The debate over Byron Council’s decision to install traffic lights at a notorious intersection in Suffolk Park flared again at last week’s Council meeting.
During the public submissions section of the meeting, three Suffolk Park residents from the Keep the Flow in Suffo group strongly criticised Council’s decision to install grant-funded traffic lights at the intersection of Clifford Street and Broken Head Road.
The intersection has been the site of worsening delays and safety concerns for decades, with those turning right out of Clifford Street facing frustrating waits, particularly at peak times. Pedestrians trying to cross Broken Head Road, including school children, have also been at risk owing to the lack of a safe place to cross.
Federal grant
Late last year, councillors voted to accept federal grant funding to install traffic lights at the intersection, while at the same time keeping the door slightly ajar for the possibility of replacing the lights with a roundabout at some point in the future.
The issue appears to have divided the Suffolk Park community.
Some Suffolk Park residents, particularly those associated with the Suffolk Park Progress Association, are strongly in favour of the lights being installed.
They argue that things have become so bad at the intersection that traffic lights are the only realistic option for addressing the situation in a timely fashion, even if the benefits in terms of alleviating traffic delays are not sustained in the long term.
Roundabout option
On the other side are a significant number of residents who argue that a roundabout is the only viable long-term solution, and that traffic lights will ultimately make things worse.
Who represents whom?
Both groups have asserted at various times that they represent the majority of Suffolk Park residents.
Council did not undertake a survey of residents prior to making its decision regarding the traffic lights, and it seems most residents of the suburb were not aware that this was on the table until after the decision had been made.
With Council having accepted the grant funding it would be very difficult, though not impossible, to reverse the decision.
At last week’s Council meeting, the three members of Keep the Flow in Suffo called for the traffic light plan to be abandoned.
‘Starting from a neutral position on traffic lights, I looked closely at the modelling and other technical information, reviewed the guidelines, and consulted with a highly-experienced traffic engineer,’ local resident and chemical engineer, David Fligleman said.
‘It’s clear that traffic lights will not only fail to address the existing issues, but will risk creating new issues and problems.’
Mr Fligleman said that Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) set out the criteria for determining whether or not traffic lights were necessary, and that the Clifford Street intersection met none of them.
He said that, rather than introducing traffic lights, Council could implement other interim strategies until it was able to properly address the issues with a roundabout.
Mini-roundabout
These included a mini-roundabout that would not require widening of the road or the compulsory acquisition of private land, and a seagull layout – a type of three-way road intersection that’s designed to improve safety and reduce traffic delays.
But these suggestions received significant criticism from councillors Asren Pugh (Labor), Jack Dods (Independent) and Michael Lyon (Independent).
‘Are you aware that we’ve received very strong advice that it’s not possible to do a mini-roundabout for a couple of reasons, the main one being that it doesn’t slow traffic down enough on Broken Head Road and also that it would require additional, very high-level street lighting?’ asked Cr Pugh.
‘Anything we do has to be approved by Transport for NSW’, he said.
‘It’s very unlikely that we would get a mini-roundabout approved. As far as this grant goes, it’s traffic lights or nothing’. I’m a realist about politics and how things work.’
Inflexible grant
The meeting heard that the federal government grant could not be varied in any way, meaning that Council could not spend the money on anything other than traffic lights.
Interim options
But Mr Fligleman rejected the argument that it was ‘traffic lights or nothing’ describing this as a ‘false binary’.
‘The binary choice of not doing anything versus traffic lights doesn’t make sense when you have a range of interim options available which should be within the budgetary availability of this Council.,’ he said.
‘Those items should be seriously looked at.’
♦ See further article here.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
