Supplementary AGENDA  1R

 

Distributed on 1 November 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

                            

                     TUESDAY 6 NOVEMBER 2018

 

10.00am

 

 

   


Local Traffic Committee Meeting

6 November 2018

 

 

 

MEETING AGENDA – PRECIS

SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS

 

 

The following report/s appear as late item/s with Mayoral approval as information required for the preparation of the report/s was not available at the time of distribution of the Business Paper.

 

  

Traffic Matters

 

ITEM                                                                                                                                       PAGE

 

LTC1118 Item 29     Croydon Road, Croydon - Proposed Pedestrian and Traffic Calming Treatments (Leichhardt Ward / Strathfield Electorate / Burwood PAC)                     3

 

 


Local Traffic Committee Meeting

6 November 2018

 

Item No:              LTC1118 Item 29

Subject:              Croydon Road, Croydon - Proposed Pedestrian and Traffic Calming Treatments (Leichhardt Ward / Strathfield Electorate / Burwood PAC)        

Prepared By:     Boris Muha - Engineer – Traffic and Parking Services 

Authorised By:  John Stephens - Traffic and Transport Services Manager

 

SUMMARY

Council’s at its meeting on the 28 May 2018 adopted the recommendation of the Local Traffic Committee meeting of 1 May 2018 to support in principle to pursue various conceptual traffic facility proposals, for pedestrian and road safety improvements along Croydon Road from Elizabeth Street to Parramatta Road, Croydon, subject to further detail design and resident consultation. The treatments are proposed at intersections in effort to minimise the impact on parking.   

 

This report in turn provides consultation feedback from the community on the various traffic facilities proposed along Croydon Road.

 

It further entails consultation feedback on two (2) alternate options, of final concept, to modify the existing STOP control to the intersection of Church Street and Croydon Road, in lieu (non-option) of a roundabout. Option 1 involves the inclusion of a right turn lane in Church Street (east), provide ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to the intersection corners and propose a speed hump in Croydon Road, north of Church Street, to improve the operation, visibility and speed control around the intersection. Option 2 involves to maintain the existing physical conditions of the intersection, provide ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to the intersection corners and propose a speed hump in Croydon Road, north of Church Street, to generally improve the visibility and speed control around the intersection. These two options were recommended for further consultation by the Local Traffic Committee at its meeting on the 7 September 2017 and was subsequently adopted by Council at its meeting on the 28 May 2018.

 

From approximately 2200 consultation letters sent out to the residents of the Croydon/Ashfield area bounded by Parramatta Road to the north, Frederick Street to the east, Elizabeth Street to the south and the Burwood/Inner West Council boundary, 75 submissions were received representing around a 3.5% response rate of overall area surveyed. The majority of residents supported the proposals developed by Council. Residents also indicated their support for option 1 over option 2 in relation to the Church Street and Croydon Road proposal.

 

It is recommended to proceed to detail design on the various treatments along Croydon Road, with further consultation to be undertaken with the affected residents at each location.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT:

 

1.   The report be received and noted;

2.   The following proposed treatments as listed below be approved in principle subject to detailed design and further consultation with affected residents at each location:

 

(a)  Provide a speed cushion in Croydon Road on the approach to Elizabeth Street (Figure 2-Location 1);

(b) Widen the north-west corner of Anthony Street and Croydon Road, provide a refuge facility in Croydon Road south of Anthony Street, and speed cushion in Croydon Road north of Anthony Street (Figure 3-Location 2);

(c)  Provide kerb-blisters in Edwin Street North at the intersection to Anthony Street (Figure 4-Location 3);

(d) Remove the horizontal deflection device and replace it with a pedestrian refuge island facility in Croydon Road between Kenilworth Street and Gregory Avenue, and provide speed cushions in Croydon Road on both approaches to Kenilworth Street and Gregory Avenue (Figure 5- Location 4);

(e)  Provide a pedestrian refuge in Croydon Road between Ranger Road and John Street, and a 10 metre length double white centreline in John Street at the approach to Croydon Road (Figure 6-Location 5);

(f)  Provide a pedestrian refuge opening in the splitter island in Croydon Road, north of the roundabout intersection with Church Street, and provide a speed cushion in Croydon Road on  the southern end approach to Queen Street (Figure 7-Location 6);

(g) Provide a right turn lane with associated ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to the intersection of Croydon Road and Church Street and speed hump/cushion in Croydon Road, north of Church Street (Figure 8A –Location7- Option 1);

(h) Provide short length painted double white centre lines in Bay Street at the approach to Croydon Road, and in Croydon Road south of Bay Street (Figure 9-Location 8);

(i)   Provide a central median island in Dalmar Street at Croydon Road (Figure 10- Location 9);

3.   That a pedestrian facility be investigated for Croydon Road near/at its intersection with Church Street separate to the proposed treatment in Item 2 (g) above;

4.   The existing ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the western side of Elizabeth Street be extended by 2-3m from 10m to a distance of approx. 12-13m north of Croydon Road;

5.   A ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the eastern side of Elizabeth Street be installed at a distance of approx. 12-13m north of Croydon Road; and

6.   ‘No Stopping’ restrictions be installed in Anthony Street for a distance of 5 metres west and 7 metres east of the laneway, between Edwin Street and Croydon Road.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Traffic Committee report of 1 May 2018 was provided in update to a response to a Council resolution dealing with a Notice of Motion C1017 Item 14 – Pedestrian safety on Croydon Road, Croydon at the Council meeting on 12 October 2017, and subsequent to an on-site meeting with residents conducted on 7 December 2017. This report can be viewed and downloaded from the council website link https://innerwest.infocouncil.biz/.

 

The report (in summary) evaluated traffic survey data collected on speeding, vehicle volumes, pedestrian vs volume counts (for pedestrian crossing warrants), accidents, and examined, if required,  measures to improve the safety of school children, pedestrians and motorists along Croydon Road.        

 

The analysis of results apart from traffic volumes, showed speeding and accidents (in the last five years) to be low along Croydon Road. Pedestrian numbers crossing at various locations along Croydon Road and side streets to Croydon Road were below that required to warrant a pedestrian crossing. No pedestrian accidents have occurred along Croydon Road in the last five years. As an outcome of the data collection and analysis of the data, the results did not normally support additional traffic calming measures and major pedestrian facility works in the area, at the present moment, with the exception to only place a speed hump device in Croydon Road, north of Church Street.

 

However, it was considered that providing pedestrian cross over points along Croydon Road would be beneficial to enhance pedestrian safety and provide a link to destinations either side of Croydon Road. With reference made to the Ashfield Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and the Former Ashfield Local Government Area Traffic Management Strategy (ATMS), conceptual (major) traffic facility works (inclusive of pedestrian and traffic calming improvements) were recommended. Support in principal was sought for these proposals, subject to detailed design investigation and resident consultation.

 

 

Council at its meeting on the 28 May 2018 resolved to adopt the recommendation of the Local Traffic Committee on the 1 May 2018 as follows:

 

THAT:

 

1.   The report be received and noted;

2.   That support in principal be granted for Council to pursue the following conceptual traffic facility proposals, subject to further detail design and resident consultation:

 

(a)  Provide a speed cushion in Croydon Road on the approach to Elizabeth Street;

(b)  Widen the north-west corner of Anthony Street and Croydon Road, provide a refuge facility in Croydon Road south of Anthony Street, and speed cushion in Croydon Road north of Anthony Street;

(c)  Provide kerb-blisters in Edwin Street North at the intersection to Anthony Street;

(d)  Remove the horizontal deflection device and replace it with a pedestrian refuge island facility in Croydon Road between Kenilworth Street and Gregory Avenue, and provide speed cushions in Croydon Road on both approaches to Kenilworth Street and Gregory Avenue;

(e)  Provide a pedestrian refuge in Croydon Road between Ranger Road and John Street,  and a central median-island with an at-grade entry threshold treatment in John Street at the intersection with Croydon Road;

(f)  Provide a pedestrian refuge opening in the splitter island in Croydon Road, north of the roundabout intersection with Church Street, and provide a speed cushion in Croydon Road on  the southern end approach to Queen Street;

(g) Provide short length painted double white centre lines in Bay Street at the approach to Croydon Road, and in Croydon Road south of Bay Street. Also provide an at-grade entry threshold treatment in Bay Street at the intersection of Croydon Road; and

(j)   Provide a central median island in Dalmar Street at Croydon Road.

 

3.   Give-way signs and markings (if not existing) be provided to all side road intersections to Croydon Road, and that short length double white centrelines be painted in Croydon Road in approaches to both Dalmar Street and Bay Street;

 

4.   An audit be undertaken on the existing conditions of line making and signposting, and that maintenance be undertaken to remark any line marking and relocate/replace faded or missing signage;

 

5.   Existing pram ramps be investigated for upgrade where required, and ramps be included/upgraded where required in line with the above works (item 2) on side street intersections to Croydon Road; and

 

6.   Piano key markings on speed humps be remarked where required and provide or remark pedestrian prohibited (symbolic) markings on certain (or wider platform) speed humps along Croydon Road.

 

In regard to the intersection of Church Street and Croydon Road, a separate report was referred to Council at its meeting on 24 April 2018 (in reference to a Local Traffic Committee report of 7 September 2017) outlining the investigative procedures, review and the conclusive non-feasibility of providing a roundabout at the location. These reports can also be viewed and downloaded from the council website link https://innerwest.infocouncil.biz/.

 

Due to the non-feasibility of a roundabout, it was concluded and recommended by the Local Traffic Committee of 7 September 2017 to upgrade /enhance the safety and operation of the intersection by either:

·    Maintaining the STOP control and providing a right turn lane to improve the level of operation and reduce the delay of traffic coming out of Church Street (east). The footway on both sides of the road would be narrowed and the roadway widened on the Church Street (east) approach to the intersection to accommodate the right turn lane. ‘No Stopping’ restrictions would be provided at appropriate distances both in Croydon Road and Church Street for improved sight distance and vehicular movement around the intersection. A new speed hump (or cushions) would be provided in Croydon Road, north of Church Street, to reduce speed in approach to the intersection.    

·    Maintaining the STOP control and retain the current intersection geometry of the intersection. ‘No Stopping’ restrictions would be provided at appropriate distances both in Croydon Road and Church Street for improved sight distance and vehicular movement around the intersection. A new speed hump (or cushions) would be provided in Croydon Road, north of Church Street, to reduce speed in approach to the intersection.    

The above alternate (optional) treatments to the intersection would be subject to resident consultation. Council resolved to adopt the above at its meeting on the 24 April 2018.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan and the Ashfield Traffic Management Strategy developed by the former Ashfield Council identified and prioritised traffic facility and pedestrian works across the former Ashfield LGA. Both strategies recommended investigation of works in Croydon Rd for traffic calming and improved pedestrian access.

 

The current draft capital works program forecasts a budget of $225,000 in 2019/20 for traffic calming works in Croydon Rd. A budget of $105,000 has also been proposed for intersection improvements at the Croydon Rd/ Church Street intersection in 2018/19.

 

Works ultimately identified which are in excess of these forecast budgets will need to be prioritised within the forward capital programs against other competing priorities for traffic facility improvements.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

This report describes and evaluates consultation feedback from the community on the various traffic facility proposals along Croydon Road as recommended in part 2 of the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 1 May 2018, and the Local Traffic Committee meeting held on 7 September 2017 for the alternate optional treatments of the intersection of Croydon Road and Church Street.

All other recommended points on the report by the Local Traffic Committee 1 May 2018 will be carried out either under a separate maintenance program or in line with the traffic facility proposals within this report.

 Existing condition/description of Croydon Road.

Croydon Road is classified as a collector road with traffic volumes ranging from 4800-9500 vehicle per day. Unrestricted parking exists to both sides of the road. The road measures approximately 10.1 metres in width kerb to kerb. Existing speed hump devices are currently positioned along Croydon Road at various distances apart from 60-200 metres. Roundabouts exist at the intersections of Anthony Street and Queen Street. All other side street are classified local roads with low to moderate traffic volumes ranging from 320-5300 vehicles per day, with unrestricted parking on both sides of the street, and Give-Way or STOP controls at the intersections to Croydon Road.

 

Survey Investigations.

Survey information regarding traffic and speed counts, pedestrian-volume count and accident statistics along Croydon Road together with RMS warrant criteria for Pedestrian marked (zebra) foot-crossings were provided in the report to the Local Traffic Committee meeting dated 1 May 2018.

(Pedestrian-volume counts)

The RMS warrant criteria for pedestrian marked (zebra) foot-crossings is shown again below to assist in the following discussions.

 

Under the Guide to Traffic Management – Part 6 (Austroads,2013), the RMS practice for numerical  warrants for Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossings area as follows:

 

i)    Normal Warrant:

 

A pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing is warranted where:-

In each of three separate one hour periods in a typical day

(a) the pedestrian flow per hour (P) crossing the road is greater  than or equal to 30 AND

(b) the vehicular flow per hour (V) through the site is greater than or equal to 500 AND

(c) the product PV is greater than or equal to 60,000

 

ii) Reduced Warrant for sites used predominantly by children and by aged or impaired pedestrians.

 

If the crossing is used predominantly by school children, and in two counts of one hour duration immediately before and after school hours:-

 

(a) P ≥ 30 AND (b) V ≥ 200

 

A pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing may be installed.

 

If at least 50% of pedestrians using the crossing are aged or impaired and for each three one hour periods in a typical day

 

(a) P ≥ 30 AND (b) V ≥ 200 AND (c) PV ≥ 60,000

 

A pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing may be installed

 

iii)    Special Warrant:  

 

In certain circumstances where:-

 

(a) PV ≥ 45,000 (but less than 60,000) AND (b) P ≥ 30 AND (c) V ≥ 500

 

Pedestrian surveys were thoroughly carried out at various locations along Croydon Road including that of the Croydon and Church Street intersection at representative week days to consider all forms of warrants. In reference to the warrant criteria, review of the results confer that although the traffic volumes are high to justify the (V) value under certain warrants above, the pedestrian volumes fall under the (P) requirement of 30 or more pedestrians in a given hour needing to cross the road at any of the concentrated locations to justify all warrants. In view of this, no warrant can be made to require the installation of a pedestrian marked (zebra) foot crossing either in Croydon Road or the side streets.

 

Further pedestrian counts were carried out under a Councillor request at the intersection of Queen Street and Croydon Road on differing dates pertaining to sporting activities i.e. on a Wednesday (8 August 2018) and a Saturday (11 August 2018) near to Centenary Park. Higher pedestrian counts were registered over 30 on an isolated morning, afternoon and midday hour occasion on the two separate days.

 

Subsequent inspection at the intersection of Queen Street and Croydon Road on the Wednesday and Saturday revealed that the high pedestrian numbers were either irregular on occasion of sporting or other activity, or that high school students were observed attending the Park and crossing the road on the Wednesday during midday. The high pedestrian numbers are not considered consistent through the day. Other hours of the day, the pedestrian volumes are considered low, or that the corresponding traffic volumes at these times are low not to justify normal or special warrant for a (zebra) marked foot-crossing at the intersection. A reduced warrant cannot be justified in this situation with insufficient number of school children registered in crossing the road in the hour before and after school.    

 

(Speed Counts)

 

Traffic counts along Croydon Road were placed between traffic devices measuring over 100m in length or in midblock street sections to obtain optimum speed counts. The results identify that the 85th percentile speeds along Croydon Road, are relatively low, typically between, 36-50km/h or within tolerance of the 50 km/h speed limit. The average (mean) speed ranged from 30-42 km/h.

 

(Accident statistics)

 

Available and recorded accidents and Police information in update on the area over the last 6 years from June 2012 to date revealed that some 18 accidents had occurred along Croydon Road, between Parramatta Road and Elizabeth Street.

Of the 18 crashes:

3 occurred in wet conditions and 15 in dry conditions;

14 occurred during the day and 4 during the night / hours of darkness;

The crash types / cause codes indicated 2 crashes involved vehicles veering left off road hitting an object, 1 was due to a vehicle hitting a temporary object on the road, 4 were cross traffic related, 1 lane side swipe, 5 Rear end, 1 manoeuvre from footpath, 4 right and or left movements from intersections.     

Accidents were mainly non-injury, minor or moderate. 1 accident was of serious injury and fatigue related.

No fatal crashes were recorded.

No Pedestrian accidents have occurred along Croydon Road or the side streets to the intersection of Croydon Road in the last six (6) years. 

     

The accident history in the area is considered low, and is mainly based on motorists failing to give-way or not execute movements or travel on the correct side of the road.

 

Reason for proposed treatments

The analysis of results apart from traffic volumes, showed speeding and accidents (in the last 6 years) to be low along Croydon Road. Pedestrian numbers crossing at various locations along Croydon Road and side streets to Croydon Road were below that required to warrant a pedestrian crossing. In the few occasions they appeared high, these were considered in insolation, irregular or non-consistent (lower in other occasions) through the day not to justify warrant of a pedestrian crossing. No pedestrian accidents have occurred along Croydon Road in the last 6 years in update to the information provided last at the Traffic Committee meeting of 1 May 2018.  

Generally pedestrian movements along Croydon Road are wide spread with no real strong desire lines. Pedestrians tend to cross over Croydon Road with caution and at locations where traffic speeds are low or where traffic control devices are present (e.g. near roundabouts). 

 

However, it is recognised that added pedestrian cross over points along Croydon Road would be beneficial to enhance pedestrian safety and provide a link to destinations either side of Croydon Road. With reference made to the Ashfield Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) and the Former Ashfield Local Government Area Traffic Management Strategy (ATMS), various conceptual (major) traffic facility works along Croydon Road are recommended to enhance pedestrian safety and further provide for traffic calming near intersections. 

Failing the warrant of pedestrian crossing, alternate facilities are proposed for pedestrian amenity in the form of pedestrian refuge islands or kerb extension/blister treatment. Pedestrian refuge facilities are raised islands with gaps or opening to allow pedestrians to stand within the island whilst crossing in two stages. Kerb extension/blister treatments allow pedestrians to cross at a narrower width of road. These are not pedestrian crossings, and pedestrians are required to give-way to traffic.

It is not to say that these facilities may encourage the concentration of pedestrians to cross the road at one point and consideration may latter be given to re-examine the warrants, and determine if the facilities can be upgraded to crossings based on the warrants and subject to other RMS/Austroad/Engineering practice criteria on the installation of crossings.    

Speed cushions are proposed near intersections under the recommendation of the ATMS to avoid crashes with vehicles from the adjacent direction of the intersection.  

 

Location and description of treatments.

The various conceptual traffic facility treatments along Croydon Road together with the 2 optional draft detailed concept plan treatments for the intersection of Croydon Road and Church Street are shown on the following location map (Figure 2) with a brief details of the works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1- Locality plan showing proposed treatments to intersections along Croydon Road, Croydon. 

The following diagrams and plans provide the conceptual design treatments for the intersections along Croydon Road, in reference to the Locality Plan (Figure 1), commencing from Elizabeth Street and heading towards Parramatta Road.

Associated ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to corners or length of road as required for visibility, vehicle manouevre, and hazard prevention around various intersections are also shown on these diagrams and plans. 

The subject proposed works are chosen at intersections to minimise the impact on parking. Consideration was given to utilising the statutory distance to corners, existing No Stopping zones, and/ or consider the general parking as practiced away from the corners in light of vehicle movement around the intersections. The safe view of pedestrians in the proposals of providing pedestrian refuges require ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at lengths associated in the implementation of pedestrian refuges under RMS technical directions. 

A residential statistical feedback analysis (relative to each location) is provided here and any specific concerns are raised and addressed for each location.

General analysis and responses or other comments are tabled and addressed in the ‘Public Consultation’ section of this report. The extend on consultation with the issue of approximately 2200 letters is shown on the ‘Consultation Map Area’ (Figure 11) in the ‘Public Consultation’ section of the report. 75 household submissions were received identifying a 3.5 % response rate.

 

Note: Any proposals recommended to proceed to final design shall be subject to further investigation in confirming vehicle turning movements and the feasibility of providing such treatments to the intersections under detail survey.

                              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Location 1- Provision of a speed cushion in Croydon Road in approach to Elizabeth Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This treatment of a speed cushion in Croydon Road at the approach to Elizabeth Street is recommended under the ATMS to avoid crashes with vehicles from the adjacent direction of the intersection.

 

The provision or extension of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the corners of Croydon Road at Elizabeth Street, resolves a vehicular manoeuvre and hazard issue around the central median island in Croydon Road. This was raised at the community meeting and/or separately by residents.

 

Overall from 75 households, 39 households (52%) provided support on the proposal, with 18 (24%) in non-support and 18 (24%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 200m local radius of the intersection, (6) households (60%) provided support on the proposal, with 4 (40%) in non-support and 0 (0%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 100m radius, (1) household was in support. (4) households were in non-support with general concern to loss of parking and/or the concern to providing a speed cushion at the location. These comments are in turn addressed below.

 

The comments or key points in non-support, specific to the proposal, as raised from all submissions, are shown below with the Council officer response. All other general comments are addressed under ‘Public Consultation’.

 

Specific comments or key points in non-support for Location 1. 

Officer Response

Loss of parking for residents and customers to shops and commercial premises.

 

Loss of parking is adjacent to Elizabeth Street and this is a business precinct which is growing. Due to this it will make it even harder for the residents to park on street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this particular situation, consideration will be made to lower the No Stopping distance down to 12-13 metres on both sides of the road to minimise parking loss whilst providing adequate distance from the intersection for the safe passage of traffic.   

 

Increasing ‘No Stopping’ will have impact on residents.  Hard to get parking on the street as many houses do not have parking within the property. 

 

Can residents be issued with permits? Parking is taken up by commuters denying residents the opportunity to park on-street.

 

No decreasing the size of Croydon Road should occur at all.

 

 

See above.

 

 

 

 

Council will be investigating as Resident Parking Scheme in the area.

 

 

 

No intention is to decrease the size of Croydon Road under this proposal.

 

Agree to ‘No Stopping’ restrictions, but object or consider the speed cushion not to be necessary as vehicles slowdown in approach to the intersection, or that a speed hump/cushion already exists some close distance back in Croydon Road.

 

The speed cushion is recommended under the ATMS to avoid crashes with vehicles from the adjacent direction of the intersection. The existing speed hump is some 90 metres back, and the proposed speed cushion reinforces   speed reduction at this major intersection.

 

Do not support cushioning. Do not support extension of No Parking restrictions.

 

Noted as general non-support to proposal. Reasons for treatment is explained in the report above.

 

 

Outcome: General local community support is provided on the proposal. It is recommended that the proposal proceed to final design and consult with the affected residents in the intersection area of the proposed works. 

           

Figure 3. Location 2- Widen the north-west corner of Anthony Street and Croydon Road, and provide a refuge facility in Croydon Road, south of Anthony Street, and provide a speed cushion in Croydon Road on the northern end approach to Anthony Street.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal allows for pedestrians to safely and properly cross at the roundabout. The PAMP recommends improved pedestrian-pram ramp facilities at these locations.

 

A speed cushion is proposed in Croydon Road at the northern end approach to Anthony Street in line with the ATMS recommendation to avoid crashes with vehicles from the adjacent direction of the intersection. No speed cushion is proposed in Croydon Road south of Anthony Street, as a speed hump already exists in the near vicinity to slow vehicles down on the southern end approach to the roundabout.

 

‘No Stopping’ restrictions, as part of this proposal, would be placed in Anthony Street 5.0 metres west and 7.0 metres east of the private laneway off Anthony Street to improve sight line and access. The laneway is located on the southern side of Anthony Street, west of Croydon Road. The request for ‘No Stopping’ was raised by residents at the on- site meeting held on the 7 December 2017.

 

Solid yellow line marking around all corners of the intersection of Anthony Street and Croydon Road will be placed independent and prior of any proposed physical traffic facility works. Residents have advised that vehicles regularly park too close to the intersection, which restricts available sightlines and turning paths for motorists, particularly for motorists which need to turn west into Anthony Street from Croydon Road.

 

This solid yellow line marking would also provide for improved sight view of pedestrians crossing at the intersection under the current conditions. The proposed marking distances are considered of statutory/regulatory length to allow for the safe and proper movement and sight view of vehicles turning at the intersection. The Traffic Committee at its meeting on the 6 March 2018 recommended approval of the proposal. The proposal was adopted by Council at its meeting on the 27 March 2018. Affected residents will be notified in due course on this matter prior to any action being undertaken.

 

Overall from 75 households, 37 households (49%) provided support on the proposal, with 19 (26%) in non-support and 19 (25%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 200m local radius of the intersection, of 15 households (8) households (53%) provided support on the proposal, with 5 (34%) in non-support and 2 (13%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 100m radius, (1) household was in support. (1) household was in non- support of providing ‘No Stopping’ across the laneway off Anthony Street, and the proposed length of ‘No Stopping’ restriction in Anthony Street, west of Croydon Road. These comments are in turn addressed below.  

 

The comments or key points of non-support, specific to the proposal, as raised from all submissions, are shown below with the Council officer response. All other general comments are addressed under ‘Public Consultation’.

 

Specific comments or key points of non-support raised for Location 2. 

Officer Response

To take away and turn more of the road into no stopping areas is ridiculous.  Too many commuters already use Croydon Road as a place to park their car so they can catch the train to work.

 

‘No Stopping’ restrictions are only proposed at the intersection on the basis of road (pedestrian and traffic) safety, and to minimise the impact to loss of parking.

 

A Resident Parking scheme will be investigated in the area.

In the plan for location 2, the "No Stopping" restrictions across the laneway should be omitted.


Option 3 [assumed location 3] is the better solution, but if option 2 is pursued [assumed location 2], the parking restriction on Anthony Street west of Croydon Road should not extend beyond the painted splitter island

 

The inclusion of ‘No Stopping’ across the laneway was raised at the request of residents at the on-site resident meeting held on the 7 December 2017.

 

The ‘No Stopping’ distance as proposed on the western side of the Anthony Street is for the safe and proper movement of traffic, and to avoid conflict near the roundabout with parked vehicles and traffic. Anthony Street is narrower in width, west of Croydon Road.    

While I support these improvements, I think it still falls short of providing a safe way for people to cross Croydon road. Still not 1 pedestrian crossing.

 

A thorough pedestrian survey was carried out along Croydon Road with pedestrian numbers throughout the day falling short to justify the warrant of a marked (zebra) foot-crossing under RMS guidelines. Pedestrian refuges or kerb blister/extensions are proposed as alternate treatments to improve pedestrian access at this location and other locations along Croydon Road.    

Again, reject speed cushion due to existing speed management controls already in place within approximately 50 m.

 

The speed cushion proposed in Croydon Road, just north of Anthony Street is recommended under the ATMS to avoid crashes with vehicles from the adjacent direction of the intersection. The nearest existing speed hump in Croydon Road, north of Anthony Street, is some 120 metres back of the intersection. The proposed speed cushion ensures speed reduction at the intersection for vehicles approaching from the north along Croydon Road.

 

The main problem hasn't been addressed i.e. the lack of visibility for vehicles (A) travelling south-east into the roundabout and that vehicles (B) travelling north along Croydon Road do not slow down sufficiently for vehicles (A) to turn left safely. Vehicles at the other points of entry into the roundabout have clear visibility. Therefore the speed cushion is not required.

 

See above for reason to proposing a speed cushion in Croydon Road, north of Anthony Steet.

 

The existing speed hump in Croydon Road to the south of the intersection is some 50-60 metres. It is viewed in this instance, that high speed is not attained by vehicles traveling in the northerly direction along Croydon Road at approach to the roundabout, due the close proximity of the speed hump south of the intersection. No accident of a left/right turn nature out of Anthony Street has been recorded under available RMS accident statistics in the last 5 years. 

Do support northwest footway widening. Do not support pedestrian refuge island. Do not support speed cushioning on northern approach to Anthony St. Do not support no stopping restrictions / markings on all corners of roundabout. Do not support no stopping restrictions across laneway off Anthony St west of Croydon Rd.

 

Noted as general non-support to proposal. Reasons for treatment is explained in the report above.

Recommend that the footway in Anthony Street be widened all the way to Edwin Street, and adjust the central park land nature strip to the north of Anthony Street for footway pedestrian access. ‘No Stopping’ restriction be considered and extended on the north side of Anthony Street, east of Edwin Street to assist in 2-way vehicle movement.     

 

This is outside of the scope of works and may bear undesirable loss of parking. The intention at this point of time and under this proposal is to only widen out the corner on the north-western side of the intersection of Anthony Street and Croydon Road. A footway of sufficient width would be formed to build a pram ramp back into Anthony Street and improve the opportunity to cross at this location.

 

   

Opposed to widening the footpath on the NW corner of Anthony Street. Footpath is already adequate for pedestrians -already encroach on an existing narrow intersection. Support putting in a pedestrian refuge.



The intention is to extend the footpath of a short width to sufficiently build a pram ramp back into Anthony Street, but examine under final design to still provide adequate traffic movement at the intersection.  

The proposal does not seem to consider the already narrow roads and the implication on through traffic. Signs at the intersection would not solve the problem which exists along the length of the narrow street, not just at the corner.

The proposal only provides ‘No Stopping’ to the corners of the intersection for road safety reasons to improve pedestrian visibility and traffic movement at the intersection of Croydon Road. 

 

This proposal does not extend out to remove or modify parking within the streets or change traffic conditions for the purpose of traffic movement or diversion.

The proposal sets "No Stopping" signs more than 10 metres from each intersection under consideration. Priority is being given to pedestrians without consideration of the implication to other users of Council's roads.

No consideration has been given to potentially reducing the distance below 10 metres where it is safe to do so to accommodate the needs of the local residents, commuters, school parents and small business customers. Is it possible that the minimum parking distance could be less instead of more?

Apart from the laneway off Anthony Street, ‘No Stopping’ is set at 10 metres or more at main street intersections, particularly at the roundabouts. This is based on road safety, taking into account improved pedestrian visibility, and the safe and proper movement of traffic around the intersections.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome: General local community support is provided on the proposal. It is recommended to proceed the proposal to final design and consult with the affected residents in the intersection area of the proposed works.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Location 3-Provide kerb-blisters in Edwin Street North at the intersection to Anthony Street.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The PAMP identifies Edwin Street North as a high pedestrian desire line to and from the railway station, and similarly it is evident there is a desire for pedestrians to travel along Anthony Street to reach the various schools west of Edwin Street North. The proposal provides the opportunity for pedestrians to cross Edwin Street North at a narrower width of the intersection with Anthony Street.

 

The proposed treatment is to be designed within the existing ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on Edwin Street. 

 

Overall from 75 households, 40 households (53%) provided support on the proposal, with 15 (20%) in non-support and 20 (27%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 200m local radius of the intersection, of (9) households (56%) provided support on the proposal, with 3 (34%) in non-support and 2 (33%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 100m radius, (1) household was in support. (1) household was in non- support mainly due to the proposed length of ‘No Stopping’ to the intersections, and that the proposal did not  consider the implication of through traffic within the narrow roads. These comments have been addressed under location 2.  

 

The comments or key points of non-support, specific to the proposal, as raised from all submissions, are shown below with the Council officer response. All other general comments are addressed under ‘Public Consultation’.

 

 

Specific comments or key points of non-support raised for Location 3. 

Officer Response

The installation of the blister islands on the western side of Edwin Street may restrict north bound traffic trying to enter Anthony Street down to a single lane. This may result in extended queues within Edwin Street in the afternoon peak when traffic around PLC extends along Anthony Street past Edwin Street.

 

Observation has identified that traffic generally turns left or right from the one single lane.

Do not support kerb blister / road narrowing in Edwin St. Do support maintain existing no stopping restrictions on Edwin St corners of intersection.

 

Noted as general non-support to proposal. Reasons for treatment is explained in the report above.

A kerb blister would make an already narrow road to much harder to navigate for no benefit.

 

Kerb-blistres are proposed for pedestrians to cross over at a shorter distance. The kerb blister design will be subject to vehicle turning path investigation under final design.

 

 

Outcome: General community support is provided on the proposal. It is recommended to proceed the proposal to final design and consult with the affected residents in the intersection area of the proposed works.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Location 4- Removal of the horizontal deflection device and replace with a pedestrian refuge island facility in Croydon Road between Kenilworth Street and Gregory Avenue, and provide speed cushions in Croydon Road on both approach ends to Kenilworth Street and Gregory Avenue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The PAMP identifies the need for a pedestrian- pram ramp facility at this location. Gregory Avenue is a dead end street, but a continued pedestrian access is maintained with a footbridge over the Iron Cove Creek, at the end of Gregory Avenue, to reach destinations east of Croydon Road.

 

Speed cushions are proposed in Croydon Road at the southern and northern approaches to Kenilworth Street and Gregory Avenue in line with the ATMS recommendation to avoid crashes with vehicles from the adjacent direction of the intersections.

 

Overall from 75 households, 36 households (48%) provided support on the proposal, with 18 (24%) in non-support and 21 (28%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 200m local radius of the intersection, of (8) households, 5 (62%) provided support on the proposal, with 2 (25%) in non-support and 2 (13%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 100m radius, (3) household was in support. (1) household was undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

The comments or key points of non-support specific to the proposal, as raised from all submissions, are shown below with the Council officer response. All other general comments are addressed under ‘Public Consultation’.

 

 

Specific comments or Key points of non-support raised for Location 4. 

Officer Response

Do not support pedestrian refuge. Do not support speed cushions. Do support no stopping restrictions on all corners of intersection.

 

Noted as general non-support to proposal. Reasons for treatment is explained in the report above.

Can't see the need for more than an upgrade to include pram ramps. Can't see the need for speed cushions as the refuge islands necessarily necessitate vehicles driving along Croydon Road to slow down in order to manoeuvre around them. 

 

The pram ramps alone across Croydon Road are not recommended for safe pedestrian access without the support of a proposed refuge or kerb extension/blister.

 

Speed cushions are proposed in Croydon Road at the southern and northern approaches to Kenilworth Street and Gregory Avenue in line with the ATMS recommendation to avoid crashes with vehicles from the adjacent direction of the intersections.

 

There is already a pedestrian refuge at this location. There is no need for another new one. There is no need for speed cushions, as there is already kerb blisters to slow traffic down.

 

See above for the need of speed cushions.

 

The existing device is a horizontal deflection device for the purpose of traffic control at the intersection. The proposal is to replace the existing device with a straight line refuge device to provide pedestrian access and similarly provide for traffic control at the intersection.

It is Burwood Council's experience that motorists take extreme measures to avoid speed cushions, including driving onto the wrong side of the road. Consideration may theretofore be given to installing a short length of median island to help prevent this practice.

 

Consideration will be made to move the speed cushion forward in line with the (non-refuge) median in Croydon Road, south of Kenilworth Street.

The double white barrier centre line in Croydon Road, existing to the north of Gregory Avenue, will be extended at least another 15 metres north of the speed cushion (north of Gregory Avenue) to prevent vehicles from veering to the opposite side of the road.  Raised pavement marking will be added to the centerline. This will be monitored and if necessary consideration may be made to install a short length of raised concrete median or extend speed cushion devices across the road.

 

Outcome: General local community support is provided on the proposal. It is recommended to proceed the proposal to final design and consult with the affected residents in the intersection area of the proposed works. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Location 5- Provision of a pedestrian refuge in Croydon Road between Ranger Road and John Street, and a short length double white centerline marking with an at-road grade entry threshold treatment in John Street at the intersection with Croydon Road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although not identified under the PAMP, there is potential to consider a pedestrian refuge at this location in Croydon Road with minimum impact to parking. The ATMS recommends a central median island with an entry threshold treatment in John Street at the intersection of Croydon Road to control speeding on approach to the intersection.

 

This plan was amended since last reported to the Local Traffic Committee meeting of 1 May 2018 following discussions with the Sydney Buses and Council’s Waste Services on the retention of a bus stop, and waste vehicle movement at the intersection.

 

An existing part-time Bus stop (3.00pm-4.00pm School days only) serves for School Buses dropping school children at the location. Sydney Buses have indicated to retain the Bus stop in this location rather than remove or relocate it to another location. It is therefore proposed to shift the bus stop south of its current location approximately 4-5 metres to accommodate the proposed installation of a pedestrian refuge at the intersection.

 

Council’s Waste Collection Services have identified that garbage trucks do and are required to turn left from John Street into Croydon Road. The inclusion of a central median in John Street at Croydon Road as initially proposed and reported to the Traffic Committee meeting of 1 May 2018, would interfere with garbage truck manouevre around the intersection resulting in the vehicle running over the proposed refuge in Croydon Road. The median is hence replaced with a double white centerline marking to assist in vehicle control in John Street at Croydon Road. The primary emphasis here is to provide a safe pedestrian refuge in Croydon Road without it likely being over-run by vehicles and that signage is not damaged on the refuge. 

 

Overall from 75 households, 40 households (53%) provided support on the proposal, with 14 (19%) in non-support and 21 (28%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 200m local radius of the intersection, of (7) households, 5 (57%) provided support on the proposal, with 1 (14%) in non-support and 2 (29%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 100m radius, (1) household was in support.

 

The comments or key points of non-support, specific to the proposal, as raised from all submissions, are shown below with the Council officer response. All other general comments are addressed under ‘Public Consultation’.

 

Specific Comments or Key points of non-support raised for Location 5. 

Officer Response

 

 

Suggest replacing either the location 5 or 6 pedestrian refuges with a zebra crossing. This will help school children and families (often with bikes, dogs, scooters etc) crossing to access centenary park, as well as parents with toddlers accessing the childcare centre at 195 Croydon Rd.


Pedestrian survey at these locations did not justify the warrant of a marked (zebra) foot-crossing under RMS guidelines. Pedestrian refuges are proposed at these locations to improve pedestrian access across the road. Future investigation may see to upgrade the device to a crossing, subject to warrant and other RMS/ Austroad /Engineering practice needed requirements.

 

(response also applicable for device Location 6)

Due to the number of primary and secondary schools on the west side of Croydon Road. I believe AT LEAST one pedestrian crossing should be installed somewhere along Croydon road (maybe near Kenilworth street and/or one near the dog park as well.) During peak times the flow of traffic is constant which even with a pedestrian island makes it more likely for children to take risks to cross the road.

See above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(response also applicable for device location 6)

Support pedestrian refuge at this location. No need for road level entry threshold. Stop sign controls traffic. Support double white lines. Support No Stopping to all corners to improve traffic flow.

 

A road level entry threshold is recommended under the ATMS.

 

Outcome: General local community support is provided on the proposal. It is recommended to proceed the proposal to final design and consult with the affected residents in the intersection area of the proposed works.

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. Location 6- Provision of a pedestrian refuge opening in the splitter island in Croydon Road, at the Roundabout intersection with Queen Street, and provide a speed cushion on the southern end approach to Queen Street.    

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The PAMP identifies the need for a pedestrian- pram ramp facility at this location to reach various playground, sporting and community club services in the area.

 

A speed cushion is proposed in Croydon Road at the southern end approach to Queen Street in line with the ATMS recommendation to avoid crashes with vehicles from the adjacent direction of the intersection. No proposal is made to provide a speed cushion in Croydon Road on the northern end approach to the roundabout, as there is an existing speed hump in close proximity north of the intersection for speed control in approach to the roundabout.

 

Overall from 75 households, 38 households (51%) provided support on the proposal, with 19 (25%) in non-support and 18 (24%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 200m local radius of the intersection, of (7) households, 6 (86%) provided support on the proposal, with 1 (14%) in non-support and 0 (0%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 100m radius, (1) household was in support.

 

The comments or key points of non-support, specific to the proposal, as raised from all submissions, are shown below with the Council officer response. All other general comments are addressed under ‘Public Consultation’.

 

 

Specific comments or Key points of non-support for Location 6. 

Officer Response

An option may also include limited parking across Croydon Road near the dog park, which would encourage patrons to park at Wests Bowling Club

 

 

 

 

Period parking restrictions along the street is not considered under this proposal. It is viewed at this point of time that adequate ‘unrestricted parking’ is provided on-street. The Bowling club provides adequate off-street parking. Any re-development of the Club would still require it to provide for adequate parking for its patrons.    

Propose council investigate options to improve visibility of Northbound traffic on Croydon Rd when approaching the roundabout from Queen Street (Eastbound).

 

 

There should be a speed cushion on Queen St (the west approach to the Croydon road roundabout) ensuring that those drivers slow down due to visibility restrictions of the cars on Croydon road as a result of a narrow side walk and the hedge/fence of the residence on the corner.

 

The proposed speed cushion in Croydon Road, south of Queen Street will assist to reduce speed of vehicles in approach to the roundabout from the south in view of the vehicles giving way in Queen Street. 

 

Vehicles are required and do slow-down on this T-side approach to the intersection in ‘give-way’ to the right.

Do not support pedestrian refuge in Croydon Rd north of Queen St. Do not support cushioning south of Queen St. Do support no stopping restrictions on all corners of intersection.

 

Noted as general non-support to proposal. Reasons for treatment is explained in the report above.

The Queen St/Croydon Rd roundabout has very poor sight coming from Queen St. cars heading east along Croydon Rd often travel at high speeds and therefore the speed cushion suggested is essential. Would it be possible also to have a 40kph sign so that vehicles should slow down?

 

The support of the speed cushion is noted.

 

 40 kph zones are only provided in areas of high pedestrian activity, such as shopping centres, or at school zones. RMS would not approve 40 kph speed zones in this situation.

There is already a pedestrian refuge at this location. No need for another one. No need for speed cushion on the south approach to intersection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The facility in question may be the splitter island in conjunction with the roundabout, north side of Croydon Road. This will be modified with a cut opening and pram ramps installed for improved pedestrian access across the road.

 

The proposed speed cushion in Croydon Road, south of Queen Street will assist to reduce speed of vehicles in approach to the roundabout from the south in view of vehicles giving way in Queen Street.  

 

Proposals do not show pedestrian crossing or refuge between John Street and Church Street- this would support school children heading to Burwood Girls High, Croydon Public, and Holy Innocents schools, help to get to Bus stops in Church Street or Centennial Park. A crossing near Mini-Skool could be an ideal location.

 

 

There should be a pedestrian island as near as possible to the Church St intersection also to make trips safer for school children and other pedestrians coming from the east side of Croydon Road.

 

Please do not impact car parking which is in short supply, or take out trees which provide shelter, shade and amenity to our suburbs.

 

Concern also raised trying to cross Croydon Road on foot, with pram and child-please provide pedestrian crossings in the vicinity of Church Street and John street so they align with where pedestrian approach Croydon Road.           

 

 

Alternate pedestrian refuge devices are proposed for improved pedestrian access to these destinations, in lieu of marked foot-crossings which could not be justified under warrant of RMS guidelines.

Future investigation may see to upgrade the device to a crossing, subject to warrant and other RMS/ Austroad /Engineering practice needed requirements.

 

The proposals are at the intersections to attract/take into account differing pedestrian desire path movements and to minimise the impact to parking e.g. use of statutory ‘No Stopping’ distances to corners.

 

The matter of an additional pedestrian facility near to Church Street is addressed under the intersection treatment of Location7.

 

The matter of removal of a tree(s) is proposed under treatment of location 7.     

 

Outcome: General community support is provided on the proposal. It is recommended to proceed the proposal to final design and consult with the affected residents in the intersection area of the proposed works. 

Figure 8A -Location 7- Option 1. Provide new right turn lane in Church Street (east of Croydon Road) and “No Stopping’ to all corners of the intersection, including provision of a speed hump/cushion device in Croydon Road, north of Church Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8B -Location 7- Option 2.  Retain current lane conditions in Church Street (east), and provide ‘No Stopping’ to all corners of the intersection, including the provision of a speed hump/cushion device in Croydon Road, north of Church Street.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following description of the works as provided in the consultation letter to the community (copy shown in Attachment 1) is as follows:

Option 1- Provide new right turn lane in Church Street (east of Croydon Road) to assist vehicle turning into Croydon Road.

Impacts

·    Removal of 11 parking spaces

·    Street tree removed on Church Street

·    Footpath narrowing on Church Street

 

Improvements

·      Will reduce delays for westbound Church Street traffic on the eastern approach to Croydon Road, increase sight lines to approaching traffic in Croydon Road and reduce southbound vehicular speed in Croydon Road.

 

Option 2- Church Street retains one lane in each direction with improved signage and line marking

 

 Impacts

·    Removal of 9 parking spaces

Improvements

·      Increase sight lines to approaching traffic in Croydon Road and reduce southbound vehicular speed in Croydon Road.

 

Both options improve sight distance for westbound traffic in Church Street at Croydon Road:

·    Removal of parking near the intersection on both Church Street and Croydon Road (to improve visibility and allow large vehicles to manoeuvre.

·    New speed hump on Croydon Road, north of Church Street, to reduce southbound traffic speeds.   

 

As to why a pedestrian crossing facility has not been proposed under this report, the following explanation is provided.  

A Feasibility study report (provided in supplement to the main report to the Traffic Committee meeting 1 May 2018) does not identify or make mention of a crossing facility at this location. The objective was to treat this intersection to improve the performance operation of the intersection, visibility, vehicle maneuver and lower the speeds around the intersection via way of proposing treatments as shown in Figure 8A&B -Location 7- Option 1 or 2.

However, it was reported at the Traffic Committee meeting of 1 May 2018 that Pedestrian facilities across Croydon Road near/at this intersection of Church Street would be further investigated separately subject to Council’s decision on the treatment to this intersection in a report to its meeting on the 24 April 2018.  

 

Council at its meeting on the 24 April 2018 resolved to proceed in the resident consultation of proposing optional treatment to the intersection as shown in Figure 8A&B-Location 7- Option 1 or 2.

Pending on the outcome of the resident feedback via consultation, the intersection would be treated either under option 1 or 2. Any pedestrian facility across Croydon Road near/at the intersection of Church Street could be investigated separately and constructed latter and independent of the proposed optional treatment of the intersection.

The optional proposed treatments around the intersection (Location 7) entails the loss of 9-11 legal parking spaces. The actual loss could be considered less based on the likely general view and practice of cars parking away from the corners.

Pedestrian survey counts for Croydon Road/Church Street intersection were undertaken on the Tuesday14 and Wednesday 16 March 2017 under separate investigation of this intersection under the Feasibility Study report. The results are still considered comparative to date as no real changes in traffic conditions or development in the area has prompted changes in pedestrian movement. 

 

In reference to the warrant criteria of a zebra marked foot-crossing, a review of the results under the consultant’s report, confer that although the traffic volumes are high to justify the (V) value under certain warrants, the pedestrian volumes (18 at most) fall under the (P) requirement of 30 or more pedestrians in a given hour needing to cross the road at any concentrated location around the intersection to justify all warrants.

 

The days the counts were undertaken are considered representative of general pedestrian activity in the area. At this particular intersection counts were undertaken through a 12 hour period 7.00am-7.00pm to derive the pedestrian numbers in the area.

 

The provision of a possible pedestrian facility in Croydon Road at or near the Church Street intersection would involve further loss of parking (up to 5 spaces). Efforts would be made to investigate minimise the loss of parking, where possible should a pedestrian facility be considered at this location. It is proposed to investigate an alternate provision of a refuge or kerb extension/blister treatment to facilitate pedestrian crossing over Croydon Road near/at the intersection. 

 

In regard to the resident feedback on options 1 and 2:

 

Overall from 75 households for Option 1, 32 households (43%) were in support, 31 (41%) were in non-support, and 12 (16%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

Overall from 75 households for Option 2, 22 households (29%) were in support, 35 (47%) in non-support, and 18 (24%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 200m local radius of the intersection for Option 1, of 8 households, 3 (38%) provided support on the proposal, with 5 (63%) in non-support and 0 (0%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 200m local radius of the intersection for Option 2, of 8 households, 2(25%) provided support on the proposal, with 5 (63%) in non-support and 1 (12%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 100m radius, (1) household was in support of Option 1. (1) household was in non-support of Option 1 for reasons of loss of parking, and request that peak hour limitation apply only to the  ‘No Stopping’, and that traffic volumes be reduced via way of prohibiting turn movements and change traffic conditions in the area.

 

This matter is addressed below with that of other comments.

Both households were in non-support of Option 2.    

 

 

The comments or key points of non-support, specific to the proposal, as raised from all submissions, are shown below with the Council officer response. All other general comments are addressed under ‘Public Consultation’.

 

Specific comments or key points of non-support raised for Location 7 Option 1 or 2. 

Officer Response

Can a roundabout be considered? Even if it is a small one. Neither of the proposed options will get traffic through to resolve the problem.

 

A right turn lane would be affective, ultimately a roundabout would work best.

 

 

A roundabout was approved in March 2002. Residents were advised that a roundabout would be implemented at the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

A roundabout is not an option here, as the existing narrow road conditions and misalignment of the intersection prevents a safe and proper roundabout to be constructed unless expensive footway (utility adjustments) and land is acquired to do so. Council would not opt for this measure. (refer to Council report 24 April 2018 for detailed information)

 

A basic concept plan was approved at the time (2002) in aim to fit a small roundabout, but final design investigation identified that such a roundabout would not work. (refer to Council report 24 April 2018 for detailed information)

 

A Feasibility study was carried out in August 2017, and concluded and confirmed that a workable and compliant roundabout could not be built under the existing conditions of the intersection.

 

The matter was reported to Council at its meeting on the 24 April 2018. Council resolved to proceed in resident consultation of proposing the alternate optional treatments to the intersection as shown in Figure 8A&B Location 7 Option 1 or 2.

 

   

Burwood Council was convinced to build a roundabout at Bay/Lang Street. Why a (odd shape-asymmetrical/elliptical) roundabout can’t be built like the one in Lucas road and Queen Street, Croydon?    

 

Bay and Lang Street (boundary line with former Ashfield Council and Burwood Council) was investigated by Burwood Council and found it was well aligned and wide enough to build a roundabout without extensive/expensive footway/utility adjustments and no land acquisition.

 

The Lucas Road/Queen Street roundabout predating prior to 1990 was built and aligned with land likely being acquired.  

The proposals at this intersection do not mention of pedestrians and how they will be assisted to cross Croydon Road.

 

Need a pedestrian crossing or pedestrian island here as the traffic is quite heavy during peak hours. Access is required for people in general, including elderly, parents with prams, school children to catch the bus, go to Centennial Park, schools, dog park, sports club etc.

 

Although not under this proposal, it was reported at the Local Traffic Committee 1 May 2018 that Pedestrian facilities across Croydon Road near/at this intersection of Church Street would be further investigated separately, and if required, can be implemented independent of the treatment to the intersection in the proposed Option 1 or 2.  

This is an important pedestrian thoroughfare and council should count pedestrians and vehicles there. The times of day that council used for pedestrian counts do not reflect the times that pedestrians use the area. People access Centenary Park for sport or the children’s playground as well as walking their dogs to Croydon off-leash area on the weekends and after 5:30pm. These times were not included in the survey.

See above in the report advising that a pedestrian survey was undertaken at the location by Complete Urban Pty Ltd.

 

Observations by Council officers were carried out on the Saturday afternoon and verified that pedestrian numbers did not exceed that of weekday counts.

 

 

Intersection too tight for a right hand turn bay.
Neither of these improvements will reduce the delay for traffic entering Croydon Rd from Church St, or add little assistance to the situation-it only makes it easier to rat-run through.

 

Option 1 has been designed to narrow the footways and widen the roadway in Church Street (East) at approach to the intersection to accommodate the installation of a right hand turn bay.    

 

Option 1 (right hand turn lane) provides for better operation improvement to the intersection together with ‘No Stopping’ restrictions for visibility and speed hump installation for speed control. Option 2 provides for ‘No Stopping’ restrictions for visibility and speed hump installation for speed control. Motorists have more reaction time to turn out of the intersection as a result of the proposals.

 

The proposals do not offer to encourage rat-running, but only improve the operation of the intersection.

 

Why should council make it easier for large vehicles to turn at the intersection?

In this particular instance, the intersection is designed for garbage truck movement, leading in and out of Croydon Road and Church Street (east), and for a buses leading in and out of Croydon Road and Church Street (west).   

Cars already turn right from Church Street to Croydon Rd, with cars going up on the left to turn. A right hand turn lane won’t help as the car turning left will have no visual for oncoming traffic, especially at the speeds they go down Croydon.

 

The inclusion of a right hand turn lane would formalise this practice and provide wider lane area for vehicles to independently turn left and right. It is also envisaged that supporting measures including the speed hump and No Stopping zones will provide a lower speed environment with generally an improved vision for motorists to compensate the reduced vision of the left turning motorists.

Make Church Street to Croydon Road, Left turn only in both directions-proceed and use the Queen Street-Croydon Road Roundabout.

 

Provide one-way traffic in Church Street and John Street to distribute traffic- at peak times have a No right hand turn East from Croydon Road into Church Street.

 

 

 

 

The intention of the proposals is not to prohibit turn movement or change traffic conditions which may have bearing on distributing traffic movements to other streets and impact on residential access. 

If traffic is reduced through Westconnex changes than the proposals are considered not required.  If the traffic is likely to increase, the proposal would not be enough to accommodate higher volumes  

 

The proposals are made to address a current movement and delay of traffic at the intersection.

Need to prioritise for pedestrian and cycling crossing east and west. Removal of parking and placement of a speed hump to the north is a positive outcome for speed control and sight line. Option 1 will make it worse for pedestrians and cyclists-cars turn to quickly left and are obscured by sitting to turn right.

 

Council will separately investigate a pedestrian cross-over facility near/at the intersection.

 

The proposals will lend to improve current cycling movements at the intersection with improved visibility and speed control. Bike logo marking will be re-marked in Croydon Road and Church Street for on-road cycle path use.

Suggest to widen out the kerb area in Church Street-narrow down the street to slow vehicles down, improve the visibility for pedestrians, narrow the crossing distance and provide more footpath space.     

Not recommended as this may well impact on turning movements, and impose on further delay and parking.  

Agree there needs to be ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on both sides of Croydon Road near the intersection.

‘No Stopping’ is provided to all corners of the intersection for purpose of visibility and vehicle manoeuvre around the intersection.

Issues around this intersection occur on week days- around one hour in the morning and one hour at night.  If there is to be’ No Stopping’ signs they should be like those at the intersection Queens Road and Arlington Street Five Dock. That intersection is 10 times busier and the signs in place now allow resident parking all weekend and ‘outside peak' on week days.

Acknowledge in the concern in loss of parking, however full-time ‘No Stopping’ is provided to all corners of the intersection for the purpose of visibility and vehicle manoeuvre around the intersection at all times.

 

The ‘No Stopping’ peak hour conditions along Church Street at Arlington Street (Canada Bay Council) is required for added traffic capacity along the road by using the kerb lane during peak hours. This is of differing situation to the proposed ‘No Stopping’ at the intersection of Croydon Road and Church Street.      

The option to narrow the footpath will create dangerous situations for pedestrian with dogs and prams to pass safely. Narrow footway would encourage more cars and discourage pedestrians to walk to and from the park and bus stops 

The footway on to the northern side of Church Street (East) will be reduced to 1.5 metres and on the south to 1.8metres only in short length at the intersection. These are acceptable footway widths under Standards, where pedestrian activity is not considered high.

Concern made with the removal of trees

One tree is proposed to be removed per Option 1 to cater for the reduced width of the footway, and allow unobstructed traffic approach close to the kerb.

Of the two options proposed, retaining the existing lanes and introducing improved signage and line marking would be preferable than the visual impacts of tree removal and critically, reduced local amenity of footpath narrowing.

Noted.

 

See above for footway narrowing and removal of tree for Option 1.

 

Outcome: for this particular location, there is a slight majority of the community in support over that of non-support to Option 1, but a higher support for Option 1 over Option 2. There is a lower number in non-support (both option 1 and 2) in the near vicinity to the intersection.

 

Based on the wider local community, it is considered that Option 1 be recommended for the improved operation of the intersection coupled with improved visibility and speed control in benefit of the local community.

 

It is recommended that Option 1-Proposed Right Turn lane with ‘No Stopping’ and speed hump installation at the intersection of Croydon Road and Church Street -proceed to final design and consult with the affected residents in the intersection area of the proposed works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Location 8- Provide short length double white centre lines in Bay Street at the approach to Croydon Road, and in Croydon Road, south of Bay Street. Also provide an at-grade entry threshold treatment in Bay Street at the intersection of Croydon Road. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ATMS recommends the placement of a central median island and entry threshold treatment in Bay Street for traffic control.

 

Under closer examination of the area, a central island would interfere with driveway access and the narrowness and acute angle of Bay Street would lead to the island being hit by vehicles turning left, or that large vehicles are likely to come out wide into the opposing traffic in Croydon Road when attempting to turn left. The provision of double white painted centrelines in Bay Street on approach to Croydon Road, together with an at-grade entry threshold treatment in this regard should be considered. Also provide a short length double white painted centreline in Croydon Road on the southern end approach to Bay Street.       

 

Overall from 75 households, 42 households (56%) provided support on the proposal, with 13 (17%) in non-support and 20 (27%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 200m local radius of the intersection, of (11) households, 7 (64%) provided support on the proposal, with 2 (18%) in non-support and 2 (18%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 100m radius, (2) household was in support.

 

The comments or key points of non-support, specific to the proposal, as raised from all submissions, are shown below with the Council officer response. All other general comments are addressed under ‘Public Consultation’.

 

Specific comments Key points of objection/concerns raised for Location 8. 

Officer Response

The double white centreline markings on Bay St are unfeasible due to the angle of the turn required when turning left into Bay St from Croydon Rd.

 

The double white line marking will assist to control and separate general vehicle movement around the intersection.

Bay St doesn't need any treatment applied neither does Dalmar St.

 

See above reasoning in report. 

Do support road level entry threshold treatment in Bay St. Do support no stopping restrictions on corners of Bay St.

 

Noted on support.

No need for road level entry. There is already stop sign to control traffic. Support double white lines at this location.

 

Recommended under ATMS. See above reasoning in report.  

 

Outcome: General community support is provided on the proposal. It is recommended to proceed the proposal to final design and consult with the affected residents in the intersection area of the proposed works. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 10. Location 9- Provide a central median island in Dalmar Street at Croydon Road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ATMS recommends the placement of a central median island in Dalmar Street for traffic control. Also the placement of short length double white painted centrelines in Croydon Road at both approaches to Dalmar Street for added traffic control at the intersection, should be considered.

 

Overall from 75 households, 44 households (59%) provided support on the proposal, with 12 (16%) in non-support and 19 (25%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 200m local radius of the intersection, of (8) households, 6 (75%) provided support on the proposal, with 0 (0%) in non-support and 2 (25%) undecided/providing no answer/no specific comment on the proposal in question.

 

In a 100m radius, (6) households were in support.

 

The comments or key points of non-support specific to the proposal, as raised from all submissions, are shown below with the Council officer response. All other general comments are addressed under ‘Public Consultation’.

 

Specific comments or Key points of non-support are raised for Location 9. 

Officer Response

Bay St doesn't need any treatment applied neither does Dalmar St.

 

See above reasoning in report.

Do support concrete island in Dalmar St. Do support no stopping restrictions to corners of Dalmar St.

 

Noted as support.

No benefit placing an island at this location, however should be double white lines. Support ‘No Stopping’ to corners.

 

The road width allows the proposal of placing a median island in this regard for traffic manouevre/control around the intersection.

Support the proposal, however can an allowance be made for a full car space between the side driveway of 200 Croydon Road and the ‘No Stopping’ so as not to infringe into the driveway. Also request that driveway lines be placed in.

 

This will be considered under final design.

 

Outcome: General community support is provided on the proposal. It is recommended to proceed the proposal to final design and consult with the affected residents in the intersection area of the proposed works. 

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Consultation was conducted in a broad area surrounding Croydon Road from Parramatta Road to the north, Frederick Street to the east, Elizabeth Street to the south and the boundary line between Burwood Council and Inner West Council to the west.

A letter with the attached locality map (Figure 1) was mailed out approximately to 2200 household owner/occupants in the regional area as shown on the following Consultation Area map.

Residents were invited and directed to submit answers in support or non-support of the proposed treatments along Croydon Road with comments on the ‘Have you Say’ survey portal line of Council’s website.

Approximately 75 household submissions were received through the website portal and via email/mail. This represents a response rate of around 3.5% of the total amount of household residents invited to comment. 

A copy of the letter to the residents is shown in Attachment 1               

 

Figure 11. Locality plan showing area off consultation.

   

     The combined survey statistical analysis on the support, non-support and undecided/no answer for all the proposals is tabled below.

 

Resident response -from Overall Consultation Area 

Locations

1

%

2

%

3

%

4

%

5

%

6

%

8

%

9

%

Support

39

52

37

49

40

53

36

48

40

53

38

51

42

56

44

59

Non-support

18

24

19

26

15

20

18

24

14

19

19

25

13

17

12

16

Undecided

(no answer)

18

24

19

25

20

27

21

28

21

28

18

24

20

27

19

25

TOTAL

75

100

75

100

75

100

75

100

75

100

75

100

75

100

75

100

 

 

 

Resident response- from overall Consultation Area for option 1 or 2 Location 7

Location 7

Option 1

Percentage%

Option 2

Percentage%

Support

32

43%

22

29%

Non-support

31

41%

35

47%

Undecided (no answer)

12

16%

18

24%

TOTAL

75

100%

75

100%

 

General or other comments not specific to the proposed treatments are sown below.     

Residents’ Comments

Officer Comments

In general -It still falls short of providing pedestrian crossing, a safe way for people to cross Croydon Road.

 

Pedestrian refuge islands are not enough, we need actual pedestrian crossings to improve pedestrian safety.

As mentioned and detailed in the report a thorough pedestrian survey was carried out along Croydon Road, with a low pedestrian counts resulting in the non-warrant of a marked (zebra) foot-crossing under RMS guidelines. 

 

Alternate proposals are to be place in pedestrian refuges or kerb extension/blister treatments to improve pedestrian access across the road.    

Tell me what ‘traffic calming devices’ are

Traffic calming (under the definition of Wikipedia) uses physical design and other measures to improve safety for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. 

There also should be strong consideration for a change to traffic lights to add a right turn traffic light when turning right onto Parramatta Road from Croydon Road to head to the City.

This matter has been raised with the RMS on previous occasions. The RMS has advised it would not agree to this measure, as it is an additional traffic phase movement which would impose on needed and priority traffic movement along Parramatta Road.

Is there a reason for West Street in Croydon not included in this improvement? Any plans in future to upgrade this street?

 

 

West St used as thoroughfare both ways from/to BP, Parramatta Road. Enforce parking restrictions on West Street as parked vehicles reduce road width available for usage. Need a solution for volume of traffic and speed in which cars travel on this road.

This does not fall under the proposed scope of works.

 

Appropriate restrictions are in place within the streets to assist traffic flow. No plans at this point of time are made for future upgrade of this street.

 

Traffic volumes and speeds in the street are considered low. There is no recorded accident history in the street to justify any form of traffic calming measures. 

I would also like to suggest that the stop sign on the corner of Parramatta Road and Croydon Road be extended. In the morning at peak hour there is a car parked just after the stop sign. The bus cannot make the turn cause of that car being parked there. As there are cars waiting at the lights on the other side.

The matter will be investigated separately to consider to extend the ‘No Stopping’ on grounds of Traffic safety.

Issue not mentioned here is the way parked cars blocking the sight line of traffic travelling north on Croydon Rd, for those cars turning right on to Croydon Rd from Hunt St

At this particular intersection, ‘No parking’ and ‘No Stopping’ restrictions exist either side of the intersection from Hunt Street. Sight view is considered adequate. No accidents have been recorded at this intersection.      

The current No Stopping areas between Dalmar St and Parramatta Rd are also frequently insufficient for the traffic on Croydon Rd waiting to cross Parramatta Rd, especially if there is a bus stopped or approaching the bus stop.

 

Can the No Stopping times (Parramatta Road to Dalmar Street) be extended or made full-time?

Can the bus stop be moved back away from Parramatta Road?

Suggest ‘Do Not Queue across Intersection’ at the intersection of Dalmar Street and Croydon Road.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These matters will be separately investigated.

Please consider placing some calming device in Bay street just up the hill from Croydon road as cars come down the street towards Croydon Road very fast

The matter will be examined in reference to the Ashfield Traffic Management Study (ATMS). If required, it will be listed for investigation under a future Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) for the area.  

Please also consider traffic calming and a pedestrian crossing/ refuge on Elizabeth St at Etonville Parade, as it is a long way to the pedestrian crossing at the top of the hill on Elizabeth St on Edwin St.

 

This is not part of the scope of works. Traffic volumes and speeding are observed to be low. Pedestrian numbers are considered low crossing Etonville Pde at Elizabeth Street. No pedestrian accidents are recorded at the intersection. No justification can be made to traffic calm or provide for crossing/refugee at the location.      

Speed humps are not a reliable method of slowing traffic & can result in a vehicle becoming a danger on the roads. They are noisy for occupants living next to them. The exhaust can be damaged, resulting in unfiltered toxic emissions being constantly released into the atmosphere.

Speed cushions are generally proposed along Croydon Road.  They are typically used on routes with trucks and buses to reduce noise/pollution from such vehicles. The proposed speed hump (if not speed cushions) in Croydon Road, north of Queen Street will be designed to appropriate standards to minimise noise and pollution.  

Is there enough space for a motorised scooter for elderly people on the splitter islands?

The refuge opening width is 2.0 metres adequate for pedestrians with prams and motor scooters below 2.0 metres in full length (inclusive or baskets or other rear or front overhangs).     

These are good steps. As residents on Croydon Road, we'd also welcome Council partnering with the NSW Government Environmental Protection Agency to monitor noise pollution from vehicles travelling on Croydon Road ('hotted up' cars) - this is frequent every day.

 

The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) accepts reports of pollution (noise and fume emission) incidences where the EPA has direct regulatory role. Residents can ring direct on 131 555 to report of any incidences.   

Consideration making Edwin St North between the laneway to the North of the FRANS office and the Anthony Street intersection One-Way (probably Northbound)- and add 45 and/or 90 Degree rear to curb parking along the length of the One-Way section of road as means to improve condition at the intersection locations 1,2 and 3.

This is outside of the scope of the proposed works. ‘One-way’ traffic change is not recommended under this proposal. Traffic would be diverted to other streets and may affect resident access. The width of the road 10.1 metres kerb to kerb is considered narrow to provide for both angle parking and parallel parking opposite even with a one way system. There may not be a substantial and feasible net gain of parking.

It’s impossible to respond to the proposals at Locations 1-9 with a simple Yes or No because there are aspects of each proposal that I agree with and aspects that I vehemently disagree with

Noted.

Neighbours and I are in favour of blocking Croydon Rd half way, through traffic or turning the road into a one-way street, so traffic from Parramatta Rd cannot rat run to Elizabeth Street. Council could kindly consider this option neighbours and I would be much appreciative.

Croydon Road is a local –collector road of high volumes used to link traffic from Parramatta Road to Elizabeth Street. The intent of this report is not to change traffic conditions. Traffic network changes to allow diversion of traffic through side streets carrying lower volume of traffic is highly not recommended.

Croydon Rd has been overwhelmed with traffic cutting through. Croydon Rd is currently being used by motorists to avoid the busy Frederic St Croydon/ Ashfield. This is a serious problem and should be addressed as a priority.

See Above.

More handicap and pram friendly curbs need to be created (such as on Anthony St and Edwin St). Please do not narrow Anthony St or any other street. It’s already a nightmare for us to try to navigate these streets, especially with all the PLC parents waiting around during school pickup/drop off.

Pram ramps will be constructed with the proposed pedestrian cross-over facilities. Kerb blister/extension are proposed where refuge/islands cannot be reasonably accommodated for pedestrian access.   

Reduce traffic using Church Street generally by spreading traffic through the neighbourhood by means of introducing a no left turn sign onto Church Street off Croydon Rd for traffic driving south.

The intention of any of these proposals are not to change traffic conditions and re-direct traffic elsewhere.

The heavier reliance of the roundabout on Croydon Street and Queen Street should also be considered to relieve the right turn congestion on Church Street by forcing traffic to turn left at the western end of Church Street and then rely on the roundabout to head north towards Parramatta Road.

 

The intention of any of these proposals are not to change traffic conditions and re-direct traffic elsewhere.

No more speed bumps or cushions in Croydon Road. There are too many already and, are very uncomfortable for passengers, especially those with bad backs, and other chronic painful injuries or conditions. The proposed passenger islands will narrow the road + slow traffic enough.

The speed bumps or cushions are only limited in number in proposals to locations 1,2,4,6 and 7 to reduce speed in approach to these intersections. It is acknowledged there are other existing speeds humps which assist to control speeds along Croydon Road. 

On Church Street, drivers tend to speed down the hill from both sides not noticing the road bend at bottom of the hill near the creek at Church Street. There were three accidents we know of.

Speed counts conducted in Church Street identified speeds within tolerance of the speed limit. Requests have been made for Police enforcement in the area.       

Support the efforts to protect pedestrians, and wish it went further. Reduce residential road speed limit to 40kmh. Install more traffic calming measures on Croydon Rd including bike-friendly speed humps.

40 kph zones are only provided in areas of high pedestrian activity, such as shopping centres, or at school zones. RMS would not approve such speed zone installation in this situation.

 

The proposals are considered sufficient enough for improved pedestrian and traffic calming purposes. Existing speed humps in the area assist to traffic calm along Croydon Road. Speed cushions are considered more bike friendly-can ride around or between cushions. 

Install traffic calming measures on residential streets to slow down and deter the rat runners roaring through our neighbourhoods

The matter of the side streets off Croydon Road will be examined in reference to the Ashfield Traffic Management Study (ATMS). If required, it will be listed for investigation under a future Local Area Traffic Management scheme (LATM) for the area.  

Provide a solution to reduce the speed of traffic on Church Street at several points between Frederick Street and Croydon Street through the introduction of speed cushion or other alternative.

See above.

Provide proper separated bike infrastructure through Ashfield, Burwood, Croydon and Burwood Heights to make cycling safe

This is not part of the scope of works, The streets and footpaths are too narrow in this area to consider separated path movements. 

Traffic island refuges are too small for bikes / prams and multiple people crossing. They re-inforce the mentality that traffic has right of way. The new crossings on Church near Centenary Park even have a sign telling pedestrians to give way to traffic. As I am sure you are aware in NSW "You [the driver] must also give way to pedestrians if there is a danger of colliding with them, even if there is no marked pedestrian crossing". So I suspect the signs are at best misleading and possibly illegal? It will be an interesting court case following the inevitable accident.

The proposed refuge widths are required min 2.0 metres to RMS guidelines. They are not marked foot-crossings and pedestrians in this instance are required to give-way. The said crossing in Church Street outside the park is a kerb extension facility supplemented with speed cushions. This allows pedestrian to cross over the road at a shorter distance. This is not a pedestrian crossing, and the signs as mentioned reinforce to warn pedestrians to give way in this instance.     

Cycling heat maps indicate that Croydon road is a major cycling route. In many cases traffic controls serve to push cyclists into traffic, creating a complication of having to constantly change lanes. Sydney is possibly the most dangerous city in the world for cyclists largely due to the aggressive nature of drivers, and cyclists need to be able to protect themselves from this aggression.

It is identified under Council’s ‘Cycling Map and Guide’ that Croydon Road and Church Street are on-road cycle routes. Bike logos in the area will be remarked to make motorists aware.

In our area the tendency is to place traffic controls on the major roads, but leave minor roads without controls. The effect is that fast moving traffic seeks out minor roads for a rapid high speed thoroughfare.

The intention of any of these proposals are not to change traffic conditions and re-direct traffic elsewhere.

 

Side streets will be independently looked at with reference to the ATMS. If required, it will be listed under a future LATM scheme.

There are two speed humps very close to each other on Queen Street (between Lang St and Acton St). One of the speed humps has no paint marking it as a speed hump at all. Due to the lack of visibility, I find that people don't notice it until quite late, hitting it at speed. Is there any reason for these two speed humps to be so close together and for one to not be clearly marked? I suggest taking one of them out, or if not, painting the one that is not currently marked.


The speed humps in question are within the Burwood Council Area. A request has been made to Burwood Council to investigate the matter in regard to the resident concern.

Traffic congestion on Frederick Street caused by the access road to Bunnings. This problem should be solved first, and not by encouraging diversions to Church Street.

Access road at Bunnings and Frederick Street is signal control and traffic movement is regulated. The proposals (location 7) or any other proposals have no intention to encourage traffic diversions to Church Street.

I prefer to reduce the flow of vehicles and improve pedestrian movability. Vehicles produce harmful emissions which are unhealthy to our families and children. Therefore I would like to vote for option 2 of the Croydon Rd and Church St intersection. It would be a great idea to plant more trees along Croydon Rd as well which will improve the quality of air around the area.

Noted in support of option 2. It is viewed that sufficient amount of trees are planted in Croydon road without impairing on sight view and interference with traffic. 

A right hand turn from Elizabeth Street onto Fredrick St needs to be placed in.

This matter has been raised with the RMS on previous occasions. The RMS has advised it would not agree to this measure, as it is an additional traffic phase movement which would impose on needed and priority traffic movement along Frederick Street.

Edwin Street North and Hennessey Street. Provide means to control vehicle movement around the bend e.g. speed hump, double white lines. 

 

This will be investigate separately.

1.  Pedestrian survey results [as reported to the Local Traffic Committee 1 May 2018] showed no more than 18 crossing in locations across Croydon Road and 23 to side streets below the threshold of 30. Council should re-assess situation in quality rather than quantity -given the traffic volumes-use RMS formula as a guide.

2.  Pedestrian refuge island facility in Croydon Road would add to the risk

   An alternative would be to have raised   medians so that pedestrians crossing time is shorter rather than being stranded in the middle of Croydon Road on a refuge island.

3.  Should the council consider Croydon Road as a main local road and it needs to cater for pedestrians as well as vehicles?

4.  Have they considered increased numbers in the next 3 to 5 years?

Why can’t council consider Croydon Road as a special circumstance.  Has all types of pedestrians been considered, e.g. school children, elderly.   

5.  Although no recorded pedestrian accidents, increased volumes, deteriated road can lend to accident in time.    

6.  Has Ashfield’s Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan PAMP framework and plan considered identifying pedestrian routes/areas that are safe, convenient and connected and cross Croydon Road? What is PAMP’s pedestrian policy? In the Croydon Road assessment, did council recognise pedestrians as the most

   vulnerable road user?

7. Can the works recommended in the report [LTC meeting 1 May 2018] be broken down and prioritised e.g. remarking of line marking done under operational maintenance? Can certain works be done in 18/19 financial and works seen to be steadily done over the next 1-2 years?

8. John Street traffic counts [as reported to the Local Traffic Committee 1 May 2018] showed faster speeds than any speeds along Croydon Road. Should the speed limit of John St be reviewed and assessed? The John St speeds are faster than any speeds along Croydon Road and Croydon Road is a 50kph zone.

·   The proposed pedestrian refuges are considered an adequate treatment for pedestrian safety, as an alternative where pedestrian numbers are not sufficiently high to meet warrants for marked (zebra) foot crossing. They also enhance traffic calming in the area. They are widely used throughout the LGA on both major and minor roads.  

·    Only the current data is used for analysis of the requirement to install pedestrian crossings. If circumstances change in future, an assessment will be undertaken at the time.

·   The survey did distinguish between age groups. However the numbers did not meet the warrants.      

·   The proposed devices will enhance pedestrian safety and amenity along Croydon Road. Line marking upgrade is also to be undertaken.   

·   The device locations are in line with the PAMP for cross-over points along Croydon Road near/at intersections, with crossover improvements to the intersection of Anthony Street and Croydon Road. A primary objective under the PAMP is to reduce pedestrian access severance and enhance safe and convenient crossing opportunities on major roads.  

·   Remarking of line marking will be programmed and scheduled in sections or locations not affected or independent of the proposed works.

·   The current draft capital works program forecasts a budget of $225,000 in 2019/20 for traffic calming works in Croydon Road and a budget of $105,000 for intersection improvement at the intersection of Croydon Road and Church Street in 2018/2019.

·   The speed count in John Street was conducted outside of the area of proposed works along Croydon Road and its side street intersection. They conducted midway between Croydon Road and Lucy Street. The speed of vehicles at this location were not affected by traffic devices or approaches to intersections to slow down, as was the case with Croydon Road. The 85th percentile speed recorded of 53 km/h is based on the speed of the majority of vehicles taken over a time period of 24 hours and 7 days a week. This is considered within tolerance of the speed limit. RMS would not approve reduction of the speed limit in this street.

 

 

CONCLUSION

In view of the findings and separate conclusions made to each proposal, it is identified there is general support with the local community on the proposed treatments along Croydon Road at intersection locations 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 9.

In regard to location 7, there is a slight majority of the local community in support over that of non-support to Option 1, but a higher support for Option 1 over Option 2. There is a lower number in non-support (both option 1 and 2) in the near vicinity to the intersection.

 

Based on the wider local community, it is considered that for location 7 Option 1 be recommended for the improved operation of the intersection coupled with improved visibility and speed control in benefit of the local community.

 

It is therefore recommended that all the proposals for intersection treatments, locations 1,2,3,4,5,7-Option 1, 6,8 and 9 proceed to final design with further consultation being made and limited to affected residents in the intersection areas of the proposed works.    

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

1.

Consultation letter-Croydon Road-Proposed Pedestrian and Traffic Calming treatments.

  


Local Traffic Committee Meeting

6 November 2018