“Given the billions required to implement the vision, the disruption it would cause and Canberra’s high level of debt, the proposal requires substantially more justification,” writes planning columnist MIKE QUIRK.

The relationship between land use and transport has been central to Canberra’s planning from Griffin to the present day.

Griffin’s vision of streetcars, formulated before widespread use of the car, was unsurprisingly swept away by the mobility afforded by the car and Canberra’s slow growth.

The Y-Plan, devised in the 1960s in the context of community preferences for the car and low-density living, aimed to minimise travel by the creation of new towns each with a wide range of facilities and services and major office employment; facilitated movement by a high-quality road network including the provision of peripheral parkways, identified an inter-town public transport route and sites for higher-density housing adjacent centres. 

In response to major changes, including the reduced ability to influence employment location, greater awareness of the environment and an increased demand for higher-density living, compact city policies were adopted in the 1990s and continue to guide Canberra’s development. They emphasise the concentration of housing, jobs and services within walking distance of centres and major transport stops to reduce travel, congestion, car dependency, increase the use of public transport, walking and cycling and support businesses at centres.

In July the ACT Government released for comment (by September 15) the draft Southern Gateway Planning and Design Framework, prepared in the context of the superficial ACT Planning Strategy and the District Plans, to guide development in a corridor stretching from Parliament House to Torrens and Farrer.

Major housing and transport proposals

• Woden Town centre to continue as the location of high-density housing; high-rise housing at north Curtin and a north Woden town centre gateway; 

• Land in and adjacent to Mawson, Deakin and Curtin centres and the West Deakin, are identified as urban villages characterised by mid-rise development (up to seven storeys) including the development of existing surface car parks; 

• Land along Athllon Drive will be investigated for mid-rise housing while the scope for additional housing will be investigated in west Yarralumla;

• The Adelaide Avenue/Yarra Glen corridor is to be repurposed as a multi-modal corridor accommodating light rail, buses, cycling and cars. While the current motorway environment enables short travel times, it is said to create a barrier hindering safe and convenient access by the residents of Yarralumla, Deakin, Curtin and Hughes to services, schools and community facilities; and 

• An interchange at the Cotter road/Yarra Glen intersection and the removal of the Yarra Glen roundabout.

How was the framework determined?

Was it the outcome of the consideration of alternative scenarios ranging from doing nothing (development consistent with the existing Territory Plan, including the missing-middle reforms and relying on buses the inter-town public transport route) through to more intensive development than currently proposed.

No estimates are provided of the likely population or housing capacity of the corridor, of transport and infrastructure costs or the travel and environmental benefits.

Who will occupy the dwellings? Will the dwellings proposed meet the needs of all households, including those with children, at an affordable price? 

Why is high-density proposed in North Curtin, when it is some distance from services and facilities? What infrastructure (roads, schools, water, stormwater, electricity etcetera) is proposed, including that to address possible flooding near the Yarra Glen roundabout (cf 1970 Woden floods)? 

Further, what contribution does development in the corridor do to meeting citywide needs and what is its sequence of development?

Consequently, it cannot be determined how well the draft framework delivers the compact city goals and whether it is an appropriate response to the housing and transport needs of the community. 

Is light rail essential? 

The government has not established that light rail is superior to bus rapid transport (BRT) operating on its own right of way. Demand for high density in the Belconnen, Tuggeranong and Woden Town centres and Kingston demonstrates light rail is not essential. Could the light rail benefits be delivered at lower cost by BRT? 

Employment and transport

What are the employment assumptions? What is the level of employment? Who will work in the corridor? Where will corridor residents work and how do they get to work? What level of working from home is assumed? What is the assumed level of travel demand and how will the proposals affect travel times? What is assumed about the impacts of the use of electric and self-driving cars on transport choices? 

Given the billions of dollars required to implement the vision, the disruption it would cause and Canberra’s high level of debt, the proposal requires substantially more justification.

As it is, it is little more than a thought bubble. As significant development in the corridor is unlikely in the next decade, there is more than enough time for a robust strategy to be developed.

No amendments to the Territory Plan should be made until the missing analysis is done.

Mike Quirk is a former NCDC and ACT government planner.

News all day, every day at CityNewsQBN.com.au.