H J•3 months ago 1. IntroductionI write to provide constructive input on the proposal as outlined in the Technical Report prepared by Innovative Transport Solutions (Pty) Ltd (dated 2026/02/04, contract 288C/2021/22) and the conceptual layout drawings 4619/TNDN5477/01 and 02.I wish to state at the outset that I recognise the legitimate concerns around pedestrian safety and traffic congestion during school drop-off and pick-up periods at Durbanville Preparatory School. I support the City's objective of improving safety for learners and parents. My comments are directed at the proportionality and design of the proposed intervention, not its underlying intent.2. Direct Impact on My PropertyMy driveway is located on Turner Crescent (north), close to the Lindenberg Avenue intersection. Under the proposed anticlockwise one-way system, Turner Crescent (north) becomes westbound only — from Rodger Street toward Lindenberg Avenue — with a no-entry sign prohibiting vehicles from entering Turner Crescent (north) from Lindenberg Avenue.This has two immediate consequences for my property:2.1 Loss of direct driveway access from Lindenberg Avenue. Currently, I turn directly from Lindenberg Avenue into Turner Crescent (north) to reach my driveway. Under the proposal, this movement is prohibited by the no-entry signage at the Turner Crescent (north) / Lindenberg Avenue intersection. To reach my own home, I would instead need to travel via Van Der Westhuizen Avenue, turn into Rodger Street, and then proceed along Turner Crescent (north) in the proposed westbound one-way direction back toward Lindenberg Avenue and my driveway — a detour of several hundred metres for every single arrival. This is not an occasional inconvenience; it is a permanent, daily impairment of access to my property that applies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including weekends and school holidays when the school traffic problem does not exist.2.2 Parking bays adjacent to my driveway. The conceptual layout (Drawing 02) shows proposed parking bays and a sidewalk along the western side of Turner Crescent (north). Depending on the final layout, these bays may be positioned immediately adjacent to my driveway entrance, which would impair sightlines when reversing out and create conflict with vehicles manoeuvring into parking bays.3. Concerns Regarding the Technical ReportHaving reviewed the technical report in detail, I wish to raise the following concerns about the analysis underpinning the proposal.Alternatives not considered3.1 The report does not consider the role of the restricted-access road section in creating the problem it seeks to solve. Section 5 of the report notes that the central section of Turner Crescent — between Hugo Street and Luckhoff Street — is "a restricted-access two-directional roadway only accessible to designated school personnel." The report treats this closure as a fixed constraint and designs around it, but does not examine the extent to which it contributes to the very congestion problem being addressed. With this section closed, Turner Crescent does not function as a continuous crescent. Instead, it operates as two separate dead-end roads, each connecting to Lindenberg Avenue on one end and to the surrounding street network on the other. Every parent who enters to drop off or collect a learner must reverse or turn around and exit the same way they came in, effectively doubling the traffic volume on each segment. If the central section were reopened to general traffic — even on a time-restricted basis during school drop-off and pick-up — Turner Crescent would function as a natural one-directional loop without requiring permanent one-way signage or the associated loss of residential access. The report should have evaluated this option before recommending a permanent conversion of public roads to compensate for a restriction that benefits the school.3.2 No time-restricted alternative was evaluated. The traffic data in the report itself demonstrates that the congestion problem is driven by school activity. The AM peak hour (07:00–08:00) recorded 752 vehicles at the north intersection (Intersection 4889), with the midday school pick-up period (13:15–14:15) recording 384 vehicles — both sharply elevated compared to the PM commuter peak of 271 vehicles (16:15–17:15). Notably, the report did not collect any traffic data during school holidays, weekends, or outside school-related peak periods, so there is no baseline to demonstrate what Turner Crescent's traffic looks like when the school is not in session. Without this baseline, the report cannot assess whether a permanent 24/7 one-way conversion is justified, or whether a school-hours-only restriction would be sufficient. No consideration is given to time-restricted alternatives (e.g., 07:00–08:30 and 13:00–14:30 on school days). Time-based regulatory signage is well established in traffic engineering practice and is provided for under the South African Road Traffic Signs Manual (SARTSM), making this a readily implementable option that would address the safety concern without permanently impairing residents' property access.3.3 The sight distance deficiency at the south intersection could be addressed by less intrusive means. The report identifies a legitimate concern: the available sight distance at the Turner Crescent / Lindenberg Avenue (south) intersection is restricted to 25 metres in the southbound direction, against a standard of 45 metres, due to a boundary wall. While this is a valid safety issue, a full one-way conversion is not the only remedy. The sight distance obstruction could potentially be addressed through measures such as a convex mirror, vegetation management, wall setback negotiations with the property owner, or localised no-parking restrictions near the intersection — all of which would resolve the specific deficiency without converting the entire crescent to one-way traffic.3.4 No other alternative interventions were evaluated. Beyond the one-way conversion, the report does not consider alternative measures that could achieve the stated safety objectives with less impact on residents, such as:
Reopening the restricted central section of Turner Crescent during peak periods
A dedicated kiss-and-drop lane along the school frontage
Time-restricted loading zones instead of permanent parking bays
Adding sidewalks to Turner Crescent without changing the traffic direction
Speed calming measures (speed humps, raised pedestrian crossings)
Scholar patrol or traffic marshal deployment during peak periods
Gaps in the evidence and analysis3.5 The traffic survey is based on a single day's observation. All traffic counts were conducted on one day — Thursday, 6 November 2025 — during Term 4 when school attendance patterns may differ from other terms. No baseline data was collected during school holidays to isolate school-generated traffic from general residential traffic. A single day's count is a thin evidence base for a permanent infrastructure change.3.6 The crash data does not support the urgency of a permanent conversion. The report documents 4 crashes over a 4-year period (January 2021 to December 2024), all resulting in slight injuries only. No fatalities, no serious injuries, and notably no pedestrian-involved incidents were recorded. While any crash is undesirable, an average of one minor incident per year on a school-adjacent street does not constitute the kind of safety crisis that warrants permanent road conversion.3.7 No parking survey was conducted. Section 8 of the report acknowledges that "a parking survey was not conducted as part of this investigation." The recommendation to implement angled and parallel parking bays along Turner Crescent is therefore based solely on site observations, without quantified data on actual parking demand, peak parking occupancy, or the number of bays required. Introducing permanent parking infrastructure without a formal parking study risks either under- or over-providing bays and does not adequately assess the impact of those bays on adjacent residential properties.3.8 The residential impact assessment is inadequate. Section 7 of the report acknowledges that one-way systems "have a tendency to transfer traffic onto adjacent roads" and that it is necessary to determine whether "the social equity of the residents along the street" is negatively impacted. Despite this, the report concludes in a single sentence that social impacts will be "minimal" — without documenting any consultation with affected residents, any assessment of individual property access impacts, or any survey of how many households' driveway access will be impaired. For a permanent road conversion, this level of analysis is insufficient.3.9 The investigation was initiated by a single complainant. Section 8 of the report notes that "the complainant requested that parking bays be implemented." The entire investigation appears to have been triggered by a single complaint. Affected residents were not consulted during the investigation phase and are only now being asked to comment on a fully developed proposal — a sequence that makes meaningful input more difficult.4. RequestsIn light of the above, I respectfully request that the City consider the following before proceeding:4.1 Evaluate reopening the restricted central section of Turner Crescent. The central section of Turner Crescent between Hugo Street and Luckhoff Street is currently closed to public traffic and reserved for school personnel. As outlined in point 3.1, this closure is a significant contributor to the congestion the proposal seeks to address. I request that the City evaluate — in consultation with the school — whether this section could be reopened to general traffic, at minimum during drop-off and pick-up periods, to allow Turner Crescent to function as a natural circulation loop. This would substantially reduce the need for a permanent one-way conversion on the public road segments and should have been considered before imposing permanent restrictions on residents' access.4.2 Evaluate a time-restricted one-way system. Should a one-way conversion still be considered necessary, I request that the City evaluate a school-hours-only one-way restriction as an alternative to a permanent conversion. This would achieve the stated safety and traffic-flow objectives during the periods when they are needed, while preserving normal two-way access for residents outside school hours, on weekends, and during school holidays. If the City has considered and rejected this option, I request that the reasons be documented and made available to affected residents.4.3 Conduct a proper residential impact assessment. I request that the City assess and document the specific impacts on residential properties along Turner Crescent, including the number of properties whose driveway access will be impaired, the additional travel distances imposed on affected residents, and any impact on property values. The current report's single-sentence conclusion that social impacts are "minimal" does not meet a reasonable standard of analysis for a permanent road change.4.4 Ensure driveway access protection in the final design. Should the one-way conversion proceed in any form, I request that the parking bay layout include adequate exclusion zones around residential driveways on Turner Crescent to maintain safe sightlines. Specifically, no parking bays should be marked within at least 5 metres of either side of my driveway entrance on Turner Crescent.5. ConclusionI support the City's efforts to improve pedestrian safety around Durbanville Preparatory School. However, a permanent, 24/7 one-way conversion is a disproportionate response to a problem that is primarily limited to school drop-off and pick-up periods — and one that is significantly compounded by the school's own closure of the central section of Turner Crescent. The technical report does not adequately assess the impact on affected residents, does not evaluate less restrictive alternatives, does not consider reopening the restricted road section as an alternative, and relies on a thin evidence base.I urge the City to engage meaningfully with directly affected residents before finalising this proposal, and to evaluate the reopening of the central road section, time-restricted measures, and partial alternatives that achieve the safety objectives without permanently impairing residential access.
