NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan Team
Transport for NSW
GPO Box K659
Haymarket NSW 1240

Draft NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan

We refer to this draft Plan which was released in September. The Glebe Society appreciates the opportunity to comment on how the Plan can be strengthened. The submission that follows was prepared by its Transport and Traffic Committee transport@glebesociety.org.au. Please include it on your circulation list.

The Glebe Society has a strategy for improving transport for people living in Glebe that largely focuses on improving public transport in and around Glebe and to destinations taken by Glebe residents. We believe that an efficient and attractive public transport system is vital for our densely populated inner suburb as are steps to make cycling and walking safe and attractive options.

Our view is that transport is about people and not cars. We believe that in the longer term the use of private motor vehicles in Sydney, with the associated costly investment required in roads and other infrastructure and the problem of traffic congestion, should not be promoted and encouraged. Rather, the use of public transport, walking and cycling need to be made attractive options for commuters. In our view this is best done through the development of an integrated and viable public transport system and providing facilities for safe cycling and walking.

For these reasons we support the initiatives set out in the draft Plan to improve and integrate the public transport system in Sydney and to make cycling and walking safe and attractive options, and we ask that funding be made available by the NSW Government to put these initiatives into effect. While we recognise that certain road projects will need to be undertaken in Sydney, our view is that investment in public transport and the encouraging of cycling and walking will have far greater long term benefits.

Public Transport Initiatives

Accordingly we support the initiatives contained in the draft Plan relating to Public Transport, Rail, Light Rail, Bus, Ferries, Cycling and Walking as summarised in Chapter 9 and as fully described throughout the draft Plan. We see these initiatives as going towards creating a high class transport system for Sydney. In particular we believe that real benefits lie in the development of an integrated public transport system as proposed and we applaud the initiatives proposed to bring about this integration, such as the Opal system, accurate and modern real-time and way-finding information and the alignment of public transport timetables. We also believe that investment in a modern transport fleet and investment in interchanges as announced in the draft Plan are critical.

Light Rail

We believe however that the draft Plan can be strengthened in respect of the proposals relating to light rail. In our view the development of a comprehensive light rail system should be a key strategy of a public transport system in and around the localities that experience high commuter traffic. Light rail can play a major role in reducing traffic congestion and should be an integral part of the transport system of a modern and developing city like Sydney.

We would prefer that a commitment be made in the final Plan to building light rail in the three inner Sydney corridors identified on page 154 of the draft Plan ; the Sydney CBD , to the University of Sydney and to University of NSW with a link to Randwick. The draft Plan refers to these projects as requiring further consideration. We believe however that there needs to be a firm commitment to these projects.

The benefits of light rail are well set out on pages 154 and 155 of the draft Plan and we note reference in the draft Plan to a new light rail line having the capacity to carry up to 12,500 passengers in the morning peak hour with significant reduction of traffic resulting. We consider that the light rail line proposal for George Street would have very significant benefits for the CBD, for commuters, tourists, retailers and other businesses alike and will confirm Sydney in the ranks of attractive, modern and progressive international cities. Extending light rail along these corridors will also make it a meaningful option for Glebe residents and for those living in the other inner west suburbs served by the present light rail line, including the extension to Dulwich Hill. For instance, building light rail down George Street to Circular Quay will give many commuters direct access to their place of work in the CBD which the present light rail service does not achieve because it terminates at Central Station.

Infrastructure NSW Report

We refer to the report released by Infrastructure NSW earlier this month. While we appreciate that this report deals with separate objectives to the draft Master Plan and is concerned with identifying all major infrastructure projects for NSW, there are certain aspects of the Infrastructure NSW report which, if implemented, will undermine key options for the development of a viable public transport system in Sydney. As such we believe these aspects should be rejected by the NSW Government.

In particular, we refer to the proposal put forward by Infrastructure NSW to replace plans for light rail in George Street with a network of bus tunnels in the CBD. As mentioned, we believe light rail should be a key component of an integrated and efficient public transport system for Sydney and abandoning the light rail option for the CBD would be a retrograde step. Further, the construction of bus tunnels in the CBD is likely to impinge on heavy rail corridors in the area and so will jeopardise the potential for developing further rail infrastructure in the CBD which we consider must be retained as an option.

Secondly we refer to the rejection by Infrastructure NSW of the need for a second harbour crossing for rail in the foreseeable future. We believe that failure to build a second harbour crossing within the next twenty years will weaken the role of rail as a viable public transport option for greater Sydney and will be detrimental to Sydney’s public transport system as a whole.

We are also concerned about the emphasis in the report given to more road projects for Sydney. In particular we refer to the WestConnex Project. While we appreciate that the report does not identify the exact route of the “inner west” section of the WestConnex Project ( and the routes of the associated road connections in the inner west) , we would be concerned if this project were to result in increased traffic flows in and around Glebe.

We recognise the need for some new roads for Sydney, particularly in the outer suburbs and to key localities such as the airport, but we believe Glebe and greater Sydney would be best served by the development of a high class public transport system. Ultimately more roads lead to more traffic congestion and in the short to medium term undermine investment in public transport. The experience of many other cities in the world, including Los Angeles and Auckland, attests to this.

Yours truly

John Gray

President
October 26, 2012

 The Glebe Society has urged the Government to lessen the emphasis on the motor car and increase the emphasis on walking in its long-term planning for transport in New South Wales.  

Christopher Hallam & Associates Pty Ltd have been commissioned by The Glebe Society to review the traffic, transport and parking implications of the proposed redevelopment of the Harold Park Raceway site located on The Crescent/Minogue Crescent/Wigram Road, Glebe. Two traffic reports prepared by Arup have been reviewed, with the Transport, Traffic and Access Study (Stage 2) dated May 2010 discussing a proposal with 1204 dwellings, 3850 sq m of commercial office space and 7211 sq m of retail space, and a second study dated 16 November 2010 dealing with an increased density of residential uses, taking the number of residential units from 1204 to 1251 dwellings.

The general methodology employed in the studies by Arup is sound, subject to the comments made below.

2.0 SITE ACCESS

The main residential area will have access directly off The Crescent/Minogue Crescent, plus a supplementary access off Wigram Road. The latter access would not be adequate as the only access for this residential area. The traffic impact assessment is premised on a new access intersection at The Crescent/Minogue Crescent/Site, controlled by traffic signals. This access and traffic signals will need to be approved by the Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW (RTA). There is a chance that the RTA might argue the site already has alternative access points via Wigram Road and Nelson Street and hence a new access off the major road network would not be desirable. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 recommends against access off a classified road “where practicable vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road”. The direct access to the Minogue Crescent/The Crescent intersection, with traffic signals providing safe access and egress would need to be an integral part of any development consent, whether as a deferred commencement consent condition, or a requirement for the access and signals to be approved b y the RTA prior to consent being granted . Access to/from the major road via only left turns would not be adequate.

The minor access off Wigram Road is desirable to better distribute traffic flows. However, one traffic implication of the development that has not been tested is the impact of additional development traffic on the intersection of Wigram Road and Glebe Point Road. Anecdotally, this intersection becomes busy in peak periods, with high pedestrian movements. Additional development traffic could adversely affect its operation. The possible improvement options have been reviewed in previous traffic studies of Glebe. While traffic signals could provide additional safety and road capacity, they would arguably be an inappropriate treatment at this location, with the adjoining neighbourhood shopping centre, where it would not be desirable to remove parking for a signal installation, and also where signals might be considered out of keeping with the character.

The access to the small residential section off Maxwell Road appears acceptable, on the traffic number in the report, subject to the parking rates and consequent trip generation rates being correct.

The access to the tramsheds is logical, however the road will cut across substantial pedestrian flows between the open space/recreational area. The proposal has a lack of details on exactly how the vehicle/pedestrian conflicts would be resolved. Grade separation of the two would clearly have benefits, particularly if the retail traffic generation is higher, as is considered likely.

3.0 PARKING PROVISION

Residential

Low parking rates are proposed, based on “Land Use and Transport Integration Index”. We are not aware of the application of these rates to a development of the nature proposed in Glebe. They are marginally lower than the RTA’s rates for “high density residential flat buildings”, in Sub-regional centres. Leichhardt DCP rates are also given. The respective rates are:

The RTA rates are for developments in sub-regional centres, with local employment, and good public transport. The Harold Park site will have some local employment. The rates are a lot lower than the Leichhardt DCP rates. The principal of restricting on-site parking to restrict peak period traffic generation is arguably not appropriate for residential developments, given the possible off-peak recreational travel demands. The implications of not providing adequate parking on the site would be on-street parking within the site and on adjoining streets. 

We have a significant concern about the simple use of the LUTI rates. A preferred approach would be to survey the current parking demand rates by unit size in the recently redeveloped hospital site on Pyrmont Bridge Road, Forest Lodge. While a first step would be to find out the parking spaces actually constructed on the site, the key issue is the demand, not the supply, so a survey of the car ownership levels of current occupants would be required.

The proposal makes no specific provision for residential Visitor parking. At the RTA rate of one space per five units, a total of 250 parking spaces would be required. The report argues that this parking demand can occur on-street within the site. There has been no analysis presented as to the actual on-street parking supply available.

Commercial

The parking rate of one space per 75 sq m of commercial/office/community space is a constrained rate, and less than the RTA rate of one space per 40 sq m GFA. If this is the actual demand, than the rate is appropriate, but if the rate is artificially low, to constrain peak hour traffic generation, the end result could well be that workers without parking simply park in the residential streets behind the tramsheds, in Victoria and Maxwell Roads. If this is the end result, parking restrictions might need to be introduced into these streets. 

Retail

The adopted retail rate of one space per 50 sq m GFA is substantially lower than the RTA base rate of 6.1 spaces per 100 sq m GLFA. The inherent question is the type of retail use. However the relatively large size, of 7211 sq m of retail space, could well act to become a sub-regional attraction. For example, factory outlet stores often cluster in certain areas. Birkenhead Point has several such stores. A better example could be the DFO (Direct Factory Outlet) complex in Homebush. In this site the building is a recycled supermarket warehouse, where small outlet stores are fitted out within. From surveys we have undertaken of this store, the rates of traffic generation and parking demand are high, and substantially higher than the proposed retail parking rate. If this type of retail use did develop, parking demands would overflow onto residential streets. The rate of parking provision also drives the traffic generation rates. If the parking rate is artificially low, and the parking overflow is not taken into account, the traffic generation projections will be too low.

It is not clear from the information that we have reviewed where the car parking for the tramsheds will be located, or the details of the internal road connections.

4.0 TRAFFIC GENERATION

The traffic generation estimates are based on the parking levels proposed. For example, for the retail use, the RTA generation rate of 16.3 veh/hr/100 sq m is factored down according to the level of parking proposed, to 5.0 veh/hr/100 sq m. However if parking overflows onto the adjacent streets, mainly residential, the added generation of this traffic is not accounted for. 

Based on the assumed parking rates meeting the actual demand, we estimate that the combined retail plus commercial traffic will be approximately 340 veh/hr in the weekday afternoon peak hour and 400 veh/hr in the Saturday morning peak hour.

5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT

The assessment of external traffic impacts is premised on the parking provided meeting the parking demands. For the retail and commercial uses proposed, we have a significant concern that the proposed parking supply will be inadequate, and hence the estimates of traffic generation are too low. This will have underestimated flows along Nelson Street and into the site, as well as additional traffic in the residential streets behind the site, in Victoria Road and Maxwell Road, as well as the feeder roads of Arcadia and Toxteth Roads.

With the access off Nelson Street, this traffic will be cutting across substantial pedestrian desire lines to the open space and recreational areas being provided on the site. We are not aware of the proposed detailed road treatments to cater for these conflicts. Further detailed design is required, to firstly describe what the consent is being sought for, and to show how vehicle/pedestrian conflicts will be resolved.

With the impact on intersections in the area, we note the impacts set out in Table 4 of the Arup report of 16 November 2010. The Johnston Street/The Crescent/Chapman Road intersection currently operates at a level of service of F in the weekday afternoon, and hence clearly does not have spare capacity for additional traffic. At City West Link/The Crescent, the current weekday afternoon level of service of C will worsen to D. There will be impacts at other intersections. In traffic terms, there does not appear to be sufficient justification to increase the residential floor-space ratio from 1.20 to 1.25:1, when there are significant adverse impacts even at 1.20:1. 

There has been no analysis of traffic conditions at Wigram Road/Glebe Point Road. This intersection will be affected by development traffic.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

1.     The parking levels proposed for the residential units appear low. Greater justification for the use of these rates is recommended, ideally based on surveys of a similar development, such as that on the redeveloped hospital site on Pyrmont Bridge Road, Forest Lodge. If inadequate parking is provided, there will be parking overflowing onto firstly the internal site roads, and then onto adjoining public streets. The use of the on-site roads for visitor parking has already been assumed, where the visitor parking demand based on RTA rates will be 250 cars (1251 units @ 0.2 spaces/unit).

2.       The parking levels proposed for the retail area appears too low. The large scale of this retail area could make the site of sub-regional attraction, for possible uses as direct factory outlet stores, attracting high levels of parking demand. There could be significant impacts on parking in the adjoining residential streets of Glebe, also generating traffic into these streets that has not been assessed. 

3.       A higher level of peak period traffic flows along the Nelson Street access to the tramshed site could result in a high level of conflict with pedestrian flows. Details of treatments to accommodate such conflicts are not provided.

4.       The traffic analysis assumes that the RTA will approve a traffic signal controlled access off The Crescent/Minogue Crescent. This access is critical to the development. RTA consent should either be granted for these works prior to the determination of the application or a deferred commencement consent condition applied, to ensure such an access is provided.

5.       Further traffic analysis is required, after parking rates have been reviewed and hence traffic generation estimates revised up.

The Forest Lodge and Glebe Local Area Traffic Management Plan (LATM) Report that was endorsed by Council in October 2007 has now be renamed as The Forest Lodge and Glebe Pedestrian, Cyclist & Traffic Calming Plan (PCTC). 2009

The strategy for ongoing implementation will be:

• Pedestrian, Cycling, and Traffic calming (PCTC) plans are strategic studies undertaken around every 10 years.
• Items are graded into three categories with construction time frames being 1-2yrs, 3-5yrs, and 5-7yrs. Between 8-10yrs the plan as a whole will be evaluated to see if it has been successful and to decide on appropriate alterations in the next PCTC review.
• Isolated items that were not considered as part of the PCTC can be submitted directly to the City's Traffic Operations unit for investigation.

Community forums will be undertaken with residents. Residents can advise the City of Sydney of their traffic, pedestrian and cycling issues and suggestions.

The next major consideration for Glebe and Forest Lodge will be the development of Cycleways in Glebe and Cycle Strategy and Action Plan: 2007-2017. This is an action plan for the whole LGA.

There will community forums to discuss the planning and development of cycleways in Glebe. Whilst many of the issues are universal, Glebe has its own constraints.

These include:

• Hilly terrain, narrow streets and little opportunity for separated cycleways.
• Different needs for commuter cyclists from recreational cyclists
• Linkage with other Council strategies

Education for everyone – how to share the space

The ideal cycleway, separated from cars and pedestrians. This solution is not always achievable in older villages, where heritage issues and narrow streets impact on design.

“Traffic is a social problem, not a design problem.
Cars are happiest when there are no other cars around.
People are happiest when there are other people around.”
   – Dan Burden, founder of the non-profit organization Walkable Communities, Inc.

Jan Wilson
Convenor

SUBMISSION TO THE SYDNEY CITY COUNCIL
ON THE DRAFT GLEBE AND FOREST LODGE LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT PLAN

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 RESPONSE TO DRAFT LATM PLAN

3.0 GLEBE POINT ROAD ISSUES

4.0 FURTHER LATM WORKS

5.0 CONCLUSION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Glebe Society wishes to thank Sydney City Council for undertaking a Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Study of Glebe and Forest Lodge, and appreciates the opportunity to respond to the draft LATM Plan, as unveiled at the public meeting on 8th May 2007.

We have prepared this response by firstly commenting specifically on each of the items in the draft LATM Plan, in Section 2.

In Section 3 we have provided expanded comments on the artery of Glebe, Glebe Point Road.

While the items in the draft Plan have covered the northern section of Glebe Point Road, no items are recommended south of Hereford Street. We understand that the consultant accepted the recommendations of the Glebe Point Road Streetscape Upgrade Project, and did not seek to provide further refinement. However there are further LATM and streetscape options that we wish to recommend in this important section of Glebe Point Road.

Finally, in Section 4 we have set out further suggestions for items that we consider are worthy of inclusion in the final LATM Plan.

Read the rest of this entry » »

Media release

LIGHT RAIL

Sydney, even more than other Australian cities, needs improved public transport.

We need it to:

• Ease congestion in the CBD
• Reduce travel times
• Provide comfortable, safe travel to and from work
• Reduce our dependence on cars
• Save on the cost of fuel
• Reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming
• Make our city vibrant and attractive to investors
• Make our city a pleasant place for visitors

WE WELCOME every initiative to provide better bus, train and ferry services.

HOWEVER there is one initiative we can implement quickly, easily and cheaply that will help achieve all of the above, and is also accessible to wheelchairs, strollers and bikes.

The Glebe Society says

EXTEND LIGHT RAIL TO CIRCULAR QUAY

The City of Sydney proposes a link of this fast, modern mass transit system extending down and up Castlereagh Street to the Quay. This is the most readily achievable, economical and effective way of reducing congestion and travel times in the CBD.

The Glebe Society asks its members to

SUPPORT LIGHT RAIL TO THE QUAY

by writing to and emailing the NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, John Watkins, Minister for Transport, and Sandra Nori, Minister for Tourism and MLA for Port Jackson.

August 2006

* * * * * * * *

Read the rest of this entry » »