There's dirty work at the crossroads down among the gumtrees of leafy West Lindfield. State Rail want to run their new Parramatta-Epping-Chatswood railway across the Lane Cove River, and the locals are protesting about destruction of bushland. Unfortunately, they're not giving you the whole story!
You probably know that Parramatta-Chatswood is the biggest project that State Rail have been involved in for twenty years. It will cost about $1.4 billion to build over four years. Its main objectives include easing train congestion on the busy Strathfield-Redfern line by providing an alternative route into town, attracting extra passengers into and out of Parramatta, Epping and Chatswood, and creating significant new business in the Marsfield area. Reference to any map will clearly show that any reasonable route from Epping to Chatswood needs to cross the path of the Lane Cove River somewhere.
The railway planners have studied several alternative routes and concluded that the best way would be via Macquarie (a station serving both the university and the adjacent large shopping centre), Macquarie Park, Delhi Road (a station serving the new Riverside industrial park), and the UTS Campus (West Lindfield). However, inclusion of the last two stations is dependent on crossing the river on a short Woolloomooloo-style viaduct slightly upstream from Fullers Bridge.
The railway engineers' second choice would be to run the railway under the river.
That would make the railway longer and much deeper, and would prevent construction of the Delhi Road and UTS stations. Because the railway would there be far beneath ground level, the costs of complying with safety regulations for fire and other risks would be prohibitive.
Understandably, State Rail would like to have the extra stations if only because of the extra patronage they would generate. An additional argument against the tunnel-under-the-river option is that the tunnel would be messy to construct, probably requiring temporary dams etc. at the crossing point. Also, the extra length and climbing would make the railway more expensive to construct and run.
Now, greenies should be in favour of viable railway systems, because we need railways to get rid of cars.
The locals have amassed a coalition under the name of Guardians of Lane Cove River Park. They have suggested that instead of crossing at Fullers Bridge, the river crossing should be moved downstream to near Epping Road, which ironically is pristine bushland. That's crazy - it would prevent the railway from going into Chatswood which is a large centre. About 20 or 25 thousand people go there to work every weekday, and a similar number go there for other purposes. All roads into Chatswood are jammed during the morning peak and there is heavy congestion during business hours and on Saturday mornings.
The North Shore would receive a major benefit from construction of a Parramatta-Chatswood railway in the form of removal of many cars from roads around Chatswood. Ironically, moving the crossing downstream would also preclude a significant local benefit of the railway: taking UTS cars out of Lindfield and Roseville streets, especially the streets in which some of the most stalwart Guardians live.
Now let's find out what the Guardians haven't told you. At the heart of the group are a few people who live in West Lindfield and West Roseville. Many of them have addresses in Abingdon Road and Eton Road. These people have been complaining for at least 15 years of inconvenience to them caused by UTS traffic driving past their houses and by students' cars parking in their streets.
After years of campaigning, the locals got the University to agree to a new access road direct from the rear of campus down into Lady Game Drive. This road goes down a steep hill through some land which used to belong to the NSW Department of Conservation and Land Management and through some land which used to be part of the Lane Cove River park. The new road would be very visible from the picnic areas near Fullers Bridge and constructing it would destroy some native bushland and would upset drainage down the hillside. And construction of the road is dependent on some land swaps which have been agreed to but are not yet completed. It is possible that approval of the railway would mean that the new access road would have to be relocated, requiring that the land swaps be re-negotiated.
Why have the Guardians been so critical of the railway while they have said nothing about the campus access road? And why didn't they oppose the M2 when it was proposed a few years ago? The M2 did far more damage to the Lane Cove River catchment area than a railway viaduct would. And, why didn't the Guardians weigh in with a loud protest during the recent NSW election campaign, when the Opposition roads spokesman Mr Souris promised that if elected his Coalition would build a road connecting the F3 at Wahroonga with the M2? This road would run through several kilometres of steep natural bushland just upstream from the Lane Cove River Park. Like the M2, it would be vastly more damaging than the railway.
As for the "precious remnant bushland" argument, note that the picnic areas are around a most-unnatural weir which dates from about 1920, when the aim probably was to recreate English parklands. Anyone who's ever been into real Sydney bush would tell you that it doesn't have paved carparks and manicured lawn areas, and nor does it have backed-up water. However, the Lane Cove River Park does have a few buildings and retaining banks made out of local sandstone, including several toilet blocks which add a quaint touch to the place. The railway viaduct and tunnel portals could certainly be designed to fit in with the existing 1920s sandstone structures.
Finally, note that there is continual pressure to amplify roads into
Chatswood.
RTA engineers have been seen surveying Fullers Bridge.
There is little doubt that they would like to widen, raise
and straighten it, thus easing a bottleneck on traffic into Chatswood.
If the railway into Chatswood isn't built, these pressures will be
harder to resist.
Why can't the Guardians see that constructing the viaduct would
be greener than the alternatives?
For the sake of the environment, the Guardians' arguments must be resisted.