Achieving Exemplary Walking and Cycling Outcomes in a Major Road Project

Fay Patterson

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’

• 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

REQUIRED:

DESIRABLE:

etcwalkingcyclingetc

Strategic context: freight (and cars)

Strategic context: active transport

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

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

• 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

Existing ConditionsWide 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

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

• 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

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

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)

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.

• 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

• ‘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

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)

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)