Stop Eastern Hill Traffic Restrictions

MANLY 2015 PLAN

In essence the Plan proposes the following major changes to Manly CBD and its infrastructure:
1. Construct a new car park beneath the Oval.
2. Revamp Whistler Street area in particular remove the Whistler Street Car Park and rebuild or substantially modify the existing library building.
3. Introduce a shared pedestrian/traffic zone along the Ocean front at North and South Steyne.
4. Make major changes to vehicular access to the Eastern Hill by closing certain roads and restricting use of others.

The Little Manly Precinct Committee makes the following submissions to Council with regard to the Manly 2015 Plan. The Manly 2015 Plan has some attractive features – particularly those relating to upgrading of certain lanes and small unattractive streets but our overall impression is extremely negative for the reasons discussed below.

A. New Car Park Beneath Manly Oval

i) We understand this proposed Car Park of 800 spaces will replace the proposed demolition of the 385 space Whistler Street car park and some 400 street parking spaces which are to be removed. In other words there is a negligible nett parking gain.
ii) This doesn’t seem to do much to encourage creation of parking at Manly for commuters to park and ride to the city by ferry and will only add to commuter parking on residential streets.
iii) The Oval is not considered a sensible place to construct a car park due to entry and exit traffic issues and the considerable cost.
iv) A concern is that car park will sit in a water basin given the water table location.
v) The cost of the car park will be very high due to the high level of engineering to cope with the water table and drainage.
vi) The Oval currently has a green feel which will be destroyed by the need to install vents above ground level.
vii) The area’s carbon footprint will double due to the need for fuelled ventilation.
viii) The site makes it impractical for residents to park so far from local shops thus forcing them to Warringah Mall and The Totem.
ix) The proposed underground walkway may become the new urinal and mugger’s heaven.
x) The elderly and disabled will have serious difficulty accessing the CBD and the Wharf.
xi) The shift to the West of available curb side parking spaces will create even more contention for Eastern spots.
xii) It is suggested that more and cheaper parking spaces can be realised by rationalising of street parking design as well as considering construction of parking areas beneath certain streets such as Victoria Avenue and the Far West site.
xiii) Free parking privileges for residents must be maintained.

B. Whistler Street Revamp

i) We are opposed to the destruction of the current library building- which is not very old. We believe this to be a total waste of ratepayer’s funds. If additional facilities are considered needed then we strongly opt for constructing additional space on to the existing building.
ii) In this regard we believe that some years ago Council engaged the original architects of the library to investigate extensions. Have these plans been utilised in manly 2015 or are we starting from scratch again?
iii) We strongly oppose the demolition of the Whistler St car park as it is a valuable and well used car park conveniently central to the CBD.
iv) Council and therefore ratepayers will experience a significant loss of revenue by demolition of the car park which will not be replaced from revenue from the proposed new Oval car park where the revenue will be needed to service the significant loans required to build it. Has this loss of income been quantified?

C. Ocean Beach, Shared Zones and Traffic Changes

From the point of view of residents of the Eastern Hill the Plan appears to believe that Manly stops at Ashburner Street in that access to and egress from all of the area East of that point which includes the Hospital, North Head Scenic Reserve and Quarantine Station, Little Manly, the Police College, the Hospitality College, St Pauls School, the North Head Sewage Treatment Plant and some 5000 residents is to be severely restricted.

In our view the traffic modelling studies included as part of the plan are to be treated with a fair degree of scepticism. Traffic gridlocks experienced by residents in November 2010 with recent part road closures caused by Utility maintenance works show how the smallest change to the existing access roads can create instant mayhem. Special events like Sydney Hobart Yacht Race start, Wine & Food Festival, Jazz Festival or the arrival of some special vessel in to the Harbour also result in traffic gridlock to and from the Eastern Hill.
The Manly 2015 Plan effectively proposes to limit vehicular traffic to and from the Eastern Hill by the following means:

*..Limit traffic along North and South Steyne by creating a 10kph zone to be shared with pedestrians- with pedestrians having right of way. (One option has two-way traffic – the other has southbound traffic only).

*. Darley Road to become a shared zone – one way north. Whistler Street to become a shared zone one way north also.

*.Traffic calming measures to be introduced in Belgrave St. and East Esplanade.

*.Close Sydney Road to all traffic.

*. Central Avenue to become a cul de sac – again with traffic calming measures.

Our comments on the above are:

i) All routes to and from The Eastern Hill and all the important facilities there located are to be restricted in some way- either by road closure, use of “Shared Zones” or by installation of traffic calming obstacles.

ii) We find this concept of “Shared Zones” particularly strange. The thought of driving along the Ocean front with lots of pedestrians, young children walking and running about, playing games and enjoying what is proposed to be an area of al fresco cafes and outdoor lifestyle enjoyment is particularly frightening. An area such as this is either a road or it is not. Shared Zones will make South Steyne and Darley Road practically unusable for cars at busy pedestrian times. It is difficult as it is even with traffic lights as too many tourists and visitors simply ignore the lights. (When asked at a meeting where one could visit and see such a “Shared Zone” Mr Wong advised that there was one in Sorrento in Italy and he also thought there was perhaps one in Copenhagen in Denmark. It would be helpful to have some local examples to look at – if in fact they exist).

iii) It is noted that some time ago the junction of the Corso with the roadway at the Ocean front had only a soft curbing which led to pedestrians walking down the Corso and over the road without concerning themselves with traffic. Many accidents and injuries resulted and the normal curbing had to be reinstated. We believe this Shared Zone concept to be a recipe for disaster with injuries and deaths an inevitability.

iv) We are totally opposed to one way traffic along the Steyne as such a plan would significantly reduce access and egress from the Eastern Hill.

v) East Esplanade is currently choked at peak times with protracted stoppages at both Wentworth Street traffic lights and the Wharf as well as competition with buses. Proposed “traffic calming” can only aggravate the situation and the possibility of tram lines does not bear thinking about. If the access to the Eastern Hill via the Steyne is to be so restricted then why would the plan wish to further restrict East Esplanade -the only remaining route to and from the Eastern Hill - by placing traffic calming devices in the road? Surely the road access should be improved rather than impeded.

vi) Traffic Calming will create additional noise pollution and add to the already high noise level along East Esplanade.

vii) Have the proponents of the Plan studied the effect upon bus time tables?

viii) We request access to the traffic studies undertaken by Council’s consultant in order to verify their findings that the proposed road closures will have little or no effect upon traffic movements.

ix) It is suggested that a road tunnel beneath East Esplanade taking traffic into West Esplanade and Sydney Road would improve flow considerably. Likewise a traffic tunnel beneath South Steyne would allow for the Ocean Front area to be pedestrianised and bypass the Corso bottleneck.

x) Overhead walkways or pedestrian underpasses are also possible solutions to ix) above but are considered inferior due to visual appearance and in the case of underpasses their regrettable but inevitable use as urinals and homeless shelters. They are of course much cheaper.

xi) The memory of last year’s grid lock on Eastern Hill caused by utility works on South Steyne and Darley Road is seen as a salutary guide as to the outcome of the Manly 2015 Traffic Plan.

D. Traffic Study by Consultants Bitzios

The Traffic Modelling Summary Report dated 31-03-11 by Bitzios Consulting is deficient and unsatisfactory in that –

1. It recommends that North and South Steyne be one-way southbound between Raglan Street and Wentworth Avenue as a 10 km/h shared zone, even though that will produce “some queuing and delay” with “minimal blocking back through upstream intersections”. Any such deterioration of present traffic conditions is not acceptable.

2. It states that traffic conditions will worsen over the next five years even if no changes are made because of the inevitable increase in traffic, estimated by Council to be 3.5% over five years. However, the report fails to add in this increase in calculating the traffic consequences of the proposed changes.

3. It does not stipulate the assumed traffic speed in the proposed Darley/Whistler Street and North/South Steyne 10 km/h shared zones. The report probably assumes a traffic speed of 10 km/h, whereas experience suggests that in busy periods the shared zones would be so full of pedestrians (with the right of way) that vehicles would make almost no
progress at all. This would be tantamount to the closure of those streets, which the report says would produce gridlock.

4. It is based entirely on traffic surveys made on Tuesday 12th and Wednesday 13th October 2010 and therefore takes no account of the much larger traffic flows on hot summer weekends and on special occasions such as surf carnivals, the Jazz Festival, the Wine and Food Festival and the start of the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race.

5. As Laurie Lawlor points out in his submission, which is attached, the report deals only with intersections in the Manly CBD and totally ignores what will happen to traffic on the Eastern Hill.

Clearly, what is required is a comprehensive traffic survey and report which covers weekends, public holidays, special events and peak summer periods and which includes the Eastern Hill as well as the Manly CBD.
What has been provided is grossly inadequate.

E. Retail Area of Manly

Much emphasis in the Manly 2015 plan is based on improving the retail area of the CBD with new buildings having additional retail space and existing retail spaces upgraded. The Plan also shows – at least in artists’ impressions – many new areas of outdoor restaurants and cafes. Is there sufficient demand for all these new shops and restaurants? Does Council have data to support the financial viability of a large increase in retail and eating facilities? We note that many current businesses in Manly are finding it very tough going.

Residents have a major concern that by restricting easy access to Manly CBD that what is left of the Manly Village shops will close as locals will be forced to go where it is easier to park, and that the area will simply become one for visitors.

F. Proposed Tram System

The idea of an old tram system performing a loop around Manly via East Esplanade and the Steyne looks very pretty on the Artist’s impressions of the scheme– but again such a system would regrettably only worsen the already severely restricted access to The Eastern Hill. One wonders if the route would be anything other than a pleasant little tourist trip rather than serve a genuine public transport need? Has any research been done on who would be using the service – and for what? If it is to simply become a tourist ride for holiday makers and their children then let it operate along the length of the Steyne perhaps along the existing promenade. A small rubber wheeled tram running continuously along the Promenade from Queenscliff to South Steyne and return with stops along the route could possibly be a useful combination of public transport and tourist ride. The residents of Queenscliff could use it to access Manly CBD and the Ferry.

SUMMARY

In light of the detailed reasons outlined above Little Manly Precinct opposes major aspects of the Manly 2015 Plan.
1. The Plan effectively aims to improve access and facilities for tourists and visitors at the considerable expense of and inconvenience to residents and ratepayers.
2. The cost is high and will place a substantial future financial burden upon ratepayers.
3. We oppose the proposed traffic changes as ridiculous and impractical as they will make access to and from the Eastern Hill near to impossible. This does not just apply to residents but includes important traffic generating facilities such as the Hospital, Police College, Hospitality College, Schools, North Head Reserve etc etc.
4. We oppose the construction of an expensive new Car Park beneath the Oval which provides no new parking space and would not be used.
5. We oppose the demolition of the library and urge extensions to the existing building to create additional community facilities.
6. We oppose the demolition of the Whistler Street car park.
7. We oppose the creation of “shared zones” as being totally impractical and downright dangerous.

We contend that The Manly 2015 Plan should aim to make Manly a healthy, navigable, affordable place for its residents…..all its residents. We believe the Plan fails in this regard.

MJM 07/06/11

ATTACHMENT

MANLY 2015 MASTER PLAN

Review of Traffic Modelling Summary Report 2011

There’s a mistake in the numbering of Figures in the transport consultants Report appendix.
Figure 5.9 on page 12 should be Figure 5.7.
Figure 5.10 on page 13 should be Figure 5.8.

The focus of the plan is limited to traffic in central Manly. The study has no regard for what happens to traffic that feeds into this area from Eastern Hill. The report examines 4 scenarios in 2015.

1 Make no change to current road and traffic arrangements (the base or do-nothing case)
2 2 way traffic in North and South Steyne with pedestrians having priority
3 South bound only traffic in North and South Steyne with pedestrians having priority.
4 Close North and South Steyne

The report provides estimates of delays at 11 intersections in central Manly by comparing traffic flows under scenarios 2, 3 and 4 with scenario 1.

The report shows that there is less total delay at 11 intersections in central Manly under scenarios 2 and 3 in 2015, compared with making no change to traffic on the Steyne. This makes slowing the traffic on the Steyne look like a benefit to Manly residents. The report’s finding that slowing traffic in part of the network speeds up traffic across the whole network defies common sense. It came to this conclusion because it didn’t compare like with like. In other words, there was a major difference between the volume of traffic entering the study area under scenarios 2 and 3 on the one hand, and the base case scenario 1 on the other. They should be exactly the same.

The most likely reason for this finding is gridlock on Eastern Hill. Slowing traffic on the Steyne will directly affect traffic flow and add to delays on Eastern Hill. Severe gridlock on Eastern Hill will result in much less traffic entering central Manly, resulting in less overall delay in the study area, even with slower traffic on the Steyne. By limiting the study area to just 11 intersections, the consultants make slowing traffic on the Steyne seem a good idea.

The consultants should provide detailed analysis of traffic flows and delays at each intersection on Eastern Hill under scenarios 2 and 3 so that the magnitude and impact of gridlock is fully revealed. It is therefore not possible to accept the report without a comprehensive investigation of traffic flows at each intersection on Eastern Hill.

The report rejects scenario 4 as being unacceptable on page 11:

The closure of North and South Steyne would have a significant impact on the performance of the network. The additional traffic in Belgrave Street as a result of the closure would exceed the capacity and eventually the network gridlocks. This results from, among other things, the queuing in Belgrave Street extending into Raglan Street, in turn blocking Whistler Street.

The report concludes as follows on page 16:

Traffic modelling of the Manly 2015 Master Plan, using the Paramics traffic micro-simulation program, has shown that full closure of North and South Steyne between Raglan and Wentworth Streets would cause unacceptable delays and queuing within the Manly CBD in peak periods.

Most of the benefits of the Manly 2015 Master Plan can be achieved by keeping the same section of road open to southbound traffic only in a single lane, 10km/hour Shared Zone arrangement.

The key assumption of scenarios 2 and 3 is that traffic will be able to travel at an average speed of 10 km/hour at all times on the Steyne. It is most unlikely that this speed would be achieved in a mix of traffic and pedestrians, especially during summer, school holidays, most weekends and during special events.

Pedestrians will be able to take their time walking across or along the length of the Steyne between Wentworth and Raglan Streets. In the shared zone, vehicles will effectively have to give way to pedestrians. The average vehicle speed will be reduced to that of the slowest pedestrian on the road. There would not need to be many pedestrians on the road to bring traffic to a complete halt.

Drivers faced with a vista of pedestrians on the Steyne would be expected to avoid the area and seek alternative routes to their destinations. This would become normal behaviour as the negative experience of mixing with slow pedestrians becomes widely known. The effect of this behaviour by drivers is that North and South Steyne would become effectively closed to traffic.

The report states that it is unacceptable for the Steyne to be closed to traffic. But this will happen with the introduction of the shared zone.

Therefore the attempt to mix traffic and pedestrians on the Steyne with either one way or 2 way traffic will result in unacceptable gridlock in the central area during the afternoon peak period, and extensive delays in the morning peak period, as shown in Figures 5.5 and 5.6.

The report’s finding that ..... Most of the benefits of the Manly 2015 Master Plan can be achieved by keeping the same section of road (Steyne) open to southbound traffic only in a single lane, 10km/hour Shared Zone arrangement ..... is not supported by a realistic assessment of driver behaviour.

Prepared By: Laurie Lawlor
Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering, University of Adelaide Graduate Diploma in Statistics, Canberra College of Advanced Education
Formerly:
Consultant to National Capital Development Commission, Canberra
Consultant to Society of Automotive Engineers Committee on Automotive Emissions, Melbourne
Transport Systems Engineer, Bureau of Transport Economics, Canberra
Director, Transport Investigations Department, Interstate Commission, Canberra