This document is feedback by John Phelan to Newcastle City Council.

This is his on-line submission form that submitted as an email.
These points address traffic matters.

A. Right-Turn from Station St to Wickham St
The Local Area Traffic Management Plan (LATMP) recommends a 'No Right Turn' here. This was installed in 2017 but requests to Newcastle City Council has resulted in it being removed so that residents of the WEST and Millhorn apartments (121 & 40 apartments respectively) with their driveway access in Wickham St., can more easily access their property. This also results in fewer vehicles using Union St and Bishopsgate Streets. Union St is to be a main pedestrian route through Wickham and the very narrow Bishopsgate Street is not suitable for through traffic. Permitting a Right-Turn from Station to Wickham St is supported for these and other reasons. The Wickham Master Plan (WMP) does not address this 'No-Right-Turn'. The LATMP should be revised to capture this, or the WMP revision needs to state that the LATMP 'No-Right-Turn' is not to be implemented.

B. Right-Turn from Station St to Union St
The LATMP recommends a 'No Right Turn' here. In the recent upgrade of this intersection as part of the Eaton development (114 apartments) this 'No Right Turn' has not been installed. The reasons stated in the LATMP for recommending a 'No Right Turn' are no longer valid since the Newcastle Interchange has not resulted in the anticipated traffic flows, particularly with the recently completed Hunter Street Bus Interchange, which was not considered in Traffic and Transport Assessment by Bitzios that underpinned the LATMP. Also, the 2017 WMP community consultation did not include a voice from the residents of the soon-to-be-completed Eaton apartments. These residents would likely make the same case as the WEST and Millhorn residents in reversing the No Right Turn from Station St to Wickham St. Permitting a Right-Turn from Station to Union St is supported. The WMP does not address this 'No-Right-Turn'. The LATMP should be revised to capture this, or the WMP revision needs to state that the LATMP No-Right-Turn is not to be implemented.

C. Station St between Wickham and Union Streets
The “Proposed Active Transport Route” is strongly supported as a much better option than the Church Street cycleway. Westbound, “cyclists will ‘command’ or drive in the middle of the lane” (LATMP, p.28). However, eastbound cyclists have nowhere to go. The road is one-way westbound and the footpaths are not acceptable to be used as a shared footpath. Furthermore, the use of shared pathways should be avoided where ever possible and so cyclist travelling east should be encouraged to not use the northern footpath. (It is illegal for a cyclist to travel the wrong way on a one-way street; although unlikely to be enforced by the police, any accidents will see the cyclist at fault.) To achieve a workable outcome will require a contra-flow cycle lane westbound. Station St has no parking on the northern side and there is plenty of width to install a contra-flow cycleway westbound. The current no parking on the northern side will also eliminate the risk of hitting an opening car door.
However, it may be better to make this section of Station Street two-way and allow westbound cyclists to ‘command’ a lane. Station St is wide enough for two-way traffic with parking on the southern side only, just like in the current section of Station St between Union and Railways Streets. The WEST and Millhorn apartments ( 121 & 40 apartments respectively) both have their driveway access in Wickham Street. Residents returning home via Throsby or Albert Streets currently must use Railway St, Lindus St, Union St and Bishopsgate St to access their property. (This assumes Union St is one-way into Throsby St.) Union St is intended to be a main pedestrian route though Wickham and the very narrow Bishopsgate Street is not suitable for through traffic. Removing traffic from Union and Bishopsgate Streets should be the highest priority for any traffic management plan. Making this section of Station St two-way will see residents returning from Throsby and Albert Streets use Railway St and Station St, removing these vehicles from Union and Bishopsgate Streets. Also, the Newcastle Interchange has not resulted in the anticipated traffic flows, particularly with the recently completed Hunter Street Bus Interchange , which was not considered in the Traffic and Transport Assessment by Bitzios that underpinned the LATMP. So, one of the main reasons for this section of Station Street being one-way is no longer valid.
It is strongly recommended that the section of Station Street between Wickham and Union Streets be made two-way with parking on the southern side only. In the unlikely circumstance that this is not achievable, then a contra-flow cycleway is required eastbound.
Note! This change was been raised with CN for incorporation into the Eaton development but this was rejected with CN, even though the developer was in favour. CN advised that when a ‘warrant’ is present it is easier enough to change the road alignment. Well, a ‘warrant’ does exist since there is nowhere for eastbound cyclists to go on this section of the “Proposed Active Transport Route”.

D. Charles and Station Streets between Dangar to Wickham Streets
The justification for this being two-way is the same as for the Station Street section between Wickham and Union St, except that the apartment of concern is Bowline with 114 apartments, 1 level of retail and 3 levels of commercial; 114 car parks. This large development has recently been approved and its driveway will be on Charles Street where it is one-way southbound.
The section along Station Street currently has no parking on the northern side and this should be maintained, just like the rest of Station Street. The section along Charles Street (south of Danger Street) should have parking removed from the western side so the increased width will also make sharing of the road lanes easier and cyclists can reach Danger Street without the hazard of car doors opening. Removing this parking will cost 5 car parking spaces, but will provide the more important “Active Transport Route”.
It is strongly recommended that the sections of Charles and Station Streets between Dangar and Wickham Streets be made two-way with parking on the eastern and southern sides only. In the unlikely circumstance that this is not achievable, then a contra-flow cycleway is required eastbound.

E. Railway Lane Western Extension
The WMP shows the existing Railway Lane being extended westward with a new one-way laneway. The revised WMP no longer shows this. It is suspected this is because the State Government’s Newcastle Interchange redevelopment has installed a new substation right in the way; this is most unfortunate. It is also probably due to the mine subsidence making high rise development here impractical. So, deleting this new laneway is now inevitable, however, every effort should be made to get the “Proposed Active Transport Route” to skirt just north of the substation rather than connect with the western end of Holland Street. It is noted that this area is flagged for parking, so the southern edge of any carpark should incorporate a cycleway to provide the most direct connection between Maitland Road and Honeysuckle.

F. Holland Street
The WMP has this as one-way east-bound and to do so would require a contra-flow cycleway. The revised WMP has this remaining as two-way and this is supported since “cyclists will ‘command’ or drive in the middle of the lane” (LATMP, p.28).
This street is likely to see considerable traffic eastbound as residents returning home to Stella, Bowline, WEST, Millhorn, Eaton, Neufort and future apartment buildings is this area will use this route instead of Albert Street. This alternate route to Albert Street is supported and ‘traffic calming’ (which usually makes me mad) around the south of Wickham Park should not make using this route so uncomfortable that Albert Street remains the preferred route. In fact, this could well be a 40 kph road provided the cycleway treatment is correctly done, with cycling safety given priority over the laneway. This will make a significant reduction in the eastbound traffic volumes on Albert Street which would be a good thing.
It is also suggested that the option to extend Holland Street to Maitland Road be given serious consideration, two-way all the way with a Left-Turn-Only (no signals) at Maitland Road. This has the potential to reduce the number of vehicles using Throsby St for southern destinations. During peak hour, the intersection of Throsby and Hannell Streets nearly always has pedestrians using both Hannell Street pedestrian crossings and leaves only enough time for 3 cars (or 4 if deep into the orange light) to make the right-hand turn into Hannell Street. It usually takes me two, and sometime three, light cycles to get through this intersection at peak hour; so that now I actually go via the Cowper Street roundabout since on average it is considerably quicker. This situation will be considerably worst when Stella, Bowline, Eaton and Neufort are completed. It will also permit Wickham Park users and the proposed Car Park users an exit option without driving through Wickham. Providing an addition entry/exit route via Holland Street could significantly improve the amenity for Wickham residents. (Especially since the State Government was too “cheap” to move the rail track switches a little further west so that the level crossing at Railway Street could be retained.)
The Traffic and Transport Assessment by Bitzios made a few references to vehicles using the proposed east-bound laneway into Holland Street as a short cut to bypass the congested Cowper Street Roundabout. It is hard to see how this would be much of a short cut. Still, this would need to be re-assessed in the light of the many other changes that have occurred since Bitzios did their study.

G. Union Street
The section between Station and Bishopsgate Streets is now one-way following the roadworks completed as part of the Eaton development. This is as per the WMP and is supported.
However, if the volume of traffic from the Stellar, Bowline, WEST, Millhorn and Eaton apartments becomes too great for the pedestrian focused Union Street, a No Right Turn from Station Street into Union Street should NOT be the solution. Instead, the WMP should show a future road closure of Union Street just north of the Eaton development (immediately north of the ‘dunny lane”) with the ‘isolated’ southern part of Union Street returning to two-way so Eaton residences can enter and exit via Station Street.
There are other options that can maximise on-street parking; for example, south of the ‘dunny lane’ can be two-way and north of the ‘dunny lane’ is one-way southbound with contra-flow cycle lane. Integration of on-street cycling is easily implemented in this option, removing cyclists from the footpath.

H. Bishopsgate Street between Railway and Union Streets
This section is currently one-way eastbound. The WMP has it changing to one-way westbound. The revised WMP proposes it remain as it is; one-way eastbound. The reasons stated in the LATMP for recommending a change from one-way eastbound to westbound are no longer valid since the Newcastle Interchange has not resulted in the anticipated traffic flows, particularly with the recently completed Hunter Street Bus Interchange, which was not considered in the LATMP. Leaving this section as it currently is, as shown in the revised WMP, is supported.
Note! Making Station St two-way is the primary means to reduce residential traffic flows on Bishopsgate Street.

I. Furlong Lane West of Union Street
When the new laneway connecting thru to Throsby Street is constructed, the WMP has this new laneway one-way southbound and Furlong Lane one-way westbound. This presents an unsafe exit into Thorsby St due to reduced sight lines and compromises pedestrian amenity as a vehicle sits across the footpath waiting to enter Throsby Street. It is much better for the one-way directions to be reversed as proposed in the revised WMP.
While the new laneway from Thorsby should be one-way northbound, there is potential for a slight improvement to resident’s amenity by making the east-west section of Furlong Lane two-way. The reasons for this are very similar as those for Furlong Lane East of Union Street being two-way; see next point. Local traffic amenity and circulation is further improved by leaving Union St north of Furlong Lane as two-way.

J. Furlong Lane East of Union Street
It is proposed Furlong Lane between Hannell and Union Streets be maintained as two-way traffic flow with a No Entry installed at the Hannell Street end to restrict traffic turning left from Hannell Street into Furlong Lane. There is currently No-Parking right along this lane except for three car parks at the Hannell Street end. The majority of traffic will be local residents who drive into a garage space, meaning they can easily drive out, or reverse out, and exit Furlong Lane in either direction. Some residents have advised they avoid exiting into Hannell Street sighting safety concerns of reduced sightlines, traffic speed and traffic density. Residents are currently driving westbound from their driveways and this has not caused any issues. Local traffic amenity is improved and circulation significantly reduced by leaving Union St north of Furlong Lane as two-way. (With Church Street now proposed to remain two-way, the recirculation issue is not a bad as it was with Church Street being one-way westbound.)

K. Union Street North of Furlong Lane
This section is shown as one-way southbound in the WMP and in the revised WMP. It is currently two-way north of Furlong Lane and one-way southbound south of Furlong Lane. It is recommended the current directions be maintained so that residents in Furlong can exit via Union Street and then into Church Street.

L. Church Street
The removal of the dedicated cycleway along Church Street is supported. This was always a cycleway to nowhere, and required a section of shared pathway along Hannell Street which is unsuitable for a shared pathway. The “Proposed Active Transport Routes” along the old railway corridor and along Station Street are much, much better options. (See the above points on Station Street to ensure the cycling facilities along Station Street are realised.)

M. Throsby Street
The WMP is intended as a 20 to 25 year forward plan. Given the rapid renewal in the last 4 years, it is highly likely the majority of the renewal will occur well within this time frame. The demands on Throsby Street are already high and will become a significant problem within the next few years. The extension of Holland Street to Maitland Road (see above) would alleviate some of the congestion, but this is unlikely to be realised within 5 years, even if the concept is considered worthwhile for inclusion in the WMP. Throsby Street with two-way traffic and parking on both sides is not suitable for high traffic volumes, although the bottleneck at the Hannell Street lights will see many motorists avoid eastbound travel along Thorsby Street, instead travelling to southern destinations via the Cowper Street roundabout.
One possible solution is to remove parking along one side of Throsby Street. Parking is already in very high demand in Wickham and business are finding it difficult. Removing parking should be avoided if possible.
To maintain parking on both sides of Throsby Street, Throsby Street could be made one-way eastbound with a westbound contra-flow cycleway. The westbound traffic then uses Church Street which becomes one-way westbound with an eastbound contra-flow cycleway. Turning into Church Street from Hannell Street can be made easier than turning into Throsby Street since there is enough width for a turn lane. Vehicles travelling south on Hannell St that would have turned west into Throsby Street will need to use Albert Street and enter Wickham via Railway or Branch Streets. For everyone living south of Throsby Street they must go via Railway Street anyway when Union Street becomes one-way into Throsby Street so going via Albert and Railway Streets will probably be the preferred route anyway. For those living north of Throsby Street using Albert Street to access Railway or Branch Street is the preferred route. So only those few residents with driveways on Throsby Street will be a little inconvenienced. (In the fine tuning of this concept, Church Street may need to be two-way between Union and Foundry Street.) The people that are really inconvenienced by this option are those leaving the Marina Precinct who currently turn into Throsby Street to travel to western and northern destinations.
To accommodate the Marina Precinct and maintain parking on both sides of Throsby Street Throsby Street could be made one-way westbound with an eastbound contra-flow cycleway. Church Street can stay two-way. This would require all residents with a southern destination to exist Wickham northwards and use the Cowper Street roundabout to travel south. With the new roundabout at Albert and Railway this will not be much of an inconvenience, and during peak hour will probably be the preferred route for many residents. If Holland Street is also made two-way to Maitland Road then this could be a good option for some southern destinations.
Obviously, these options will need traffic modelling studies to confirm their suitability.
It is recommended that the limitations of Throsby Street be addressed as part of this revision and plans put in place to mitigate the issues identified.

Do you have any questions about the proposed updates to the Wickham Masterplan? If so, enter them here. If you have more than one question, please number them:
1. With the identified mine subsidence issues, the B4 mixed use zoning may hinder redevelopment potential of the large warehouse sites. In GLOW’s Public Voice in February, it was suggested that certain areas on the Village Hub be permitted to be R2. Should this also include the mine subsidence areas so that two story residential developments can occur on previous non-residential uses without having to be shop-top housing. With the low density associated with two-story developments, the viability of retail/commercial businesses along every street frontage is questionable and may hinder any redevelopment.
Alternatively, should selected blocks or large sites be rezoned light industrial to keep jobs close to where people live? Could this be the smart vehicle maintenance area for Newcastle? Or the renewable energy hub? That is, dedicate part of the mine subsidence area for 'High Technology Industries’ to ensure jobs stay local and Wickham isn't all residential.
2. Has the City of Newcastle pushed State Rail for access to the northern tunnel under Maitland Road to be part of the “Proposed Active Transport Routes”? This will allow people to cross Maitland Road without using the traffic signals at Albert Street and will link with the dual-carriageway cycleway proposed for the southern side of Hunter Street and Maitland Road. The southern tunnel under Maitland Road has the two rail tracks; the northern tunnel is the same size and just has a dirt, vehicle access track.
3. What is envisaged with the parking on the current State Rail land? Is this a bitumen ground level car park like the one still remaining at the end of Honeysuckle Drive? If so, this is a short-term solution and the Wickham Master Plan should have identified the longer-term use of this land.
4. A Public Art Space is shown on the current State Rail land. This seems remote from where people would walk and cycle, being beside a car park. What is envisaged here? Wouldn’t it be better for this to be part of the redevelopment of the southern edge of Wickham Park so people can enjoy it?
Regards . . .
John Phelan
Wickham 2293