Submission on Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 on ... · “Scenic and cultural landscapes...

PH (02) 9690 0279

Hawes & Swan Planning Pty Ltd www.hawesandswan.com.au

PH (02) 9690 0279

Suite 4, Level 4 35 Buckingham Street Surry Hills NSW 2010

3 December 2017

Transport for NSW

PO Box K659

Haymarket NSW 1240

Dear Sir / Madam,

Submission on Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 on behalf of Tidapa Landowner Group

This submission has been prepared on behalf of the Tidapa Landowner Group, who represent a number

of landowners that make up a significant land holding within the Cobbitty area (identified in Figure 1). Our

client has also engaged Christopher Hallam, an experienced traffic and transport engineer. His report is

summarised in this submission and is attached to this submission (Attachment A).

We have significant concerns that can be summarised under the following headings:

• Impact on Cobbitty Village including amenity Impacts

• Impact on Scenic and Cultural Landscape including Topography

• Land Use Development Potential

• Insufficient Information & Justification; and

• Alternative Option;

These matters are addressed in detail in this letter below.

1.0 Impact on Cobbitty Village including Amenity Impacts

The proposed Outer Sydney Orbital (OSO) route demonstrated in Figure 2 below is likely to result in

significant adverse amenity impacts to landowners in the Cobbitty Area for the following reasons.

http://www.hawesandswan.com.au/

http://www.hawesandswan.com.au/


2

Figure 1 – Our Client’s property in Cobbitty

Figure 2 – OSO Proposed Route


3

• The proposed route will pass to the east of Cobbitty Village and the nature and scale of the development will have significant acoustic and visual impacts to nearby properties including existing residential properties along Ellis Lane and the eastern end of Cobbitty.

• The route is also likely to cause adverse noise impacts within the Mater Dei Precinct residential area

resulting from the proposed bridge over the river and any interchange on Cobbitty Road.

• The route would cause significant noise vibration and pollution impacts to Cobbitty. Furthermore, the tight turns of the proposed OSO route increase the likelihood of noise and vibration impacts from freight transport.

• As identified on page 84 of the Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056, the freight rail will have 24/7 operation movements that would significantly impact upon the liveability of Cobbitty. Adverse noise impacts are expected to result from this proposal, especially at night time.

• The traffic on Cobbitty Road has drastically increased over the past decade of which a significant

increase in truck movements has been observed. in traffic in the last 10 years. This has had a major

impact on livability for Cobbitty and the proposed OSO entry and exit at the entrance to Cobbitty

village will further attract an increase in traffic on Cobbitty Road.

• The proposed route would require the acquisition of residential properties along Ellis Lane due to the topographical constraints of the land that could result in the road and rail line being elevated in response to flooding.

• Cobbitty Village contains several heritage items including St Pauls Anglican Church and the proposed OSO would not be characteristic of existing development in the locality or the traditional nature of the village.

• The visual impact of the proposal will destroy the heritage values of Cobbitty and drastically impact upon views present to Camden.

2.0 Impact on Scenic and Cultural Landscape including Topography

Cobbitty Hills has been identified for the Green Grid and local biodiversity strategy. The amended OSO

route would adversely impact upon the scenic and cultural landscape values of Cobbitty Valley and

demonstrates significant topographical constraints as discussed below:

• Impact on Scenic and Cultural Landscape Values

The amended OSO route is considered to be incompatible with objective No. 28 of the Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan 2017 relating to the protection of scenic and cultural landscapes as follows:

“Scenic and cultural landscapes create symbols of Greater Sydney and connect the contemporary urban environment with natural and historic urban landscapes. Their continued protection is important to the character of the region and for their aesthetic, social and economic values. They create a sense of identity, preserve links to Aboriginal, colonial and migrant era heritage and culture, and create opportunities for tourism and recreation.”


4

The proposed eastern route is inconsistent with the above objective as it would pass through the centre of Cobbitty Valley that has strong scenic and cultural landscape values as demonstrated in Figures 3-6 below.

Figures 3-6 – Views of Cobbitty Hills on the proposed OSO route to be impacted.

In order to facilitate an interchange at Cobbitty Road, it is estimated that 20 hectares of land would need to be allocated for the development that would have significant adverse impacts on the local landscape. Alternatively, locating the OSO to the west of Cobbitty Valley would have a substantially lesser impact than the proposed route. This is further discussed in section 5.0 of this letter. In addition, Objective 27 of the Draft Greater Sydney Regional Plan 2017 states:

“Biodiversity is protected, urban bushland and remnant vegetation is enhances”. The proposed alignment is not consistent with this objective. Significant bushland and biodiversity will be impacted with the alignment going through the middle of important biodiversity and the topography will be significantly impacted with cut and fill used.

• Topography

The vertical alignment of the proposed OSO corridor demonstrates significant constraints due to

the topography of the land that includes the following:

▪ Design flood level 100yr ARI;


5

▪ Freight rail maximum grade 1%; and the ▪ Camden Airport has a maximum building height restriction of 113m within radius of the

Airport.

These significant topographical constraints would result in high construction and operating costs of

the OSO corridor when compared to alternative options and it is estimated that the cutting required

would be 6km long and up to 100m high and at least 150m wide through the entire length of the

Cobbitty Hills Valley.

In relation to road and rail geometry the proposed OSO route would have greater changes in grade

and a tighter turning radii when compared to alternative options that would result in higher

operating costs. Shorter routes could also be considered that would result in reduced vehicle

operating costs. Section 5.0 of this letter details an alternate route that should be considered.

3.0 Land Use Development Potential Land that has been identified for the OSO route is adjacent to land identified as part of the Growth Centres

for residential housing. In addition, our clients land has been identified in a number of planning documents

as having future residential development potential given its close proximity to Oran Park Town Centre,

future rail to Narellan and proximity to the Northern Road.

In our opinion it would make more logical sense that land within close proximity to public transport, town

centres including employment lands and existing residential areas within the growth centres would be not

sterilised for the future orbital and the orbital alignment is adjusted as suggest in Figure 7.

4.0 Insufficient Information & Justification

It is considered that insufficient information and justification has been provided in relation to the altered

OSO alignment proposed by the Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan 2017. The insufficient information

provided is detailed as follows:

• Change in Route of OSO

The Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan 2017 provides insufficient information and no justification on the changes proposed to the original OSO alignment (2014) of which was generally considered to be acceptable by landowners in the Cobbitty area.

• Route Details Provided

No graphics have been provided that demonstrate an overlay of the altered OSO proposed corridor

that would enable a landowner to effectively determine the impacts of the proposal. Therefore,

inadequate information has been provided on the altered alignment to allow for meaningful and

fair public consultation.

• Transport Modelling and Planning


6

It is considered that modelling of the corridor should be made available for public review and

submission for a landowner to adequately comprehend the nature and scale of the proposal to gain

a better understanding of the impacts of the proposed development on their property and the

surrounds.

• Interchanges

The OSO motorway interchanges were made available in June 2015 of which included interchanges

at the Hume Highway, Camden Valley Way and at Bringelly/Greendale Road within the Cobbitty

area. However, as proposed in the 2017 Strategy, interchanges are proposed at Burragorang Road,

Cobbitty Road and Bringelly/Greendale Road. No justification has been provided for altering the

middle link from Camden Valley Way to Cobbitty Road that would have substantial adverse impacts

on residential amenity of the Cobbitty Village area. It is considered that the location of interchanges

should be an outcome of traffic modelling where the location of a range of interchange options

tested.

Therefore, it is considered that insufficient information and justification has been made available to the public to allow for adequate and effective consultation and understandings of the impacts resulting from the amended OSO corridor. 5.0 Alternative Option

Our client has prepared the following alternative option as shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7 – Alternative route option illustrated in orange.


7

In summary the alternative route has the following significant advantages to the proposed route.

• Placing the OSO on the western side of the ridge line and Cobbitty village will greatly reduce its impact on the Cobbitty landscape.

• The alternative route will divert the majority of through traffic around Cobbitty village.

• The alternative route is approximately 20% shorter and have less cutting through ridges and bridges over flood affected land.

• The cost of constructing the alternative route will be significantly cheaper because of the shorter distance and more appropriate topography.

• The alternative route will protect the residents of Cobbitty and surrounding residential communities from noise, vibration and visual impacts.

• The alternative route protects land for future residential purposes given its location in close proximity to future public transport, Oran Park town centre and growth centre.

• Interchanges are an important consideration in determining the preferred route of the OSO. The proposed route is inappropriate as discussed by Christopher Hallam at Attachment A.

6.0 Recommendation

It is in our professional opinion that the proposed OSO route within the Draft Future Transport Strategy

2056 is inappropriate and will significantly impact on the Cobbitty community.

As identified at Section 5 of this submission there is a more logical alternative which we strongly advocate

for Transport for NSW to investigate this alternative route.

In summary the proposed route is inappropriate, and the alternative route is more appropriate because:

• The impact on Cobbitty Village including amenity impacts will be significant. Locating the route to the west around Cobbitty as shown in the alternative route will reduce these impacts and impact less residents.

• The impact on Scenic and Cultural Landscape including Topography. Locating the route to the west around Cobbitty as shown in the alternative route will reduce cut and fill impacts, reduce the need for bridges over flood prone land and will reduce impacts on significant ridge lines with quality vegetation.

• Land Use Development Potential. The alternative route around Cobbitty will result in land located within close proximity to future public transport, Oran Park town centre being available for development and not impacted the OSO.

• Insufficient Information & Justification. Further justification needs to occur and alternative routes explored including business cases.


8

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the on the Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056

and we look forward to future engagement prior to any final decision on the OSO route. Should you wish

to discuss any of the details of this submission please do not hesitate to contact me on 0438 398 079 or

[email protected].

Yours sincerely

Jeremy Swan

DIRECTOR

Hawes and Swan Planning Pty Ltd

mailto:[email protected]


9

ATTACHMENT A – Traffic Submission – Christopher Hallam

1

OUTER SYDNEY ORBITAL – CORRIDOR PRESERVATION

SUBMISSION RELATING TO ALIGNMENT NEAR COBBITTY

1.0 Introduction

This submission has been prepared by Christopher Hallam BE, MEngSc, and was

commissioned by the Tidapa Landowner Group, who represent a number of landowners in

the Cobbitty area. For reference, my curriculum vitae is provided in an Annexure. I have

practised as a professional traffic & transport engineer in New South Wales for 46 years.

The issues I wish to discuss are set out through individual Sections, with Conclusions at the

end.

2.0 Insufficient Information

Change in Route of OSO

The 2014 State Infrastructure Strategy Update outlined an approximate route for the Outer

Sydney Orbital (OSO). It is of course hard to know if the route chosen was a generic route or

that more could be taken into it. The OSO route set out in the Draft Greater Sydney Region

Plan 2017 shows a different alignment at various locations. It could be that it is simply a

refinement of the 2014 plan, based on more knowledge of future development or more

knowledge of topographical and other constraints. This is particularly relevant near the

proposed Western Sydney Airport – Badgerys Creek Aerotropolis. However the

documentation in the Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan 2017 provides no information on

any such constraints or any reason to alter the alignment. I am informed that in broad

terms, many landowners in the Cobbitty area were happy with the 2014 OSO alignment, but

are not happy with the draft 2017 alignment. From their point of view, a justification for

changes in alignment would be appropriate, for better transparency in the assessment

process.

OSO Route Details

The 2017 draft OSO route is still very broad-brush. In what appears to be a deliberate

choice to not overlay the route on a proper base plan, the general public, and local

landowners, have no idea just where this route would go. While it is good planning for the

Greater Sydney Commission and Transport for NSW to request public feedback on the

proposed corridor, how can the public provide feedback when they do not know where the

corridor will go, in specific terms? Will the local landowners first understand where the

2

corridor will go when they see caveats placed on their land indicating a future transport

corridor will affect their plans and livelihood? While it is commendable that Transport for

NSW is undertaking long term planning and corridor preservation, what about the local

landowner wishing to also make long term plans, for their business, their home and/or their

retirement plans?

For a landowner to understand the implications, they need access to a proper overlay plan.

A combined corridor width of 134m, assuming both road and rail, has the potential to

impact a number of properties in different ways. It is recognised that with this width and

with the minimum curve radius of 1,500m for a freight rail line, there will be some

limitations on minor corridor adjustments to avoid particular properties.

In summary, local landowners cannot be expected to be able to make sensible submissions

when they do not know where the route will go. While the process might allow Transport

for NSW to give a tick to “public consultation”, it is not a meaningful or fair tick. I have been

informed that more details of the OSO corridor will be available in early 2018, and that

there will be further opportunities for consultation. In this regard, the corridor should not

be confirmed until this next stage of consultation is undertaken. Further, I understand that

this 2017 OSO alignment is being used by the Greater Sydney Commission in their District

Plans already, despite the lack of detail available to the public, despite the fact that this

alignment has not been subject to public consultation. The proposed alignment needs to be

publicised in detail, on a proper map base and public comments sought, as a matter of

urgency, before any District Plans are finalised.

3.0 Justification

Transport Modelling and Planning

While it appears logical that the construction of the OSO is a good idea, before its planning

and corridor reservation is set in stone, there needs to be some overall justification for the

OSO. Traditionally, when planning new highways, regional and sub-regional traffic

modelling is undertaken, to obtain a feeling for the likely future use, and hence the number

of lanes needed, and hence the corridor width required. Such modelling would also allow a

first-cut review of the benefits and costs, so that there is some confidence that when it is

constructed, the later more detailed modelling will show a good benefit/cost ratio. In

justifying legal restrictions on properties, there needs to be confidence that the project is

viable and will proceed. I understand that background studies and modelling might have

been undertaken, but there is nothing available for public review and submissions.

3

Interchanges

In June 2015 the OSO Motorway Interchanges were listed. In the Cobbitty area these were

at the Hume Highway, at Camden Valley Way and at Bringelly Road/Greendale Road.

Clearly, the OSO will not cross over Camden Valley Way in the Cobbitty area, and a more

specific location is required, in due course. Cobbitty Road immediately east of Cobbitty

village has logic when considering the 2017 OSO route, for the moment ignoring local

impacts. However given its likely proximity to Cobbitty village, it would have substantial

negative impacts on noise and amenity, plus additional future traffic from development

areas to the West using the western end of Cobbitty Road to access the OSO, driving

through Cobbitty village.

The location of interchanges should be an outcome of the traffic modelling, with new land

use developments added to the network and different interchange options tested, to

determine the interchange locations with the greatest network benefits. To simply

nominate the OSO route, and at the same time nominate the interchange locations, is

jumping the gun.

I have prepared a map with the proposed OSO route and an alternative western OSO route

shown, overlaid on the NSW Land & Property Information topographic maps of Camden

(9029-4N) and Warragamba (9030-3S), at an original scale of 1:25,000. As is further

discussed, the 2017 OSO route threads its way through all of the hills overlooking the

Cobbitty valley. I have shown the centre of the route taking into account the topography,

and also looking for large radius curves. I have also shown an alternative “Western” route

that has been suggested by the Tidapa Landowner Group, which avoids most of the hills

surrounding the Cobbitty valley and travels in a shorter more direct path. Relative

differences between these two routes are discussed in Section 4. However in my discussion

on Justification and Interchange location, before an interchange on Cobbitty Road is decided

on, an alternative is suggested. I have shown this in dotted outline on the attached map.

The 2015 plans suggested Camden Valley Way as a road that needs to link through to the

OSO. The Oran Park Drive-Dan Cleary Drive-Cobbitty Road route does provide a road link

between Camden Valley Way and the OSO, in either east or west alignments. However with

local road planning of Oran Park Drive-Dan Cleary Drive, where it is no longer a straight

route, and with the dog-leg of this route along The Northern Road, it is less than ideal.

A better route is arguably along Peter Brock Drive. At its eastern end I note that the

Southwest Growth Centre Structure Plan (Edition 3) attached shows this Peter Brock Drive

route continuing through Catherine Fields (part) Precinct and through to Camden Valley

Way. West of The Northern Road, the extension of Peter Brock Drive provides the spine of

development in this western area, then linking down to Cobbitty Road. An option would be

for this route, including Cobbitty Road from this western end connection, provide the access

to the OSO. An arguably better alternative, with substantially less impact on Cobbitty village

4

would be to retain the link down to Cobbitty Road, but via a T-junction, continue the Peter

Brock Drive extension in a westerly direction, locating it just to the north of Cobbitty Creek.

In this position it would allow an interchange with the 2017 eastern OSO route, or the

alternative western OSO route. It is recognised that this would not provide direct

connectivity to areas to the West, if the eastern route was adopted. If the alternative

western route was adopted, Cut Hill Road could be used for traffic from the West. This route

would also provide more direct access to trip generators within the new Oran Park

residential area, without requiring drivers to first drive down to Oran Park Drive or Dan

Cleary Drive. Depending on future land use planning and zoning, such a route could also

form the spine of new residential development to the north of Cobbitty.

4.0 Construction of OSO and Route Comparison

Topography

To simplify the comparison, I refer to the currently proposed OSO route as the eastern

route, and the alternative suggested by the Tidapa Landowner Group as the western route.

The centre of these routes is shown on the attached map.

The attached map covers the OSO route between the junction of May Farm Road with

Werombi Road in the South, and Greendale Road in the North. On the horizontal alignment

of both routes, the tightest turn would be the curve on the eastern route just north of the

bridge over the Nepean River. The centre-of-corridor radius shown on the plan is

approximately 2,000m, so the minimum radius for freight rail of 1,500m would be met. The

western route would have an almost straight alignment, with benefits for construction and

operation.

The vertical alignment due to the topography provides greater constraints. The factors are:

Design flood level 100yr ARI

Freight Rail maximum grade 1%

Camden Aerodrome Building height restriction of 113m close to aerodrome

The eastern route, being closer to Camden Aerodrome, will be more affected by the river

flood limit than the western route, in that the route along Ellis Lane will have a minimum

height because of the flood constraint, and a maximum height because of the aerodrome.

On the northern side of the river the land immediately rises 20-30m. A bridge with long

approaches would be the logical approach, and/or the construction of a cutting along the

northern side. The western route would not be as constrained in this regard. With the

distance between the river and Cobbitty Road, the corridor would logically be in cutting,

with Cobbitty Road passing over. There would need to be a design review of the options,

given the Freight Rail requirement for a 7.1m vertical clearance, more than any road.

5

Where the western route crosses Cobbitty Road the terrain is relatively flat, with a greater

separation from the river bridge, so that the design of the underpass or overpass at this

location would be easier.

North of Cobbitty Road, the western route has minimal topographic constraints until it

reaches Cobbitty Creek, and the hill behind. A cutting would be required in the shoulder

between the 150m and 145m high points on each side. The natural level of the shoulder

here is about 110m. The resulting ground level would of course be lower than the existing

110m.

North of Cobbitty Road, the eastern route would drop down to Cobbitty Creek. For the

corridor width involved, this would probably need substantial land fill over the Cobbitty

Creek delta. After this point however this eastern route would rise substantially. The

attached photographs illustrate the nature of the topography. To the east of Cut Hill, the

natural level of this route is about 140m. The route then continues through a range of hills,

passing just west of Cobbitty Trig (188m). This eastern route passes along the north-south

spine of the Cobbitty Hills, as shown by the contours of the map. Much of the route is

currently wooded, so the land clearing required will have an added impact on the scenic

landscape. This would particularly be the case in the section leading up from Cobbitty

Creek, where the corridor will be seen from the new residential areas. In the northern

section there is clear contrast between the two alignments, with the western route passing

through more open terrain, while the eastern route continues through higher ground. Both

routes join near Bringelly Creek.

To estimate the relative gradients and hence the required lengths of cuttings to achieve the

Freight Rail maximum of 1% would require detailed long-sections, which have not been

done. However it is very clear that the eastern route has significantly higher topographic

constraints on its vertical alignment compared with the shorter and straighter western

route and hence the eastern route would have a higher construction cost, and higher

vehicle operating costs. I note that the Tidapa Landowner Group estimate that the cutting

on the eastern route would be 6km long and be up to 100m high and 200m wide through

the Cobbitty Hills, whereas on the western route they estimate that the required cutting

would be 2.2km long.

Impact on Properties

The eastern route passes through the Ellis Lane peninsula. To provide the required 134m

corridor and at the same time have an acceptable horizontal alignment, it would require

acquisition of a number of residential properties along Ellis Lane. With the topography and

the need to be above the 100 year ARI flood level, the road and rail line might need to be

elevated. This would also impact on properties.

6

While this eastern route would pass just to the east of Cobbitty village, its size and presence

would have an amenity and visual impact. Further to the North there would be little impact

on property. Cobbitty village includes several heritage-listed properties, with St Pauls

Anglican Church defining the character of this traditional rural village.

The western route would not impact on Ellis Lane. It would pass to the east of the

University of Sydney Camden Campus, well clear of the campus buildings, and to the east of

the more low key University of Sydney Cobbitty Farm. Further to the North it would have

low key impacts on various small farms.

Impact on Scenic and Cultural Landscape

The eastern route would pass through the centre of Cobbitty Valley and cut through the

surrounding hills, with substantial cuttings required. In contrast, the western route would

pass to the west of the Cobbitty Valley. It would still need to cut through the western end

of the hills, near Cut Hill Road, but with a cutting of less depth and length required.

The Greater Sydney Commission Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan 2017 Objective 28 is to

ensure scenic and cultural landscapes are protected. This Objective states in part:

“Scenic and cultural landscapes create symbols of Greater Sydney and connect the

contemporary urban environment with natural and historic urban landscapes. Their

continued protection is important to the character of the region and for their

aesthetic, social and economic values. They create a sense of identity, preserve links

to Aboriginal, colonial and migrant era heritage and culture, and create opportunities

for tourism and recreation.”

The Cobbitty Valley is such a scenic and cultural landscape. The construction of a 132m

wide road and rail corridor through it would seriously impact on its scenic value. The

planned extension of the Oran Park residential area as far as the creek line to the east of the

corridor would have some impact, without a doubt. The location of the OSO to the west of

this valley would have a substantially lesser impact than the eastern route. The

construction of an east-west connector road through to the OSO along the low point of the

creek line should not of itself have a significant impact.

Access Interchanges

As discussed in Section 3, the location of an interchange in the Cobbitty area is an important

design consideration. With the eastern route, the location of an interchange just east of

Cobbitty would have a substantial adverse impact on the amenity of this village. Such an

interchange would draw traffic through the village from development to the West.

With the western route, the suggested interchange location would be off an extended Peter

Brock Drive. Cut Hill Road could provide access from properties to the West.

7

5.0 Operation of OSO

Vehicle Operating Costs

On my measurements, the western route is approximately 1400m shorter than the eastern

route. Exact differences would depend on final alignments. While this might not seem a

high number over the length of the OSO, it nevertheless would cause higher vehicle

operating costs through extra vehicle-hours and extra vehicle-kilometres. With presumably

high future usage of the OSO, including road freight traffic, this is an extra cost that will

occur over the long life of the OSO.

Road and Rail Geometry

As discussed in Section 4.0, the eastern route will have greater changes in grade compared

with the western route, and tighter turn radii, at least on the sweep over the Nepean River.

This will lead to higher operating costs, although this is hard to quantify.

Noise

The eastern route will have greater noise impacts over more areas compared with the

western route, with impacts on Ellis Lane residential properties and impacts on the eastern

end of Cobbitty, particularly if an interchange is located in this location. In addition, noise

impacts could occur within the future Mater Dei Precinct residential area, due to the bridge

over the river and any interchange on Cobbitty Road. The western route would not go close

to concentrations of dwellings.

Land Use Development Potential

Current planning will see the Oran Park West residential area stop at the creek line just east

of the property “Tidapa”. The scenic Cobbitty Valley will thus change to a valley half full of

residential development, plus a motorway. While clearly subject to planning scrutiny, if the

motorway was changed to the western route there would be the opportunity for the Oran

Park urban area to be expanded to include the whole valley. The escarpment and hills

around the Cobbitty Valley would provide a natural boundary, and barrier, around an

expanded urban area. The east-west link road from the extension of Peter Brock Drive

through to an interchange on the OSO western route would provide a spine road for the

residential development, in a similar way to Peter Brock Drive within the existing Oran Park

Precinct.

8

6.0 Conclusions

1. There is not enough information on the altered, proposed OSO alignment to enable

a meaningful consultation with the public. The absence of an overlay of the route on

a proper map is a deficiency in the public consultation process. A typical landowner

would not be able to determine if the proposed OSO corridor affects them or not.

While I have prepared an overlayed map showing my understanding of the proposal,

this level of information would not be available to most landowners.

2. Further traffic/transport planning, ideally with strategic modelling, is required to

better determine the best corridor route and to best identify the interchange

locations.

3. In my assessment of what I have assumed to be the proposed OSO route, there are

substantial topographic and other constraints on the construction of the proposed

route, herein called the eastern route. An alternative western route has been

proposed by the Tidapa Landowner Group. It is shorter, has fewer topographic

constraints, has less impact on amenity, noise and the scenic landscape and could be

constructed with a straighter alignment, all with resulting benefits in construction

and operating costs.

4. I recommend that Transport for NSW critically review both OSO alignments and

undertake appropriate modelling and assessment to decide on the best alignment.

At that stage, a further public consultation step is recommended, prior to any legal

caveats being placed on land titles.

Christopher Hallam BE, MEngSc

30th November 2017

9

ANNEXURE

Name: CHRISTOPHER HALLAM

Qualifications: BE (Univ. of Sydney) 1971

MEng Sc (Traffic and Transport - Univ. of NSW) 1977

Fellow Institution of Engineers, Australia,

Chartered Professional Engineer

Experience: Christopher Hallam & Associates Pty. Ltd.

Director (1986-1989)(1995 to 2017)

Stapleton & Hallam

Partnership 1989-1995

Travers Morgan Pty. Ltd.

Manager - Traffic Planning (1981-86)

Department of Main Roads, NSW (1980-81)

District Traffic Engineer (South) at Division Office

Traffic Authority of NSW (1976-80)

Engineer in Traffic Authority's Secretariat.

Department of Motor Transport, NSW (1972-76)

Traffic Engineer in Traffic Planning & Management Br

Land & Environment Court

* Expert witness, for Councils and applicants, since 1981, and as Court-appointed expert, since

2004

* Member, LEC Users Group, representing Engineers Australia

* Author of papers to National Judicial College Conference, EPLA Conference, Law

Society and NEERG Seminars on traffic evidence in LEC

Projects & Studies:

* Land Use Traffic Generation: major research project covering 13 land uses, in particular,

shopping centres, plus traffic impact studies. Preparation of Traffic Authority `Policies,

Guidelines and Procedures for Traffic Generating Developments' with reviews in 1987, 1992

10

and 1993; preparation of draft 2nd edition in 1993; Metrop.Parking Policy; park policy,

Sydney City Ccl;South Sydney City Council transport/parking DCP

* Urban centre studies in Sydney, Coffs Harbour, Chatswood, Blacktown, The Entrance,

Newport, Dubbo, North Sydney, Mittagong, St Leonards, Mount Druitt, Campbelltown,

Windsor, Richmond, Bondi Junction, Rozelle

* Urban and regional development in Darling Harbour, Springwood, Menai, Fremantle, Gore

Hill, Bunbury, Dapto, Shellharbour, Windsor, Kensington, Scheyville, Balmain, Luna

Park/Lavender Bay, Camden-Narellan, Baulkham Hills, Leichhardt LATM Study, Defence site

planning studies, Neutral Bay, Regents Park, Ingleburn, Holsworthy, Padstow, Glebe; Sydney

Harbour Federation Trust lands.

* Marinas at Rose Bay, Double Bay, Gladesville, Dolans Bay, Careel Bay, research for Boating

Industry Association, paper to International Marinas Conference

* Quarries at Karuah, Tweed Valley, Nerriga, Bungonia

* Residential subdivision planning in Cecil Hills, Harrington Park, Bligh Park, Currans Hill,

Mount Annan, East Bowral

* Road Planning studies:

- City West Road EIS; Rutledge St EIS; Lane Cove West Link Road

- Johnsons Creek route assessment; State Highway 23 traffic design.

- County Road 5030; Phillip Parkway EIS.

- F4: toll/travel demand studies; F2 EIS and traffic design.

- Princes Highway Relocation Study and EIS.

- F4 Access Study, of ramp options; Bells Line of Road Assessment.

- Stewart Ave Extension, Newcastle: assessment of impacts.

- M2 Motorway service centre design

- Cityrail commuter carpark study

* Section 94 studies in Blacktown, Bowral, Mittagong, Moss Vale, St Leonards, Balmain and

Newcastle, and development of S.94 Guidelines for WESROC.. Appeals to Court on S94 plans

in Wollondilly, Hornsby

11

Map showing Western route and original Transport for NSW “Eastern” route

Dotted line is approximate route for access to Interchange on OCO

12

Structure Plan showing Peter Brock Drive route between Camden Valley Way and Cobbitty

Road West

13

Views of Cobbitty Hills

on proposed (Eastern) Outer Sydney Orbital Route

Submission on Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 on ... · “Scenic and cultural landscapes...

Documents

Transcript of Submission on Draft Future Transport Strategy 2056 on ... · “Scenic and cultural landscapes...