Sydney Harbour Bridge (SHB) Northern Cycle Access project - a travesty of process. 

The linear ramp proposed by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) was approved by the Heritage Council’s Approvals Committee. 

Why a travesty? 

·         Heritage, back in 2021 were shown two ramp proposals: one linear, (damaging scarce parklands and traducing the heritage curtilage of the SHB and its approaches) and an over-sized spiral that took up most of the bowling greens. Neither were fit for purpose but faced with these options, Heritage opted for the linear. TfNSW hasn’t budged from this, despite Heritage’s own misgivings. A superior alternative was proposed by the community: the Community Cycle Ramp. Heritage later said it wasn’t able to explore options, merely judge what TfNSW presented, (the linear model), but ignoring something better also ignores Heritage’s responsibility to “do no harm”. 

·         TfNSW presented “so called” independent advice that attempted to discredit the Community Cycle Ramp - “so called” because the same consultants had been engaged by TfNSW to develop its linear ramp and prepare its Review of Environmental Factors. TfNSW did not declare this conflict of interest. The advice was not independent and TfNSW has misled all including the transport minister, Heritage Council and the public at large by presenting it as independent. The report remains a charade – the fig leaf behind which TfNSW hides its own shortcomings.

·         The responsible bureaucrats and their compliant private sector consultants seem quite content to stomach these dealings, simply because TfNSW says so. Successive responsible ministers seek comfort from faulty departmental advice. Any responsible political leader, the hapless taxpayer and general public deserve better.

Earlier concerns and Ramifications

Whilst the Approvals Committee now say it is only to comment on what is put in front of them by a proponent (TfNSW in this case), as our heritage guardians they have a higher order duty to 'do no harm'. 

Indeed, back in June 2021, Heritage discussed:

·         that the design language should not only resonate with the Sydney Harbour Bridge (SHB) but fit in with the character of the broader area.

·         Notes Heritage Council sub-committee’s current preference for a loop design, rather than lineal as reducing the dominance of the structure and visual masking of SHB abutments.

·         The design should avoid a visually dominant structure that is incongruous to the angular existing station frontage and detracts from the SHB and should be harmonious with the setting; the aim should be for a distinguishable feature that sits quietly in the landscape.

The linear ramp does none of these things. 

Heritage cannot now claim that they are doing their duty by being 'blind' to evidence that is not provided by the applicant. The s.60 Application process does require that 'alternative solutions be considered', not simply the 'self-certification / dismissal' conducted by TfNSW, a process that has resulted in a faulty linear ramp proposal.

Simply put, there is no amount of “design refinement” to a linear ramp that can make it acceptable on Heritage grounds. It is hard to imagine another Cahill Expressway or the unlamented city monorail being built today. Yet this is what is being proposed by TfNSW for Milsons Point, a ramp described by Engineers Australia as a “slash across the Mona Lisa”.

An alternative 

Imagine how enlightening it would be if the state government finds the intellectual strength and the ethical acumen to resist the situation inherited under previous governments. The new Community Cycle Ramp solution at Milsons Point, supported by facts and created co-operatively, for the benefit of all, will unite all stakeholders together. 

The Community Cycle Ramp alone: 

·         caters for all users, 

·         has been peer reviewed, 

·         does meet Australian standards and international guidelines, 

·         is located outside the heritage curtilage of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and its approaches, 

·         does not destroy the heritage features of the locality, 

·         preserves scarce parkland and trees,

·         is safer for all ramp users and local pedestrians, 

·         presents a Win/Win outcome. 

Opponents of the linear ramp are not “nimbies” – on the contrary – the development of the Community Cycle Ramp has cost the community its own resources.

The Community Cycle Ramp must be given fair consideration, which it has NOT had to date.

See the Community Cycle Ramp at:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/cycleramp/