Option A - Retain Existing Alignment, Redirect Traffic Flow

<br>What do you like about this option?  What could be improved? 

Add Comment

Adding new posts is disabled for this conversation.

Remove this comment? Replies to it will not be removed.
Remove this attachment?
10 Comments
Level 1
This is my preferred option. It minimises the changes required to the existing site, reduces the likelihood that cars will use the paved garage access laneway (at the corner of Hastings & Grenville Sts) as an access point to Willis Street and adequately provides for the traffic flow.
Level 1
This is my preferred option as it retains, at least for the time being, the character and amenity of the area. I do nt see that creating 3 car spaces in options B and C justify such a significant realignment of Koolkuna Lane. It does also retain space for the Scout Hall, though it will be somewhat diminished. Has anyone done a survey of the actual usage of the Scout Hall land? Do Scouts need the whole area? It is not, I think, used just for Scouts but has community activities too (from what I have seen).
Level 1
"Each of the three options ... ensures that there is no loss of car parking spaces". Why has this been imposed as a condition? It is not consistent with the underlying philosophy of the Draft Walking Strategy: "Walking is the most accessible and low cost form of transport available, and has a significant role to play in Bayside’s integrated transport system. Walking has many important [economic, environmental and health & well being] benefits for individuals and the community as a whole...". A reduction in the number of car parking spaces, which would reduce incentives to drive and increase incentives to walk, cycle or take public transport would be preferred.
Level 1
My preference is for Option D. However, there is a bigger question about the Willis St precinct and the process of decision making that bothers me. In the UDF document, under the “Further Study” section are items about “detailed parking studies” and “ detailed studies of traffic flow”. I think that results of both of those studies are essential before the community can made informed decisions about what changes are preferred or acceptable. The building of 250 new apartments with their associated cars; increased need for parking for commuters, shoppers, gym members; the need for deliveries to traders; all these would seem to me to make the intersection of Willis St (west) and Hampton St a potential nightmare. And that is before the Council’s community Hub is factored in!! So, my request is that the detailed traffic studies are completed as a matter of urgency.
Level 1
My preference is for Option D or E, however, without predicted traffic modelling studies available to review, this is more a guess of what is likely to work.
Level 1
Hampton Neighbourhood Association Bayside City Council (“Bayside”) has released a discussion document on the realignment of Koolkunna Lane and asked for comment on the 3 options presented at a workshop to be held on 25 February 2015. Hampton Neighbourhood Association (“HNA”) believes that there are other viable redevelopment options that should be considered at the workshop. HNA has previously written and made representations to Bayside in the following terms: The Association notes the option development process in the Arup transport report and the subsequent review of only selected Arup options in the Cardno traffic report. The Arup report worked from options developed/dictated by a heavily transport focused working group comprising Public Transport Victoria (“PTV”), Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure (“DTPLI”), VicRoads and Council. There is little or no evidence of consideration of wider community impacts in the decision or a search for wider community benefits including those identified in the high level principles adopted by Council in their public UDF documents. The options developed by this working group were evaluated and scored using assessment criteria (Arup Section 4.2) that were public transport focused, inward looking and attributed no value/decrement for impacts on surrounding communities and commercial/residential land use. Options discarded by this decision-making process had significantly less impact on the surrounding community (Arup Option 3 – traffic continuing to exit the precinct via Willis Lane). Only two options selected through this narrowly focused process were then evaluated in the Cardno traffic report. The Association members want the Options within the Arup report to be evaluated again using assessment criteria that reflect business and community concerns and the principles identified in the UDF and for this evaluation to be the subject of community review. The Association members believe this is very important given the likelihood pressure for future development on the whole site including the Community Centre and Playhouse. It remains the view of HNA that: • The planning for the Hampton Activity Centre has been public transport focussed from the outset and option development and evaluation has attributed no value/decrement for impacts upon surrounding communities and commercial/residential land use • The current restriction on public comment to 3 options is a continuation of a blind determination to manage this process to an outcome without adequate consideration of alternatives • The process is arguably not compliant with the high level principles adopted by Council in their public UDF documents HNA also notes that all Bayside Options are silent on the proposed egress of parking from the public rail parking and the proposed 250 apartment development. How can the public be expected to give considered input when this information is not supplied? Specifically in regard to Option A: Overall Comment: • This is not a preferred option with a high impact on residential amenity • Few or no features to recommend the option Additional Impacts not listed by Bayside: • Traffic impacts on Willis Street residents are not “potential” as described and will include: o Headlight flare from turning buses and vehicles o Noise and fumes from accelerating buses and vehicles o Reduced carparking in Willis Street adjacent to Koolkuna Lane & Willis Street intersection o Increased traffic volume of 1,000 vehicles per day • No detail is supplied on exit from parking for o Rail commuters o VicTrack residents • Loss of land from Scout Hall site to reduce angle of right turn into Willis Street • Splits scout hall land from VicTrack land – a nonsensical outcome Mitigation • Lowering speed limits will have little effect on adverse impacts
Level 1
Hampton Neighbourhood Association As there is no ready means to provide comment on Option D & E the Association has posted comments as feedback on Options A, B & C The Neighbourhood Association is appreciative off the effort made by Tom Vercoe of Bayside to have a drawing of Option D available at late notice for the community meeting. Unfortunately as explained to Council staff and the community workshop and due to time pressure the drawing is inaccurate in a number of aspects. The key features of Option D are: ? That Willis Lane remain the primary entry and exit for the Activity Centre and be two way ? That PTV be expected to manage the bus turnaround at ground level on their own land as any other Bayside business or resident would be expected to provide for their use or activity on their own land (They can still build 5 levels of apartments above under the current UDF proposal) ? The two traffic arrows on the drawing between the Council carpark and the VicTrack land should be deleted as there is no publicly available information regarding where the exit for vehicles from the 250+ apartments and 78 railway carparks will be or what entry and exit is proposed for the existing underground carpark at 8 Willis Street Overall Comments • The proposal minimises the distance between bus and rail transport nodes and minimises pedestrian conflict with other land/traffic uses • Bayside has never articulated the business/community case for the need for a large plaza in front of the station o The location is a place people walk through to access or exit the railway station – it is not and never will be a vibrant community meeting place. Those locations are in Hampton Street. o Hampton Street Traders have voiced opposition to any attempt to erode the role of Hampton Street as the community recreational and retail focus o Plaza – who has asked for it?? o Resources better devoted to repairing the dilapidated pedestrian rail overpass and boosting the amenity of the existing laneways between the station and Hampton Street • The Public Transport Working Group comprising Public Transport Victoria (“PTV”), Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure (“DTPLI”), VicRoads and Council made a high level trade off that allowed: o VicTrack to sell the current bus turnaround for residential development o Bayside officers to build a plaza for which no business case or community case has been presented Impacts of Option D: • Bayside maximises revenue from the sale of Koolkuna Lane west and the Scout Hall • Status quo preserved and Willis Lane remains the primary access to the area • Additional carparking • Traffic impacts in Willis Street minimised specifically headlight flare, noise, exhaust fumes and loss of parking • Traffic impacts on 8 Willis Street minimised • Scout hall development to have adequate setback at 1st floor and 2nd floor level to prevent overshadowing and overlooking of 8 Willis Street dwellings • Bus pick up and set down separated from car traffic flows resulting in highest pedestrian safety
Level 1
Hampton Neighbourhood Association Option E As there is no ready means to provide comment on Option D & E the Association has posted comments as feedback on Options A, B & C This Option can also be described as Option B reversed with the new Koolkuna Lane providing bus, pedestrian and cycle access into the Activity Centre and Willis Lane remaining 2 way and the only access for cars. Overall Comment • The safest option • Willis Lane remains the main access and exit to the precinct for cars Impacts: • Safer for buses to turn left in to new Koolkunna Lane than left into Willis Lane because of separation from car traffic • Safer pedestrian option as one way bus flow means pedestrians can cross readily from bus stops to VicTrack commercial/retail and to station • More space for a better engineered left hand turn • Council land used for bus stops (small area similar to CBD super tram stop) – financial or land trade off required with VicTrack • Reduces & minimises encroachment into existing Scout Hall Land as Koolkunna Lane is slow speed one way entry with separate pedestrian and cycle path • Traffic impacts in Willis Street minimised specifically headlight flare, noise, exhaust fumes and loss of parking • Traffic impacts on 8 Willis Street minimised by reduction in car traffic • Best option for pedestrian and cycle safety in Koolkuna Lane • Vehicle access and exit to VicTrack public carpark and residential development is not nominated under Option B – Bayside to advise proposed arrangement • Enables Council to include Scout Hall in adjoining development • 3 additional car park spaces in re-aligned Koolkuna Lane not material, provide elsewhere east of Hampton Street • New Koolkuna Lane to have adequate setback at 1st floor and 2nd floor level to prevent overshadowing and overlooking of 8 Willis Street dwellings • Koolkuna Lane vehicles turn left from Willis Street rather than turning right and crossing traffic flow resulting in safer traffic outcome • Bus stops re-located to LHS of one way carriageway but pedestrian safety improved as no through traffic other than bus service • Separation of bus and vehicle movement • Best option for egress from 8 Willis carpark
Level 1
Hampton Neighbourhood Association has written the following letter to Council regarding the Notes of Meeting and Decision Making Criteria information posted on this web site: Mr M. Kelleher, Manager Urban Strategy, Bayside City Council, PO Box 27, Sandringham, 3191 7 March 2015 Dear Mr Kelleher, Koolkuna Lane Community Workshop Notes and Decision Making Criteria Thank you for organising the community workshop to discuss the re-alignment of Koolkuna Lane. Thank you also for the clarification on the decision-making criteria and the notes of the community workshop published recently on Council’s “yoursaybayside” website. Unfortunately the notes of meeting do not accurately reflect what occurred and the decision-making criteria supplied are not what were requested. The notes of meeting state: “In relation to the decision-making criteria, Mr Kelleher explained that Council officers would frame their recommendation to councillors having regard to amenity, safety, functionality, good urban design, efficient use of land. Detailed traffic engineering design will also occur to assess the level of suitability of the preferred option. Mr David Osborne of the Hampton Neighbourhood Association raised the issue of the assessment criteria, with participants agreeing that they would like more information about the criteria and any weighted scoring. Council officers agreed to provide this in a reasonable time after the meeting on Council’s website.” It is the view of the Association that the notes of meeting should state: “In relation to the decision-making criteria, Mr Kelleher explained that Council officers would frame their recommendation to councillors having regard to amenity, safety, functionality, good urban design, efficient use of land. Detailed traffic engineering design will also occur to assess the level of suitability of the preferred option. Mr. David Osborn, on behalf of the members of the Hampton Neighbourhood Association, rejected this explanation as inadequate and made the following points: 1. That an open and transparent evaluation and decision making process was needed to enable the community to understand the final decision 2. That depending upon what the decision making criteria were and the relative importance assigned to each decision making criteria a different Option could be selected as the “best”, for example a frame of reference that prioritised public transport, freight traffic and car traffic would suggest a different solution to a frame of reference that prioritised residential amenity, retail trading and community functions 3. That the current options had evolved inter alia from the options developed/dictated by a heavily transport focused working group comprising Public Transport Victoria, Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure, VicRoads and Council 4. The options developed by this working group were evaluated and scored using assessment criteria (Arup Report Section 4.2) that were public transport focused, inward looking and attributed no value/decrement for impacts on surrounding communities and retail/commercial/residential land use 5. The assessment criteria did not contain or reflect the aims outlined in Bayside’s 2013 Urban Design Framework for the Hampton Precinct or the passionate comments of Councillors at the Council general meeting to consider the future of the Hampton Community Centre The community members at the meeting then voted unanimously to request Council officers to prepare a matrix similar to the Arup Report and clarify the decision-making criteria that would be considered to evaluate each option together with the relative importance assigned to each factor in their decision making process. The decision-making criteria contained in the agenda for the community meeting and which prompted the response from the Association were listed as: • Overall planning for the area (i.e. amenity, safety, precinct functionality, good design, land efficiency and opportunity) • Engineering and traffic advice The clarification of decision making criteria that you have published states: “When Council officers prepare a recommendation to Council on which alignment option to adopt, the following matters will inform the officer recommendation: • Amenity considerations – for both current and future residents; • Community consultation process, including Council’s online forum, written submissions, the community workshop and individual meetings; • Efficient use of land; • Orderly planning of the area; • Pedestrian safety; • Traffic engineering advice; and • Urban design and functionality. The Committee of the Association has considered the clarification you have provided and considers that it falls far short of what the community requested and what they reasonably believed that Council officers undertook to provide in that: • The criteria supplied are “motherhood” and contain no detail • The criteria supplied are essentially the same as those contained in the agenda that were unanimously considered inadequate by the community • There is no indication of the relative importance assigned to each item in the frame of reference that Council officers will use when making their recommendations to Councillors • The criteria do not adequately reflect the objectives and principles of Council’s 2013 Urban Design Framework Document For your information I attach selection criteria contained in the Arup report as an example of improved detail and I refer you to the objectives and principles contained in Council’s 2013 Urban Design Framework and the Bayside Planning Scheme. The Association would like to request that: 1. Council officers issue amended notes of the meeting 2. Council officers provide the information on criteria for decision making in the form outlined above and that the Association considers would result in an “open and transparent” process 3. In the event that Council officers are not in a position to provide further information to explain the reasons for not providing such information Yours Sincerely, D. Osborn President ?
Level 1
We are the residents at the rear of 8 Willis Street and our balcony and backyard are adjacent to Koolkuna Lane. We are therefore severely impacted by all the planned options being considered as part of the ‘Koolkuna Lane Alignment and Configuration Options’ process being completed by Bayside Council. We consider that Options A, B, C and D should not be considered. Option E that was proposed by the Hampton Neighbourhood Association we consider is the best option, as we understand buses and 8 Willis traffic only will use this section of the new Koolkuna Lane. However this option will result in an increase in noise and traffic and therefore 8 Willis Street will have to be sound proofed. Noise Treatment If any of the options proceed significant noise reduction treatment will need to be provided to 8 Willis Street to reduce as much as possible any increase in noise due to the increased car and bus traffic. This should include sound reduction treatment to all exterior fences and walls and window double-glazing. Car Park Access Vehicles - At the community consultation meeting on 25th February we received assurances from the council representatives that all the options would provide safe exit and entry to the 8 Willis underground car park via Koolkuna Lane. Pedestrians / Garbage bin - The car park exit and back gate of unit 6 also have access via Koolkuna lane and safe pedestrian access and garbage bin access needs to be provided if any of the options are adopted. We are also very concerned about having a 3 storey (or higher) development on the existing Scout Hall site.