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

Unlike other streets there is sufficient capacity on the surrounding roads to
benefit from any improvements along York Street. ‘Option b’ and ‘option c’
would provide the most capacity through creating an additional traffic lane
along the whole length of the road between the intersections. This would
benefit road users and bus users especially during the morning peak
period
Amenity
‘Option a’ would introduce less capacity as the improvements would still
retain the kerb extension along the road corridor, preventing the creation
of a continuous lane throughout. The benefits to road users and bus users
would therefore be less than ‘option b’ or ‘option c’.
‘Option b’ and ‘option c’ set clearer priorities by introducing an additional
traffic lane that would not conflict with kerbside allocations for part of the
day. This would benefit road users and bus users.
‘Option b’ and ‘option c’ would provide priorities across all intersections
along York Street favouring through traffic. This would improve certainty
and reduce travel times benefiting road users and bus users.
The benefit of ‘option a’ is that it retains pedestrian capacity along York
Street where the footpaths are reasonably narrow and the footfall is high.
This would benefit pedestrians. ‘Option b’ would have the greatest impact
on pedestrian capacity due to the full removal of the mid-block extension
and signal.
Also ‘option a’ would have no notable amenity impact to the road corridor
as it would retain the footpath width and not introduce traffic closer to the
adjacent buildings.
Kerbside
use
The difference between ‘option b’ and ‘option c’ is their amenity impact.
Reducing the footpath width in this location would bring traffic closer to a
number of building façades including the heritage-listed Grace building.
It would also compromise the outdoor dining areas along this section of
York Street. Consequently, of the two options, ‘option c’ has the least
impact, as it would only reduce the mid-block kerb extension width instead
of removing it.
‘Option a’ would compromise the kerbside allocations along York Street by
introducing more restrictions to achieve the additional lane capacity. This
would impact businesses and road users that rely on these allocations.
It would also not achieve a full through traffic lane to benefit road and bus
users; therefore the impact is considered to outweigh the limited benefit.
‘Option b’ and ‘option c’ would retain the existing kerbside allocations in all
instances. This would benefit businesses and road users that rely on
these allocations.
Business
impacts
Overall ‘option a’ would only partially achieve the amenity criterion as it
would not remove the conflict between the kerbside allocations and traffic.
‘Option b’ and ‘option c’ would take longer to construction than ‘option a’.
This would affect existing bus services and travel times along the road for
a longer period. However, the long-term benefits to road users, bus users,
businesses and pedestrians are considered to be greater than the shortterm
construction impacts.
Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement 41
Review of Environmental Factors