Works Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 13 October 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Works Committee

13 October 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Works Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 6:00pm.

 

Committee Members:           The Mayor, J Procopiadis, Andrews, Belleli (Deputy Mayor), Bowen, Hughes, Matson, Matthews (Chairperson), Nash, Notley-Smith, Seng, Smith, Stevenson, Tracey, White (Deputy Chairperson) & Woodsmith

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members.

 

NOTE:    At the Extraordinary Meeting held on 28 September 2004, the Council resolved that the Works Committee be constituted as a committee with full delegation to determine matters on the agenda.

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  
Works Committee Meeting - 8 September 2009

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Urgent Business

Works Reports

W32/09     Tree Removal - Outside 5 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

W33/09     Recycling of mattresses and ensembles

W34/09     Public Consultation on Report - 'Assessment of Traffic Impacts upon Kensington and Parts of Kingsford'    

 

Closed Session
Nil

Notices of Rescission Motions
Nil

 

……………………………………………………

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Works Committee

13 October 2009

 

 

 

Works Report No. W32/09

 

 

Subject:                  Tree Removal - Outside 5 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Bryan Bourke, Tree Management Officer     

 

Introduction

 

The owner of 5 Figtree Avenue, Randwick, has contacted Council requesting the removal of a large and significant Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside his property.

 

The owner originally wrote to Council on 4 December 2006 detailing a range of damage caused by the roots of the adjacent street tree - ranging from cracks in the front brick fence, entranceway area and front brick façade of the dwelling to ongoing sewer blockages and continual cracking and raising of the footpath outside the property.

 

Issues

 

The subject tree is approximately twenty metres in height with a canopy spread of around twenty-two metres. It is one of nineteen (19) of the same species growing along both sides of Figtree Avenue and its significance has been recognised by the fact that the entire avenue is included on Council’s Register of Significant Trees.

 

The primary reason for this group of Hill’s Weeping figs being included on the Register is that they are an outstanding single species roadside planting and they form one of the more memorable avenues in the Randwick LGA.

 

The tree is in excellent health and is an important provider of habitat and food source for a variety of native birdlife and other fauna.

 

Over the past decade the footpath outside the property has had to be repaired on several occasions because of tree root damage and numbers of roots have had to be severed to mitigate as much as possible ongoing root damage.  Sewer blockages caused by the roots of the subject tree had been occurring for well over a decade but these seem to have abated since the tree was root pruned in December 2007.  Overhanging branches from the tree are regularly pruned back from the residence to minimise the amount of leaf drop but, because of the sheer size of the tree and its location, this will continue for as long as the tree remains.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:      A Healthy Environment.

Direction 10b:    Environmental risks and impacts are strategically managed.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council approve the removal of this tree and its replacement with a super-advanced alternative species it is estimated that it will cost in the vicinity of $2,500. The required funds would come from Council’s annual tree management budget.

 

Conclusion

 

This very large street tree is a significant visual component of the streetscape of Figtree Avenue, Randwick. It forms part of a recognised significant single species avenue planting that should be retained at all costs.  The tree is approximately sixty years old and in the past every effort has been made to deal with the problems associated with tree root damage to both public infrastructure and private property.

 

The subject tree has been assessed as having significant scenic amenity value and with providing important habitat and food source for a variety of fauna. Because it is located in a very confined situation the impact of removal on land degradation would be negligible.  Using Australian Standard ASDR99307 it has been calculated that the tree has an amenity value of $21,600. This amount highlights the fact that even though the tree is inappropriate for the situation in which it is growing and that its roots cause a variety of ongoing damage, it is recognised for a number of other reasons as being of profound importance in the streetscape.

 

Council records indicate the roots from this tree have been causing sewer blockages within the property for well over a decade. However, this problem could be nullified by replacing the old terra cotta sewerage pipes with PVC plastic.  Council’s Tree Gang severed all roots growing into the property on 13 December 2007 and have not had to return to the property to undertake any further root pruning since that time.  In 2007 the owners put in a claim to Council for damage to the front brick fence, accompanied by two quotes in the vicinity of $5,000, to effect repairs caused by the roots of the tree.  Since that time, however, there seems to have been no further damage caused to the property by the roots of this tree.   There are some roots protruding above the nature strip area that may constitute a trip issue but this is common along the entire length of Figtree Avenue. There is a Telstra pit and a Sydney Water mains situated immediately adjacent to where the tree is located but Council records do not indicate that there has been any issue with tree roots damaging either.

 

In conclusion, the problems cited for the removal of this significant street tree asset are relatively minor in nature and able to be managed at this point in time.  The Randwick LGA contains a number of Hill’s Weeping fig avenues of similar age structure but many of these fail to have group significance due to past losses/removals, breaks in continuity, multiple species selection and/or pruning to accommodate overhead powerlines.  This particular avenue of figs has local significance in terms of visual, aesthetic, historic, cultural and social values associated with the Randwick City area. For these reasons there would need to be a much more compelling case provided to approve the removal of this very important tree asset.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing outside 5 Figtree Avenue, Randwick, not be removed and that any problems associated with its retention be managed as appropriate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Series of photographs detailing the importance of the Ficus 'Hillii' in the streetscape and the relatively small amount of visual damage being caused to both public infrastructure and private property by its roots.

 

 

 

 


Series of photographs detailing the importance of the Ficus 'Hillii' in the streetscape and the relatively small amount of visual damage being caused to both public infrastructure and private property by its roots.

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Subject Ficus ‘Hillii’ situated directly outside 5 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

 

Large tree root previously severed to repair footpath and driveway

Telstra pit located immediately adjacent to subject street tree – no damage evident

 

Patched up crack in front brick wall of residence

Protruding tree roots on nature strip represent minor trip issue

 

No footpath damage evident at this point in time – minor trip concern with protruding roots on nature strip

View of property looking south-east down length of street – tree’s significance evident

 

View of Figtree Avenue looking south – avenue has significant amenity and heritage value within LGA

Minor tree root damage to roadway and kerb caused by tree roots

 

Sydney Water mains located directly underneath subject tree – no damage to date

 

 


Works Committee

13 October 2009

 

 

 

Works Report No. W33/09

 

 

Subject:                  Recycling of mattresses and ensembles

Folder No:                   F2004/07359

Author:                   Talebul Islam, Coordinator Waste Management     

 

Introduction

 

At its Ordinary Council meeting of 28 July 2009 Council resolved (Smith/Belleli):

 

”that Council investigate options for the recycling of disused mattresses and ensembles within Randwick City in an attempt to keep these items out of landfill.”

 

Council has carried out an investigation on its current management practice of mattresses collected through scheduled and on-call clean-up services and illegal dumping management. This report summarises the results of the investigation.  

 

Issues

 

1.         Current management practice

Council disposes of all mattresses collected through its clean-up services and illegal dump management procedures at WSN Environmental Solutions’ dry waste transfer station at Rockdale. Under a contract, WSN Environmental Solutions manages Council’s dry waste disposed of at their Rockdale transfer station. The contract requires WSN to recover and recycle at least 5% of the disposed of dry waste including mattresses. Mattresses that are delivered in a good condition to are recycled. If they are collected in compacters, usually most of the mattresses delivered at the transfer station are not suitable for recycling.

 

2.         Landfilling of mattresses

The metallic springs in the mattresses do not allow them to be compacted in landfills like other wastes resulting in loss of landfill space. This is a concern for the landfill owners. WSN Environmental Solutions, Council’s current disposal contractor, has indicated that in future they will factor in this issue when pricing for dry waste disposal services. Currently they charge $25/mattress for the casual landfill users.

 

Council’s current disposal contract with WSN Environmental Solutions will expire in 2012.

 

3.         Recycling of mattresses

Dreamsafe is the only mattress recycler in Sydney and has a facility at Milperra. They sanitize and refurbish mattresses that are in reasonably good condition and provide to Salvation Army or other Non-Government Organizations for sale in their second-hand shops.

 

Not reusable mattresses are getting ripped-off for recovery of metals, foams, fabrics and timbers. The foams are recycled as carpet under-lay, metals are recycled and the timbers are either landfilled or used by power generators for energy recovery.

 

Dreamsafe collects disused mattresses from residents for recycling at a cost of $25 per mattress. The residents can call and book a collection and Dreamsafe collects on an agreed date. Currently they are collecting disused mattresses from across the Sydney metropolitan area.

Currently they collect mattresses from some Council at a cost of $17 per mattress if stock-piled in a convenient location and $19.50 per mattress from kerbside.

 

Currently Council pays $120 per tonne for disposal of mattresses with other clean-up materials. One mattress weighs about 32 kg, whereas recycling through Dreamsafe will cost Council $442 per tonne if picked up from a stockpiled facility and $508 per tonne if they are picking up from kerbside. Stockpiling of mattresses will additional collection trucks and a safe stockpiling facility.

 

Over 195 tonnes of mattresses are collected per year in the Council area through clean-up services and illegal dumping management procedures. Recycling of mattresses would increase Council’s current recovery rate from 38.81% to 39.20%. The cost of recycling mattresses is estimated to be about $119,000 as compared to $23,000 landfill disposal per year under the current contract.

 

The best option for Council is to continue using the benefit of the current disposal contract and aim for mattress recycling in 2012 when tender for new disposal contract.

 

4.         Extended Producers’ Responsibility

Both the Federal and the State Governments are currently working extended producers’ responsibility policy. If approved and implemented such a policy, the collection and recycling of mattresses will be the responsibility of the manufacturers, not Council.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:      A Healthy Environment.

Direction 10e:    Our community is encouraged to implement waste minimisation strategies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Mattress recycling will cost Council about $95,000 per year.

 

Conclusion

 

Currently Council collects about 195 tonnes of mattresses per year through its clean-up and illegal dumping management services and disposes of to WSN Environmental Solution’s dry waste transfer station at Rockdale. It should be noted that not all matresses are suitable for recycling.  The cost of disposal is about $23,000 per year under the current contract that will expire in 2012.

 

Dreamsafe is only mattress recycler in the Sydney Metropolitan area and they have a recycling facility at Milperra. The cost of recycling Council collected mattresses will be about $119,000 per year.

 

Therefore, the best option for Council is to continue using the benefit of the current disposal contract and aim for mattress recycling in 2012 when tender for new disposal contract.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)   delays mattress recycling until the expiry of the current dry waste disposal contract in 2012; and

 

b)   considers the inclusion of mattress recycling in its next disposal contract.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Works Committee

13 October 2009

 

 

 

Works Report No. W34/09

 

 

Subject:                  Public Consultation on Report - 'Assessment of Traffic Impacts upon Kensington and Parts of Kingsford'

Folder No:                   F2004/08211

Author:                   Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

Introduction

 

A number of proposals are either planned or are already occurring which may have a significant influence on traffic flows in the Kensington / Kingsford area. As a result Council arranged to have a study undertaken to assess these possible traffic impacts.  The study was recently made available for community consultation and a number of submissions were received.

 

This report details the issues raised within these submissions and recommends future directions with regard to traffic matters within Kensington.

 

Issues

 

There are three proposals which will affect traffic flow in Kensington.

 

In 2004 the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority presented a proposal to Randwick City Council and the community to construct south-facing ramps on Southern Cross Drive at the Gardeners Road overpass.  The purpose of the proposed ramps is to provide motorists with direct access to and from Southern Cross Drive and the Gardeners Road at this point.  This, the RTA states, will improve access to local and regional places, reduce congestion at key locations to the north of the proposal and consequently improve travel times and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. This proposal by the RTA has the potential to alter traffic movements in and through the Randwick City Local Government Area (LGA), which will impact on the local community. 

 

Large residential and commercial development with high density is proposed in the Zetland and Victoria Park areas adjoining the Randwick LGA to the west.  This development also has the potential to impact on the local Randwick community.  Therefore, as a part of this project, Council also sought a review and traffic assessment of the effects of the proposed urban development within the City of Sydney LGA.

 

Council resolved in April 2007 to support the proposal to install a half road closure (buses and cyclists excepted) in Lenthall Street, so that eastbound traffic from Epsom Road would be denied access to Lenthall Street.

 

To gain a greater appreciation of the issues involved, the potential traffic impacts and the opportunity to develop remedial treatments, Council appointed GTK Consulting on 7 November 2008 to undertake a study, in the suburbs of Kensington and West Kingsford, to assess the likely traffic impacts resulting from the proposals.

 

Council’s primary objectives for this study were:

 

·      Identify the impact of the RTA ramps proposal on Council’s road network and the amenity of the residents in the study area;

·      Recommend treatments to address the adverse traffic impacts identified in the above assessment;

·      Provide advice to Council about the RTA proposal, to inform discussion and consultation with the local Randwick community;

·      Identify the impact on Council’s road network and the amenity of residents in the study area of proposed increased residential density in the Zetland and Victoria Park areas as proposed by the City of Sydney; and

·      Assess the likely impacts of implementing a ‘half-closure’ eastbound on Lenthall Street.

 

The Traffic Report

 

Upon completion the Traffic Impacts Report was circulated to Ward Councillors and the contact group from the Kensington Precinct Committee for comment, prior to wider Community Consultation. The Precinct Committee concluded that the consultant had taken a conservative approach to traffic generation however, it was decided that no change should be made to the Report until all comments had been received, following wider consultation.

 

Community Consultation

 

Community consultation was carried out in accordance with Council’s guidelines. During the public exhibition period the following activities were undertaken:

 

·      An advertisement inviting comment was placed in the Southern Courier

·      An item inviting comment was placed in the Mayor's column;

·      Distribution of the Report and graphically designed posters was undertaken at Council libraries and the Customer Service Centre;

·      The Report was placed on Council’s website within the Consultation section, &

·      Copies of the Report were sent to the Randwick City Precinct Committees and Chambers of Commerce groups.

·         A further series of traffic counts where undertaken during the university semester and provided to the precinct and placed on the “Kensotraffic” website.

 

As a result of this consultation numerous verbal enquiries were made of Council officers and seven formal submissions were received.  A table detailing the submissions is attached (Attachment 1).  In summary the issues raised were:

 

a)   Increasing traffic from ramps in Kensington/Kingsford

b)   Increased travel times for residents due to congestion from increased traffic generated by ramps

c)   Suggested increases in Tunstall Avenue traffic, as a result of the proposed half closure of Lenthall Street, considered to be under-estimated

d)   Concerns that Green Square ‘No car Growth’ scenario is unrealistic

e)   Lenthall Street residents would expect Council to act in their best interests regarding the proposed half closure of Lenthall Street

f)    Concerns about pedestrian safety

g)   Survey data was collected during UNSW recess

h)   Traffic growth from neighbouring developments has not been included in future traffic generation

i)    Concern that Gardeners Road Ramps is still a possibility

j)    Report does not recommend physical treatments

k)   Strong support for improved public transport

l)    Concerns that treatments and traffic management plan not be delayed by data gathering.

m)  Opposed to the Ramps

n)   Concerned about crash rate at nine way roundabout

o)   Wants Traffic Management Study now – not only when Ramps may be proposed

p)   Supports active transport options

q)   Supports pedestrian safety improvements

r)    Impacts of proposed Todman Avenue configuration needs close examination

s)   Supports investigation at high crash rate locations

t)    Significant concerns about data and quality of report

u)   Wants greater action re reducing traffic flows in residential streets

v)   Concerned about delays accessing Todman Avenue, from Southern Cross Drive

w)  Do not alter Lenthall Street until ramps are operational

x)   Concerned about delays accessing Todman Avenue, from Rosebery

y)   Limit access to Lenthall Street from Southern Cross Drive / Link Road only, not from Epsom Road.

 

Within Attachment 1 each of the submissions has been detailed and a response, where warranted, has been provided.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 9:       Integrated and accessible transport

Direction 9d:      Residential amenity is protected by appropriate traffic management

 

Financial impact statement

 

At this time there is no direct financial impact for this matter.  Council has previously resolved to fund any LATM devices required.

 

Conclusion

 

The consultant’s report examined the magnitude of the effects on the Kensington area of three proposals, the ramps, the increasing densities in the Green Square area and the half closure of Lenthall Street.

 

The report made ten recommendations which are considered to be appropriate for Council to endorse.  The report recommends that:

 

1.      Council take appropriate action to ensure an active role on the Corridor Working Group to be formed for the proposed Transit Corridors within the Randwick LGA recommended by the Green Square TMAP report.

 

2.      Council support the objectives of the Green Square TMAP subject to the Ministry of Transport, City of Sydney and Landcom agreeing to set targets to ensure the balance between new development and the implementation of  transport initiatives to achieve ‘No Car Growth’ .

 

3.      Council undertake intersection traffic surveys on a regular basis at key locations to monitor traffic movements to and from the Green Square Urban Renewal Area. This regular monitoring will indicate any changes to traffic volumes within the residential areas of Kensington and West Kingsford. Such information could then be promptly acted upon.

 

4.      Council write to the Minister for Roads and Minister for Planning to confirm the current status of the proposed ramps on Gardeners Road at Southern Cross Drive.

 

5.      In the event that the proposed ramps secure the required AusLink funding, Council seek funding from the RTA to develop a Traffic Management Strategy for the Kensington and West Kingsford areas. The Traffic Management Strategy should be undertaken in association with local residents, RTA and other key stakeholders to include, but not be limited to:

 

a.     Upgrading of the Nine Ways.

b.     Upgrading of the signalised intersections on Gardeners Road between the proposed ramps and the Nine Ways.

c.     Improving or at least maintaining the existing levels of service and residential amenity of the Kensington and West Kingsford areas.

d.     The provision of cycle ways on Gardeners Road.

e.     The provision of additional pedestrian facilities.

 

6.      Council support the RTA’s proposal to prevent eastbound traffic on Epsom Road (buses and cyclists excepted) from travelling through the intersection of Link Road to Lenthall Street. However, Council should enter into discussions with the RTA and City of Sydney to ban the left turn movement from Link Road into Epsom Road and the right turn movement from the Dolina development in order to achieve the equivalent of a half road closure on Lenthall Street.

 

7.      Todman Avenue, between South Dowling Street and Lenthall Street, be line-marked to provide two lanes in each direction, in conjunction with the restriction of eastbound traffic on Lenthall Street.

 

8.      A Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) to enhance pedestrian access and safety within the Kensington and West Kingsford areas be considered. Funding for this study may be available from the RTA.

 

9.      An investigation to identify the causes of road crashes and recommend remedial treatments at Tresidder Avenue and at the intersections of Kensington Road /Duke Street and Kensington Avenue/Todman Avenue.

 

10.    The RTA be requested to undertake investigations to identify the causes of road crashes and implement remedial treatments along Anzac Parade. Alternatively, the RTA may be prepared to fund Council to undertake these investigations.

 

In addition to these recommendations it is considered that action be taken to address the current strong concerns of residents about the existing and future traffic impacts.

 

In 2004 Council resolved to implement a number of traffic measures which had been the subject of community consultation. These are detailed in Attachment 2.  A number of these measures have already been implemented.  However, when the State Government announced the proposed Gardeners Road / Southern Cross Drive ramps introduction of further devices was ‘put on hold’.   It is proposed that Council have the remaining traffic measures reviewed for appropriateness, properly designed, costed and then referred to the local precinct and immediately neighbouring residents to gauge current community opinion on the proposals.  This process would take 3 months.  A report would then be bought back to Council for consideration of implementation of these traffic measures.


 

Recommendation

That:

 

a)          Council take appropriate action to ensure an active role on the Corridor Working Group to be formed for the proposed Transit Corridors within the Randwick LGA recommended by the Green Square TMAP report.

 

b)          Council support the objectives of the Green Square TMAP subject to the Ministry of Transport, City of Sydney and Landcom agreeing to set targets to ensure the balance between new development and the implementation of  transport initiatives to achieve ‘No Car Growth’ .

 

c)          Council undertake intersection traffic surveys on a regular basis at key locations to monitor traffic movements to and from the Green Square Urban Renewal Area.

 

d)          Council write to the Minister for Roads and Minister for Planning to confirm the current status of the proposed ramps on Gardeners Road at Southern Cross Drive.

 

e)          In the event that the proposed ramps secure the required AusLink funding, Council seek funding from the RTA to develop a Traffic Management Strategy for the Kensington and West Kingsford areas. The Traffic Management Strategy should be undertaken in association with local residents, RTA and other key stakeholders to include, but not be limited to:

i)                    Upgrading of the Nine Ways.

ii)                  Upgrading of the signalised intersections on Gardeners Road between the proposed ramps and the Nine Ways.

iii)                 Improving or at least maintaining the existing levels of service and residential amenity of the Kensington and West Kingsford areas.

iv)                The provision of cycle ways on Gardeners Road.

v)                 The provision of additional pedestrian facilities.

 

f)           Council support the RTA’s proposal to prevent eastbound traffic on Epsom Road (buses and cyclists excepted) from travelling through the intersection of Link Road to Lenthall Street. However, Council should enter into discussions with the RTA and City of Sydney to ban the left turn movement from Link Road into Epsom Road and the right turn movement from the Dolina development in order to achieve the equivalent of a half road closure on Lenthall Street.

 

g)          Todman Avenue, between South Dowling Street and Lenthall Street, be line-marked to provide two lanes in each direction, in conjunction with the restriction of eastbound traffic on Lenthall Street.

 

h)          A Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) to enhance pedestrian access and safety within the Kensington and West Kingsford areas be considered. (Funding for this study may be available from the RTA.)

 

i)            An investigation be undertaken to identify the causes of road crashes and recommend remedial treatments at Tresidder Avenue and at the intersections of Kensington Road /Duke Street and Kensington Avenue/Todman Avenue.

 

j)            The RTA be requested to undertake investigations to identify the causes of road crashes and implement remedial treatments along Anzac Parade.

 

k)          Council have the remaining traffic measures detailed within Appendix B reviewed for appropriateness, properly designed, costed and then referred to the local precinct and immediately neighbouring residents to gauge current community opinion on the proposals.  (This process would take 3 months.)

 

l)            A report then be bought back to Council for the consideration of the implementation and funding of these traffic measures.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Summary of Responses

 

 

2.View

Previously Proposed Traffic Calming Measures for Kensington/West Kingsford

 

 

 

 

 


Summary of Responses

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Submission Reference

D00826679

Comments

Issues

Response

Proposed Southern Cross Ramps. The installation of these ramps will seriously reduce the livable environment in the Kingsford/Kensington area by increasing traffic through the area. It will also increase travel times for locals and mean that the time to travel west along Gardeners Road which is already a car park at peak time much worse. I and my family are totally opposed to the proposal having lived in the area for over 29 years.

§     Increasing traffic from ramps in Kensington/Kingsford

 

§     Increased travel times for residents due to congestion from increased traffic generated by ramps

Council continues to oppose the RTA proposal to construct ramps.

Lenthall Street. I travel down this street to enter Southern Cross Drive daily to go north. If this access is prevented I and many others will have to enter the ED by traveling along the already narrow crowded and very slow South Dowling Street adding 15-20 minutes extra time to get to work each ,morning, adding to pollution due to the very slow access to the ED. Neither of the proposals is of benefit to those of us living in the area, Randwick Council has a clear responsibility to protect the interests of it's ratepayers and oppose any changes to current traffic flows.

 

Council – Noted – respondent has misunderstood Lenthall Street proposal.  The proposal is to limit eastbound traffic, not the westbound manoeuvre to which he has referred.

 

Submission Reference

D00837257

Comments

Issues

Response

The proposed semi-closure of Lenthall Street and elimination of the left turn from Link Road into Epsom Rd would divert traffic seeking access to the Eastern suburbs onto the proposed Gardeners Road –Southern Cross ramps and through the suburbs of West Kingsford.

 

Streets such as Tunstall Avenue (as the first available left turn) would be overwhelmed and devastated by rat-running traffic. The numbers could amount to as many as 7000 cars per day as this is roughly the number traveling east along Lenthall Street that would be diverted elsewhere by the proposed semi-closure.

 

I am therefore astounded by the figures in the draft report that Tunstall Avenue would be minimally impacted by the proposed changes. 

§      Suggested increases in Tunstall Avenue traffic, as a result of the proposed half closure of Lenthall Street, considered to be under-estimated.

Noted – referred to consultant for response.

 

Lenthall Street has been categorised as a sub-arterial road since 1983 given that it is a vital route for east-west traffic. Whilst this may be deemed inappropriate by its local residents, it would not be fair nor ethical to divert the traffic to the suburbs of West Kingsford by total closure of the eastern route along Lenthall Street.

 

(continued…)

If Lenthall Street were closed to easterly traffic, there are only very few alternative routes available given that there are only 3 east-west traffic routes across the Randwick region: 1. Dacey Avenue, 2. Gardeners Road and the residential streets of West Kingsford and 3. the Lenthall Street-Todman Avenue route. With South Dowling at a standstill during peak hour and stadium events, traffic seeking access to the East is preferentially diverted to Link Road, Epsom Road, Lenthall Street and then Todman Avenue. Closure of this route along with the proposed ramps would overwhelm Gardeners Road and the residential streets of West Kingsford.

 

Noted

 

 

Submission Reference

D00837247

Comments

Issues

Response

1.  Green Square Renewal – No Car Growth Option

That such an option should be considered is unrealistic.

The streets of West Kingsford – Kensington are now solidly parked out from Anzac Parade to Tunstall Avenue five days a week during university semesters.

The residents of Greens Square Renewal Area will have invested in the thousands of the advertised ‘luxury apartments’.  They will view from their twoer blocks, the wide range of places of interest, education, health care and creation immediately to their east.  Some residents may use enhanced public transport and bicycles some of the time.  The majority however, like university staff and students, will continue to regard the use of a car as essential to their lifestyle.

§        Concerns that Green Square ‘No Car Growth’ scenario is unrealistic

Council supports the principles of ‘No Car Growth’, however the lack of transport facilities provided to date does not engender great confidence in this approach to date.  Hence the Study has also assessed the ‘Full Growth’ scenario.

2.  Green Square Renewal Area – Trip Generation by 2016

The report states that the total potential peak hour trip generation by 2016 would equal 22,036 vehicles/hour.  This would represent an additional peak hour traffic of 17,628 vehicles/hours with 3526 vehicles/hour entering / leaving West Kingsford – Kensington.

 

Noted (these comments are a direct extract from the Report)

3.  Gardeners Road Ramps – Additional peak hour traffic

The report states that the presence of ramps on Gardeners Road would result in additional peak hour traffic of 1410 vehicles/hour in West Kingsford/Kensington.  The thoroughfares most affected by the Ramps would be Gardeners Road, Eastern Avenue and Tunstall / Tressider Avenues.  These thoroughfares also be markedly affected by traffic generated by the Green Park Renewal Area.

 

Noted – these effects are detailed within the report

(continued)

4.      Half closure of Lenthall StreetRTA plan

The residents of Lenthall Street, a road under the control of the Randwick City Council, are being deprived of a reasonable level of residential amenity.  The RTA plan would reduce the current traffic volume by 23%am, 40%pm.  The Council plan would achieve a reduction of 44% am and 64%pm. The residents of Lenthall Street would expect the Council to act in their best interests in this matter.

 

§        Lenthall Street residents would expect Council to act in their best interests regarding the proposed half closure of Lenthall Street

Noted – Council’s position is in support of the half closure of Lenthall Street.

5.      Kensington Road, south of Todman Avenue – Traffic Incidents

Note was made in the report on the high level of traffic incidents in this section of Kensington Road with a recommendation that the matter should be investigated by the RTA.

The southern end of Kensington Road passes between a primary school and a large secondary college.  It also passes a parish

church.

 

Large numbers of children and adults of all ages can be in the immediate vicinity at various times throughout the week.  The road is used to bypass Kensington and Kingsford shopping centres and carries heavy traffic in both directions.  The 90º turn, Kensington Road / Roma Avenue, is frequently taken at speed and, being close to exits from the church, is a particular hazard to pedestrians.

§        Concerns about pedestrian  safety

These safety concerns are being examined by Council’s Integrated Transport Department.

 

 

Submission Reference

D00837248

Comments

Issues

Response

There is a concern that traffic surveys were conducted during UNSW recess. You have reassured us that you would take action to establish a quantitative adjustment to the numbers and that you would undertake a number of Council initiated traffic counts to support this shortfall in the study.

§      Survey data was collected during UNSW recess

 

Comparison surveys have now been carried out during UNSW term time – no significant variations were quantified.

 

The report reinforces the significant impact currently and even more so in the not too distant future of the extensive frenzy of urban development in neighbouring City of Sydney Council (Green Square Urban Renewal Area – GSURA - programme which encompasses Victoria Park etc). In addition it is worthwhile mentioning that whilst the focus thus far had been on GSURA we should not overlook the residential development activity of neighbouring Botany Council with its high rise development in the area surrounding Mascot Railway Station. With the development also underway of the new IKEA superstore in Tempe, the volume of traffic travelling through our streets will also increase. This activity has not been considered in the report traffic volume assumptions but must be taken in consideration in agreeing a way forward from this report.

It is a strong view of the Precinct (re: Precinct meeting on 13 July) and of the Traffic sub-committee that whilst a “no car growth” scenario is a desirable, it is unrealistic that this could ever be attained.

§      Traffic growth from neighbouring developments has not been included in future traffic generation

 

 

 

 

§      Unrealistic expectation for ‘no car growth’ from Green Square

 

The ability to load into any model all of the future growth scenarios of all future proposed developments is very difficult.  Usually this is achieved by imposing the background growth for the whole of Sydney onto any estimation.

 

The TMAP proposing the ‘no car growth’ has been developed by the City of Sydney, Ministry of Transport and other key stakeholders. RCC approached City of Sydney to join the steering committee however this was declined.  Proposed future meetings are being arranged.

 

Whilst the issue of the ramps would seem to have “fallen off the radar”, we are not convinced that they will not reappear on some Minister’s agenda as a short sighted quick fix to the management of the anticipated increases in vehicular movements and through traffic volumes in the area.

Lenthall Street is a prime example of how a residential street now carries traffic volumes commensurate with an arterial road given the surrounding area developments and the pulling of traffic toward key Eastern suburbs destinations such as POW, UNSW and the commercial precinct of Bondi Junction.

Lenthall Street is a good example of what happens when a problem is ignored.

 

§      Concern that Gardeners Road Ramps is still a possibility

 

Council opposes the RTA proposal to construct ramps

Whilst the report does provide some appreciation of the potential traffic impacts of the three issues identified, it falls short of one of Council’s identified objectives to “Recommend treatments to address the adverse traffic impacts identified in the above assessment”.

To this end, the Traffic sub-committee considers as the next step in this project, the development of a much needed traffic management plan in our area. We would urge Council to consider that the guiding principle in the formulation of treatments is that:

Traffic movements are directed toward arterial roads and. that Precinct residential and collector roads should be protected from traffic which is travelling through the precinct and to minimise the current “rat running” on our streets.

§      Report does not recommend physical treatments

 

Whilst specific treatments at specific sites have not been identified the consultant has recommended actions to be undertaken in the event that the Ramps proposal is resurrected (see point 5 on page 54 of report)

The Recommendations in the report are welcomed, with the following additional comments:

Consultants’ report recommendations and Traffic Sub-Committee (TSC) comments:

1. Council take appropriate action to ensure an active role on the Corridor Working Group to be formed for the proposed Transit Corridors within the Randwick LGA recommended by the Green Square TMAP report. In agreement

 

 

Noted

2. Council support the objectives of the Green Square TMAP subject to the Ministry of  Transport, City of Sydney and Landcom agreeing to set targets to ensure the balance between new development and the implementation of transport initiatives to achieve ‘No Car Growth’.

TSC – “No Car Growth” option is unrealistic. However in principle we agree with the recommendation but need to see public transport initiatives such as light rail firmly back on the agenda.

§    Concerns that Green Square ‘No Car Growth’ scenario is unrealistic.

 

§    Strong support for improved public transport

 

Noted

 

 

 

Noted

3. Council undertake intersection traffic surveys on a regular basis at key locations to monitor traffic movements to and from the Green Square Urban Renewal Area. This regular monitoring will indicate any changes to traffic volumes within the residential areas of Kensington and West Kingsford. Such information could then be promptly acted upon.

TSC- We need to focus on a treatments and a traffic management plan in the first instance

§   Concerns that treatments and traffic management plan not be delayed by data gathering.

 

The intent of this recommendation is not to forestall any future action but to be able to quantify the actual change in traffic flows over time.

4. Council write to the Minister for Roads and Minister for Planning to confirm the current status of the proposed ramps on Gardeners Road at Southern Cross Drive.

TSC - The precinct remains opposed to the introduction of the ramps

§   Opposed to the Ramps

Council opposes the RTA proposal to construct ramps

5. In the event that the proposed ramps secure the required AusLink funding, Council seek funding from the RTA to develop a Traffic Management Strategy for the Kensington and West Kingsford areas. The Traffic Management Strategy should be undertaken in association with local residents, RTA and other key stakeholders to include, but not be

limited to:

TSC – We are of the view that a Traffic Management Strategy for our precinct is required now, and should be commenced independent of ramps proposals or not and that Council should still lobby for the:

 

 (wording extracted from report)

 

 

a.      Upgrading of the Nine Ways. TSC – this is already one of the highest accident “hot spots” in Sydney and should be addressed now.

 

§     Concerned about crash rate at nine way roundabout

Noted – this is an RTA controlled facility and they are aware of its performance.

a.      Upgrading of the signalised intersections on Gardeners Road between the proposed ramps and the Nine Ways. TSC – this is already one of the highest accident “hot spots” in Sydney and should be addressed now

 

§      This matter relates to Gardeners Road – not just the nine ways roundabout as suggested in the submission

Noted – this is a matter for the RTA

b.      Improving or at least maintaining the existing levels of service and residential amenity of the Kensington and West Kingsford areas. TSC – The traffic volumes increases will not just be from the proposed ramps hence the need to take action is warranted now to at least maintaining the existing levels of service and residential amenity of the Kensington and West Kingsford areas.

§      Wants Traffic Management Study now – not only when Ramps may be proposed

 

Noted

c.      The provision of cycle ways on Gardeners Road.

TSC – We are in total support of encouraging alternative modes of transport, and consider that it would make more sense to move such movements into the local streets rather than take up additional carriageways on an arterial road and potentially increasing cyclists accident exposure (refer to cyclists accidents on the Southern Cross Drive).

§      Supports active transport options

 

Noted

d.      The provision of additional pedestrian facilities.

TSC – Pedestrian facilities should be encouraged now as consistent with the City Plan

·         Supports pedestrian safety improvements

Noted

6. Council support the RTA’s proposal to prevent eastbound traffic on Epsom Road (buses and cyclists excepted) from travelling through the intersection of Link Road to Lenthall Street. However, Council should enter into discussions with the RTA and City of Sydney to ban the left turn movement from Link Road into Epsom Road and the

right turn movement from the Dolina development in order to achieve the equivalent of a half road closure on Lenthall Street.

TSC – We are in support however our residents are concerned that such initiatives are not taken in isolation of a total Precinct overview hence the call for the development of a much needed traffic management plan/recommended treatments

 

§      Wants Traffic Management Study now – not only when Ramps may be proposed

Noted

7. Todman Avenue, between South Dowling Street and Lenthall Street, be line-marked to provide two lanes in each direction, in conjunction with the restriction of eastbound traffic on Lenthall Street.

TSC – Consideration needs to be given here for access implications for the residents of the substantial Raleigh Park development and the relocation of existing on street parking.  Further investigation of impacts is required.

 

Further Investigations

Some of the issues examined in this report have raised the need to undertake the following:

 

§     Impacts of proposed Todman Avenue configuration needs close examination

 

 

Noted – if this recommendation was to be pursued these issues would certainly be examined.

8. A Pedestrian and Mobility Plan (PAMP) to enhance pedestrian access and safety within the Kensington and West Kingsford areas. Funding for this study may be available from the RTA.

TSC – To some extent this would be greatly facilitated by following our suggested principle of restricting traffic movements toward arterial roads and off our residential streets (no “rat running” through our streets).

 

 

 

Noted – a PAMP study examines the movements of pedestrians in an area and suggests facilities such as pram ramps, pedestrian refuges, footpath extensions etc. However, the suggested principle of restricting traffic movements toward arterial roads and off our residential streets (no “rat running” through our streets) would assist with pedestrian.

9. An investigation to identify the causes of road crashes and recommend remedial treatments at Tresidder Avenue and at the intersections of Kensington Road /Duke Street and Kensington Avenue/Todman Avenue.

TSC – Any situation where there are safety concerns, should be investigated including the Nine Ways intersection.

§      Supports investigation at high crash rate locations

 

Noted – Tressider Avenue is a location for which Council has responsibility – the RTA has responsibility for the Nine Ways Roundabout

10. The RTA be requested to undertake investigations to identify the causes of road crashes and implement remedial treatments along Anzac Parade. Alternatively, the RTA may be prepared to fund Council to undertake these investigations.

TSC – As per 9) above 

§      Supports investigation at high crash rate locations

 

 

Noted

 


 

Submission Reference

D00837253

Comments

Issues

Response

1. The scope of the analyses and data obtained are not always equal to the task of addressing Council’s primary objectives

§      Significant concerns about data and quality of report

 

 

 

Tables 2.5 and 2.6 provided SIDRA results for the am and pm peaks for 6 intersections out of the 10 surveyed. It is not obvious why the intersection for Doncaster Ave and Roma Ave was omitted, since it would appear to be of concern in light of Table 2.4.

 

 

 

 

Noted – referred to consultant for response.

 

Houston Road probably has as much traffic as Day Avenue. It should have been surveyed. The omissions of Houston Ave, Kensington Road, north Cottenham and Doncaster in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 and Figures 6.1 and 6.2 are regrettable.

 

 

 

 

 

A case could be made to examine in detail every intersection, however, at some point a decision has to be made about limiting the scope of extensive investigations.

Section 4.4 does not inform the reader how many eastbound vehicles on Gardeners Road will turn left into the study area.

 

 

 

Table 4-1 quantifies the traffic entering the study area, and tables 6-1 and 6-2 and Figures 6-1 & 6-2 detail the likely impacts on Tunstall Avenue.

 

The period of crash data used for evaluating safety should have started earlier than 2004 and finished later than 2007. Crashes in local streets are less frequent than in main roads, so one needs to look at longer periods. As a result of the short period used for example, two quite serious single-vehicle crashes in Cottenham between Koorinda and Roma in the not too distant past are not shown. Analysis of a longer period for this section of road would have shown that single-vehicle crashes have been a major type of accident over the last three decades. It is to be expected that examination of longer periods of the records for other streets in the study area would result in additional areas prone to crashes being identified.

 

 

 

 

Within Traffic Engineering a period of three years examination of crash history is considered appropriate.

The Police crash data, processed by the RTA, can take up to 12 months to be distributed to Councils (and other agencies). Additional delays can also occur if subsequent Police or Coronial investigations are required.

 

No information has been found on how Appendices 14 and 15 took account of the changes in Green Square traffic management. It would appear that this has not been done.

 

 

 

 

 

This matter is addressed in Section 6.2, pages 50 – 52.

There does not appear to have been any serious consideration of the bicycle network or the public transport network. The bicycle network is presented in Section 2.2 and the public transport network in Section 2.3, but thereafter, neither feature in the assessments to any noticeable degree. Given our pressing need to plan for climate change, these lacunae are disappointing.

 

 

 

 

Assessment of active transport impacts is beyond the scope of the brief. Council is actively pursuing improvements in these areas through other projects.

2. The logic of the report is at times deficient. The traffic counts were taken outside University term times. There is no excuse for this. A study of Council’s records and Council’s briefings should have made it clear that this was to be avoided. This omission was questioned at several presentations by the consultant at Precinct meetings, but it was never rectified. At the last meeting, the consultant presented a graph showing trends in Lenthall St (Figure 5.1). This graph indicated erroneously that the traffic had decreased by about 10% between 2005 and 2008. The consultant acknowledged to the Precinct that this may have resulted from the unfortunate timing of the traffic counts. This acknowledgement is not to be found in Section 5.1 of the report, and no allowance has been made for this in the analyses or conclusions reached.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was considered that a delay to the report until March (when UNSW would again be fully operational, was not desirable.

 

Comparison counts were undertaken in August showing minor variations in traffic flow on ‘uni’ and ‘non-uni’ days.

 

The consultant then went on to tell the Precinct meeting that nevertheless, the traffic in the local streets was much the same as in 2005, seeming to imply that therefore the 2008 traffic counts were acceptable for local streets. If this were the consultant’s reasoning, it would be illogical. We know that the population around Green Square is increasing. We know that student parking in the study area is increasing. By the assessments in this report, this must result in an increase in traffic in the study area. It must follow that had the consultant counted traffic in term time, the traffic in Lenthall Street would probably have been greater than in 2005, and the traffic in the rest of the study area could have been an appreciable percentage greater than the counts showed. The consultant’s report does not consider this obvious possibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These suggested increases were not realised within the comparison counts undertaken.

 

The assumption in Section 3.6, that the extra traffic in Green Square “will travel on the existing road network in a similar distribution as currently occurs” is difficult to accept, given the extensive changes to manage the traffic set out in Section 3.5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without a ‘full-blown’ origin / destination survey requiring hundreds of staff picking up the movements of thousands of vehicles at all intersection, in the AM and PM periods; and the modelling of all this data with various programs, it is not possible to assess the likely impacts of possible proposals (which, in any event, are apparently under constant review).  Such an wide ranging assessment is beyond the scope of this study.

It is does not appear logical that the changes in traffic for the half-road closure in Lenthall Street reported in Note 9 (continued)…for Scenario 2 (No car growth) can be the same as for Scenario 1 (full car growth).

 

 

 

 

Noted – referred to consultant for response.

It is not clear how Recommendation 10, dealing with Anzac Parade crashes is relevant to this report.

 

 

 

 

This is considered to be appropriate advice for Council considering the crash rate discovered within the study area.

3. The report makes assessments and recommendations unsupported by the analyses.

 

 

 

 

 

This opinion is noted

The procedures for arriving at assessments are not always provided. This is necessary not only to demonstrate to others that correct procedures have been followed, but also to help investigators check their own work. It is often when setting out how a study was undertaken that an investigator realises deficiencies and is able to correct them in time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 2.1.5 does not make clear how the hierarchy in Figure 2.3 was derived. It would appear from Appendix 1 that not all traffic counts have been provided to the consultant. Some additional counts in the writer’s possession are attached. Unfortunately, the traffic counts seemingly provided to the consultant had only a few of the readings for the section of Cottenham between Roma and Day. Provision of the missing traffic counts may have alerted the consultant to the fact that the traffic in this section probably exceeds the traffic in Addison, Cottenham south of Day, Tunstall, Borrodale, and is nowadays probably slightly greater than Doncaster south of Anzac Parade.  As well, the consultant did not have all the counts for Houston Road. This street is liable to be severely affected by the ramps even after traffic management has been implemented for the study area. Accordingly, it is suggested that Figures 2.7 and 2.8, Table 2.3 and the Conclusions would need amendment in order to satisfy Council’s primary objectives of identifying the impacts on Council’s road network of the ramps and Green Square.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The methodology for arriving at the suggested classifications are detailed in section 2.1 – from pages 8 to 11.

 

The consultant was provided with all of Council’s traffic count data for this area.

The impacts of Recommendation 7, to widen Todman Ave west of Lenthall [West Todman] do not appear to have been assessed. To justify such a recommendation, one should have evaluated: -

 

 

 

 

*     the effects of the improvements to traffic management around Green Square as set out in Section 3.5;

 

See comments re this suggestion on previous page.

 

*     the resulting benefits in reduced traffic and improved residential amenity in Lenthall St;

 

 

Noted.

 

*     the resulting disbenefits of increased traffic and reduced residential amenity in: West Todman; Todman Ave east of Lenthall; and the rest of the study area;

 

 

 

 

Noted.

*     alternative strategies such as changing the sequencing of the left green arrow for westbound traffic at Lenthall. For example, it could be made synchronous with the general green light except when a bus approached.

 

 

 

 

The intent of this suggestion is unclear.

 

It is to be noted that several years ago, the RTA rejected a request by Randwick Council to add an extra right turn lane from southbound Anzac Parade into Todman on the grounds that this would draw more traffic into the study area. Recommendation 7 would have a similar effect.

 

 

 

 

It is understood that this may not have been the RTA’s position on this matter.

 

4. The report does not identify all the impacts on the amenity of the residents

 

 

 

 

 

The consultant was asked at one Precinct meeting how residential amenity was to be assessed. The answer provided was vague, to the effect that he would take account of various factors and use his experience. Nor is the reader enlightened by the report. It does not define amenity, it does not provide measures of amenity, it does not explain how the effects on amenity were assessed. There is no indication in Council’s statement of primary objectives that residential amenity is to be given less attention than the impact on the road network. Yet while the report provides detailed analysis of the impact on the road network, there is no assessment of the impact on amenity, apart from two bland statements – one that residential amenity will be increased in Lenthall St (p. 53) and one that it will be decreased in certain other locations (p.52).

 

Nor is it clear that the consultant has a workable concept of residential amenity clearly in mind. It may be that to the consultant, residential amenity is to be equated with the levels of service (LOS) of intersections (eg. Section 6.2). While there is a relationship between LOS and residential amenity, they are not the same thing at all. Residential amenity is affected by other factors such as traffic between intersections, for example. This latter factor is hardly addressed in Section 2.5.

 

 

 

The measure of residential amenity is imprecise – it can vary from person to person.

Some persons would consider 100 vehicles an hour to be too many, others would consider 16 vehicles per minute (over 1,000 vehicles an hour) to be acceptable.

 

Generally experience has shown that residents consider a reduction in traffic flow to equate to an increase in residential amenity, whilst an increase equates to a reduction in residential amenity.

 

However, there are some who measure their amenity by the ease with which they can access their dwelling or the ease with which they can drive to other locations.

 

 

5. The standard of presentation is below what might be expected of a professional report.  This poor presentation makes it difficult and time-consuming to navigate one’s way through the report. This is a severe disincentive for the public to comment. Instances of this include but are not limited to the following: -

 

 

 

This opinion is noted

 

*     No summary has been provided.

 

 

 

 

*     The Table of Contents does not show Lists of Figures or Tables.

 

 

 

 

*     The meanings and significance of the headings of Table 2.5 would be opaque to most lay people.

 

 

The writer’s opinion is noted. 

 

*     The fact that Tables 2.5 and 2.6 were derived from the results in Appendix 12 is not stated in Section 2.5. The fact that Table 6.1 was derived from the results in Appendices 12, 15 and 16 is not stated in Section 6.1.

 

 

 

*     Figures 2.6 and 5.1 do not provide clear depictions of trends. They should have been plotted as standard X-Y graphs, so that the times are indicated without distortion. For example, there is a long time between 1992 and 2005 in Figure 2.6, but only a short time between 2005 and 2008, but this is not indicated.

 

 

 

 

 

*     Tables 2.5, 2.6 and 6.3 are misleading. To take just one example, the fact that the LOS in Tunstall Ave is already at D and drops to F is not shown. Instead, the values are shown incorrectly as A and A respectively.

 

 

*     It is difficult to navigate one’s way around the appendices. Something such as the page numbering should have shown which Appendix one was looking at on each page.

 

 

*     Most of the streets mentioned in Section 3.5 are not shown in the report.

 

 

*     The Transit Corridors mentioned in Recommendation 1 are not described or discussed in the main text.  

 

 

 

Conclusion:

This report is embarrassingly deficient.

*     The traffic counts appear insufficient and inaccurate.

*     The scope of the analyses are not always equal to the task of addressing Council’s primary objectives.

*     The report’s logic is questionable too often.

*     It makes assessments and recommendations unsupported by the analyses.

*     It does not identify all the impacts on the amenity of the residents in the study area.

*     The presentation is frequently unclear.

 

Were there to be just a few instances of sub-standard communication, wrong information, unsound reasoning, omissions of required evaluations or failures to address Council’s objectives, the report might be salvageable. The concern is now that this may not be the case here.

 

 

The writer’s opinion is noted. 

 

Views contrary to the writer’s have been received from others.

 

 


 

Submission Reference

D00838128

Comments

Issues

Response

It is unfortunate that the 2008 survey was carried out in November, after Semester 2 had ended for UNSW students.  Even though the consultants had noted it was during the examination period, this could well have affected the baseline data of traffic counts in the area, such that the traffic counts are underestimates compared with traffic levels for much of the year when semesters are running at UNSW.  If this is the case, then the modelled increases for the proposed developments would also be underestimates.

Survey data was collected during UNSW recess

Comparison counts were undertaken in August showing minor variations in traffic flow on ‘uni’ and ‘non-uni’ days.

 

The traffic study confirms the disastrous effect for Eastern Avenue, flowing on from the RTA proposed ramps to and from Southern Cross Drive.  Table 6.3 shows the two scenarios, both with ramps (and either with or without car growth in the Green Square redevelopment area).  Both scenarios change the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Eastern Avenue and Gardeners Road from "B" at both am and pm peaks (which itself could be an underestimate, as noted above), to either "F" or "E" in the afternoon peak, and "D" or "C" in the morning peak.  The proposed ramps would essentially turn Eastern Avenue, a local residential street, into a car park for about four hours a day, during the morning and evening peaks.  The ramps would also increase traffic throughout the day.  

 

 

Noted

Whilst Gardeners Road is an arterial road, with three lanes in each direction, Eastern Avenue is a local / collector road, with one lane in each direction.  Eastern Avenue is within an entirely residential area, with no commercial or business activities along its length.  The RTA proposed ramps would destroy the amenity of the residential area of Eastern Avenue (and other streets to the north and east of it), and turn it into a convenient short-cut for traffic wishing to avoid using parts of Gardeners Road and Anzac Parade. 

 

 

Noted

To retain residential amenity in this part of Kingsford, and to keep the extra traffic on the main arterial roads of Gardeners Road and Anzac Parade, Randwick Council would need to apply restrictions to cars (but not buses) exiting Eastern Avenue on to Gardeners Road.  There may also need to be additional restrictions on the ability of cars to access a range of streets as exits from Gardeners Road (e.g. Tunstall, Eastern, Cottenham etc.), in order that this entire part of Kingsford is not turned into short-cuts through to Anzac Parade. 

§   Wants greater action re reducing traffic flows in residential streets

 

 

Council has no legal power to introduce traffic alterations which redirect traffic to other areas.  This power rests with the RTA and it is unlikely that the RTA would approve of the writer’s suggested changes.

(continued)…

The consultants noted that Eastern Avenue (north of Gardeners Road, and probably up to Day Avenue) was one of the roads in the area not operating within its environmental capacity (i.e. 5080 daily traffic, exceeding 5000 as an upper limit).  Whilst it is not the worst road in the area, as regards traffic load, it is still beyond the upper limit, and could be even more beyond the upper limit, given that this study was done outside of normal UNSW semester time.  As well, since car traffic in the vicinity seems to be growing (comparing earlier counts in 2005 with 2008), natural increases in car traffic over the next few years will take this number even higher, without the proposed RTA ramps.  Anecdotally, it appears that car parking associated with UNSW keeps extending further westwards from Anzac Parade into Kensington and Kingsford, and has done so over the last 30 years or more.

 

 

Noted

Given that Eastern Avenue is already exceeding its environmental capacity, and parking associated with UNSW continues to grow (despite the excellent and well-patronised bus service), it may be worthwhile for Randwick Council to consider traffic (especially car) reduction measures for Eastern Avenue independently of the impact of the proposed RTA ramps. 

 

 

Noted

Since Anzac Parade and Gardeners Road are the arterial roads of the area, it would appear that the best way to return amenity to Eastern Avenue would be to restrict car use of this street, and keep cars on these arterial roads as much as possible  This could be achieved for Eastern Avenue in the same way as it is for Tunstall Avenue, Cottenham Avenue and other streets adjoining Gardeners Road (to the north) - i.e. by removing car access to Gardeners Road from Eastern Avenue.  Bus access to Gardeners Road from Eastern Avenue could remain.  It may well be, in the future, that some local streets become "bus only" through streets, if we are to manage traffic congestion.  This would be a natural extension of the idea of having "bus only" lanes on major roads. 

 

 

 

Council has no legal power to introduce traffic alterations which redirect traffic to other areas.  This power rests with the RTA and it is unlikely that the RTA would approve of the suggested changes.

I am also concerned about the impact of the Green Square Urban Renewal Area on the West Kensington - Kingsford area if serious efforts are not made to achieve the much touted "No Car Growth" at Green Square.  The studies on the Green Square Area referred to in the traffic study quoted figures for predicted numbers of new residents and new employees.  I think Randwick Council, and other nearby residential areas, have a right to know what the predicted car parking figures are within the Green Square Urban Renewal Area.  How many car parking spaces are being permitted in apartment developments?  How many car parking spaces are being permitted in association with commercial developments?  If parking is not controlled at the supply stage, for both residential and commercial developments, then there is simply no way that a "No Car Growth" strategy will be achieved for Green Square.

 

§   Concerns that Green Square ‘No Car Growth’ scenario is unrealistic.

 

Council has consistently expressed formal concerns about the impacts that this “densification” of development will have upon Randwick’s residents and facilities.

The traffic study notes there is no government commitment to the implementation of the "No Car Growth" strategy.  Given the appalling history of the (non-) development of public transport in Sydney, it would be generous in the extreme to believe that a "No Car Growth" scenario can be truly achieved in Green Square.

§   Concerns that Green Square ‘No Car Growth’ scenario is unrealistic

Council supports the principles of ‘No Car Growth’, however the lack of transport facilities provided to date does not engender great confidence in this approach to date.  Hence the Study has also assessed the ‘Full Growth’ scenario.

 

 

Submission Reference

D00838256

Comments

Response

Issues

Exiting Southern Cross drive, travelling northbound (for Kensington and further east) is very convenient onto Link Road and then into Lenthall Street. Exiting at Todman Avenue involves additional delay and is more difficult as the Southern Cross Drive divides into lanes leading to the Eastern Distributor. The required manoeuvre is to "stay in the left lanes to turn right into Todman Avenue". I also think that Todman Avenue already has a large volume of traffic and the current sharing of traffic flow with Lenthall Street is appropriate, especially given the extensive infrastructure works in place for traffic calming in Lenthall Street.

§      Concerned about delays accessing Todman Avenue, from Southern Cross Drive

 

The consultant has been advised by the RTA that it would adjust the phasing at the South Dowling /Todman/O’Dea intersection in order to accommodate extra traffic, if access eastbound to Lenthall Street was denied.

It will be possible to access Kensington and further east when traveling northbound on Southern Cross drive by the proposed new ramps onto Gardeners Road. Therefore, while I do not support the proposed half road closure of Lenthall Street, eastbound, any action should not be taken until the exit ramp from Southern Cross Drive onto Gardeners Road is operational.

§      Do not alter Lenthall Street until ramps are operational

 

 

Noted.  However, Council has adopted a position against introduction of the proposed ramps.

Unfair that traffic in Rosebery is prevented from traveling east along Lenthall Street. While traffic traveling northbound on Southern Cross Drive has the option of accessing Kensington and further east via Todman Avenue and also the proposed ramp onto Gardeners Road, traffic in the Rosebery area would need to follow a much more circuitous route to Todman Avenue or Gardeners Road.

§      Concerned about delays accessing Todman Avenue, from Rosebery

 

The degree of “disadvantage” experienced obviously depends on the origin of the trip proposed.  Denial of access to Lenthall Street, eastbound, will disadvantage some Randwick residents and disadvantage some City of Sydney residents

Any proposal to limit traffic flows along Lenthall Street should be limited to preventing left hand turns from Link Road (for cars exiting Southern Cross Drive northbound) into Epson Road (leading to Lenthall Street).

§      Limit access to Lenthall Street from Southern Cross Drive / Link Road only, not from Epsom Road.

Altering the proposal as per this suggestion will, obviously, reduce the positive benefits experienced by Lenthall street residents.

 

 

 


Previously Proposed Traffic Calming Measures for Kensington / West Kingsford

Attachment 2

 

 

ATTACHMENT 2

 

(Sourced from Council Report 44/2004)

 

The West Kingsford Local Area Traffic Management Scheme

Details of Proposed Traffic Calming Measures

 

1.     Tunstall Avenue, north of Gardeners Road – provision of kerb blister and central median island;

2.     Tunstall Avenue, between Gardeners Road and the northern boundary of the Australian Golf Course – shifting the centreline and line marking the parking lane on the eastern side of Tunstall Avenue;

3.     Tunstall Avenue at Tresidder and Goodrich Avenues- vehicle deflection/’squeeze points’;

4.     Speed control measures on the northern section of Tunstall Avenue (already implemented);

5.     Speed control measures in Addison Street (already implemented);

6.     Cottenham Avenue at Borrodale Road – vehicle deflection/’squeeze point’;

7.     Day Avenue at Eastern Avenue – ‘squeeze point’ incorporating pedestrian refuge;

8.     Eastern Avenue at Goodrich Avenue – vehicle deflection/squeeze point’;

9.     Cottenham Avenue, south of Roma Avenue – pedestrian refuge island;

10.   Balfour Road at Addison Street – central median island;

11.   Provision of vehicle deflection/squeeze points in lieu of edge line treatments in Cottenham, Mooramie and Doncaster Avenues at intersections with Koorinda Avenue;

12.   A pedestrian refuge in Roma Avenue, immediately west of Cottenham Avenue, together with ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the approach and departure sides of the pedestrian refuse, and an additional STOP sign to reinforce existing STOP control restriction at this location;

13.   ‘No Right Turn at Gardeners Road’ signs in Tunstall Avenue and Cottenham Avenue, north of Tresidder Avenue for southbound vehicles;

14.   The existing double centreline and associated rumble bars in Cottenham Avenue in the vicinity of Edward Avenue to be shifted east, to provide a two metres wide parking lane on the western side of the street, leaving a four metres wide traffic lane in each direction of travel;

15.   Signposting of the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restriction at various intersections where illegal parking by students of UNSW inhibit pedestrian and vehicle safety;

16.   A 15 metre length of ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the northern side of Addison street, immediately east of Balfour Road;

17.   Rumble bars to be installed on the existing double centreline on the 90 degree bend where Roma Avenue meets Kensington Road;

18.   Balfour Road at  Todman Avenue – relocation of the existing STOP controls and provision of associated kerb blisters, construction of a pedestrian refuge on the southern leg of the intersection and introduction of a ‘No Right Turn 6AM-10AM; 3PM-7PM MON-FRI’ restriction for east bound vehicles on Todman Avenue.