Scotland
Island Residents’ Association
Roads
Paths and Drainage Task Force
July 2000
The Report and Survey was the culmination of some 12 months of study by the Roads, Paths and Drainage Task Force. The purpose of the Survey was both to report to the Island Community on the findings of the Task Force, and to discovery to what extent there was a consensus view in the Community regarding the management of Island roads.
Of equal importance was the need to demonstrate to Pittwater Council that the Community had both considered and reached substantial agreement about the Island roads environment. Such a position was regarded as an essential pre-requisite to lobby Council for a Plan of Management for the Island’s roads.
Eighteen questions were put about the pedestrian and vehicular environment of the Island. These questions were supported by 22 pages of background material arising from the proceedings of the Task Force. The Survey was constructed so as to compel respondents to read and consider the background material prior to responding to questions.
The
Survey was distributed by hand to 233 Island resident property owners and 30
long-term resident tenants, and by mail to 116 non-resident property
owners. The returns of surveys posted
to non-resident property owners was minimal.
Of the 263 surveys delivered by hand to Island residents 144 were
returned. This constitutes a 54%
return rate, from Island residents, which is regarded by Council as a good representative
response.
From the
resident Island population there was a 54% return rate.
The
Survey questions were divided into three main groups:
Ø
What type of roads
and paths system is desired?
Ø
How should the roads
environment be managed?
Ø
How should
roads/paths reconstruction be funded?
Each group comprised a number of questions exploring various facets of the topic. Supporting comments were invited for each question
4.
What Constitutes
Consensus
Prior to
distribution the Survey was presented to the Pittwater Council Mayor and
General Manager to gauge their level of support. It was agreed that Council would consider of response of 66% or
better as demonstrating a consensus on a question.
The Survey returned an excellent result in that there was demonstrated a clear consensus on fundamental issues regarding Island roads. This consensus can be summarised in the following conclusions.
Ø
The resident Island community has indicated a clear
consensus view about its preference for a pedestrian pathway environment with
vehicle usage actively limited to essential requirements only.
Ø
Repairing the current road system for safe pedestrian use
is the principal requirement. Road construction should be undertaken with this
priority firmly in mind
Ø
The Community is prepared to instigate a pro-active roads
management and control system
Ø
There is substantial support for Community contribution
to road construction
Ø The Cargo Beach loading ramp
is not seen as a critical issue and certainly not as important as road
reconstruction. The Ramp is seen as a
catalyst to more frequent use of heavier vehicles on a road system that cannot
cope with this. Capital expenditure
should, as a priority, be directed to road reconstruction.
6.
Type Of Roads Environment
A number of questions addressed the type of roads
and pathways environment required for the Island. The results of these questions are listed below.
There is strong consensus that the Island Community principally needs a pathway system that is safe for pedestrian use and suitable for occasional vehicular use. 88% support
Ø
88% of responses
support the concept of a pathway network that is predominantly for pedestrian
use with only secondary use by vehicular traffic
Ø
65% of respondents
use the roads on a daily basis walking to ferry wharves and 66% use the roads
daily for walking to other destinations around the Island
Ø
13% of respondents
us the Community Vehicle on a weekly basis with 47% using it only occasionally
Ø
Only 3% of
respondents used private cars on a daily or weekly basis
Received
Comments
The predominant comments in this question group were that of concern for the perilous condition of the roads for pedestrians, especially at night and during wet weather. Many people reported suffering falls on eroded or slippery roads.
These questions sort views about various details of road
management.
Ø
Roads should be the
minimum width (3 metres) required for
single lane light weight vehicular use 94%
support
Ø
Road speeds should
be limited to 15Kph 92%
support
Ø
Vehicle weights and
types should be limited to those suitable to a
minimal road environment, probably less than 4 tonnes 87% support
Ø
The (single lane) roadway should not be used for
vehicle parking 72%
support
Ø
Roads should be
closed to vehicles during wet weather to avoid damage 72%
support
Ø
The Community
vehicle should be seen as an alternative to private vehicle ownership 89%
support
Ø
Road reserves
currently not used as roads should be turned into bush reserves 77%
support
Ø
Road reserves
currently not used as roads but identified as possible fire access routes
should otherwise be turned into bush reserves 78%
support
Ø
An Elizabeth Park
track should be formalised as a road 72%
support
Ø
The vehicle loading
bay in Catherine Park should be removed, with vehicle loading happening at
Cargo Wharf (This is a consequence of
work done on Cargo Hill and that the existing loading bay is being used only as
a car park and not for loading) 69%
support
7.
Roads Management
A proposal was put for closing the roads and re-opening them under Council control, limiting vehicle numbers types and usage by a system of permits. This question canvassed the degree of support for this strategy.
Island roads should be closed and re-opened under Council control, with permits and regulations controlling vehicle numbers, weights, speeds etc. 69% support
8.
Funding
Three
proposals were put regarding funding road reconstruction, viz:
Ø
It is Council and
Government’s job to fund roads
Ø
Unused road reserves
should be sold to pay for road construction
Ø
The Community should
contribute towards road construction
Responses
to these proposals are:
The
Community does not want unused road reserves sold to pay for road works.
81% disagreed with
road reserve sales
The
Community is equally divided over its willingness to contribute to road
construction
A
proposal was put for a road levy, of approximate equivalence to existing
Council rates ($700 p.a over 10 years), to be used for road construction, with
additional contributions from Council and Government
Road should be funded by Council and Government 48% support
The Community should contribute to road construction through a special
road levy 45%
support
The
Survey set out in some detail the realities regarding road construction; that
neither Council, nor Government considered it their responsibility, that
neither Council rates or vehicle registration fees contributed to road
construction. Nevertheless many
comments were received indicating that residents were unpersuaded by these
arguments. However a 45% support for
Community contribution to funding indicates that many feel the issue is of
sufficient importance to warrant personal contributions.
9.
Cargo Beach Loading Ramp
The
Cargo Beach Loading Ramp proposal was not part of the Task force study and no
report or background material was presented in the Survey. However a question was included prefaced by
various arguments advanced about the ramp, both for and against.
From
these results it is clear that support for the immediate construction of a Ramp
is low. If the Island’s roadway system
was properly constructed and managed there would be more enthusiasm for a ramp
but even so over half the Community is opposed to the idea.
The
following is the response to the four options that were put:
a)
The Ramp should
be built 12%
support .
b)
The Ramp should
be built but only after road reconstruction and an effective vehicle management system controlling
vehicle access (vehicle weights, numbers, access levies) to the Island is in
place 32%
support .
c)
The Ramp Should
not be built because of impact to Cargo beach 34% support .
d)
The ramp should
not be built because of road and Island impact
50% support .
The following were typical comments received with this question
Ø We are trying to limit vehicle usage but this ramp
will certainly encourage vehicle usage
Ø The Ramp is only for large trucks, which is
exactly what the roads system can’t handle
Ø Why is Council spending money on an unwanted ramp
but claiming there is no money for desperately needed road construction
10.
Where to from here
This report has been presented to our North Ward
Councillors, the Mayor and General Manager of Pittwater Council. As explained in the Survey, Council do not
see Island Roads reconstruction as a Council funding responsibility and this
point was reiterated during the presentation.
Hence funding is the most crucial issue to be dealt with, as the Island
still does not have a funding strategy that is likely to deliver a result in
the near term. Council have also indicated a reluctance to instigate a
Management Plan unless a viable funding strategy is available.
10.1
Other issues raised in the Survey can be progressed without further delay, such
as:
Ø
15 Kph speed limit
Ø
3 tonne weight limit
Ø
Closure of Catherine
Park loading bay
Ø
Closure of roads
after wet weather, including the suspension of the recycling collection
10.2
Some items require negotiation with Council.
These are:
Ø Gazetting the Elizabeth Park and Catherine Par
road alignments
Ø Rezoning unused road reserves as bush reserves
10.3 The question of Council control of roads is
linked with funding, in that Council will not agree to such a proposal without
a funding strategy. However the
principal and regulatory mechanism can be defined.
10.4 If the proposal for the Cargo Beach loading ramp
has been overturned a mechanism for the transfer of goods needs to be
formulated and put to Council and Barge contractors.