety.”

(Draft Future Transport Strategy pg. 15)


(10)

The impact of emerging trends and technologies on traffic and parking demand; a transition strategy away from car-centric land use and transport planning; and alternative uses/adaptation strategies for roads and parking infrastructure should be key considerations of the Transport Strategy. To aid transition to an electric vehicle fleet, consideration should also be given to how dynamic electric vehicle charging might reduce range anxiety and offer opportunities for standardisation of charging infrastructure. 4.7. Air Travel The Transport Strategy should consider whether fast rail routes (and value capture mechanisms for funding them) could be a viable alternative to air travel for the majority of inter-city trips (Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne) within Australia. Consideration should be given to whether a coastal route might provide more opportunity for value capture than the inland fast rail routes considered previously. 5. North Sydney Transport Strategy Community Priorities In 2016, North Sydney Council undertook community consultation to identify community priorities and inform the development of the North Sydney Transport Strategy (NSTS). The NSTS identifies the following vision and strategic principals for the development of North Sydney transport networks:

In 2030, transport will play a positive role in supporting a happy, healthy and prosperous North Sydney community.

To achieve this, transport will be planned and managed to deliver the following community priorities:

1. Safe Travel 2. Transport Security 3. Social Well-being 4. Active Health 5. Fair Access to Parking

6. Environmental Sustainability 7. Local Environments 8. Transport Affordability 9. Congestion 10. Business Activity

An assessment framework, based on strategic principals and endorsed within the NSTS, ensures justified and consistent transport planning and management that efficiently delivers the NSTS Vision. This assessment framework has been applied to the Transport Strategy (below). 5.1. Safe Travel Will the Transport Strategy improve community safety by creating slow speed road environments where more vulnerable road users are protected from higher impact road users and the number of crashes and severity of injuries is minimised? The Transport Strategy appears to advocate for continued application of the Safe Systems approach to road safety as well as considering how technological advances in connected and autonomous vehicle technology will improve road safety management. It is suggested that a more holistic approach to travel demand management* as well as universal speed limit reductions would be a more effective approach to addressing road safety as it does not rely on individual decision making within a car-centric industry that responds, ultimately, to a road


(11)

authority who’s remit is to facilitate traffic movement. Reduced speed limits may also help to address driver/driverless vehicle conflict during the connected and automated vehicle transition period. *improvements to walking, cycling and public transport networks (carrot) and road user charging (stick) - these are mentioned in the Transport Strategy but not in terms of a measure for improving road safety 5.2. Transport Security Will the Transport Strategy improve personal security through improved streetscape design, increased street activity and passive surveillance? In the Transport Strategy, reference is made to the interruption of fuel supplies due to international security issues. While this is important when justifying initiatives to support a transition from a petrol to an electric vehicle fleet, consideration should also be given to the impact of different future transport paradigms on crime and personal security. 5.3. Social Well-being Will the Transport Strategy provide social spaces where human interaction is given the highest priority and the negative impacts of traffic are minimised, promoting incidental social interaction, increasing civic pride, reducing anti-social behaviour and community policing requirements? The Transport Strategy’s “Movement and Place” framework (pg. 71) may help to partially address this community priority. “Vibrant Streets” design outcomes and a process for resolving conflict between local (Council) and through-traffic (RMS) interests should be more fully considered as part of the further review of the Transport Strategy. 5.4. Active Health Will the Transport Strategy provide infrastructure that encourages healthy and active lifestyle/travel choices? The Transport Strategy identifies potential journeys and catchments within which active travel can be prioritised, revisits the Greater Sydney Principal Bicycle Network and provides general support for increased walking, cycling and public transport mode share. However, objectives, targets and specific actions to deliver active travel mode shift are limited. Objectives, targets and actions for promoting walking in metropolitan city, strategic and regional centre walking catchments should be a key deliverable of the Transport Strategy. Actions to deliver/improve walking and cycle networks around public transport nodes should also be investigated as should a more detailed analysis of how delivery of the Principal Bicycle Network and local cycle links will promote mode shift to active travel. 5.5. Fair Access to Parking Will the Transport Strategy reduce demand for parking and/or provide more equitable access to existing parking supply? A number of the projects previously identified in the 2012 Masterplan will facilitate and further encourage private vehicle travel. Increasing accessibility by private vehicle will, inherently, result in increased pressure on existing parking supplies in metropolitan, strategic and regional centres. Attempting to increase parking supply will undermine the core functions of these centres by reducing land use density, reducing potential for diversity, reducing walk/cycle-ability, increasing distance to transit and reducing destination accessibility.


(12)

5.6. Environmental Sustainability Will the Transport Strategy encourage the use of low emission transport options? Although the overarching principals of the Transport Strategy seem to advocate increased walking, cycling and public transport use, with associated greenhouse gas emissions reduction benefits, the sustainability section of the document concentrates on the “financial sustainability” of potential future travel paradigms as much, if not more than the impact of these future transport paradigms on “environmental sustainability”. It is concerning that that term “sustainability” has been used in this way. [Comment regarding the “financial sustainability” of different future transport paradigms is provided under “Transport Affordability”.] 5.7. Local Environments Will the Transport Strategy encourage the use of travel modes that have minimal impact on air quality, water quality and noise? As well as environmental sustainability in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, a review of the Transport Strategy should consider the impact of different future transport paradigms on local air quality, water quality and noise as well as knock-on impacts on community health. Opportunities to promote mode shift to walking, cycling and public transport should, again, be considered as well as how the NSW Government might support the shift from a petrol to an electric vehicle fleet. 5.8. Transport Affordability Will the Transport Strategy encourage the use of travel options with lower social, health and economic costs and higher social, health and economic benefits? Chapter 10 of the Transport Strategy, “Delivering Sustainability”, provides discussion regarding the “financial sustainability” of different future transport planning paradigms with particular consideration of “cost recovery”. While it is concerning that the term “sustainability” has been used in this way, it is even more concerning that “financial sustainability” is being discussed in such narrow terms. The Transport Strategy’s analysis of the “financial sustainability” of public transport in NSW provides limited consideration of the wider benefits of this type of project*, being more concerned about a comparison of fare revenues versus operational costs. No similar analysis is provided for NSW’s road based private vehicle network, where un-costed externalities* are estimated to have a far greater financial impact on NSW communities than the upfront cost of the projects themselves. *safety, security, social well-being, active transport, parking availability, sustainability, local environment, congestion or business activity benefits


(13)

Further review of the Transport Strategy should also consider how future road based “cost recovery” processes will address dwindling federal petrol excise income as NSW rapidly transitions to a connected, autonomous and, presumably, electric vehicle fleet (pg. 46).

Figure 3: estimates for transition to an autonomous vehicle fleet (Draft Future Transport Strategy pg. 46)

5.9. Congestion Will the Transport Strategy apply travel demand management principles to minimise traffic demand and associated traffic congestion? While the Transport Strategy notes potential for infrastructure capacity increases associated with connected and automated vehicle technology, the laws of physics will still dictate the number of vehicles that can be funneled into roads around metropolitan city, strategic and regional centres/trip attractors. As previously noted, this is particularly relevant in the context of a rapidly growing Eastern City. In this regard, a connected/ automated mass transit network will continue to offer greater capacity as well as better social, health and economic outcomes than the expansion of the road network within and between these centres. Fortunately, according to the Downs-Thompson Paradox, investment in public transport will also result in greater long-term, network-wide traffic congestion reduction benefits than equivalent roads investment. In spite of this, the Transport Strategy does not discuss the relative limitations of private vehicle/road based transport networks versus urban mass transit alternatives, instead suggesting in Chapter 6: Our Road Customer a need to “move increasing numbers of people and goods on our road network”. Moving more people/goods by road appears inconsistent with the public transport based approach to future transport planning detailed in the Regional Plan and the Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan and also appears inconsistent with the “successful places” aspirations of the Transport Strategy. The impact of connected and autonomous vehicles on congestion: “empty running”; trips generated by sectors of society currently not able to use private vehicles due to task capability: youth, disability, etc.; and general increases in traffic due to increased affordability of car use should also be more fully investigated in the Transport Strategy.


(14)

5.10. Business Activity Will the Transport Strategy increase business opportunities by improving the look/amenity of North Sydney throughout the day and in to the evening while, at the same time, reducing the whole of life cost of transport networks, including the ongoing costs associated with cleaning and maintaining assets? Again, the Transport Strategy’s “Movement and Place” framework (pg. 71) may help to partially addresses this community priority. Design outcomes and processes for resolving conflict between local (Council) and through traffic (RMS) interests should be more fully considered as part of the further review of the Transport Strategy. 6. Conclusion/Recommendations The Draft Future Transport Strategy development methodology does not:

• reflect TfNSW’s How We Plan Transport methodology; • provide a clear vision for transport planning and management in NSW; • deliver consistency across the Regional Plan, District Plan, Future Transport Strategy

and Greater Sydney Services and Infrastructure Plan strategy framework. A clear and consistent Draft Future Transport Strategy “Vision” should be identified that reflects the Livability, Sustainability and Productivity based “Vision” of the Regional Plan and supports the delivery of a 30-minute city. Specific objectives and targets should be identified to facilitate the delivery of this “Vision”, with these objectives and targets forming the basis of assessment processes that ensure rational and consistent transport investment, policy and service provision reform in the context of rapid technological, economic and social change. Developing the Draft Future Transport Strategy to support the Regional Plan rather than developing the two documents in tandem has meant that existing transport networks and capacity were not an underlying consideration of the development of the Regional Plan’s “Three Cities” land use planning paradigm. Consideration should be given to whether the “Three Cities” paradigm delivers optimal outcomes in terms of travel demand and mode choice outcomes for Greater Sydney. The Draft Future Transport Strategy fails to address many of the hidden impacts of transport on NSW communities. Consideration should be given to how the Draft Future Transport Strategy addresses all of the community priorities identified in the North Sydney Transport Strategy: safe travel, transport security, social well-being, active health, fair access to parking, environmental sustainability, local environments, transport affordability, congestion and business activity. And finally, while the Draft Future Transport Strategy should focus on developing agile organisational and process management that can rapidly respond to emerging trends and technologies, this should not undermine requirements for community consultation. Furthermore, monitoring and reporting should happen more frequently than the 20-40 year timeframes suggested to ensure an ongoing understanding of the success or otherwise of the Draft Future Transport Strategy as a whole as well as individual sub-initiatives.

report to general manager subject ... - north sydney council · item cis04 reports 4/12/17 no rt h...

Documents