The Harp in-accessible from the South
The 9/11 13 brochure contained this ominous diagram. There was an arrow against the flow of Randle Street with the tag 2, but there was no reference to this number in the text. I commented in that post that this could be the harbinger of the worst possible scenario for Elizabeth Street - the reduction of the city's major traffic artery to the south to two lanes each way.
The 9/11 13 brochure was subtitled "For further consultation", but suppressing this vital information was blatantly deceptive and designed to suppress discussion until the EIS was released and people had only a month to analyze the consequences. As you might surmise the consequences for residents and businesses in Surry Hills west of Crown are dire.
The EIS released two months later contains the details of road lane reductions that make the attempts to force motorists to use the cross City Tunnel by reducing lanes in William Street fade into insignificance.
 |
| EIS Chapter 12, page 19 |
Counting to five
 |
| Elizabeth looking north at Randle St |
 |
| Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills |
 |
| Access routes to Surry Hills from Chalmers Street, from previous post |
 |
| Chalmers Street stop |
But no one would accuse them of not knowing when to crop. The Figure 5.22 in the EIS (left) shows inexplicably, two platforms of Central Station but only a tiny glimpse of Elizabeth Street in the top right corner. Chalmers Street is reduced to one lane of traffic with a lane that can be used for a bus stops when not being used by coupled cattle cars. Figure 5.22 shows the general traffic lane expanding to two lanes shortly before reaching Eddy Avenue with one lane for left-hand turns and straight ahead, and one for traffic proceeding north along Elizabeth Street, but this is contradicted by the text: "A single general traffic lane would be provided on Chalmers Street, with traffic using this lane only (sic) permitted to turn left into Eddy Avenue". The Figure 5.22 shows one only northbound lane in Elizabeth Street. The solid white line in the top right corner is the centre line. This is hard to make out in the PDF - I had to go to the Surry Hills Library in stunned disbelief to see the printed version to confirm this.
So clearly the advice was that three southbound lanes plus the bus stop lane were considered essential for traffic flows to the south in Elizabeth Street. At a very late date O'Farrell decided, stuff the Eastern Suburbs and south Sydney, his vanity project was the only thing that mattered.
The text of the EIs is noncommittal and merely refers to additional northbound lanes in Elizabeth Street. So TfNSW is asking the subverted public servants appointed by O'Farrell specifically to approve the EIS, to approve multiple choices so they can continue to make it up as they go along. The NSW public does not know what to object to.
Does the quoted reference in the text of the EIS mean only vehicles in the single lane in Chalmers Street may turn left, or does it mean traffic using this lane are permitted to only turn left? Almost certainly the latter, but with incompetent consultants one can not be sure. This means that any buses continuing north along Elizabeth Street will have to use Randle Street so one of the two lanes in Elizabeth Street will need to be a priority bus lane. Or will there only be the one lane? The corollary of this is that all buses proceeding along Chalmers Street will be forcibly terminated, presumably at Railway Square. These buses will cross the tram rails three times on the way in and twice on the way out - a quintuple crossing - an all time record for TfNSW.
Currently the eastern-most lane in Chalmers Street gives access to the Surry Hills grid south of Albion Street at two places. These are shown by the orange arrows in the Google Earth map (above) from a previous post. The hairpin bend around the Dental Hospital gives access to Cooper Street, thence Holt Street and Kippax Street. This will be obliterated by TfNSW and there will of course be no right turns from Elizabeth Street.
But what happens to the other turn into Devonshire Street? The Figure 5.22 of "Central Station" stop has of course been cropped. The diagram in Chapter 12 showing the number of lanes in carriage ways adjacent to the tracks is for the "City Centre Precinct" and stops just short. There does not appear to be a similar diagram for the "Surry Hills Precinct". So we must rely upon the text.
Since the fate of Surry Hills depends on this passage I will quote it verbatim: "At the corner of Chalmers Street and Randle Street, the existing footpath would also be extended, as Randle Street would change to two-way traffic movements and the turn into Chalmers Street would be removed". There is no mention of turns from Chalmers Street into Devonshire Street across the rails - which would be difficult. The solitary eastbound lane in Devonshire Street would be just for "property owners" in Strawberry Hills. It will be impossible for vehicles in Chalmers Street to access Surry Hills south of Albion Street. This was inadvertently confirmed by the diagram (above) from the 9/11 13 brochure which shows an arrow (tagged 2) along Randle Street but no spur arrow up Devonshire Street.
The only other access to Surry Hills from the south is from Crown Street, but only Riley Street gives access to the road grid west of Crown Street, and of course all westbound lanes between Crown Street and Riley Street will be obliterated.
It will be physically impossible for a vehicle from the south to access destinations in Surry Hills west of Crown Street and south of Albion Street.
This is a vast area and contains the headquarters of News Limited and the businesses that comprise the rag trade. O'Farrell's vanity is so overweening he is oblivious to the enemies he will be making.
And it is not just big businesses that are affected. There are cultural institutions like the Belvoir St theatre and thousands of small businesses that depend on being accessible from all areas.
Over the last nine months I have done everything possible to find out what would be happening in Chalmers Street. I wrote to my local Member of Parliament asking him to place Questions on Notice to the Minister, and when he was appointed to the "Round Table" I sent an email asking him to find these things out. The only response was a single paragraph in his taxpayer-funded internet news-letter.
The EIS of course does not provide definitive information but confirms the outcomes will be the worst possible for Surry Hills.
There were representatives from TfNSW at a community meeting in Surry Hills last night. They would only lecture the attendees dismissively on how to make submissions to the EIS. I brought up the matter of the deliberate deceptions and contradictions is the EIS and was told that if there were mistakes in the EIS this should be brought up in a submission. Apparently the EIS is just a step in an amorphous process and they will continue making it up as they go along even when the Minister is negotiating with Private Public Partners (PPPs), and beyond.
The founder of PUSH, Venietta Slama-Powell, has taken a year off work and announced at the meeting that she could no longer make the commitment. The Minister has gone out of her way to humiliate the local community and shatter Venietta. But ultimately, the fate of the City of Sydney will be decided by the voters at the next State election and the brochures and this EIS put out by TfNSW over the last year give plenty of ammunition to ensure that O'Farrell will be a one-term Premier.
So clearly the advice was that three southbound lanes plus the bus stop lane were considered essential for traffic flows to the south in Elizabeth Street. At a very late date O'Farrell decided, stuff the Eastern Suburbs and south Sydney, his vanity project was the only thing that mattered.
 |
| Section in Chalmers Street |
Does the quoted reference in the text of the EIS mean only vehicles in the single lane in Chalmers Street may turn left, or does it mean traffic using this lane are permitted to only turn left? Almost certainly the latter, but with incompetent consultants one can not be sure. This means that any buses continuing north along Elizabeth Street will have to use Randle Street so one of the two lanes in Elizabeth Street will need to be a priority bus lane. Or will there only be the one lane? The corollary of this is that all buses proceeding along Chalmers Street will be forcibly terminated, presumably at Railway Square. These buses will cross the tram rails three times on the way in and twice on the way out - a quintuple crossing - an all time record for TfNSW.
Currently the eastern-most lane in Chalmers Street gives access to the Surry Hills grid south of Albion Street at two places. These are shown by the orange arrows in the Google Earth map (above) from a previous post. The hairpin bend around the Dental Hospital gives access to Cooper Street, thence Holt Street and Kippax Street. This will be obliterated by TfNSW and there will of course be no right turns from Elizabeth Street.
 |
| Left-turn Randle into Devonshire |
Since the fate of Surry Hills depends on this passage I will quote it verbatim: "At the corner of Chalmers Street and Randle Street, the existing footpath would also be extended, as Randle Street would change to two-way traffic movements and the turn into Chalmers Street would be removed". There is no mention of turns from Chalmers Street into Devonshire Street across the rails - which would be difficult. The solitary eastbound lane in Devonshire Street would be just for "property owners" in Strawberry Hills. It will be impossible for vehicles in Chalmers Street to access Surry Hills south of Albion Street. This was inadvertently confirmed by the diagram (above) from the 9/11 13 brochure which shows an arrow (tagged 2) along Randle Street but no spur arrow up Devonshire Street.
It will be physically impossible for a vehicle from the south to access destinations in Surry Hills west of Crown Street and south of Albion Street.
This is a vast area and contains the headquarters of News Limited and the businesses that comprise the rag trade. O'Farrell's vanity is so overweening he is oblivious to the enemies he will be making.
And it is not just big businesses that are affected. There are cultural institutions like the Belvoir St theatre and thousands of small businesses that depend on being accessible from all areas.
Over the last nine months I have done everything possible to find out what would be happening in Chalmers Street. I wrote to my local Member of Parliament asking him to place Questions on Notice to the Minister, and when he was appointed to the "Round Table" I sent an email asking him to find these things out. The only response was a single paragraph in his taxpayer-funded internet news-letter.
There were representatives from TfNSW at a community meeting in Surry Hills last night. They would only lecture the attendees dismissively on how to make submissions to the EIS. I brought up the matter of the deliberate deceptions and contradictions is the EIS and was told that if there were mistakes in the EIS this should be brought up in a submission. Apparently the EIS is just a step in an amorphous process and they will continue making it up as they go along even when the Minister is negotiating with Private Public Partners (PPPs), and beyond.
The founder of PUSH, Venietta Slama-Powell, has taken a year off work and announced at the meeting that she could no longer make the commitment. The Minister has gone out of her way to humiliate the local community and shatter Venietta. But ultimately, the fate of the City of Sydney will be decided by the voters at the next State election and the brochures and this EIS put out by TfNSW over the last year give plenty of ammunition to ensure that O'Farrell will be a one-term Premier.
No comments:
Post a Comment