Canterbury Terrace Options Progress

Council staff presented three new options to Jennie and I yesterday at our monthly Ward Briefing. All three options allowed for cars to travel 2 ways. Safety concerns surrounded two of the options however.

Staff have responded to the overwhelming concerns about the East Avenue intersection being restricted to one way for cars in order to save the trees. They put forward three options.

Two of the options had cars competing with bikes which all at the meeting felt was a safety risk we should not take. One of these options allowed parking along the rail corridor but no landscaping. The other allowed landscaping but prevented parking.

The third option allowed for the bike path (greenways) to extend all the way to East Avenue. The greenways of course is a State Government project and we find ourselves looking at an option for the sake of road safety that we would not have had to entertain had it not been for the Government’s greenways project.

Of course finding a solution to joint road use and this is one road that does present that way is something that fits the 30 year plan we developed out of the the Community of Possibilities Public Consultation last year.

Unfortunately this 3rd proposal reduces parking along Canterbury Terrace. I say unfortunately because parking in and around the Community Centre on the corner of Canterbury and East Avenue is another major concern identified by residents at our recent public meetings.

To address parking concerns we have asked staff to look at Parker Terrace to see if we can convert the current parallel parking in Parker Terrace to angled parking. Initial investigations suggest this is possible but a full review is needed to see if it is indeed feasible.

This option will allow a narrow verge between the cars and the bikes which can be planted with trees similar to those you have all had an opportunity to comment on.

The other obstacles with this option will see the gum trees (two maybe three by my reckoning) at risk of being removed and there may be an issue, having just walked the road myself, with off street parking for residents.

So progress is being made but we are far from able to present workable solutions for further comment from you. This means that nothing will happen for a while except the ash trees, which we all know are dead or dying, can be removed.

When we have something we will go back to you and seek your further feedback because the best option needs all of us to contribute to.

5 Comments

  1. Anonymous   •  

    Thanks Don

    As you know we are quite distressed with the removal of the trees on Canterbury (Dead, dying or just a little jaded)and now seeing just how utterly, utterly ugly the gantries and poles are along Cromer parade (OMG why didn’t they at least paint them a dark color like the trams to at least blend in ???).

    We are very keen to make sure the trees are replaced in both similar numbers and “relative” maturity ie not saplings. We will now go from a beautiful leafy street (Canterbury and Parker) to an ugly, stark, industrial landscape certainly not worthy of Black Forest or Clarence Park.

    Honestly if we had really known the full impact of all of this we would should have sold up a year ago.

    I think the idea flagged by the council of a “Bike Sharrow” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking) and limited speed (25) along Canterbury would solve most if not all the solutions in my opinion.

    Sean Mullarkey
    4 Canterbury Terrace
    Black Forest.

  2. Simon Gee   •  

    WOW, it certainly is ugly. I was unaware the decision had been made to pull the tree’s down and was in shock when I drove past it the other day. Don, do you have any updates on what they plan to do, to revegetate Canterbury Terrace?

    I then walk down to the tram this morning along the end of Hartland Avenue and they have pulled down another massive tree, leaving another barren landscape. I would be interested to learn more about the pulling of trees to the planting of trees ratio going on in my suburb. Noting that replacing established trees (10m-50m) with young trees (1m) is not a like for like scenario, unless I want to wait 20 years for aesthetic value to be replaced. I dare say the ratio is not favourable and we are slowly be heading to destruction of a leafy suburb which is what we all value. At the moment council/state government is removing value from our suburb, I want to know how they intend to replace this value?

    Simon Gee (8 Gordon Road, Black Forest)

  3. Anonymous   •  

    I was shocked as I drove past this morning to see the stark enterance to my suburb. I support the need to replace those trees with mature trees to ensure the ‘leafy’ status of Black Forest is maintained.
    I understand the bikeway is essential in the new state plans and hope that ‘better placed’ trees can be planted to further support the efforts to ‘green-a-fy’ surrounding city suburbs.

  4. The concepts on re vegetation are being worked on currently with a view to going back to the community, whose views received during the first consultation (which did not get quiet as far as Gordon Road) are helping to shape the options being considered.

    I expect we will be going back to the community shortly.

    Happy to discuss further personally if you wish Simon so as to inform the final designs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *