Agenda of City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 15

26/2/2020

REPORT TITLE: Single-Use Plastics By-Law No 1 of 2020 Submissions and Amendments

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Environmental Health

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide to the Council for consideration all submissions made to it pursuant to section 159(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (‘the Act’) in relation to the proposed Single-use Plastics By-law No. 1 of 2020 (‘the by-law’).

1.2. As a result of the submissions some amendments are proposed to the by-law as shown in track changes as Attachment G. The finally proposed by-law including the amendments is provided as Attachment H.

1.3. The community benefit of the by-law is to allow Council to regulate an area of activity not currently covered by legislation. This by-law addresses community expectation in an important area of waste avoidance, and is designed to minimise the littering of harmful plastic products by restricting their availability.

2. Report Summary

2.1. At its meeting of 4 March 2019 the Council resolved its intention to make the by-law and delegated the authority to the General Manager to prepare a Regulatory Impact Statement to submit to the Director of Local Government.

2.2. The by-law was advertised pursuant to s.157 of the Act in The Mercury newspaper on 31 October and 2 November 2019. Submissions were open via the Your Say consultation portal until 29November 2019.

2.3. Twenty (20) submissions were received via Your Say, and five (5) submissions were received separately to coh@hobartcity.com.au

2.4. Minor amendments have been proposed to the by-law as a result of the review of the submissions completed by Councils project team. The amendments address concerns raised with scope and definitions, and take into account the requests for greater future cross-jurisdictional consistency.

2.5. The amendments do not substantially change the purpose or effect of the by-law. The amendments made to the by-law must be endorsed by an absolute majority of the Council pursuant to s160(a) of the Act.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council notes the twenty-five submissions made to it in relation to the Single-use Plastics By-law pursuant to s.159 of the Local Government Act 1993.

2. The Council resolves by absolute majority to amend the Single-use Plastics By-law as shown in Attachment G to this report.

3. The General Manager be authorised to arrange the necessary actions to enact the Single-use Plastics By-law No.1 of 2020.

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting of 4 March 2019 the Council resolved its intention to make the by-law and delegated the authority to the General Manager to prepare a Regulatory Impact Statement to submit to the Director of Local Government for a certificate to advertise the by-law and, upon receipt of that certificate, to formally advertise the by-law.

4.2. The by-law and revised Regulatory Impact Statement were submitted to the Director of Local Government on 15 October 2019. Certification was provided pursuant to s.156A (6) of the Act on 17 October 2019.

4.3. The by-law was advertised pursuant to s.157 of the Act in The Mercury newspaper on 31 October and 2 November 2019. Submissions were originally open via the Your Say consultation portal until Friday 22 November however the submission period was extended to 29 November to facilitate submissions from a number of stakeholders.

4.4. It is not necessary for the Council to further consider the revised Regulatory Impact Statement as its purpose has been served in being presented through the advertising and submissions process.

4.5. The submissions fall largely into two categories, those with comments which relate specifically to the by-law construction, definitions and function, and which have contributed to the proposed amendments, and those making comments related to strategy, policy, timing, ideology and interpretation which can and have been responded to, but which do not impact on the by-law itself.

4.6. Twenty (20) submissions were received via Your Say, and five (5) submissions were received separately to coh@hobartcity.com.au

4.7. Of the 20 Your Say submissions received, all were broadly supportive of the by-law with some offering detailed commentary on perceived improvements. A number of submitters suggested that the provision of infrastructure such as additional organics bins and a dedicated composting facility would close the circle on the initiative.

4.8. A number of submitters asked that businesses be supported through the change process. Two submissions were received from currently operating businesses and both were supportive of the by-law indicating they had already minimised or eliminated their use of single-use plastics with little to no negative business impact. The submissions are provided as Attachment A.

4.9. The 5 submissions received directly were submitted by the Australian Food and Grocery Council, the Australian Retailers Association, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Restaurant and Catering Australia and the National Retail Association.

4.10. Themes arising from the above submissions include; a perceived lack of consultation by Council, that Council is moving too quickly and is out of step with the body of work being done strategically involving a wide range of national stakeholders; a preference for a nationally consistent approach to the issue or alignment with the State governments waste plan and timeframes; and that unintended consequences could arise with the introduction of a stand-alone by-law given the complex nature of the food and packaging product supply chain.

4.11. Consultation over the last 18 months has included the following;

4.11.1. An online community survey advertising the draft by-law and draft regulatory impact statement which generated the biggest response to an online Council survey received to date;

4.11.2. An initial face-to-face food business survey;

4.11.3. Engagement with the local government sector individually and through collaboration with the Local Government Association of Tasmania resulting in a unanimous motion to lobby the state government to consider adopting the issue statewide;

4.11.4. Individual lobbying of the State government to consider taking on the issue at a State level;

4.11.5. Meetings and discussions with many individual businesses and multinational companies;

4.11.6. Attendance at national waste and food packaging forums;

4.11.7. Collaboration with the Tasmanian Food Retailer Waste Champions group;

4.11.8. A second direct business survey issued to all food businesses retailing food in the municipality;

4.11.9. Independent economic modelling completed specific to the regulatory impact statement; and

4.11.10. The formal by-law and regulatory impact statement advertising and public submissions process in late 2019.

4.12. It is acknowledged that there is work going on nationally to reduce and eliminate single-use plastics from the supply chain, and there are future national packaging targets being set. In the absence of control over future national consistency, or the targets being determined, and in light of the determination of the Council and the community to do something meaningful, this by-law can have a positive impact. This by-law will place Hobart businesses in a unique and advantageous position as early adopters should future state or commonwealth legislation be enacted.

4.13. The Australian Food and Grocery Council submission is provided as Attachment F. The main concerns are for national consistency, environmental sustainability of substitute products, that food waste not be increased and food safety not be compromised, and that a 24 month rather than 12 month implementation phase be considered.

4.14. The Australian Retailers Association submission is provided as Attachment D. The main concerns were with the consultation process, the wholesaler to retailer transaction, and also that a much longer lead in time should be provided.

4.15. The Tasmanian Conservation Trust submission is provided as Attachment E. The submission makes general observations about the complexities of the whole of system approach, the difficulties of separating goods and of handling compostable products as part of a sustainable cyclical system.

4.16. The Restaurant and Catering Australia submission is provided as Attachment B. The main request was to seek a pause in the process so members could be surveyed.

4.17. The National Retail Association submission is provided as Attachment C. The main concerns were with some definitions and the perceived scope of the by-law, a strong desire for national alignment with the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) targets, and challenges to the costings and economic modelling within the regulatory impact statement.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Minor amendments have been proposed to the by-law as a result of the review of the submissions completed by Councils project team comprised of the Manager Legal and Governance, Manager Environmental Health, Cleansing and Solid Waste Policy Coordinator, Waste Education Officer and Simmons Wolfhagen’s Managing Associate. The amendments are shown in track changes as Attachment G to this report. The amendments address concerns with scope and definitions, and take into account greater future cross-jurisdictional consistency.

5.2. The definition of ‘premises’ is amended to be consistent with the definition from the Food Act 2003. This clarifies that the by-law applies to both fixed and mobile food businesses.

5.3. The definition of ‘plastic’ is simplified and amended to be consistent and to clarify that the by-law does not apply to soft plastics such as cling wrap.

5.4. The definition of ‘soft plastic’ is inserted to further clarify types of plastic to which the by-law does not apply. While soft plastics do contribute to the litter stream, it is acknowledged that many soft plastics are of significant importance in relation to food safety and food preservation and hence are not subject to this by-law.

5.5. The definition of ‘single-use’ is amended to be consistent with the definition proposed in the Single-use and Other Plastic Products (Waste Avoidance) Bill 2019 recently drafted by the South Australian government.

5.6. The new clause 6 is inserted to clarify that the by-law applies to retail sales and does not apply to ‘wholesaler to retailer’ transactions.

5.7. The new clause 8 is inserted to clarify that all food packaging sold from mobile structures is considered to be ‘taken away’ from the premises and therefore is applicable under the by-law.

5.8. The inclusion of the new ‘Part 4 – Permits’ is to cater for circumstances in which Council may wish to allow single use plastics to be used by retailers. The ability to grant permits for certain purposes is replicated in Councils other by-laws, and will provide flexibility to manage the transition of problematic products within the by-law.

5.9. A permit process is a transparent and fair method to formalise what may otherwise have become ‘individual agreements’ as businesses work through processes to replace problematic products. This is a rigorous method creating transparency and fairness within the by-law itself.

5.10. The amendments do not substantially change the purpose or effect of the by-law. The amendments made to the by-law must be endorsed by an absolute majority of the Council pursuant to s160(a) of the Act.

5.11. To be in compliance with the Act, the by-law must be made under Councils common seal, be certified by a legal practitioner that its provisions are in accordance with the law, and certified by the General Manager that it is made in accordance with the Act.

5.12. The by-law must be published in the Tasmanian Government Gazette within 21 days of council’s formal resolution to make the by-law, and will commence on its date of publication.

5.13. Unless repealed earlier, a by-law made under the Local Government Act will expire 10 years from the date it was enacted regardless of whether or not it is amended during those years.

5.14. The by-law will be implemented in a manner which provides for a phase-out of products in order to maximise stakeholder engagement and understanding, and support businesses to achieve compliance.

5.14.1. Initial engagement will be through existing media and social media channels.

5.14.2. The established food retailer waste champions group will be used as a reference point for other businesses to talk directly with.

5.14.3. An information pack will be uploaded to Councils website and be made available for public use. The pack includes a copy of the by-law, a fact sheet, answers to frequently asked questions, a detailed list of alternative products currently available in Hobart, and a calculator for businesses to quantify impacts of the by-law.

5.14.4. Council staff will provide ongoing support online, on the phone and in person for affected businesses.

5.14.5. Known member organisations such as APCO will be provided with links to be able to provide information directly to their members.

5.14.6. It is proposed that a 12 month implementation phase remains an appropriate time for the transition period with enforcement to commence in early 2021.

5.15. In the event that state or commonwealth legislation of this nature is enacted within the life of the by-law, the by-law may be reviewed.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The Single-use Plastics By-law No 1 of 2020 addresses several strategic outcomes contained within Pillar 6 – Natural Environment of the City’s Capital City Strategic Plan 2019-2029, including;

6.1.1. (6.3.1) Implement significant waste reduction actions and programs to ensure the City’s objective of zero waste to landfill by 2030 is achieved,

6.1.2. (6.1.3) Protect and enhance Hobart habitats and ecosystems, in partnership with stakeholders, including wildlife corridors and waterways, and

6.1.3. (6.3.5) Improve water quality in Hobart’s waterways and identify water catchment activities that are contributing to stormwater pollution.

6.2. The City’s Climate Change Strategy is relevant as energy and emissions inventories consider local use as well as the embodied energy of consumable materials. Emissions associated with the production of food and other goods including packaging account for more than four times the emissions of personal energy use.

6.3. The City shows a strong commitment to excellence in governance through the timely and transparent review of all of its by-laws for relevance and consistency.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Budgetary allocations were spent in the current year to enable completion of the revised regulatory impact statement, and develop and finalise the information pack.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. It is anticipated that an additional budgetary allocation will be required to assist in some elements of the implementation plan. This will be considered in the 2020-21 budget preparation and approval process.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The by-law has been certified by external legal consultants as complying with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

8.2. The main risk associated with making this by-law is that of legal challenge from an aggrieved party to the additional monetary costs associated with replacement products. Given the amendment to the by-law to include a permit system, and the lengthy phase in period prior to enforcement of the by-law, such a challenge can be defended.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. The fundamental premise of the by-law is to reduce the volume of non-compostable plastic litter in the environment thereby reducing the impacts this waste has had and continues to have on the environment.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. One identified social impact of the by-law was in relation to the banning of take away single-use plastic straws. Work has been done with disability advocacy groups and information included in the food business information pack to clarify that it will not be an offence to provide a plastic straw to a person in need if requested.

10.2. The public momentum demonstrated worldwide for the reduction of single-use plastic items has translated into strong support from the Hobart community for the introduction of the by-law. The community accepts there may be increases in cost for certain products for periods of time until markets catch up and replacement products become the norm. The community is also keen to see Council support businesses as much as possible in the transition.

10.3. Council officers continue to be contacted by businesses already transitioning to plastic-free products. The impact on businesses as explained will be managed with the provision of information and one-to-one assistance as required, as well as a 12 month period of time prior to an expectation of compliance.

10.4. Both local and state government departments from within and outside of Tasmania also continue to seek advice on the project and development of this by-law as they begin to draft single-use plastic legislation. Already in 2020, Council officers have provided detailed advice and information to the West Australian Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, and the New South Wales Circular Economy and Resource Management Unit of the Environment Protection Authority.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. The implementation phase will involve a range of complimentary activities designed to maximise public and business engagement and understanding of the new laws and how to achieve compliance.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. As described the community and stakeholders will be provided with information and advice for a 12 month period following the making of the by-law, continuing on the consultation and education processes of the last 18 months.

13. Delegation

13.1. The Council has delegation for this matter.

As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.

Felicity Edwards

Manager Environmental Health

Neil Noye Signature

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 21 February 2020

File Reference: F19/155356; 16/243-001

Attachment a: Public Submissions via Your Say Hobart - Plastics By-law ⇩

Attachment b: Restaurant and Catering Industry Association - Submission ⇩

Attachment c: National Retail Association - Submission ⇩

Attachment d: Australian Retailers Association - Submission ⇩

Attachment e: Tasmanian Conservation Trust - Submission ⇩

Attachment f: Australian Food and Grocery Council - Submission ⇩

Attachment g: Single-use Plastics By-law 1 of 2020 - Track Changes ⇩

Attachment h: Single-use Plastics By-law 1 of 2020 - Clean Copy ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 116

26/2/2020

REPORT TITLE: Intersections and Traffic Flow

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Senior Transport Engineer

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to respond to a notice of motion relating to improving traffic flow around the Hobart CBD and particularly in the central retail precinct.

1.1.1. The motion of the Council meeting of the 9 September, 2019 reads:

“To improve traffic flow around the CBD and particularly in the central retail precinct, the City commence conversations with the Department of State Growth and provide a report investigating options for improved network operations including options for changed traffic signal operation (including consideration of “scrambled crossings”) at the Liverpool Street and Murray Street junction and other areas within the CBD.”

2. Report Summary

2.1. The City of Hobart has, in its draft Transport Strategy, actions to create a suite of plans for the operation and management of the Hobart transportation network including a road user hierarchy policy, a central city network operating plan (NOP) (in collaboration with the Department of State Growth) and SmartRoads plan for local areas supporting local area traffic management, walking and cycling plans.

2.1.1. The Council motion is specific with respect to the question of traffic flow around the CBD and in particular the central retail precinct, changed traffic signal operation and the consideration of “scrambled(sic) crossings”

2.2. The City of Hobart has commenced the development of an Inner Hobart Network Operation plan (in collaboration with the Department of State Growth).

2.3. The initial work to support this network operating plan will be undertaken through a consultancy to be undertaken through the Department of State Growth.

2.4. This work, will assist in defining network operation and develop shared understanding around times and places where improvements for pedestrians may outweigh improvements for motor vehicle traffic through traffic signals (and vice versa).

2.5. In respect to the consideration of “scrambled crossings” within the CBD, such alternative pedestrian crossing arrangements can be considered within the Phase Two (Operations and Improvement Plans) of the NOP work.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The information contained in the report title Intersections and Traffic Flow be received and noted

2. An elected member briefing be scheduled within the next 2 months from the inner Hobart Network Operation Plan Project Team.

3. A further report on the progress of the inner Hobart Network Operation Plan (NOP) be provided at the appropriate time.

4. Background

4.1. The development of a network operation plan for the City of Hobart has been foreshadowed in the draft Transport Strategy.

4.1.1. There are a number of competing demands on the Hobart road network, including trip purposes, destinations being serviced, mode of travel and adjacent land use. Any decision to preference one aspect will generally be at the expense of another. Currently, operational decisions to preference one aspect over another are at times made on an ad hoc basis, and without a strategic rationale.

4.1.2. Further, decisions around projects that might impact the road network have at times been made without necessarily considering the opportunity for trade-offs e.g. adverse impacts to general traffic are often weighted more heavily than benefits to other user groups such as pedestrians, cyclists, public transport or freight. Furthermore impact on or from adjacent land use may not be adequately considered.

4.1.3. A Network Operation Plan (NOP) guides the operation and development of the road or transport network by setting out how competing priorities between transport modes and adjacent land uses are to be managed. The plan may also contain short-term initiatives and services that guide day-to-day operations and longer term improvement works.

4.1.4. City of Hobart officers have been collaborating with Department of State Growth to appoint consultants to undertake this work in stages.

4.1.5. The NOP will be jointly funded by both the City of Hobart and the Department of State Growth.

4.1.6. The development of the NOP will be in two phases:

Phase One (Network Operations Framework),

4.1.6.1. This phase will include consultation with various stakeholders, including elected members, to develop an aspirational road user hierarchy for different user groups, which may vary by time of day. This will also consider the balance between Movement and Place functions of different parts of the network.

4.1.6.2. This phase would set aspirational performance targets (Level of Service) for various user groups, modes, route types and times of day.

Phase Two (Operations and Improvement Plans),

4.1.6.3. This second phase would review current performance of the network in relation to the established performance targets.

4.1.6.4. This phase will nominate operational strategies that can be used to guide day to day management of the network, reflecting how current performance could be improved or downgraded in alignment with the established performance targets.

4.1.6.5. This phase will identify opportunities (projects) for improving Level of Service in accordance with the framework.

4.1.6.6. Potential projects will be identified at a concept level only, and include a high-level cost estimate.

4.2. Scramble Crossings

4.2.1. Scramble crossings are the term used to describe the operation of traffic and pedestrian signals where by all traffic is stopped and all pedestrian crossings happen at the one time. This is often referred to as an exclusive pedestrian phase.

4.2.2. A feature of such crossing arrangements is that pedestrians are generally permitted to cross the junction diagonally, reducing their need to cross streets in separate stages.

4.2.3. NSW Guidance for the warrants for installing signalised scramble crossings at intersections is available in section 2.6 of this publication.

https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/business-industry/partners-and-suppliers/guidelines/complementary-traffic-material/tsdsect2v14-i.pdf

4.2.4. Similar guidance is available in some other Australian jurisdictions.

4.2.5. Consideration of alternative pedestrian crossing arrangements (such as scramble crossings) can be considered within the Phase Two (Operations and Improvement Plans) of the NOP work.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the City of Hobart continue to collaborate with the Department of State Growth to develop an Inner Hobart Network Operation plan.

5.2. The Department of State Growth has indicated considerable funding for the development of the NOP. A Council contribution has been agreed within the current 2019/20 budgetary allocation.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Pillar 5: Movement and Connectivity of the City of Hobart, Capital City Strategic Plan (2019-29) has an outcome and action relating to this report.

Outcome 5.2

Hobart has effective and environmentally sustainable transport systems.

Strategy 5.2.1

With the Tasmanian government, review transport networks to ensure their integrated operation.

6.2. The development of a Network Operating Plan is an action in the City of Hobart’s draft Transport Strategy.

6.3. It is considered that the development of an Inner Hobart Network Operation plan (in collaboration with the Department of State Growth) is supported by the Strategic Plan and the Draft Transport Strategy.

6.4. The development of the NOP will be a key piece of work which will strengthen and complement the development of the Central Hobart Precinct Plan.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Funding is available in the 10 year Capital works program line item: “Implementation of Transport Strategy” to provide a contribution to the NOP project.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. At this time there is no identified impact on future years financial result, although the Phase Two NOP work, to identify operations and improvement plans (projects) may well have financial implications.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. The Phase Two NOP work, to identify operations and improvement plans (projects) may well have asset related implications, however, such implications will be determined and need to be agreed to by Council before any implementation.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There are no known legal, risk or legislative considerations currently identified by the development of Phase One of a Network Operation Plan.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. Providing for the improved movement of active transport modes within a Network Operation Plan can provide improved environmental outcomes by reducing transport related vehicle emissions.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. The basis for the development of a Network Operating Plan is to provide the community and transport agencies (both Council and State Government) with a shared understanding and agreement on how best to manage the allocation of limited road space and movement priority across the central city road and junction transport network.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. Marketing and media opportunities will be part of the stakeholder engagement process which would occur during the first half of 2020.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. Community and stakeholder engagement would occur during the first half of 2020 during the Phase One NOP work.

13. Delegation

13.1. The Delegation for this matter resides with the Director City Planning and the General Manager. Any subsequent adoption of operational and improvement plans to the network would need to be undertaken by the Council in collaboration with the Department of State Growth.

Stuart Baird

Senior Transport Engineer

Neil Noye Signature

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 21 February 2020

File Reference: F19/129590

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 131

26/2/2020

REPORT TITLE: Brooke / Despard Streets - Congestion Reducing Initiative - Three-Month Trial

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Senior Advisor Safety and Resilience

Manager Community and Culture

Acting Manager Traffic Engineering

Director City Planning

Director Community Life

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report outlines the issues of traffic congestion on Friday and Saturday nights in the Brooke/Despard Streets area and in Salamanca Place between Montpellier Retreat and the silo apartments and proposes a three-month trial of a congestion reduction initiative.

1.2. The proposed initiative aims to reduce the traffic congestion in the target areas, making the area safer for pedestrians and improving traffic flow for other road users; improve accessibility to the precinct for emergency services vehicles; and reduce associated noise from the traffic congestion to improve the amenity for accommodation service providers in the precinct.

2. Report Summary

2.1. For the past 15 months the City of Hobart has received ongoing complaints from local businesses and Tasmania Police regarding a range of issues within the waterfront precinct on Friday and Saturday nights.

2.2. These issues include: traffic congestion, public order (safety), noise pollution emanating from within licensed premises and the street, lighting at night in parts of the precinct, CCTV coverage and security guard presence away from the safe taxi rank.

2.3. The issue of public order offences, such as assaults, threatening behaviour and offensive behaviour including street urination by men and women and vomiting in the street have been the main focus of conversations with accommodation businesses in the precinct.

2.4. This report responds to the issue of traffic congestion alone. Other issues have been or are being responded to either by other Divisions within Council, Tasmania Police or the Department of Liquor and Gaming.

2.4.1. The congestion is primarily caused by taxis and ride share vehicles competing for passengers in the precinct.

2.4.2. The congestion and ensuing aggressive behaviours pose a significant risk to all road users including pedestrians and severely reduces access to the area for emergency and service vehicles.

2.5. The Late Night Precinct Stakeholder (LNPS) group (including representation from Tasmania Police, Department of Treasury and Finance, Tasmanian Hospitality Association, Waterfront Business Community, Salvation Army Street Teams, 13CABS and security providers) was convened in December 2018 to consider this and other issues within the precinct. The group proposed a number of solutions for the City and other bodies to consider implementing.

2.5.1. A number of small scale measures have been initiated over the 15 months with the aim of changing the behaviour of drivers in the precinct, all of which have been largely unsuccessful.

2.6. The LNPS group, at their October 2019 meeting, proposed a trial of a number of more significant traffic management initiatives to be coordinated by the City. Officers held a meeting in November 2019 with Department of State Growth (Public Transport), Tasmania Police and taxi industry representative to discuss these initiatives. One of these proposals is for a three-month trial to be implemented from April to June 2020 including the following:

· Exclusion of taxis and ride share vehicles from Brooke Street between 11.00 pm and 5.00 am Friday and Saturday nights. With an exemption for Maxi Taxis for people with a disability;

· Creation of a taxi holding zone in the car park of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial research Organisation (CSIRO);

· Creation of a nominated parking/waiting location for ride share vehicles to use;

· Creation of four pick up locations for ride share passengers and drivers with a geofence to restrict other pickup locations within the precinct.

2.7. This trial hopes to improve safety and visitor/tourist experiences staying at accommodation services in the area, without adversely impacting on other users of the precinct.

2.8. Officers have undertaken significant community engagement with businesses and residents across the precinct and communications continues to progress with all significant stakeholders. Feedback has shown strong support for these initiatives and the proposal has been altered in response to feedback to ensure minimal impact on businesses and residents within the area.

2.8.1. Ongoing monitoring by Officers throughout the trial will ensure that social and customer considerations are heard and responded to throughout as required.

2.8.2. The trial may be ceased at any point should there be any significant unintended negative consequences.

2.9. The permit to install temporary traffic management and to close the roads would be managed under existing officer delegations, and issued under Section 19(1)(b) of the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982. A qualified worksite traffic management provider would be engaged to undertake the works to ensure they are carried out in accordance with the State Growth Tasmanian Guide to Traffic Control for Works on Roads – June 2014.

2.10. The financial implications for a three-month trial would be $17,483 which includes to installation of temporary traffic management facilities in Brooke Street at Morrison Street and an additional security guard to control taxi movement from the CSIRO car park.

2.11. If the trial was successful and there was consideration to continue this arrangement, at an ongoing cost of approximately $70,000 per annum, funding opportunities including seeking a co-contribution from the State Government forms an important part of the recommendations.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Lord Mayor write to the State Treasurer seeking co-funding of this trial congestion reducing initiative and potential ongoing funding should the trial be successful.

2. Approval be given to implement a three-month trial congestion reducing initiative that would:

(i) Close Brooke Street at Morrison Street to taxi and rideshare vehicles on Friday and Saturday evenings from 11.00 pm to 5.00 am;

(ii) Create a taxi holding area in the CSIRO car park in Castray Esplanade on Friday and Saturday evenings between 11.00 pm and 5.00 am;

(iii) Create a nominated waiting location for ride share vehicles in Salamanca Place between Davey Street and Gladstone Street; and

(iv) Create four pick-up locations for ride share passengers across the waterfront precinct.

3. Funding of $17,483 to implement the three-month trial will be allocated to the Special Events Traffic Management budget allocation in the Traffic Strategy and Projects function area of the annual plan.

4. Background

4.1. In late 2018 Tasmania Police approached Officers to raise concerns about taxi congestion in the Brooke / Despard Street area and in Salamanca Place as evidenced by body worn camera footage showing a large numbers of taxis double parked and blocking traffic in both locations.

4.1.1. Police advised that, whilst they had been undertaking enforcement, the situation consistently continued soon after they left the area.

4.1.2. At that time Tasmania Police asked the City of Hobart to restrict taxi access to both locations on Friday and Saturday nights through signage as they were concerned that emergency vehicles may have hindered access.

4.1.3. Officers sought to resolve the situation through engagement with the taxi industry including a number of providers and the Taxi Council (Southern). This has to date provided no reduction in congestion.

4.2. In December 2018 a number of accommodation providers made representations to the then State Treasurer, Mr. Peter Gutwein MP, about the impact on their businesses caused by late night entertainment activities in the waterfront precinct. The businesses spoke of a change in the behaviour of patrons leaving licensed premises in the precinct, particularly regarding a range of public order offences including assaults, offensive behaviour and threatening behaviour.

4.3. There was some media coverage generate by the Police Association of Tasmania calling for lock out laws to be implemented by the State Government after two of their members were assaulted in the precinct.

4.3.1. The Director City Planning attended a meeting convened by the Treasurer’s office with affected businesses. The issues discussed were referred from that meeting to the City of Hobart to discuss further with stakeholders.

4.4. The City of Hobart convened the Late Night Precinct Stakeholders (LNPS) group with meetings in December 2018, March 2019 and August 2019 to consider the issues. Representation included Tasmania Police (Hobart Police (Uniform) and Liquor Licencing) Department of Treasury and Finance (Liquor and Gaming Branch), Tasmanian Hospitality Association, Waterfront Business Community, Salvation Army Street Teams, 13 Cabs, security providers, accommodation providers, licensed premises and various officers from across the City of Hobart.

4.4.1. The concerns raised by the group were wide ranging. The issue of traffic congestion caused by taxis and ride share vehicles in the Brooke / Despard Street area was highlighted as a significant concern.

4.5. A range of concerns raised by the group continue to be addressed by the City of Hobart, Tasmania Police and Liquor and Gaming through additional meetings in April, May and June with businesses in the area. This report focuses on the traffic management issues only and does not provide detail of other action taken.

4.6. It was agreed by the LNPS group that the City of Hobart would explore the creation of a temporary taxi rank in Morrison Street between Franklin Warf and Elizabeth Street on Friday and Saturday nights between 11pm and 7am to create a dedicated area for taxis away from the accommodation services.

4.6.1. This temporary taxi rank was established in early July 2019 with promotion of the rank undertaken by the Taxi Council (Southern) and City of Hobart.

4.6.2. Also in July 2019 upgrade works in the Salamanca precinct commenced which resulted in the partial closure of the taxi rank in Castray Esplanade. Officers consulted with a number taxi operators and designed a reconfigured temporary taxi rank on Friday and Saturday nights at the intersection of Morrison Street and Salamanca Place.

4.7. On October 3, 2019, the Inspector of Hobart Police Division, shown at Attachment A wrote to the City of Hobart requesting assistance to reduce taxi and ride share vehicle congestion in the waterfront precinct. His officers had raised with him their ongoing going concerns about emergency vehicle access to the precinct and their ongoing frustration with the taxi industry whom they were repeatedly infringing to no effect. The Inspector requested signage to restrict entry to taxi and ride share vehicles in Brooke Street and Salamanca Place on Friday and Saturday evenings.

4.7.1. Observations undertaken by Council Officers in October confirmed the issues described by Tasmania Police and also noted additional risks, including the potential for collisions and physical altercations between ride share providers and taxis and alcohol affected pedestrians.

4.8. Officers met with the Department of State Growth (Passenger Transport Branch), taxi industry representatives and Tasmania Police on
4 November 2019 to explore options and develop a proposed solution.

4.8.1. It was agreed that the current Salamanca precinct upgrade works and the upcoming Taste of Tasmania Festival made implementation of the proposals difficult and that exploration the components of the trial would be undertaken during proceeding period, including finding funding for a three-month trial to be undertaken in the new year.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. This trial proposes a number of actions that aim to:

· Reduce traffic congestion in Salamanca Place and the Brooke/Despard Street area;

· Reduce the impact of noise pollution associated with taxi and ride share vehicles on accommodation services and others within the waterfront precinct;

· Reduce the risks to the community associated with traffic congestion;

· Reduce the opportunity for conflict between taxi drivers and taxi and ride share drivers;

· Create a level playing field for taxi and ride share drivers, and

· Maintain accessible passenger services for the community in this area at night.

5.2. The trial will see the implementation of a number of initiatives over a three-month period from April to June 2020. It is important to note that there has been no ongoing funding identified beyond the trial period. It is intended during the trial period that additional funding mechanisms will be explored.

Exclusion of taxis and rideshare vehicles from Brooke Street

5.3. The exclusion of taxis and ride share vehicles from Brooke Street on Friday and Saturday evenings between 11pm and 5am has been recommended by members of Tasmania Police, the Waterfront Business Community and by accommodation services within the area.

5.3.1. Tasmania Police have regularly called for this action through the LNPS meetings over the past 14 months, and more recently in a letter to the City of Hobart from the Inspector of the Hobart Division.

5.3.2. This recommendation is based on their stated inability to change taxi and ride share driver behaviour through enforcement of the Taxi and Hire Vehicle Industries Act 2008, Traffic Act 1925 and Road Rules 2019 alone.

5.3.3. Tasmania Police advice is that they and other emergency vehicles are severely restricted from entering this area due to the congestion caused by taxi and ride share vehicles competing for fares during the proposed closure times. They are concerned that that this restricted access will have an impact on emergency services vehicles ability to respond during an urgent or emergency situation.

5.4. The closure would involve the installation of a temporary boom gate across Brooke Street at the intersection with Morrison Street during the proposed closure times. The boom gate will be staffed by a single traffic controller who would allow access to vehicles as required, specifically to support accommodation providers. This includes access for people staying in accommodation in this area and for taxis or ride share vehicles dropping off or picking up passengers from accommodation services. See Attachment B for map of proposed closure location

5.4.1. Allowing general public access to this area is considered necessary to reduce opportunities for crowds to gather on the Brooke and Despard Streets.

Creation of a taxi holding zone in the CSIRO car park

5.5. The creation of a taxi holding zone is a recommendation from members of the LNPS Meetings, including representatives from the taxi industry. This recommendation is aimed at creating compliance in the use of the two taxi ranks located in Castray Esplanade and Morrison Street, and refrain from double parking in Salamanca Place and Brooke/Despard Streets.

5.5.1. It has been suggested that competition amongst taxi drivers and with ride share vehicles is causing some taxi drivers to bypass the taxi rank and double park in Salamanca Place and Brooke/Despard Street.

5.5.2. Parking and soliciting rides in this manner is an offence under Sections 21 and 91C of the Taxi and Hire Vehicle Industries Act 2008. Police have been enforcing through infringements, but advise that they are having little impact, advising that they are regularly booking the same drivers.

5.6. CSIRO have approved use of the car park for this purpose during the proposed hours of the trial. CSIRO have indicated in their agreement that the area must be kept clear of rubbish and that they reserve the right to withdraw support for the trial at any time.

5.6.1. A security guard will be positioned at the head of the taxi form up area. The other deployed to the tail of the taxi rank. They will have direct radio contact with a security guard at the end of the taxi rank in Castray Esplanade and these two guards will co-ordinate the flow of taxis between the CSIRO car park and the end of the Castray rank.

5.6.2. This will involve the redeployment of one of the two guards currently employed as part of the City of Hobart’s safe taxi rank initiative from the head to the tail of the taxi rank. This does change the manner of the security coverage at the taxi rank, but is considered manageable.

Creation of a nominated parking / waiting location for the use of rideshare vehicles

5.7. Ride share vehicles will be encouraged to park and wait for rides in Salamanca Place between Davey Street and Gladstone Street. This will help to ensure that all taxi and ride share vehicles are treated equally and also to reduce congestion of ride share vehicles in Salamanca Place and Brooke/Despard Street area.

5.7.1. The creation of this parking/waiting location was a recommendation of Tasmania Police, was endorsed by other members of LNPS group and is supported by ride share vehicle operators.

5.7.2. It has been noted by Tasmania Police and Council Officers that currently a significant number of rideshare vehicles park close to the venues in Salamanca Place and in the Brooke / Despard Street area.

5.7.3. It has been suggested that it is most likely the presence of the ride share vehicles in these locations that is causing taxi drivers to abandon the use of the taxi rank to park closer to likely fares. By removing ride share vehicles from the immediate proximity of the nightclubs it is hoped this will ensure compliance by taxi drivers to use the taxi rank

5.8. Rideshare companies have been very proactive in the development of this part of the initiative, agreeing to undertake communications with their drivers to assist them to understand why this measure will be implemented.

5.8.1. Compliance by both taxis and ride share vehicles with all aspects of this initiative will be vital if the initiative is to succeed.

5.8.2. Unlike the taxi holding zone there will be no need for a security guard to control the flow of ride share vehicles away from the parking / waiting zone.

Creation of four pick up locations for ride share passengers and drivers

5.9. It is proposed to develop four allocated pick up locations for ride share passengers in Salamanca Place on the Davey Street side of Montpellier Retreat, in Morrison Street outside the Harbour Lights Café at 29 Morrison Street, in Morrison Street outside the silo apartments and in Elizabeth Street near Franklin Warf.

5.9.1. When a ride share passenger uses their relevant ride share app within the waterfront precinct they will be directed to the closest pick up location.

5.9.2. Rideshare companies are happy with the locations chosen and have been proactive in assisting with the development of these areas through geofencing in the background of the app. A map of the geofencing can be found at Attachment C.

5.9.2.1. When applying the geofence, care has been taken to ensure that residential areas are not impacted.

5.9.3. In discussion with the ride share companies it has been decided that it is best to leave the areas permanently geofenced. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the geofencing must be manually turned on and off by the companies, providing room for human error. The second is that having it permanently applied creates consistency for app users.

5.9.4. It is important to note that advice from the Department of State Growth (Passenger Transport Branch) is that State legislation does not permit the City of Hobart to label specific zones for ride share vehicle use. As such, no signage will be erected and a communications plan will be vital when implementing this trial.

Monitoring of the trial

5.10. Council Officers will monitor the initiatives throughout the trial period to ensure that there are no unintended or unpredicted consequences from the implementation. Communication with the community, taxi and ride share companies, businesses within the precinct, Tasmania Police and others will remain open throughout the trial to ensure that issues can be readily identified and responded to.

5.11. The trial may be cancelled at any point should negative consequences occur.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This trial is aligned with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2019-29, specifically:

2.4.5 Ensure that Hobart is a safe and liveable city by enhancing community and public safety and security, working in partnership with key stakeholders.

4.3.2 Actively support and engage with local area businesses, business groups and other business networks.

5.1.2 Consider social, environmental and economic elements in transport and technology decision-making.

5.1.4 Ensure equal access is factored into transport and technology decision-making.

5.2.1 With the Tasmanian government, review transport networks to ensure their integrated operation.

5.2.4 Identify and implement infrastructure improvements to enhance access and road safety and reduce air and noise pollution.

6.2. This trial is aligned with the Connected Hobart Smart City Action Plan’s Pillar 5 relating to movement and connectivity, specifically:

CTR11: Connected and Actively Managed Transport Network.

6.3. City Innovation have been consulted in the development of this trial.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Specific funding for this trail was not factored into the 2019–20 financial planning noting that the issues in this area have escalated over the past several months. There is capacity to cover the cost of the trial within the Special Events Traffic Management budget allocation in the Traffic Strategy and Projects function area of the annual plan.

The total financial implication is $17,482.80 (GST inclusive) for the three-month trial.

7.1.2. It is important to note this cost will not be sustained in the long term.

7.1.3. The most significant cost is the closure of Brooke Street to vehicles on Friday and Saturday nights from 11.00 pm to
5.00 am. The cost to maintain a temporary staffed boom gate for the three months of the trial is $9,813.60. The traffic controller will set up and stay onsite and ensure that the temporary infrastructure is not damaged and that vehicles that need access to Brooke and Despard Streets are able to enter.

7.1.4. The cost would be the same if the traffic controller were set up at 11.00 pm, leave the site and return at 5.00 am to pack down.

7.1.5. The cost of providing an additional security guard at CSIRO to control the flow of traffic and ensure the safety of taxi drivers is $7,669.20.

7.1.6. There may be additional costs associated with staff involved in the monitoring of the trial outside of normal work hours. These costs will be covered within the Community Life current operating budget.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Was the trail to be successful there would need to be an examination of other funding models for the initiative to be continued.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. There are no asset related implications.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. A risk assessment is being prepared for this trial.

8.2. State Government Legislation does not permit the creation of specific zones for ride share vehicles. Existing publicly accessible locations are being designated as the pickup points in co-operation with the ride share operators. Using publicly accessible locations is how the ride share vehicles currently operate, this initiative simple nominates those locations within the geofenced area.

8.3. It is anticipated that this trial will drive compliance with the Taxi and Hire Vehicle Industries Act 2008.

8.4. The permit to install temporary traffic management and to close the roads would be managed under existing officer delegations, and issued under Section 19(1)(b) of the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982. A qualified worksite traffic management provider would be engaged to undertake the works to ensure they are carried out in accordance with the State Growth Tasmanian Guide to Traffic Control for Works on Roads – June 2014.

8.5. It is considered that there is a reputational risk if the Council continues to not take any action in addressing the ongoing safety and social issues within the waterfront area.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. Noise pollution from taxi and ride share vehicles in the Brooke / Despard Street area is a driving factor in this trial. Accommodation service providers have regularly provided to the City of Hobart copies of complaints from guests staying at their venues in this area. Removing both taxi and ride share vehicles to alternate locations away from this area should significantly reduce the amount of noise associated with these types of vehicles.

9.1.1. It is important to note that noise pollution from within venues is another body of work being undertaken by Officers in the Environmental Health Unit and is not addressed in this trial.

9.2. The agreement with the CSIRO is that there is no rubbish left in their carpark from taxis. Discussions with the security provider will take place to ensure this does not occur.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. This trial hopes to improve visitor / tourist experiences staying at accommodation services in the area, without adversely impacting on people visiting other businesses, such as licensed premises and restaurants across the waterfront precinct.

10.2. Care has been taken to consult with stakeholders and businesses to identify any unintentional consequences from the trial whilst ensuring that issues identified during the consultation process are addressed.

10.3. Ongoing monitoring by Officers throughout the trial will also ensure that social and customer considerations are heard and responded to throughout as required.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. A detailed communications strategy will be developed in the lead up to the trial. This will include the City of Hobart Communications Team, Department of State Growth (Passenger Transport Branch) as well as taxi and ride share industries to ensure drivers and potential passengers are aware of the trial.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. Lengthy stakeholder engagement has been undertaken by Community Life through the Late Night Precinct Stakeholder Meetings and through conciliation efforts with licensed premises and accommodation service providers.

12.2. Additionally the Community Engagement Unit undertook consultation through a mail out to businesses in the block Morrison, Elizabeth, Davey and Murray Streets. Businesses responded to the mail out via phone, email and through Survey Monkey. The responses were compiled into a detailed report from Community Engagement (Attachment D). The results of this report have influenced the development of the trial and this report.

12.2.1. There was considerable support from businesses for the trial, provided that some limited access to the area is maintained. The inclusion of a staffed boom gate ensures this access.

12.3. The City of Hobart Access Advisory Committee was also consulted to ensure that the implementation of the trial did not impact adversely on people with a disability. It was as a result of this consultation that an agreement to provide an exemption to Maxi Taxis picking up a person with a disability in Salamanca Place between Montpellier Retreat the Silo Apartments was included.

13. Delegation

13.1. This is a matter for the Council’s determination.

Scott Davis

Senior Advisor Safety and Resilience

Kimbra Parker

Manager Community and Culture

Owen Gervasoni

Acting Manager Traffic Engineering

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Tim Short

Director Community Life

Date: 21 February 2020

File Reference: F20/19898

Attachment a: Request to HCC - Assistance with Taxi Congestion - Salamanca & Waterfront Precinct ⇩

Attachment b: Map of Road Closure - Brooke Street ⇩

Attachment c: Ride Share Pick Up Locations ⇩

Attachment d: Community Engagement Summary Report - Trial Closure of Brooke Street ⇩

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 159

26/2/2020

REPORT TITLE: Hill Street - Assessment of the Wombat Crossing Trial

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Acting Manager Traffic Engineering

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report is provided to update the Committee on the status of three current Council resolutions, relating to Local Area Traffic Management in West Hobart, the provision of a ‘Wombat’ style pedestrian crossing that has been recently trailed in Hill Street West Hobart and an existing ‘zebra’ crossing treatment on Creek Road.

1.2. This report also provides an update on the status of the implementation of ‘zebra’ style pedestrian crossings in the Salamanca Place precinct.

2. Report Summary

2.1. A local area traffic management treatment, involving the upgrading of pedestrian crossing points, the installation of bicycle lanes, and the installation of median treatments was installed on Hill Street between Arthur Street and Cavell Street in the second half of 2018.

2.2. In February 2019, a ‘wombat’ pedestrian crossing was implemented across Hill Street immediately north of the Pine Street roundabout.

2.3. A review of the performance of the ‘wombat’ crossing has been undertaken, along with community consultation.

2.4. It is recommended that the existing ‘wombat’ crossing on Hill Street immediately north of the Pine Street intersection be retained on a permanent basis.

2.5. It is also recommended that the provision of additional ‘wombat’ crossings on Hill Street at the Warwick Street and Patrick Street intersections be considered for funding in future years.

2.6. Following the review, it is recommended that a proposal to implement a ‘wombat’ pedestrian crossing at the existing ‘zebra’ pedestrian crossing on Creek Road near the Wellwood Street intersection not be proceeded with at this time.

2.7. In the coming year the City of Hobart will install additional ‘zebra’ crossing treatments in the Salamanca Precinct.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The ‘wombat’ pedestrian crossing installed on Hill Street immediately north of the Pine Street intersection be retained as a permanent treatment.

2. The the provision of additional ‘wombat’ pedestrian crossings on Hill Street at the Warwick Street and Patrick Street intersections be considered for funding in future years.

3. That a proposal to implement a ‘wombat’ pedestrian crossing at the existing ‘zebra’ pedestrian crossing on Creek Road near the Wellwood Street intersection not be proceeded with at this time.

4. Background

4.1. This report updates three existing Council resolutions as described below.

4.2. On 7 March 2016, the Hobart City Council considered a report on matters concerning Local Area Traffic Management on the Hill Street corridor in West Hobart. The Council resolved:

“That: 1. The recommendations of the consultant report titled West Hobart Local Area Traffic Investigation – Final Report, marked as Attachment A to item 5 of the Open City Infrastructure Committee agenda of 24 February 2016, be supported in-principle and the following actions be undertaken:

(i) A workshop be convened with stakeholders in relation to the West Hobart pedestrian environment.

(ii) The Department of State Growth be requested to establish Statewide warrants for the installation of pedestrian crossings within Tasmania.

(iii) The Council write to the Department of State Growth requesting that consideration be given to the installation of an unsupervised children’s crossing in Hill Street in the 40km/h zone near Caldew Park.

(iv) Median lanes and median islands be installed in Hill Street between Allison Street and Patrick Street and between Hamilton Street and Warwick Street, in 2016/2017 following the development of concept designs and community engagement.

(v) A review be undertaken following the installation of the median islands and pedestrian crossings in Hill Street.

(vi) Concept design development and consultation be undertaken with directly affected residents in 2016/2017 to provide more generous pedestrian crossings in Hill Street where refuge islands are already provided.

2. The West Hobart Resident Traffic Committee, Lansdowne Crescent Primary School, The Friends School, Taroona High School, Lawrenny Court, businesses along Hill Street and those people who participated in the consultation conducted by MRCagney, be advised of the Council’s decision.”

4.2.1. These matters have been completed, with the exception of item (v) which is addressed in this report.

4.3. On 2 October 2017, the Hobart City Council considered a report providing more detail on a proposed treatment for the Hill Street corridor. The Council resolved:

“That: 1. The revised concept design for pedestrian crossing points, median lane and bicycle lanes (marked as Attachment D to item 6.6 of the Open City Infrastructure Committee agenda of 20 September 2017) be implemented.

2. The Transport Commissioner be requested to consider a 40 km/h speed limit for Hill Street (between Molle Street and Arthur Street) following the implementation of this project.

3. The findings of the Midson Traffic Report (marked as Attachment C to item 6.6 of the Open City Infrastructure Committee agenda of 20 September 2017) be endorsed and the following recommendations be adopted:

(i) A trial implementation of a ‘wombat’ crossing across Hill Street (on the northern side of the Pine Street roundabout) be undertaken, subject to further consultation with directly impacted property owners, residents and businesses and all statutory advertising and approvals.

(ii) Results of the trial, including recommendations on the installation of two additional ‘wombat’ crossing in Hill Street (at both Warwick Street and Patrick Street), be the subject of a further report.

(iii) Further surveys of pedestrians and pedestrian types over a longer period (i.e. one school week) be done at the Patrick Street roundabout and the results forwarded to the Transport Commissioner for consideration of a children’s crossing and adult crossing guard.

(iv) Traffic signals not be implemented at the Arthur Street / Hill Street or Patrick Street / Lansdowne Crescent / Hill Street intersections at this time.

4. The required funding for the installation of ‘wombat’ crossings at Warwick Street and Patrick Street (if not trialled) be listed for consideration in the 2018-19 Annual Plan, with installation contingent on a successful trial and future resolution of Council.

5. The Transport Commissioner be requested to provide assistance as may be required with the implementation of an awareness and education campaign regarding the use of ‘wombat’ crossings.

6. Midson Traffic be requested to provide a briefing to the community on the outcomes of its report.

7. A media release be issued by the Lord Mayor and the Chairman of the City Infrastructure Committee.”

4.3.1. This report addresses Part 3(i) and 3(ii) of this resolution.

4.4. On 7 May 2018, the Hobart City Council considered a report on the existing ‘zebra’ pedestrian crossing, and school crossing on Creek Road and Wellwood Street in the vicinity of the Lenah Valley Primary School. The Council resolved:

“That: 1. Matters raised in the petition relating to the pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Creek Road and other road safety matters near Lenah Valley Primary School be received and noted.

2. The changes to the ‘zebra’ crossing in Creek Road (implemented during January and February 2018) to improve street lighting and the linemarking at this crossing, be received and noted.

3. The following recommendations to further improve the safety of the pedestrian (zebra crossing) on Creek Road, Lenah Valley be endorsed:

(a) Investigate and if feasible, list for consideration in the Capital Works Program the provision of a “continuous footpath” across the Wellwood Street intersection at Creek Road to improve pedestrian access to Lenah Valley Primary School;

(b) Officers continue to progress the City of Hobart Active Travel Report and Active Routes to School programs in the greater Hobart area (as per the Council resolution of 2 October 2017);

and;

(c) A ‘wombat’ crossing be considered for Creek Road, after the Hill Street trial has been assessed.

4. The Council write to the Road Safety Branch of the Department of State Growth requesting that consideration be given to the allocation of a second School Crossing Patrol Officer to be in attendance and assist with pedestrians using the ‘zebra’ crossing during peak times.

5. The organiser of the petition be advised of the Council’s decision.”

4.4.1. A continuous footpath treatment across Wellwood Street has been funded, designed and constructed.

4.4.2. Part 3 (c) of the resolution will be addressed in this report.

4.5. In summary, this report aims to specifically address the following items.

4.5.1. Details the outcome and evaluation of the median islands and pedestrian crossings in Hill Street which is in response to the 7 March 2016 Council meeting resolution 1 (v).

4.5.2. Details the evaluation results of the trial installation of the ‘wombat’ crossing on Hill Street on the northern side of the Pine Street Roundabout and recommendation of additional ‘wombat’ crossings on Hill Street which is in response to the 2 October 2017 Council meeting resolution 3 (i) and 3(ii).

4.5.3. Consideration of the converting of the existing at-grade ‘zebra’ crossing on Creek Road into a ‘wombat’ crossing (by essentially constructing a road hump at the location) which is in response to the 7 May 2018 Council meeting resolution 3(c).

4.5.4. Provides an update on the status of the installation of ‘zebra’ pedestrian crossings in the Salamanca Place Precinct as part of the works currently being undertaken by the City of Hobart.

5. Proposal and Implementation

Local Area Traffic Management on the Hill Street Corridor

5.1. Following the Council resolution of 7 March 2016, consultation and detailed design was undertaken for the provision of a traffic management scheme along the Hill Street Corridor. The final design included the following elements:

5.1.1. Provision of a pedestrian crossing treatment (incorporated with an upgraded bus waiting area) on Hill Street north of Hamilton Street;

5.1.2. Provision of on-road bicycle lanes on Hill Street between Hamilton Street and Petty Street;

5.1.3. Provision of a ‘wombat’ raised pedestrian crossing on Hill Street immediately north of the Pine Street roundabout;

5.1.4. Provision of a pedestrian crossing treatment on Hill Street south of Petty Street;

5.1.5. Provision of a pedestrian crossing treatment on Hill Street south of Allison Street; and

5.1.6. Upgrading of existing pedestrian crossing treatment on Hill Street north of Brisbane Street.

5.2. Figure 1 to Figure 4, below, show Hill Street following the completion of these works.

Figure 1 – Hill Street Corridor LATM Works

Figure 2 – Hill Street Corridor LATM Works

Figure 3 – Hill Street Corridor LATM Works

Figure 4 – Hill Street Corridor LATM Works

5.3. Following implementation of this treatment, no significant issues have been noted or observed with the treatment, and overall it has been well received by the community.

5.4. No further action is recommended at this time.

5.5. The main issues of concern have been associated with the ‘wombat’ crossing installation that was implemented soon after the overall treatment. That is discussed in the next section of this report.

Review of the Hill Street ‘wombat’ Crossing Trial

5.6. Following the Council resolution of 2 October 2017, the installation of a trial ‘wombat’ crossing (on Hill Street immediately north of the Pine Street Roundabout) was undertaken in conjunction with the implementation of the five pedestrian crossings, median lanes and uphill bicycle lanes (between Cavell Street and Hamilton Street).

5.7. The Statutory approval for the raised pedestrian treatment (road hump) was received from the Transport Commission on 30 May 2018, and the construction of the raised platform (road hump) that would form the ‘wombat’ crossing was completed in October 2018.

5.8. The installation of the ‘zebra’ crossing markings and ‘zebra’ crossing signage was completed in early February 2019.

5.9. The ‘wombat’ crossing facility is shown in Figure 5 to 7, below:

Figure 5 – Hill Street ‘Wombat’ Crossing

Figure 6 – Hill Street ‘Wombat’ Crossing

Figure 7 – Hill Street ‘Wombat’ Crossing

5.10. The City of Hobart engaged Midson Traffic to prepare an evaluation report which assessed the road safety, traffic volumes, pedestrian crossing volumes and speeds during pre-trial and for six month post-installation in the vicinity of the ‘wombat’ crossing. A copy of the report forms Attachment A to this report. A summary of findings of the evaluation is outlined below:

5.10.1. Crash data from the 11 June 2017 to 28 February 2019 indicated that no crashes were reported in the period leading up to the construction of the ‘wombat’ crossing. There were also no crashes recorded in the six months since the installation of the crossing. The report noted that “whilst the analysis period following the installation of the ‘wombat’ crossing is considered to be too short to make any conclusion, the absence of crashes in the section where the ‘wombat’ crossing is located is considered to be a positive outcome”.

5.10.2. An observational road safety analysis was undertaken of the pedestrian crossing. The conclusions of the analysis included that the ‘wombat’ crossing generally functioned as intended, with vehicles slowing on the approach to the crossing and vehicles giving way to pedestrians. Many pedestrians were observed to be hesitant to step onto the ‘wombat’ crossing when cars were approaching despite the changes in priority at the crossing (it was noted that this improved during later inspections). Motorists on the southern approach to the ‘wombat’ crossing appeared to be less aware of the crossing and this may be due to vegetation in the median island of the roundabout (again this was noted to improve during later inspections).

5.10.3. A requirement of the Australian Standards AS1742.10 is that adequate sight distance between approaching vehicles and pedestrians about to cross must be achieved. According to the report, no issues with the sight distance available were noted (with the exception of a suggestion to trim some vegetation in the roundabout centre island). It was also noted that warning signage has been installed to raise driver awareness of the ‘zebra’ crossing.

5.10.4. Traffic volumes were collected after the implementation of the ‘wombat’ crossing in February 2019 (summer), in May 2019 (autumn) and in August 2019 (winter) to get an understanding of the seasonal fluctuations and any changes following the installation of the ‘wombat’ crossing. The assessment of traffic volumes indicated that there is little variation between the pre-trial and the average for the three post trial surveys undertaken.

5.10.5. Speed surveys were undertaken at the same periods as the traffic volume survey. The data showed a higher initial overall 85^th percentile speed reduction (from 45.8 km/h pre-installation to 41.4km/h post installation) immediately after the installation in February 2019. The later speed surveys in May 2019 (42.2 km/h 85^th percentile speed) and August 2019 (41.9 km/h 85^th percentile speed) showed a slightly reduced overall speed reduction.

5.10.6. The pedestrian movement survey was undertaken at the ‘wombat’ crossing as well as at a location about 50 metres north of the ‘wombat’ crossing and south (at the crossing point on the city side of the roundabout). The results showed an overall increase in pedestrians recorded crossing at the ‘wombat’ crossing site following its installation, with a decrease in pedestrian crossing volumes at the north and south of the crossing.

5.10.7. The pedestrian numbers consistently exceeded the minimum VicRoads requirements for the installation of ‘wombat’ Crossings in all surveys (minimum crossing volumes of 20 pedestrians per hour).

5.11. The speed data was collected approximately 17 metres north of the ‘wombat’ crossing location, at a point where the vehicle traffic lanes were reduced in width significantly during the installation of the Hill Street treatment. This reduction would also have had some impact on reducing vehicle speeds, but it is clear that the combination of the two treatments has resulted in a significant reduction in operating speeds on this section of Hill Street.

5.12. The summary table of pedestrian numbers recorded crossing Hill Street at the three locations, during the morning (8:15-9:15am) and afternoon (2:30-3:30pm) periods before and after installation, taken from the Midson report is repeated in Table 1, below:

Table 1 – Pedestrian Numbers Crossing Hill Street

5.13. Overall the Midson’s Traffic Report concluded that the ‘wombat’ Crossing Trial is a success and recommended that the crossing should be retained on a permanent basis.

5.14. Other recommendations from report included that vegetation on the central island of the roundabout needs to be trimmed to improve visibility to the pedestrian crossing for approaching motorists in particular on the southern approach. The report also recommended that the two further ‘wombat’ crossings (at Warwick Street and Patrick Street) as recommended in the original feasibility report should be installed as this would provide an overall traffic scheme that would improve driver awareness of the ‘wombat’ crossing facility.

5.15. In reviewing the report outcomes the following points are considered.

5.15.1. The period in which crash data was analysed post construction was only 8 months and as such it is difficult to draw comprehensive conclusions about the ongoing safety performance of the ‘wombat’ crossing.

5.15.2. The traffic volume data showed minimal variation between pre-trial and post-trial surveys. This indicates that no changes to motorists’ behaviour or route diversion to local streets were made.

5.15.3. The speed surveys showed a reduction in operating speed (or the 85^th percentile speed) of motorists of about 4.0 km/h. This speed reduction would be expected to improve road safety for all road users.

5.15.4. This speed reduction would be in part a result of the ’wombat’ crossing installation, and in part a result of the narrowing of the vehicle lanes following the installation of bicycle lanes as a part of the project.

5.15.5. The pedestrian crossing volumes increased at the ‘wombat’ crossing and decreased north and south of the trial crossing which may be a sign that pedestrians are comfortable using the ‘wombat’ crossing.

5.16. Community consultation was undertaken during early December 2019 following the installation of the ‘wombat’ crossing with directly impacted property owners, residents, businesses and schools. The Community Engagement Summary Report forms Attachment B to this report. The results from the consultation are as follows:

5.16.1. A total of 293 submissions (with 82% residents of West Hobart) were made through the Your Say Hobart online engagement portal.

5.16.2. Out of total submissions, 55% of respondents were supportive of the ‘wombat’ crossing installed on Hill Street and 26% were somewhat supportive (supportive but with some concerns). 18% were not supportive and 0.5% were neutral on the subject.

5.16.3. Out of the total submissions, 66% of respondents were supportive of additional ‘wombat’ crossings being installed at other locations on Hill Street with 19% somewhat supportive. 14% of respondents did not support additional ‘wombat’ crossings on Hill Street and 1% of respondents are neutral on the subject.

5.16.4. 36% of the total submissions provided a negative comment in relation to the location of the ‘wombat’ crossing and its close proximity to the roundabout.

5.16.5. Other related concerns were poor visibility of pedestrians (particularly children), drivers not slowing down or stopping to allow pedestrians to cross, poor signage on approaches to crossing, increased congestion within the roundabout and a lack of awareness or education of road rules concerning ‘wombat’ crossings.

5.16.6. Of the 26% that were somewhat supportive of the ‘wombat’ crossing, the majority of concerns related to the location of the crossing and requested that the crossing be shifted further away from the roundabout.

5.17. The location of the ‘wombat’ crossing, immediately adjacent to the Pine Street roundabout, was carefully considered during the feasibility stage of the project. A number of factors such as the available sight distance, grade / cross fall issues, driveway impacts, and loss of parking were all considered in the decision on the location.

5.18. There are many areas of Hill Street that the gradients would prevent the installation of the road hump component of the crossing. For example on Hill Street, north of the Patrick Street / Lansdowne Crescent intersection did not meet the requirements for sight distance or gradient and therefore were not recommended.

5.19. The location adjacent to the Pine Street roundabout was one of the few locations where the treatment could be installed at a point where it would likely be used by the public.

5.20. Overall, based on the Midson Traffic evaluation data and the results of the community engagement, it can be concluded that the trial ‘wombat’ crossing is broadly supported by the community, has been a success and therefore can be retained as a permanent crossing.

5.21. It is therefore recommended that the existing ‘wombat’ crossing on Hill Street immediately north of the Pine Street intersection be retained on a permanent basis.

5.22. In relation to the support indicated from the community consultation (66% respondents) for additional ‘wombat’ crossings being installed on Hill Street, while the potential locations for additional ‘wombat’ crossings (at Warwick Street and Patrick Street) were not disclosed as part of the consultation, there would appear to be good public support for further treatments.

5.23. It is therefore recommended that the provision of additional ‘wombat’ crossings on Hill Street at the Warwick Street and Patrick Street intersections be considered for funding in future years.

Potential converting Creek Road ‘Zebra’ crossing to a ‘Wombat’ crossing

5.24. The Council resolution of 7 May 2018, on the pedestrian crossing facilities at Creek Road / Wellwood Street, included that the existing Creek Road ‘zebra’ crossing installation be considered for upgrading to a ‘wombat’ crossing following the Hill Street ‘wombat’ trial assessment.

5.25. The City of Hobart has in recent years reconstructed and improved the existing ‘zebra’ crossing facility on Creek Road. This facility is shown in Figure 8, below:

Figure 8 – Upgraded Creek Road ‘Zebra’ Crossing

5.26. Similarly, the City of Hobart has successfully sought funding through the State Government 2019-2020 Vulnerable Road Users Programme for the Wellwood Street continuous footpath upgrade at Creek Road, and the installation of this treatment has been completed in January 2020. This upgraded facility is shown in Figure 9, below:

Figure 9 – Upgraded Wellwood Street Crossing at Creek Road

5.27. While the trial evaluation indicates that there were no safety issues to date with the installation of the ‘wombat’ crossing, each site should be assessed based on their own road conditions and environment.

5.28. As part of the detailed design phase of the Wellwood Street project, an investigation was undertaken on the existing and post implementation stage of the stormwater flow paths to determine the possible impacts to Wellwood Street and Creek Road during a 1 in 10, 1 in 20 and 1 in 100 year stormwater event. This analysis included consideration of the existing ‘zebra’ crossing on Creek Road and identified that additional overland flows would increases the occurrence of total inundation of the ‘zebra’ crossing from a 1% AEP (the probability that the facility will be flooded each year) to a 10% AEP.

5.29. The further installation of a road hump at the Creek Road ‘zebra’ crossing would improve the visibility of the crossing in wet weather conditions, however, it would further exacerbate the stormwater issues at the site. If a road hump were to be installed at the ‘zebra’ crossing facility on Creek Road significant stormwater infrastructure upgrading would be required in association with these works.

5.30. Currently the ‘zebra’ crossing at Creek Road following the recent works (improvements to lighting and installation of kerb extensions) is operating at a satisfactory level of service. The expected high cost of the reconstruction of the site to form a ‘wombat’ crossing (likely in the order of $100k due to the stormwater issues), would be considered to be of marginal benefit at this time.

5.31. It is therefore recommended that a proposal to implement a ‘wombat’ pedestrian crossing at the existing ‘zebra’ pedestrian crossing on Creek Road near the Wellwood Street intersection not be proceeded with at this time.

Current Status of the Installation of ‘Zebra’ Crossings in the Salamanca Precinct.

5.32. Currently the City of Hobart is in the process of constructing significant upgrades to pedestrian facilities in the Salamanca Precinct.

5.33. The most recent component of the works included the reconstruction of Castray Esplanade and Morrison / Gladstone Streets.

5.34. As part of those works, a ‘zebra’ crossing treatment was installed on Castray Esplanade east of Morrison Street – Gladstone Street in December 2019.

5.35. The ‘zebra’ crossing treatment is shown in Figure 10, below:

Figure 10 – Upgraded Pedestrian Crossing on Castray Esplanade.

5.36. In the coming months, City of Hobart will commence the 2020 stage of the Salamanca Pedestrian Upgrade project. As part of these works, further ‘zebra’ crossing installations are planned. Elected members may recall that the proposed design includes the installation of ‘zebra’ crossings on all three approaches to the intersection of Salamanca Place and Montpelier Retreat, and across Salamanca Place between the Parliament Lawns and the ‘Irish Murphy’s’ corner. These four ‘zebra’ crossings are adjacent to intersections, and will have some similar constraints as the installation on Hill Street next to the Pine Street roundabout. The results of the trial on Hill Street are therefore encouraging for the success of the Salamanca installations.

5.37. It is currently scheduled that the ‘zebra’ crossing across Salamanca Place between the Parliament Lawns and the ‘Irish Murphy’s’ corner will be the next treatment installed in July / August 2020, following completion of works in this section of Salamanca Place.

5.38. The location of this crossing point in shown in Figure 11, below:

Figure 11 – Location for Upgraded Crossing on Salamanca Place.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The review of Local Area Traffic Management in Hill Street, West Hobart and the improvements to the ‘zebra’ crossing in Creek Road supports the Council’s Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 through Goal 2 – Urban Management

6.2. In particular, reference is made to its support through Strategic Objective 2.1 and its underpinning strategies, that is”

“2.1 A fully accessible and connected city environment.

2.1.2 Enhance transport connections within Hobart.

2.1.3 Identify and implement infrastructure improvements to

enhance road safety.”

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The cost of the installation of the ‘wombat’ crossing on Hill Street on the northern side of Pine Street roundabout was $125K. This exceeded the original estimate due to the need to install additional storm water infrastructure.

7.1.2. The cost of the two additional ‘wombat’ crossings on Hill Street at Warwick Street and at Patrick Street, were they to proceed, would be expected to be in the order of $90K for each crossing. This estimated cost includes street lighting upgrades and planned changes to storm water infrastructure.

7.1.3. The cost of upgrading the existing ‘zebra’ crossing on Creek Road to convert into a ‘wombat’ crossing by constructing a road hump is estimated to be in the order of $100K, including significant storm water works as discussed in Clause 5.28 to 5.30.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. The additional ‘wombat’ crossings on Hill Street and other crossings in the municipality would need to be planned and budgeted through the 5 year Capital Works program.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. The addition of new wombat crossings will increase the asset base and will therefore have a minor impact on the asset renewal allocation in future years.

8. Marketing and Media

8.1. The community engagement outcomes following the trial of the ‘wombat’ crossing indicates there will need to be additional awareness about the road rules associated with these ‘wombat’ crossings in associated with nearby roundabouts.

9. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1. Community engagement has been undertake in relation to the trial of the ‘wombat’ crossings (see Attachment B) on Hill Street.

9.2. Community engagement will need to be undertaken for planned ‘wombat’ crossings and ‘zebra’ crossings in the area such as Salamanca Place near Gladstone Street and Montpelier Retreat.

10. Delegation

10.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Owen Gervasoni

Acting Manager Traffic Engineering

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 21 February 2020

File Reference: F19/135349; R0568

Attachment a: Midson Traffic - Hill Street Wombat Crossing Trial - Traffic Evaluation Report - October 2019 ⇩

Attachment b: Hill Street Wombat Crossing - Community Engagement Summary Report - January 2020 ⇩

Item No. 6.6

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 217

26/2/2020

REPORT TITLE: Subdivision at 143 Pottery Road, Lenah Valley - Name for New Road

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Program Leader Road Services

Manager Roads and Capital Works

(Acting) Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to recommend a name for a new road that is being constructed as part of a subdivision development at 143 Pottery Road, Lenah Valley.

2. Report Summary

2.1. A new road has been constructed as part of a subdivision at 143 Pottery Road, Lenah Valley.

2.2. At the suggestion of the developer, and following consultation with affected residents, the name ‘Agena Retreat’ has been nominated as the preferred name for the new road.

‘Agena’ is the name for one of the Beta Centauri stars, that is, the pointer star closest to the Southern Cross. It is also regarded as woman's name, consistent with other street names in the surrounding area.

2.3. An existing property will be affected by the proposed road name, as the new road comes off a short access road. The affected property, 141A Pottery Road, will now have access off the new road instead of their previous address. The resident has the choice to either retain their current address nomenclature or transition to use of the proposed new road name.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council name the new road, arising from a subdivision at 143 Pottery Road, Lenah Valley, ‘Agena Retreat’.

2. In accordance with the Survey Co-ordination Act 1944, the Council advise the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania to register the new road name.

3. The developer and the affected property be advised of the Councils decision.

4. Background

4.1. A new road has been constructed as part of the subdivision development at 143 Pottery Road, Lenah Valley.

4.2. At the suggestion of the developer, and following consultation with affected residents, the name ‘Agena Retreat’ has been nominated as the preferred name for the new road.

‘Agena’ is the name for one of the Beta Centauri stars, that is, the pointer star closest to the Southern Cross. It is also regarded as woman's name, consistent with street names in the surrounding area.

4.3. The classification of ‘Retreat’ is suitable for the cul-de-sac in accordance with the Nomenclature Board’s Rules for Place Names in Tasmania and AS4819:2011 – Rural and Urban Addressing.

‘Retreat’ is a ‘roadway forming a place of seclusion’.

It is possible that the existing road will be extended for future subdivision, including intersections with other roads. At this time a change to the road type may be considered.

4.4. The developer also proposed some alternative names, listed below. Should the Committee decide not to endorse the first preference, the following names could be considered.

4.4.1. Rocklily – a native flower

4.4.2. Obliqua – the Latin name for a White Gum, a eucalypt found in the area

4.4.3. Viminalis – the Latin name for a White Gum, a eucalypt found in the area

4.5. The affected property owners have been informed of the proposed new road name and have no objections. The property owners will decide whether they would like to keep their current addresses or change to the new name.

4.6. If the affected property owner decides to keep their current addresses, an information sign shall to be placed under the new road name sign directing traffic to the existing property in Pottery Road.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council resolve to name the new road, arising from a subdivision at 143 Pottery Road, Lenah Valley, ‘Agena Retreat’.

5.2. In accordance with the Survey Co-ordination Act 1944, the Council advise the Nomenclature Board of Tasmania to register the name.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposal supports management of the City’s assets and is reflected in the following Outcomes and Strategies of the City’s Strategic Plan 2019-2029

6.1.1. Outcome 7.3 - Infrastructure and services are planned, managed and maintained to provide for community wellbeing.

6.1.2. Strategy 1.3.3 - Measure, manage and support the effective use of city facilities, infrastructure and open spaces.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. The naming of the new road requires no additional funding. The installation of the new street sign and information sign can be accommodated within the existing 2019/2020 road maintenance budget.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. No impact.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. No impact.

8. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

8.1. The developers of the subdivision proposed the name.

8.2. Adjoining Councils have advised no objections to the proposed name.

8.3. The owner of 141A Pottery Road has been informed of the new road name and invited to provide comment. No objections to the proposal have been received.

9. Delegation

9.1. The matter is for the Council to determine.

Meghan Kluver-Jones

Program Leader Road Services

Mao Cheng

Manager Roads and Capital Works

John Fisher

(Acting) Director City Amenity

Date: 21 February 2020

File Reference: F20/17494

Item No. 8.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 268

26/2/2020

Memorandum: Lord Mayor

Deputy Lord Mayor

Elected Members

Response to Question Without Notice

Clearways - Authority to Remove Vehicles

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

Meeting date: 11 December 2019

Raised by: Alderman Behrakis

Question:

What is the likely hood of Council obtaining authority to remove a vehicle from clearways and if authority is obtained, what would the cost be to Council to tow a vehicle?

Response:

Clearways, with the towing of vehicles illegally parked in those clearways, are common in major cities across Australia. In Hobart, following the addition of 48B to the Roads & Jetty Act 1935 (extract below), the Department of State Growth has commenced the towing of vehicles on Davey Street and Macquarie Street.

48B. Power to remove vehicles causing obstruction or danger

(1) A road authority may move, keep or impound any vehicle (and anything in, on or attached to the vehicle) that –

(a) is causing an unlawful obstruction; or

(b) is unlawfully parked or left standing in an area designated by the Minister; or

(c) has been left standing illegally for a period of at least 2 days; or

(d) has been left standing in an area in which in the opinion of the road authority the vehicle is obstructing the free movement of traffic on a road or from a driveway; or

(e) has been left standing in an area in which in the opinion of the road authority the vehicle constitutes a hazard to road safety.

(2) A road authority must return to its owner a vehicle moved, kept or impounded under subsection (1) on payment of a fee.

(3) The fee set for the purposes of subsection (2) must not exceed an amount that reasonably represents the cost to a road authority of impounding, moving, keeping and releasing the vehicle, including any relevant overhead and other indirect costs.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), a road authority may sell, destroy or give away a vehicle that has been moved, kept or impounded under subsection (1) (and anything in, on or attached to the vehicle) if the owner of the vehicle has not paid the fee under subsection (2) within 60 days of the date when the vehicle was first moved, kept or impounded.

(5) Before exercising the power under subsection (4), the road authority must take reasonable steps to notify the owner of the vehicle that the vehicle has been moved, kept or impounded and that it may be sold, destroyed or given away unless the specified fee is paid within 60 days.

(6) A road authority and anyone who obtains the vehicle from a road authority under subsection (4) is not liable to the owner of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any action taken under that subsection.

Assuming that there was seen to be a public benefit in having Local Government in Tasmania have the Authority to tow illegally parked vehicles on roads under Local Government management, it would be a matter of having a similar clause added to the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982. The Council has previously written to the State Government seeking this change and associated authority.

Officers are optimistic that there will ultimately be support for the towing of vehicles parked in clearways on Local Government roads in the City of Hobart if this were seen as a way of reducing / improving congestion in and around the Hobart CBD.

In terms of the cost to Council of towing a vehicle, any towing activity would be undertaken by external contractors.

Based on current contracts with service providers for similar services (Council has no contract for towing) the direct costs would be expected to be in the order of the following:

For Occasional Towing

· Cost to visit site, load vehicle onto truck, return vehicle to compound for safe storage - $280 (including gst).

· Cost to have staff member at compound to return vehicle to owner - $80 (including gst).

For Presence On Site Each Weekday Morning and Afternoon Peak Period

· $205,000 per annum (including gst).

In both cases the aim would be for the service to operate on a ‘cost recovery’ basis, with the vehicle owner being required to pay a set fee prior to the retrieval of their vehicle.

Under the ‘Occasional Towing’ scenario, response times would be unreliable, and the risk of a driver being towed would be low. By the time a vehicle had been noticed, the operator called, and the vehicle travelled to the site, it may be too late to be of benefit during that commuter period.

Having a dedicated driver and vehicle patrolling a network of clearways would be the most effective way to manage such a system.

If for example, the work were put to tender, and the tender cost to the City of Hobart was $200,000 per annum, the net cost would be $200,000 less the income received from the Towing / Vehicle Retrieval Fee. This would depend on the amount of the fee, and the level of compliance with the clearway restrictions.

In reality, it would be unlikely that any more than 1 vehicle would be towed in each weekday commuter peak period. At a fee of $382 for towing, this would result in revenue of $198,640 per annum.

The fees and fines currently charged in Tasmania and interstate are summarised in Table 1.

State	Road Authority	Clearway Parking Fine	Towing / Vehicle Retrieval Fee	Storage Fee	Vehicles Impounded?

Tasmania	State Growth	$126	$382.62	$60/day after 2 days.	Yes
Victoria	VicRoads	$165	$361	$15.20/day after 5 days.	Yes
	City of Melbourne		$425	Unknown
	City of Port Phillip		$437	$19.50/day after 2 days.
New South Wales	Roads Maritime Services	$268	$203	No Fee (Vehicle moved to safe side road)	No
Queensland	Brisbane City Council	$266	$255.65	$25.55 / day	Yes

Table 1 – Clearway Towing Fees & Charges Comparison

N.B – The paragraph below was added on 20 February 2020 as additional information for Elected Members. The following paragraph did not appear on the original copy of this memorandum originally circulated, and is the only alteration to the memorandum originally circulated.

Officers are currently investigating the potential to either introduce an amendment to the City of Hobart By-Laws, or to seek an amendment to statewide legislation, to allow the City of Hobart to undertake the towing of vehicles illegally parked in clearways.

Additional information ends.

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 20 February 2020

File Reference: F19/161616; 13-1-10

People	We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
Teamwork	We collaborate both within the organisation and with external stakeholders drawing on skills and expertise for the benefit of our community.
Focus and Direction	We have clear goals and plans to achieve sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes for the Hobart community.
Creativity and Innovation	We embrace new approaches and continuously improve to achieve better outcomes for our community.
Accountability	We work to high ethical and professional standards and are accountable for delivering outcomes for our community.