Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network (Parsons Brinckerhoff) p01-50

RAIL CORRIDORS AND THE PRINCIPAL BICYCLE NETWORK21

1290

2A

FEBR

UARY

201

1

Department of Transport

FIN

AL R

EPOR

T

Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network

Final Report

February 2011

Department of Transport

Parsons Brinckerhoff Aus tralia Pty Limited ABN 80 078 004 798

Level 15 28 Freshwater Place SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 PO Box 19016 SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Australia Telephone +61 3 9861 1111 Facsimile +61 3 9861 1144 Email [email protected] to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, AS/NZS 4801

A+ GRI Rating: Sustainability Report 2009 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN

2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN

Revision Details Date Amended By

00 Original

01 Final Version incorporating Client comments 11 January 2011

©Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited (PB) [2011].

Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of PB. This document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by PB. PB makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.

Author: ............................................................

Signed: ...........................................

Reviewer: ..................................................................................

Signed: ..............................................

Approved by: ..................................................................................

Signed: ...............................................

Date: 17 February 2011 ...........................................................................

Distribution: PB, Department of Transport ...........................

33(1)

...............................................

Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network Final Report

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page ii

ContentsPage number

Glossary vi

Executive summary viii Methodology viii

Consultation ix

Initial assessment f ramework ix

Baseline review ix

Corridor assessments ix

Study findings xii

Study recommendations xiii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose 1

1.2 Objectives 1

1.3 Background 2

1.4 Methodology 2

1.5 Consultation 3

1.6 Study area 4

2. Stakeholder consultation 10

2.1 One-on-one meetings 10

2.2 Stakeholder workshop 11

2.3 Consultation outcomes 11

3. Requirements for shared path development 12

3.1 Indicative cross section design 12

4. Establishing the baseline 14

4.1 Development of a GIS 14

4.2 Spatial analysis 14

4.3 Major constraint identification 16

5. Development of preliminary options 18

5.1 Initial costs 25


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page iii

6. Assessment of options 27

6.1 Multi-criteria assessment 27

6.2 Demand forecasting 27

6.2.1 Existing 2007 base case matrices 286.2.2 Forecast demand matrices 316.2.3 Distance and time base matrices 316.2.4 Scheme based demand matrices 326.2.5 Scheme based distance and time matrices 33

6.3 Analysis of existing VISTA07 demands 33

6.3.1 Craigieburn corridor 346.3.2 Dandenong existing levels of demand 346.3.3 Box Hill to Ringwood existing levels of demand Box Hill to Ringwood 366.3.4 Werribee existing levels of demand 37

6.4 Northbank corridor demand forecasting 38

6.4.1 Existing levels of demand 386.4.2 Future demand matrices 39

7. Cost Benefit Analysis 40

7.1 Safety application in CBA 45

7.1.1 Background 457.1.2 Development of Safety inputs 46

7.2 CBA assessment and results 48

7.2.1 Northbank corridor 487.2.2 Craigieburn corridor 517.2.3 Dandenong corridor 527.2.4 Werribee corridor 547.2.5 Box Hill to Ringwood corridor 56

7.3 Summary CBA findings 57

8. Review of design and planning considerations 59

8.1 New at grade level crossings prohibited 59

8.2 Careful design of access in vicinity of rail stations 59

8.3 Other bridge / underpass infrastructure requirements 60

8.4 Solutions and remedial measures for crossing facilities 60

8.5 Provision of cycle routes along local roads 62

8.6 Cycle route signage 63

8.7 Timescales for development 63

8.8 Longer term considerations 63

8.9 Land acquisition 65

9. Review of assessment framework 66

9.1 Introduction 66


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page iv

9.2 Phase 1 – Initial corridor assessment 69

9.3 Phase 2 – Route development 70

9.3.1 Route identification and development 709.3.2 Stakeholder consultation 719.3.3 In principle approval 71

9.4 Phase 3 – Design and feasibility study 72

9.5 Phase 4 – Secure funding and project delivery 73

10. Conclusions and recommendations 75

10.1 Opportunities for shared path development 75

10.2 Assessment framework 75

10.3 Assessment of corridors 76

10.4 Design requirements 77

10.5 Land acquisition 78

10.6 Funding 78

10.7 Wider promotion of cycling and synergies with other projects 78

11. References 79

List of tablesPage number

Table 1.1 Summary of CBA recommendations xiiTable 2.1 Key stakeholder consultation 10Table 2.2 Key stakeholder consultation 11Table 3.1 Summary of key relevant guidelines 12Table 4.1 GIS inputs 14Table 4.2 Preliminary identification of major constraints 17Table 5.1 Northbank corridor key constraints and solutions 18Table 5.2 Craigieburn corridor key constraints and solutions 19Table 5.3 Dandenong corridor key constraints and solutions 20Table 5.4 Werribee corridor key constraints and solutions 22Table 5.5 Box Hill to Ringwood corridor key constraints and solutions 23Table 5.6 Summary of high level indicative option costs 26Table 6.1 Cycling catchments 29Table 6.2 MITM Outputs 31Table 6.3 Assumptions for walking and cycling 31Table 6.4 Growth and mode share assumptions for cycling trips 32Table 6.5 2010 total two way weekday cycling trips – Northbank corridor 38Table 7.1 Identification of costs and benefits for rapid appraisal 40Table 7.2 Summary of safety CBA inputs 47Table 7.3 CBA summary Northbank corridor 49Table 7.4 CBA Result Summary Craigieburn corridor 51


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page v

Table 7.5 CBA Result Summary Dandenong corridor 53Table 7.6 CBA Result Summary Werribee corridor 55Table 7.7 CBA Result Summary Box Hill to Ringwood corridor 56Table 7.8 Summary of CBA recommendations 58Table 9.1 Example information, assessment criteria and design targets 69Table 10.1 Summary of CBA recommendations 77

List of figures Page number

Figure 1.1 Study methodology 3Figure 1.2 Northbank corridor 5Figure 1.4 Dandenong corridor 7Figure 1.5 Werribee corridor 8Figure 1.6 Box Hill to Ringwood corridor 9Figure 3.1 Indicative shared path cross section minimum distances 13Figure 4.1 Example Rail Reserve Horizontal Clearance Plan 15Figure 4.2 Example Rail Reserve Clearances 16Figure 6.1 Summary of demand matrix development 28Figure 6.2 Box Hill to Ringwood MITM zone catchment 30Figure 9.1 Refined assessment framework 68

AppendicesAppendix A Stakeholder consultationAppendix B Rail Reserve PlansAppendix C Preliminary Option PlansAppendix D Indicative Option CostsAppendix E Multi Criteria AssessmentAppendix F Analysis of VISTA07Appendix G Forecast Demand EstimationAppendix H CBA Results


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page vi

Glossary

ARTC Australian Rail Track Corporation - currently has responsibility for the management of over 10,000 route kilometres of standard gauge interstate track, in South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, and New South Wales.

Assessment framework The assessment framework is to provide a considered and consistent basis on which to produce information, develop proposals and assess requests for shared/separated cycle and pedestrian paths.

BCR Benefit Cost Ratio is a discounted measure of the value of the project, where the present worth of the discounted benefits is divided by the discounted costs. Projects or programs should be selected if the BCR is more than an agreed hurdle rate. The default hurdle rate is a BCR greater than 1; however, DOT often sets the rate higher than this.

BV Bicycle Victoria is an independent, not-for-profit organisation. They work with supporters to get More People Cycling More Often and measurably grow the bike riding world.

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis is a form of analysis that brings together all available information to estimate and compare the community wide costs and benefits of an investment decision. It is used to assess the social worth of project options for delivering specific outcomes1.

DOT The Department of Transport, along with VicRoads and other transport agencies, is responsible for public transport, roads and ports across Victoria.

The DOT Director of Public Transport leases land and infrastructure from VicTrack and sub-leases it to private rail or tram operators.

Grant ‘in principle’ approval

Grant ‘in principle’ approval is the official agreement from the reviewer/decision maker supporting the principles and rationale behind the proposal. However, this is subject to more detailed planning associated with design, cost estimates and feasibility which must be undertaken and submitted following ‘in principle’ approval to gain final approvals, finalisation of contracts, licenses etc.

NPV Net Present Value or worth of a stream of costs and benefits is a number generated from discounting the values of the stream at a given discount rate. It is derived from the following expression:

where the discount rate is r, the benefit in year t is Bt the cost in year t is Ct, and n is the time horizon. The net present value of a stream is equivalent to the amount that would have to be invested today in order to obtain a compounded return of r per cent over n years.

MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis is a loose collection of tools to assist decision-making where the aim is to promote a number of different objectives or criteria.2

Metro Metro Trains Melbourne (Metro) is Melbourne's new metropolitan passenger rail operator which sub-leases land and infrastructure in the rail reserve from the Director of Public Transport.

MITM Melbourne Integrated Transport Model (MITM) is the strategic transport modelling tool for the Melbourne Metropolitan region and is able to predict future travel patterns consistent with the changing future demographics and land use associated with the ‘Melbourne@5million’ review of Melbourne 2030.

1 Guidelines for Cost Benefit Analysis (DOT, June 2010) pp37 2 http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/pubs/National_Guidelines_Volume_3.pdf pp 108


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page vii

PBN Principal Bike Network is a network of routes that provides access to key cycling destinations within the Melbourne metropolitan area. The purpose of the PBN is to guide investment in cycling infrastructure in Melbourne and increase the numbers of people riding bicycles for transport.3

Spatial analysis Spatial analysis is a desktop process, using computer based Geographic Information Systems, to analyse topological, geometric, or geographic properties. Analysis is based on a set of pre-identified criteria, such as minimum horizontal and vertical clearances from rail lines, infrastructure and buildings.

VicTrack VicTrack owns the land in rail reserves and leases land and infrastructure to the Director of Public Transport, who sub-leases it to private rail or tram operators.

3 Draft PBN Report (VicRoads, Feb 2010) pp 1


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page viii

Executive summary

Parsons Brinckerhoff has been commissioned by the Department of Transport (DOT) to undertake the Rail Corridors and the Principal Bike Network study. The purpose of the study is to inform strategic thinking and policy for addressing future cases where rail corridors may be considered for cycling infrastructure.

The Principal Bicycle Network (PBN) is a strategic network of routes which provide access to key cycling destinations within the Melbourne metropolitan area. The purpose of the PBN is to guide investment in cycling infrastructure. This investment aims to increase the numbers of people riding bicycles for transport.

A number of rail corridors have been proposed in the PBN recently reviewed by VicRoads, some of which have been included in the proposed PBN for some time without gaining successful approvals. The objectives of the study, as set out in the project brief, are to develop an assessment framework to simplify the application process for providing shared paths within rail corridors on land owned and managed by VicTrack.

Five rail corridors, included within the PBN review, have been selected as illustrative examples to test the performance of the initial assessment framework which involves a pre-feasibi lity study for the construction of bicycle paths. To inform the study, the corridors represent a diverse history, range of conditions and characteristics and include:

Northbank (between Flinders Street and Docklands)

Craigieburn corridor (between Pascoe Vale and Glenroy)

Dandenong corridor (between Caulfield and Dandenong)

Werribee corridor (between Laverton and Werribee)

Box Hill to Ringwood corridor.

The study is to provide an assessment framework, informed by high-level analysis of the five rail different corridors, to allow prov ide DOT with advice on the additional steps required to develop this cycling infrastructure via future detailed designs or further feasibility studies when appropriate.

Methodology

The project methodology included the following stages:

Policy, previous studies review and current conditions and characteristics survey

Consultation with DOT and key stakeholders

Development of an initial assessment framework

Corridor assessments

Review of assessment framework.


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page ix

Consultation

The consultation process, as part of the baseline review and development of the assessment framework included the following:

one on one meetings with key stakeholders

stakeholder workshop.

Initial assessment framework

An initial assessment framework was developed with an aim to simplify the application process for providing shared paths within rail corridors on land owned and managed by VicTrack. This framework was then adopted for this study in undertaking the five corridor assessments.

Baseline review

The baseline review identified key constraints, opportunities and options developed for each rail corridor:

Geographical Information System (GIS) was established to undertake a desktop baseline study collating spatial data from a range of sources, including VicMap

key relevant guidelines and standards were used to develop indicative cross section design minimum widths in the rail corridor

spatial analysis of the GIS was undertaken to identify potential sections of adequate clearance and sections/isolated bottlenecks where there is insufficient clearance from tracks in the rail reserve (or other adjacent public owned land)

major constraints identification using spatial analysis of the GIS:

embankments / grade changes

rail infrastructure

Victrack leases

buildings

bridges / underpasses

drainage channels

road crossings.

Corridor assessments

Preliminary option development

Preliminary options for shared paths in the five corridors were based upon information gleaned from the consultation and spatial analysis. Supplementary data sheets document


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page x

the key constraints and solutions in detail, and options are illustrated in the preliminary option plans.

Initial high level pre-feasibility capital costs were developed for the preliminary options based on an assessment of current market value and do not include any costs associated with land and other costs.

A range of packages of options have been developed for assessment to aid in prioritising corridor options and assess the impact of higher cost/engineering solutions against lower cost solutions:

Option 1: A more realistic mid range option within the rail reserve where possible which includes some more necessary infrastructure.

Option 2: As Option 1 but without improvements to existing road crossing facil ities. This option is considered as existing shared paths in rail corridors in Melbourne have not been developed to include such improvements.

Option 3: Lower cost alternative which diverts to the road network to avoid the need for key infrastructure such as new bridges. Also does not include any costs for improvements to existing road crossing facili ties.

Option 4: Fully grade separated option within the rail reserve.

Demand forecasting for outer corridors

Demand forecasting of cycling proved a challenge particularly for the rail corridors outside of the centre of Melbourne (Craigieburn, Dandenong, Werribee and Box Hill to Ringwood corridors) due to potentially low existing volumes and limited sources of bicycle count data. For these corridors demand forecasting used a combination of data sources including:

Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel & Activity (VISTA) 2007-08 which provides daily people based origin – destination travel patterns by mode and activity.

ABS Census travel to work data detailing existing travel to work mode splits.

Melbourne Integrated Transport model (MITM) which provides travel based growth assumptions for origin-destination travel patterns into the future.

Existing multi-modal people based matrices were developed for each corridor from the VISTA07 data set which was formatted consistently with the Melbourne Integrated Transport Model (MITM) zone boundaries by origin and destination zone by mode and activity:

due to limitations with the application of the VISTA07 data, bicycle demand matrices were derived by factoring the VISTA07 total person trips for the corridor by the ABS Census travel to work by bicycle mode split for the local LGAs

catchment principles, consistent with the Draft PBN, were applied to the people trip movements in the four rail corridors.

Forecast demand matrices were calculated via:

analysis of the 2006 ‘base’ and 2031 forecast MITM assignments provided the growth in future trips by total persons, mode and origin-destination zones to 2031


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page xi

2007 base matrices were factored to generate base 2010, 2020 and 2030 matrices

a range of mode split assumptions were applied to base matrices to provide a robust range of potential cycling demand in each corridor.

Demand forecasting for the Northbank corridor

Demand forecasting of the Northbank corridor was dealt with differently to the other corridors described above due to a number of different circumstances:

the presence of existing on and off road bicycle facilities (via Collins St, Flinders St, existing Northbank shared path and Southbank shared path) and the short corridor length located adjacent to Melbourne CBD leads to the assumption that Northbank options will supplement existing bicycle facili ties but not be the direct cause of mode shift to cycling from other modes

bicycle count data for the area is available via the 2008 Melbourne Bicycle Account (MCC, 2008) which includes 2008 Super Tuesday count data. Initial 2010 Super Tuesday count data is also available via Bicycle Victoria which allows calculation of the growth of 2008 bicycle flows to the existing base 2010.

The scheme base demand forecasting has been dealt with in a consistent manner to the other four corridors using MITM predicted growth in person trips but also using local bicycle count growth factors. Scenarios developed provided a robust range of potential cycling demand.

Cost Benefit Analysis

The demand forecasting and CBA has proven a valuable tool in identifying effective economic outcomes for the five rail corridors. The CBA approach has been developed for this study to include travel cost, travel time, safety, health, environment and decongestion and crowing impacts.

The assessment has also been developed to include parking and induced trip impacts as well as differential safety impacts, particularly relevant to this study, incorporating different crash rates for links and intersections on public roads and shared pathways. This application has proven useful in unpicking and isolating the specific safety risks posed with the development of off road shared paths, raising a number of issues to highlight the importance of careful design to ensure that the realistic impacts of a scheme are identified and addressed.

The table on the following page summarises the recommendations from the CBA for the development of options in four corridors. Note that whilst Option 3 in the Werribee corridor provided a positive and cost effective CBA result, no recommendations have been adopted due to safety concerns associated with the lack of intersection crossing facilities. A major notable consequence is the justification of more expensive grade separated options for the Dandenong (only for a 30 year assessment period), Craigieburn and Northbank corridors.


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page xii

Table 1.1 Summary of CBA recommendations

Study findings

The development and implementation of shared paths in rail corridors is a complex process which should not be undertaken if there are alternative viable route options. Due to rail operations and safety requirements, high standards of design are required which can prove costly and due to the numerous stakeholders involved the approvals process can be time and resource consuming.

This study has found there is a strong case to develop shared paths only on a temporary basis if it can be identified with stakeholders that changes to rail operation (and requirement for the remaining rail reserve) are unlikely to occur in the next 10-15 years or more. The available land can be effectively utilised whilst not contributing to rail operations and in the meantime it is important to make provision for future changes such as route diversion/infrastructure requirements in order to accommodate both rail upgrade and the shared path where ever possible.

Review of assessment framework

Through the consultation process stakeholders have expressed their desire to work closely with local councils and other developers of shared paths to gain continual buy in and agreement from all parties in the design of the shared paths.

The assessment f ramework developed is unlikely to deliver any significant reductions to the approval timeframes due to the need for all stakeholders to review and approve proposals. However, the initial phases 1 and 2 should aid in the successful preliminary targeting of viable schemes and early refinement to problems which should reduce the review work required by all parties during the later phases.

The assessment f ramework is designed to require minimal resource and planning investment during the preliminary route development stages leaving more significant resource and planning requirements until VicTrack (and DOT Public Transport Division and Property and Commercial Development) has granted ‘approval in principle’ indicating that the provision of shared paths has strong potential and there is a commitment between all stakeholders to work together.

30(1)

Summary of CBA recommendations


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page xiii

Design requirements

Longer term, consultation with stakeholders has identified an interest in continuing to expand the grade separation of rail level crossings in Melbourne. VicRoads, in conjunction with DOT, need to be consulted regarding the inclusion of shared paths in future rail grade separation or station works designs.

In the more distant future there may be further opportunities to develop synergies with the development of the rail network. Should there be increasing levels of rail grade separation implemented in the future it may be possible to integrate these developments with a two level rail corridor; rail operations running below a light weight cantilever shared path structure above. Whilst this is certainly more a vision than a reality at this stage it is recommended that DOT continues to evaluate future opportunities for PBN development as they arise.

This study has identified the importance of good design in developing and implementing successful shared paths in rail corridors. Road intersection crossings with off road shared paths present a significant safety risk associated with the design, implementation and operation of shared paths within rail corridors. Great care and consideration should be placed in the design and treatment of such crossing facilities.

Findings strongly encourage the development of grade separated crossing facilities on shared paths, particularly at key road intersections. The findings also present some key challenges in securing the approval and development, which include the high costs and technical engineering solutions associated with grade separated facilities, as well as acceptance of the local community of intruding structures.

Effective and safe design in the vicinity of rail stations also presents challenges. Advice should be sought from urban planners to achieve a desirable outcome for all although to some extent this may need to be on a case by case basis due to the variety of rail station layouts. It is recommended that these issues be considered for the development of new rail stations in order to develop an inclusive design from the outset which if necessary can be retrofitted at a later date to include shared path access.

Study recommendations

Assessment framework process

It is recommended that the demand forecasting and CBA approach adopted for this study is reviewed and refined, if necessary, for application in wider analysis. The CBA approach has been developed to include parking and induced trip impacts which would benefit from further investigation.

In particular, it is highly recommended that further investigation be taken to review the safety costs and optimise safe design at off road shared path road intersection crossings, which could aid in the economic justification of cheaper at grade solutions, as well as conduct further research into the impacts of grade separated infrastructure, funding availability and community impacts.

Consultation with the DOT identified a potentially useful existing internal process which deals with 3rd party access applications within rail reserves via an e mail submission to a specific e DOT 3rd party access application mail account. The process is able to monitor timescales and actions/staff involved. It is recommended that this process is considered further for


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page xiv

application with the development of shared paths as a central application resource working between local council applicants, VicTrack and DOT.

The assessment f ramework has been developed to increase co-ordination and involvement with the DOT Active and Sustainable Transport Branch (as well as other key stakeholders) in the process from initial discussions through to gaining stakeholder approvals. Further consideration of the DOT Active and Sustainable Transport Branch’s involvement in the shared path development process should be considered as the management of the PBN continues to evolve.

Land acquisition

It is recommended that a long term plan for land acquisition is considered for Melbourne as part of a longer term strategy for viable development of the PBN and wider transport system. Sustrans in the UK have successfully been progressively purchasing land as it comes onto the market for many years in locations where horizontal clearances are a constraint. A long term plan is held for a corridor and property / land is purchased steadily as it comes onto the market. Land is then subdivided taking the required clearance and the remaining property is put back on the market.

Funding

Funding for the shared paths is likely to be a critical issue for local councils interested in developing shared paths. This study has identified the higher infrastructure costs required, and the challenge due to the cost implications associated with the increased safety risk posed by mode shift to cycling.

Funding for the PBN is currently sought from VicRoads although it is unclear if this will remain for projects within the rail reserve. It is recommended that this issue be explored further to ensure that feasible applications for shared paths in rail reserves can progress and gain the necessary funding with ease.


PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose

Parsons Brinckerhoff has been commissioned by the Department of Transport (DOT) to undertake the Rail Corridors and the Principal Bike Network study. The purpose of the study was to inform strategic thinking and policy for addressing future cases where rai l corridors may be considered for cycling infrastructure.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of the study, as set out in the project brief, are to develop an assessment framework to simplify the application process for providing shared paths within rail corridors on land owned and managed by VicTrack.

Five rail corridors, included within the PBN review, have been selected as illustrative examples to test the performance of the initial assessment framework which involves a pre-feasibi lity study for the construction of bicycle paths. To inform the study, the corridors represent a diverse history, range of conditions and characteristics and include:






This pre-feasibility study should allow the Department to identify:

layout of alternatives for the different segments of the corridor including the identification of key infrastructure to be developed and synergies and relationships with other projects within the Department and VicRoads

estimation of high level cost for development of each of the alternatives proposed

consideration of the availability of the land based on consultation with other key internal and external stakeholders.

The study is to provide an assessment framework, informed by high-level analysis of the five rail different corridors, to allow prov ide DOT with advice on the additional steps required to develop this cycling infrastructure via future detailed designs or further feasibility studies when appropriate.



1.3 Background

The Principal Bicycle Network (PBN) is a strategic network of routes which provide access to key cycling destinations within the Melbourne metropolitan area. The purpose of the PBN is to guide investment in cycling infrastructure. This investment aims to increase the numbers of people riding bicycles for transport.

The Department needed to understand the feasibility of the rail corridors proposed in the PBN recently reviewed by VicRoads. Areas for clarification included where paths would best be positioned, the investment required to develop paths, and the short, medium or long term requirements for rail or other transport infrastructure for the land. Physical constraints could mean some locations would not be available for cycling facilities and that the cycling path might require significant infrastructure investment or diversion in some segments into the road network.

There are currently no assessment criteria for establishing the feasibility of rail corridors for cycling paths. The Branch is, however, in the process of developing principles for consideration of cycling access in large scale projects, such as new train stations, road upgrades etc. Initial work on these principles was provided as input into this study. As a general guide, projects along the corridor were likely to include infrastructure developments for cycling (such as grade separated crossings or access path) when they are in close proximity to the PBN or they are a key trip destination.

The five corridors have been selected to illustrate a diverse range of issues associated with implementing bicycle paths within rail corridors. They were be used as a means of investigating the feasibil ity requirements, issues, constraints and opportunities, to develop a robust assessment framework and assessment criteria. The assessment framework and assessment criteria was then used to govern and establish appropriate policy that could be applied to any potential Metrorail corridor in the future.

1.4 Methodology

The study methodology is summarised in the flow chart shown in Figure 1.1.



Figure 1.1 Study methodology

1.5 Consultation

Stakeholder input was an essential element of the Principal Bicycle Network and Rail Corridors Study. Details of the consultation process are provided in Section 3 of this report, which includes DOT and stakeholder meetings and workshops.



1.6 Study area

The five metro rail corridors are shown in Figure 1.2 to Figure 1.6 within the local network including the existing and proposed PBN.






This report follows the Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network Draft Background Report (PB, June 2010) [Draft Background Report] which provides details of policy and previous studies rev iews, initial stakeholder interviews, the development of the assessment framework and the baseline condition of each corridor.

This report provides details of the refined assessment framework and the recommendations for the Rail Corridors and Principal Bicycle Network study. This report summarises the following:

development of options

assessment of options

stakeholder consultation

refined assessment framework and feasibility criteria

conclusions and recommendations.

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

Flin

ders

St S

tatio

n

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gricu

lture

, Foo

d &

Tec

hnol

ogy

Pre

cinc

t

Trai

n S

tatio

ns

Bike

Pat

hs.d

wg

Pol

ylin

e

Laye

r Box

Hill

to R

ingw

ood

Dan

deno

ng C

orrid

or (B

etw

een

Cal

ufie

ld a

nd D

ande

nong

)

Gle

nroy

to J

acan

a

Lave

rton

to W

errib

ee

Nor

thba

nk (b

etw

een

Flin

ders

Sta

tion

and

Doc

klan

ds)

Pasc

oe V

ale

to G

lenr

oy

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Roa

d, E

xistin

g

Off

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

On

Roa

d, E

xist

ing

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exi

stin

g

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rou

te

Roa

d N

etwo

rk

0 1; 2

; 3

4; 5

; 6

7; 9

; 11;

12

Oak

Par

k St

atio

n

Pasc

oe V

ale

Stat

ion

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gricu

lture

, Foo

d &

Tec

hnol

ogy

Pre

cinc

t

Trai

n S

tatio

ns

Bike

Pat

hs.d

wg

Pol

ylin

e

Laye

r Box

Hill

to R

ingw

ood

Dan

deno

ng C

orrid

or (B

etw

een

Cal

ufie

ld a

nd D

ande

nong

)

Gle

nroy

to J

acan

a

Lave

rton

to W

errib

ee

Nor

thba

nk (b

etw

een

Flin

ders

Sta

tion

and

Doc

klan

ds)

Pasc

oe V

ale

to G

lenr

oy

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Roa

d, E

xistin

g

Off

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

On

Roa

d, E

xist

ing

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exi

stin

g

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rou

te

Roa

d N

etwo

rk

0 1; 2

; 3

4; 5

; 6

7; 9

; 11;

12

Cla

yton

MA

C

Oak

leig

h M

AC

Car

negi

e M

AC

Cau

lfiel

d M

AC

Dan

deno

ng C

AD

Gle

nhun

tly M

AC

Sprin

gval

e M

AC

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity C

layt

on C

ampu

s

Cla

yton

Sta

tion

Wes

tall

Stat

ion

Oak

leig

h St

atio

n

Yarr

aman

Sta

tion

Car

negi

e St

atio

n

Hug

hesd

ale

Stat

ion

Sprin

gval

e St

atio

n

Nob

le P

ark

Stat

ion

Hun

tingd

ale

Stat

ion

Mur

rum

been

a St

atio

n

Sand

own

Par

k St

atio

n

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gricu

lture

, Foo

d &

Tec

hnol

ogy

Pre

cinc

t

Trai

n S

tatio

ns

Bike

Pat

hs.d

wg

Pol

ylin

e

Laye

r Box

Hill

to R

ingw

ood

Dan

deno

ng C

orrid

or (B

etw

een

Cal

ufie

ld a

nd D

ande

nong

)

Gle

nroy

to J

acan

a

Lave

rton

to W

errib

ee

Nor

thba

nk (b

etw

een

Flin

ders

Sta

tion

and

Doc

klan

ds)

Pasc

oe V

ale

to G

lenr

oy

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Roa

d, E

xistin

g

Off

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

On

Roa

d, E

xist

ing

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exi

stin

g

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rou

te

Roa

d N

etwo

rk

0 1; 2

; 3

4; 5

; 6

7; 9

; 11;

12

Wer

ribee

PAC

Hop

pers

Cro

ssin

g M

AC

Wer

ribee

Agr

icul

ture

, Foo

d &

Tec

hnol

ogy

Prec

inct

Lave

rton

Sta

tion

Wer

ribee

Sta

tion

Hop

pers

Cro

ssin

g St

atio

n

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gricu

lture

, Foo

d &

Tec

hnol

ogy

Pre

cinc

t

Trai

n S

tatio

ns

Bike

Pat

hs.d

wg

Pol

ylin

e

Laye

r Box

Hill

to R

ingw

ood

Dan

deno

ng C

orrid

or (B

etw

een

Cal

ufie

ld a

nd D

ande

nong

)

Gle

nroy

to J

acan

a

Lave

rton

to W

errib

ee

Nor

thba

nk (b

etw

een

Flin

ders

Sta

tion

and

Doc

klan

ds)

Pasc

oe V

ale

to G

lenr

oy

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Roa

d, E

xistin

g

Off

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

On

Roa

d, E

xist

ing

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exi

stin

g

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rou

te

Roa

d N

etwo

rk

0 1; 2

; 3

4; 5

; 6

7; 9

; 11;

12

Rin

gwoo

d CA

D

Nun

awad

ing

MA

C

Mitc

ham

Sta

tion

Labe

rnum

Sta

tion

Rin

gwoo

d St

atio

n

Nun

awad

ing

Stat

ion

Hea

ther

dale

Sta

tion

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gricu

lture

, Foo

d &

Tec

hnol

ogy

Pre

cinc

t

Trai

n S

tatio

ns

Bike

Pat

hs.d

wg

Pol

ylin

e

Laye

r Box

Hill

to R

ingw

ood

Dan

deno

ng C

orrid

or (B

etw

een

Cal

ufie

ld a

nd D

ande

nong

)

Gle

nroy

to J

acan

a

Lave

rton

to W

errib

ee

Nor

thba

nk (b

etw

een

Flin

ders

Sta

tion

and

Doc

klan

ds)

Pasc

oe V

ale

to G

lenr

oy

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Roa

d, E

xistin

g

Off

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

On

Roa

d, E

xist

ing

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exi

stin

g

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rou

te

Roa

d N

etwo

rk

0 1; 2

; 3

4; 5

; 6

7; 9

; 11;

12



2. Stakeholder consultation

2.1 One-on-one meetings

Stakeholder input is an essential element of the strategic bicycle network planning process. One-on-one meetings were initially organised with each agency identified within the three groups to allow for honest and open discussion and ensure that the views of each stakeholder are being heard.

One round of one-on-one meetings were held with key stakeholders as part of the study which informed the policy review and baseline analysis by focussing on the following:

previous studies that might be of importance to this assignment

future developments that might impact on the use of the corridors

their receptiveness to the concept of bicycle paths within rail corridors

issues and/or considerations that should be taken into account and that could be included in the assessment f ramework to be developed

information on specific design criteria that need to be taken into consideration.

A list of the stakeholder consultation is prov ided below.

Table 2.1 Key stakeholder consultation

Date One-one-one meetings

16 -19 April 2010

DOT Property Development, DOT Public Transport Division

VicTrack

Bicycle Victoria

22 April 2010

Local councils, including: Wyndham City Council, Glen Eira City Council, City of Greater Dandenong Council, Melbourne City Council, Moreland City Council.

The City of Whitehorse was consulted via a phone discussion.

27 April 2010 VicRoads

30 April 2010 DPCD

11 and 22 June 2010 DOT, Economics and Transport Modelling

20 and 30 July 2010 VicTrack



2.2 Stakeholder workshop

Internal stakeholders attended a workshop to discuss the progress and findings of the study. The information gleaned from these meetings has been used as input into the development of the assessment framework, the baseline requirements, design assumptions and assessment to identify opportunities and constraints. A summary of the results from the stakeholder consultation is included in Appendix A.

Table 2.2 Key stakeholder consultation

Date Internal stakeholder workshop

20 July 2010 DOT Property Development, DOT Public Transport Division, MTM

2.3 Consultation outcomes

For this review PB aimed to address most issues raised by the stakeholders, thereby ensuring that a workable framework was developed that is acceptable to all parties involved. As specified previously, the first round of consultation informed the policy review and baseline analysis and development of the initial assessment framework. Improvements to the initial assessment framework identified through the second round internal stakeholder workshop are summarised in Appendix A and reflected in the revised assessment framework described in 9.



3. Requirements for shared path development

3.1 Indicative cross section design

The Draft Background Report reviewed and presented the key relevant design guidelines appropriate to the rail reserve, as summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Summary of key relevant guidelines

Criteria Guidelines Requirement

Minimum distance from centre line of nearest rail / tram track

VicTrack 8m

VRIOGS

3m –access not required for road vehicles & concrete sleepered track

4m –access not required for road vehicles other track

6m –access is required for road vehicles

Distance from the top of any cutting or toe of any embankment supporting the track

VicTrack 5m

Distance from railway trunking and signalling cabling VicTrack 1.5m

Clearance from aerial services (i.e. powerl ines) equipment and platforms VicTrack 5m

Shared path desirable minimum widths

VicRoads 3.0m - PBN off road paths

AUSTROADS Commuter path 3.0m

Local access path 2.5m

Minimum clearance for fence AUSTROADS 0.3m

Minimum vertical clearance AUSTROADS 2.5m

General requirements

VicTrack

Route should be as close as practicable to the boundary to minimise impact on VicTrack property

VicTrackPathway is not to terminate at or pass through commuter car park

VicTrackPathway fence to be provided on the track side



With exception of the Northbank corridor, pedestrian and bicycle paths do not currently exist in the identified study corridors. As such, it was assumed that shared paths would be developed in the first instance. Greater levels of separation in the facilities would be considered where user demands are already/predicted to be significantly high and conflicts may exist.

It is recommended that where width constraints are not present the shared path be built to an absolute minimum width of 3m. This will allow for safe passage in both direction, and a central overtaking space for cycle riders.

Although the routes are proposed to be shared it is recommended that a central dividing line is applied to the path. This encourages users to keep to the lef t and reduces the chance of conflict. Figure 3.1 illustrates the indicative shared path cross section developed for this study, based upon key relevant guidelines, namely VRIOGS, VicTrack and Austroads presented in Table 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Indicative shared path cross section minimum distances4

4 Figure adapted from the Perth Bicycle Network Plan (1996)



4. Establishing the baseline

4.1 Development of a GIS

A Geographical Information System (GIS) was used to collate data from a range of sources, as summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 GIS inputs

Data source Data incorporated Origin of data

Principal Bike Network Priority routes; support routes (off road / on road / existing / proposed) VicRoads

VicTrack data

Railtrack; reserve; stanchions; comms cable; comms conduit; embankment; buildings; easements; franchisee lease; land parcels; active leases; utilities; water authorities; and `topographical features VicMap

Road network

1m contours

Public transport network Rail and tram tracks. Bus routes have not been incorporated in this study. DOT

Melbourne Integrated Transport Model (MITM) zone boundaries DOT

Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) areas

Collection Districts (CD); Statistical Local Areas (SLA); and Local Government Areas (LGA)

ABS

Aerial imagery VicTrack

Google Earth

Activity centres including Melbourne CBD; Central Activity Centres (CADs); Principal Activity Centres (PACs); Major Activity Centres (MACs); university campuses; and additional employment precincts Google Earth

Local destinations including train stations; schools; colleges; hospitals; medical centres; and libraries

Refer to the Draft Background Report for a description of the current conditions and characteristics in the five identified rai l corridors.

4.2 Spatial analysis

The key relevant guidelines and indicative cross section design minimum widths identification guidelines were applied to spatial analysis undertaken to identify potential sections of adequate clearance and sections/isolated bottlenecks where there is insufficient clearance in the rail reserve (or other adjacent public owned land) from the centre line of the closest track.



A two tiered analysis was adopted which aimed to reflect an ideal minimum, based upon exceeding VicTrack standards, and secondly, an absolute minimum horizontal clearance, based upon VRIOGS safe clearances for rail operation, for both sides of the rail track;

ideal minimum 11.6m horizontal clearance (encompasses VicTrack’s requirement of 8m clearance f rom centre line of track to allow for future rail developments, 3m shared path, 0.6m clearance from fencing). This represents strong potential development opportunity

absolute minimum of 6.1m (VRIOGS absolute minimum safe horizontal clearance of 3m from the centre line of the track, minimum shared path width 2.5m, 0.6m clearance from fencing). This represents limited development opportunities with a stronger case for unsuccessful outcomes. Significant more analysis and justif ication is required for any consideration of proposals

insufficient clearance available less than 6.1m represents no safe development opportunities.

Analysis was undertaken in GIS by buffering the outer rail tracks to the above distances. To aid rapid analysis v ia simple illustration, the area between the outer edge of the rail reserve and 11.6m (ideal minimum) is coloured green, 6.1m to 11.6m coloured amber and less than 6.1m is coloured red, as shown below in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Example Rail Reserve Horizontal Clearance Plan

Where ever possible the ideal minimum of 11.6m horizontal clearance was aimed for as this adheres to guidance and standards, and provides a significantly greater opportunity for shared path implementation. Should available horizontal clearance be less than 11.6m, those developing the shared path must be aware that the scheme is far less likely to achieve approval and will require very strong reasoning and justification for any consideration.



Adequate horizontal clearances were also calculated from buildings and active leases within the rail reserve. Analysis was undertaken in GIS by buffering these criteria to 3.6m to represent the minimum adequate clearance between a building and the edge of a shared path.

The analysis was summarised by preparing a coloured line for each side of the rail reserve consistent with pervious green, amber red colouring, i llustrated in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Example Rail Reserve Clearances

4.3 Major constraint identification

The assumptions described above did not allow consideration for specific instances where there may be insufficient sufficient horizontal or vertical clearance or the need for significant engineering solutions to overcome changes in grade etc.

The spatial analysis was presented on a plan along with other identified major constraints, summarised in Table 4.2. Where major constraints were identified, supporting discussion and consideration of solutions is required.



Table 4.2 Preliminary identification of major constraints

Constraint Description Possible solution

Embankments / grade changes

VicTrack guidelines state that path must be 5m from the top of any cutting or toe of any embankment supporting the track.

Significant changes in grade may be unattractive or unsafe for cycle/walking access.

May also require the construction of a structure to level out grade changes.

Find alternative land away from issue.

High cost engineering solution to level out grade changes / take the load off the edge of the embankment.

Take alternative route out of rail reserve.

Rail infrastructure

VicTrack guidelines have minimum clearances to railway trunking and signalling cabling (1.5m) and clearance from aerial services (i.e. powerl ines) equipment and platforms (5m)

Find alternative land / route away from issue.

VicTrack leases

(particularly active)

Leases may be negotiable longer term when current leases come to the end of their term. However, there are generally limited options when planning for a shared path in the short to medium term. Leased areas are likely to have fencing or buildings on the land boundary which needs adequate clearance from the shared path.


Consult with VicTrack to establish when the current lease ends and whether there would be scope to amend the arrangements.

Buildings

Most buildings are in use and need to be avoided at all costs.

Require adequate clearance from the shared path and safe access into the building.

Consult with VicTrack Identify current use.


Bridges / underpasses

Safe clearances are required from current and future rail operations and in line with standards.

May require works to the structure.

Consult with DOT and VicTrack to establish current and future rail operations and bridge structure details/requirements.

Potentially very high cost engineering solution to change bridge structures.

Take alternative route avoiding the structures.

Drainage channels May require the construction of a structure.

Find alternative land /route away from issue.

Engineering solution to provide access.

Road crossings

Increased safety risk, and journey delays, at intersections with the off road shared path and roads.

May require the construction of a bridge/underpass or road crossing / improvements (range of low-high cost engineering solutions).

Site visits where possible have been undertaken to inform of these constraints and local issues. Refer to the Background Report for detailed plans detailing the baseline.



5. Development of preliminary options Preliminary options have been developed based upon information gleaned from the consultation and spatial analysis. Appendix B illustrates rail reserve plans and associated available horizontal clearances available. Detailed preliminary option plans are illustrated in Appendix C detailing the issues and preliminary options for the five corridors.

Note that as the study scope relates to the rail reserve, only limited consideration has been made for alternative routes including parallel road corridors. However, given the lack of alternative on road route clarity, the number of intersections, frictions with driveways and parking it was assumed that the provision of the PBN on these roads would offer a lesser quality facility which would be less attractive for new cyclists, particularly children and less confident adults. The tables below present a summary of the key constraints, opportunities and options developed for each corridor.

Table 5.1 Northbank corridor key constraints and solutions

Section Constraint Description Possible solutions

Swanston St to Banana Alley

Pinch point outsideFlinders Street Station entrance

A large conflict area exists directly outside the entrance to Flinders Street Station and Degraves St underpass on the busy existing shared cycle and pedestrian path. There is also a storm water outfall directly below the entrance to the station.

Option 1 re-route cyclists onto the disused rail reservation adjacent to platform 14 and construct bicycle bridge over entrance to Flinders Street Station.

Option 2 provide a floating pontoon cycle path and redesign the storm water outfall to bypass the conflict area.

Limited headroom for cyclists underneath the Sandridge Rail Bridge

Banana Alley to

Queensbridge St

Unsafesurface for cycling

The bluestone cobbles become slippery when wet. The road surface is difficult to ride on with a commuter or road bicycle.

Provide coloured tarmac surface to seal to a 1.2m wide section in each direction.

Existing Queensbridge St crossing

Existing crossing is for pedestrians only and has been split into several sections making it confusing and time consuming to cross.

Redesign crossing to relocate south to include one crossing and provide cycle signals.

Queensbridge St to King St Existing King

St crossing

Existing crossing is for pedestrians only and is not in line with the cycle route requiring deviation of route.

Relocate crossing south and provide cycle signals

King St to Spencer St

No direct link from King St to Batman Park and circuitous route in Batman Park

Existing link is not direct and requires a deviation. Difference in level between King St and Batman Park along proposed route

Construct a ramp from the proposed relocated crossing.

Provide signage and markings to/on the path.

Existing Spencer St crossing

Existing crossing is for pedestrians only and is not in line with the cycle route requiring deviation of route.

Relocate crossing south and provide cycle signals

Banana Alley to Collins St Above

constraints Above

Option 3 provide a fully grade separated Northbank viaduct connecting with Option 1 along the southern rail track and connecting to Collins Street



Table 5.2 Craigieburn corridor key constraints and solutions


North of Glenroy Rd Station car

parking in rail reserve

Car parking is located adjacent to Glenroy Station leaving no available clearance for a shared path to connect to the planned path to Braodmeadows.

Relocate parking to provide adequate clearance.

Glenroy Rd to Oak Pk

At grade crossing on Glenroy Rd

No existing crossing adjacent to the rail level crossing at Glenroy Rd.

Provide a pedestrian and cycle crossing adjacent to the rail level crossing.

Car parking in rail reserve south of Glenroy Rd

Car parking within the rail reserve on the western side of the track leaves no clearance for a shared path.

Relocate parking to provide adequate clearance.

Oak Pk to Devon Rd Conflict with

station access

The bicycle path passes past the entrance to the station which requires careful treatment to ensure safety.

Provide traffic calming and provide a shared plaza outside the entrance to the station

Car parking in rail reserve north of Oak Park

Limited clearance for a shared path. Relocate parking to provide adequate clearance.

No existing access past station entrance

Currently there is an elevated area walled blocked by a wall and vegetation.

Provide an access ramp and undertake clearance works.

At grade crossing on Devon Rd

No existing crossing adjacent to the rail level crossing.


Devon Rd to Gaffney St

Limited clearance

Limited clearance between active lease and rail tracks

Install shared path. Requires exception to VicTrack standards.

At grade crossing on Gaffney St

Only a traffic island as existing crossing adjacent to the rail level crossing.


Gaffney St to Hayes Pde Conflict with

station access

The bicycle path uses access to the station which requires careful treatment to ensure safety.

Provide traffic calming and provide a shared plaza outside the entrance to the station

Limited clearance

Sale of lease at Pascoe Vale Station may provide insufficient clearance for bike path

Liaise with VicTrack and route path via road if cannot be resolved.

Limited clearance through station at bottom of embankment.

Requires works and reduced path width in this section



Table 5.3 Dandenong corridor key constraints and solutions


Caulfield to Grange Rd

No clearance in rail reserve

No clearance on either side of track between Queens Ave and East Caulfield Reserve

Option a1 northern: Connect through East Caulfield Reserve from northern side of tracks.

Option a2 southern: Connect via Lorne St and Derby Cres from southern side of tracks.

Limited clearance

Limited clearance on northern side of track between East Caulfield Reserve and Grange Rd

Option a1 northern: Install shared path on northern side requiring exception to VicTrack standards.

Option a2 southern: Install shared path on southern side using the Lorne St road reserve if necessary.

At grade crossing

No pedestrian crossing facilities adjacent to the rail level crossing.


Grange Rd to Koornang Rd

Limited clearance

Limited clearance on either side of track

Install shared path on southern side of track and use road reserve on adjacent Girdwood Ave if necessary

Cross over using the pedestrian level crossing. Install shared path in northern reserve. Requires exception to VicTrack standards

At grade crossing



Koornang Rd toMurrumbeena Rd

Limited clearance

Limited clearance through Carnegie Rail station.

Install shared path on northern side through beautification lease held by Glen Eira CC.

Limited clearance on either side of track

Install shared path in northern reserve. Requires exception to VicTrack standards.

At grade crossing



Murrumbeena Rd to Poath Rd

No clearance through Murrumbeena Station

Active leases held for land on northern side of reserve and car parking on southern side.

Install shared path on southern side of reserve. Requires relocation of car parking.

Oakleigh No clearance in rail reserve

No clearance between existing sections of shared path between Paddington Rd and Oakleigh shopping centre.

Use road alternative route and incorporate surface treatments and signage.

Huntingdale No clearance in rail reserve

No clearance between existing sections of shared path through the Huntingdale Rail Station car park.

Relocate car parking to install shared path on northern side of reserve.

Clayton No clearance in rail reserve

No clearance between existing sections of shared path through the Clayton Rail Station car park.

Relocate car parking to install shared path on northern side of reserve.




Westall Rd to Queens Ave Limited

clearance in rail reserve

No clearance on northern side of reserve due to rail facility. Limited clearance on southern side adjacent to leased areas.

Install shared path on southern side of reserve. Requires either exception to VicTrack standards or reduce the path width for a short section.

Queens Ave to Springvale Rd

Limited clearance in rail reserve

Limited clearance on southern side adjacent to leased areas.

Install shared path on southern side of reserve. Requires exception to VicTrack standards.

At grade crossing

Existing pedestrian crossing facilities adjacent to the rail level crossing at Springvale Rd.

Upgrade to cycle crossing adjacent to the rail level crossing.

Springvale Rd to Sandown Pk


Limited clearance on southern side south of Springvale Station adjacent to leased areas.

Install shared path on southern side of reserve. Requires exception to VicTrack standards.

Comms cable Comms cable 2.4m from edge in southern rail reserve

Install shared path on southern side of reserve and use Lightwood road reserve if necessary.

Sandown Pk to Corrigan Rd

Conflict with station access

The bicycle path passes past the entrance to the station which requires careful treatment to ensure safety.

Option a: Provide a separated path over the access to the station requiring bridge structure.

Option b: connect shared path with Lightwood Road for this section.

Heatherton Rd to Noble Pk


Limited clearance through car parking areas at Noble Park Station.

Option a: Install shared path on southern side of reserve. Requires exception to VicTrack standards, bridge over pedestrian underpass and relocation of car parking.

Option b: Alternative route on Douglas St.

Noble Pk to Chandler Rd


Pedestrian underpass with no clearance.

Option a: Install bridge for shared path on southern side of reserve.

Option b: alternative route on Douglas St


Narrow road and rail bridges with no clearance.


Option b: alternative route on Douglas St

Chandler Rd to Yarraman


Limited clearance through car parking areas at Yarraman Station.

Option a: Install shared path on southern side of reserve west of the station. Requires relocation of car parking.

Option b: Alternative route on Hanna St.

Yarraman to Jones Rd / Bennett St


Limited clearance through car parking areas at Yarraman Station.

Cross the rail tracks via the Eastlink cycle bridge. Install shared path on the northern side of the rail reserve east of Yarraman Station. Requires relocation of car parking.


Narrow road and rail bridges with no clearance over creek.

Option a: Install bridge for shared path on northern side of reserve.

Option b: alternative route on Railway Pde.





No clearance in the rail reserve through the rail underpass at the Jones Rd / Bennet St intersection.

Route path onto Railway Pde.

Jones Rd / Bennett St to Dandenong


Limited clearance in rail reserve on both sides for the western section with active leases on northern side. No clearance further east due to additional rail tracks at Dandenong.

Continue to route path via Railway Pde and connect to new cycle facilities in Dandenong CAD.

Table 5.4 Werribee corridor key constraints and solutions


Werribee River to Railway Ave Limited

clearance in rail reserve

Limited clearance through Werribee Station with car parking areas to the north and buildings and station access to the south.

Install shared path on the northern side of the rail reserve. Requires exception to VicTrack standards and reduced 2.7m path or relocation of car parking.

At grade crossing

No pedestrian crossing facilities adjacent to the rail level crossing at Railway Ave.

Use crossing facilities at the Railway Ave / roundabout and include surface treatments and signage.

Railway Ave to Derrimut Rd

No clearance in rail reserve Narrow rail bridge over culvert.


Alternative is to route via Railway Avenue for full section to Derrimut Rd.

No clearance in rail reserve Narrow rail bridge over Derrimut Rd


Option b: Construct ramps and route shared path via Derrimut Rd. Realign Derrimut Rd / Princes Hwy pedestrian crossing and install bicycle signals.

Alternative is to route via Railway Avenue for full section between Werribee station and Derrimut Rd.

Vehicle access required

Maintenance and access is required to the rail reserve by vehicles between Railway Ave and Hoppers Crossing.

Install shared path to vehicle loading standards. Derrimut Rd to

Hoppers Crossing

At grade crossing

Crossing facilities at Old Geelong Road are for pedestrians only and are complex and require crossing multiple lanes separately.

Redesign and simplify crossing to include bicycle signals.



Table 5.5 Box Hill to Ringwood corridor key constraints and solutions


Box Hill to Middleborough Rd

Limited / no clearance in rail reserve

No clearance on southern side of reserve through cemetery. Limited clearance on northern side.

Install shared path on northern side of reserve. Requires exception to VicTrack standards and conflict with comms cable Comms cable Comms cable on northern side of

reserve.

Middleborough Rd to Blackburn Rd


Limited clearance on both sides of rail reserve (9m) with grade issues between Laburnum St and Francom St. Requires detailed further investigation.

On road alternative route via Laburnum St, Elmore Walk and South Pde. Include surface treatments and sign posting.


Limited clearance between Francom St and Blackburn Station.

Install shared path on southern side of rail reserve using South Pde road reserve if necessary.

Alternative route via South Pde.


Active beautification leases held by Whtehorse CC on south side of rail reserve and car parking on north side.

Install shared path to the south of Blackburn station using the beautification lease and road reserve on South Pde where possible.

Alternative route via South Pde.

Blackburn Rd to Megamile


Limited horizontal clearance on both sides for this section.

Connect to existing shared path through Moreton Park.

Install new shared path east of Moreton Park on southern side of rail reserve. Requires exceptions to VicTrack standards.

Alternative route via Glen Ebor Ave.

Megamile to Springvale Rd


Limited horizontal clearance on both sides for this section.

Install new shared path east of on southern side of rail reserve. Requires exceptions to VicTrack standards.

Alternative route presents difficulties as is considerably longer via Central Rd and faces high traffic volumes and speeds on Springvale Rd.

Routediversion to pedestrian crossing

Route diversion required to access the existing pedestrian crossing on Springvale Rd north of Nunawading Rail Station.

Upgrade access and crossing to include bicycle signals and include surface treatments and signage.

Springvale Rd to Rooks Rd


Limited / no horizontal clearance on both sides of the reserve east o Springvale Rd due to car parking.

Install new shared path on northern side of rail reserve. Very limited clearance requires exceptions to VicTrack standards and possible relocation of parking.

Alternative route via Station St to the south of the reserve for this section.

At grade crossing

No pedestrian crossing facilities adjacent to the rail level crossing at Rooks Rd.


Rooks Rd to Mitcham Rd


Limited clearance on the northern side and no clearance on south side of reserve due to extra rail track.

Install new shared path on northern side of rail reserve. Requires exceptions to VicTrack standards.




Extensive car parking in the vicinity of Mitcham Station with no clearance on either side of the reserve.

Install new shared path on northern side of rail reserve. Requires exceptions to VicTrack standards and relocation of car parking.

No effective alternative route outside rail reserve

Alternative route for this section is difficult as there is no parallel roads (except the Maroondah Hwy to the north which is not felt appropriate). Alternative must follow diversion via Rooks Rd and the industrial area to the south which is indirect and meandering and may present safety issues involving HGV movements and local turning traffic.

Extensive surface treatment and signage strategy required. This section would be the weak link to the corridor.

Mitcham Rd to Cochrane St


East of Mitcham Rd there is limited clearance in southern rail reserve due to buildings and car parking and no clearance in north due to car parking.

Install new shared path on southern side of rail reserve. Requires exceptions to VicTrack standards.

Limited clearance further east in the southern rail reserve. Install new shared path on southern

side of rail reserve. Use Brunswick Rd reserve if necessary. Comms cable in southern rail

reserve.


Rail bridge over Cochrane St has no horizontal clearance.


Option b: Route shared path via Brunswick Rd and Cochrane St roundabout.

Cochrane St to Heatherdale Rd


Adequate horizontal clearance from rail tracks but section to Heatherdale station is in a cutting with close proximity to an embankment. Comms cable appears to run for the mid section in the southern reserve. A may remain to access these cables/undertake maintenance.

Install/upgrade shared path on southern side of rail reserve. Requires exceptions to VicTrack standards if the access construction track no longer exists. Construct to vehicle standard if access is required.

Heatherdale Rd to New St


Limited clearance in the southern rail reserve and no clearance in the northern reserve due to car parking.

Option a: Install new shared path on southern side of rail reserve. Requires exceptions to VicTrack standards.

Option b: Route shared path via Molan St.

Rail bridge over Eastlink has no horizontal clearance.

Molan St bridge over Eastlink has no additional clearance. Molan St may be heavily trafficked during peak periods.


Option b: Route shared path via Molan St, New St and Albert St.

Between Eastlink and New St limited clearance in the rail reserve on both sides.

Option a: Install new shared path on southern side of rail reserve. Requires exceptions to VicTrack standards.

Option b: Route shared path via Molan St, New St and Albert St




Rail bridge over New St has no horizontal clearance.


Option b: Route shared path via Molan St, New St and Albert St

New St to Ringwood


Active car parking leases held by Maroondah CC in northern reserve.

Install new shared path on southern side of rail reserve. Use Albert St reserve where necessary.

Active leases but should be sufficient clearance between rail tracks and buildings / car park

Install new shared path on southern side of rail reserve. Use Albert St reserve and existing path to Ringwood station where necessary.

5.1 Initial costs

30(1)



Table 5.6 Summary of high level indicative option costs

30(1)

Summary of high level indicative option costsSummary of high level indicative option costs



6. Assessment of options The process has been developed alongside the Guidelines for Cost Benefit (DOT, 2010) the National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia (Australian Transport Council5), the Guide to Project Evaluation (Austroads6) and the Prioritisation of Bicycle Infrastructure Proposals (ABC7, 2005).

A number of improvement options have been considered within the five corridors which have been narrowed down through a strategic merit test approach by considering technical feasibi lity and implementation cost. A range of more “realistic” options have been subjected to a rapid economic appraisal described in the ATC Guideline.

6.1 Multi-criteria assessment

Phase 1 of the assessment was developed to serve as a high level assessment of a range of options for bicycle routes within the corridor (via road, rail, parks, watercourses etc) to assess how the options align with the PBN. A preliminary multi-criteria assessment presents the background data, key opportunities, issues and constraints and examines the feasibility for alternative routes. This informed the selection of a suitable option. Appendix E contains the initial multi-criteria assessment summary for the five corridors.

6.2 Demand forecasting

Demand forecasting of cycling proved a challenge particularly for the rail corridors outside of the centre of Melbourne (Craigieburn, Dandenong, Werribee and Box Hill to Ringwood corridors) due to potentially low existing volumes and limited sources of bicycle count data. For these corridors demand forecasting used a combination of data sources including:

Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel & Activity (VISTA) 2007-08 which provides daily people based origin – destination travel patterns by mode and activity.

ABS Census travel to work data detailing existing travel to work mode splits.

Melbourne Integrated Transport model (MITM) is a strategic transport modelling tool which offers consistency in data and approach across the Metropolitan region. MITM provides travel based growth assumptions and trip distance and time matrices for car and public transport for origin-destination travel patterns into currently and in the future.

It was appreciated that the ABS Census Travel to Work data set was generally preferred by DOT Economics and Transport Modelling. This is due to the large ABS Census data set compared with only a limited VISTA sample, the latter features a statistically insignificant bicycle mode data set.

However, exploratory work found that the ABS Census data was only available at LGA level (due to privacy restrictions) and no further disaggregation could be obtained which would not

5 http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/NGTSM.aspx 6 http://www.austroads.com.au/interest_project_eva.html 7 http://www.austroads.com.au/documents/Bicycle_Infrastructure_Prioritisation.pdf



provide adequate detail or be suitable for use in this study. Also, whilst this data set does not suffer from the problems of limited sample sizes, only travel to work is included. Naturally, shared paths offer travel for a variety of activities which VISTA captures.

Figure 6.1 illustrates the process adopted for developing demand matrices for corridors which have no existing facili ties and limited bicycle count data (including Craigieburn, Dandenong, Werribee and Box Hill to Ringwood corridors) which will be discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Demand forecasting of the Northbank corridor was dealt with using a different process due to the presence of existing on and off road bicycle facilities and some bicycle count data. This process is described in section 6.4.

Figure 6.1 Summary of demand matrix development

6.2.1 Existing 2007 base case matrices

Existing multi-modal people based matrices were developed for each corridor from the VISTA07 data set which was then formatted consistently with the Melbourne Integrated Transport Model (MITM) zone boundaries by origin and destination zone by mode and activity. Appendix F provides additional information from the analysis of the VISTA07 dataset.



The study has identified particular limitations with the application of the VISTA07 data, based upon a smaller sample (which is expanded to total population). Of particular relevance to this study is the small number (and potentially statistically insignificant) of inputs relating to bicycle trips. Bicycle trip data can be expanded to represent the population although this may result in a poorer distribution of origin destination movements.

As such, existing bicycle demand matrices from the expanded VISTA07 dataset have not been used (but car, public transport and walking modes have been adopted due to the improved sample sizes). In order to produce more robust bicycle demand matrices, matrices were derived by factoring the VISTA07 total person trips for the corridor by the ABS Census travel to work by bicycle mode split for the local LGA.

6.2.1.1 Application of network and catchment principals

Catchment principles, consistent with the Draft PBN, were applied to the MITM zones in the five rail corridors as displayed in Table 6.1. Person trips which exceeded these distances were removed from demand calculations.

Table 6.1 Cycling catchments

Land use associated with MITM zones Cycling catchment, km

CBD 15

CAD 10

PAC 5

University campus 5

MAC 5

Other 3

For trip origins and destinations which are not located immediately adjacent to the proposed shared path, cyclists will need to travel a longer distance. The overall corridor catchment was developed based upon land use catchment principles, an assessment of tolerable diversion distances for cyclists who could change route from the existing local road network to the corridor supported by the following research:

the impact of a newly constructed rail trail in Western Sydney found only increases in cyclists living within the inner area (up to 1.5km from the trail) (Merom, Bauman, Vita and Close, 2003)

guidance from the English Highways Agency suggests that diversions should be no more than 10% of the total distance (refer to Draft Background Report).

A matrix of MITM zone to zone applicable movements was developed based upon the above. All other zone to zone movements were removed from demand calculations. The specific corridor catchments are illustrated in the following section. Figure 6.2 illustrates the generation of the corridor catchment boundary with MITM zones and calculation of inclusive zone to zone movements for the Box Hill to Ringwood Corridor.



6.2.2 Forecast demand matrices

The Melbourne Integrated Transport Model (MITM) is a strategic transport modelling tool which offers consistency in data and approach across the Metropolitan region and is consistent with the changing future demographics and land use associated with the ‘Melbourne@5million’ review of Melbourne 2030, particularly relevant to the consideration of growth areas and CADs where 2006 Census and 2007 VISTA data may be out of date and less applicable.

Analysis of the 2006 ‘base’ and 2031 forecast MITM assignments allows comparison with the VISTA07 dataset and establishment of a 2006/07 baseline, as well as analysis of the growth in future trips by total persons, mode and origin-destination zones to 2031.

The 2007 base case matrices were factored by MITM growth factors to generate:

current 2010 base case matrices

forecast 2020 and 2030 base matrices.

6.2.3 Distance and time base matrices

MITM outputs also provided distance and time matrices from the MITM AM Peak model (expanded to a daily profile by transposing and factoring matrices). Table 6.2 displays the matrices extracted from the MITM.

Table 6.2 MITM Outputs

Mode Timescales Demand Distance Travel Time

Car AM Peak, 2006, 2031

Private vehicle trips (persons)

skimmed highway dist

skimmed highway time

Public transport

AM Peak, 2006, 2031

Public transport trips (persons)

(use skimmed highway time)

skimmed SKINTIM1, SKWAITA1, WTIM1 times

Total AM Peak 2006, 2031

Total person trips (pre-assignment)

Skimmed highway distance matrices were applied not only for the car mode, but also public transport, walking and cycling (base without shared path). Table 6.3 shows the assumptions for deriving cycle and walk mode comparable information.

Table 6.3 Assumptions for walking and cycling

Mode Timescales Demand Distance Travel Time

Cycle AM Peak, 2006, 2031

[Difference between total and (car + public transport) ] multiplied by split of walk and cycle

Use skimmed highway dist

15kph average speed

(20kph for shared path options)

Walk AM Peak, 2006, 2031

use skimmed highway time 5kph average speed



Distance and time matrices for car, public transport, walking and cycling were generated for 2010, 2020 and 2030 base scenarios, consistent with the demand matrix format.

6.2.4 Scheme based demand matrices

Given the uncertainty associated with the preliminary estimation of cycling demand, it was felt prudent to apply a range of mode split assumptions to person trips identified to provide a robust range of potential cycling demand. The analysis took account of existing cyclists (using other routes) and the impacts of mode shift and new cyclists.

Mode shift assumptions have been determined through the review of local and international case studies to represent higher levels of potential mode shift consistent, where possible with data from comparable areas, as summarised in Table 6.4. It is worth noting that these assumptions were applied only to cycling catchment trips within the five corridors, not all trips to/from other destinations around Melbourne and beyond. Mode share proportions would be lower if all trips of any distance and origin/destination were considered. Hence, it is possible to have a maximum corridor catchment cycling mode share of 100%.

Research indicates the lack of data held in this area, particularly understanding the before and after impacts of new infrastructure on cycling mode share. It is also particularly difficult to isolate the impact of specific new infrastructure from the wide range of other changes and improvements implemented as part of cycle promotion. For future implementation of cycling infrastructure a recommendation includes the wider collection of before and after data to aid in the planning and feasibility process.

Table 6.4 Growth and mode share assumptions for cycling trips

Assumptions Growth from base / mode share assumptions Description

baseABS Census travel to work by LGA mode split

low

Growth factor of 1.67 of existing cycling trips. Growth assumed as proportional to total all mode trips in corridor catchment.

Assumptions consistent with research on a newly constructed rail trail in Western Sydney. Growth includes promotion of new trail facility (Merom, Bauman, Vita and Close, 2003).

medium

Cycling mode share 5% of all trips. Additional cycling trips proportional to total all mode trips in corridor catchment.

Consistent with cycle to work journey origins from inner suburbs (Moreland Coburg, Boroondara Hawthorn, Port Phillip, Yarra Richmond) and mode share to the City of Melbourne 2006 data. VicRoads and DOT suggest this should be realistic and achievable for mid suburban areas.

high


Consistent with cycle to work journey origins from very successful inner suburbs (Moreland Brunswick, Yarra North, Darebin Northcote) and mode share to the City of Melbourne 2006 data. Since 2006, there has been significant growth recorded. VicRoads and DOT suggest this should be realistic and achievable for inner city areas.



Assumptions Growth from base / mode share assumptions Description

very high


Connect2Greenways in the UK set a 50% mode share (27% cycling) aim for sustainable travel including cycling and walking. For cycling 21% achieved through changing culture and 6% through shorter trips. VicRoads and DOT suggest 20% mode share should be realistic and achievable for Melbourne CBD.

Scheme based demand matrices were developed for 2010, 2020 and 2030 to incorporate different mode share assumptions described above:

additional cycling trips derived through growth and/or increased mode share were calculated as the difference between the base mode share and the mode share assumptions above

matrices of additional cycling trips were proportional to the overall mode share and origin destination movements of all cycling catchment trips in the corridor

mode shift removed trips from the other modes in place of the new cycling trips

trips removed from the other modes are also proportional to the overall mode share of al l trips in the corridor.

6.2.5 Scheme based distance and time matrices

Trips based between locations immediately adjacent to the rail corridor are unlikely to experience increased travel distance via the shared path, indeed some journeys may involve shorter distances. However, trips based between locations which are some distance from the shared path corridor are likely to experience increased travel distances.

Scheme based matrices were derived by the following assumptions:

distance matrices were generated for cycle trips which access the shared path. Distances were calculated via GIS analysis which calculates the approximate distance

It was assumed that cycling average speeds increase with the shared path as to travel via the shared path involves fewer road crossings and delays and allows more rapid progression without the friction of adjacent traffic. Thus scheme based travel time matrices for cycling are based upon an average speed of 20kph

cars, public transport and walking modes time and distance matrices remain consistent with those in the base.

6.3 Analysis of existing VISTA07 demands

Appendix F displays the existing daily person trips (by mode and purpose) for the four outer corridors extracted from the VISTA07 dataset which may use the proposed cycle path if it were available.



Future demand and CBA inputs for the four outer corridors are located in Appendix F.

6.3.1 Craigieburn corridor

Glenroy is the most significant trip attraction / destination within the corridor:

approx 13,000 (41% of the corridor total) daily person trips travelling to or from the MAC and immediate area

the majority of trips are made by car (approx 7,800 or 60% of trips), the remaining trips are via walking (2,800 or 21%) and public transport (2,400 trips or 18% of trips). No existing cycling trips are recorded

approx half of trips (6,400 or 49%) made fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category, 2,400 (18%) for school, 2,200 (17%) for work and 2,000 (15%) for shopping.

Oak Park is also a significant trip attraction / destination:

approx 9,200 (29% of the corridor total) daily person trips travelling to or from the area

216 cycling trips are recorded (2% of trips) and are for travel to work in Melbourne CBD8

the majority of trips are made by car (approx 5,600 or 61% of trips), the remaining trips are via walking (1,700 or 19%) and public transport (1,600 or 17%).

approx half of trips (5,000 or 54%) made fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category, 1,800 (20%) for school, 1,300 (14%) for shopping and only 1,100 (12%) for work.

Within 15km catchment Melbourne CBD is a significant trip attraction / destination:

approx 4,700 (15% of the corridor total) daily person trips travelling to or from the CBD

the majority of trips are made by public transport (approx 2,800 or 59% of trips), the remaining trips are via car (1,900 or 41%). No existing cycling or walking trips are recorded

approx half of trips (2,400 or 50%) are for work, 1,500 (32%) made fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category, 700 (15%) for school and only , 100 (3%) for shopping.

Existing demand analysis supports the development of shared use paths within the rail reserve in the Craigieburn corridor to service Glenroy MAC and Oak Park, but importantly connecting with existing/proposed PBN to Melbourne CBD to the south and Broadmeadows CAD to the north.

6.3.2 Dandenong existing levels of demand

Dandenong is the most significant trip attraction / destination within the corridor:

8It would be expected that these trips would be recorded in both Oak Park and Melbourne City. However, the trips are recorded as one way only, presumably due to limitations of expanding out the small VISTA07 dataset sample.

Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network (Parsons Brinckerhoff) p01-50

News & Politics

Transcript of Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network (Parsons Brinckerhoff) p01-50