F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Park

NSW & ACT specific bushwalking discussion.
Forum rules
NSW & ACT specific bushwalking discussion. Please avoid publishing details of access to sensitive areas with no tracks.

F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Park

Postby Pteropus » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 2:55 pm

News regarding a proposal for routing the F6 through part of the Royal National Park.
From The Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/f6-extension- ... wq6ba.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
EXCLUSIVE
JUNE 14 2017 - 6:26AM

F6 Extension to mean bulldozing 460 homes or cutting through the National Park

Peter Martin

The NSW government is considering acquiring 60 hectares of the Royal National Park for the proposed F6 Extension between Sydney and the Illawarra.

The alternative, according to an internal government report, is the acquisition and bulldozing of about 460 houses and 40 commercial properties between Loftus and Waterfall at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Roads and Maritime Authority believes it can acquire the 60 hectares of the Royal National Park for about $40 million.

Fairfax Media has seen the property acquisition and communications plans for F6 motorway, planning funds for which will be included in next week's budget.

The documents indicate that construction of the motorway could start as soon as 2019, and they include a step-by-step guide to managing community relations as it is planned and built.

The say messaging about the national park will "need careful management".

The 16,000-hectare national park is Australia's first, and the second in the world after Yellowstone National Park in the United States. The Commonwealth Department of Environment says it is home to one of the richest concentrations of plant species in temperate Australia. It was placed on the National Heritage List in 2006.

The communications plan says Roads and Maritime Services has briefed the Office of Environment and Heritage on topics including the "Royal National Park" and "Sensitive Georges River Wetlands".

The government would only need to acquire about 60 private residential properties to complete the rest of the tollway between St Peters and Loftus at an estimated cost of about $120 million, or $2 million per house. Most are in Sans Souci and Miranda. Many of the addresses are in Meriel Street, Sans Souci, Taren Point Road, and Gwawley Parade Miranda.
About 200 properties at present zoned for roadworks would not be required and could have the zoning lifted.

The Herald applied for but was denied access to the document under the Government Information (Public Access) Act on the ground that it was prepared for the dominant purpose of being submitted to cabinet, "and was in fact submitted to Cabinet".

A spokesman for Roads Minister Melinda Pavey said on Tuesday that no decision had been made regarding the final alignment or form of the F6 Extension.

"The government has not yet decided when corridor recommendations will be made," he said. "The community will continue to be kept informed at key stages of the project."

Next week's budget will allocate a further $15 million for planning work on the F6. In December the government allocated $20 million for geotechnical testing.

The government has not confirmed when or if construction will start on the project. The documents seen by Fairfax, however, assume that an environmental impact statement will be prepared soon.

They say it will take a minimum of 18 months to acquire each property, either by negotiation or compulsory acquisition, should agreement not be reached.

"Given current public and political sentiment arising from the WestConnex property acquisition program, there is unlikely to be much political appetite for reducing the duration of the acquisition program," the acquisition plan says.

A Transport for NSW memo released earlier under the Public Access Act says the difference between the cost of the proposed F6 Extension and an alternative cheaper proposal that would cut the time taken to travel from Sydney to Wollongong by train from 90 minutes to 65 is "sufficient to construct the equivalent of almost three Snowy Mountains Hydro Schemes".

The communications plan says if the alternative of an improved rail connection is raised by the media or stakeholders, the appropriate response is to say that although the idea was commended in an earlier transport master plan, "subsequent studies have not been supportive of an immediate start".

A draft Q&A for fielding questions from the media avoids mention of the rail proposal of the Royal National Park saying "the study is in its early stages and the community will be kept up to date as plans progress".

It says it is "too early to speculate" on the potential cost or on whether the road would be tolled.

The six-phase communications plan would begin with a "low key, matter of fact" letter to residents affected by geological testing that does not mention the F6 extension.

"Key influencers / key commentators" would be given early one-on-one briefings as soon as practicable.

The briefings would be confidential, "but would allow the senior stakeholders to provide informed comment on the project if the need arises", the communications plan says.

Among the named key influencers are Paul Forward, a former head of the Roads and Traffic Authority identified as an "influential transport commentator", the head of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia Brendan Lyon, identified as a "thought leader", and the head of the Sydney Business Chamber Patricia Forsythe, identified as a "strong supporter".

Asked on Tuesday whether the F6 Extension would be built, Premier Gladys Berejiklian said her government loved "the challenge of building projects that have been in the too-hard basket for too long".
User avatar
Pteropus
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Neither here nor there
Region: Australia
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby GPSGuided » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 3:04 pm

Read that this morning and 60 hectares! Why do I suspect RNP will lose out against the number of home owners otherwise affected?
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6103
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Pteropus » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 3:22 pm

I think this has been proposed and rejected previously. From a legislative perspective, lots will depend on the proposed route and how it impacts any threatened species before they could cut into the park. Also, given the popularity of the park, this could cause a huge public backlash. But then again, governments are happy ramming through environmentally destructive policy against scientific and legal advice and/or social licence in recent times, so who knows?
User avatar
Pteropus
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Neither here nor there
Region: Australia
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby GPSGuided » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 3:36 pm

Fingers crossed.
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6103
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Pteropus » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 3:49 pm

Former NSW Premier Bob Carr's view on the proposal on ABC radio -> http://www.abc.net.au/radio/sydney/prog ... rr/8616452
User avatar
Pteropus
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Neither here nor there
Region: Australia
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Nuts » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 4:10 pm

No interest from the Chinese contingent then.

Good on Bob. A precedent. And at some stage this notion needs to evolve further (most likely a crowning moment from some future luminary), to integrity shown to all such developments big or small.

Crisis of not getting somewhere quicker and easier, free of hot showers, therapy pools and Chardonnay.
'Boundaries' from generation to generation and beyond attacks such precedents underpin.

Deplorable to test the waters leaning on the heartache of communities or angst of local nature lovers. Subterfuge just doesn't seem to work out well for pollies these days.
坚果
User avatar
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7427
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Pteropus » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 8:07 pm

Nuts wrote:...
Crisis of not getting somewhere quicker and easier, free of hot showers, therapy pools and Chardonnay.
'Boundaries' from generation to generation and beyond attacks such precedents underpin.
Deplorable to test the waters leaning on the heartache of communities or angst of local nature lovers...

Yeah, I think that there is a bit of a tried and tested divide and conquer approach that forces people to side with either the community whose houses could be threatened, or those who don't want to see more highway cutting into the National Park. ANd speaking of boundaries from an intergenerational point of view, by all accounts there could potentially less vehicles on the road as vehicle sharing apps take off, autonomous cars, better internet and more people working from home. I wonder if planning is taking this into consideration? Additional highway may be redundant by the time any highway is completed. Perhaps they should sit on this one for the next 30 or so years. Not like they haven't done that before...cough Badgery's Creek airport cough!
User avatar
Pteropus
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Neither here nor there
Region: Australia
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby GPSGuided » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 8:21 pm

Curious to find out how they have planned the routes through the RNP and through residential areas. Just how much encroachment they planned?
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6103
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Pteropus » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 8:39 pm

There has long been plans for motorway down the suburbs on the western side of Botany Bay, and into the Sutherland Shire, which have been reserved as a corridor of parks through the suburbs. I guess where these reserves end at Loftus they will want to cut along the edge of the park, probably alongside the existing Princess Highway and further down near Yarrawarrah, along the rail line. I imagine it will be a thin strip, but the highway will need to either fly-over or under the two entrances on the park’s western edges, and who knows what they will do at Heathcote and Waterfall. 60 ha isn’t really a large area in the scheme of things, but just adds to the destruction, fragmentation and isolation of habitat…death by a thousand cuts and all that.
Anyway, there is some government information here, but not very detailed yet -> http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/projects/sydn ... index.html
User avatar
Pteropus
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Neither here nor there
Region: Australia
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby ribuck » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 8:44 pm

I would accept a trade of 60 ha of RNP in return for some equal or greater advantage. For example, say, re-wilding of Narrowneck.
ribuck
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed 15 May, 2013 3:47 am
Region: Other Country
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Pteropus » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 8:51 pm

ribuck wrote:I would accept a trade of 60 ha of RNP in return for some equal or greater advantage. For example, say, re-wilding of Narrowneck.

That's hardly a trade. Kinda in the same vein that ecological offsets are smoke and mirrors conservation. Save one natural area at the expense of another, when both should/could be protected...
User avatar
Pteropus
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Neither here nor there
Region: Australia
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby GPSGuided » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 9:15 pm

So it's primarily just widening of the existing Princess Hwy and that would make sense. Cutting a new route through RNP would see too much undulations. Thanks for the link Pteropus.
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6103
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Pteropus » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 9:30 pm

The details are vague, but the use of the term "motorway" may suggest they want to put in a separate motorway rather than just widen the existing highway. The vagueness and secrecy is part of the problem. Especially given that they are talking of acquiring people's property and running it through the national park. As suggested elsewhere, given the Westconnex routing changes and associated debacles, a precedent has been set and it must be a night mare for some.
User avatar
Pteropus
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Neither here nor there
Region: Australia
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby ribuck » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 11:23 pm

Pteropus wrote:
ribuck wrote:I would accept a trade of 60 ha of RNP in return for some equal or greater advantage. For example, say, re-wilding of Narrowneck.

That's hardly a trade. Kinda in the same vein that ecological offsets are smoke and mirrors conservation. Save one natural area at the expense of another, when both should/could be protected...

The idea of a trade is to end up with something that's better (overall) for the environment, and also better for those people who want to drive places quickly and efficiently.

If every project could be bundled into some kind of overall incremental improvement, things would get inexorably better over time.

Pteropus, if there was some environmental improvement which was worth more to you than the environmental degradation of 60ha of RNP, wouldn't you want to make the trade? Or would you say "If I can't have everything I want, I won't accept any of it"?
ribuck
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed 15 May, 2013 3:47 am
Region: Other Country
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby ribuck » Wed 14 Jun, 2017 11:27 pm

Incidentally, the park is 15091 hectares, so 60 hectares is 0.4% of it.
ribuck
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed 15 May, 2013 3:47 am
Region: Other Country
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Nuts » Thu 15 Jun, 2017 10:41 am

I'm not sure what Bob's alternate plan was? Can recall him spruiking rail upgrades at one stage. That required no incursion to the park or residents.

If they have a serious concern for conservation, why not an impact assessment first and foremost (rather than geophysics sampling).
No habitat impact will be strong enough to stop a project?
坚果
User avatar
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7427
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Pteropus » Thu 15 Jun, 2017 12:35 pm

ribuck wrote:
Pteropus wrote:
ribuck wrote:I would accept a trade of 60 ha of RNP in return for some equal or greater advantage. For example, say, re-wilding of Narrowneck.

That's hardly a trade. Kinda in the same vein that ecological offsets are smoke and mirrors conservation. Save one natural area at the expense of another, when both should/could be protected...

The idea of a trade is to end up with something that's better (overall) for the environment, and also better for those people who want to drive places quickly and efficiently.

If every project could be bundled into some kind of overall incremental improvement, things would get inexorably better over time.

Pteropus, if there was some environmental improvement which was worth more to you than the environmental degradation of 60ha of RNP, wouldn't you want to make the trade? Or would you say "If I can't have everything I want, I won't accept any of it"?


Trade-off between protecting one area over another in this situation is a moot point. It hasn’t even been suggested and highly unlikely to be an option. But your suggestion reminds me of a quote by the developer Harry Triguboff of Meriton, who once said in an interview "You go north and we have all these reserves and you go south and you have all the reserves, and they are the best part of the coast. That is crazy. We should be building on this area. If they want to see trees, they can go to Katoomba, there are plenty of trees there."

The small area of national park they want to acquire is not irrelevant though, since the impact will be far greater than simply removing 60 ha of veg and displacing native animals. Building a freeway through any area of natural vegetation is not trivial, even if the area of the road is not that great compared to the total area of veg. The impacts of freeways as a barrier and sink (i.e., death trap) for animal populations, and associated edge effects is very well known. Not to mention increased pollution into natural areas, including weeds and runoff from the roads, plus noise and visual impacts.

I think a question here though is do we accept increased encroachment of development into any of our national parks that does not actually improve the park itself? After all, if an area becomes degraded because of a small amount of development here and there, then what's to stop further incursion beyond those areas in the future simply because the functionality of the surrounding ecosystem has been lost? An old saying comes to mind, "Give an inch and they'll take a mile"...
User avatar
Pteropus
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Neither here nor there
Region: Australia
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Pteropus » Thu 15 Jun, 2017 12:42 pm

Nuts wrote:I'm not sure what Bob's alternate plan was? Can recall him spruiking rail upgrades at one stage. That required no incursion to the park or residents.

If they have a serious concern for conservation, why not an impact assessment first and foremost (rather than geophysics sampling).
No habitat impact will be strong enough to stop a project?

I doubt Bob Carr has much influence these days, but his passion for the bush is well known.
I guess the geotechnical surveys are a formality for any project so the engineers can draw up plans, whether they end up being used or not. Nothing proceeds without plans. I'm sure impact assessments will come as part of the process later.
User avatar
Pteropus
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Neither here nor there
Region: Australia
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Mark F » Thu 15 Jun, 2017 1:24 pm

I don't think this would be a severe problem if it stuck to the railway line boundary, but the serious part is where the extension would dive over 1km into the park to get around the extrusion of Heathcote onto the eastern side of the railway.
"Perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove".
User avatar
Mark F
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Mon 19 Sep, 2011 8:14 pm
Region: Australian Capital Territory
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby ribuck » Thu 15 Jun, 2017 5:08 pm

Mark F wrote:...the serious part is where the extension would dive over 1km into the park to get around the extrusion of Heathcote onto the eastern side of the railway.

That part could be built as an overpass above the existing highway. This wouldn't be popular with the Heathcote residents of course.
ribuck
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed 15 May, 2013 3:47 am
Region: Other Country
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby johnw » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 1:45 am

Note: I have obtained site owner and site mod permission to post this information.

Just an aside for anyone who wishes to register their opposition to this proposal.
Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales has launched an online petition to register opposition to this proposal. It opposes any moves by the NSW Government to remove bushland from Royal NP and calls on the government to rule out removing any vegetation to make way for any new road projects (in this instance impacting Royal NP).

Save our Royal National Park

I have signed it. This is one of my local parks and I am passionately against the possibility of what has been outlined. As Pteropus implied earlier, I think it will be the thin end of the wedge and RNP is already under enough pressure from the impacts of urban development. It is a key natural area in Sydney that is worth preserving intact in my opinion. I was bushwalking there on Sunday, which reminded me of the importance of leaving it as is. Or preferably acquiring additional land to help create a contiguous wildlife corridor.

Pteropus wrote:The small area of national park they want to acquire is not irrelevant though, since the impact will be far greater than simply removing 60 ha of veg and displacing native animals. Building a freeway through any area of natural vegetation is not trivial, even if the area of the road is not that great compared to the total area of veg. The impacts of freeways as a barrier and sink (i.e., death trap) for animal populations, and associated edge effects is very well known. Not to mention increased pollution into natural areas, including weeds and runoff from the roads, plus noise and visual impacts.
Agreed. Some time ago I read a very comprehensive report on the state of Royal NP (and associated reserves) that discussed many of these issues, if I can find it...
Last edited by johnw on Tue 20 Jun, 2017 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John W

If I could not walk far and fast, I think I should just explode and perish. ~Charles Dickens
User avatar
johnw
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Macarthur Region - SW Sydney
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Nuts » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 11:49 am

Sanctity for our park boundaries is a national concern. Signed 4596.
坚果
User avatar
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7427
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby johnw » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 9:59 pm

Nuts wrote:Sanctity for our park boundaries is a national concern. Signed 4596.

Thanks Nuts. Yes totally agree, have and will continue to support similar concerns in Tassie and other states.
John W

If I could not walk far and fast, I think I should just explode and perish. ~Charles Dickens
User avatar
johnw
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Macarthur Region - SW Sydney
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby climberman » Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:10 am

johnw wrote:and calls on the government to rule out removing any vegetation to make way for any new road projects.


Really?
climberman
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 7:32 pm

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Nuts » Tue 20 Jun, 2017 10:51 am

Yes! (just sign)
坚果
User avatar
Nuts
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 7427
Joined: Sat 05 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm
Region: Tasmania

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby johnw » Tue 20 Jun, 2017 1:53 pm

climberman wrote:
johnw wrote:and calls on the government to rule out removing any vegetation to make way for any new road projects.


Really?

Yeah OK, fixed. The wording could have been less ambiguous but I think the spirit of intent is clear in the linked page.
John W

If I could not walk far and fast, I think I should just explode and perish. ~Charles Dickens
User avatar
johnw
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Macarthur Region - SW Sydney
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: F6 Freeway extension proposal through Royal National Par

Postby Pteropus » Tue 20 Jun, 2017 2:03 pm

Good one John.
User avatar
Pteropus
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Neither here nor there
Region: Australia
Gender: Male


Return to New South Wales & ACT

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest