Monorail Removal Project - Review of Environmental Factors (REF)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

As a result of these factors, the NSW Government committed to investing in a major renewaland expansion of the convention and entertainment facilities at Darling Harbour. In 2011, theGovernment called for expressions of interest to build, operate and maintain a new convention,exhibition and entertainment precinct at Darling Harbour, referred to as SICEEP.The precinct is approximately 20 hectares in area, and is broadly defined by Cockle Bay to thenorth, Harbour Street to the east, Hay Street to the south and Darling Drive to the west (seeFigure 2.1). The new facilities proposed for the precinct include:• a new exhibition space of 40,000 square metres• a meeting room space of 6,000 square metres, linked to both convention and exhibitionareas• convention hall capacity (plenary space) able to accommodate more than 10,000 peopleover four different areas• dedicated banqueting facilities for 2,000 people• a red carpet, premium entertainment facility with a capacity of at least 8,000 people,suitable for both international entertainment events and 'mega' conferences• state-of-the-art technology throughout, such as wireless connectivity across all facilities.The successful tenderer for the proposal will be selected by the end of 2012. Construction of thenew facilities is expected to commence in late 2013 and be completed by late 2016.Between Convention and Chinatown stations the Monorail adjoins or is located within theprecinct. Development of the precinct will require removal of all existing facilities currentlylocated within the precinct, including the Monorail, by November 2013.4.1.4 Future transport planning for the CBDAs noted in section 1, the future use of station infrastructure and the provision of public transportaccess between the CBD and Darling Harbour are outside the scope of this proposal. Futuretransport options across Sydney, including transport between the CBD and Darling Harbour, arebeing considered by the following plans and strategies:• ‘NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan’, Transport for NSW (draft released September2012)• ‘State Infrastructure Strategy 2012 – 2032 - First things first’, Infrastructure NSW(released October 2012)• Sydney Light Rail Strategic Plan, Transport for NSW (in progress).4.2 Proposal development processIn late September 2012, Transport for NSW commissioned the following service providers toassist with developing the proposal methodology.• Removal methodology and traffic management – The purpose of this study, beingundertaken by Evans & Peck, is to provide advice on demolition methodologies anddevelop traffic management plans for the demolition of the Monorail.• Engineering Services – The purpose of this study, being undertaken by Waterman AHW,is to provide technical support to the removal methodology and develop detailedmethodologys for making good of pavements, roads, buildings and structures.22 | GHD | Transport for NSW - Monorail Removal Project REF
It is expected that development of the removal methodology and supporting engineering wouldbe completed by the end of 2012.A concept for the removal methodology, described in section 5, was provided as an input for theREF by Evans & Peck in October 2012.4.3 Alternatives consideredAlternatives considered include alternatives to the proposal as a whole, and alternative ways ofundertaking the proposal.4.3.1 Alternatives to the proposal as a whole‘Do nothing’The ‘do nothing’ option involves not undertaking the proposal. Under this scenario, the monorailinfrastructure would remain in place, and the monorail would continue operating.As noted in section 4.1, the NSW Government has committed to a major renewal and expansionof the convention, exhibition and entertainment facilities at Darling Harbour (the SICEEPproject). Removal of the Monorail is required to accommodate the development of SICEEP.In addition, the Monorail infrastructure, including the track and trains, is at the end of itseconomic life and the technology is antiquated. The trains are no longer in production and it isdifficult to source spare parts. Spare parts are currently being obtained from the trains which areno longer in service. As a result, the Monorail is becoming increasingly expensive and difficult tomaintain and operate. The Government cannot justify costly upgrades, like retrofitting a newfleet of bespoke vehicles which will soon be required to keep it running.As a result of these factors, the ‘do nothing’ option is not considered to be acceptable.Changing the route to accommodate the SICEEP projectThis option is not considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:• As noted above, the infrastructure is at the end of its economic life and its continued usecannot be justified economically.• The track itself has very little horizontal or vertical flexibility. Therefore, it would be difficultto use the monorail track for an alternative route in the Darling Harbour/CBD area withoutconsiderable modification and cost.Leaving the track infrastructure in situOptions suggested to reuse the track ‘in place’ include using it for an elevated walking or cyclingplatform, similar to that of the ‘High Line’ in New York City.The High Line is an elevated rail structure, constructed between 1929 and 1934, to serve theindustrial and manufacturing districts along the west side of Manhattan. Use of the High Line forrail transport ceased in 1980. Parts of the High Line have been converted to recreational use asareas of elevated open space and walkways. Prior to its reuse, the main line and its spurscontained approximately 6.7 acres of elevated area covered by gravel, grasses, shrubs, and, insome places, trees. The line varies in width and elevation, but is generally between 9 to 15metres in width and 7.6 metres in height.In comparison, the Monorail track is a steel box girder with a width of only 940 millimetres,raised at a height of approximately 3 to 5.5 metres from ground level. In certain locations, thetrack passes very close to existing buildings. Given the constraints of the CBD environment, itGHD | Transport for NSW - Monorail Removal Project REF | 23
Page 1: Monorail Removal ProjectReview of E
Page 4 and 5: This report has been prepared by GH
Page 6 and 7: 6. Community and stakeholder consul
Page 8 and 9: Table 8.2 Listed heritage items wit
Page 11 and 12: Glossary of termsTermArterial roadB
Page 13 and 14: Executive summaryOverviewThis revie
Page 15 and 16: landowner. The concrete and reinfor
Page 17 and 18: What were the key issues raised?Key
Page 19 and 20: approval under the Heritage Act, wo
Page 21 and 22: BeforePhotomontage 2 - View along P
Page 23: espond to community feedback in a s
Page 27 and 28: 1. Introduction1.1 OverviewIn March
Page 29 and 30: 1.3 Purpose of the REFFor an activi
Page 31: NORTHSYDNEYMilsonsPointPort Jackson
Page 34 and 35: Station Location Ownership Position
Page 36 and 37: 300PYRMONTHarboursideMurray StreetI
Page 38 and 39: (3) Development for the purposes of
Page 40 and 41: 3.4.2 Roads Act 1993Under section 1
Page 42 and 43: Protected matterMatter located with
Page 45: Part B The proposalGHD | Transport
Page 50 and 51: would be difficult to increase the
Page 52 and 53: Further information on these work c
Page 54 and 55: Figure 5.2 Concept for phase 1 of w
Page 56 and 57: • Subject to finalising the detai
Page 58 and 59: • Phase 3 - Removal work• Phase
Page 60 and 61: • Phase 5 - Make good at street l
Page 62 and 63: ParameterPhase 5 Make good at stree
Page 64 and 65: • removal of contractor’s equip
Page 66 and 67: Work phasePhase 3 - Removalworks ab
Page 68 and 69: 5.8.2 Work hoursBackgroundThe ‘In
Page 70 and 71: Work component/task Approximate dur
Page 72 and 73: 6.2 Consultation during REF prepara
Page 74 and 75: Meeting type Agencies Date ofmeetin
Page 76 and 77: ActivityWebsiteLetter to government
Page 79: Part C Environmental impact assessm
Page 82 and 83: also supported by passenger surveys
Page 84 and 85: Figure 7.1 Local transport network
Page 86 and 87: Table 7.2 Cycle infrastructure in t
Page 88 and 89: Maintenance Workshop. Traffic gener
Page 90 and 91: arrive at the site before 10pm and
Page 92 and 93: 7.3.10 Potential long term impactsT
Page 94 and 95: - Detours associated with road clos
Page 96 and 97: Table 8.1 Heritage items in the stu
Page 98 and 99:
Table 8.2 Listed heritage items wit
Page 100 and 101:
Map ref(figure8.1)Item name Address
Page 102 and 103:
minimise potential impacts on herit
Page 104 and 105:
• A detailed work method statemen
Page 106 and 107:
• Darling Park Station.Noise moni
Page 108 and 109:
As the work duration would be limit
Page 110 and 111:
ReceiverExternal noisecriteria (dBA
Page 112 and 113:
Table 9.6 Assessment of impacts of
Page 114 and 115:
Table 9.8 Heritage listed buildings
Page 116 and 117:
CriteriaL Aeq(15 min) noise level a
Page 118 and 119:
Table 10.1Urban character areasUrba
Page 120 and 121:
10.2.2 Visual elements of the Monor
Page 122 and 123:
Darling Drive facing westDarling Dr
Page 124 and 125:
Table 10.2Long term visual impactsU
Page 126 and 127:
Existing viewPotential view followi
Page 129 and 130:
11. Socio-economics and land use11.
Page 131 and 132:
Table 11.1Overview of land uses in
Page 133 and 134:
King StreetDarlingHarbourYork Stree
Page 135 and 136:
There are approximately 20,000 busi
Page 137 and 138:
Long term impactsThe main potential
Page 139:
• Further consultation with relev
Page 142 and 143:
• resource use and materials• p
Page 144 and 145:
Relevant sustainability targets and
Page 146 and 147:
Approach to management of wasteThe
Page 148 and 149:
continuous improvement and innovati
Page 150 and 151:
• Methods for management of emiss
Page 152 and 153:
There is potential for lead paint t
Page 154 and 155:
The works undertaken as part of the
Page 157:
Part D ConclusionGHD | Transport fo
Page 160 and 161:
selected to undertake work would be
Page 162 and 163:
IDnumberMitigation measureSensitive
Page 164 and 165:
IDnumberMitigation measurepre-start
Page 166 and 167:
IDnumberMitigation measureM.1 The p
Page 168 and 169:
• development of a detailed waste
Page 171:
16. Reference listAustralian Bureau
Page 175:
Appendix A Photographic inventoryGH
Page 178 and 179:
Covered walkway from Convention Sta
Page 180 and 181:
Galeries Victoria StationGaleries V
Page 183 and 184:
Table B.1 Heritage items in the stu
Page 185 and 186:
Map ref(figure8.1)Item name and add
Page 187 and 188:
Map ref(figure8.1)Item name and add
Page 189:
Appendix C Clause 228 and ecologica
Page 192 and 193:
Clause 228 factor Summary of result
Page 195 and 196:
GHD133 Castlereagh St Sydney NSW 20
show all

Monorail Removal Project - Review of Environmental Factors (REF)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?