URGENT William Street

HI all,

The demise of the William Street bike lanes has moved much closer. The RTA has lodged a modification to the Cross City proposal so they will have permission to make the proposd road changes, including the removal of bike lanes.

Time is running out. There is no sign of a formal public submission process or an EIS but you can send your comments to:

Glenn Snow, Senior Planning Officer, Major Infrastructure Assessments (9228
6352 [email hidden])

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/asp/register2006.asp#gma

Proposal title: Cross City Tunnel
Description: The construction and operation of a road tunnel under Central Sydney between Darling Harbour and Kings Cross, Sydney
Location: Sydney
Local Government Area: City of Sydney
Approval Authority: Minister for Planning Relevant Legislation: Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Proponent: Roads and Traffic Authority
Status:
03 October 2001 - Project Approved
12 December 2002 - Major Modification Approved
14 June 2006 - Modification Application (MOD 74-6-2006) lodged with the Department seeking approval to:
reopen Druitt Street to general traffic running westbound between Kent Street and Clarence Street; retain two right turn lanes from Elizabeth Street northbound into Park Street eastbound; not install a new bus lane southbound on Elizabeth street between Park Street and Bathurst Street; provide an additional traffic lane eastbound along William along William Street east of Palmer Street to McElhone Street; remove cycle lanes on Kings Cross Road eastbound between Darlinghurst Road and Ward Avenue and westbound on Craigend Street between Roslyn Street footbridge and Darlinghurst Road; change the intersection arrangements in and around Sir John Young Crescent:
remove the seagull island at the intersection of Sir John Young Crescent and Cowper Wharf Road to allow direct access to the harbour crossing from Palmer Street/Sir John Young Crescent; reintroduce traffic signals at the intersection of Palmer Street and Sir John Young Crescent to assist efficiency of traffic flow; change Palmer Street from one lane northbound and one lane southbound between Sir John Young Crescent and Cathedral Street to two lanes northbound; and reinstall the second right turn lane on the Cahill Expressway off ramp to Cowper Wharf Road; and provide a dedicated right turn lane at Queens Cross for a turning movement from Darlinghurst Road northbound into Kings Cross Road eastbound.
Documents available:
Modification Application (MOD 74-6-2006) HYPERLINK "pdf/cross_city_tunnel_surface_traffic_modification.pdf"Cross City Tunnel Surface Traffic Modifications Appendix A - relevant figures Appendix B - Illustrations of the proposed modifications Appendix C - proposed modifications to the approved conditions Appendix D - Operational Traffic Assessment Appendix E - Noise Assessment Appendix F - Approved Urban Design of Queens Cross Works

Further inquiries: Glenn Snow 9228 6352 [email hidden]

Scotty posted:
(bicycle relevant bits)

Quoted message said:

provide an additional traffic lane eastbound along William
along William (sic) Street east of Palmer Street to McElhone Street;
remove
cycle lanes on Kings Cross Road eastbound between Darlinghurst Road and
Ward Avenue and westbound on Craigend Street between Roslyn Street
footbridge and Darlinghurst Road;

So it seems the cycle lane westbound between McElhone and Palmer might
survive? As well as the cycle lanes east of Palmer? The cyclelanes on
Craigend are pretty useless so no big loss. Should ask for an alternative
route up Barcom or similar. Maybe they are thinking cyclists can use the
footbridge and go up to the Cross via Roslyn or Bayswater. Actually a
shoulder through the old Kings X tunnel would be good, save the climb.

The cyclelane between Darlinghust Rd and Ward Av might be of some use, not
sure, but is probably not a huge loss (?) The additional eastbound travel
lane east of Palmer might in fact make it easier for cyclists as you could
probably take the lane more readily if there are two other lanes for cars to
use. The current cycle lane eastbound only encourages left hooks by
motorists. Could put in Brisbane style BFZ logos to make it clear cyclists
will be using the left lane.

Maybe with some intelligent wheeling and dealing some good concessions might
be obtained.

fb

scotty72 said:

HI all,

The demise of the William Street bike lanes has moved much closer.
The RTA has lodged a modification to the Cross City proposal so they
will have permission to make the proposd road changes, including the
removal of bike lanes.

Time is running out. There is no sign of a formal public submission
process or an EIS but you can send your comments to:

Why would there be?

The situation is a debarcle, the Government has to fix, which means that
the cycle lanes are going.

dewatf.

dewatf said:

Why would there be?

The situation is a debarcle, the Government has to fix, which means that
the cycle lanes are going.

dewatf.

Hmmm..

Your solution to solving traffic congestion in the city is to encourage more traffic into the city... that's brilliant!

What next? You'll cure alcoholism by offering free beer. Solve obesity with McDonald's vouchers.

If you keep up this non-sensical lack of logic, you could be put in charge of the RTA, or even become Premier.

Scotty

scotty72 said:

Your solution to solving traffic congestion in the city is to
encourage more traffic into the city... that's brilliant!

No my solution to Sydney's traffic is to develop an intergrated transport
plan including:
1) building a proper metropolitan public transport system (instead of a
Victorian era rail system)
2) building a proper freeway system rather than just bits of tunnel and
tollway. Sydney is large, spread out, over 85% of trips are made by car and
Sydney has less freeways than just about any other comparable city e.g.
Melbourne has more and better freeways than Sydney
3) building some cycling infrastructure. Cycling makes up less than 1% of
trips in Sydney, and commuting less than half that. Even if you get that up
to 5% (a 10 fold increase) you would be doing very well for a city like
Sydney, 10% would be miraculous. That still leaves over 90% of commutes by
PT and car and buses and cars need roads and to travel quickly.

Simply trying to stop people driving between the Eastern Suburbs and the
CBD, on what was a 6 lane pseudo-freeway that they have used for decades,
is not the answer. Nor will it work and any government that tries it will
be voted out and replaced by one that overturns it. So guess what happened.

William St wasn't ever going to be a French boulevard full of trees, cafes,
pedestrians and cyclists like Moore and Carr tried to impose on people. It
is going to be either a freeway or a parking lot, and people have made it
clear they don't want the later.

The Iemma Government have recognised this. And they now have a plan to have
a plan to deliver real services instead of empty plans. In the mean time
they appear to be developing around Parramatta Road, without freeways such
as the M6 East, without a plan for the road or without any consideration of
public transport. And having held up land releases to ensure development
did not preceed without infrastructure, created a serious shortage of land,
and built no infrastructure, so are now being forced to release land
without planning as long as developers provide the infrastructure (i.e. ad
hoc roads).

dewatf.

dewatf said:

scotty72 said:

Your solution to solving traffic congestion in the city is to
encourage more traffic into the city... that's brilliant!

I can put that all simpler.

Adding some cycling infrastructure that serves the Eastern Suburbs is fine.

Removing two lanes of Williams St, reducing capacity to the city by max of
4000 cars/hour, so that a couple of hundred cyclists can ride is stupid,
and will always be stupid.

dewatf.

quote='dewatf'On Wed said:

Your solution to solving traffic congestion in the city is to
encourage more traffic into the city... that's brilliant!

No my solution to Sydney's traffic is to develop an intergrated transport
plan including:
1) building a proper metropolitan public transport system (instead of a
Victorian era rail system)
2) building a proper freeway system rather than just bits of tunnel and
tollway. Sydney is large, spread out, over 85% of trips are made by car and
Sydney has less freeways than just about any other comparable city e.g.
Melbourne has more and better freeways than Sydney

SNIP

[/QUOTE]
Melbourne is hardly the poster child for traffic management. The city that invented tolls where you only know how much you paid when you get your monthly bill has major traffic issues on its freeways, tollways and other major roads. There are just too many cars trying to get into/out of one small place. One of the changes that had an impact on reducing jamming of traffic was the reduction of the outbound lanes of the Monash freeway where it joins Citylink to a single lane from two. Suddenly everything started running more smoothly where the two roads merged. Adding more and more lanes is not always the answer.

About the only thing that seems to have improved in Melbourne has been bicycle access and the result is that more people cycle. Anecdotally, bicycle lanes on major roads (St Kilda Rd, Nepean Hwy et al) and the removal of clearways on less-major main roads have made for somewhat calmer traffic as well as better conditions for bikes. No net impact on cars trying to squeeze into the same limited size CBD, positive benefits for cyclists.

scotty72 wrote:

<snip>

scotty, do you currently use William st as a route on a regular basis ?

dewatf said:

No my solution to Sydney's traffic is to develop an intergrated transport
plan including:

Quoted message said:

2) building a proper freeway system

lol, you've posted another oxy-moronic combination. If you understood
Traffic 101 you would know that better/more roads just breeds more cars.
Further, improving the freeway just shifts the congestion to the off
ramps and/or distribution roads.

The first thing you need to do is to understand that better freeways and
roads just pushes us closer to having 50% of land surface devoted to
motor vehicles. When you understand that, then the rest follows.

dewatf said:

Removing two lanes of Williams St, reducing capacity to the city by max of
4000 cars/hour, so that a couple of hundred cyclists can ride is stupid,
and will always be stupid.

Nope, it exactly the sort of thing that a sensible transport plan should
do.

And may i make the point that 2000 cars/hour is NOT the capacity of
these lanes. It is simple mathematics to show that this figure will
never be achieved. That is a car passing every 1.8 seconds. It never
happens anywhere.

No, I use it 3 or 4 times a month.

I also only use the Bells Line of Road 1 or 2 times a year - so don't tell me I don't need a safe road to Lithgow...

Damian said:

scotty72 wrote:

<snip>

scotty, do you currently use William st as a route on a regular basis ?