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

Amenity
At present, buses cannot reliably use the kerbside lane as a bus lane
especially during the afternoon peak period. As a result, many buses
already use the adjacent general traffic lane. This introduces driver
uncertainty and conflict along Clarence Street.
‘Option a’ would remove this conflict by setting clearer road priorities
through reassignment of the second lane as a bus lane and ‘freeing up’
the kerbside lane. This would benefit bus users as their travel times would
be reduced northbound. It would also benefit general road users by
removing the lane conflicts that currently exist.
‘Option b’ still sets priorities in the morning and evening peak periods to
benefit bus users from exiting the city northbound; however it does not
remove the conflict between the two northbound lanes. It is therefore
considered less beneficial to bus users than ‘option a’.
Both ‘option a’ and ‘option b’ would impact on pedestrian capacity as the
footpath along Clarence Street is retained under both options.
Kerbside
use
‘Option a’ would, however, have a greater amenity benefit to road users
over ‘option b’ as it would move the bus lane from the kerbside. This
would increase the separation distance between buses and pedestrians,
which would introduce a safety benefit as well as improving the amenity of
the road corridor
Both options set priorities to make the best use of the kerbside to benefit
road users and bus users travelling north.
Business
impacts
Summary
Both options would have a kerbside allocation impact by introducing
restrictions. However ‘option a’ can achieve the same priorities and
capacity outcomes whilst also introducing additional loading zone capacity
along Clarence Street. This would benefit adjacent and local businesses
favouring this option.--
‘Option a’ would take longer to construct than ‘option b’. It 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 short-term construction
impacts.
‘Option a’ would best meet the overall proposal objective of supporting
growing demand for access to the city centre and improving road network
functionality in future years by clearly setting priorities along Clarence
Street, and thereby improving bus circulation and travel times throughout
the city. The greatest benefit would be to the high volume of buses that
leave the city northbound during the evening peak period. ‘Option a’ also
offers the benefit, over ‘option b’, of introducing additional kerbside
allocations. It therefore performed best against the proposal objectives
and evaluation criteria.
R5: York Street (three options)
Traffic
efficiency
All three options would introduce traffic capacity, reduce congestion and
improve traffic flows.
The road and bus traffic that uses York Street would benefit from the
provision of additional southbound capacity particularly during the morning
peak period.
Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement 40
Review of Environmental Factors