James Hansen

The livability and economic prosperity of our cities is underpinned by an array of social and economic infrastructure, and while the social and economic benefits of infrastructure are well known and understood, finding the money to build, operate and maintain this infrastructure can be a daunting task. This post briefly explains some of the key elements of funding urban infrastructure, it begins with an discussion of why the public sector usually provides these services, and then considers whether infrastructure users or society at large should pay for the services. We then finishes with some suggestions to improve infrastructure funding in NSW.

Market Failure
When discussing public infrastructure it's important to understand some of the fundamental economic challenges infrastructure services may face. For example most infrastructure suffers from market failures such as natural monopolies and the free rider problem. These market structures determine whether the public or private sector is best placed to provision these services.

Infrastructure is said to have a natural monopoly because most infrastructure services require high fixed capital costs. For example. it is much cheaper for a community to build and maintain just one electrical network, rather than have multiple energy providers run multiple cables past every home and business. Natural monopolies also occur due to the natural structure of a place. For example a city may only have one suitable location to build a dam or shipping port. When building monopolistic infrastructure services it is essential that the markets are well regulated by government, through mechanisms such as; contestability, breaking up vertical markets, minimum services standards and even price regulation.

Infrastructure services can also suffer from a free rider problem, where metering and measuring can be technically difficult or too expensive. A free rider is someone who takes benefit from a good, but does not pay for the benefit or negative cost they may imposed on others. For example, electrical lighting was not widely adopted until energy providers could meter consumption through the adoption of the electricity meter. Today, it is relatively easy for the market to provide water, electricity and data services due to the consumer being the only beneficiary and the amount of benefit can be easily identified by metering their usage. However, other infrastructure services such as roads have been much slower to adopt ways of metering and measuring consumption. While new GPS and mobile computing technology would allow for accurate time-of-day and location metering of road consumption, public policy has been slow to respond. Transport infrastructure also suffers from a free rider problem in that the benefit (and costs) are not only derived by consumers. For example building a road through an industrial area may increase land values as businesses have improved accessibility, even if the land owner does not use the road the land owner benefits from increased land values. Roads are also notorious bad at imposing costs on others, for example; noise and air pollution, road congestion, barrier effects, even injury and death. It's critical that infrastructure funding considers all the beneficiaries and adopts innovative metering and pricing technology to accurately price benefits and costs.

Beneficiaries Pay
When funding infrastructure it is critical to identify all the beneficiaries of the infrastructure services, and then identify the most appropriate mechanism to pay for infrastructure services. The mechanisms to pay for infrastructure may be social funding, through general tax revenue, or directly charging users through metering usage or special levies related to the nearby infrastructure service.

When using user pays levies or taxes to capture the positive externalities of infrastructure services, it is critical they only capture the incremental benefit derived from the infrastructure service. For the market to function effectively, the timing and value of the levy should be directly linked to the derived benefit. For example, the diagram below illustrates the increase in property values from a range of urban activities, including; rezoning, the construction of local infrastructure (such as streets, utilities, parks, etc), property development (such as building a house), and the construction of strategic infrastructure (such as main roads or a railway station).


In this example, only the value highlighted in blue should be captured by mechanisms such as a special levy or taxes. It is also critical that these levies be charged at the time the value is realised, that would be when the rezoning or infrastructure service is delivered, not before. It is preferable that the value created by the property development activity should not be captured, as this value has been earned in the market and any tax on these activities would only result in higher prices, lower demand and lower supply.

The benefits of most infrastructure services are not completely realised the assets are constructed. While some value is created, the greatest benefit is realised over the useful life of the asset. For this reason it is also reasonable to impose user charges and levies over the useful life of the asset, rather than large upfront levies. For example, a small contribution could be made immediately after the construction of footpaths and street lighting, however the bulk of the value should be captured through smaller ongoing levies over a longer period of time through mechanisms such as council rates or a special levy.

Needed Reform in NSW
Public policy in regards to urban infrastructure in New South Wales is notoriously bad at charging the right beneficiary at the right price and at the right time. For example, most roads in NSW are provided at no cost to road users, and consumption taxes like federal petrol taxes are location and time-of-day agnostic. There are a limited number of roads that are tolled in NSW, however only the harbour crossings have time-of-day pricing, and they are priced at construction/maintenance cost, not the value derived by the benefiting consumer. This leads to congestion on some roads and empty tunnels on others, which in turn has led to massive project failures such as the Land Cove Tunnel, Cross City Tunnel and undoubtedly the future WestConnex project.

These poor pricing mechanisms are also notoriously bad in the housing market. Property developers are often charged local and strategic infrastructure levies before the infrastructure assets are built and the value is created. This adds significant costs to housing supply as prices are inflated; developers add a risk adjusted rate of return to the cost outlay, these costs are then passed onto consumers through increased housing prices, and to society at large for a decrease in the supply of housing. The increase in house prices is also multiplied through increases in stamp duty and other property transaction costs such as real estate agent fees, and the final amount is then financed by the home owner through the private mortgage market adding significant financing costs. A homeowner in NSW could easily end up paying $100K for a $300K levy.

To fix this mess all value capture mechanisms should be separated into small upfront contributions when the assets are constructed and ongoing user charges or levies over the economic life of the asset. Government treasury should be funding the asset construction, which they can finance at no cost to government through infrastructure bonds which would be repaid by levies and consumption charges. If communities are unable to afford essential infrastructure services there may be a case for government grants to fund these projects or provide subsidies for ongoing user charges, however the planning system and development industry should not be used to hide these subsidies. Reforming the funding of infrastructure services would have many benefits, including significant cost reductions to government and consumers, reducing the risk to property developers, and reduce the market price of new housing. We now have the technology to accurately identify beneficiaries and charge them for their benefit, we now need to reform the institutions that deliver these public goods and the mechanisms they use to deliver them.

Roads and are for going places, Streets are places

All too often I hear the words roads and streets used interchangeably, these words describe two very different things, and the distinction is important.

Roads are the critical arteries of our towns and cities. They form networks of mobility for moving people and goods within and between our cities. Streets on the other hand are more complex, and serve a dual purpose, providing both access to roads, but critically they also form vast networks of public space where we live, work and play. Over the last half a century the private motor car has come to dominate these places in our cities, and any nuanced understanding of streets as both a place and a transport network has been almost completely lost to many communities.

In the 20th century, the public street, that great mass of public space, was been comprehensibly redefined and redesigned by traffic and road engineers. Engineers have primarily designed these spaces for the purpose for moving cars efficiently and effective through neighbors. Everything from their size, choice of materials, drainage systems and the laws for their use have prioritized the movement of cars.

Lets be clear, on even the shortest journey to work or school, our streets make up only a tiny fraction of the distance we travel. Local roads or main arterial roads make up the vast majority of the distance we travel in the average car journey. In my personal experience, the local street at both my home and the places I work would make up less than 1% of the total journey. Why is it, that this tiny component of our journey, and the vast majority of the public space in our cities, is so dominated by the movement of cars?

In Australia, most of our streets have vehicle speed limits of 50km/h. We know statistically that at this speed, a collision with a person or cyclist has a very high probability of sever injury or death. And we also know that reducing these speeds to 20 or even 30 km/h would almost completely eliminate the probability of major injury and death. Knowing this, why would we allow such reckless use of these public spaces?

Urban communities around the world are becoming increasingly aware of the value of their local streets. While many urban planners and urban designers promote the construction of bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure, there really is no need for all this expensive infrastructure on our local streets. While our local road networks, and other networks of open space, could always benefit from more dedicated walking and cycling infrastructure, the humble street is a vast resource being squandered on moving cars at high speeds.

I believe we need some radical innovation in the way we design, build and govern our local streets. They should be designed as public spaces for everyone; walking, cycling, meeting neighbors, playing football or cricket. Streets should be constructed with materials and drainage system that show they are completely different to roads. Imagine if every street in your neighborhood was designed less like a road, and more like a driveway you might find in a luxurious holiday resort. Why should they be any different? Why shouldn't they be simple strips of paving or concrete with a tree canopy, central drainage, no curbs, and designated places for parking vehicles. Finally streets must be governed as public places, more like a park than a part of the road network. Vehicles should be limited to near walking speeds, and pedestrians should right of way at all times.

At the heart of Sydney's story is a little creek call the Tank Stream. The original fresh water source of the colonial settlement, the tank stream was a dominate feature of life and the landscape of Sydney. However, with "progress" we've covered and all but forgotten this central character in Sydney's history. I thnk it's time we corrected this wrong and brought the tank stream back up to ground level and made it a feature of the CBD.

We could remove a lane of parked cars from Pitt Street, maybe move the loading zones into underground parking lots, and make an amazing water feature though the middle of the city. We could have a small stream running from Pitt Street mall all the way down to the Quay.

They have a water feature like this at More London, and I've seen larger urban streams similar to this in Kyoto Japan and Vaduz Liechtenstein. Why not Sydney?

The Rill London, Source thewandrian.tumblr.com

In 2012 the newly formed agency Transport for NSW released 'Sydney's Rail Future' followed by the 'NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan'. There is some great thinking in these documents, they clearly identify the value of effective transport services and the transport challenges facing Sydney. As for the rail network, the 'Sydney's Rail Future' strategy articulates a great strategy to deliver a three-tiered system; Rapid Transit, Suburban and Intercity. The argument is that these systems provide different services to different customers, a sort of market segmentation and product differentiation strategy.

Unfortunately the strategy is then hijacked by transport management, arguing for the separation of Sydney Trains and NSW Trains, and hijacked by transport planners, who argue for their pet metro rail project.

If this strategy had been considered in a more holistic context of a long term strategy, rather than a strategy for pet projects, the changes could be far simpler, easier to implement, and significant'y more far reaching. That is, with only a few small changes to the inner city rail network, the entire Sydney rail network could be separated into three tiers of service, and delivered in partnership with the private sector.

The real pinch points in the rail network that force intercity and suburban services onto the inner city lines are at Sydenham and Central. At Sydenham, the Bankstown and Southern lines merge, and at Central the Western Line and Northern/North Shore Line merge. These merges no only limit the capacity of these lines, but also complicate the separating of intercity, suburban and metro services. If these lines were extended from Sydneham and Central into the CBD, rail capacity in Sydney could be doubled. Intercity services would have express access directly to Central, and Suburban services would have separate service to the CBD. The Inner West line, Bankstown line, East Hills line and Hurstville to Bondi Junction lines could all be converted to high frequency inner city metro services.

If separated, the conversion of these lines and the new rolling stock could be delivered by private sector partners. This would allow the government to spread the funding of the infrastructure over a 25 or 30 year PPP concession period.

To realise this more effective approach to a three tired system, it is critical the central CBD corridor is reserved for suburban services. This corridor provides convenitent access from the CBD to the suburban network without the high cost of duplicating the city circle solution. It is critical the central CBD corridor is not squandered on the proposed second harbour crossing. While a second harbour crossing is indeed needed. Rather than duplicating the existing crossing as is currently proposed for the North West pet project, the future harbour crossings could break the city circle and extend the metro services to the Northern Beaches and along the Victoria Road corridor to the northwest, without the any additional tunneling through the CBD.

Taken to it's full extent, the concept is illustrated below. The new lines (double lines) separate intercity and suburban line (black lines) from high frequency metro lines (colour lines).

Do we focus too much on housing when we discuss density?

Housing is the most substantial form of land use in our cities, yet a significant amount of our lives are spent at work/school/etc. It is the density and land use of these destinations that shape decisions like the type of transport we choose, and determine our accessibility to vibrant social places.

The trend over the last decade or so has been the densification of our housing, and we are right to consider how we do this well. Yet perhaps of greater concern should be the trend to decentralise and suburbanise our jobs into relatively low density office parks on the suburban fringe. These places are completely devoid of public spaces, public life and diversity of choice. They are car centric places that cater only to mostly large corporate investment. They are devoid of all the benefits; environmental, social and economic, we espouse when we discuss density done well.

The draft Sydney metro strategy highlights the need to move jobs west, and identifies the development of more business parks. Perhaps we should be considering how we attract office space investment out of low density suburban office parks and encourage investment and urban renewal of our existing urban centres, especially in western Sydney.

From my reading of the corridor studies, my knowledge of transport planning, spatial planning, economics and personal experience in this region of Sydney, it is clear to me the proposed NorthConnex motorway has been significantly flawed by a poor planning process. The corridor studies and proposed motorway have significantly undervalued the need for a North South motorway connection within the Sydney motorway network. To deliver the greatest value for road users and the local communities within the study area, the Type A Yellow route would have achieved the greatest cost benefit measures. This fact is recognised within the reports, however it’s been overlooked by flawed logic and nearsighted decision making.

SKM identified Type A corridor options

 

Corridor studies are flawed

The Perlman Report reviewed previous studies into a preferred option for a connection between the Pacific Motorway and the Sydney Orbital. All studies conducted to date have correctly identified a Type A corridor, or urban solution, as providing the greatest economic and urban amenity benefits. However, having identified the preference for a Type A corridor, the investigations failed to identify the importance of a North South motorway connection within the network, and preferred a North West connection. The opportunity to provide broader North South benefits to the orbital network were disregarded based on travel time calculations and limitations of the M2 tolling concession.

 

Overstated benefits from time saving between route options

In my estimation the increased travel distance for westbound traffic on the Yellow option would be approximately 1 kilometre, or 1 minute additional time. For traffic travelling from Western Sydney to the Central Coast or beyond, this travel time is completely inconsequential. The Pearlman Report actually argues that western Sydney would become less accessible from this additional 1 minute of travel time (p73). My analogy to this argument is saying Melbourne would become more accessible from Sydney, if the Tullamarine Airport was moved one kilometre closer to the Melbourne CBD. This argument is completely ridiculous, time saving benefits are derived from the existence of the motorway, not the specific route chosen. To suggest western Sydney would become any less accessible, and the Yellow option would be less compatible with the Metropolitan Strategy, is completely absurd.

Effect of M2 toll pricing is flawed

The most significant failing of the SKM traffic study was the calculations based on the effect of the M2 toll. The SKM study assumed the Yellow and Red options would have inferior traffic improvements due to the additional burden of the M2 toll. This is because the M2 motorway uses section tolling which is cheaper west of Pennant Hills road. For this reason the Purple option was preferred as the burden of tolls on North West traffic would be less. This assumption completely ignores the opportunity to engage the M2 motorway operator, Transurban, to achieve greater network benefits across their M2, M7 and Land Cove Tunnel investments. The opportunity now exists to modify the M2 tolling concession to a distance toll, and attract both North South and North West traffic to utilise all Transurban motorways. This assumption that Transurban would act against their self-interest is completely irrational and flawed. It renders all beneficial traffic estimates on Pennant Hills Road, the Pacific Hwy and Lane Cove road in both the Yellow and Red options completely incorrect and irrelevant. The Pearlman report actually identified this and supports this conclusion, they found under distance tolling on both motorways the Yellow route performed best and delivered the greatest benefit (p89). However the significance of this finding was overlooked, the Pearlman report conformed to the status quo Purple option as it performed better within the existing tolling regime. The toll operator, Transurban, has consistently shown public support and preference for the Yellow option, and has since been named as the preferred tenderer for the NorthConnex motorway. Given the recent changes in toll collection technology, and the opportunity to implement distance tolling on the M2, the Yellow route should be the preferred route and the M2 toll concession should be changed.

Flawed Cost Benefits Ratio

These flaws in traffic assumptions have then continued into studies of the economic and urban amenity benefits. As the measure of benefits are skewed, the measure of the cost benefit ratios are equally skewed. This leads to the inevitable support for the western route options along Pennant Hills Road. The subsequent urban amenity benefits cited in the reports give no consideration to benefits along the Pacific Hwy or Lane Cove Road corridor. To identify and quantify the opportunities for urban renewal, Urban Planning consultants should have been engaged in the corridor identification studies. Planning consultants would be able of identifying opportunities for investments in transit oriented development and urban renewal along Pennant Hills Road and the Pacific Hwy. Including these benefits would significantly improve the CBR of the Yellow route that impacts both urban corridors.

Integration with future Sydney motorways

The State Infrastructure Strategy released in October 2012 identified several future motorway projects in Sydney and emphasised the need for improved motorway grade North South connections. The strategy identified two motorway projects which would both directly affect the NorthConnex motorway, an Inner West by-pass and an outer orbital. The Inner West by-pass would connect the M2 motorway with the WestConnex motorway. This motorway would relieve traffic congestion from the Harbour crossings and eastern and western distributors. The Inner West by-pass will increase demand for a North South connection between the M1 and M2. The Infrastructure Strategy also includes an outer orbital that would continue north towards a second Hawkesbury river crossing, potentially following the Type C corridor considered in the SKM study. This motorway would directly connect Western Sydney with northern NSW, and provide redundancy and resilience to the state’s transport infrastructure. The Pearlman report recommended planning should begin immediately on the Type C corridor (p71). This western outer orbital would reduce the demand for North West traffic on the NorthConnex motorway.

The future construction of these two motorways would negate the emphasis that has been placed on the North West corridor for NorthConnex. Both of these future motorways would shift traffic demand from North West to North South in line with the State Infrastructure Strategy. Considering these future motorway projects, it is essential the NorthConnex motorway follows the Yellow route to ensure compatibility and relevance within the future Sydney motorway network.

State Infrastructure Strategy p83 (NorthConnex Purple and Yellow options highlighted)

Inadequate Community Consultation

While the studies themselves has been flawed, I have been particularly disappointed that all community consultation meetings, during both the SKM corridor study and the current preparation for the Environmental Impact Statement, were all conducted within the Pennant Hills road corridor. The Pearlman report also failed to advertise for community consultation on the North Shore. To date there has been no community consultation meetings on the Pacific Hwy corridor and no public notices included in the North Shore Times newspaper. This is completely unacceptable and has only further skewed feedback toward narrowly benefiting residents on the Pennant Hills Road corridor without consideration for broader community benefits across the northern suburbs of Sydney.
The most significant issue raised in community consultation has been ventilation exhausts. Greater consideration should have been given to locating the ventilation stacks within the corridor study. The Yellow route provides improved opportunities to locate exhaust stacks further away from residential properties in undeveloped bushland.

Integration with Sydney Orbital

Based on flawed assumptions and poor decisions, the current proposal following the Purple corridor does not include any direct connection for North South traffic joining the NorthConnex motorway. All vehicles traveling North South will be required to exit the M2 motorway onto Pennant Hills Road, then travel along Pennant Hills Road to access the NorthConnex tunnel. This proposal perpetuates the failures of the corridor studies to provide for North South traffic. This solution fails to meet the objectives of the State Infrastructure Strategy which prioritises North South motorway infrastructure, and fails to satisfy the recommendations of the Pearlman report for an east facing connection between the Purple option and the M2 (p73). If the government is incapable of modifying the M2 toll concession to distance tolling and deliver the more appropriate Yellow corridor option, allowances must be made for a direct North South connection at West Pennant Hills. Also, road signage on the orbital network and feeder roads for destinations along the M1 corridor should be changed to direct traffic off Pennant Hills Road and the Pacific Hwy onto the M2 and NorthConnex motorway.

Urban renewal opportunities

By far the greatest benefit that has failed to be considered or quantified are opportunities for urban renewal along Pennant Hills Road and Pacific Highway. Both these roads have a long ancient history across our landscape. Originating as walking tracks used by the First Australians for thousands of years, their winding paths snake down the mountain ridges that survey the land leading to the waters of Sydney Harbour and the Parramatta River. Imagine if these roads were transformed into urban corridors that recognised this heritage and supported their local communities. Image if they became the main thoroughfares for pedestrians, cyclists and motorist to access their local villages. Image if the car lanes were reduced to provide separate bicycle lanes protected by gardens of native plants, and grasses. Imagine if the villages provided on street parking and slow moving traffic that allowed cafes, restaurants and businesses to open onto the street. Image if these ancient corridors of human travel became significant places within our contemporary cultural landscape.

This project has the potential to transform the way we use our city. Through improved amenity we can encourage more people to walk, use public transport, and ride bicycles in a safe environment. NorthConnex could be a transformative demonstration of how previous policies of destructive road widening and speed increases can be reversed to revitalise suburban economies, villages and communities. In preparation for the Environmental Impact Statement, urban design competitions should be held to encourage community conversations about how this project can transform local amenity and create a renewed sense of place within these neighbourhoods. The opportunity to widen footpaths and develop a cycleway network was recommended in the SKM corridor study (p83). At a very minimum these basic amenity improvements and improved economic opportunities for local businesses should be included in the economic cost benefit analysis for the motorway.

Through good planning and good urban design, NorthConnex could be a transformative project for any and all who live and travel though the northern region of Sydney. It is critical this once in a generation opportunity to transform the Hills District and North Shore is not lost due to a poor evaluation of the M2 toll concession and the inability of traffic planners to quantify the benefits of urban renewal.

While thinking about the second harbour crossing blog, I was conscious of how the changes within the Sydney CBD would affect rail alignments in western Sydney. The current government proposal has no consideration for express services to the CBD, and obviously building the NWRL as a metro line with a smaller diameter tunnel will significantly limit the flexibility of future rail projects.

To design the best solution for the harbour crossing, I have also considered how the existing network could be reconfigured to improve rail transportation in western Sydney. The premise for this design is connecting the existing city centres to crate a networked typology, that is a rail network that allows passengers the flexibility of traveling within and between urban centres throughout the metropolitan area, without the need to travel through the Sydney CBD. Connecting city centres will increase peak and off-peak rail usage as people living in higher density centres will be able to travel throughout Sydney without the need for a car. It will also provide residents in the west and south west easier access to jobs in the north and northwest.

The first diagram below shows the existing disjointed rail alignments in western Sydney. With the exception of the poorly serviced Cumberland line, all these alignments are focused on transporting passengers to the Sydney CBD.



Making Parramatta the centre of the rail network in western Sydney will promote Parramatta as the second Sydney CBD. The improved accessibility to jobs and workers will significantly increase private investment and deliver more jobs and better paying jobs to western Sydney.

The map below shows the possible rail alignments through the Parramatta CBD.

I've been doing some thinking about the proposed second harbour crossing, apparently Sydney's next major rail project after the North West Rail Link (NWRL). I have an idea that I believe would be significantly cheaper and could potentially provide two harbour crossings for the price of one.

The idea is based on the concept of breaking apart the City Circle. This will allow for double the capacity of trains to enter the city circle then exit on new alignments. The first diagram below shows the existing City Circle line in green. At the bottom of the diagram you can see the Western line, Bankstown line and East Hills line all entering the City Circle.



The second diagram below shows how new alignments could break apart the City Circle and allow the East Hills line to run separately from the Western line and Bankstown line.


The East Hills line could exit Circular Quay and continue west to provide a new station at Barangaroo then cross the harbour in a submerged tunnel exiting at Balmain. This could provide a new station at the proposed international passenger terminal, and the old freight lines at Lilyfield could be used as stabling yards. In the future this line could be extended along the Victoria road corridor similar to the metro proposal.

The Western line and Bankstown lines would continue north from Town Hall, connecting Wynyard station at the unused Platforms 1 and 2 then continue north across the eastern side of the harbour bridge as it was originally designed. A new tunnel would connect North Sydney to St Leonards via Crows Nest, in the future this tunnel could be expanded east to a Northern Beaches line. From St Leonards the line would be quadruplicated to Chatswood separating the North West line from the North Shore line.

The East Hills line could also be directed through the existing City Circle platforms at Wynyard then turn west and cross darling harbour to Pyrmont similar to the metro proposal. This line might continue west to Glebe, Annandale and Leichhardt. This would remove a significant number of busses from the CBD and provide faster CBD connections for these high density inner city neighbourhoods.

The third diagram shows how a new CBD alignment could separate the Western line from the Bankstown line and delivery express services directly into the CBD. This would allow rail services to provide rapid and reliable services from Parramatta to Sydney in under 20 minutes.

Finally the fourth diagram shows how these alignments could accommodate future expansion of the rail network.



The map below shows how these alignments might work.

When compared with the governments plans for an expensive tunnel deep under Sydney harbour connecting Chatswood to Redfern, this proposal would be cheaper to construct, provide more communities access to rail services and provide future options for expanding the rail network.

Unfortunately nearsighted decisions to build the NWRL as a separate metro style service with a smaller diameter tunnel will severely limit the flexibility needed to explore proposals such as this one.

"Cities are shaped by where people live, where they work, and how they get around. When these three things are in tune with the structure of the economy, cities operate efficiently and productively, and drive growth and innovation". 

Jane-Frances Kelly 2013

"The most important urban design decision Vancouver ever made ... [was the] decision to prioritize the ways we get around, rather than balance them.... first walking, then biking, and then transit, in that order".

Brent Toderian 2013

In part 2 of my personal feedback on the  new Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 I'm going to look at my concern with the lack of critical engagement in defining appropriate land use policies in the strategy. My concerns are specifically directed at the business park precincts that has come to dominate recent office space development. This form of land use is completely inappropriate and contradictory to many of the other policy goals stated within the Metro Strategy.

Land use patterns are addressed in the policy through a hierarchy of centres and 'special precincts'. I am glad to see a more rigorous approach has been taken to identify a hierarchy of centres within the strategy. However, the use of ‘special precincts’ within the strategy is a bit messy and requires some better structure and consideration.

The concept of precincts is warranted within the strategy. A centres policy alone will not capture all appropriate land uses within a large metropolitan area. Like Harris and Ulman's 1940 Multi Nuclei urban typology models, it is important to understand and describe the clusters of different land uses across a metropolitan area. The city does not simply radiate out from centres, but clusters around specific uses. In 1992 Joel Garreau observed the clustering of uses and the demise of city centres in what he called the ‘edge city’. The edge city is a description of suburban sprawl built on the dominance of the private motor vehicle transportation. It is striking how the land use in these edge cities is at odds with a sustainable strategy we should be taking into the mid-21st century. Research has shown how this suburban typology and motor vehicle infrastructure are leading causes of increasing urban congestion, pollution, environmental damage and poor health outcomes. It is critical for the metropolitan strategy to engage with these land use patterns and address their effects on productivity, sustainability and livability.

In it's draft form the strategy just lists a few special precincts by type and location. I believe the strategy needs to better engage in these land uses and define how they should be associated with the centres strategy and other land uses. In table 1 below I've put together a model that attempts to bring some structure and definition to special precincts. This model describes strategically important precincts and identifies how these precincts will be associated to other strategic centres or land use typologies.

Table 1: Specialised Precinct types

Precinct Type	Precinct	Associated Centre or Land Use
Transport Transport Precincts supports the intermodal change of transport and provide planning outcomes for the delivery of associated land uses	Airport	A town centre with transport infrastructure, hotels, retail Employment lands with, transport, warehousing
	Passenger Rail Terminal	A regional or global city centre with transport infrastructure, hotels, retail, office space, housing, and open space
	Shipping Port	Employment lands with, transport infrastructure and warehousing
Health and Education Health and education precincts provide clustered land use for the delivery of health care or education services. These precincts will be associated with local town centres as described in the centres strategy	Education	A town centre with transport infrastructure, housing, office space, retail, open space
	Healthcare	A town centre with transport infrastructure, housing, office space, retail, open space

 


Noticeably missing from this table is the “Business Park/Office Cluster” precinct used in the draft metro strategy. This land use pattern has been purposefully removed due to it's poor alignment with the fundamental object of the strategy, "a strong global city - a livable local city", and other stated policy objectives. The following table explores how the business park land use pattern contradicts with twenty five other policies stated in the strategy.

Table 2: Misalignment with other strategy objectives

Policy	Alignment	Analysis
1b. Growth will be encouraged within the Metropolitan Urban Area to reflect market demand.	FAIL	Market demand has been skewed out of urban centres towards lower cost  suburban land through poor planning and poor transport infrastructure
1c. Increases in housing and employment will be encouraged in transport accessible centres and where existing infrastructure like schools are underutilised.	FAIL	Business Parks have low public transport patronage making service delivery expensive and economically unviable
1a. Plan for housing growth in centres of all sizes.	FAIL	Business Park zoning has no provision for residential housing
1b. Strategic Centres will be the focus of medium and high density housing and business and commercial growth, with supporting infrastructure.	FAIL	Business Park zoning will only accommodate commercial growth, they provide no provision for housing or social infrastructure. They shift business and commercial activity out of centres onto the suburban fringe.
1c. Encourage growth in all centres and Specialised Precincts within the Global Economic Corridor and extend its overall reach to Norwest and Parramatta.	FAIL	Extending the Global Economic Corridor over a vast spatial area to include suburban business parks will decrease the benefit of agglomeration and spill overs
1d. Mixed use development will be encouraged in all centres, including central commercial core areas, where there is market demand and complementary land uses.	FAIL	The Business Park typology is unable to generate demand for mixed use development or a diversity of land uses
1e. Expand central commercial core areas in Global Sydney and the Regional Cities.	FAIL	Business Parks shift demand out of commercial core areas
1f. Plan commercial cores for Major Centres and Specialised Precincts where there is market demand and investment opportunities.	FAIL	Business Parks will decrease investment and demand in Major Centres
3 a. Strategic Centres and Specialised Precincts will be the focus of improved transport services through cross-city connections.	FAIL	Business Parks have very low public transport usage and contribute negative returns on public investment
7a. Existing centres will grow and change and new centres will be supported.	FAIL	Business Parks reduce demand for growth in centres and counter the development of new centres
7b. Retail, employment, cultural and social infrastructure will be included in centres undergoing growth and renewal.	FAIL	Business Parks have no provision for public space or social infrastructure. The typology is unable to generate the critical mass of pedestrian traffic needed to support other forms of retail, employment, cultural and social infrastructure
7c. New centres will follow principles of good urban design.	FAIL	Business Parks provide poor urban landscapes. By nature of their low density suburban typology that are unable to deliver good urban design outcomes that support social interaction, health and environmental sustainability.
8b. Cultural, social and recreational infrastructure will be delivered across Sydney.	FAIL	Business Parks have no provision for public space or social infrastructure
10f. We will improve public transport connections to key employment areas and encourage more jobs closer to home.	FAIL	Business Parks have very low public transport usage and shift jobs to the urban fringe, making them less accessible to the majority of residents
11b. Strategic Centres, Specialised Precincts and industrial lands will be the prime location for new clusters and agglomeration economies.	FAIL	Business Parks provide poor agglomeration benefits derived from knowledge sharing and idea incubation found in complex urban environs and social interaction
14c. Office-based jobs in Parramatta, Liverpool, Penrith and other centres will increase	FAIL	Business Parks shift demand out of existing centres towards the suburban fringe
18a. Precinct-scale planning will encourage efficient energy, water and resource use.	FAIL	Business Parks have high environmental impacts due to car usage and inefficient built forms
20a. Minimise impacts of climate change in communities.	FAIL	Business Parks have high environmental impacts
20b. Plan for a resilient built environment that can adapt to a changing climate	FAIL	Business Parks are single use precincts that are less adaptable to change and dependent on cheap energy and motor vehicle transportation.
21a. Strategic approaches to reduce exposure to air pollution will inform planning.	FAIL	Business Parks contribute to increased air pollution due to car dependence and increased road congestion
24a. Sydney’s growth will be supported by current and future investment in transport, particularly public transport.	FAIL	Business Parks have very low public transport usage and contribute negative returns on public investment
24b. Demand for car travel will be managed to reduce congestion and infrastructure costs, consistent with the Long Term Transport Master Plan.	FAIL	The Business Parks typology and accessibility constraints encourage increase cars usage across the metropolitan region
24c. Greater use of public transport, walking and cycling will be encouraged.	FAIL	The typology of Business Parks decrease aggregate demand for public and active transport options
26c. Urban design in centres will support sustainable transport choices.	FAIL	Business Parks contribute to increased demand for unsustainable transport choices

Despite being poorly aligned with the strategy, we should also consider other economic, social and environmental outcomes associated with business parks. The outcomes consider how lower rent cost-savings are in fact just cost-shifting, how investment on the suburban fringe is shifting investment out of urban centres, and how urban centres provide a better land use pattern for agglomeration economies.

The movement of capital into business parks can be easily understood as businesses seek lower rent on the suburban fringe. Providing closer proximity to workers and lower land costs, on the surface business parks seem to be an appropriate way to reduce costs and increase productivity. However I argue that the costs savings are actually just cost shifting onto other economic agents, see table 3. These negative externalities have on net disadvantaged for our metropolitan area and actually reduced productivity.

Table 3. Business Park cost shifting to other agents

Agent	Additional Cost
Taxpayers	Delivery of inefficient/underutilised public transport, for example the Epping Chatswood rail link
Transport industries	Increasingly congested road network
Employees	Longer commutes across the city to the suburban fringe
Suppliers	Increase transport costs
Natural environment	Increase air pollution and energy use
Healthcare	Poor health outcomes attributed to sedentary lifestyles

The supply of Business Park office space has also displaced demand for office space within our existing urban centres. This shift in demand has manifest in an under supply and lack of investment in our urban centres. For example we have seen in Sydney’s north demand for new office space in Chatswood has been completely eroded by the supply of office space at Macquarie Park. Also, supply of office space at Norwest has eroded the supply of new office space in urban centres at Mt Druitt, Castle Hill and Parramatta.

It is often strongly argued that business parks on the suburban fringe provide jobs closer to homes and workers, however this is one of the greatest fallacies of all. Moving jobs to the suburban fringe significantly reduces accessibility from many parts of the metropolitan area and reinforces socio-economic inequalities. Office jobs are most accessible when they are located in centralised urban centres and supported by public transport that radiates evenly throughout the metro area. Moving jobs to the suburban fringe increases the dependence on private motor vehicle use and increases road congestion as workers crisscross their way through the metro area to arrive at different suburban locations. Business parks are located close to workers with higher levels of education and wealth, making them less accessible to those living in communities with traditionally lower education levels.  While business parks may benefit a minority of workers, in aggregate these jobs are made less accessible and reinforce social inequalities.

The benefits of urban centres and agglomeration is critically important to delivering productivity gains in our metropolitan area. The growth of the knowledge-intensive activities across all sectors of our economy has seen the rise of a new “idea generating and problem solving class” described by Robert Lucas. This new knowledge worker and knowledge industries can achieve significant productivity gains from agglomeration in urban centres. Jane-Francis Kelly has argued that it is not clear these benefits are realised in suburban Business Parks. The benefits of agglomeration are not just realised from shared infrastructure and economies of scale and scope, but the complex interactions between businesses and social networks. To benefit from these complex networks we must develop highly diverse urban environments that deliver the land use patterns that facilitate complex human interaction and knowledge sharing. The human scale of our rich and complex urban centres are significantly better places to provide this environment than the isolation of car dependant suburban business parks.

The strategy suggests that Business Parks meet the demand of “international companies [that] seek to replicate the business park format of their offices overseas”. While this demand may exist, this does not justify mindlessly following the built form of other cities without considering the context and fundamental objective of our strategy. We have seen how this special precinct fails to meet the policy goals of the strategy. The challenge for this strategy is to develop a policy framework and implantation plan for the removal of business parks from our metropolitan area. This can be done through two strategies; transforming them into mixed use urban centres as outlined in the centres policy, or compulsory acquisition of the land and removal of the business park built form and rezoning for more appropriate land use. The metropolitan strategy should outline preferred solutions for the areas of; Macquarie Park, Norwest, Rhodes, St Leonards, Kogarah, and Sydney Olympic Park.