Skip to main content
search

Future City plan drives proposal for nose-in parking

By September 1, 2020November 4th, 2020Future City

Rethinking the way Orange drivers use their cars is central to the Future City plan to transform the centre of Orange into a more walkable precinct.

Part of the plan is to slow cars down to make the area more pedestrian-friendly.

But, while slowing traffic down is safer for pedestrians, it is important to keep traffic flowing to avoid delays and frustration for motorists.

That’s why nose-in angled parking has been proposed to replace rear-to-kerb parking and parallel parking in the CBD.

While detailed arrangements are still to be decided, it’s intended that nose-in parking would be introduced in the CBD area bounded by Peisley and Hill Streets, and from Kite to Byng Street.

Austroads is the collective of Australian and New Zealand transport agencies, representing all levels of government.

The Austroads Guide to Traffic Management 2020 says angled parking can accommodate up to twice as many vehicles as parallel parking and nose-in angled parking is the preferred option in most situations.

In fact, it says rear-to-kerb parking is illegal in a number of jurisdictions, such as South Australia.

Austroads prefers nose-in parking because:

  • It keeps traffic flowing in a one lane traffic environment.
  • Vehicle exhaust emissions face away from the footpath, pedestrians and outdoor dining.
  • Vacant spaces are clearly visible and a motorist is able to slow down and move directly into a parking space causing little delay to following motorists.
  • Drivers reversing out from the parking bay can select a time when passing traffic will not be disrupted.
  • A stationary driver about to reverse into the parking bay tends to disrupt passing traffic by trapping a vehicle behind.
  • When parking, motorists can view high kerbs and footpath obstructions more easily.
  • Cars are not reversing into a pedestrian environment. Vehicle attachments such as tow bars and bicycle racks also pose a hazard to pedestrians when overhanging the edge of the kerb.

However, Austroads says rear-to-kerb parking does have its place, for example:

  • When loading or unloading vehicles, because the rear of the vehicle is facing towards the footpath
  • Reversing out of a nose-in parking space involves some of the vehicle protruding into the roadway before the driver can see oncoming traffic, affecting traffic and cyclist safety. A driver about to drive forward from a rear-to-kerb space has a relatively good view of approaching traffic and cyclists.

Orange City Council encourages members of the community to share their feedback on the Future City plan. Simply click this link to have your say. 

20 Comments

  • Fred Davies says:

    The disadvantages of nose in parking are of serious safety concern, visibility of traffic when reversing out of the parking position will be a major, but the issue of accessing the boot of the vehicle can expose people to traffic, imagine a mother unloading or loading a pushchair/pram or an invalid with a wheelchair. Car doors tend to fly open on opening when vehicles are nose in parked. The benefits of nose in are minimal in comparison to the safety issues it raises. It’s much safer to give a motorist the time to reverse park. The advocation of nose in parking will need to be across the city where angle parking is applied, not just in specific areas otherwise there will be confusion. Nose in parking would require lower speed limits.

  • Julie Archer says:

    Please, please don’t change to nose in parking. To enable the car to reverse out into the traffic, you sometimes have to move the vehicle out well into the traffic to be able to see any on-coming traffic. Either that, or ban larger 4 wheel drives! As stated in your proposal, angle parking allows more vehicles to park. In the 70’s there was angle parking in Summer Street but this was changed to parallel parking when the footpath was widened. Problem is, Council keep narrowing the main thoroughfares, with wide blisters on corners etc, eg Byng between Sale and Anson which used to be wide enough for traffic to move around someone angle parking and not hold up traffic. Council has now narrowed it down so one lane can be held up substantially when someone is parking rear to kerb. The street is so busy, that if you put in front to kerb, you would probably get a parking fine, just waiting to back out.

  • Ray says:

    Noe in parking far more dangerous especially in bust road areas, Orange residents have a habit of not being overly patient and considerate when you are parking, and to be not able to see out of the vehicle when reversing from a parking spot is asking for problems.

    If we are wishing to promote more cycling then nose in parking creates a much more dangerous scenario for cyclists with cars reversing out of parking, especially in today’s need for many to have a very high and impractical vehicle such as the larger dual cab utilities we are seeing more frequently. BT-50’s and the oversized RAM utes.

    A 40k Speed limit in the Summer Street area would be a practical tool to improve safety in the CBD

  • Ian Middleton says:

    I am against nose in parking due to lack of visibility when exiting. When you pull up to reverse into rear to kerb parking cars behind u can see what ur doing. I believe the safety concerns involved in exiting nose in parking outweighs any benefits.

  • Sarah says:

    Nose in parking is by far the most sensible option. Major regional towns like Albury/Wodonga , Wagga and Dubbo already do it- would be great to see Orange follow suit. I’ve lived in towns which use both systems and strongly prefer the way that traffic is kept safely flowing with nose in. With the number of big Utes in town it’s much better and safer to have their overhanging trays kept away from the pavements. Exhaust and tow bars are kept away from the pavement area too, so it’s better for pedestrians. Yes please!

  • David Platt says:

    I favour nose in parking, because it also feels safer for passengers to exit the car…. Ppl with a Dissabilty, trying to exit the car or enter on the main street, are stepping onto a highway where so many large vehicles fly by… It really is very dangerous and scary….
    I have visited city’s like port Maquarie where, traffic continues to flow, but is Slowed down.. It is so inviting..

  • Cameron Steuart says:

    Totally support a change to nose in parking. Great idea! Much safer for pedestrians

  • Sarah Thorncraft says:

    Please do not change the CBD parking to nose in. Think about how many young families and the elderly we have in this city. Nose in parking requires that the person pack their boot, assemble mobility aids and/or assemble and disassemble prams in oncoming traffic. And the poor visibility when reversing out of nose-in parking presents a risk of increased motor vehicle accidents. Nose in parking doesn’t work and all it will do is force more people to park in the centre parking which will create another bottleneck. Please don’t do it.

    • David Platt says:

      It is So much safer for the elderly, disabled and children to get in and out of a car, parked nose in, especially compared to parallel parking, with hoons and four wheel drives flying by….
      As for the Boot… You need to understand, how angle parking, actually gives you a safer space….because the car beside you is effectively protruding out….
      Traffic keeps flowing, but at a much slower speed when done right, with many looking for the next parking spot….
      Indicating, with that old BLINKER when reversing out, makes it work… 🙂

  • john peter hannan says:

    Nose in parking is NOT safer for anyone. Much easier to get into, but, incredibly difficult to rejoin traffic safely. Imagine a larger vehicle, say and SUV on your left and you are in a smaller vehicle, say a Toyota corolla. Your vehicle needs to be about half way out of the parking space, or maybe even further, BEFORE you can see the oncoming traffic. During peak hour, this would be a nightmare. Traffic approaching at 50kph with no idea of what you are about to do and you have no idea of what they are about to do and you have not even seen them yet. This probably holds up the traffic the same amount of time that reverse parking does when entering the parking spot, but is way more dangerous. With the increase of electric vehicles, the problem of exhaust emissions will disappear in time. I will NEVER use these nose-in parking places, and look for something else. Best of luck to all the council members who think they are going to get re-elected with this sort of negative thinking.

  • John Stevens says:

    Reversing into traffic is far more dangerous and just as disruptive leaving the space then someone doing the same disruption reversing into a space, they are just not reversing into traffic. As they leave and can see other cars clearly when re-entering traffic.

    The logic that it is less disruptive is flawed as it ignores that you have to disrupt traffic leaving the space as opposed to entering it.

    A reverse parked car can safely access the boot from the sidewalk and for those of us with kids and dogs, it’s much safer putting your Shopping into the boot while managing kids from the sidewalk or getting the dog in and out from the sidewalk.

  • Craig Dolbel says:

    Given the fact that all of the surrounds of the trees and pedestrian blisters are all shaped to accomodate reverse 45 angle parking, the cost of the concrete alone to be replaced on all of these areas is going to be extremely high for little benefit. And if left the way it is now, will waste about 2 car parking spaces each one. And the visibility when reversing when you are parked next to larger cars or vans, you have to pull into the traffic before you can see. Add to that bike lanes and you have a recipe for disaster.

  • Gwyn Mulholland says:

    By the way I read this it seems that there may be an intention to cut Summer Street to one lane in both directions for motorists to safely reverse into a spare lane rather than reversing into unseen traffic. By unseen I mean if you have an SUV or similar parked alongside you it is impossible to see any approaching vehicle until there is a possible collision without using this method. Particularly dangerous for cyclists not so for pedestrians who should be on the footpath
    This will in turn create traffic chaos as Summer Street unlike the Main street in Goulburn and other towns is most certainly not wide enough to maintain two lane traffic and nose in parking. Yass is a prime example of traffic hold ups with nose in parking.
    As an example of reversing into traffic and the hold ups created by it (maybe a bit of an exaggeration) but Peisley Street regularly has everything from Tradies utes to Semi Trailers reversing from business premises creating chaos.
    In closing I believe it would be major backward step for Orange from a cost point of view and most definitely a safety point of view. Who in Orange is going to train the drivers who in many instances know only two forms of parking;
    1. Parallel and
    2. Rear to kerb
    many of whom are of advanced age??
    In some cases a collective who pay nothing but get paid to come up with suggestions such as this can be wrong. Each and every case is different.
    I for one am strongly against this proposal

  • Lisa Wheeler says:

    It’s a terrible idea.
    I believe it is much more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. Reversing out into on coming traffic and pedestrians trying to scoot across the road and not going to a crossing.
    Getting shopping into the boot and prams and kids into the back-seat.
    Really bad idea.

  • Bill milne says:

    As a van owner , it’s nearly impossible to reverse out into traffic . Keep,rear to kerb parking

  • Rochelle says:

    I am opposed to nose in parking there are so many four wheel drives around that trying to reverse out past them onto a busy road if someone doesn’t see you that’s an accident waiting to happen & trying to load groceries or parcels into to the boot would also be very dangerous

  • Patricia Hetherington says:

    As drivers of smaller vehicles, and cyclists, we are against this proposal. Can the decision makers try this in a smaller vehicle parked between two four-wheel drives? I would like to see this survey request details of the size of car the respondent drives, as I suspect there is a correlation between vehicle size driven and for/against. If there is no alternative, I suggest having small/large size parking spaces like they do in some supermarket parking areas. There should be alternative paths for cyclists to enter the area, as I hope most cyclists would avoid such streets. Will we see more cyclists riding on the footpath? I agree there needs to be a better solution for less mobile passengers than exiting a car into traffic, and this should be considered in any redesign. Vehicle emissions being a factor for pedestrians will reduce over time as we transition to lower/no emission vehicles – what is the expected life of this redesign – 50 years?

  • David says:

    I support replacing rear to kerb parking with nose in parking. On balance the advantages of nose-in parking outweigh the benefits of rear to kerb parking, particularly in terms of safety, efficient use of parking space and traffic flow. Nose-in is the preferred system of angled parking across most of the country for these reasons.

    I’m uncertain of the benefits of replacing existing parallel parking with nose-in parking in Orange. This would require complex infrastructure improvements to retain the current pedestrian and traffic capacity. The Orange City Future Plan doesn’t provide information how this might be done.

  • Sue says:

    I am strongly against the nose-in parking idea. The lack of visibility when trying to reverse out makes this a very dangerous option. I would avoid Summer St altogether if this were introduced. Not the outcome the council is trying to achieve! I find the current 30min parallel parking very convenient for a quick drop-in visit to a shop.

Leave a Reply