An increasing number of concerned citizens are claiming the Sydney-centric policies of the state government are destroying the state, and the NSW Parliament is only concerned with the 10 sq. km. plot surrounding the harbour.
Over the last few years the State Government has been obsessed with a policy called Urban Consolidation. At its simplest Urban Consolidation is about making Sydney’s population more dense. Ideally cramming more people into every square metre of land.
The logic behind the plan is:
• Saves land
• Increases the efficiency and use of public Transport; if there are more people in the area around a bus stop, the bus stop will get used more
• Reduces Traffic Congestion
• Saves on infrastructure; the distance need to lay out pipes and roads is less
• More environmentally friendly; if people are travelling less and using up less land than it must be good for the environment
In practice, in most cities around the world, this is not the case. Statistics compiled by Dr. Tony Recsei, President of Save Our Suburbs has shown on many counts the policy of Urban Consolidation is naïve and impractical. According to Dr. Recesi, in world studies as population density increases so to does traffic congestion. Furthermore, in Australian cities as population density increases so to does travelling time.
Similar trends are recorded in air pollution, energy use and community involvement. In other words the denser the cities, the more time we spend driving and travelling, creating more air pollution, less time doing community activities and using more power in high rises turning on air conditioning because we can’t stand the not so fresh air.
All of this is doing nothing for the cities infrastructure, if we are using more energy we need more power, if there are more cars on the road per square km, we need even more roads per square km, the city also needs more pumped into the centre of the city, needing bigger pipes. For the water, power and road infrastructure to be put in place expensive underground digging needs to take place, which needs a large investment, which in turn increases the cost of tolls, electricity and water bills.
In fact the policy is saving an extremely small amount of land in NSW. Over the last 10 years of the implementation we have saved 8,500 hectares according to the State Government, a modest amount compared to the 1.5 million hectares cleared in the same period, according to Dr. Recesi.
Even with the increasing amounts of urban sprawl and traffic congestion, we are not opting to use public transport instead of cars and the increase in density will not change that. Dr. Recesi statistics show that public transport only makes up about 15% of transport use in Sydney. The population density in Copenhagen is double that of Sydney and yet the public transport useage is still only about 15%. Most major cities in the world can only expect public transport to make up 10-30% of transport use.
At a time of high interest rates the Government continues to hold back on releasing land, increasing house prices and making the family home unaffordable. At a time of increasing adult and childhood obesity, the government continues to reduce park space and open areas. At a time of great concern for the environment, the government allows increasing energy use and air pollution. At a time of great economic concern, the government allows the transport of goods services to be delayed by traffic and the cost of land for factories and warehouses to triple that of the rest of the worlds major exporters.
Your Opinion Counts. Click Here! >>>>>>>>>>>
So what is the solution?
Over the last ten years the government has flirted with the idea of satellite cities but instead has opted for increasing urban sprawl. Many years ago the government floated the idea of a European style super fast train network to link Canberra, Wollongong and Western Sydney. The idea was to make commute times between the areas negligible, allowing the economies to rapidly develop off the back of Sydney’s CDB. This would have seen the birth of satellite cities around Sydney.
The main advantage of satellite cities is that existing economies in areas such as the Illawarra, Western Sydney and Sutherland shire can be re-developed to integrate with Sydney’s CDB. Between these centres would be specialised express transport connections. Essentially we could have our cake and eat it too, we could have suburbia, a cleaner environment for humans, flora and fauna, decreased travelling times, a strong public transport system and more space.
The policy of satellite cities that Melbourne and Perth are already implementing new transport strategies and even Adelaide is looking to jump on the band wagon. As recently as 2003 the then assistant Planning Minister, Diane Beamer was directing her department to look into developing satellite cities. Instead the government ignores transport to and from Sutherland Shire, takes away the ferry from Parramatta and ignores the need for road and rail to be upgraded in Wollongong. The government then creates a maze of highways, on ramps and tunnels around the Harbour. So why does the Government fail to act?
Apart from naïve policy. Satellite cities are a long term solution, offering long term rewards.
In the short term they can also win votes by building a massive bypass in a marginal electorate.
The less land there is, the more expensive the land is, the more money to be made off the land. The denser the housing the more money to be made off the tenants.
And we have already seen how willing the government is to accept donations from residential land developers.
Your Opinion Counts. Click Here! >>>>>>>>>>>
Republic and Queen Elizabeth
I have no bets either way.
If something ain't broken, why fix it?
We may not be a Republic, and while Queen Elizabeth may be 'Queen of Aust’ (sic) in theory, she takes no part in the running of this country.
When she drops off the twig will be soon enough to worry about a Republic.
Fergie | 
