MORE GRIDLOCK FOR CAR DRIVEN DONCASTER
Motorists are at standstill almost a minute for every kilometer traveled according to VicRoads peak hour time delay data in the article by Aleks Devic of the Heraldsun.
Doncaster motorists could find themselves stationary for even longer periods due to the lack public transport options with Manningham being the only metropolitan municipality without a train or a tram service.
The Road to Nowhere Click on link The massive development schemes involving the construction of 14,500 apartments including 1000 new dwellings on the Eastern Golf Estate will over stretch the limited capability of the Doncaster Hill road network to cope with traffic generated by the increase in population.
“Given the physical constraints of the road system, a 30% mode-shift to sustainable public transport can only realistically be achieved with an ‘order of magnitude’ improvement to public transport infrastructure from, to and within the Hill, such as the provision of heavy rail to Doncaster Hill and the grade separation of buses through/within the Hill”……….From council submission to rail study.
Manningham is the third lowest of all municipalities when it comes to
…..living and working in the same area which is why Manningham residents have a greater reliance on car use, not only for work but also to access tertiary education and hospital care outside of the municipality. 78 per cent of work journeys were by car drivers, while 13 per cent were by public transport.
Manningham engineers had advised, with or without the provision of rail at Doncaster Hill, a grade-separation of buses will be required through the Hill. Plans have yet to be completed but it is likely, given the area topography, a combination of both bridges and tunnels would be needed to achieve the desired grade separation
“Without this, road-based public transport services will fail to operate successfully on Doncaster Hill due to the delay and impact, primarily to buses, caused by ongoing development and increasing traffic congestion in the activities area”.
There will also be a need for a grade separations for pedestrians particularly at the Doncaster Road/Williamsons Road/Tram Road intersection which links to Westfield Shopping centre and a public transport interchange and/or surrounding land use proposals.
4 Comments
“The achievement of mode shift is a complex issue, requiring a coordinated, long term approach across State and Local Government, developers and the community. The attractiveness, accessibility, reliability, efficiency and integration of sustainable transport modes such as public transport, cycling and walking are all considered key factors if mode shift is to be achieved. Actions to encourage mass behaviour change also need to be identified and implemented. In addition, the management and supply of parking facilities requires careful control”.
The above is the sort of drivel we are getting from our bureaucrats still buck passing 13 years after they had been warned that public transport to Doncaster would not include a rail service.
Manningham planners were advised as early as 2001, before they determined the size and design of the Doncaster developments, they would need to take into account that a railway to Doncaster was not viable and the solution to its public transport would be restricted to an extended Bus service
Presumably the “mode shift” was to include an increase in cycling and walking but we have no safe dedicated bike paths with rideable gradients nor are the steep streets surrounding the centre conducive to easy walking while access to the core of the centre (Westfield and the Bus Interchange) is further hampered by the minimum number of pedestrian crossings available on Williamsons and Doncaster Roads.
Chamier
.
The following are excerpts, showing Council’s response to resident objections to four high rise towers on Doncaster Hill, in particular the capacity of the surrounding streets to accommodate additional traffic. The following responses from Council Assets and Engineering Unit appears to contradict Council’s statement in the rail submission by not identifying any “physical constraints of the road system”
“The application was referred to Council’s Assets and Engineering Unit. They have no objections to the proposed development, and have not raised any issues with the traffic capacity of surrounding streets to accommodate the proposed development”.
“Council’s Traffic Engineers have considered the applicant’s traffic report and have not raised any issues”.
“Council’s Traffic Engineers have concluded that there will be no significant adverse traffic impact arising from the development”.
“Council’s Traffic Engineers have reviewed this Traffic Report. They have concluded that there will be no significant adverse traffic impact arising from the development”.
Get on the Council Northern Dancer. Next election 2016.
You can’t help but question the integrity of the planning process when you read that the responsible authority is only now admitting to “the physical constraints of the road system” when it was identified as a problem well before the implementation of the Doncaster high density strategy.
In fact it was one of the determining factors that resulted in its predecessor, a medium density strategy called ‘The River Of life”, being cancelled.
Is it possible to determine when planning staff have been subject to inappropriate pressure in relation to the assessment of development applications? If so, how?
What options would the planning staff have if they felt the integrity of their work was being compromised by politicians, senior staff, dodgy consultant’s reports or even their own Councillors?
Are there adequate protections for planning staff if inappropriately pressured by senior staff to change a development assessment?
What protections should be put in place?