Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Achieving Exemplary Walking and Cycling Outcomes in a Major Road Project

198 views

Published on

Fay Patterson

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Achieving Exemplary Walking and Cycling Outcomes in a Major Road Project

  1. 1. Achieving Exemplary Walking and Cycling Outcomes in a Major Road Project Fay Patterson
  2. 2. As if the project were a walking/ cycling/ PT plan for the precinct: comprehensive, convenient, safe walking and cycling networks with a focus on amenity AITPM Excellence Award for Transport Planning (2015); Janet Brash Memorial Award as the most outstanding of the three excellence award winners ‘Exemplary’
  3. 3. • Upgrading South Road as part of a 78km long, high- speed, non-stop transport corridor • Darlington precinct: one of the most complex sections of the corridor ($625 million project in itself) • Obvious potential for severance impacts • NB ‘Value review’ after this project was completed!  How and why the transport planning achieved exemplary results
  4. 4. REQUIRED: DESIRABLE: etc walking cycling etc
  5. 5. Strategic context: freight (and cars)
  6. 6. Strategic context: active transport
  7. 7. Federal, state and local governments all strongly support infrastructure that encourages walking, cycling and public transport over freight (which is above private car use) • These are the governments’ expressed desires, intentions and priorities, and the community's expectation Transport planning: • walking and cycling are not modes to be considered after the traffic elements are finalised • a holistic, societal view of the infrastructure needed for the precinct to function well
  8. 8. Relevant Technical Standards • Often: itemise a selection from design standards  Applying standards after planning has occurred won’t create a good environment for walking/ cycling 5 key attributes for walking: • connected – access to key destinations • comfortable – width, surfaces, DDA • convenient – crossings easy, safe, no delay • convivial – interesting, clean, free from threat • conspicuous – clearly signed, published in local maps 6 key needs of cyclists: • space to ride • a smooth surface, free of debris • speed maintenance • appropriate sight lines to the path surface • connectivity • information
  9. 9. • Austroads' Guide Information for Pedestrian Facilities • Research: how to encourage more cycling, with reference to Austroads guidelines • Cross-sector factors: design quality and wider economic benefit of transport projects; pedestrians and cyclists as consumers  Compatible with future-proofing (e.g. modelling)  Challenged perceptions, opened horizons re: standards and guidelines Emerging Technical Agenda
  10. 10. Existing Conditions Wide footpaths, DDA compliant ramps, crossings at signals, bike lanes, good bus stop spacing, modern bus shelters…  Technical standards can be met and even exceeded, but resulting conditions are still not good or safe Not enough that facilities exist – user experience? Old, retro-fitted, discontinuous, disconnected, inconvenient, unpleasant, unmaintained, impinged upon (+ unsafe) • crossing arterial roads a particular issue • max. delays 120-143s ≈ 140-170m (cycle), 500-600m (walk) • cycle crashes on Sturt Road, despite low levels of use • all ped crashes except 1: crossing without signal control, within 100m of a bus stop
  11. 11. Future Conditions Ped projections (Uni, TAFE): • 4,200 crossing South Rd (cf 1,700 now) • 820 more crossing Sturt Rd east of Main South Rd • 3,000 crossing Sturt Rd west of Main South Rd
  12. 12. • Entire study team (incl. traffic modellers, designer drafters, economic analysts) understood/ internalised transport planning concepts and aims • Capacity to identify opportunities and impacts from the road design base as it changed • Delivering goals, not infrastructure  Skilled professionals empowered to use talents in a dynamic design process Design Development
  13. 13. Main Design Elements* • Overpass FMC to Laffer’s Triangle: no delay, -1 crossing, upgrade entry to FMC, cyclists aligned to (safe) Uni route, retain potential energy; ped crossing of Sturt Rd (long-term to rwy station), part of Greenway, shade trees, continuous footpath treatment • Infrastructure moved off footpaths • Improved connection to Patrick Jonker Bikeway • Intersection improvements, Sturt Road/ University Drive • Bike lanes, Marion Rd and Sturt Rd • Options for PT interchange * Before the ‘value review’ and train extension, so not what is now proposed
  14. 14. Main Design Elements* • Separated walking/ cycling paths along Main South Road, with trees, landscaping (NB Jensen Planning + Design) – European design for bikes re: side street crossings • Bus stops relocated to give ped access (+ opposite each other) • PAC Sturt Rd for Sturt Linear Path + connected into Laffer’s Triangle and the Greenway • Two overpass crossings of Main South Road into Tonsley precinct (+ one north, over Daws Rd) – also used to provide DDA access to bus stops • Cyclist underpass at Ayliffe’s Road • Any slip lanes that couldn’t be justified removed • Paths as alternatives to long cycle stand-up lanes (Sturt Rd)
  15. 15. Failures • Benefit-Cost for active transport? • Problem: forecasting usage • Since then: • BCR for av. cycle project, no connectivity = 3.5:1* • BCR for good cycle project = ! (over 30:1 for some) • with strategic network development + e-bike scheme + peds + Uni + social/eco indicators, 15:1 to 20:1 is feasible –> why European infra is so good! $615 m $10 m 1:1 3.5:1 $615 m $35 m $650 m $610 m $15 m 1:1 10:1 $610 m $150 m $760 m $600 m $25 m 0.9:1 15:1 $540 m $375 m $915 m (>>1:1) * The average BCR for cycling projects has been found to be 14:1 to 15:1, but this tends to be skewed by a few projects with very high BCR. 3.5:1 is the ‘most common’ (modal) value.
  16. 16. • Shared use paths • should be option of last resort where pedestrian and cyclist numbers are expected to be high • wide overpass to FMC allowed for possible future conversion • PT interchange • original layout based on bus servicing with minimal facilities for passengers • the project identified a number of options based on passengers but the original layout was enforced • ‘Value review’ – transport planning approach? Failures
  17. 17. • ‘Up and over’ passes • underpasses can be built that do not create security issues • less distance (= climb/descent) to get clearance under than over a road = less effort • for cyclists, underpasses preserve energy • Later ‘value review’ didn’t incorporate this transport planning approach: walking/ cycling results unknown – detail vital, not obvious at consultation level Failures
  18. 18. Dutch-style intersection treatment • Used to improve safety by providing protection and improving sight-lines • Hard to fit, expensive, difficult to design? • No. If you have enough room for a bike lane, you have enough room for a minimal form of this treatment, at low cost  See handout  Darwin City Council to install the first in Australia (at greater than minimal design)
  19. 19. 90 degree angle parking • AS2890.5 On-street parking –> AS 2890.1 (off-street) • AS2890.1 Appendix B clause B4.4: field study • park cars at end of bays (as if bays are 0.5m shorter for the 85th %ile car/ 0.2m for the 99th %ile) • reduce aisle width until can park in one manoeuvre – both front-in and reverse-in (implications?) • add 0.6m (but don’t use clearances in turning templates in low speed situations, so why here?)  Does this really give an aisle width that must always be adhered to, or are there situations in which it could/ should be relaxed?  Handout: finding space for cyclists (includes the above)

×