At last night’s council meeting, Dubbo councillors voted unanimously to ask for a report detailing how it would cost to build traffic lights on the road.

But it came as Cr Richard Mutton asked for clarification on an RTA law that could force the construction of a raised pedestrian crossing, which the local traffic committee has continually knocked back.

Some councillors have been pushing for a pedestrian crossing to allow the residents of Orana Gardens retirement home to get to the Orana Mall.

A study found the road was not busy enough to warrant a pedestrian crossing, and could cause accidents because both motorists and pedestrians become accustomed to simply using the crossing without looking.

Councillors decided to instead investigate traffic lights instead, asking how much it would cost.

But last night, Cr Mutton said his research with Willoughby City Council – which was trying to get rid of a crossing – had led him to an RTA rule that said pedestrian crossings “must be provided” for aged care homes within 400 metres of a bus stop, chemist, or a shopping centre.

He also asked for clarification at February’s council meeting on whether council staff, as they counted cars on Windsor Parade to see if a crossing was warranted, should have also counted people.

Cr Shields said that during a 10 minute meeting on Windsor Parade, he had seen five people try to cross the road, including on elderly gentleman who “narrowly missed being hit by a truck”.

“I doubt any data council has collected on that area is accurate,” he said.

Cr Shields also asked for clarification on the future of a pedestrian crossing in Baird Drive, which he had brought up at last week’s committee meeting as an example of another crossing.

At that meeting it emerged the crossing was illegal, and faced being removed.

But last night, council’s technical services director Stewart McLeod said council now had a “more considered opinion”.

“We haven’t determined to remove it – we have raised discussions with the RTA regard the future of the device and it may end up approved, modified, or removed,” he said.

Cr Shields said the answer was a “significant change from the answer last week”, which indicated council would remove the crossing.

“We’ve had the week to think about it,” Mc McLeod replied.

lynton.grace@ruralpress.com