Agenda of Local Traffic Committee Meeting

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

3 February 2020

Minutes from Meeting Held 2 December 2019

Minutes of Local Traffic Committee Meeting

Held at Petersham Service Centre on 2 December 2019

Meeting commenced at 10.07am

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY BY CHAIRPERSON

I acknowledge the Gadigal and Wangal people of the Eora nation on whose country we are meeting today, and their elders past and present.

COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT

Clr Victor Macri	Councillor – Midjuburi-Marrickville Ward (Chair)
Bill Holliday	Representative for Jamie Parker MP, Member for Balmain
Chris Woods	Representative for Ron Hoenig MP, Member for Heffron
Cathy Peters	Representative for Jenny Leong MP, Member for Newtown
Sgt Paul Vlachos	NSW Police – Inner West Police Area Command
LSC Marina Nestoriaros	NSW Police – Leichhardt Police Area Command
Nazli Tzannes	Transport for NSW (formerly Roads and Maritime Services)

OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE

Asith Nagodavithane	Transit Systems – Inner West Bus Services
Colin Jones	Inner West Bicycle Coalition
Clr Marghanita da Cruz	Councillor – Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward
Cathy Edwards-Davis	IWC Director Infrastructure
John Stephens	IWC’s Outgoing Traffic and Transport Services Manager
Manod Wickramasinghe	IWC’s Acting Traffic and Transport Services Manager
George Tsaprounis	IWC’s Coordinator Traffic and Parking Services (South)
Jenny Adams	IWC’s Traffic Engineer
Stephen Joannidis	IWC’s Urban Amenity Improvement Delivery Manager
Pierre Ayoub	IWC’s Acting Design Services Coordinator
Predrag Gudelj	IWC’s Project Manager
Christina Ip	IWC’s Business Administration Officer

VISITORS

Monica Raju	Item 13 – Consultant

APOLOGIES:

Germaine Grant	NSW Police – Burwood & Campsie Police Area Command

DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS:

Nil.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Local Traffic Committee Meeting held on Monday, 4 November 2019 were confirmed.

MATTERS ARISING FROM COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF MINUTES

The Local Traffic Committee recommendations of its meeting held on 4 November 2019 were adopted at Council’s meeting held on 26 November 2019. Council also noted in relation to Item 20 D3 Iron Cove to ANZAC Bridge Regional Cycleway Design that the community (over 2080 signatories) has raised concerns about WestConnex’s proposed alternate route connecting Lilyfield Road and ANZAC bridge from May 2020.

LTC1219 Item 1 Minor Traffic Facilities (All Wards/ All Electorates/All PACS)

SUMMARY

This report considers minor traffic facility applications received by Inner West Council and includes ‘Disabled Parking’ and ‘Works Zone’ requests.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. The 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No.95 Frederick Street, St Peters, be removed;

2. The 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 220 Darling Street, Balmain, be removed;

3. The 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 15 Goodsir Street, Rozelle, be removed;

4. A 'Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in Consett Street adjacent to No. 1-9 Terrace Road, Dulwich Hill, in the seventh angled parking bay from Terrace Road;

5. A 5.5m 'Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No. 6/1 Merchant Street, Stanmore;

6. A 5.5m 'Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No. 66 Gipps Street, Birchgrove;

7. A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 9 Allen Street, Leichardt, for 12 weeks;

8. A 33m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 30-32 Murray Street, Marrickville, for 12 weeks;

9. a. A 31m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt, for 12 weeks, temporarily replacing the existing bus stop; and

b. That the Applicant ensure that proper notification is given to residents regarding the temporary closure of the bus stop, with the consent of Transit Systems;

10. A 10m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 48 Susan Street, Annandale, for 12 weeks; and

11. A 15m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 69 Renwick Street, Leichhardt, for 12 weeks

DISCUSSION

Clr da Cruz asked, in relation to part 9 of the recommendation, whether there will be signage directing commuters to the nearest bus stop for the duration of the work zone. The Transit Systems representative advised that such signage will be installed and provided that the applicant provides 5 weeks notice, Transit Systems will also include updated bus stop information on public transport apps.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No.95 Frederick Street, St Peters, be removed;

2. The 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 220 Darling Street, Balmain, be removed;

3. The 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 15 Goodsir Street, Rozelle, be removed;

4. A 'Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in Consett Street adjacent to No. 1-9 Terrace Road, Dulwich Hill, in the seventh angled parking bay from Terrace Road;

5. A 5.5m 'Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No. 6/1 Merchant Street, Stanmore;

6. A 5.5m 'Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No. 66 Gipps Street, Birchgrove;

7. A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 9 Allen Street, Leichardt, for 12 weeks;

8. A 33m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 30-32 Murray Street, Marrickville, for 12 weeks;

9. a. A 31m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 168 Norton Street, Leichhardt, for 12 weeks, temporarily replacing the existing bus stop; and

b. That the Applicant ensure that proper notification is given to residents regarding the temporary closure of the bus stop, with the consent of Transit Systems;

10. A 10m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 48 Susan Street, Annandale, for 12 weeks; and

11. A 15m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 69 Renwick Street, Leichhardt, for 12 weeks

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 2 Teakle Street at Drynan Street, Summer Hill - Proposed upgrade of at-grade pedestrian crossing to a raised crossing (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/ Summer Hill Electorate/ Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

Design plans have been prepared for raising the at-grade pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Teakle Street, Summer Hill. Consultation was undertaken with nearby owners and occupiers in Teakle Street and Drynan Street regarding the proposal. It is recommended that the proposed detailed design plan be approved.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the detailed design plans for the proposed upgrade of the at-grade pedestrian (zebra) crossing to a raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing on Teakle Street, near Drynan Street (Design Plan No. 10081) be approved.

DISCUSSION

Clr da Cruz raised concerns with the distance between the pedestrian crossing and the intersection and requested for signage to warn drivers that they are approaching the crossing. Council Officers will arrange for the signage.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 3 St Davids Road/Kingston Street and Ramsay Street, Haberfield - Proposed Speed Cushions (Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

A detailed design plan has been finalised for the proposed intersection treatment at St Davids Road/Kingston Street and Ramsay Street, Haberfield.

As part of the Traffic Capital Works Program, Council has prepared a design plan indicating speed cushions and a kerb blister for the roundabout at Ramsay Street and St Davids Road/ Kingston Street, Haberfield. The intention of the proposal is to slow traffic and improve road safety for pedestrians and motorists at the intersection.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the detailed design plan (Design Plan No.10107) for the installation of speed cushions, a kerb blister, and associated signs and line markings for the roundabout at Ramsay Street and St Davids Road/Kingston Street, Haberfield be approved.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 4 Fox Lane, Ashfield - Proposed 10km/h Shared Zone (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

SUMMARY

As part of the Ashfield Town Centre Renewal – Public Domain Strategy, Council plans to improve Fox Lane, Ashfield by proposing to introduce a 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ in the lane from Liverpool Road to The Esplanade.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

a) the treatments associated with the proposed ‘10km/h Shared Zone’ in Fox Lane between Liverpool Road and The Esplanade (as shown under the signs and line marking plans 2458-FL-SL-001&002-Revision D) be approved; and

b) the proposal be submitted to RMS for approval of the 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ and regulatory signage.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

b) the proposal be submitted to RMS for approval of the 10km/h ‘Shared Zone’ and regulatory signage.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 5 Westconnex M5 – St Peters Interchange Active Transport Works – Part 1 (Marrickville-Midjuburi Ward / Heffron Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

The St Peters Interchange project results from a request by the RMS and WestConnex for Council to deliver two (2) active transport projects around the M5 WestConnex Interchange at St Peters. The provision of such walking and cycling facilities within 1km of the St Peters Interchange is a condition of consent for the WestConnex M5 project.

The options presented as part of this project are:

Burrows Avenue – two (2) options as follows:

o Option A – One-way westbound separated cycleway on the southern side of Burrows Avenue with an on road mixed traffic facility for cyclists eastbound, on the northern side;

o Option B – Two way separated cycleway on the southern side of Burrows Avenue.

George Street, Henry Street, Grove Street, Bakers Lane and Mary Street – proposal as follows:

o Widened shared path along Mary Street and upgrades to the existing on road cycle route along the other streets.

Following development of the concept designs and a community engagement process, Council is seeking the approval of the Local Traffic Committee to progress with the detailed design and implementation of the measures outlined herein.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the Committee approve the progression of the project to the detailed design and implementation stage as outlined herein, being Option A for Burrows Avenue, (one-way westbound separated cycleway on the southern side and mixed traffic facility eastbound on the northern side) and the options as proposed for the remainder of the route; and

2. The detailed design be brought back to the Committee for its consideration and support.

DISCUSSION

The representative for the Member for Newton asked whether separated cycleways were considered for this project’s cycle routes, given that this is the safest option and WestConnex is funding the project. Council Officers advised that whilst Council’s preference is for separated cycleways, low traffic volumes and the narrow width of George Street make on-road cycle routes more practical in this case. The representative emphasised the need for Council to implement the safest option for cycle routes.

The representative for the Member for Heffron commented that this project also provides an opportunity for Council to consider a dedicated cycleway and pedestrian pathway along Bolton Street.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

2. The detailed design be brought back to the Committee for its consideration and support.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 6 Frazer Street at Gould Street, Dulwich Hill and Terrace Road at New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill – Proposed 'No Stopping, Australia Post Vehicles Excepted' zones (Djarrawunang-Ashfield/ Damun-Stanmore Ward / Summer Hill Electorate/ Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council has received a request from Australia Post for the installation of 'No Stopping - Australia Post Vehicles Excepted' zones at two unique locations; Frazer Street at Gould Street, Dulwich Hill and Terrace Road at New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill. The zones will provide a space for Australia Post vehicles to collect the mail from their Street Posting Boxes.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. The last 5m of the existing 15m length of 'No Stopping’ restrictions on the northern side of Frazer Street east of Gould Street, Dulwich Hill be sign posted as 'No Stopping; Australia Post Vehicles Excepted'; and

2. The last 5m of the existing 19m length of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on the western side of Terrace Road south of New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill be sign posted as ‘No Stopping; Australia Post Vehicles Excepted'; and

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 7 Williams Parade, Dulwich Hill – Proposed changes to existing Parking restrictions to allow short term parking opportunities on the weekends for park users (Djarrawunang - Ashfield Ward / Summer Hill Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

Council is proposing to introduce new time restricted parking restrictions in Williams Parade, Dulwich Hill to allow improved short term parking opportunities during the weekends for park users. These restrictions include a mixture of 5min parking and 2hour parking restrictions near Arlington Oval.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. The installation of 23 metres of ‘P5min 6pm – 9pm Mon – Fri 8am – 4pm Sat & Sun’ / ‘4P All other times’ restrictions on the western side of Williams Parade commencing from the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions south of Arlington Oval’s driveway be approved, in order to provide short term drop off / pick up opportunities during the weekends for park users;

2. The installation of 20m of ‘2P 8am-2pm Sat & Sun’ restrictions on the eastern side of Williams Parade south of its intersection with Constitution Road (first 8 parking spaces) be approved, in order to provide short term parking opportunities during the weekends for park users; and

3. The installation of a painted chevron marking south of Arlington Oval’s driveway be approved in order to reinforce existing ‘No Stopping’ restrictions.

DISCUSSION

Council Officers tabled six late submissions from residents who were generally not supportive of the proposal due to loss of parking. Council Officers advised that unrestricted angle parking will be provided in Williams Parade which will assist with the operation of the park and increase parking turnover on game days. Other issues raised in the submissions related to vehicles parking over the path which Council Officers will investigate as a separate matter. Trailer parking was also raised and this will be investigated with Council’s Rangers.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The installation of 23 metres of ‘P5min 6pm – 9pm Mon – Fri 8am – 4pm Sat & Sun’ / ‘4P All other times’ restrictions on the western side of Williams Parade commencing from the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions south of Arlington Oval’s driveway be approved, in order to provide short term drop off / pick up opportunities during the weekends for park users;

2. The installation of 20m of ‘2P 8am-2pm Sat & Sun’ restrictions on the eastern side of Williams Parade south of its intersection with Constitution Road (first 8 parking spaces) be approved, in order to provide short term parking opportunities during the weekends for park users; and

3. The installation of a painted chevron marking south of Arlington Oval’s driveway be approved in order to reinforce existing ‘No Stopping’ restrictions.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 8 Carrington Road, Marrickville - Proposed Extension of 'No Stopping' zone adjacent to Pedestrian Refuge (Midjuburi - Marrickville Ward/ Summer Hill Electorate/ Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

A proposal has been developed for the extension of the ‘No Stopping’ zone on eastern side of Carrington Road, north of Renwick Street, Marrickville to provide a safer crossing environment for pedestrians, particularly school children. The extension of the ‘No Stopping’ zone adjacent to the pedestrian refuge, north of Renwick Street will address the concerns in relation to lack of visibility for pedestrians crossing Carrington Road from east to west and motorists heading southbound. It has been reported that when vehicles are parked up to the current ‘No Stopping’ sign, pedestrians are unable to observe on-coming vehicles without stepping into the trafficable lanes.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the extension of the existing ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on eastern side of Carrington Road, north of Renwick Street by 10 metres be approved.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT the extension of the existing ‘No Stopping’ restrictions on eastern side of Carrington Road, north of Renwick Street by 10 metres be approved.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 9 Wragge Street, Lilyfield (between Francis Street and Unnamed Laneway) - Proposed 'No Parking' restriction (Baludarri - Balmain Ward / Balmain Electorate / Leichhardt PAC)

SUMMARY

A request for the installation of ‘No Parking’ restrictions in Wragge Street between Francis Street and the Unnamed Laneway, Lilyfield has been raised to address concerns from residents and Council’s Waste Collection officers regarding regular instances of parked vehicles restricting access for residents and waste collection vehicles. The proposal includes the installation of statutory ‘No Stopping’ zone at its intersections with Francis Street and the Unnamed Laneway.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. The 10m statutory ‘No Stopping’ zones and a 14m ‘No Parking’ zone be installed on the northern side of Wragge Street, Lilyfield between Francis Street and the Unnamed Laneway; and

2. A 42m ‘No Parking’ zone be installed on the southern side of Wragge Street, Lilyfield between Francis Street and the Unnamed Laneway.

DISCUSSION

The representative for the Member for Balmain asked whether a parking space can be retained in the middle of the proposed 14m ‘No Parking’ zone on the northern side of Wragge Street. Council Officers advised that a ‘No Stopping’ zone is proposed for both sides of the street because Waste Collection Officers have difficulty travelling along the entire length of the proposed zone, in addition, parking demand in the street is low. However, Council Officers can consult with Waste Collection to determine whether a marked parking bay can be installed on the northern side of the street, whilst retaining access.

The Committee members agreed to adopt part 2 of the recommendation and the ‘No Stopping’ zones in part 1, and defer the installation of the ‘No Parking’ restrictions on the northern side of Wragge Street, pending further consultation with Council’s Waste Collection section.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The 10m statutory ‘No Stopping’ zones be installed on the northern side of Wragge Street, Lilyfield between Francis Street and the Unnamed Laneway.

2. The installation of a 14m ‘No Parking’ zone on the northern side of Wragge Street, Lilyfield between Francis Street and the Unnamed Laneway be deferred to investigate retaining one marked parking space on this section of Wragge Street.

3. A 42m ‘No Parking’ zone be installed on the southern side of Wragge Street, Lilyfield between Francis Street and the Unnamed Laneway.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 10 Local Traffic Committee Schedule for 2020

SUMMARY

The proposed schedule of the Local Traffic Committee meetings has been prepared for the 2020 calendar year. It is recommended that the proposed meeting schedule be received and noted.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the proposed schedule of meetings of the Local Traffic Committee for the 2020 calendar year be received and noted.

DISCUSSION

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT the proposed schedule of meetings of the Local Traffic Committee for the 2020 calendar year be received and noted.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 11 Urban Amenity Improvement Program – Leichhardt and Camperdown Precincts (Leichhardt-Gulgadya & Stanmore-Damun Wards / Balmain & Newtown Electorates / Leichhardt & Inner West PACs)

SUMMARY

The Urban Amenity Improvement Program (UAIP) aims to reverse the urban decay and lack of design cohesion along Parramatta Road and is a NSW State Government initiative. Within the Inner West Council LGA, the program comprises 10 separate locations as follows:

Rofe Street, Leichhardt – Parramatta Road to Jarrett Street
Renwick Street, Leichhardt – Parramatta Road to Jarrett Street
Norton Street, Leichhardt – Parramatta Road to Zebra Crossing at 24 Norton Street
Crystal Street, Petersham – Parramatta Road to Elswick Street
Balmain Road, Leichhardt – Parramatta Road to end of Italian Forum
Catherine Street, Leichhardt – Parramatta Road to Albion Street
Dot Lane, Leichhardt – Balmain Road to Hay Street
Petersham Street, Petersham – Parramatta Road to Queen Street
Johnstons Creek and Wigram Road, Annandale
Pyrmont Bridge Road, Annandale – Parramatta Road to Booth Street

Following development and approval of the UAIP, Council is now progressing with the detailed design and aims to inform and seek approval of the Local Traffic Committee for the measures proposed under the program.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. the design proposals be approved in-principle as discussed in this report and as indicated on the attached plans (Attachment 1) at the following locations:

a. Rofe Street, Leichhardt – public domain upgrades and conversion to a one way road;

b. Renwick Street, Leichhardt – public domain upgrades and provision of a 10km/hr shared zone;

c. Norton Street, Leichhardt – public domain upgrades;

d. Crystal Street, Petersham – public domain upgrades;

e. Balmain Road, Leichhardt – public domain upgrades and cycleway connection;

f. Catherine Street, Leichhardt – public domain upgrades and cycleway connection;

g. Dot Lane, Leichhardt – new cycleway connection;

h. Petersham Street, Petersham – new pocket park;

i. Johnstons Creek and Wigram Road, Annandale – new pedestrian and cycleway connection;

j. Pyrmont Bridge Road, Annandale – public domain upgrades and cycleway connection; and

2. Detailed reports on the individual street treatments be brought back to the Traffic Committee including final design plans and Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) etc as required.

DISCUSSION

The representative for the Member for Balmain requested for bicycles to be excepted to the proposed one-way restrictions on Renwick Street between Parramatta Road and Renwick Lane. The representative also requested that the sub-grade at approach to the Norton Street pedestrian crossing be strengthened to better withstand the weight of buses. Council Officers noted both requests.

The representative for the Member for Balmain commented that the one-directional cycleway proposed for Balmain Road between the footpath and the parking lane is unsafe as people will be opening doors onto the cycleway. The representative believes the cycle path currently on Balmain Road operates well. The representative also commented that the shared path for the Paramatta Road footpath between Balmain Road and Norton Street has not been shown on the plans.

Clr da Cruz raised concerns with the following issues:

Trees and water sensitive urban design is currently not shown in the report, however; it was noted that these will be included in the master plan. Clr da Cruz is concerned that Police or Transit Systems may raise issues with how trees conflict with vehicles if it is not part of the plan now.
There needs to be more clarity on how pedestrians and cyclists will interact with traffic at the intersection of Renwick Street, Jarrett Street and Renwick Lane, particularly if traffic will be one-way.
A refuge island should be installed on Norton Street at Renwick Lane as this is where pedestrians cross the road to access the bus stop.
Where a separated cycleway and pedestrian path is proposed, the paths should be designed such that pedestrians are consistently on the same side of the cycleway.
The plan does not indicate that on the Wigram Road route that there is an end to the bridge and the route becomes a shared path to the City of Sydney cycleway. The route ideally should go through Booth Lane and Taylor Street as they are quiet streets for on road cycling and connects to the same cycleway more safely than continuing on Wigram Road.
There needs to be clear signage on Rofe Street where vehicles cannot turn left or right. Council Officers noted this and advised that exceptions can be made for cyclists at this location and signposted too.

The Transit Systems representative requested that swept path analysis be undertaken at the roundabout proposed for Wigram Road and Booth Street as buses will use the roundabout. The representative also asked that the threshold be a maximum of 75mm and that the design be submitted to TSA for approval. Council Officers noted this request and advised that the roundabout size will be the same as the existing roundabout.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. the design proposals be approved in-principle as discussed in this report and as indicated on the attached plans (Attachment 1) at the following locations:

a. Rofe Street, Leichhardt – public domain upgrades and conversion to a one way road;

b. Renwick Street, Leichhardt – public domain upgrades and provision of a 10km/hr shared zone;

c. Norton Street, Leichhardt – public domain upgrades;

d. Crystal Street, Petersham – public domain upgrades;

e. Balmain Road, Leichhardt – public domain upgrades and cycleway connection;

f. Catherine Street, Leichhardt – public domain upgrades and cycleway connection;

g. Dot Lane, Leichhardt – new cycleway connection;

h. Petersham Street, Petersham – new pocket park;

i. Johnstons Creek and Wigram Road, Annandale – new pedestrian and cycleway connection;

j. Pyrmont Bridge Road, Annandale – public domain upgrades and cycleway connection; and

2. Detailed reports on the individual street treatments be brought back to the Traffic Committee including final design plans and Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) etc as required.

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 12 Railway Avenue, Stanmore; Darley Road, Leichhardt; Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield – Status Report - ‘No Parking 7am – 7pm – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted (All Wards / All Electorates / All LACs)

SUMMARY

The Traffic Committee at its meeting held in July 2018 recommended the installation of ‘No Parking 7am-7pm – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions in certain problematic locations. This report reviews the impact of these restrictions.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT:

1. The existing ‘No Parking 7am-7pm – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions be retained in Railway Avenue, Stanmore;

2. A request be sent to RMS to remove a section of the ‘No Parking 7am-7pm – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions in Darley Road between William Street and the unnamed laneway (between Falls Street and Elswick Street North); and

3. The existing ‘No Parking 7am-7pm – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions be further reviewed in Lilyfield Road, Lilyfield following completion of the WestConnex construction works.

DISCUSSION

The representative for the Member for Balmain commented that the restrictions in Darley Road appear to be working and should be retained. The representative stated that there are still a few trailers illegally parked in the ‘No Parking 7am-7pm – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ zone that Council could take enforcement action on. Council Officers advised that Council’s Regulatory Services have made numerous attempts to contact the owners of the illegally parked trailers, however; the owners have not been responsive.

The Committee members agreed with the Officer’s recommendation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The existing ‘No Parking 7am-7pm – Motor Vehicles under 4.5t GVM Excepted’ restrictions be retained in Railway Avenue, Stanmore;

For motion: Unanimous

LTC1219 Item 13 Sydenham Road and Burrows Avenue, Sydenham – Sydney Metro SSJ Works – Signage and linemarking Plans – Package 220 drawings (Midjuburi – Marrickville Ward / Heffron Electorate / Inner West PAC)

SUMMARY

The signs and line marking plans for the proposed traffic and/or parking changes in Sydenham Road and Burrows Avenue, Sydenham associated with Sydney Metro Sydenham Station and Junction (SSJ) works have been submitted to Council (Package 220 drawings It is recommended that the signs and line marking plans be approved. It is noted that Sydenham Road is a State Road therefore the road changes in Sydenham Road will be managed by the RMS.

Officer’s Recommendation

THAT the detailed signs and line marking plans for Sydenham Road and Burrows Avenue, Sydenham (as part of Sydney Metro’s Sydenham Station Upgrade works – Package 220 drawings) as per the attached plans - SSJ Works - Sydenham Road - Signs and Line marking Plan - SMCSWSSJ-JHL-WSS-CE-DWG-220161 and SSJ Works - Burrows Avenue - SMCSWSSJ-JHL-WSS-CE-DWG-220261 - signs and line marking plan) be approved.

DISCUSSION

Public speaker: Monica Raju, John Holland Pty Ltd and Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd Joint Venture, attended at 10.31am.

The representative for the Member for Heffron asked if there are plans for a shared pathway for pedestrians and cyclists along Bolton Street. Ms Raju advised that a raised shared path for pedestrians through the intersection was considered, however; there were many concerns relating to the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians when there is low visibility of pedestrians in the intersection.

The Transit Systems representative asked if there is scope to increase the length of the proposed bus zone on Railway Parade. Ms Raju advised that there are discussions on extending the path on Railway Parade which could provide scope to extend the bus zone.

Clr da Cruz asked whether the interactions between pedestrians and cyclists with buses and the train station has been studied. Ms Raju advised that Metro Sydney has undertaken pedestrian modelling and will see if the results can be provided.

Council Officers requested for rumble bars be installed on the proposed chevron markings at the intersection of Bolton Street and Hogan Avenue.

Concerns were raised regarding the two proposed mobility parking spaces on Bolton Street. Council Officers asked if swept path analysis of the two parking spaces has been undertaken as the spaces appear to be small and it could be difficult to manoeuvre into the space. Ms Raju stated that the swept path has been undertaken.

Council Officers stated that the ‘No Parking Authorised Car Share Vehicles Excepted’ zone proposed for Burrows Avenue was incorrectly signposted and signage needs to be amended to indicate where the zone ends. Ms Raju noted this request.

Ms Raju also agreed to follow up on a number of issues raised by the Committee and Council Officers including:

Whether bicycle lockers (accessible using Opal cards) will be provided at train stations accessible using Opal cards.
When the marked crossing on Burrows Road will be installed. The representative for the Member for Heffron commented that this crossing was proposed to have finished by now.
Whether there are plans for a cyclist and pedestrian pathway alongside the new Metro line to Bolton Street.

(Ms Raju left at 10.49am)

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

THAT the detailed signs and line marking plans for Sydenham Road and Burrows Avenue, Sydenham (as part of Sydney Metro’s Sydenham Station Upgrade works – Package 220 drawings) as per the attached plans - SSJ Works - Sydenham Road - Signs and Line marking Plan - SMCSWSSJ-JHL-WSS-CE-DWG-220161 and SSJ Works - Burrows Avenue - SMCSWSSJ-JHL-WSS-CE-DWG-220261 - signs and line marking plan) be approved, subject to a review by Transport for NSW of issues raised in the meeting including; amendment to signage (specified by Council’s Traffic Engineer), information regarding shared path proposal along Bolton Street, extending the bus zone in Railway Parade and mechanisms employed to access bicycle lockers.

For motion: Unanimous

General Business

LTC1219 Item 14 Traffic signals at Addison Road and Enmore Road intersection

Clr Macri thanked the RMS for the adjusting the signal phasing at the corner of Addison Road and Enmore Road, Marrickville. Residents have reported that the red holding signal has shortened which has improved traffic flow.

LTC1219 Item 15 Chandos Street, Ashfield proposal

Clr Macri stated that residents of Chandos Street, Ashfield have requested for an update to the proposal in their street. Council Officers have raised the proposal with RMS and are awaiting confirmation. An update will be provided to the next Committee meeting.

LTC1219 Item 16 Resident parking in Hartley Street, Balmain

A number of residents in Hartley Street, Balmain have emailed Clr Macri requesting Council reconsider implementing a Resident Parking Scheme in Hartley Street, Balmain. Residents have previously been consulted on this issue twice, however; Council had proposed resident parking on one side of the street only, which was not supported by the residents. The Hartley Street residents that contacted Clr Macri requested for resident parking to be on both sides of the street, consistent with the surrounding streets that have an existing scheme.

In addition, Clr Macri requested that a ‘No Stopping’ sign be installed at the southern end of Hartley Street to prevent parking across the driveway of 71 Victoria Road. When a vehicle is parked illegally across the driveway and when residents cannot turn into Victoria Road due to the peak hour left turn ban, there is not enough space for drivers to turn around to travel to the northern end of Hartley Street.

Council Officers will investigate both these issues.

LTC1219 Item 17 Parking in laneways

Clr Macri stated that residents have been contacting him regarding high parking utilisation in laneways that prevent residents from accessing their garages. Clr Macri asked if Council can provide specifications for residents to paint lines on the road to delineate their driveway. Council Officers advised that residents can paint their own lines subject to residents following the specifications provided by Council or they can elect to have Council paint the lines. Council Officers will provide the specifications for Clr Macri to respond to residents. It was also noted that sometimes, obstruction to driveways is caused by vehicles parked opposite the driveway in a narrow lane and that type of obstruction cannot be resolved with driveway line marking. Council Officers assess these instances on a case by case basis and may install ‘No Parking’ opposite driveways.

LTC1219 Item 18 Warren Road, Marrickville proposal

Clr Macri stated that residents of Warren Road are becoming impatient with the progress of the proposal to improve safety and congestion in the street. Residents have reported more incidents of congestion and an accident that occurred. Council Officers advised that RMS is assessing Council’s Traffic Management Plan and Council has engaged a consultant to work on the signal design at the intersection of Illawarra Road and Warren Road. Council Officers will follow up and will provide an update to Clr Macri.

LTC1219 Item 19 Works in streets surrounding Croydon Road, Croydon

A resident has written to Clr Macri complaining that of a number of issues with the works being undertaken in streets surrounding Croydon Road including:

the speed cushion in Kenilworth Street was modified (lowered) one week after installation.
the roundabout on Anthony Street has not been painted yet.
the speed cushions on Queen Street and Church Street have not been painted.

Council Officers advised that works are still underway and the outstanding items will be completed in the near future.

LTC1219 Item 20 Proposed 40km/h zone in Haberfield

Clr da Cruz asked about the proposed 40km/h zone in Haberfield. Council Officer advised that RMS have yet to respond to Council’s application.

LTC1219 Item 21 Proposal to split M3 Parking Area

The representative for the Member for Newtown asked for an update to the proposal to split the M3 Enmore/Camperdown permit zone in response to a petition submitted by residents in June 2019. Council Officers will follow up and provide an update to the representative.

LTC1219 Item 22 WestConnex worker parking in Dennison Street, Rozelle

A resident of Denison Street, Rozelle has written to the Member for Balmain complaining of high parking utilisation in the street from WestConnex workers and requested a Resident Parking Scheme. Council Officers advised that they are currently in discussion with WestConnex and RMS on this issue and WestConnex are proposing worker parking on the construction site. It was acknowledged that the street has been consulted on resident parking previously, however; the proposal was not supported by residents at the time.

LTC1219 Item 23 Speeding in Darley Road, Leichhardt

The representative for the Member for Balmain stated that a resident has complained about traffic speeding from James Street into Darley Road and reported that a pedestrian refuge in Charles Street was recently hit by a speeding vehicle. Council Officers will investigate this matter.

LTC1219 Item 24 Proposal for traffic signals on Edward Street at Old Canterbury Road, Summer Hill

The Inner West Bicycle Coalition representative asked for a progress update on the proposal for Edward Street traffic signals at Old Canterbury Road, Summer Hill. The representative was advised that the proposal is currently being considered by RMS. Council Officers will follow up with RMS.

LTC1219 Item 25 Update on the request for a temporary marked pedestrian crossing on Hogan Street, Sydenham

The RMS representative advised that the request to convert the temporary pedestrian refuge on Hogan Street to a marked pedestrian crossing was not supported as it did not meet the required pedestrian count within any three-hour period. The RMS advised that the refuge is safer than a temporary marked pedestrian crossing as pedestrians are more likely to check the road before crossing. Furthermore, installing a temporary marked pedestrian crossing and then removing after pedestrians become used to it can make the intersection less safe for them in the long term.

LTC1219 Item 26 Thanks and farewell to John Stephens

The Committee thanked Mr John Stephens for the service he has provided to the Committee over the years as the Manager for Traffic and Transport Services at the former Leichhardt Council and at Inner West Council. The Committee wished Mr Stephens well in his future endeavours.

Meeting closed at 11.27am.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

3 February 2020

Item No: LTC0220 Item 1

Subject: The Esplanade/Markham Place and Charlotte Street, Ashfield- Bicycle Contra-Flow in One-Way Streets. (Diarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Burwood PAC)

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

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

SUMMARY

The Ashfield Bicycle Users Group has requested that bicycle contra-flow arrangements be considered in the one-way streets of The Esplanade/Markham Place and Charlotte Street, Ashfield to allow for improved bicycle access to destinations within the Inner West Council.

Following investigations in line with the relevant standards and guidelines, together with the street environment and geometry, the following recommendations are therefore made.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. No further action be undertaken in relation to providing a bicycle contra-flow treatment in Charlotte Street, between Elizabeth Street and Station Street, Ashfield;

2. ‘Bicycle Excepted’ signage be installed in the one-way section of the access lane at the rear of the Ashfield Catholic Club, between Station Street and Elizabeth Street; and

3. A bicycle contra-flow treatment in Markham Place/The Esplanade, Ashfield, between Markham Lane and Fox Lane/Brown Street, be approved in principle and listed on Council’s future Capital Works Program.

BACKGROUND

The Ashfield Bicycle Users Group has provided Council with a priority list of cycle way items to be considered. Two items of request within the Ashfield CBD Area are:

1. Provide a contra-flow lane or arrangement in Charlotte Street, between Elizabeth Street and Station Street for ease of access leading from Ashfield Station and being able to cross Elizabeth Street from Charlotte Street.

2. Provide for a contra-flow lane or arrangement in Markham Place/The Esplanade, Ashfield, between Markham Lane and Fox’s Lane/Brown Street, for ease of access from Liverpool Road/Cavill Avenue to Brown Street.

The following Locality plan, tables and photographic figures identify the existing conditions of the street and laneways in question.

1. Charlotte Street, between Elizabeth Street and Station Street, Ashfield.

Street Name(s)	Charlotte Street
Section	Between Elizabeth Street and Station Street.
Traffic Volume (vehicles per day)-vpd	*1290
Recorded Accident History (5 year)	At/near intersection- (1) Rear end- RUM 30 Elizabeth St, east of Charlotte St -non casualty(towaway)-2014. (1) opposing direction- RUM 29-at intersection-minor injury-2014. (1) Pedestrian- RUM 0-Elizabeth Street, west of Charlotte St-serious injury-2015. (1) Right Through-RUM 21- at intersection-non casualty (towaway).
Recorded 85% speed	26 km/h
Speed Limit	50km/h (north of the shared zone)
Carriageway width	Approx. 6.4m to 10.3m
Carriageway Type	One-way south with parking to both sides where wider than 6.4m.
Road Classification (State, Regional, Local)	Local
Heavy vehicle percentage	1%

Note* maximum on the one day (traffic count reading 15 November 2019)

2. Markham Place/The Esplanade, Ashfield, between Markham Lane and Fox Lane/Brown Street, Ashfield.

Street Name(s)	Markham Lane/The Esplanade
Section	Between Markham Lane & Fox’s Lane/Brown Street.
Traffic Volume (vehicles per day)-vpd	*700
Recorded Accident History (5 year)	(1) Pedestrian walking with traffic-RUM 4-minor injury-2014
Recorded 85% speed	32km/h
Speed Limit	40km/h
Carriageway width	The Esplanade approx. 3.7m, Markham Place 4.5-4.9m
Carriageway Type	One-way west, mainly No Stopping both sides with sections No Parking and Loading Zone in Markham Place
Road Classification (State, Regional, Local)	Local
Heavy vehicle percentage	5%

Note* maximum on the one day (traffic count reading15 November 2019)

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost for signage associated with the work on the rear lane to the Ashfield Catholic Club, between Elizabeth Street and Station Street, Ashfield, can be covered from Council’s operational budget for line marking and signs.

The work of proposing a bicycle contra-flow treatment in Markham Place/The Esplanade, between Markham Lane and Fox Lane/Brown Street, Ashfield, be listed for funding on Council’s future Capital Works Program.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Extracts from The RMS Technical directions TTD 2014/002 advise as follows when considering contra-flow movement.

A contra-flow bicycle facility may take the form of a marked lane or as a movement designated by signs only.

Contra-flow bicycle facilities should be assessed as a potential treatment on all local low speed, low volume one-way streets, including shared zones.

Ideally, all contra-flow bicycle movements will be delineated by a bicycle lane. A bicycle lane must be installed in locations where:

• Sight distances are restricted due to bends in the road or other features.

• Motor traffic volumes or speeds present a safety risk.

• Bicycle traffic volumes or speeds present a safety risk.

• The gradient and/or other road geometry increase the risk of collisions or unsafe driving or riding behaviours.

• The number or location of driveways present a safety risk.

Note: The NSW Road Rules prohibit parking in signposted bicycle lanes.

If the road space is too narrow to permit a marked bicycle lane and there is good sight distance, motor traffic volumes and speeds are low and the road geometry does not present an unacceptable safety risk, the contraflow movement can be provided by signage alone.

Because motor vehicle drivers will be focused on their own direction of travel, they may have a reduced awareness of the possibility of bicycles travelling in the opposite direction on one-way streets. Therefore, coloured pavement, pavement markings and warning signage may help to improve awareness and reduce conflict, particularly at intersections.

Contra-flow bicycle facilities will not be appropriate for every one-way street.

Taking in consideration of the above with reference also to the Australian Standard AS2890.5, Austroads: Cycling Aspects of Austroad Guides, and the RMS-NSW Bicycle guidelines, an existing roadway plan (diagram No1.) is shown in assistance to comment on the justification or feasibility in providing for a bicycle contra-flow facility in Charlotte Street, between Station Street and Elizabeth Street.

Similarly, an existing roadway plan (diagram No 2) is shown in assistance to comment on the justification or feasibility in providing a bicycle contra-flow facility in Markham Place and The Esplanade.

Under Diagram 1. For Charlotte Street.

Given that Charlotte Street is a main local street with commercial, business activities and service vehicle and customer parking necessities, and bearing in reference to the diagrammatic source below, the following points are raised.

Typical bicycle/car parking lanes layout (parallel parking)

Figure 6: (Source: Austroads: Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides)

Ø Charlotte Street between Elizabeth Street and Station Street is one way south with the road width varying from approx.10.3m down to 8.6m down to 6.4m kerb to kerb near Station Street.

Ø Traffic enters the above section of Charlotte Street via the signalised intersection of Charlotte Street and Elizabeth Street under single phase operation. The traffic then travels down Charlotte Street one-way south, then along the narrow sections of Station Street, one-way east, then one-way north up Wood Street to exit onto Elizabeth Street.

This one-way loop system has been well established over the years with ease of entry via the signalised intersection of Charlotte Street and Elizabeth Street.

Ø A painted contra-flow bicycle lane would need to be applied for this location considering the higher street volume and the need to designate the lane away from the parked vehicles and the approach to the traffic signals at Elizabeth Street. This lane would be marked from the start of the shared zone area going up to the traffic signals at Elizabeth Street.

Ø Parking lane designation would need to be a minimum of 2.3m to cater for cars and light commercial vehicles with likely parking of wide vehicles according to AS standards in this particular situation.

Under the above design criteria, the following cross-sectional diagrams (viewed north) would depict the position of the bicycle lane along the above section of Charlotte Street at carriageway locations measuring 6.4m, 8.6m to 10.3m near Elizabeth Street. The clear remaining travel lane areas would measure 2.3m to 2.2m to 3.9m respectively.

From this it is viewed that:

· The inclusion of a contra-flow bicycle lane would position the facility well within the designated travel lane, posing hazard and conflict with opposing traffic south bound. Traffic particularly with trucks at the signalised intersection of Elizabeth Street and Charlotte Street would infringe and ride over the bicycle lane when maneuvering and entering around the intersection.

· Sight view could be obstructed of bicyclists coming onto the shared zone with parked cars interfering with the view.

· Parking is a mixture of 1hour period parking and Loading Zones on the western side and 1hour period parking and Mini Bus Zone to cater for the Ashfield Catholic Club. This results in high turn-over in parking likely to conflict with the bicyclist movement in the area.

· Traffic may be forced closer to the eastern kerb side area of Charlotte in order to avoid bicyclists, hence posing conflict and danger to parked cars and the outdoor dining area of the Ashfield Catholic Club.

· Travel lane widths at two sections along the route are reduced to 2.2m and 2.3m respectively. These travel lane widths are below the acceptable range of 2.6-4.2m for Contra-flow bicycle lanes in narrow Streets- RMS’s NSW Bicycle guidelines. The travel lane widths should be more to the higher range given that this is a main town street environment.

For a contra-flow bicycle lane to be introduced in Charlotte Street, approximately 5-6 customer parking and loading zone spaces would need to be removed. The above section of Charlotte Street is not a designated bicycle route according to the Inner West Council Cycling Map and Guide.

It is recommended that no further action be undertaken to introduce a bicycle contra-flow lane in Charlotte Street, between Elizabeth Street and Station Street.

Alternatively, it is identified that there is a parallel rear access lane to the east of Charlotte Street. This services only rear access to the properties in Wood Street and the Club. The lane measures approx. 4-4.5 m wide and is one-way southbound preventing traffic to rat-run from Station Street to Elizabeth Street.

It is considered that bicyclists could contra-flow travel along this lane. The placement of regulatory ‘Bicyclists Excepted’ signage under the existing one-way signs is only required in this regard.

Under Diagram 2. For The Esplanade and Markham Place .

The Esplanade and Markham Place are rear lane accesses mainly to serve commercial/shop and residential properties. There is no vehicle parking along these lanes, bar that of an intended area for loading at the dog leg section. A small ‘No Parking’ zone exists in the area marked on the plan for drop-off and pick-up of passengers and/or goods.

The following points are further raised.

Ø The Esplanade leading into Markham Place (between Brown Street/Fox Lane and Markham Lane) measures in roadway width from approx. 3.7m to 8.3m (at the dog leg) down to 4.5 metres near Markham Place.

Ø The Esplanade and Markham Place (between Brown Street/Fox Lane and Markham Lane) is one-way westbound.

This one-way westbound system has been well established over the years and prevents traffic from rat-running from Liverpool Road to Brown Street.

Ø There is lesser traffic along these lanes than Charlotte Street. Under design, in this location, regulatory signage ‘Bicycles Excepted’ could be provided at the No Entry and one-way ends of the lanes.

Contra-flow bicycle logo and arrow pavement symbols would apply and marked to the left-hand side to designate travel along the kerb side. Relevant warning/advisory signs may also apply.

At the dog leg section, due to the lack of sight view, bicyclists would need to be directed onto the widened footpath area from Markham Place and back onto the roadway area of The Esplanade.

From this it is viewed that:

· A Bicycle contra-flow may be facilitated in these lanes provided that pavement bicycle logo and arrow markings, and relevant warning/advisory signs are provided in supplement to the regulatory ‘Bicycles Excepted’ signage within the lanes. The contra-flow bicycle logo and arrow markings would be of a small size and marked along the northern kerbside of Markham Place and The Esplanade. By doing so bicyclists keep to the far left hand side in view of opposing traffic.

· A marked bicycle and pedestrian shared path (with bicycles only in the contraflow direction) would need to be provided on the widened footway area at the dog leg section for bicyclists to come off from Markham Place and re-enter the roadway at The Esplanade. Bicycle ramps would be provided at the entry and exit points.

· The above section Markham Place/The Esplanade is not a designated bicycle route under the Inner West Council Cycling Map and Guide.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Community engagement will be undertaken during the design phase for the proposed contra flow treatments along Markham Place and The Esplanade.

CONCLUSION

In view of the above, no further action be undertaken in relation to providing a bicycle contra-flow treatment in Charlotte Street, between Elizabeth Street and Station Street, Ashfield.

However, it is proposed that ‘Bicycle Excepted’ signage be installed in the one-way section of the access lane at the rear of the Ashfield Catholic Club, between Station Street and Elizabeth Street, in alternative to providing some ease of access to Elizabeth Street.

It is recommended that the proposal for a bicycle contra-flow treatment in Markham Place/The Esplanade, Ashfield, between Markham Lane and Fox Lane/Brown Street, including a shared footpath arrangement (in the wide footway area of the dog leg of Markham Place and The Esplanade) be approved in principle, and that the project be listed for funding under Council’s Future Capital Works Program.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

3 February 2020

Item No: LTC0220 Item 4

Subject: Audley Street, Sadlier Crescent, Fisher Street, and parking lanes on New Canterbury Road Petersham – Temporary Full Road Closures For Special Event On Sunday 15 March 2020 – Bairro Portuguese Food and Wine Fair (Damum - Stanmore Ward / Newtown Electorate / Inner West PAC)

Prepared By: Jennifer Adams - Engineer – Traffic and Parking Services

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

SUMMARY

A Development Application (DA201700624) was approved in 2018 for the holding of the annual ‘Bairro Portuguese Food and Wine Fair’ for a five year period (i.e. 4 March 2018, 15 March 2019, 15 March 2020, 14 March 2021 and 13 March 2022).

This year’s event will be held on Sunday 15 March 2020 and will necessitate the temporary closure of Audley Street (between Trafalgar Street and New Canterbury Road), Sadlier Crescent (between Audley Street and Abels Lane) and Fisher Street (between Audley Street and Regent Street), as well as the parking lanes on New Canterbury Road (between Gordon Street and Audley Street), Petersham from 1.00am until 12.00 midnight as in previous years.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the proposed temporary road closure of Audley Street (between Trafalgar Street and New Canterbury Road), Sadlier Crescent (between Audley Street and Abels Lane) and Fisher Street (between Audley Street and Regent Street), as well as the parking lanes on New Canterbury Road (between Gordon street and Audley Street), Petersham, on Sunday, 15 March 2020, from 1.00am to 12.00 midnight, for the holding of the annual ‘Bairro Portuguese Food and Wine Fair’, be SUPPORTED subject to the applicant complying with but not limited to the following conditions;

1. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is submitted to and approved by Transport for NSW (formerly RMS); and an application for a Road Occupancy Licence and a temporary Speed Zone Authorisation is forwarded to and approved by the Transport Management Centre;

2. Notice of the proposed event is forwarded to all affected residents and businesses, including the NSW Police / Inner West Local Area Command, Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Ambulance and Transit Systems;

3. Transit Systems – Inner West Bus Services be requested to implement a revised routing for scheduled bus services in Audley Street on the day of the event and install temporary bus stops as required;

4. A minimum four (4) metre unencumbered passage be available for emergency vehicles through the closed section; and

5. The occupation of the road carriageways must not occur until the roads have been physically closed.

BACKGROUND

Temporary road closures have been implemented in previous years to hold the annual ‘Bairro Portuguese Food and Wine Fair’. This annual Fair, since its inception in 2003, aims to showcase Petersham's businesses and services, attracts people to the area and has a multicultural theme. On all previous occasions, the closures were successful and no major problems were experienced.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Funding has been allocated by Council for organising the ‘Bairro Portuguese Food and Wine Fair’ event under the 2019/2020 Major Community Events Program.

OFFICERS COMMENTS

Event

This is an extension of a Class 2 Event under the RMS’ Special Events Guide where it impacts local traffic and transport systems but does not impact major traffic and transport systems and it disrupts the non-event community in the area around the event but not over a wide area. The event requires the involvement of Police and Local Council and a detailed Transport Management Plan (TMP).

A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) has been supplied by Who Dares Pty Ltd, the scope of which includes the provision for the safe movement of vehicular traffic in and out of the event areas at the Bairro Portuguese Food and Wine Fair on Sunday 15 March 2020. The TMP and Traffic Control Plans (TCP) are reproduced at the end of this report.

Access around the event site will be maintained by a detour. The detour loop will include New Canterbury Road, Regent Street, Trafalgar Street and Gordon Street. Please refer to TCP 01 below.

Lane closures of New Canterbury Road

As per previous events held, it is proposed to close the parking lanes on New Canterbury Road (between Gordon Street and Audley Street) as shown on the Traffic Control Plan (TCP) prepared by Who Dares Pty Ltd – TCP 01 reproduced above.

In previous years the event attracted in excess of 15,000 attendees prompting the event coordinators to look at ways to ease congestion at the main site and make access easier from New Canterbury Road. The closure of the parking lanes on New Canterbury Road improves access to the area where the main event is to be conducted and improves the amenity of the footpath dining outside a number of the eateries along New Canterbury Road which are adjacent to the closure.

There is significant improvement in access for people with disabilities as congestion will be reduced and there will be no obstacles such as tables, chairs, planter boxes, light/sign poles and bins in the closed lanes. The solid barriers will separate the pedestrians from the moving traffic on the adjacent lane and will also help prevent young children who may be separated from their custodians escaping onto the main thoroughfare and possibly being hit by passing traffic.

The TCP indicates that a reduced temporary speed limit of 40km/h is required on New Canterbury Road (between Gordon Street and Audley Street) during the closure of the parking lanes for the subject event. An application for a Road Occupancy Licence will be necessary.

The time-span for the road closure is necessary to allow stalls and stages to be set up before the event and dismantled after the event. The closure will be affected by the placement of barricades at the following locations:

· Junction of Audley Street and New Canterbury Road;

· Junction of New Canterbury Road and Gordon Street;

· Junction of Audley Street and Trafalgar Street;

· Junction of Fisher Street and Regent Street; and

· Junction of Sadlier Crescent and Abels Lane.

Special advance notice signs will be strategically installed at least two weeks prior to the event to alert motorists of the proposed closures. These signs will be installed at the following locations:-

· Junction of Railway Terrace and Gordon Street;

· Junction of New Canterbury Road and Audley Lane;

· Junction of Trafalgar Street and Audley Street;

· Junction of Regent and Fisher Streets; and

· Junction of Nelson Place and Sadlier Crescent.

In addition, 'No Parking - Special Event' signs will be affixed over all existing timed parking restrictions signs in the area to be closed on the afternoon before the day of the event. Residents in Fisher Street will be allowed access into and out of their properties.

Audley Street is used by scheduled Transit Systems bus services and they will need to implement the re-routing of services on the day as in previous years.

Impacts on buses

It is envisioned that the 445 Bus service diversions in place in 2019 during the event road closures of Audley and Fisher street will be similar for 2020:

· Services to Gladstone Park to run left Gordon St, right Trafalgar Street, then as normal

· Services to Campsie to run Trafalgar Street, left Gordon St, right New Canterbury Road, then as normal

Transit Systems Detour Map – Route 445

The supplied TMP notes that “Transit Systems service 445 in both directions will be impacted by the event road closures. These services will be detoured around the event precinct. Services to Gladstone Park to run left Gordon St, right Trafalgar Street, then as normal. Services to Campsie to run Trafalgar Street, left Gordon St, right New Canterbury Road, then as normal. Transit Systems will install advance notifications on the Audley Street bus stops.”

Impacts on parking

In relation to parking it is stated in the TMP that “Parking will only be available in surrounding residential streets and a few small public carparks around the event site. Parking will as such be limited, and the event organiser will be recommending public transport to all event patrons.”

Impacts on traffic

The TMP states that “heavy vehicles may experience slight delays due to increased traffic around the event precinct. Heavy vehicles should follow signposted detours”. In relation to pedestrians and cyclists it states that “There will be no major effect to pedestrians in the area. Pedestrians will be able to use the existing pedestrian paths outside of and within the event area. There are no cycleways directly impacted by this event. Cyclists entering the event site will be requested to dismount.”

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The proposed temporary full road closures for the event will be advertised in the local paper allowing for a period of 28 days for public submissions. The advertising period commenced on 10 December 2019 and concluded on 6 January 2020. The Traffic Management Plan is to be submitted to Transport for NSW (formerly RMS) for consideration and approval and a Road Occupancy License application is to be submitted to the Transport Management Centre by Who Dares Pty Ltd.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council agree to the temporary full road closures on Sunday, 15 March 2020 subject to complying with the recommendations stated in this report along with all standard conditions for temporary full road closures as detailed in Conditions 3, 31 and 32 of the development consent for the event.

Other conditions that need to be complied with include:

· Advance notifications signs for the event are strategically installed at least two (2) weeks prior to the event;

· "No Parking - Special Event" signs are affixed over all existing timed parking restriction signs within the sections of streets to be closed on the afternoon of the day prior to the event;

· A 4-metre wide emergency vehicle access must be maintained through the closed road areas during the course of the event;

· The applicant is to consult with all affected residents and/or businesses in the area in writing and to conduct a letter box drop of surrounding properties at least two weeks prior to event; and

· Adequate vehicular traffic control shall be provided for the protection and convenience of pedestrians and motorists including appropriate signage and flagging. Workers shall be specially designated for this role (and carry appropriate certificates), as necessary to comply with this condition. This is to be carried out in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - Traffic Control Devices for works on roads.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩

Bairro Portuguese Petersham Food Wine Fair Traffic Management Plan Version 1.0 with Traffic Control Plan Version 1.0

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

3 February 2020

Item No: LTC0220 Item 6

Subject: Minor Traffic Facilities (All Wards/All Electorates/All PACS)

Prepared By: Davide Torresan - Coordinator - Road Access Services

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

SUMMARY

This report considers minor traffic facility applications received by Inner West Council and includes ‘Disabled Parking’ and ‘Works Zone’ requests.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The following ‘Disabled Parking’ zones be removed as they are no longer required;

a. 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 136 Trafalgar St, Annandale,

b. 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 32 High Street, Balmain,

c. 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 76 Petersham Road, Marrickville,

d. 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 136 Trafalgar Street, Annandale, and

e. 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 54 Birchgrove Street, Balmain.

2. A 6.0m 'Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No. 99 View Street, Annandale;

3. A 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction be installed on the northern side of Mary Street, Rozelle, east of Alice Street followed by a 5.5m 'Disabled Parking Zone’ on the side boundary of No. 83 Denison Street, Rozelle;

4. A 6.0m 'Disabled Parking’ zone be installed adjacent to the existing ‘No Stopping zone’ on the south-eastern side of Wardell Road, on the side frontage of No. 70 Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill, south of Ewart Street;

5. A 10m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 56 Young Street, Annandale, for 12 weeks;

6. A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 28 Waterloo Street, Rozelle, for 12 weeks;

7. A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in Charlotte Street at the rear of No. 172 Evans Street, Rozelle, for 12 weeks

8. A 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction be installed on the eastern side of George Street, Balmain, south of Reynolds Street, followed by a 14m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat', on the side boundary of No. 11 Reynolds Street, Rozelle, for 12 weeks;

9. The following restrictions be installed in River Street, Birchgrove:

a. A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat'; ‘No Parking at other times’ restriction be installed on the western side of River Street in front of No. 14 River Street, Birchgrove, replacing the existing ‘No Parking’ restrictions for 12 weeks; and

b. A ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the eastern side of River Street, north of Reuss Street at a statutory distance of 10m followed by a ‘No Parking 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Sat and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' restriction.

10. A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am -1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No. 12 Turner Avenue, Haberfield, for 12 weeks;

11. A 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am -1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No. 2 Dickinson Avenue, Croydon, for 12 weeks;

12. A 18m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am -1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No. 11a Moonbie Street, Summer Hill for 12 weeks; and

13. A 12m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am -1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No. 5 George Street, Marrickville, for 12 weeks.

BACKGROUND

Requests have been received from residents within the Local Government Area (LGA) for the provision of mobility parking spaces outside their residence.

It is recommended that the following 'Mobility Parking' spaces be approved as the applicant’s current medical conditions warrant the provision of these spaces and they have constrained or no off-street parking opportunities. For the mobility parking space requests, a copy of the RMS disability parking permit and a medical certificate in support of the applications was submitted to Council.

The Disabled Parking Zones recommended for approval are installed under the following conditions:

1. The operation of the Disabled Parking Zone is valid for two (2) years from the date of installation.

2. The Disabled Parking Zone will be scheduled for review within two (2) years of the date of installation, then every twelve (12) months thereafter. The purpose of the reviews is to confirm that circumstances have not changed and as a result, the applicant may be requested to furnish a medical certificate and current Mobility Parking Scheme Permit to demonstrate the need for the continuation of the Mobility Parking Zone.

3. The Disabled Parking Zone is not exclusively reserved for the use of the applicant. It may also be used by any holder of a valid Mobility Parking Scheme Permit.

4. There is an obligation on the applicant to advise Council if circumstance change.

The following applications have also been received for ‘Work Zones’. The applications have been reviewed according to Council’s conditions of approval on the Work Zones application forms. It is also recommended that the following ‘Works Zones’ be approved.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

1. Removal of ‘Disabled Parking’ restrictions – Various

Residents have advised that the following ‘Disabled Parking’ zones are no longer required. Council staff have contacted the original applicants and they have confirmed that the ‘Disabled Parking’ zones are no longer required.

It is recommended that the following ‘Disabled Parking’ zones be removed:

a. 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 136 Trafalgar St, Annandale,

b. 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 32 High Street, Balmain,

c. 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 76 Petersham Road, Marrickville,

d. 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 136 Trafalgar Street, Annandale, and

e. 6m ‘Disabled Parking’ zone in front of No. 54 Birchgrove Street, Balmain.

2. Installation of ‘Disabled Parking’ Restriction – No. 99 View Street, Annandale

The resident of No. 99 View Street, Annandale, has requested the installation of 'Disabled Parking Zone’ in front of the resident’s property. A site investigation has revealed the property does not have an off street parking facility. The applicant does not require the use of wheelchair.

It is recommended that a 6m 'Disabled Parking’ zone be installed in front of No. 99 View Street, Annandale.

99 View Street, Annandale

3. Installation of ‘Disabled Parking’ Restriction – 83 Denison Street, Rozelle (In Mary Street)

The resident of No. 83 Denison Street, Rozelle, has requested the installation of 'Disabled Parking Zone’ in front of the resident’s property. A site investigation has revealed the property does not have an off-street parking facility. The applicant does not require the use of wheelchair.

It is recommended a 10m ‘No Stopping’ restriction be installed on the northern side of Mary Street, Rozelle, east of Alice Street followed by a 5.5m 'Disabled Parking Zone’ on the side boundary of No. 83 Denison Street, Rozelle

83 Denison Street, Rozelle – view of Mary Street from Alice Street

4. Installation of ‘Disabled Parking’ Restriction – No. 70 Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill

The resident of No. 70 Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill, has requested the installation of 'Disabled Parking Zone’ in front of the resident’s property. A site investigation has revealed the property does not have an off-street parking facility. The applicant does not require the use of wheelchair.

It is recommended that a 6.0m 'Disabled Parking’ zone be installed adjacent to the ‘No Stopping zone’ on the south-eastern side of Wardell Road, on the side boundary of No. 70 Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill, south of Ewart Street.

70 Ewart Street, Dulwich Hill – view from Wardell Road

Technical Standards

Australian Standard AS2890.5-1993 “On-Street Parking” states the following in regard to the provision of parking for people with a disability:

“Parallel parking spaces shall not be marked as disabled spaces, nor included in the count of spaces available for people with disabilities unless –

i. A 3.2m wide space can be provided, e.g. by indenting the space into the footpath area; and

ii. Kerb ramps as shown in Figure 4.2(a) are also provided”.

It should be noted that due to the limited width of streets around the LGA, it is often difficult to comply with these requirements for the parking space dimensions. This may also result in the loss of some adjacent on-street parking spaces.

Mobility parking spaces are primarily intended for on-street and off-street parking at destinations, such as in commercial/retail areas and public car parks near hospitals, schools and public transport facilities where multiple usages can be expected. They were generally not intended for points of origin such as reserving on-street parking. As such, they are only proposed where required for wheelchair access at the cost of the applicants.

A mobility parking space is not intended for the sole use of one applicant, but rather a shared facility that can used by all authorised persons having a RMS mobility permit.

5. Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – 56 Young Street, Annandale

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Sat and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' (unless noted otherwise on the Development Consent) for 12 weeks at the front of No. 56 Young Street, Annandale, for development works at the property. The proposed works zone has been requested for a length of approximately 6m of two angled parking bays.

It is recommended that a 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in the two angled parking bays at the front of No. 56 Young Street, Annandale, for 12 weeks.

56 Young Street, Annandale

6. Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – 28 Waterloo Street, Rozelle

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Sat and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' (unless noted otherwise on the Development Consent) for 12 weeks at the front of No. 28 Waterloo Street, Rozelle for development works at the property.

It is recommended that a 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed at the front of No. 28 Waterloo Street, Rozelle, for 12 weeks.

28 Waterloo Street, Rozelle

7. Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – 172 Evans Street, Rozelle (Charlotte Street)

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Sat and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' (unless noted otherwise on the Development Consent) for 12 weeks in Charlotte Street at the rear of No. 172 Evans Street, Rozelle for development works at the property.

It is recommended that a 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed in Charlotte Street at the rear of No. 172 Evans Street, Rozelle, for 12 weeks.

172 Evans Street, Rozelle – View from Charlotte Street

8. Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – 11 Reynolds Street, Rozelle (George Street)

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 14m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Sat and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' (unless noted otherwise on the Development Consent) for 12 weeks at the front of No. 11 Reynolds Street, Rozelle for development works at the property.

It is recommended that a ‘No Stopping (arrow left)’ sign be installed at a statutory distance of 10m and a 14m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' be installed on the eastern side of George street, south of Reynolds Street, on the side boundary of No. 11 Reynolds Street, Rozelle, for 12 weeks.

11 Reynolds Street, Balmain – view from George Street

9. Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – 14 River Street, Birchgrove

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Sat and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' (unless noted otherwise on the Development Consent) for 12 weeks in front of No. 14 River Street, Birchgrove, for development works at the property.

It is recommended that a 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' ‘No Parking at other times’ restriction be installed on the western side of River Street in front of No. 14 River Street, Birchgrove, replacing the existing ‘No Parking’ restrictions for 12 weeks.

It is also recommended that a ‘No Stopping’ zone be installed on the eastern side of River Street, north of Reuss Street at a statutory distance of 10m followed by a ‘No Parking 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Sat and 8.00am - 1.00pm Sat' restriction. This will allow for vehicles to pass vehicles parked in the works zone and allow safe viewing of vehicles and pedestrians at the intersection follow. Traffic controllers will also be utilised when the ‘Works zone’ is being utilised.

14 River Street, Birchgrove – Western side of River Street to the left side of photo

14 River Street, Birchgrove – view of eastern side of River Street

14 River Street, Birchgrove – proposed parking arrangements

10. Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – 12 Turner Avenue, Haberfield

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am-1.00pm Sat' for 12 weeks in the frontage of 12 Turner Avenue, Haberfield for the development works to No 12 Turner Avenue, Haberfield.

It is recommended that a 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am -1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of 12 Turner Avenue, Haberfield, for 12 weeks.

12 Turner Avenue Haberfield

11. Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – 2 Dickinson Avenue, Croydon

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am-1.00pm Sat' for 12 weeks in the frontage of No.2 Dickinson Avenue, Croydon for the development works to No 2 Dickinson Avenue, Croydon.

It is recommended that a 9m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am -1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No. 2 Dickinson Avenue, Croydon, for 12 weeks.

2 Dickinson Avenue, Croydon

12. Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – 11a Moonbie Street, Summer Hill

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 18m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am-1.00pm Sat' for 12 weeks in the frontage of No. 11a Moonbie Street for the development works to No. 11a Moonbie Street, Summer Hill.

It is recommended that a 18m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am -1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No.11a Moonbie Street, Summer Hill for 12 weeks.

11a Moonbie Street, Summer Hill

13. Installation of ‘Works Zone’ Restriction – 5 George Street, Marrickville

The applicant has requested the installation of a temporary 12m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am-1.00pm Sat' for 12 weeks in the frontage of No. 5 George Street, Marrickville for the development works to the property.

It is recommended that a 12m 'Works Zone 7.00am – 6.00pm Mon-Fri and 8.00am -1.00pm Sat' be installed in front of No.5 George Street, Marrickville, for 12 weeks.

5 George Street, Marrickville

ATTACHMENTS

Nil.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

3 February 2020

tem No: LTC0220 Item 9

Subject: Clissold Street, Ashfield- Investigation of Proposed Works from the Ashfield Traffic Management Strategy (Djarrawunang-Ashfield Ward/Summer Hill Electrorate/Burwood PAC)

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

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

SUMMARY

The Former Ashfield Local Government Area Traffic Management Strategy as adopted by Council in August 2018 recommended investigation of a number of actions in the vicinity of Clissold Street and Seaview Street Ashfield, including treatments at intersections and an investigation of a one-way pair route for buses in Clissold Street and Seaview Street. This report details the investigations and presents recommendations based on liaison with key stakeholders, investigations of crash data, traffic surveys and site investigations (including constraints).

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The results of the investigation into the proposal of converting Clissold Street and Seaview Street as opposing directional one-way streets be noted, and that no further action be undertaken in relation to this matter;

2. The current parking arrangements in Clissold Street as previously adopted by the Former Ashfield Council in 2015 be retained, and that no further action be carried out to remove further parking in Clissold Street; and

3. The following works be adopted in principle and listed for consideration on the Capital Works Program:

a. Install kerb island build-outs on Prospect Road, north and south of Clissold Street, Ashfield and realignment of the north-western corner of the intersection;

b. Convert the existing at-grade pedestrian (zebra) crossing to a raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Clissold Street, west of Victoria Street;

c. Install kerb island build-outs on the east and west side of Victoria Street south of Clissold Street;

d. Install speed cushions, or speed humps in Queen Street on approaches to Clissold Street; and

e. Install kerb island build-outs on the east side of Victoria Street, north and south of Seaview Street and relocate the ‘STOP’ line out to align with the kerb islands.

BACKGROUND

The street sections and intersections covered by this report are highlighted in Figure 1 below. The location of local institutions, schools, aged care facilities and bus stops is also detailed in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Streets and Intersections covered by the report and key local services and institutions in vicinity

The recommendations from the Ashfield Traffic Management Strategy (ATMS) covered in this report relate to the following streets;

1. Clissold Street from Holden Street to Prospect Road

2. Seaview Street from Queen Street to Prospect Road

3. Victoria Street from Clissold Street to Seaview Street

4. Queen Street from Clissold Street to Seaview Street

A summary of the key data related to each of the streets is outlined below in Tables 1-4.

Table 1: Clissold Street - Traffic Data Summary

Street Name and Suburb	Clissold Street, Ashfield
Section	Between Holden Street and Prospect Road
Carriageway Width (m)	6-7 metres
Carriageway Type	Two-way street
Classification	local
85^th Percentile Speed (km/h) 2019 most recent count	Street section	85^th %percentile weekday Average
	Tintern Road to Victoria Street	43.1km/h
	Victoria Street to William St	48.1
	Fairleigh Street to Holden St	42.6
Vehicles Per Day (vpd) 2019 most recent count	Street section	Weekday Average
	Tintern Road to Victoria St	3145
	Victoria Street to William St	3520
	Fairleigh Street to Holden St	2836
Heavy Vehicle Volume (%) 2019 most recent count	Street section	Weekday Average
	Tintern Road to Victoria Street	4%
	Victoria Street to William Street	5%
	Fairleigh Street to Holden Street	4%
*Reported Crash History (July 2014 - June 2018)	Clissold Street at Queen Street – 2 injuries and 1 tow-away. Clissold Street between Holden Street and Prospect Road – full length – 3 injuries and 2 tow-away. See Table 7 for further detail.
Parking Arrangements	On street (Staggered as of 2015) to allow for passage of vehicles two way - including buses)

Table 2: Queen Street - Traffic Data Summary

Street Name and Suburb	Queen Street, Ashfield
Section	Between Seaview Street and New Street
Carriageway Width (m)	10 metres (approx.)
Carriageway Type	Two-way street
Classification	local
85^th Percentile Speed (km/h) Feb 2018 most recent count	Street section	85^th percentile weekday Average
	Seaview Street to Clissold Street	50.9 km/h
	Clissold Street to New Street	50.5 km/h

Vehicles Per Day (vpd) 2018 most recent count	Street section	Weekday Average
	Seaview Street to Clissold Street	4773 vpd
	Clissold Street to New Street	4890 vpd
Heavy Vehicle Volume (%) 2016	Street section	Weekday Average
	Clissold Street to New Street	3%
	Clissold Street to Seaview Street	4.4%
*Reported Crash History (July 2014 - June 2018)	Queen Street Between Seaview Street and New St – 1 injury, 1 non injury. See Table 7 for further detail.
Parking Arrangements	Unrestricted both sides

Table 3: Seaview Street - Traffic Data Summary

Street Name and Suburb	Seaview Street, Ashfield
Section	Between Holden Street and Prospect Road
Carriageway Width (m)	6-7m Holden Street to Victoria Street 8-8.3m Victoria Street to Prospect Road.
Carriageway Type	Two-way street
Classification	local
85^th Percentile Speed (km/h) 2019 most recent count	Street section	85^th percentile weekday Average
	Victoria Sq to Prospect Road	47.5km/h
	Queen Street to Yeo Avenue	44.3km/h
	Queen Street to Fairleigh Street	37.5km/h
Vehicles Per Day (vpd) 2019 most recent count	Street section	Weekday Average
	Victoria Sq to Prospect Road	2266 vpd
	Queen Street to Yeo Avenue	1414 vpd
	Queen Street to Fairleigh Street	733 vpd
Heavy Vehicle Volume (%) 2019 most recent count	Street section	Weekday Average
	Victoria Sq to Prospect Road	4%
	Queen Street to Yeo Street	2%
	Queen Street to Fairleigh Street	5%
*Reported Crash History (July 2014 - June 2018)	Seaview Street at Victoria Street – 1 injury, I tow-away. See Table 7 for further detail.
Parking Arrangements	Unrestricted

Table 4: Victoria Street - Traffic Data Summary

Street Name and Suburb	Victoria Street, Ashfield
Section	Between Holwood Street and Robert Street
Carriageway Width (m)	12.5metres (approx.)
Carriageway Type	Two-way street
Classification	local
85^th Percentile Speed (km/h) 2016 most recent count	Street section	85^th percentile weekday Average
	Seaview Street to Holwood Street	50 km/h
	Clissold Street to Seaview Street	56.7 km/h
Vehicles Per Day (vpd) 2016 most recent count	Street section	Weekday Average
	Seaview Street to Holwood Street	3590 vpd
	Clissold Street to Seaview Street	3325 vpd
Heavy Vehicle Volume (%) 2016 most recent count	Street section	Weekday Average
	Seaview Street to Holwood Street	2%
	Clissold Street to Seaview Street	5%
*Reported Crash History (July 2014 - June 2018)	Victoria Street between Holwood Street and Robert Street – 1 tow-away. See Table 7 for further detail.
Parking Arrangements	Unrestricted

Recommendations of Ashfield Traffic Management Strategy (ATMS)

The recommendations that have been made at locations in Clissold Street, Victoria Street, Queen Street and Prospect Road are made based on the principles of “local traffic management” and address specific issues identified at each location.

A summary of the recommendations from The Former Ashfield Local Government Area Traffic Management Strategy and the corresponding recommendation to the Local Traffic Committee (with brief rationale) is contained in Table 5 below. Further investigative treatments are also discussed in the table.

Table 5: Summary of ATMS recommendations and corresponding recommendation to LTC including further investigative treatments.

ATMS recommendations

& further investigative treatments

Discussion & Recommendation

1. ATMS Recommendation:

Investigate the potential to convert the length of Clissold Street to a one-way road in the westbound direction through modified signage and line marking. Also convert the length of Seaview Street to a one-way road in the eastbound direction, so a pair of opposite one-way streets exist to support movements in each direction.

The conversion of the road to a one-way road will require the bus stops on the northern side of the road to be relocated to another road. This will need to be investigated and coordinated with TfNSW.

Representations from residents indicate that there is an expectation that implementing a one-way movement particularly in Clissold Street would provide an opportunity to improve pedestrian amenity by providing a widening of the existing narrow footpath.

Council has been advised that Transport for NSW would not be supporting the change in arrangement of Clissold Street due to the significant impacts on walking access distances for local resident and major local institutions including Cardinal Freeman Village, The Sydney Private Hospital and a number of other retirement homes in the vicinity.

Given the large street block sizes and the distance between Clissold Street and Seaview Street (approx. 230m), splitting the inbound and outbound routes would result in substantial additional walking distances for residents, in particular for older residents with walking access difficulties, as well as making the bus route confusing and difficult to understand.

Impacts to school students on both the Bus Route 413 and 609s have been considered. (See Attachment 1 for bus route map)- at the end of the report.

Transit Systems also noted a number of potential bus movement/turning issues associated with changing the bus routes as follows;

· The left turn from Holden Street to Seaview Street would be tight for buses, so the kerb would need to be realigned.

· The potential right turn from Clissold Street into Queen Street is also tight, and the tail swing from buses may hit the power pole.

Recommendation

No further action be undertaken in respect of converting Clissold Street and Seaview Street to one-way streets.

2. ATMS recommendation:

Investigate an entry threshold treatment to 40km/h school zone that includes kerb build-outs and a speed cushion on Clissold Street and Seaview Street at their intersections with Prospect Road.

Following site investigation and analysis of speed and crash data, speed cushions are not considered appropriate or justified in Clissold Street and Seaview Street at Prospect Road, due to the narrowness of these streets and lack of speeding and crash history to support speed reduction devices. The crash history shows only one (1) minor injury crash at the intersection of Clissold Street and Prospect Road, and no crash history at the intersection of Seaview Street and Prospect Road in the 5 year period of 2014-2018

Both Clissold Street and Seaview Street are too narrow to consider appropriate kerb build outs (or kerb blistering) at the intersection of Prospect Road, if two-way is maintained. Traffic, particularly buses, are required to manoeuvre around the corners of the intersection. Seaview Street, between Victoria Street and Prospect Road is a bus route interlinking main/school special bus movements via Victoria Street and Prospect Road.

Recommendation

No further action be undertaken in relation to proposed entry threshold treatments for Clissold Street and Seaview Street at Prospect Road.

Further investigation:

Prospect Road at Clissold Street.

Clissold Street is narrow and buses turning into Prospect Road are forced into oncoming traffic lane. This movement could be improved if the kerb is cut back on the north-west corner of the intersection. Build outs on the Prospect Road corners are proposed also at this location to improve the guidance and control of traffic/bus movement around the intersection and prevent vehicles from mounting over the corners.

Recommendation

Install kerb island build-outs on Prospect Road, north and south of Clissold Street, and realign the north-western corner of the intersection. Refer to Figure 2 for illustration of these recommendations.

Figure 2: Clissold Street and Prospect Road, Ashfield.

3. ATMS recommendation:

Install a raised central island on the south approach to the Tintern Road/Clissold Street intersection.

2019 speed counts show an AADT of 3,145 vpd and an 85^th % percentile speed of 43km/h. There is no crash history in the five years from 2014-2018 at this intersection.

Given that there is not a speeding issue, or any crash history associated with this intersection and there are no reports of traffic movement/ sight line issues; it is not necessary to carry out any treatments.

Recommendation

No further action be undertaken in relation to this proposal.

4. ATMS Recommendation:

Install speed cushions on Clissold Street and Seaview Street on each approach to intersections with Victoria Street and Queen Street.

Speed cushions are not considered appropriate in Clissold Street and Seaview Street at the intersections with Victoria Street and Queen Street due to lack of evidence of speeding. The highest 85^th percentile speed of 48.1km/h recorded in Clissold Street was between Victoria Street and Queen Street. It is likely that the speed is slightly higher in this section due to the fact that there is no parking on either side of the street, reducing friction and allowing for vehicles to achieve higher speeds.

The ATMS recommendation to install speed cushions in Clissold Street and Seaview Street on each approach to Queen Street is not supported.

Recommendation

No further action be undertaken in respect of speed cushions in Clissold Street or Seaview Street at the intersections with Queen Street or Victoria Street.

Further investigation: Clissold Street.

The existing pedestrian (zebra) crossing west of Victoria Street in Clissold Street is difficult to access due to existing ramps and narrow footpath. Raising this pedestrian (zebra) crossing would improve pedestrian access and safety from the bus stop to the retirement village and visa versa.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the existing pedestrian (zebra) crossing on Clissold Street, west of Victoria Street be upgraded into a raised pedestrian (zebra) crossing.

Refer to Figure 3 for illustration of this recommendation.

Further investigation: Victoria Street at Clissold Street.

The 85^th percentile speed 56.7km/h between Clissold Street and Seaview Street is a matter of concern given the proximity of several aged and health services and bus stops.

Even though there is no crash history at this intersection, with the number of generators in the area, the speed of vehicles and the width of the street (approx. 12.5m), it is recommended to provide build-outs in Victoria Street immediately south of Clissold Street to improve amenity and safety for pedestrians, as well as improve sight lines for motorists.

Recommendation

It is recommended that kerb island build-outs be installed on both sides of Victoria Street, on the southern approach to Clissold Street.

Refer to Figure 3 for illustration of this recommendation.

Figure 3: Clissold Street and Victoria Street, Ashfield.

Further investigation: Queen Street at Clissold Street.

The 85^th percentile speeds on Clissold Street on approach to Queen Street are 34km/h on western approach and 40km/h on eastern approach. Given the lack of speed history, speed cushions in Clissold Street are not seen as necessary or desirable.

However, the 85% speeds on Queen Street on approach and departure to Clissold Street are between 49.5 to 52.2 km/h.

Recommendation

Given the noticeable accident history (4 incidents) and that the intersection is a major traffic and transport (bus) cross-over link in Clissold Street, the placement of speed cushions or full-width speed humps in Queen Street on both approach sides in close proximity to Clissold Street, is recommended to further reduce the speeds along Queen Street.

Refer to Figure 4 for illustration of this recommendation.

Figure 4: Clissold Street and Queen Street, Ashfield.

Further investigation: Victoria Street at Seaview Street

There is a sight line issue caused by a large palm tree on the eastern side of Victoria Street on the northern approach to Seaview St. See Figure 5. In addition, there have been 2 accidents at this intersection.

In order to improve sight lines at this intersection, kerb built outs are proposed, and that the ‘STOP ’line be relocated out to align with the kerb islands.

Recommendation

Install kerb island build-outs on the east side of Victoria Street, north and south of Seaview Street and relocate the ‘STOP’ line out to align with the kerb islands

See Figure 5 for existing view and Figure 6 illustration of this recommendation.

Figure 5: Victoria at Seaview looking south July 2019 (cross traffic obscured on approach by large palm tree)

Figure 6: Victoria Street at Seaview Street, Ashfield.

5. ATMS Recommendation:

Install kerb build-outs and a speed cushion on Clissold Street at its intersection with Holden Street.

There is no crash history at this location. There are a number of traffic calming treatments in Holden Street north on the approach to Clissold Street, and parking exists either side of Holden Street, south of Clissold.

Site investigations revealed that the movement of buses and traffic through the area turning into and out of Clissold Street and Palace Street create informal traffic calming as buses have to wait for the intersection of Palace Street and Clissold Street to clear before turning in/out.

Given the lack of crash history, the existence of traffic calming measures, and the constrained conditions with low speeds in Clissold Street; no further treatments are proposed for this location.

Recommendation

No further action be undertaken in respect of treatments in Clissold Street at Holden Street.

TRAFFIC SURVEYS

Summaries of speed and volume data collected between 2016 and 2019 are shown in Figure 7 and Table 6. Speed limit at all subject street locations is 50km/h. 85^th percentile speeds in excess of the 50km/h were recorded at 4 locations in Victoria Street and Queen Street. There were no 85^th % speeds over 50km/h recorded in Clissold Street or Seaview Street.

Figure 7: Summary of traffic speed and volume in Clissold Street, Seaview Street, Queen Street and Victoria Street

Table 6: Bidirectional 85^th%ile Speeds in km/h at 10 counter locations

Crash History

The crash history in the subject streets and a summary of the crash data is illustrated in Figure 8. An analysis of crash data from Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) indicated that there were twelve (13) crashes in the 5 years from 2014-2018. Of those there were seven ‘right angle’ crashes, and four “leave the road” crashes. There was one pedestrian crash in 2015 where a pedestrian fell in the carriageway and was impacted by a vehicels resulting in a moderate injury. Speed was not cited as a factor in any of the crashes. There were no reports of heavy vehicles or buses involved in crashes.

The location and type of crash is illustrated below in Figure 8 and Table 7 below.

Figure 8: Map showing Location and type of Crash (RMS 2014 -2018)

Table 7: Location and Type of Crash (RMS 2014-2018)

	Street	Intersection	Year	Location	Injury	Type	Dir Veh 1 & 2	Ref Fig.8
1.	Clissold Street	Queen St	2018	on the spot	serious injury	right angle	North/east	6
2.	Clissold Street	Queen St	2016	on the spot	tow-away	right angle	North/west	5
3.	Clissold Street	Queen St	2014	on the spot	moderate injury	right angle	East/north	1
4.	Clissold St	Queen St	2017	Queen St, north of Clissold St	Tow away	Left off carriageway into object	North/on the spot	13
5.	Clissold St	Victoria Street	2015	West of Victoria St	injury	Vehicle into ped on road	West/north	4
6.	Clissold St	Prospect Rd	2015	on the spot	minor injury	right angle	East/north	11
7.	Clissold St	Farleigh St	2014	on the spot	injury	far left	North/east	3
8.	Clissold St	Victoria	2014	on the spot	tow away	right angle	East/south	2
9.	Queen Street	Seaview St	2014	on the spot	injury	right angle	West/north	7
10.	Seaview St	Victoria St	2018	on the spot	minor injury	right angle	East/south	9
11.	Seaview St	Unnamed Lane	2016	West of Prospect Road	tow-away	off road left into object	East/on the spot	8
12.	Victoria St	Seaview St	2015	South of Seaview St	tow-away	off road left	South/south	10
13.	Seaview St	Queen St	2016	East of Queen St	injury	off road left	West/west	12

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Estimates would be provided for works listed under the capital works program and identified under the future design stage.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

The following information is also provided to assist in the investigations.

1. Clissold Street has bus services travelling in both directions. If Clissold Street is made one-way, Seaview Street as the adjacent parallel street under the ATMS recommendations will need to be made also one-way in the opposing direction to accommodate any displaced bus service and traffic.

2. The Former Ashfield Council in 2015 resolved to remove a high degree of parking in Clissold Street, and strategically position and control remaining elements of parking along Clissold Street to maintain appropriate 2-way traffic flow under give-way, i.e. vehicles and buses pull aside between parking areas to allow opposing traffic to pass.

Additional diagrams as attachments 2A to 2C show existing unrestricted parking zones, Bus Zones and No Parking zones along Clissold Street from Holden Street to Prospect Road. The ‘No Parking’ zones provide for the opportunity for vehicles to stop and set down and pick up passengers and/or goods and assist in waste collection but avoids vehicles from parking in these locations for the sake of traffic movement and vehicle maneouvre around laneway or street intersections. The street everywhere else is signposted as ‘No Stopping’.

The location of the unrestricted parking zones are set well away from the major intersections to avoid/minimise traffic from queuing back into the main street intersections.

3. The current arrangement in Clissold Street was adopted as a compromised option between other options which considered the removal of all parking along Clissold Street to retain 2-way traffic movement. The benefits of this option is the retention of as much on-street parking as possible as well as retaining two-way traffic flow.

The current parking and traffic arrangement in Clissold Street have been well established over the last four years and that the Traffic survey above reflects over the period of time this arrangement has been in force. Parking where permitted lends to defacto traffic calming or friction to assist in speed reduction.

Through various observations, it is considered that the 2-way traffic generally flows satisfactorily in Clissold Street under this current arrangement. It should be noted that nearby adjacent developments have contributed to on-street parking pressures. Any option to remove further parking in Clissold Street would only exasperate parking problems. Any such proposal may shift the problem of undesirable/unwanted parking activity into the nearby side streets and may also result in the increase of speeding and inappropriate driver behaviour though Clissold Street.

4. Making Clissold Street and Seaview Street one-way will impact on residential and institutional property access.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The report is a follow up investigation on recommendations from the Ashfield Traffic Management Strategy in which community engagement was undertaken.

The proposed recommendations with regard to design proposals arising with this report will be consulted on during the design phase.

Previous respondents in Clissold Street have been notified of this report and recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The following findings are summarised leading up to the recommendations of this report.

1. Transport for NSW and Transit Systems are responsible in the planning and operation of bus services in Clissold Street. As relevant stakeholders, Transport of NSW and Transit Systems do not support re-directing bus services in the area if Clissold Street and Seaview Street are made One-Way for the following reasons;

· This would result in significant impacts on walking access distances for local residents and major local institutions e.g. the Cardinal Freeman Retirement Village, and the Sydney Private Hospital;

· There would be likely confusion/complaints from passengers and the community if bus routes are split;

· Problems would be encountered with buses turning at particular intersections;

· Transport for NSW would not support funding the cost of route changes if the changes would result in poorer service and amenity to passengers and the local community.

2. Seaview Street would need to be converted to one-way in the opposing direction if Clissold Street is made one-way to support displaced bus service and traffic. This would result in the need of Bus stop installations along Seaview Street, and possible loss of parking to accommodate Bus Stops. There may also need to be possible design changes to intersections with Seaview Street in order to service the buses.

3. Traffic survey investigations showed low recorded accident history along Clissold Street and Seaview Street in the last 5 years with low 85 percentile speeds ranging from 42.6 to 48.1 km/h in Clissold Street and 37.5 to 47.5 km/h in Seaview Street.

4. The current parking arrangement in Clissold Street (being 6-7metres wide) maintains appropriate 2-way traffic flow under give-way. Vehicles and buses pull aside between parking areas and allow opposing traffic to pass. The current parking and traffic arrangement have been well established over the last four years, and it is considered to operate satisfactorily. Parking where permitted lends to de-facto traffic calming or friction to assist in speed reduction.

5. Making Clissold Street and Seaview Street will impact on residential and institutional property access.

In view of the above, it is recommended that no further action be carried out to convert Clissold Street and Seaview Street to one-way in the opposing direction based on the above comments. Nor is there any further action to consider traffic calming along Clissold Street and Seaview Street based on the low recorded accident history and low speeds in the area. The recommended raising of the crossing in Clissold Street, west of Victoria Street, is an exception based mainly on pedestrian safety.

Various other treatments, in reference to the ATMS and/or traffic survey investigation, are proposed in this report to address accidents and traffic/pedestrian safety issues at the locations shown under the concept plan figures 2,3,4 and 6.

These treatments will be listed under a capital works program for future design and consultation with the affected residents.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Bus Route Map
2.⇩	Existing parking in Clissold Street, Ashfield, between Holden Street and Victoria Street
3.⇩	Existing parking in Clissold Street, Ashfield, between Victoria Street and Prospect Road.

Local Traffic Committee Meeting

3 February 2020

Item No: LTC0220 Item 11

Subject: Dalhousie Street, Haberfield - Removal of redundant bus stop facilities (Gulgadya-leichhardt ward/summer hill electorate/burwood PAC)

Prepared By: Felicia Lau - Engineer - Traffic and Parking Services

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

SUMMARY

Council was notified by Transit Systems that two bus stops on Dalhousie Street, Haberfield (in front of House Nos. 29 and 34) have been made redundant and are no longer required. Removal of the bus zone will return unrestricted parking spaces to residents and visitors.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the existing Bus Zones and pavement tactiles be removed at the following locations:

a) 23m ‘Bus Zone’ on the western side of Dalhousie Street, Haberfield (frontage of house No.34); and

b) 20m ‘Bus Zone’ on the eastern side of Dalhousie Street, Haberfield (frontage of house No.29).

BACKGROUND

Transit Systems has informed Council that two existing bus zones in front of house Nos. 29 and 34 Dalhousie Street, Haberfield, have been noted as being redundant following a recent bus stops audit and can be removed.

Site Location & Road Network

Street Name(s)	Dalhousie Street, Haberfield
Section	Between Parramatta Road and Denman Avenue
Traffic Volume (AADT)	5,808
Recorded Crash History (5-year)	One reported crash in 2015
Recorded 85^th% Speed	49km/h
Posted Speed Limit	50km/h
Carriageway Width	12.5m
Carriageway Type	Two-lane two-way street with unrestricted kerb-side parking.
Road Classification (State, Regional, Local)	Local

Frontage of No.34 Dalhousie Street, Haberfield

Frontage of No. 29 Dalhousie Street, Haberfield

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

It is proposed to remove the existing redundant bus zones and pavement tactiles at the following locations:

· 23m ‘Bus Zone’ on the western side of Dalhousie Street, Haberfield (frontage of house No.34).

· 20m ‘Bus Zone’ on the eastern side of Dalhousie Street, Haberfield (frontage of house No.29).

This will allow the space to be converted to general on-street parking spaces for residents and visitors.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Nil.

Item No: LTC0220 Item 12

Subject: Croydon Parking Study (Gulgadya-Leichhardt Ward/Summer Hill Electorate/Purwood PAC)

Prepared By: Sunny Jo - Traffic and Parking Planner

Authorised By: Manod Wickramasinghe - Traffic and Transport Planning Manager

SUMMARY

This is a recommendation to endorse the final Croydon Parking Study report. Council has recently undertaken Public Exhibition of the draft Croydon Parking Study through YourSay Inner West. The draft report proposed an expansion of the Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) on a number of streets in Croydon as shown in Attachment 1. The response results indicate that the community in general did not support the proposed strategy with a 73.6% non-support, as well as separate submissions and two petitions received during the public engagement. Several submissions requested a parking scheme with two free permits given to residents regardless of the number of off-street parking spaces. The views of the community on the proposed RPS areas indicate that whilst there is generally a desire to change the current parking management, concerns were raised with the proposed permit policy which has been used in other RPS areas in the Inner West.

In view of the high level of objections, it is recommended that the proposed Croydon Strategy not be supported at this time and further consideration for street specific RPS for the Croydon area cease for a period of 24 months until February 2022. Additionally, it is recommended that parking conditions be monitored on streets surrounding the Ashfield Aquatic Centre after its reopening in 2020. Any parking review is to be undertaken using data collected from the Croydon Parking Study.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The final Croydon Parking Study be noted;

2. In view of the results of the Public Exhibition, stage 1 and 2 of the Croydon Parking Strategy not be supported at this time;

3. Further consideration of street specific resident parking scheme for the Croydon area cease for 24 months until February 2022;

4. Parking conditions be monitored on streets surrounding the Ashfield Aquatic Centre after its reopening in 2020; and

5. Any future parking review for the Croydon area is to be undertaken using data collected from the Croydon Parking Study.

BACKGROUND

The Croydon Parking Study reviewed the location, supply, demand and distribution of both short and long stay parking, residential, employee and commuter parking. The work consisted of examining existing conditions including parking data, community submissions, and examining on-street as well as private off-street parking. A community survey was also undertaken to gauge the parking issues faced by different users. With consideration for future developments and access to public transport, including Burwood Council’s own parking strategy, a parking management strategy was then developed for the Croydon area.

The study was undertaken by GTA Consultants using parking data collected in December 2018, several site observations in 2019, and feedback received during the initial parking study survey undertaken in March 2019.

OTHER STAFF COMMENTS

Stage 1 of the parking management strategy proposed to extend area A2 and area A6 RPS ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted’ on one side of College Street, Edwin Street between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street, Croydon Road between Elizabeth Street and Anthony Street, Paisley Road east of The Strand, Edwin Street between Paisley Road and Thomas Street, Heighway Avenue between Edwin Street and Frederick Street, and Walter Street.

Streets identified for Stage 2 include ‘2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, Permit Holders Excepted’ restrictions on Edwin Street north of Anthony Street, one sides of Croydon Road between Anthony Street and Hunt Street, Anthony Street between Edwin Street and Etonville Parade, Edwin Street between Thomas Street and Liverpool Road, and Highbury Street between Thomas Street and Liverpool Road.

A map containing the proposed Stage 1 and 2 of the Strategy is shown in Attachment 1.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Following the endorsement of the Draft Croydon Parking Study, Council undertook Public Exhibition of the Strategy in November and December 2019.

Community engagement commenced on 8 November 2019 with 2,300 letters mailed out and distributed to residents and stakeholders located within and bordering the study area. Council’s YourSay website enabled stakeholders to access the draft report, maps of the proposed RPS changes, and the proposed permit eligibility criteria. The engagement period ended on 15 December 2019.

A total of 158 submissions were received comprising of 158 online responses and 18 responses received in other means (paper letters and emails) and two petitions.

The above represent a response rate of 8% from the community, which was lower than the initial survey response of 12% undertaken in 2019. Notably, approximately 30% of received submissions were from outside the proposed RPS areas. The following table summarise the submissions received during the Public Exhibition.

Two petitions were received during the engagement period and are presented below:

· Petition organised by Mr Sam Sciamaca and Mr Marcello Di Paolo, submitted with 36 names in support of the petition from 25 properties.

· Petition organised by Mr James Ding OAM, submitted with 14 names and signatures in support of the petition from 5 properties.

The issues raised as well as Council officer’s response is provided in the table below.

Issues raised	Council officers’ response
Residents are penalised for parking in their own street. The permit scheme should cater for all residents, not just those who have no off-street parking. Two permits should be issued per household regardless of whether they have off-street parking spaces or not. Third permit should require an explanation of need.	The purpose of the RPS is to prioritise residents that have no or limited access to off-street parking. If eligibility criteria were loosened and applicable to all residents, this would eliminate the purpose of a RPS where the number of permits issued would outweigh the supply of parking spaces. Council intends to conform to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) guidelines for permit parking and eligibility criteria and this is outlined in Council’s current parking policies.
Transferrable visitor permit to be made available to each household and linked to a residence.	Under the former Ashfield Parking Policy, there are no visitor permits available.
There is inconsistency in Thomas Street, with much higher concentration of parking on the south side, and none or a very few on the north side. Currently the north side has an RPS restriction and south side has unrestricted parking. Request for RPS to be extended to the south side of Thomas Street (generally between Frederick Street and Highbury Street), or similar to Brady Street, Croydon.	RPS for the north side of Thomas Street was established circa 2015. The provision of RPS on one side of the street allows for a balance of parking security to residents while retaining unrestricted parking on the other side to provide opportunities for other users and those not eligible for permits. Under the Corydon Parking Study there are no changes proposed in this section of Thomas Street.
A scheme that is issued 2 parking permits regardless of off-street parking provision, with free permits being transferable, and also free visitor’s permits to be issued to residents.	See above response regarding RPS eligibility criteria.
Scoped area not big enough	The scoped area is based on where high parking occupancy is observed throughout typical weekdays and with long duration of stays during the daytime only (arriving in the morning, departing in the evening). Expanding the scope to areas that do not observe such behavior does not serve the purpose of a RPS.
Scoped area (proposed RPS in general) too big/not necessary	High parking occupancy is observed throughout typical weekdays and with long during of stays during the daytime only (arriving in the morning, departing in the evening) in the studied areas, with residents having difficulties finding a parking, a RPS will help alleviate some of these issues and prioritise parking for residents.
Creates difficulties for all-day commuter/employee/guests parking	The purpose of the RPS is to prioritise residents that have no or limited access to off-street parking. One side of each street will remain as unrestricted to provide for drivers requiring all-day parking for commuting, visiting or working in the area.

Considering the significant level of objections raised for the proposed scheme, it is understood that the community desires for an RPS with different permit eligibility criteria to the one proposed by Council. As outlined above, it is intended that all parking schemes conform to the RMS guidelines for permit parking, which prioritise residents with no or limited off-street parking space. There are currently 42 RPS zones within the Inner West with all areas administered by Council and all meet the RMS permit guidelines. The existing zones have been operating for many years and has been an efficient parking management tool.

Having regard to the high level of objections from the community, it is recommended that stage 1 and 2 of the strategy not proceed. As the parking study has thoroughly reviewed streets within the study area, including a precinct wide Community Engagement, it is recommended that there be no further street specific review for a RPS for a period of 24 months, until February 2022.

Some stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the redevelopment of the Ashfield Aquatic Centre. The traffic and parking studies undertaken during the Development Application stage of the Centre has indicated that parking impacts from the proposed site is not considered significant. To ease community concerns, Council intend to monitor parking levels on nearby streets after the opening of the Ashfield Aquatic Centre. Any subsequent parking review for the Croydon area is to be undertaken using data collected from the Croydon Parking Study.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

CONCLUSION

Parking continues to be a contentious issue for the community of Croydon. Understanding the community’s response, the proposed stage 1 and 2 strategy is not supported at this time and the Parking Study will remain a reference document that will assist in future parking reviews in the area.

ATTACHMENTS

1.⇩	Proposed Stage 1 and 2 Croydon Parking Strategy
2.⇩	Croydon Parking Study - Final

Street Name	Morgan Street
Section	At Intersection with Napier Street
Carriageway Width (m) kerb to kerb	12.8
Carriageway Type	Road closed off to vehicles. Only access for pedestrians and bicycles allowed.
Classification	Local
Speed limit	N/A
85^th Percentile Speed (km/h)	N/A
Vehicles Per Day (vpd)	N/A
Reported Crash History (July 2013 – June 2018)	N/A
Heavy Vehicle Volume (%)	N/A
Parking Arrangements	Angle parking along the eastern side of the road closure is permitted, between the kerb and cycle access.

Street Name(s)	Booth Street and Sorrie Street
Section	Intersection
Traffic Volume	Not available
Recorded Accident History (5 year)	Nil
Recorded 85% speed	Not available
Speed Limit	40km/h
Carriageway width	Booth Street – 9.9m Sorrie Street – 4.2m
Carriageway Type	Booth Street – Two way with kerb side parking on both sides of the street Sorrie Street – One way with kerb side parking on one side of the street

Street Name(s)	Lilyfield Road, Rozelle
Section	West of Gordon Street, frontage of house Nos.59-65 Lilyfield Road
Recorded Crash History (5-Year)	No reported crashes
Posted Speed Limit	50km/h
Carriageway Width	12.5m
Carriageway Type	Two-lane Two-way with unrestricted kerb-side parking
Road Classification (State, Regional, Local)	Regional

Street Name(s)	William Street, Leichhardt
Section	Elswick Street and William Street intersection
Traffic Volume (AADT)	2,437
Recorded Crash History (5-year)	No reported crashes
Recorded 85^th% Speed	54.7km/h
Posted Speed Limit	50km/h
Carriageway Width	12.5m
Carriageway Type	Two-lane Two-way Street with unrestricted kerb-side parking.
Road Classification (State, Regional, Local)	Local

Street Name(s)	Prospect Road, Summer Hill
Section	Midblock
Traffic Volume	Not Available
Recorded Accident History (5 year)	Nil.
Recorded 85% speed	Not Available
Speed Limit	50km/h
Carriageway width	Approx. 10.0m
Carriageway Type	Two-way street with kerb side parking on both sides
Road Classification (State, Regional, Local)	Local

Street Name(s)	Darling Street, Balmain
Section	Between Mort Street and Curtis Road
Traffic Volume	-
Recorded Accident History (5 year)	2 (2017 Series Injury) 6 (2016 Non-casualty) 2 (2014 Series Injury)
Recorded 85% speed	-
Speed Limit	40km/h
Carriageway width	Approx. 12.8m
Carriageway Type	Two-way street with kerb-side parking on both sides
Road Classification (State, Regional, Local)	Local

1.⇩	Treaffic Control Plan - Darling Street (Beattie Street - Curtis Road) ANZAC Day Dawn Service
2.⇩	Traffic Management Plan - Darling Street (Beattie Street - Curtis Road) ANZAC Day Dawn Service

Street Name(s)	Cary Street, Leichhardt
Section	Between Rofe Street and Elswick Street
Traffic Volume	-
Recorded Accident History (5 year)	Nil.
Recorded 85% speed	-
Speed Limit	50km/h
Carriageway width	Approx. 9.8m
Carriageway Type	Two-way street with kerb-side parking on both sides
Road Classification (State, Regional, Local)	Local