Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc.
P.O. Box 2039,
NEWNHAM TAS 7248
COPY FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION
29 April 2011COPY FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION
The Mayor & Aldermen
Launceston City Council
Town Hall
St John Street
LAUNCESTON 7250
Dear Aldermen,
Re : Launceston Public Spaces and Public Life report, January 2011.
Our Association is appreciative of the work done by Gehl Architects to bring together information that has been recognised as beneficial to the improvement of the amenity in the Central Launceston Area, and promoted by various interested parties in recent years. This report has invited the Launceston community to again focus on what it would like to see improved and further developed in the city.
We are, however, disappointed that beyond the discouragement of traffic within the central study area, that Council's consultants have not proposed any alternative traffic routes around the area, or justified why this traffic congestion will somehow disappear. As we have previously
submitted, there needs to be an east-west road connection and bypass or ringroad system agreed and constructed, before changes can be made to traffic in the central area.
Presently, it is simply not practical to reduce the traffic capacity ofvthese central streets by reducing them to just 2-way traffic (two lanes) in comparison to the present 3 lanes.
Similarly, it is not practical or appropriate to reduce the kerbside carparking capacity, upon which many commercial operators have built their businesses around. Comparisons with much larger cities in overseas countries, are generally, not at all relevant or comparable to the present situation to be observed in Launceston.
Whilst it is desirable to encourage a greater use of bicycles as a transport we are somewhat bemused by assertions that Launceston is "flat" and that it is possible to walk or cycle to the distances cited within such minimal time periods. We are familiar with the rental bicycle ranks
that operate in overseas cities, but the usage and commercial practicalities in Launceston are to be questioned and the viability of such a system here has not been assessed in this report.
The report says it relies upon feedback from public talks and meetings with key focus groups. Representatives of our Association attended all known meetings and made every effort to participate, however, little if any opportunity arose there for adequate communication, and we
can find absolutely no mention or reference to any issue that we raised, in this report.
Launceston does not have an effective public transport Metro bus system, and it is not possible to make many adjustments to improve this service. It has been aptly demonstrated that the present network of bus services is principally capable of serving the student population only and when there are periods of school holiday breaks, this service is significantly curtailed and shown to be even less viable. The relocation of the St John Street bus stops further north to the Paterson Street/Cameron Street block would be a significant improvement to the amenity of the retail area, and also better manage the level of civil disruption evident in the vicinity of St John Street and the Brisbane Street Mall.
There have been proposals in the past for a limited tram system to be re-installed in the central area, and we would be supportive of this, particularly if it provided free transport between the area and more remote/relocated public carparks. We have never supported the present Tiger Bus system, as it is too costly, does not deliver patrons to where they most need to travel (or collect them again on the return trip), and because Council itself refuses to require that its own employees relocate their vehicles from the subsidised carpark in Cameron/Cimitiere Street, to Inveresk, so as to utilise the Tiger Bus service, and so as to release the Cameron/Cimitiere Carpark for public use or redevelopment.
In the Launceston context, competing town centres and out of town shopping is providing stiff competition for the central area economy. Investments at Kingsmeadows and Mowbray, coupled with development of shopping centres at Riverside, Prospect and Legana, are having an impact on the viability of retailing in central Launceston.
Parking advantages in the suburbs where even Launceston City Council (as at Kingsmeadows) provides free carparks, is causing a shift in retail focus, not only by customers, but also business operators seeking cheaper rentals. In Launceston, which is in reality a small city, it is essential that businesses are kept viable and that the quality of retailing in the central area is maintained, and not reduced to a series of cheap discount stores.
In conclusion, we are of the view that a great deal more planning needs to be completed before the city can rely on proceeding with the suggestions contained within this report and that the community must be better engaged to accept the necessary changes and eventual impacts, including the public cost. We look forward to receiving your response to this submission and= would welcome further dialogue and input.
Yours faithfully,
Lionel Morrell
President
For and on behalf of the Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc.
We are, however, disappointed that beyond the discouragement of traffic within the central study area, that Council's consultants have not proposed any alternative traffic routes around the area, or justified why this traffic congestion will somehow disappear. As we have previously
submitted, there needs to be an east-west road connection and bypass or ringroad system agreed and constructed, before changes can be made to traffic in the central area.
Presently, it is simply not practical to reduce the traffic capacity ofvthese central streets by reducing them to just 2-way traffic (two lanes) in comparison to the present 3 lanes.
Similarly, it is not practical or appropriate to reduce the kerbside carparking capacity, upon which many commercial operators have built their businesses around. Comparisons with much larger cities in overseas countries, are generally, not at all relevant or comparable to the present situation to be observed in Launceston.
Whilst it is desirable to encourage a greater use of bicycles as a transport we are somewhat bemused by assertions that Launceston is "flat" and that it is possible to walk or cycle to the distances cited within such minimal time periods. We are familiar with the rental bicycle ranks
that operate in overseas cities, but the usage and commercial practicalities in Launceston are to be questioned and the viability of such a system here has not been assessed in this report.
The report says it relies upon feedback from public talks and meetings with key focus groups. Representatives of our Association attended all known meetings and made every effort to participate, however, little if any opportunity arose there for adequate communication, and we
can find absolutely no mention or reference to any issue that we raised, in this report.
Launceston does not have an effective public transport Metro bus system, and it is not possible to make many adjustments to improve this service. It has been aptly demonstrated that the present network of bus services is principally capable of serving the student population only and when there are periods of school holiday breaks, this service is significantly curtailed and shown to be even less viable. The relocation of the St John Street bus stops further north to the Paterson Street/Cameron Street block would be a significant improvement to the amenity of the retail area, and also better manage the level of civil disruption evident in the vicinity of St John Street and the Brisbane Street Mall.
There have been proposals in the past for a limited tram system to be re-installed in the central area, and we would be supportive of this, particularly if it provided free transport between the area and more remote/relocated public carparks. We have never supported the present Tiger Bus system, as it is too costly, does not deliver patrons to where they most need to travel (or collect them again on the return trip), and because Council itself refuses to require that its own employees relocate their vehicles from the subsidised carpark in Cameron/Cimitiere Street, to Inveresk, so as to utilise the Tiger Bus service, and so as to release the Cameron/Cimitiere Carpark for public use or redevelopment.
In the Launceston context, competing town centres and out of town shopping is providing stiff competition for the central area economy. Investments at Kingsmeadows and Mowbray, coupled with development of shopping centres at Riverside, Prospect and Legana, are having an impact on the viability of retailing in central Launceston.
Parking advantages in the suburbs where even Launceston City Council (as at Kingsmeadows) provides free carparks, is causing a shift in retail focus, not only by customers, but also business operators seeking cheaper rentals. In Launceston, which is in reality a small city, it is essential that businesses are kept viable and that the quality of retailing in the central area is maintained, and not reduced to a series of cheap discount stores.
In conclusion, we are of the view that a great deal more planning needs to be completed before the city can rely on proceeding with the suggestions contained within this report and that the community must be better engaged to accept the necessary changes and eventual impacts, including the public cost. We look forward to receiving your response to this submission and= would welcome further dialogue and input.
Yours faithfully,
Lionel Morrell
President
For and on behalf of the Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc.
