sydney-city-centre-review-of-environmental-factors

Summary
Table 2-5
In summary, both options have their benefits and both options would meet
the overall proposal objective of supporting the growing demand for
access into the city and improving road network functionality over the
coming years. The difference between the options related mainly to
the potential impacts on businesses (i.e. the last supporting objective in
section 2.3 and the business impact evaluation criterion).
‘Option a’ retains the outdoor dining along King Street whilst ‘option b’
retains some of the existing kerbside allocations. On balance the
construction disruption and long-term impacts to the adjacent businesses
and other properties along King Street generated under ‘option b’ were
considered to be more notable than the loss of the kerbside allocations
introduced under ‘option a’. As there was little difference in the capacity
and prioritisation created under both options, ‘option a’ was considered a
more beneficial outcome to the community, businesses and road users
compared to ‘option b’.
Analysis of options in precinct 2: retail
R1: Park Street (one option)
Traffic
efficiency
Amenity
Kerbside
use
Business
impacts
Summary
The option would benefit road users by introducing traffic efficiencies,
reducing congestion and improving traffic flows by transferring westbound
traffic more efficiently from Park Street into Pitt Street.
This improvement would relieve the demand on the intersection during
peak periods.
The option would improve the road user experience for westbound traffic
by setting priorities at the intersection. This would remove the existing
turning movement conflicts at the intersection by introducing a right turn
lane.
The offered solution would result in limited modification to the existing
kerbside allocations, therefore maximising benefits to road users whilst
not unduly conflicting or compromising those people that rely on the
affected kerbside allocations.
The reconfiguration of the intersection would not affect any loading zones.
The option identified for this pinch point would achieve the proposal
objectives as it would support the growing demand for access on this
priority corridor and improve road network functionality for westbound
traffic. The option also performed well against the evaluation criteria and
provided the required outcome through one proposed option.
R2: Market Street (three options)
Traffic
efficiency
All three options would introduce traffic capacity, reduce congestion and
improve traffic flows.
The difference between the options comes in assessing how the level of
introduced capacity could benefit the surrounding roads.
Whilst ‘option c’ would introduce the most capacity, the road configuration
at each end of Market Street is not large enough for road users to benefit
from this level of added capacity.
Conversely, ‘option a’ and ‘option b’ provide sufficient capacity to alleviate
this congested pinch point and for the benefits to be accommodated
elsewhere on the road network. In doing so they would improve traffic
flows and benefit road users.
Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement 37
Review of Environmental Factors