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.

Paul Froggatt - KWR presentation

7 views

Published on

Presented at AITPM SA Back to Basics event, October 2018

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Paul Froggatt - KWR presentation

  1. 1. King William Road Curated Street AITPM Half-day Seminar 19 October 2018
  2. 2. Background Pavement Condition – requires full renewal High and increasing vacancy rates (as at 2014) Change in retail uses – concern of increase in café/ restaurant uses and loss of retail shops
  3. 3. 2014 Masterplan Introduced Curated Street concept Intersection Treatments Phased renewal of road pavement to minimise impact to trade Future flexibility for use of space Limited changes to parking – still seen as critical by traders
  4. 4. 2017 Visitor Perception Study Mission and objectives: “To explore perceptions of the King William Road precinct along with visitor demographics and visitor behaviour” Objectives • Measure business vs visitor perspectives of King William Road • Profile visitors and local residents (including a wider region target audience) • Explore issues and concerns for visitors, residents and business • Understand how best to meet the needs of visitors • Identify priority areas for improvement and how best to engage with visitors and business In depth business interviews, online visitor sample survey and follow up phone survey
  5. 5. Perception Study Key Findings
  6. 6. Detailed Design Study • Upgrade the road pavement and streetscape • Ongoing market research and background studies by Council • Three stage consultation process with landlords/traders, community and stakeholders • In depth design analysis of all project disciplines: • Streetscape, landscape and public realm amenity • Civil design • Stormwater assessment and design • Parking and pedestrian surveys, traffic signal intersection assessment • Lighting and electrical assessment • Smart technology and future proofing • DDA assessment • Public art
  7. 7. Design Development Development of 3 Options Beautiful Street • Most change • Fewest car parks • More outdoor areas Active Street • Modest change • Balance between greening, car parks and pedestrians Accessible Street • Retained most car parks • Less outdoor spaces and pedestrian crossings
  8. 8. Community Endorsement Community engagement on the 3 design options as well as surface treatment and kerb design • Strong community preference for most change; more greening elements, outdoor spaces and pedestrian crossing points, less on-street parking • Preference for lost parking to be replaced off-street • Desire to retain a roadway using paving • Preference for flush treatment across road, parking and footpath; final outcome is rollover kerb to assist with stormwater management Provided a clear direction for the design to work towards the greater level of change of the “beautiful street” with the rollover kerb and retained road paving
  9. 9. Design Challenges Car Parking • 2018 parking surveys reconfirmed 2014 surveys • High turnover of on-street spaces generating capacity and parking opportunities • 2018 surveys showed capacity and lower turnover in key off-street car parks • Loss of on-street parking accepted by all as parking not perceived as one of the major visitor issues
  10. 10. Design Challenges Car Parking Design Basis • Retained car parking in groups of 1-2 spaces to break up the dominant perception of cars within the street • Generous length of spaces (6.3m+)where feasible for ease of entry/exit • Clear width of 2.3m • Use of removable bollards to enable change of use of parking spaces to support event modes and tenant/land use changes • Council to work with landlords/tenants to encourage increased development and use of rear parking areas
  11. 11. Design Challenges Car Parking Design Basis
  12. 12. Design Challenges • Some capacity issues at peak periods, most other times spare capacity • Long cycle time for pedestrian accessibility • Desire to reduce the area designated to vehicles to assist adjacent businesses Design basis – two options • Single lane on 3 approaches, south remains as current • Retain some additional lane capacity on Park St (right turn) and King William Rd north (for left and right turn) • Preferred option retained some additional traffic capacity and was endorsed by Council Park and Mitchell Street Traffic Signal Intersection
  13. 13. Design Challenges Outdoor Dining and Public Realm area protection • Desire to provide a safe environment for diners and public • Limited design guidance to assist; what is available would recommend bollards, bollards, bollards!! High cost and poor streetscape outcome • Risk assessment approach based on: • Nature of use, ODA higher risk than general public realm • Vehicle encroachment risk; highest risk opposite intersections • Reflect the likely crash risk; low vehicle speeds, potential direction of encroachment • Overall, the street has a relatively low risk rating due primarily to vehicle speeds and nature of intersections • Use of energy absorbing bollards at higher risk locations, standard or no bollards at lower risk locations
  14. 14. Design Challenges Other considerations • Bus stop locations and format – one relocation proposed • Disabled parking – desire for on-street provision but difficult to achieve the required width mandated by the standard • Stormwater Management • Lighting upgrades, particularly for pedestrian crossings • Accommodating future smart technology
  15. 15. Next Steps • Completion of detailed design and documentation • Final approval processes • Construction from 2019

×