To The Director, Urban Assessments, Department of
Planning, GPO Box 39,
Sydney NSW 2001
REDWatch Traffic
Impact Statement Submission on North
Eveleigh Concept Plan (MP 08_0015
REDWatch
makes this submission to raise our objections to a number of aspects of the Traffic
and transport Impact Assessment North Eveleigh
Development prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the Redfern Waterloo Authority
in April 2008 (TIS) as part of the “Redevelopment of Former Eveleigh
Carriage Workshops Site” – Concept Plan (MP 08_0015).
This
submission compliments the more general submission made by REDWatch about the
concept Plan. Such are the concerns about the TIS that we have decided to make
a separate submission that just deals with the TIS report.
Lack of Disclosure in the TIS
REDWatch is
concerned that the TIS did not disclose key information which was necessary
during the exhibition to allow the traffic impact of the concept plan to be
adequately assessed by those impacted by the proposed development.
The TIS report
is very much in the “trust us we are the experts” genre. The TIS reports only
on the areas that the consultants believe the traffic network is likely to have
an issue or exception. It leaves out details of impacts on streets and
intersections which it believes will function acceptably. Most residents in the
area impacted by the development have no idea of the traffic impact on them or even
if the impacts in their streets have even been assessed by the study.
It is not
only the comprehensive output from the study which lacks transparency but the
TIS does not disclose the base data for the model. The base traffic movements
come from three different sources but the TIS does not disclose the three raw
data sets nor the amalgamated data after they are blended and adjusted.
The TIS is
also not careful in its labelling of data. For example the TIS Appendix B
Forecast turning movements contains no explanation of what the data represents.
What year does the data relate to? Is it actual counts or projected? If
projected what is it projected from, to and how? What is the time frame for the
“counts” – are they over 1 hour, 2 hours or a day? If they are peak hour
figures are they AM or PM? When we questioned this data we were advised by the
TIS consultants that these figures are forecasts from SCATS data and form the
base case figures for these intersections in the model. As they do not agree
with TIS table 3-2 they can not be the 8am to 9am “counts” so maybe they are
the 2 hour AM counts … we are still not certain!
The problem
with labelling data is also evident when trying to compare data within the
report as in some places 2 hour peak figures are used, but in others 1 hour
peak figures are used. As the data is often labelled ‘peak hour’ without
specifying the period it covers, it not possible to determine if the data should
be comparable with other data within the report. Further, in some cases the 1
hour peak figures may be from a different 1 hour peak time span. These
labelling problems become particularly obvious when trying to analyse what the
data says about any of the major intersections, such as the Lawson Street example later in this
submission. The data sets are such that this form of analysis can not be
performed. Whether this is by design or accident we are unable to say.
REDWatch,
and others, have requested that the RWA and their consultants clarify key
aspects of the TIS and release details of base and projected movements, intersection
queue lengths etc. While we have met with and discussed a number of issues with
the RWA and the TIS consultants, we have been unable to obtain key data and
clarifications concerning the TIS during the exhibition period.
The RWA
initially undertook to put out a series of Q&As to clarify key TIS issues,
raised by REDWatch in writing and others at the open days, but these never
eventuated. The consultants took the view that it was not appropriate to
provide their traffic volumes.
The
decision to not release the Q&As and the traffic volumes (base and
projected) left the community with no option other than to object to the
inadequacy of the TIS. The TIS on exhibition did not contain the information
necessary for a considered response to the traffic impact of the proposed
developments. Unless the Department requires such information be made
publically available, residents will remain unaware of the traffic impact on
them.
When we met
with the RWA and the TIS consultants, the consultant kept referring to certain questions
being covered in their earlier study for the RWA. A copy of this study, Preliminary
Traffic and Transport Strategy for Draft Built Environment Plan (Stage 1)
prepared by Parson Brinckerhoff for the Redfern Waterloo Authority in September
2006(BEP1 TIS), was requested and was subsequently made available by the
RWA to us on May 31st 2008.
It should
be noted that there are some significant differences between the TIS and the
BEP1 TIS which need to be understood before the earlier report is used. The
area covered by the BEP1 TIS included Regent & Gibbons Streets, as it also
aimed to test traffic impact from development around Redfern Railway Station,
which is not covered in this TIS. The BEP1 TIS did not provide information for
any City Road
intersections nor for Wilson
Street west of Forbes Street (this means the western
exit from North Eveleigh was outside the BEP1
TIS as were movements to the west from this exit).
The BEP1
TIS provided the trip assignments used from the North Eveleigh site while the
final TIS contains no trip assignments although we understand that the input to
the model did seem to accord with the logic of the BEP1 trip assignment. In
addition the BEP1 TIS provided AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes (vph)
for key intersections: pre-development; resulting from the development; and
post development. No such information was provided in the TIS. This means that
residents were unable to assess how the development proposed in the concept
plan may impact up on them and their area in the way they would have if the
movements were presented in the same form as in the BEP1 TIS prepared for the
RWA.
The BEP1
TIS also provided intersection performance details, including degree of
saturation and queue length, both pre and post modification. None of this
information is disclosed in the latest TIS.
REDWatch
requested, again in writing, that the RWA release the same level of detail for
trip assignment, and intersection movements and functioning for the TIS as was
provided in the BEP1 TIS. This information was also never released.
REDWatch
hence requests that the Department require the applicant to release the
additional information necessary to allow residents to properly assess the TIS.
The Department of Planning should extend the exhibition period to allow
residents to make fully informed submissions about the traffic impact of
Concept Plan based on the additional data we have requested.
Basis of Submission
REDWatch
has received clarification from the RWA and the TIS consultants on some of the
issues we have raised with them and we have appreciated the clarification
received. In the case of some other issues raised the information requested has
been denied (as mentioned above) or the answers have skirted or avoided the
issues raised. For the purposes of this submission REDWatch must address the
TIS as it was exhibited, and point out issues that we feel need to be clarified
or changed prior to the Concept Plan being granted approval by the Department
of Planning.
Sydney University and the DGRs
The
Director General’s Requirements (DGRs) for the Concept Plan require the RWA’s
TIS to address and assess “cumulative impacts on the local and
subregional area including the future development by University of Sydney,
and develop a traffic network model to determine impact(s)”.
The TIS
appears to have been constructed with a very restricted view of this DGR
requirement. The TIS appears to confine itself only to the impact of the
University’s proposed Abercrombie Street Campus as covered by the University’s
major project preliminary application and not to the broader “future
development of the University
of Sydney” known to it.
The TIS
acknowledges that “The RWA and the University jointly appointed PB to develop a
micro-simulation model (Paramics) to test current and future traffic
conditions” (page v). Recently The University of Sydney Campus 2020
Masterplan – Building the Future University has become available. It can be
downloaded from www.usyd.edu.au/ab/about/docs/Campus_2020_Masterplan.pdf.
Central to this plan is the rebuilding of the entire Darlington Campus and the
closure of Butlin Ave
which is one of the major access points into the study area. The TIS consultants
clearly were aware of this Masterplan but choose not to model it. The TIS
states that:
“The University of Sydney
also had a number of options for the road network it wished to test that have
not been included in the assumptions of the current modelling. One option the
University wished to consider was closure of Butlin Avenue to through vehicle
traffic in accord with the University Master Plan”(TIS p45).
The closure
of Butlin Ave
would see all traffic proposed to enter Darlington and North
Eveleigh via this route needing to use Shepherd Street or Darlington Road & Golden Grove Street.
We would envisage it would also have implications for the phasing on the City Road – Carillion Road
lights as more traffic would need to turn right. Due to the lack of information
in the TIS on traffic on key roads, it is not possible to quantify the level of
traffic that would need to redirect through the alternative entrances to Darlington sites.
The Butlin Ave / Maze
Crescent Forecast Turning Movements (TIS Appendix B) [Base data] only indicates
movements out of Darlington at 538 but
provides no inwards movements. The Darlington
Street turning movements are not covered in the
Appendix at all and while Cleveland
Street / Shepherd
Street is covered it does not provide turning
figures to indicate expected traffic movements. Given the lack of reporting of
the alternative intersections under the TIS and the known traffic in Butlin Ave
the TIS statement that “modifications to the precinct design should
impact little on the conclusions of the cumulative study” (TIS p45)
could only be justified on a restrictive view of the University’s future
development and is totally misleading when the University’s Campus 2020
proposals for the Darlington Campus and Butlin Ave are taken into account.
Any
proposed changes to the University road network, especially the potential
closure of one of the major entrance roads to Darlington, the University’s
Darlington and Abercrombie Street
campus and the North Eveleigh development,
must be assessed under the DGRs. A narrow interpretation of the “future
development by University
of Sydney” which is
limited to only to the Abercrombie Street Campus creates a TIS that does not
accurately show the true traffic impacts of the University’s plans.
Given the
restrictive view taken by the TIS on the “future development by University of Sydney” it is important to also check
what has been factored into the model for both traffic and pedestrian numbers
from known expansion at the University. There is for example no indication that
the TIS includes any traffic and transport impacts resulting from the Sydney University’s
Campus 2010 expansions which are nearing completion. They include the Law School
coming back onto main campus, and any impact from the new ‘Sydney Central’
building and the redevelopment of the School of Geosciences.
The Sydney
Uni Campus 2020 Masterplan states that “since 1990, the number of students (EFTSU)
has grown from approximately 23,000 to nearly 36,000 and is projected to reach
approximately 40,000 by 2010” (p21). It is not clear from the TIS if
the study has taken into account growth in the main and Darlington
campus outside that which is proposed for the new Abercrombie Street
Development.
Obviously
the extent to which Sydney
University expansion may
include purchase of some of the site covered by the RWA’s Concept Plan and
includes the Concept Plan for the Abercrombie
Street campus, the impact is included already in
part in the current TIS. However if the University is not successful in
acquiring the site there may be an added impact from the University needing to
fit more development within its current boundaries.
The
Department needs to be sure that the model has adequately included both the
current University impact on the area, as well as the future development
proposed by the University. On this basis REDWatch requests the Department
require the applicant to produce a TIS report which adequately includes the
“future development by University
of Sydney”
To the
extent that it is possible to assess the TIS, REDWatch is of the view that the
TIS currently does not adequately meet the DGRs requirement that TIS address
and assess “cumulative impacts on the local and subregional area including the
future development by University of Sydney, and develop a traffic network model
to determine impact(s)”.
The New Traffic Model
The
Department DGRs required the proponent to prepare a “traffic network model to
determine impact(s)”. The TIS has done this in the form of “a
micro-simulation model using Paramics software” (TIS p vii). This model was not available for the BEP1 TIS
so the only information concerning it is in the TIS.
As this is
a previously untested model it is important for the accuracy of the model that
its fit with surrounding areas, its assumptions and operation be fully assessed
to ensure its reliability.
The
Department needs to ensure that the model provides an accurate representation
of the area and the traffic impacts of the proposed developments. With the
level of information available we are unable to ensure the model’s accuracy.
Some of the issues that must be taken up in assessing the model’s adequacy, in
addition to the University issues just discussed, are raised below in this
submission.
The Study Area
We submit
that the report is deficient in that the Darlington
study area defined in the TIS omits the Lawson St / Gibbons St intersection and omits the
impact of left hand turn traffic at Cleveland
St queuing down Regent St on the functioning of the
Lawson / Gibbons intersection.
As
mentioned earlier the TIS does not disclose trip assignments. However, assuming
that the TIS model is similar to the BEP1 TIS assignment, approx 45% of the
traffic from the Darlington area’s development
will leave the area via the intersection of Lawson St with the Gibbons St arterial road twin pair. The
functioning and impact of this intersection is therefore critical to the
traffic impact of the proposed development.
According
to the BEP1 TIS the LoS on this intersection went from B to C as a result of
the North Eveleigh development and the
attractor of developments around Redfern Station with queue lengths of 272m AM
and 353m PM. The TIS uses higher development generated traffic numbers from North Eveleigh than the BEP1 TIS. It increases inwards
movements from 567 to 1031 and outwards movements from 296 to 570. This would
indicate that there would be further deterioration on level of service,
increased waiting times and a lengthening of queues on this intersection
following the development of North Eveleigh,
the Abercrombie Street
campus and the developments around Redfern station.
The Lawson St / Gibbons
intersection is also important as traffic here impacts upon both bike traffic
and high AM peak pedestrian movements that share parts of Lawson St as it is currently the only way
across the rail corridor between Cleveland
St and MacDonaldtown / Erskineville / Newtown.
As the Lawson St / Gibbons
intersection has been excluded from the TIS it is not possible to assess its
LoS nor the final traffic count using the intersection. In the same way that
the Department has required the RWA to include the impact of the University
expansion in the TIS, the Department should also require the RWA to include the
impact of developments proposed under its BEP including all the attractor
figures taken in account in the BEP1 TIS. It should also include the likely
impact from the Aboriginal Housing Company’s proposed development and the other
BEP allowed developments including the station and the commercial core.
We also
submit that the report is deficient in that the study area defined in the TIS
omits the area to the south and west of the Wilson St / Burren St intersection.
In our view
the TIS wrongly assumes that traffic travelling west from the site that turns
left at Wilson and Burren can easily
dissipate into the surrounding area without added impact and hence excludes it
from the TIS. Surrounding street closures, turning restrictions and railway
lines make dissipation of traffic into the surrounding areas only possible when
traffic reaches King St
or has passed the Erskineville rail bridge.
Traffic
exiting Wilson St via Burren St into Albert St and then Charles St or John St first must negotiate pedestrian access to
MacDonaldtown station and a problematic stop sign at the Albert / Charles
intersection before making a non traffic light controlled exit right onto busy
Erskineville Rd and thence to King St, or left over the railway line at
Erskineville Station. The TIS should include traffic impact assessment in Charles St and John
St to assess traffic impact on these streets.
We submit
that the western extremity of the study area should have been bounded by and
included Erskineville Rd
from Erskineville Station to King St with the inclusion of the one way section
of Wilson St
going east to Burren St.
In general
terms we submit the study area for the Darlington
model should cover the area bounded by the surrounding arterial roads i.e. Gibbons St, Cleveland
St, City Rd,
King St, Erskineville Rd
and the Erskineville to Redfern Station rail corridor. This then allows the
traffic impact to be assessed leaving and entering the local area at all the
intersections with the surrounding major road networks.
Listed
below are the main intersections with arterial roads and the LoS information
where available. The TIS supplies no information as to the impact on these
intersections in terms of increased traffic through the intersection as a
result of the developments, the degree of saturation (DoS) or queue length. As
there is little room to alter arterial light cycles, provision of such
information is important for residents to assess the traffic impact of the
proposed development.
- Lawson St – Gibbons St (not in TIS) (LoS C in
BEP1 TIS) - Regent St – Cleveland St (not in TIS) (Bank up
impacts LH turn ex Lawson) - Abercrombie St – Cleveland St (TIS LoS C)
- Shepherd St – Cleveland St
(TIS LoS C) - Cleveland St – City Rd (TIS LoS C)
- Butlin St – City Rd (TIS LoS B)
- Darlington St – City Rd (TIS LoS A)
- Forbes St – City Rd (Not in TIS)
- Queen St – City Rd (TIS LoS A)
- Charles St – Erskinville Rd (not in study)
The Base Data
Unlike the
BEP1 TIS, the Concept Plan TIS does not provide comprehensive base line data
for key intersections within the study area. The TIS refers to various data
sources used but does not indicate how it constructed its “counts” from this
base data and why. It also does not deal with any variations between its data
sources or with any variances or confidence levels with the data. The result is
that the model calibration charts compare the model against the “counts”
without disclosing the basis of the “counts” or in the terms of Appendix B “forecast
counts”.
What is of
concern with establishing the base counts is that the results accurately
reflect traffic movements through the area. The importance of the University to
traffic movements in the area means that the date counts are made to establish
base line data, need to take into account the University terms, as well as the
usual spreads of traffic over the week, month and year, and other variations
that may arise e.g. school holidays or the weather on the survey dates.
We note
that for one data set, PB conducted site visits to non signalised intersections
for traffic counts by vehicle type during the University holidays (12 & 13
February). We would expect these counts to underestimate local traffic
movements due to university holidays. We are not in a position to determine if
SCATS data for Tuesday 13 March 2007 or counts for the Tuesday 11 April 2006 were
typical. Presumably there are protocols for establishing what a statistically
valid process for establishing traffic counts.
We are a
bit surprised that only one or two days figures have been used. We would have
expected to see base line data determined over a number of days to rule out
random factors on a single day, which may distort the model. We would also have
expected some random subsequent checks to verify the results for the period
were typical.
The
Department needs to be convinced that the traffic data used in the TIS
accurately reflects peak traffic movements (day and month) through the area as
we are unable to verify this from the TIS.
Traffic Growth
REDWatch is
concerned about the method for calculating traffic growth in the TIS. If the
RTA model figures are to be used then we are of the view that the rate could be
double the rate used for the TIS. The impact of underestimating the traffic
growth could be equivalent to 72% of the total additional traffic the TIS
attributes to the Darlington developments if
the higher figures are correct.
Page 41 of
the TIS uses traffic growth in the RTA model to calculate AM peak 2 hour growth
at 0.9% pa. To obtain this figure the TIS includes traffic data projections for
arterial roads including City Rd,
King St, Cleveland St and Carillion Ave in addition to data from
Abercrombie, Wilson, Codrington and Lawson within the Darlington
area.
If growth
is calculated from the data for only the streets within the Darlington
area then the traffic growth is 16.74% between 2007 and 2016. This would be
consistent with more traffic using Darlington
to avoid congestion on King St
(especially when clearways are not operating) or to avoid Regent St and Cleveland St.
We note
that the BEP1 TIS found virtually no increase in volume when comparing data
from November 2001 (unknown if in Uni term) and April 2006. The BEP1 TIS also
noted a decrease in RTA traffic volumes in the area between 1999 and 2002, but
noted they may result from the opening of the Cross City Tunnel (BEP1 TIS). We
note that the opening of the Eastern Distributor will have had some effect and,
depending on the RTA base year, that the introduction of traffic calming
measures in the precinct, following a council study in 1994 to reduce rat
running through the area, may also account for some differences.
It is clear
from our discussions that Parsons Brinckerhoff that the 2007 RTA figures are
themselves projections and the TIS authors believe the real rate is below the
8% used. We are not in a position to assess these arguments. However if the RTA
Traffic growth figures are to be used, as they have been in the TIS, then it is
plain that the selection of declining arterial trends into the calculation
halves the rate of growth shown if only streets within Darlington had been used
to calculate growth.
It should
be noted also however, that to the extent that changes to prevent rat running
through the area may have influenced projected figures, there is concern that
this will be undone by the TIS proposals for changes to Abercrombie / Shepherd
and Abercrombie / Lawson intersections and the probable sign posting exists
from the area. These changes are likely to result in increased movements
through Darlington by traffic avoiding King St and Cleveland St.
We reject
one argument put to us by the consultants that increased traffic from the
development will deter future rat running in large part because the
restrictions on King St, which many seek to avoid, do not coincide with peak
hour periods within Darlington.
REDWatch
submits then that should the proponent use the RTA figures for calculating
growth then the model should be run at a growth of 16.74% between 2007 and 2016
and not at the 8% used for this period.
Calibration
REDWatch is
unable to comment on the technical calibration of the model. In large part this
is because of the limited availability of intersection count data so that
actual movements and route selection can not be tested against the model. Such
data should be made available so it is possible to assess the model against
reliable traffic count data, intersection by intersection.
The release
of this data is especially important because we understand models can be within
an acceptable GEH and yet still have a significant error at street and
intersection level. This may be particularly the case where the model includes
a mix of high traffic arterial roads like this model and an area constrained by
arterial roads. In this case the parameter choices in the model may not
accurately reflect driver choices. For example many in the area will avoid King
St at all times which is contrary to the model calibration of major links over
minor links.
We note
that the screen line calibration GEH is good on NB/EB movements but is weak at
3.9 on SB/WB movements (page 36). We would have liked to see the TIS disclose
the margins for error within the model.
Pedestrians
REDWatch is
concerned that the TIS documents note the existing pedestrian route from
Redfern Station towards the University, but it does not assess the traffic
impact on this pedestrian traffic. The TIS says of pedestrians:
“The main pedestrian
movement corridor in the study area is along Lawson Street and Abercrombie Street with significant
university pedestrian traffic moving between the Redfern railway station and the
Darlington and Camperdown Campuses of the University of Sydney.
This key route has a narrow pavement on both sides of Abercrombie Street between Shepherd Street and
Ivy Street
that at peak times can lead to the pedestrians walking in the road. Pedestrians
mostly use the southern side of Lawson
Street and then Abercrombie Street crossing to the north
side of the street at the scatter crossing on the intersection of Abercrombie Street
and Shepherd Street.
At the Abercrombie / Shepherd intersection pedestrian traffic divides with
pedestrians continuing along Abercrombie to Codrington Street and pedestrians
travelling north along Shepherd and via a walkway on to the Camperdown Campus.” (TIS p 11)
Surprisingly,
given this statement which documents the existing conflict between pedestrians
and vehicles along this narrow route, the TIS does not address the impact of
further increases pedestrians on this route, nor does it address the impact of
increased vehicular traffic upon the pedestrian traffic.
Of major concern
is the Abercrombie / Shepherd intersection. This intersection may be the main
vehicle entrance to the North Eveleigh site
but it is also the major intersection for pedestrian traffic travelling down
the southern side of Abercrombie
St to cross to the University walkway in Shepherd St. This
intersection was scrambled in part to try and stop students walking across
Abercrombie between Lawson and Shepherd and across Shepherd between Abercrombie
and Lander. The re-phasing of the lights is likely to see increased uncontrolled
student movement across the roads rather than at crossings and returns a major
problem to the area. While we appreciate that increased traffic leads to less
“gap acceptance” and greater light compliance we are not convinced that the three
different possibilities for this intersection in the TIS have factored in the
large numbers of pedestrians that need to cross Abercrombie and Shepherd
Streets and the potential traffic turning conflicts.
The TIS
recognises generally that a “direct, safe and accessible pedestrian network is
critical” (TIS p4) but it has not planned for such an outcome. The TIS contains
no pedestrian counts. The only indication in the TIS is that “Surveys
undertaken by State Rail in 2001 revealed that during the morning peak (6:00 am
to 9:30 am) up to 62 percent of passengers (2,209 people) exiting Redfern
station – travelled west along Lawson
Street in the direction of the university.”
(TIS p 15). In addition to those leaving the station there are the people who
come in by bus and those who walk from the east and the south of the station
and cross the railway line at Lawson
St as it is the only way to the University from
these directions.
In 1994
South Sydney Council commissioned Aldovale and Traffix to undertake a Darlington
Precinct Traffic Management and Pedestrian Network Study. The traffic
calming features in the area have their origins in this study although not all
recommendations were implemented. This 1994 study found “pedestrian counts
showed 2,300 people walking from Redfern Station in the half hour before
lectures at 9am” (Page 9 of Consultation Draft). The figures in this study were
higher than State Rail in 2001.
As
mentioned earlier the Sydney Uni Campus 2020 Masterplan states that “since
1990, the number of students (EFTSU) has grown from approximately 23,000 to
nearly 36,000 and is projected to reach approximately 40,000 by 2010”
(p21). Based on these figures the number of students using this route would
have increased significantly in the last 14 years and is set to increase by a
further 10% in the next two years. Accurate count figures are required to be
able to adequately assess the pedestrian movements that need to be
accommodated. As peak pedestrian movements coincide and conflict with peak
vehicular movements they must be dealt with in the TIS.
The only
pedestrian traffic likely to be diverted from the Lawson Street bridge and use
the proposed new pedestrian bridge referred to in the TIS (which is not part of
the North Eveleigh Concept Plan currently on exhibition) are those coming from
the south. Student pedestrians tend to take the shortest distance between two
points. It is unlikely that they will change from using Lawson Street to leave the station to
take a longer route via the new pedestrian bridge.
The TIS
itself envisages station access from the development to be via Little Eveleigh
(and then currently Lawson St)
rather than via the new pedestrian and cycle bridge. It states “The
most significant pedestrian routes are likely to be between the North Eveleigh
site and Redfern Station, and the wider Redfern area via Wilson Street and Little Eveleigh Street,
and the route between North Eveleigh and
Redfern, via the proposed pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway lines.”
(TIS p 12).
One implication
of the mode splits not investigated in the TIS is how the new 2,936 North Eveleigh pedestrians (public transport users and
walkers) and the 4,972 Abercrombie Precinct pedestrians (public transport users
and walkers) interact with the area’s increased motor vehicle and pedestrian
traffic in the 2 hour AM peak period.
There is a
clear need for a broader movement study that addresses these pedestrian issues
and their interaction with motor vehicle and bike movements. The TIS does not
do this.
Abercrombie and Shepherd
Street Intersection
The main
conflict between pedestrian traffic and motor vehicles will come at the
Abercrombie / Shepherd St
crossing. The TIS proposes changing the scrambled lights which facilitate
crossing from the high pedestrian southern side of Abercrombie to the western
side of Shepherd St
near the university pedestrian entrance. The scramble crossing was introduced
to encourage use of the intersection for crossing rather than at the site of
the now removed Pedestrian Crossing midway between Lawson and Shepherd Sts
(where students continued to cross for some years after it was removed) or the
uncontrolled crossing of pedestrians across Abercrombie and Shepherd Sts.
It is not
plain from the TIS what is proposed for this intersection. The TIS puts up what
could be three solutions almost interchangeably – these solutions are “adjusting
signal timings to 90 second phases, or alternatively, additional turning lanes
could be introduced at the expense of on street parking” (TIS pp vi,
vii & 48) or “normal pedestrian staging and adjusting signal timings is intended from
60 seconds all day to 70 seconds in the AM peak and 80 seconds in the PM peak”
(TIS pp vi & 39).
While the
TIS consultants have provided us with helpful information on the operation of
both scramble and two way intersections, we have not been supplied with
information about what the sequence of lights needs to be to allow for turning
traffic across the pedestrian movements which is a significant requirement of
this intersection. Similarly while we have requested details of pedestrian
counts and how they would be handled through this intersection the TIS
consultants have been silent on this aspect.
While the
TIS shows there may be three options for addressing the traffic through this
intersection we are of the view that there needs to be an assessment based on
the numbers of pedestrians expected to be using this intersection. The final
solution needs also to look at what is best for pedestrians to minimise the
number of students crossing against the lights and in high risk movements
through gaps in traffic.
Changes to
the Abercrombie / Shepherd St lights must take into account both the logistics
of moving more pedestrians through the lights as well as the increased number
of motor vehicles. Increased footpath holding space for pedestrians potentially
conflict with space needed to accommodate extra turning lanes. Increased
pedestrian waiting time at traffic lights increases not only the holding area
required but also the likelihood that pedestrians (especially those running
late for class) will cross Abercrombie and Shepherd against the lights in an
uncontrolled manner for the full length of the block thus increasing the risk
of injury and the need for vehicles to travel more slowly.
Even using
the Council 1994 pedestrian count a 90 second pedestrian cycle means the
intersection has to, between 8.30 and 9am, handle on average 115 people per
cycle. In addition to this volume you have to include the peak half hour
proportion of the 4,972 Abercrombie Precinct pedestrians that will come from
Redfern Station as part of the development (TIS p 44); the proportional growth
of students from 1994 to 2008 (1900: 23,000 to 2008 36,000 USyd MP p 21) and
the impact of pedestrian clustering due to train discharge patterns.
The TIS has
to ensure that the Abercrombie / Shepherd St intersection solution works for
pedestrians as well as vehicles and the TIS currently does not adequately demonstrate
this.
Abercrombie and Lawson St
Intersection
The TIS
also proposes changes to the Abercrombie / Lawson St intersection. While this does
not appear to involve changing light cycle times the introduction of extended
turning lanes will need to interact with high pedestrian levels on the south
sides of Lawson and Abercrombie Sts while not impacting on pedestrian lights
and pedestrian blisters. The TIS has not addressed the impact of these changes
on Ivy Lane
and Ivy St
both of which are in very close proximity to the intersection and neither of
which have pedestrian crossings.
Prior to
the road closure between Little Eveleigh and Wilson Sts, the turn from Ivy Lane onto Lawson St was
restricted to left turn only because of impaired visibility when trying to make
a right hand turn. This restriction didn’t last long because of police use
against the no right turn sign and the signs were being taken down as quickly
as council put them up. The present situation which allows right hand turns
sees a significant level of dangerous movements across both pedestrian flows
and often fast traffic turning from Abercrombie
St into Lawson
St. The impact of the proposed changes to traffic
volumes and to the structure of this inter section must address this traffic
black spot.
Ivy St south of Abercrombie St which has no Pedestrian
Crossing currently carries a low volume of traffic, but this is likely to pick
up significantly as a route to the east entrance to the North
Eveleigh site as traffic seeks to avoid the Abercrombie / Shepherd St
intersection with its slowed light cycle and decreased level of service.
Currently the TIS does not address this problem. In addition to existing
traffic it is expected that there will be significant additional pedestrian and
bike traffic discharging into Ivy
St as a result of the proposed pedestrian and bike
bridge linking to the ATP and Alexandria.
Installation of pedestrian crossing at Abercrombie Street across Ivy street is
essential and the possibility of Ivy
St south being a shared zone should be
considered.
Ivy St to the north of Abercrombie is now
getting increasing student activity with the activation of the street with
retail food service on the northern side of Abercrombie St. This intersection does
not have a pedestrian crossing. Currently traffic exiting Ivy St north mainly turns left to go to
Redfern and beyond via Lawson St.
At present few motor vehicles access Ivy
St south across Abercrombie St from the north
side. This is likely to change as it becomes an alternative way to enter Wilson St and the
eastern entrance to North Eveleigh. Given the
proposal to adjust the Lawson / Abercrombie intersection the Ivy St / Abercrombie St intersection just
meters from it also needs to be addressed.
Lawson and Gibbons
The Lawson
/ Abercrombie intersection was one of the two intersections that have
comparable data between the BEP1 TIS (p52) and the TIS (p 35). As the Lawson /
Gibbons intersection was excluded from the TIS, which we have already argued is
a major shortcoming in the TIS, extrapolating from the Lawson / Abercrombie
data is the only way to get an understanding of what might be happening at
Lawson / Gibbons and exploring what the figures tell us.
Both the
BEP1 TIS and the TIS use the same starting “counts” for traffic turning into Lawson St from
Abercrombie St. Between 8am and 9am 423 vehicles travelled east and 353
travelled west.
The other
data in the TIS for Lawson Street
and Abercrombie Street
intersection is that in ‘Appendix B Forecast turning movements’. We have been
advised by the TIS consultants that the inadequately labelled Appendix B
figures form the numbers in the base case. It is clear they do not tally for Lawson St with the
1 hour “counts” in the link flow calibration (TIS p35), so it would appear that
they must be 2 hour movement figures. If this is so then they are comparable
with the RTA 2 hour AM peak figures (TIS p41) of 1319 travelling east and 968
travelling west. The Appendix B figures show 676 movements east (51% of RTA)
and 484 movements west (50% of RTA).
As
discussed earlier the TIS authors have informed us that they believe there are
major problems with the RTA data. A 50% difference certainly indicates some
major issues between the RTA figures and the TIS “counts” and underlines the
importance in establishing accurate base data. The use of the “counts” and the
use of the vastly different RTA figures for growth estimates make those reading
the TIS very nervous and bring into question in people’s minds the accuracy of
the TIS.
The BEP1
TIS predicted a post development peak hour intersection volume of 585 easterly
movements and 607 westerly movements (BEP1 TIS 52). However for the current
study peak 2 hour movements increased from 863 in the BEP1 TIS (p49) to 1601 in
the TIS (p43). Based on the Trip Assignment in the BEP TIS (p 50) 45% of newly
generated traffic was expected to enter or leave by Lawson St which should have
added at least an extra 166 peak hour vehicles (based on a conservative 1hour
peak at half the 332 2hour peak). This alone would constitute an increase of at
least 14% above the BEP1 TIS for the current TIS.
While we
have verbally been advised by the TIS consultants that there was an attractor
effect from the Railway / Gibbons St Developments also modelled in the BEP TIS,
we note that the BEP1 TIS traffic assignments (p50) make no such allocation
down Lawson and there is no information detailing where else this attractor may
have been added. In any event when the Regent & Gibbons Street core
develops and when buildings associated with the station are built any included
attractor effects in the BEP1 TIS will be actualised.
On the BEP1
TIS figures (p 56) the AM peak queues go from 188m pre-development to 272m post
the North Eveleigh development with PM peak
queues going from 159m to 353m, and AM Degree of Saturation of 0.84 and a PM
DoS of 0.91. To these figures we need to add the impact of the 166+ extra
Lawson St movements from the increase out of North Eveleigh plus the difference
in background growth assumption between BEP1 TIS (0.5pa) and the TIS (0.9%). All
of which points towards the possibility that the LoS ‘C’ on Lawson and Gibbons
reported in the BEP1 TIS may have deteriorated in the current TIS and that the
Degree of Saturation in both the AM and PM peaks will have approached closer to
1.0 where significant delays can be generated. The TIS does not address any of
these problems and excludes the Lawson / Gibbons intersection and Lawson St
Bridge from the study
area.
What makes
this potential problem a major issue is that Lawson intersects with a major
arterial road and there is limited room for phasing adjustment, as well as
limited room for vehicle stacking due to the intersection being just over the
railway bridge that must also carry large numbers of pedestrian and cyclists.
This
example starkly underlines the problem for those trying to both understand and
discuss the TIS. It brings together many of the issues which REDWatch believes
need to be addressed before the TIS should be accepted as adequate by the
Department of Planning. As stated earlier it is our view that the TIS should
have provided clear, transparent figures on its base data and clear information
about how the model it has constructed expects vehicles to enter and leave the
study area’s intersections with the surrounding arterial roads.
The TIS
would have been more understandable and its implications clearer for residents
if peak hour data (as 1 or 2 hours) was clearly labelled and if the at least
one set of comparable figures was included for the model (in either daily
movements, peak 2 hour or peak 1 hour movements). The decision by the RWA not
to release such information made it extremely difficult to assess the traffic
impact from the proposed development.
The queue
figures mentioned above from this BEP1 TIS example also underline that there
are differences between AM peak and PM peak traffic movements due to the
structure of the arterial road intersections. The TIS has only considered AM
peak movements and does not address PM movements, which in the case of Lawson St, is more
congested in the afternoon. There are important differences between AM and PM
route availability due to no right turn restrictions into Cleveland St at both Abercrombie St and
Regent St. The result is that Cleveland
St traffic from the east can enter the study area
easily at Abercrombie St,
but to leave the study area to get to Cleveland
St it has to use either Shepherd or Lawson. The
TIS must examine major intersections in both the AM and PM peaks as well as
assess if traffic flow improvements to handle peaks will increase non-peak rat
runs through the study area which follow primarily from congestion on King St.
It should
be noted also that congestion on Lawson
St is a major determinant on emergency vehicle
response times due to the limited options to cross the rail corridor. We note
that the TIS confines itself to provisions for emergency services within the
Concept Plan site but does not address the possible impact of traffic
congestion on Lawson St for emergency vehicle assess to the site and the
surrounding area. Long queue lengths and LoS on Lawson / Gibbons Sts and Lawson
/ Abercrombie Sts will impact emergency vehicles and this must be fully
assessed in the TIS.
Wilson Street
Issues
In the same
way that the TIS takes little account of pedestrians there is concern that the
TIS has not adequately addressed the interaction between motor vehicles and
bicycles as well as bicycle pathways and storage requirements on the North
Eveleigh site. The Wilson St
bicycle route runs across both entrances to the site. Currently there is no
cross traffic across this route in Darlington.
According
to the TIS (p43) there will be 1466 motor vehicles leaving the North Eveleigh site through the Shepherd St entrance in the AM peak
period across the Wilson St
bikeway. The TIS has no assessment of this new intersection nor does it propose
how the conflict between traffic entering the path of the bicycle route will be
handled other than “warn motorists that cyclists are likely to be present” (TIS
p 59).
The
relocation of the Wilson / Shepherd
St roundabout to accommodate articulated vehicles
potentially creates problems for both bicycles due to the relocation of the new
roundabout and to pedestrians who have to cross further in to the site to avoid
turning traffic. The impact of this intersection on pedestrians and bicycles
should be assessed with a view to ensuring safe movement by all users. This may
require pedestrian crossings or lights.
While the
expanded entrance / exit to the western end of the site is expected to have
much less traffic, again there needs to be provision for safe pedestrian and
bike movements. There is concern that unaccompanied children use this street on
their way to school and that due to articulated vehicle access it will not be
possible to add a blister. A pedestrian crossing is probably required.
The
position of the western North Eveleigh exit
needs to be fully assessed. There is considerable concern about the path taken
by some of the existing CarriageWorks
traffic from the site into Queen St. Locals report traffic moving from this
exit to Queen St
diagonally and say that there has been an increase in accidents. While Queen St is one way
towards King St,
it is narrow and two way near Wilson
St and entering vehicles may meet exiting vehicles
and need to back out into Wilson
Street. Queen Street also has a deep dip which
makes anything but slow entrances problematic which compounds the problems for
those making a diagonal dash. If the exit is to remain in its current location
this issue has to be addressed.
From a
motor vehicle point of view the exit to the site would be far better to line up
with either Forbes St
(as per the earlier master plan) or Golden
Grove St (as the main link to Wilson, City Rd and
Abercrombie). We were advised verbally by the TIS consultants that the three T
intersections work better for cycle and pedestrian safety than a four way
intersection. Given the current problems with movements to Queen St the exit
needs to be rethought and a better solution achieved.
A move to
align with Forbes or Golden Grove Streets would also address concerns from
those backing onto Ivery’s Lane, who fear that the proximity to the lane
combined with the land drop to their properties will result in exhaust fumes
from the current exit gravitating onto their properties with consequent health
risks.
It should
also be noted at the western end of the site that there is currently no
provision in the North Eveleigh concept plan
for pedestrian movements from the site to MacDonaldtown Station other than via
the Wilson St
access. Given the mode split for public transport there needs to be easy access
from the proposed development to MacDonaldtown station. This provision should
be included into the approved Concept Plan.
Street Capacity
Streets
like Shepherd and Queen are narrow and are not suited to having significant
traffic volumes. Other than the reference to articulated vehicles, the TIS does
not investigate the structural capacity of streets in the area to handle
increased traffic. We are advised that Railcorp uses small buses through the area
as a result of such issues and there is fear that street like Shepherd St will
be unable to handle heavy and increased traffic without problems to the road
and surrounding buildings. We have also been advised, but can not verify that Forbes Street has a
weight limit.
While the
TIS identifies that articulated vehicles can not leave by certain routes due to
weight limitations and it does not identify the problematic routes. It notes
however “PB has made an assessment of suitable routes and would recommend that
all heavy vehicle traffic should be directed from City road via Golden Grove Street
into Wilson Street”.
This route
takes heavy vehicles through a roundabout at the intersection with Abercrombie
which includes one of the main pedestrian crossings for the Primary School on
the corner. The TIS needs to investigate the impact of this traffic upon the
safety of the school and children travelling to and from the school. Increased
traffic, especially heavy vehicles, next to school crossings are a major cause
for concern and has to be addressed in the TIS.
Mode Share Issues
This is one
of the most difficult balancing acts in planning such a development. Traffic
generated is dependent on the mode shares assumed and parking built into the
project. The higher the level of parking the more traffic is generated and
project is likely to impact less on the on-street parking available to
surrounding residents. The lower the parking the lower the traffic generated
and the more pressure that is likely on the parking for surrounding residents.
We are sure the department will get many submissions on this and will not argue
for either and increase or a decrease in parking or the various mode shares.
We are
however concerned that the TIS mode share figures are very dependent on the
ability of the public transport system to provide a viable alternative to car
use. While the consultants have been happy to point to recent increased public
transport patronage to support this mode share split they do not seem to have
also taken on board the converse, which is that high patronage levels has
pushed some public transport to their capacity constraints.
This is
particularly an issue for inner city access to busses where proximity to a bus
route (TIS p26) does not equate with ability to access bus transport. Many
services are full before they enter the area and it is not uncommon during peak
hours for long delays while full buses go past. It is not clear if the default
boarding rate of the Parametrics model used in the TIS takes this inner city
problem into account. It does seem strange however that given local resident
experience that the TIS should conclude that “existing infrastructure and bus
stops should accommodate the increased demand. Demand for bus and transit from
the university and the North Eveleigh sites is
estimated to increase by 7,000 trips a day in the AM peak”
The recent
increase in rail patronage is also making it difficult to board some peak
services with overloaded trains having difficulty discharging passengers and
also taking on new passengers in the time allowed. These problems do not appear
to have been taken into account in the TIS. The TIS (p57) recognises “Redfern
Station is crucial to achieving the mode share target for the North
Eveleigh Development and improvements to the station would assist.
However, findings from earlier work undertaken by PB would suggest that the
station has spare capacity and will be able to accommodate the increased
patronage resulting from both the North Eveleigh
and Abercrombie proposals.”
Currently
the issue is spare capacity in the peak network rather than the spare capacity
at Redfern Station. Without addressing such issues in the TIS and at least
identifying that the problem needs to be addressed, those who live in the area
are left only to hope that the NSW Government will have addressed the problem
by the time these projects deliver the new people to the area. Such optimism
has proved unfounded in the planning for many developments throughout the
metropolitan area.
If Sydney
University is successful in purchasing the North Eveleigh, as allowed both in
the RWA Concept Plan and the University’s 2020 Masterplan, and if the
University mode split applies to the North Eveleigh site, car usage will drop
from the 40% share proposed for North Eveleigh (TIS p43) to the 7% used for the
Abercrombie campus (TIS p44). This would significantly reduce the impact of
traffic generated by the developments on the Darlington
area. Public transport capacity however becomes even more important for servicing
such a development and as previously noted the TIS is very week on pedestrian
issues.
One of the
current concerns for adjoining residents has been the parking impact of the CarriageWorks performances. This has resulted from a
low parking allowance for the CarriageWorks
development. The TIS proposes to extend this level of parking for the CarriageWorks expansion. While again it might be
hoped that most people will use public transport when attending performances
this is has to date not been the case.
It is our
view that the RWA Concept Plan should incorporate an integrated approach to
parking that would allow theatre patrons to use parking vacated by day time
commercial or educational users. A larger integrated parking solution for the
site, similar to that being considered by Frasers at the former Kent brewery
site, would allow for better integration of parking between business, retail,
entertainment and residential uses, and minimise the quantity of parking that
is necessary to be built on the site and potentially the construction costs. It
would also allow for parking space to be retired, provision for car share to be
increased in concert with the changes of car and public transport usage over
time. It would also make it possible to modified parking for delivery of
electrical or gas filling or other changes that may be required.
We note
that the University is aiming to remove motor vehicles from its Camperdown
campus and to place parking at the periphery of the site. This is similar to
the approach taken by Frasers in their revised Concept Plan for the Broadway
site. We are of the view that this approach should be considered by the
proponent and the Department in the North Eveleigh Concept Plan. We are sure
that the public domain on the North Eveleigh
site can be activated without the need for streets feeding parking under each
building and the provision of the 75 on street parking spaces proposed by the
Concept Plan.
The Lack of Integration
While we
welcome the Department’s initiative in requesting traffic be looked at in the
context of both the North Eveleigh and
University expansion we feel this has not gone far enough. The RWA and the
Department have put in place planning controls that also include possible
attractors at Redfern station and in the Redfern commercial core as well as in
the Eveleigh St precinct. All these will impact on vehicular, pedestrian and
bike traffic within the Darlington area and between it and Redfern Waterloo and
Alexandria.
Central to
how the area operates will be what happens at Redfern Station. This information
however still has not been publically released. Decisions on surrounding
developments are being made without this vital information. The consequence is
likely to be a series of one off developments rather than an integrated
approach to the area which activates the public domain and minimises traffic
impacts upon the community and those entering it. Should for example, as some
fear, the station turn its back on The Block then there is good reason to
believe that this will probably ghettoise this area even further.
At a
minimum REDWatch requests the Department to request the RWA and its traffic
consultants to run their traffic model taking into account all developments
allowed under the RWA planning controls that will impact on Darlington
as well as the impact of the University’s 2020 Masterplan. This assessment of
the combined impact of the proposed developments should be completed before the
Concept Plan approval is given for any of the sites.
Ideally
REDWatch would like to see the RWA undertake an integrated Movement
Infrastructure Study similar to that proposed by Space Syntax in The
Pemulwuy Project Aboriginal Housing Company Movement Infrastructure Report
Preliminary Findings 27 October 2007 which is currently with the Department
of Planning. The TIS on exhibition is almost exclusively a motor vehicle study
and does not go into the full range of movements across the site and the how
those movements will integrate or further separate parts of the area.
It is imperative
in our view that there is an integrated evidence based approach to movements
across the area to ensure that all the proposed developments work together and
address the area’s issues rather than reinforce them.
REDWatch
hence encourages the Department ensure that consideration is given to all
proposed developments in the area in a TIS and that this includes a broad
movement infrastructure study looking at the area as an integrated whole.
Conclusion
The TIS is
central to what density and activity is suitable for the North
Eveleigh site Concept Plan. To the extent that it is possible to
assess the TIS because of its lack of detail and construction, we have raised
in this submission a series of issues, questions and concerns which the TIS
report does not appear to have adequately addressed.
In summary
we request the Department of Planning to:
- Request the proponent to
release the information necessary for the community to understand the
local traffic impact on the community and to allow the community to make
any supplementary submissions. - Ensure that the issues raised
in this submission have been taken into account in the preparation of the
traffic model used to model the traffic impact. - Request the proponent to rerun
the model including the traffic impacts of the University’s plans for the
area and the developments allowed under the RWA BEP that will impact on Darlington traffic. - Request the proponent to
undertake an integrated movement infrastructure report across the Darlington area to deal with all movements and how
these impact the area and what can be done to provide greater integration,
amenity and economic benefit from movements across the area.
For and on
Behalf of REDWatch
Geoffrey
Turnbull
REDWatch
Spokesperson
c/- PO Box 1567
Strawberry
Hills NSW 2012
Ph Wk: (02) 9318 0824
email:
mail@redwatch.org.au