Barbara Leighton
Comment
Barbara Leighton
Comment
John Hegarty
Object
John Hegarty
Object
Sydney
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see attached PDF file.
Attachments
katherine clark
Object
katherine clark
Object
ryde
,
New South Wales
Message
My name is katherine clark and I am writing to express my considerable concern about the proposed stage one development at the royal rehab site at putney.
my concerns are on a number of fronts.
1. traffic generated and access to site.
2. Lack of adequate pedestrian safety.
3.Impact on Parking at Putney shops.
4. Congestion on overloaded and fundamentally unsafe road network in the immediate vicinity. Particularily the Acacia/Morrison/Parry St. intersection.
5.Lack of proper access from Victoria rd.
6. inadequate traffic impact studies.
The current proposal plans to increase the traffic output from the site onto Charles st as its primary entrance. This is of particular concern to me because as yet there has been no plans approved by the RTA for access onto Victoria rd.
Indeed Frasers have identified that traffic lights are not required at this stage to accomodate the Stage one Traffic.
The outcome of no lights on to this major road would mean that traffic would be unable to access R onto victoria rd, and therefore all traffic planning on heading east will have to exit onto Charles st. and then either head through the shopping center, or travel down Parry st. or head north to victoria rd.
All routes are pathologically flawed.
The other exits onto Morrison rd belong to later stages of this development and will not a usable for some time. Therefore ALL traffic not heading west traveling out,or returning from the west eastward will need to use the Charles st exit until the development is complete.
Currently just through the roundabout at Parry st ,on the R hand side of Charles st. are the only access into the shopping centers car park, and a drop off point for a child care center both which particularly in the mornings and afternoons have significant R turning traffic. which continually holds up traffic
.
People accessing the shopping centre and doctors surgery and cafes at all times currently have very limited parking and
traffic entering Charles st from Parry st after collecting children in the afternoons is frequently already banked up.
At this point in order to avoid an already highly congested intersection and local shopping strip , traffic might choose to travel down Parry st towards Morrison Rd.
Parry st is a poorly signposted school zone that leads to one of the most incomprehensibly dangerous intersections in Sydney. The access point to Morrison rd.has Acacia avenue leading to an uphill intersection with no clear sign posting as to right of way. This intersection is already misunderstood by even most of the local residents who rely on good road manners to discern right of way. Traffic already frequently fails to give way to traffic on morrison rd and shoots straight through this intersection.
I should add here that in the afternoons during the week this intersection is also heavily populated by pedestrians.
Traffic traveling west on morrison rd must give way to downhill traffic on morrison rd travelling east, and more than two cars wishing to go straight ahead into Parry st. blocks eastbound traffic on Morrison rd. completely.
Which leaves The charles st lights onto victoria rd. Also a school zone and church grounds with one lane turning R. one L approx a hundred meters from a single lane round-about.
That cars are problematic is an issue. But it is pedestrians who are most at risk with this current proposal.
The nsw government are trying to plan for suburbs that encourage either pedestrian ,cycle or discourage car use.
Currently Charles st is acting as a minor arterial. Well in excess of the Rta guidelines. The topography of this area means that Charles st is a long hill of a decent enough grade that it is considerably difficult to maintain 50kph. Currently the only safe way for pedestrians to cross east/west is at the traffic lights at the cnr Morrison and charles st.
Traffic exiting Henry st has to accelerate uphill to enter the traffic flow and down hill break very firmly to enter Henry st.
Though there is a plan for"a" speed limiting device somewhere on charles st we sincerely believe that this is manifestly inadequate.
Current pedestrian traffic that needs to cross charles st are
predominantly. clients of the rehab center and children from putney public. Both quite slow and with impared spacial awareness The crossing at parry st is an issue . Currently pedestrians have to go around the corner into parry st to cross the road. this has two quite severe implications.
Firstly they are out of line of sight of traffic entering parry st,now accelerating after breaking all the way down the hill.
and traffic coming down the hill is partially obscured by the dwelling on the corner and some shrubbery.
No extra parking has been planned for Putney Village. The supermarket car-park is already overused and disintegrating.
The amount of traffic entering and exiting this carpark frequently causes traffic chaos as it can only use this one exit.
Frasers suggestion that residents who live at the upper site will walk to the supermarket and then carry their groceries 400 meters uphill is at best misguided, and certainly not a reflection of an understanding of the topography of their site.
It has I believed thoroughly underestimated and under-reported both the current situation and the impact of an extra 400+ traffic movements on the local network.
Clearly the royal rehab residents , families and staff have used this exit for the past many years, and I am not suggesting that this should cease.
Rather I believe that the rehab site should continue to use this exit and that the planning of roads on the site be designed to promote exiting onto victoria rd by residents.
furthermore, whilst the director general has requested that traffic at each of the impacted intersections be examined. we believe that a proper impact study study on the traffic network aound the site be completed, with an emphasis on making pedestrian traffic safe well into the future.
This site will generate many families coming to the putney precinct. and attending Putney public school. safe pedestrian and Rehab. client access across the road network must be planned before development occurs. the roads here are already an accident waiting to happen. , The City networks have already identified crossing Charles st as one of its local networks. his did not include having to go to the lights at putney to cross the road.
Charles st, because of its topography and overuse is already inherently dangerous,. More traffic onto this road will exacerbate that risk.
More Families + more children = more bikes and scooters.
Fraser,s new parklands are intending to provide a community
open space. access is a critical issue here. it has not been fully addressed by this submission.
Frasers contending that they are only responsible for their site does not absolve them of their responsibilities.
Traffic issues related to the initial concept plan approved previously have not been adequately addressed or investigated.
As a minimum, we would like to see the whole shopping precinct changed to a 40kph area. This may at least reduce the chance of a fatal accident. We would like proper flashing school zone sign in both Parry and Morrison Roads.
. Proper pedestrian crossing points in both Parry and Charles sts. Preferably two in Charles.
The consideration of a speed camera in Charles St.
A proper investigation into the road traffic network around the site, not simply a statistical study of traffic movements.
Charles St exit being used for the Royal Rehab centers use.
On conclusion I believe that Frasers have also quite deliberately neglected to include in this submission documentation of the local communities considerable concern about the impacts of traffic generated by this development. It is one thing to measure how many vehicles can travel on a road, it is quite another to properly look at the whole picture or context within which it is being built, and to properly plan and provide good supporting infrastructure to enable their development to become an integral part of the community within which it operates .
It is fundamentally about safety and about building communities that are well integrated and designed to enhance the suburbs and spaces within which we rest, work and play.
Meeting the minimum criteria for developmental consent is fundamentally inadequate. At least is is for the people who will be living in and around them.
I look forward to your response.
Katherine Clark
my concerns are on a number of fronts.
1. traffic generated and access to site.
2. Lack of adequate pedestrian safety.
3.Impact on Parking at Putney shops.
4. Congestion on overloaded and fundamentally unsafe road network in the immediate vicinity. Particularily the Acacia/Morrison/Parry St. intersection.
5.Lack of proper access from Victoria rd.
6. inadequate traffic impact studies.
The current proposal plans to increase the traffic output from the site onto Charles st as its primary entrance. This is of particular concern to me because as yet there has been no plans approved by the RTA for access onto Victoria rd.
Indeed Frasers have identified that traffic lights are not required at this stage to accomodate the Stage one Traffic.
The outcome of no lights on to this major road would mean that traffic would be unable to access R onto victoria rd, and therefore all traffic planning on heading east will have to exit onto Charles st. and then either head through the shopping center, or travel down Parry st. or head north to victoria rd.
All routes are pathologically flawed.
The other exits onto Morrison rd belong to later stages of this development and will not a usable for some time. Therefore ALL traffic not heading west traveling out,or returning from the west eastward will need to use the Charles st exit until the development is complete.
Currently just through the roundabout at Parry st ,on the R hand side of Charles st. are the only access into the shopping centers car park, and a drop off point for a child care center both which particularly in the mornings and afternoons have significant R turning traffic. which continually holds up traffic
.
People accessing the shopping centre and doctors surgery and cafes at all times currently have very limited parking and
traffic entering Charles st from Parry st after collecting children in the afternoons is frequently already banked up.
At this point in order to avoid an already highly congested intersection and local shopping strip , traffic might choose to travel down Parry st towards Morrison Rd.
Parry st is a poorly signposted school zone that leads to one of the most incomprehensibly dangerous intersections in Sydney. The access point to Morrison rd.has Acacia avenue leading to an uphill intersection with no clear sign posting as to right of way. This intersection is already misunderstood by even most of the local residents who rely on good road manners to discern right of way. Traffic already frequently fails to give way to traffic on morrison rd and shoots straight through this intersection.
I should add here that in the afternoons during the week this intersection is also heavily populated by pedestrians.
Traffic traveling west on morrison rd must give way to downhill traffic on morrison rd travelling east, and more than two cars wishing to go straight ahead into Parry st. blocks eastbound traffic on Morrison rd. completely.
Which leaves The charles st lights onto victoria rd. Also a school zone and church grounds with one lane turning R. one L approx a hundred meters from a single lane round-about.
That cars are problematic is an issue. But it is pedestrians who are most at risk with this current proposal.
The nsw government are trying to plan for suburbs that encourage either pedestrian ,cycle or discourage car use.
Currently Charles st is acting as a minor arterial. Well in excess of the Rta guidelines. The topography of this area means that Charles st is a long hill of a decent enough grade that it is considerably difficult to maintain 50kph. Currently the only safe way for pedestrians to cross east/west is at the traffic lights at the cnr Morrison and charles st.
Traffic exiting Henry st has to accelerate uphill to enter the traffic flow and down hill break very firmly to enter Henry st.
Though there is a plan for"a" speed limiting device somewhere on charles st we sincerely believe that this is manifestly inadequate.
Current pedestrian traffic that needs to cross charles st are
predominantly. clients of the rehab center and children from putney public. Both quite slow and with impared spacial awareness The crossing at parry st is an issue . Currently pedestrians have to go around the corner into parry st to cross the road. this has two quite severe implications.
Firstly they are out of line of sight of traffic entering parry st,now accelerating after breaking all the way down the hill.
and traffic coming down the hill is partially obscured by the dwelling on the corner and some shrubbery.
No extra parking has been planned for Putney Village. The supermarket car-park is already overused and disintegrating.
The amount of traffic entering and exiting this carpark frequently causes traffic chaos as it can only use this one exit.
Frasers suggestion that residents who live at the upper site will walk to the supermarket and then carry their groceries 400 meters uphill is at best misguided, and certainly not a reflection of an understanding of the topography of their site.
It has I believed thoroughly underestimated and under-reported both the current situation and the impact of an extra 400+ traffic movements on the local network.
Clearly the royal rehab residents , families and staff have used this exit for the past many years, and I am not suggesting that this should cease.
Rather I believe that the rehab site should continue to use this exit and that the planning of roads on the site be designed to promote exiting onto victoria rd by residents.
furthermore, whilst the director general has requested that traffic at each of the impacted intersections be examined. we believe that a proper impact study study on the traffic network aound the site be completed, with an emphasis on making pedestrian traffic safe well into the future.
This site will generate many families coming to the putney precinct. and attending Putney public school. safe pedestrian and Rehab. client access across the road network must be planned before development occurs. the roads here are already an accident waiting to happen. , The City networks have already identified crossing Charles st as one of its local networks. his did not include having to go to the lights at putney to cross the road.
Charles st, because of its topography and overuse is already inherently dangerous,. More traffic onto this road will exacerbate that risk.
More Families + more children = more bikes and scooters.
Fraser,s new parklands are intending to provide a community
open space. access is a critical issue here. it has not been fully addressed by this submission.
Frasers contending that they are only responsible for their site does not absolve them of their responsibilities.
Traffic issues related to the initial concept plan approved previously have not been adequately addressed or investigated.
As a minimum, we would like to see the whole shopping precinct changed to a 40kph area. This may at least reduce the chance of a fatal accident. We would like proper flashing school zone sign in both Parry and Morrison Roads.
. Proper pedestrian crossing points in both Parry and Charles sts. Preferably two in Charles.
The consideration of a speed camera in Charles St.
A proper investigation into the road traffic network around the site, not simply a statistical study of traffic movements.
Charles St exit being used for the Royal Rehab centers use.
On conclusion I believe that Frasers have also quite deliberately neglected to include in this submission documentation of the local communities considerable concern about the impacts of traffic generated by this development. It is one thing to measure how many vehicles can travel on a road, it is quite another to properly look at the whole picture or context within which it is being built, and to properly plan and provide good supporting infrastructure to enable their development to become an integral part of the community within which it operates .
It is fundamentally about safety and about building communities that are well integrated and designed to enhance the suburbs and spaces within which we rest, work and play.
Meeting the minimum criteria for developmental consent is fundamentally inadequate. At least is is for the people who will be living in and around them.
I look forward to your response.
Katherine Clark
Attachments
Phil Anquetil
Comment
Phil Anquetil
Comment
Vincent Sicari
Comment
Vincent Sicari
Comment