2010 189149 Queenscliff Parking Study - Report of Warringah Traffic Committee 3 August ... · 2019....

Report of Warringah Traffic Committee 3 August 2010 then to Council Meeting on 24 August 2010

ITEM 3.1

Report of Warringah Traffic Committee on 3 August 2010 then to Council meeting on 24 August 2010

3.1 Queenscliff Parking Study – Results of Resident Survey into Parking Management Options

UBD Ref: N/A

Attachments: Letter, Questionnaire, Map of Proposed Residential Parking Areas, Summary of Comments Received, Report

Purpose

To report the results of the resident survey into the possibility of implementing resident parking schemes or maintaining the status quo in the Queenscliff Area.

Summary

In accordance with the Council’s resolution of 23 March 2010 a survey of residents and property owners in the Queenscliff Area has been undertaken to ascertain the level of support into potential parking management options for the area. The three options surveyed involve possible resident parking schemes or maintaining the status quo. A total of 476 completed questionnaires were received. The majority of respondents 67% do not support the introduction of any form of resident parking scheme and wish to retain the status quo.

Recommendation to Traffic Committee

A. That the Committee notes the results of the resident survey, which show that the majority of residents in the Queenscliff area support Option 3 - Maintain Status Quo

B. That in view of the resident survey results, the introduction of a resident parking scheme in the Queenscliff area not be supported.

C. That Council’s Compliance and Traffic Management Teams further investigate the issue of boats, trailers and trucks parking in the Queenscliff area and the matter be reported to Warringah Traffic Committee.

Proceedings in Brief

Mr Liell-Cock addressed the Traffic Committee expressing his concerns with the results of the recent Queenscliff resident parking survey. He felt that there had been poor engagement with the community, and questioned why 67% of residents in the most recent survey voted to maintain the status quo whereas in the earlier parking study 66% of residents indicated that parking was the main problem identified by residents. The Team Leader Traffic Management advised that the figure was incorrect and that 51% had rated finding a parking space ahead of their concerns regarding traffic speed, high traffic volumes, need for traffic facilities, dangerous or illegal parking etc. Mr Liell-Cock maintains there is disconnect between the two surveys suggesting that survey was flawed and/or that the majority of residents did not like the options presented.

He also wants the RTA to address the “illegal” parking scheme in the Manly area and consistency across the Councils boundaries.

He suggested that the survey should be addressed street by street and he referred to a North Sydney Council survey.


ITEM 3.1


The Police and RTA representatives questioned Mr Liell-Cock’s statements noting that residents have had the opportunity to consider an area wide scheme as well as a street specific scheme (Option 2). It was further noted that the street specific treatment was the least popular with residents (12% favoured Option 2).

The Committee considered that the detailed resident surveys that had been undertaken had appropriately engaged the community and gauged their views. The surveys and their results are valid and reflect the views of the community.

It was further noted that a number of residents had commented that the main problem is resident’s vehicles in the evenings.

The Traffic Committee considered that the survey results were appropriate and unanimously agreed with the recommendation.

Traffic Committee Recommendation

That the foregoing recommendation be adopted.


ITEM 3.1


Background

Council on 11 August 2009 resolved to undertake a Traffic and Parking Remediation Study in the Queenscliff area. The study was completed in February/March 2010 and the study report was considered at the Council meeting of 23 March 2010. Council resolved, amongst other things, to undertake a resident consultation in the Queenscliff study area in regard to the following recommended options and the results be referred back to Council in July 2010 for consideration.

Option 1: Introduction of an Area Wide Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) for

Queenscliff in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority’s guide for Permit Parking Scheme.

Option 2: Introduction of a Street Specific Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) in

accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority’s guide for Permit Parking Scheme in

designated sections of streets in the Queenscliff area (minimum of 3-5 spaces in a

zone) to cater for some of the households with no off street parking in that zone/area.

Option 3: Maintain Status Quo

Consultation

Traffic Committee Comments

The Council’s decision of 23 March 2010 was referred to the Warringah Traffic Committee for comment. The Committee considered the matter on 6 April 2010 and concurred with Council’s decision to proceed with the resident survey into the three options as resolved by Council.

Resident Survey

The resident survey was undertaken on the week commencing 21 June 2010 and submissions were accepted until 6 July 2010. Residents were provided with a covering letter, information sheet, questionnaire and pre paid reply envelope (refer to attachment for details). Residents were also provided with the alternative of completing the questionnaire and submitting it online at Council’s web site. A total of 2900 letters were sent to residents and property owners in the Queenscliff study area. A total of 476 completed questionnaires were received. 365 questionnaires were received in the mail and 111 were submitted online. This response rate is similar to that obtained in the earlier survey conducted during the study period wherein 403 survey forms were returned to Council.

A copy of the information sent to the community including the questionnaire is attached. The covering letter advised of the Council’s resolution and invited residents to view the Council study report at Council’s web site for further details.


ITEM 3.1


The information sheet provided information relevant to resident parking schemes to assist the community in completing the questionnaire. The information included

• Legislation and RTA guidelines regarding Resident Parking Schemes (RPS)

• Objectives of RPS

• Impacts of RPS

• Eligibility Criteria for a Resident Parking Permit

• Advantages and disadvantages of RPS

The questionnaire put to the community is summarised as follows.

Q.1 Please indicate your preference to options 1, 2 or 3.

Q2. If as part of options 1 or 2 were implemented what parking duration would you support, 2hour, 3hour or do not support any time limit?

Q3. Do you require a resident parking permit if option 1 or 2 were implemented?

Q4. Do you live in a unit or house?

Q5. How many onsite parking spaces do you have available?

Q6. Comments (Optional)

Resident Survey Findings

The results of the resident survey have been collated and analysed. The results to each question is summarised in the following tables below;

Q.1 After considering the information provided please indicate your preference by ticking one of the following options.

Option Submissions (No.) Submissions (%)

Option 1 (Area Wide Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) 101 21

Option 2 (Street Specific Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) 58 12

Option 3 (Maintain Status Quo) 317 67

Total 476 100 %


ITEM 3.1


Option Selected

Question 2

If a resident parking is introduced what parking duration would you support?

Question3

Do you require a resident parking permit?

Question 4

Do you live in a unit or house?

Question 5

How many onsite parking spaces do you have available?

Eligibility for Resident Parking Permit

2P 3P Nil Yes No Unit House 0 1 2 >2 Yes No

Option1 44 42 13 77 14 74 22 27 58 5 6 64 12

Option 2 17 34 4 44 11 43 14 7 41 7 4 40 4

Option 3 5 12 229 198 52 177 119 32 157 88 32 89 66

All Options combined

66 88 246 319 77 294 155 66 256 100 42 193 82

Summary of findings

Resident Parking Scheme

• The majority of respondents 67% do not support the introduction of a resident parking scheme.

• 21% of respondents support the introduction of an area wide resident parking scheme (Option 1).

• 12 % support a street specific resident parking scheme (Option 2 )

• If Option 1 and 2 were combined 33% could be considered to support a resident parking scheme.

Parking Duration

• 52 % of all respondents do not support a parking time limit

• Of those in support of resident parking option1, 44% prefer 2 hour limit, 43 % 3 hours and 13% no limit.

• Of those in support of resident parking option2, 31% prefer 2 hour limit, 62%, 3 hours and 7% no time limit.


ITEM 3.1


Types of Residence

• 60% reside in a unit and

• 40% in a house.

Onsite Parking Availability

• 14% indicate that they do not have any onsite parking

• 55% indicate they have 1onsite car space

• 22% indicate that they have 2 onsite car spaces and

• 9% indicate they have more than 2 onsite car spaces

Eligibility for Resident Parking Permit

Based on the response to question 3 i.e. do you require a permit and the number of onsite parking available to the resident, it is estimated that;

• 193 respondents could be eligible for a resident parking permit (i.e. have only one onsite car space)

• Note: The above assumes that two permits would be made available for both houses and units. In the past it has been the practice to limit the number of permits to units based on the number of bedrooms for example a 3 bedroom unit could be considered the equivalent of a house and attract 2 permits while a two bedroom unit could be limited to one permit. Unit developments generally provide less parking than households

• 82 respondents would not be eligible for a resident parking permit ( i.e. have 2 or more onsite car spaces)

Comments (Optional)

A significant number of respondents provided comments. The comments are summarised in the following attachment A.


ITEM 3.1


Conclusion

The survey results indicate that whilst there is some support for a resident parking scheme, the majority of the community are against the introduction of a resident parking scheme and wish to retain the status quo.

From the comments and results it can be concluded that, at times, some residents are experiencing some difficulty in finding on street parking due to the on street parking accumulation, particularly during the evenings and during weekends in summer. Some residents note that in the evening the majority of parked vehicles are resident’s vehicles.

Having regard to the foregoing information it is considered the level of on street parking problem in the area is not sufficient to warrant the introduction of timed parking or a resident parking scheme at the present time.

Policy Impact

There will be no impact on Council’s Policy. Council and Warringah Traffic Committee have historically not been supportive of Resident Parking Scheme.

Financial Impact

As a result of the recommendation, there is no impact on Council’s budget. The cost of undertaking the Queenscliff Traffic and Parking Study, which involved two detailed surveys and investigation, was included in the 2009/2010 budget year ($65,000.00). Staff time is estimated at 140 hours over the duration of the project to date.

ATTACHMENT 3.1

ITEM 3.1

Report of Warringah Traffic Committee on 3 August 2010 then to Council Meeting on 24 August 2010

ATTACHMENT 3.1

ITEM 3.1


Residents’ Comments Frequency of Comment

Staff Comment

Comments from respondents who selected Option 3-Maintain Status Quo

Information on RPS helpful to evaluate the RPS. 2 Noted

The streets are too far away from the beach to require timed parking. 3 Noted.

Unrestricted parking is rare, don’t introduce the Manly type parking restrictions. 6 Noted.

Would support RPS if more permits are made available like Manly. 2 The number of permits proposed is in accordance with the RTA’s guidelines for RPS.

People don’t park in Queenscliff and walk to Manly Transport services. 1 Noted.

Permits should be car specific i.e. registration shown on permit. Number plate of vehicle would need to be displayed on the permit in accordance with the RTA’s guidelines for RPS.

Visitors, carers, elderly and trades visitors will be restricted and inconvenienced. 41 A Visitor Permit Parking Scheme is not being proposed as part of this report.

Will shift parking problem elsewhere. 5 Noted, the introduction of the RPS could have such an impact.

Parking tight only some summer week ends, surf carnivals all other times not a problem. 13 Noted.

Main problem is residents parking on street instead of their spaces/or units with not enough parking.

1 Noted.

Waste of money/ costly to implement. 14 It is acknowledged that there is a cost to implementing a RPS.

Ban boats, trailers, trucks from parking on street. 14 This matter will require further investigation.

ATTACHMENT 3.1

ITEM 3.1


Manly resident parking scheme should also comply with RTA guidelines. 2 Agree and has been raised with the RTA.

Plenty of parking is available-not a problem/parking usually available. 15 Noted.

Manly resident parking scheme is a disaster/ruined Manly/times are too low. 4 Noted.

What do they do if they have more than two cars they have no option/would need to move cars around.

3 Residents with no permit would be subject to the parking time limit.

Timed parking is a nuisance for all. 1 Noted

Busiest parking times are 6-8pm when residents are at home/majority of cars are residents. 6 Noted

Rationalise No Standing signs in Crown Road. 1 Matter will be investigated.

RPS is a revenue raising exercise. 5 The RPS has not been proposed for this purpose.

Great deal of time wasted on self interest resident who purchased property with no onsite parking and wish Council to provide exclusive parking rights

1 Noted

No more rules and regulations. 11 Noted

I have one garage, but often have a work utility that doesn't fit in the garage. So I'd need a street parking permit too.

1 Noted

ATTACHMENT 3.1

ITEM 3.1


This questionnaire does not give all the options I would like and does not go into enough detail about the options. For example how many permits a house hold gets, visitor parking etc. I hate all the signs associated with timed parking - is there a way of making signs less intrusive.

1 No visitor parking is proposed. Information contained in the resident fact sheet provided to all residents.

Would like greater clarity around the eligibility criteria for the permits 1 Noted.

I have been fined numerous times for parking in front of my garage. So does this mean that the above question makes my car spot legal or illegal?

1 The questionnaire refers to onsite parking on driveway, not on the public road/nature strip.

We live in a street that is occupied 95% of the time by residents. The major issue is the scarcity of parking spaces, not the use of the street by visitors/ tourists to the beach.

1 Noted.

There is nothing wrong with the way it is & if implemented residents from all over Warringah shire will suffer in summer trying to park close to the beach, residents don’t own the public streets.

1 Noted.

Please leave it alone, there is no problem with parking RPP will forever ruin the area landscape.

1 Noted.

As indicated in previous correspondence, our house was built in the early 1920's. Neither the driveway nor the garage, which has been converted as part of council approved backyard renovations, are wide enough for a modern vehicle to occupy and accommodate people walking down the drive whilst the vehicle is parked. In fact there is not sufficient space at the sides to egress the vehicle without extreme difficulty and this can only be achieved on one side, the other needing to be so close to the wall that the door cannot be opened at all. Further, the driveway is so steep between the street and front gate that many modern vehicles cannot reverse out from a standing start. For these reasons it would be unreasonable to assume we have any off-street parking at all.

1 Noted.

I am concerned that, although stated in your letter, residents are not aware that they will not be allocated permits if they have 2 onsite parking spaces.

1 Noted. Information contained in the resident fact sheet provided to all residents.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide Council with our thoughts re timed parking in Queenscliff streets. Our main comments are that a RPS would create short term parking opportunities at the expense of residents. And secondly, it will probably move the problem of long term parkers to nearby streets/locations that do not have any parking

1 Note.

ATTACHMENT 3.1

ITEM 3.1


restrictions. We do not want a RPS and hope if a version is adopted that it won't be as disruptive to nearby areas as Manly Council's extensive RPS and Parking Meter sites.

Your map does not provide enough options to park and like the 'fabulous' scheme in Manly (we also own property on the Nth Steyne manly)Council just removes signs that allowed parking without consultation anyway. Any resident parking plan is ok provided there is a significant area provided which allows for a growing population (and you can't change that in the future when you feel like it) - your current map does not do this - also ban boats and trailer parking will make a big difference and ensuring the foot paths are clear to allow people to park safely on the road way.

1 Noted. Warringah Council could not change the Manly Scheme. Boat and trailer parking to be further reviewed.

Comments from Respondents who selected Option 1- Area Wide Resident Parking Scheme

On street parking on weekends difficult. 1 Noted.

During summer parking is busy due to beach goers. 6 Noted.

Provide additional spaces. 1 This was investigated in the study but was not considered feasible.

Boat trailers take up valuable parking. 3 Provided trailers are not oversized and are registered they can be parked on street under the Australian Road Rules, however this matter will be further reviewed.

What arrangements are to be made for resident’s boat parking? Most driveways are too steep for boat parking.

The matter of boat and trailer parking will be further reviewed.

ATTACHMENT 3.1

ITEM 3.1


Streets are narrow. 3 Traffic conditions were assessed in the study no changes were recommend.

Some residents are not using their garages/or used for storage. 3 Noted, Council would be unable to take action in respect to the use of garages in residential buildings for storage. However if there are unauthorised structural changes/alterations made to garage than such matters can be referred to Council’s Compliance Team.

Businesses from in Manly park in our streets. 3 Noted.

Parking close to corners can be a problem. 1 Ongoing enforcement issue.

Provide visitor permits. 1 No visitor permits are proposed.

Allow more permits. 1 A maximum of two permits would be available under the RTA guidelines for RPS.

Residents need a solution but the options offered are rigid and do not match the days and times when parking restrictions are required eg. Weekends. When can residents have real engagement with the council to find a sound and sensible solution?

The issue of boats and trailers has not been addressed.

1 The indicative times were given as an example. The application of appropriate times would be determined should the RPS be recommended. Council has undertaken a study and two resident surveys to engage the community in the process. The issue of boats and trailers on street will be subject to further investigations and consideration by Warringah Traffic Committee.

Parking issues increased with boats parked in Crown Road and surrounding areas - restrictions must expel this behaviour to minimise unnecessary congestion. .Any new development must be parking neutral/negative, as there is NO MORE capacity for parking to support the increasing density of Queenscliff. The Pavilion/Crown Road major complex significantly increased area parking issues.

1 It is proposed to further investigate this matter. Parking for developments is set by the Warringah LEP 2000.

ATTACHMENT 3.1

ITEM 3.1


Would support the street specific RPS, but the current plan is useless. The tiny areas proposed just do not reflect the wider area of problem. For example, backpacker vans are parked around Freshwater View Reserve for several days at a time constantly over summer, sometimes for weeks. Also, there is a wider problem of speed of traffic along Pavilion Street, and traffic and parking issues relating to weddings at Freshwater View Reserve that should be addressed. I would like to suggest that a study of these issues comes out as a recommendation of this study into parking?

In addition, I object strongly to having only one permit per house. There should be two. People should be allowed a second permit for visitors such as grandparents staying all day to mind children etc. I remind Council that the people of Queenscliff pay huge amounts in rates (I pay over $4k) and two permits is the least we should get in return for the rates we pay to live here. The rest of the cars parked here belong to commuters.

1 An alternative to the street specific RPS is the area wide RPS. The extent of the street specific RPS was to be subject to the results of the survey. Te matter of backpacker’s vans could be further investigated in conjunction with the boat and trailers issue. Council has removed the Queenscliff entry from the Council’s web page.

Two permits per household would be possible provided the resident has no onsite parking.

Comments from respondents who selected Option 2 – Street Specific Resident Parking Scheme

Garages are not been used to park cars and some people park on street. 1 Noted.

Boats occupy parking spaces. 1 It is proposed to further investigate this matter.

Weekends in summer are an issue. 2 Noted.

Narrow roads. 2 Traffic conditions were assessed during the original study and no changes were recommended.

Create parking spaces. 1 The possibility of angle parking was investigated in the original parking study but was not feasible due to cost and the minor if any increase in parking supply.

Lobby Manly to comply with RPS guidelines. 1 Noted, matter raised with the RTA.

Want to pay for more stickers or two or more per household. 1 Permits would be based on eligibility.

Development control for DA’s and parking restrictions, limited on site. 1 Noted.

ATTACHMENT 3.1

ITEM 3.1


Cars from Manly Businesses parking in Queenscliff area. 1 Noted.

Building trucks are an issue. 1 Noted, Compliance advised.

Parking restrictions should finish at 6pm. 2 Noted however a RPS is not being proposed as part of this report.

First permit should be free. 1 A fee was proposed for the first permit to recoup costs of production etc.

Would like greater clarity around the eligibility criteria for the permits. 1 The eligibility criterion was set out in the information sheet.

ATTACHMENT 3.1

ITEM 3.1


2010 189149 Queenscliff Parking Study - Report of Warringah Traffic Committee 3 August ... · 2019....

Documents

Transcript of 2010 189149 Queenscliff Parking Study - Report of Warringah Traffic Committee 3 August ... · 2019....