Wayville residents ANGRY
This blog post is dedicated to publishing the submissions made by residents.
At their request, individual contact details have been suppressed.
The residents are lobbying David Pisoni MP to kill the proposal.
Here are the submissions ...
Submission 1 ...
Submission 3 ...
Infill development requires the building of things, and that requires a large number of large trucks to remove the demolition rubble and excavated earth, then deliver things like bricks, structural steel,roof trusses, and the like.
Some years ago, I used to drive semi-trailers, and it got me thinking how I would get a 6 metre prime mover towing a 12 metre trailer into the Wayville area after your non-negotiable right turns are removed.
Now most of the delivery vehicles will be approaching from the north - that's where this stuff comes from and goes to, so if I come along Greenhill road eastbound, do I do a U-turn on Greenhill Road? Not likely. Too hard; too dangerous, and if there are parked cars, I possibly won't make it.
So I then have to head through the city, not fun in itself, right turn at either Lewis Cohen Avenue or King William Road, take the centre lane of Greenhill Road westbound, hold up the traffic, check to make sure that there are no lunatics going past me on the left hand side, then make my left turn from the centre lane of Greenhill Road into Clark or Joslin Street.
Alternatively, I can head south on Goodwood Road, take up the right lane of Goodwood Road, hold up the traffic, then make a left turn into Young or LeHunte Street from the right hand lane of Goodwood Road.
The point is, semi trailers, being what they are, cannot turn into a relatively narrow side street from the left hand lane of a major road - you need to be at least one lane out to be able to make the turn without destroying the corner. This is hardly a safe situation. It is one which is almost guaranteed to add to the accident statistics in this area, and, having had to help pull someone out after they have gone under a semi trailer, I can assure you it is not pretty.
When the old buildings at Annesley College were being demolished, there was a constant flow of trucks in and out of that site for some months, and every one of then entered the area by a right turn from Greenhill Road into Clark Street. Not only because it was the easiest option, but also because it was the only safe option.
The safest way for any large vehicle to enter the streets of Wayville, or Parkside, or North Unley, is, without question, for it to make a right hand turn from Greenhill Road. Turning left from a major road into a side street in a large articulated vehicle is fraught with danger at all points, and should be discouraged by anyone concerned about road safety.
Member, Adelaide Showground Area Residents Group
Submission 4 ...
Dear Mr Zissopoulos,,
I am writing in relation to the proposal to change the flow of traffic exiting from the suburb of Wayville onto Greenhill Road.
The current proposal is ill conceived. It appears to be a reflex response which will not significantly alter traffic flow along Greenhill Road, but will instead render access into and out of the suburb of Wayville both difficult and dangerous. Most of the congestion on Greenhill Road relates to traffic traveling along it from other suburbs. The contribution of traffic exiting or entering Wayville itself is minor by comparison. Nor, in my long experience, does the traffic exiting Wayville substantially interfere with the traffic flow along Greenhill Road.
Wayville is a suburb bordered on two sides ( to the East and South) by the tramline. There is no access across the tramlines to either the East or South. This creates particular issues with access into and out of the suburb. The proposal to further restrict traffic exiting onto Greenhill Road will effectively "land lock" the suburb, which already has difficult and restricted access onto Goodwood Road. The traffic snarl precipitated by events at the Show Grounds, but particularly the Royal Adelaide Show, will make any entry or access to the suburb almost impossible at these times.
The proposal to force right turning traffic entering or exiting the suburb to drive to specified U turn points would be almost farcical, were it not so potentially dangerous. If current right turning traffic has been determined to restrict the flow of traffic along Greenhill Road, then one can only imagine how much worse the restriction to traffic flow will be when right traveling traffic is forced to first travel left, cross three lanes of traffic, and then perform a U turn in order to continue in the desired direction. At peak traffic times, this will cause almost total standstill, as right turning traffic will have to remain stationary in each left traveling lane while awaiting clearance into the adjacent lane, and then the adjacent lane again, in order to reach the U turn point, where the vehicle will have to again await an opportunity to execute the U turn. These movements will surely only compound the problem of traffic congestion on Greenhill Road, in both directions, while making access to and from the suburb extremely difficult. How will emergency vehicles enter and exit the suburb in a timely fashion?
Surely, the problem will be further compounded by the new development on the Annesley site which will only add to traffic volumes entering and exiting from Greenhill Road?
The maneuvers required will also place a vehicle exiting Wayville at high risk, as the vehicle will be traveling at an angle almost perpendicular to the general traffic flow, and will be vulnerable to being hit by oncoming traffic.
The proposal smacks of "Yes Minister" in it's absurdity.
It is not a solution to traffic congestion along Greenhill Road.
It renders access into and out of a suburb with already restricted access both extremely difficult and dangerous.
Indeed, the proposed solution may even exacerbate the problem of congestion.
The plan appears ill conceived, and does not appear to be supported by appropriate traffic flow studies. Where has this "solution" been successfully executed in other areas?
Studies are required before such a "solution" is executed. Alternatives require consideration. The "clear way" times along Greenhill Road should be extended, to allow easier egress into Greenhill Road. There should be extended "No Parking" zones adjacent to roads exiting onto Greenhill and Goodwood Roads. The old Annesley pedestrian lights could be removed, and instead, there could be consideration for a traffic light to regulate traffic ( including bicycles) exiting Wayville onto Greenhill Road. ( Similar to the traffic lights adjacent to Mercedes college at the exit of Carrick Hill Drive onto Fullarton/ Taylors Road in Mitcham.)
More study is required. The process needs to be transparent and open to community consultation. Do not waste tax payer's funds on an unsubstantiated and unsatisfactory reflex solution.
(submission from Helen Mc)
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
16th March, 2014
Dear Mr Zissopoulos,
Submission Re: PROPOSED GREENHILL ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
First, I wish to comment on the process adopted by the DPTI in presenting this proposal to the people most affected, the residents of the adjacent suburbs. The proposal has been presented to us for comment in a very short time frame as a fait accomplis with every indication that whatever comments are made, the work will proceed in March. This is outrageous because it is quite clear from the material that we have been given that the proposal is a standard “off the shelf” design which we are assured works on Anzac Highway. Had the department sought information from the residents of the adjacent suburbs prior to making the plans, the serious errors inherent in the plan would have been avoided. Quite simply, Greenhill Road and its adjacent suburbs have special requirements which are completely unrecognised by the proposal. Had a proper consultation process been undertaken these factors would have been taken into account and an appropriate plan addressing all the needs of users of Greenhill Road put in place.
Second, I have been a resident in Wayville for over 30 years. The remainder of my submission refers principally to how the proposal affects access to and from that suburb.
The proposal fails because it does not recognise the following fundamental features:
1. Greenhill Road differs from most other major roads in that it is effectively one sided. It only has businesses and residential suburbs on the Southern side. A high proportion of East bound traffic is therefore intending to make a Right turn or a U turn to access the Southern side of the road.
Due to the aggressive behaviour of motorists in the outer (Right hand) lane who make it difficult for others to move into the Right hand lane many motorists take the earliest opportunity to move into this lane and then stay in it even though they do not intend to make a right turn until several junctions have been passed. This results in considerable tail backs in the outer lane, even to the extent that there is frequently little or no traffic in the left hand lanes and access at any non- light controlled junctions is blocked
2. WAYVILLE only has access on the Northern and Western sides due to the Tram line which cuts the suburb off to the South and East. Further, only two roads give access to Greenhill Road, while of the four roads giving access to Goodwood Road, one has restricted access.
As the DPTI has recognised, the current situation of access to Greenhill road is unsatisfactory. What it has not recognised is that the small proportion of accidents which occur at the crossing points in the median strip (the data show that most accidents occur at light controlled junctions) is due to the bad design of these crossing points. Confusion (and therefore accidents) arises because of users inability to distinguish between right turning traffic and U turning traffic in the median strip crossing point.
The solution is to continue to allow right turning traffic to and from Joslin and Clarke Streets but to separate this traffic from that making U turns on Greenhill Road. The proposal as presented is over complicated and excessively restrictive to residents exiting and entering Wayville. It will lead to dangerous frustration because of the pattern of use of the East bound carriageway indicated above and manifestly will not work in maintaining safe traffic flow.
Rather than just making adjustments to the median strip as proposed, serious consideration must be given to a major upgrade of Greenhill Road. This is now a major traffic route carrying large volumes of traffic all day, with even heavier traffic at peak times. The length of these peak times gets longer and longer as the traffic increases. Under these circumstances it is no longer acceptable that vehicles should be allowed to park on the roadway eliminating the use of the Left hand lane at any time in the day. In addition the “part time” cycle lane is now inappropriate and needs to be relocated.
The proposed changes need to be postponed. The proposal needs to be re-assessed with proper consideration for the needs of the residents of the adjacent suburbs. There needs to be proper consultation with residents and users both before and after the creation of a modified plan. Special attention must be given to the following points.
1. Right hand turns into and out of Wayville need to be retained. Similar considerations apply to the other suburbs (e.g. North Unley and Parkside) bordering Greenhill Road on the south side where road closures have created similar circumstances.
2. Right turning traffic needs to be separated from U turning traffic.
3. Parking on Greenhill Road must be confined to specifically created parking bays and not allowed on the roadway, thus enabling full use of all three lanes.
4. The cycle lanes must be transferred to the southern margin of the parklands where currently no cycle paths exist for movement in an east –west direction.
I look forward to your response to this submission.
(submission from Jeff)