Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network (Parsons Brinckerhoff) p51-80

Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network
Final Report

approx 8,500 (15% of the corridor total) daily person trips travelling to or from the CAD
and immediate area

the majority of trips are made by car (approx 7,600 or 90% of trips), the remaining trips
are via public transport (900 trips or 10% of trips). No existing cycling trips are recorded

approx half of trips (4,200 or 50%) made fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category, 2,700
(32%) for work, 1,300 (15%) for shopping and 200 (3%) for school.

Carnegie is a significant trip attraction / destination:

approx 7,200 (13% of the corridor total) daily person trips travelling to or from the MAC
and immediate area

100 cycling trips are recorded (1% of trips to Carnegie) and f all into the ‘other’ trip
purpose category

a broader balance of mode share exists; 3,600 trips (50%) are made by car, 1,800 trips
(25%) are via public transport, 1,700 trips (23%) are walking

shopping is a primary purpose for trips with approx 2,800 or (39%), 2,000 (or 28%) fall
into the ‘other’ trip purpose category, 1,300 (19%) for work, 1,000 (14%) for school.

Noble Park is a significant trip attraction / destination:

approx 6,600 (12% of the corridor total) daily person trips travelling to or from the area

are via public transport (600 trips or 8% of total trips) and walking (400 or 7% of total
trips). No existing cycling trips are recorded

approx half of trips (3,200 or 48%) made fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category, 1,900
(29%) for work, 1,500 (23%) for shopping and no school trips.

Caulfield Major Activity Centre and Monash Campus is a significant trip attraction /
destination:


a broader balance of mode share exists; 3,600 trips (62%) are made by car, 1,800 trips
(30%) walking and 400 (7%) via public transport. No existing cycling trips are recorded

the majority of trips (3,700 or 65%) made fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category,
which could include university functions, 1,000 (17%) for shopping, 500 (10% f or school
and 500 (8%) for work.

Sandown Park is a significant trip attraction / destination:


the vast majority of trips are made by car (approx 4,400 or 86% of trips), the remaining
trips are walking (500 or 10% of total trips) and via public transport (200 trips or 4% of
total trips) and. No existing cycling trips are recorded

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2112902A-RPT-003-B-CN Page 35

Final Report

almost half of trips (2,200 or 42%) made fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category, 1,500
(29%) for shopping, 1,200 (24%) for work and 200 (4%) for school trips.

Springvale is a significant trip attraction / destination:


are walking (500 or 11% of total trips) and via public transport (500 trips or 10% of total
trips) and. No existing cycling trips are recorded

shopping forms a significant proportion of trips (3,500 or 44%) and 2000 trips (41%) fall
into the ‘other’ trip purpose category with a small number of trips made for school (400
trips or 9%) and work (300 trips or 6%).

The CBD is a significant trip attraction / destination:


the majority of trips are made via public transport (approx 2,600 trips or 79%) and a
small proportion of trips are made by car (700 trips and 22%)

the majority of trips are undertaken for work (2,300 trips or 70%), 600 trips (18%) fall
into the ‘other’ trip purpose category and a small number of trips are made for school
(200 trips or 6%) and shopping (200 trips or 6%).

Existing demand analysis supports the development of shared use paths within the rail
reserve in the Dandenong corridor between Caulfield and Hughesdale in the north and
Westall to Dandenong in the south east to connect to existing path between Hughesdale and
Westall. The highest levels of existing person trips are found around Caulfield and Carnegie
in the north and Springvale to Dandenong (including Noble Park and Sandown Park) to the
south west. The corridor will also aid access to the city centre.

6.3.3 Box Hill to Ringwood existing levels of demand Box Hill to
Ringwood

Nunawading benefits from its central location within the corridor, f alling within the potential
catchments of Box Hill and Ringwood at either end. As such, Nunawading illustrates the
greatest volumes of person trips and is the most significant trip attraction / destination within
the corridor:


100 cycling trips are recorded (1% of trips) for shopping purposes

are via public transport (1,200 trips or 9% of trips), walking (700 or 5% of trips)

approx one third of trips (4,900 or 38%) are for shopping, one third of trips made fall into
the ‘other’ trip purpose category (4,600 or 35%), a smaller number of trips are for work
(2,100 or 16%) and for school (1,400 or 11%).

Laburnum and Blackburn are significant trip attractions / destinations within the corridor:


Final Report


100 cycling trips are recorded (1% of trips) and fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category

are via public transport (1,300 trips or 15% of trips) and walking (1,100 or 13% of trips)

the majority of trips made fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category (4,200 or 49%),
approx one third of trips (3,000 or 35%) are f or shopping, a smaller number of trips are
for work (800 or 9%) and school (600 or 7%).

Box Hill CAD and immediate area is a significant trip attraction / destination at the western
end of the corridor:


100 cycling trips are recorded (1% of trips) for work purposes

are via public transport (1,100 trips or 14% of trips) and walking (1,100 or 14% of trips)

smaller numbers of trips are recorded for shopping (1,400 or 17%) and work (1,300 or
17%) and school (600 or 8%).

At the eastern end of the corridor Ringwood CAD and immediate area is a significant trip
attraction / destination:


almost all trips are made by car (approx 4,600 or 91% of trips), a small number of the
remaining trips are walking based (500 or 9% of trips). No existing cycling or public
transport trips are recorded

considerable numbers of trips are recorded for shopping (1,800 or 36%) and small
numbers of trips exist for work (500 or 9%) and school (200 or 3%).

This analysis supports the development of a bicycle path particularly between Box Hill in the
west of the corridor to Nunawading. This section forms approximately half of the spatial
extent of the corridor although features 76% of existing trips within the cycling catchment
between Box Hill and Ringwood.

6.3.4 Werribee existing levels of demand

At the western end of the corridor, Werribee is the most significant trip attraction / destination
within the corridor:


are walking (1,100 or 8% of trips) and via public transport (300 trips or 2% of trips). No
existing cycling trips are recorded


Final Report

almost one half of trips (5,500 or 42%) fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category, under
one third of trips are for shopping (3,600 or 28%), a smaller number of trips are for work
(2,500 or 20%) and for school (1,400 or 10%).

The 2007 existing VISTA dataset suggests that Hoppers Crossing is a far less significant trip
attraction / destination within the corridor:


all of these trips are made by car. No existing cycling, walking or public transport trips
are recorded

almost one half of trips (900 or 43%) fall into the ‘other’ trip purpose category, under one
third of trips are for shopping (800 or 39%) and a smaller number of trips are for work
(400 or 18%). No existing school trips are recorded.

The Werribee corridor proves an interesting case study and is quite different from the other
corridors in that the growth area has been rapidly developing since the 2006 Census / 2007
VISTA surv eys were undertaken. Hence, travel patterns in the area will be experiencing
rapid change. The application of MITM in forecasting future demand scenarios is likely to be
particularly important in this corridor.

6.4 Northbank corridor demand forecasting

6.4.1 Existing levels of demand

Demand forecasting of the Northbank corridor was dealt with diff erently to the other corridors
described abov e 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 lead to the assumption that Northbank
options will supplement existing bicycle facilities 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.

Table 6.5 displays the 2010 weekday cycling trips for the Northbank corridor.

Table 6.5 2010 total two way weekday cycling trips – Northbank corridor

Existing E-W Spencer St- King St- Queensbridge Rd-
Total
corridor King St Queensbridge Rd Swanston St
Collins St 1536 1559 1338 4434
Flinders St 500 980 1725 3205
Northbank 0 0 1686 1686


Final Report

Existing E-W Spencer St- King St- Queensbridge Rd-
Total
corridor King St Queensbridge Rd Swanston St
Southbank 3218 3218 4836 11271
Total 5254 5758 9585 20597

6.4.2 Future demand matrices

The scheme base demand forecasting has been dealt with in a consistent manner to the
other four corridors. Scenarios dev eloped provided a robust range of potential cycling
demand:

forecast demand for 2020 and 2030

future base demand (including historic levels of growth in trips and mode shift)

medium and high growth mode split assumptions (5% and 10% of person trips in the
CBD, Docklands and Southbank)

assumptions that the Northbank options carry 100%, 75% and 50% of corridor bicycle
trips.

Note that for the Northbank corridor only medium and high growth mode splits apply to total
trips to and from the CBD (of any distance in MITM) and not only to cycling catchment trips.
Hence these mode split assumptions are relatively higher than the other four corridors..






Final Report

8. Review of design and planning
considerations
This study has identified the importance of good design in developing and implementing
successful shared paths in rail corridors. Consultation highlights the importance of identif ying
and understanding key issues which may ultimately prevent path development early on.

The following section describes the design issues which this study has encountered and
should be considered for future work.

8.1 New at grade level crossings prohibited
The construction of new at grade rail crossings is prohibited in legislation unless there is an
existing crossing point (i.e. roadway or existing pedestrian crossing). This legislation creates
a significant issue associated with the development of bicycle paths along rail corridors:

availability of land within, or adjacent to, the rail corridor can vary considerably between
sections and also on either side of the rail tracks. The development of a continuous
bicycle path is likely to require multiple rail crossings.

connectivity with the local area such as key destinations and attractions, residential
areas, P BN may be significantly restricted without adequate at grade lev el crossings

without effectiv e connectivity bicycle patronage on the bicycle path may be restricted

grade separated solutions can be considered where existing rail crossings are not
available to provide a continuous path and local connectivity. Howev er, this is likely to
be an very expensive option

the problems described above may weaken the business case, and hence reduce the
likelihood of the path securing funding for dev elopment.

8.2 Careful design of access in vicinity of rail stations
It is clear that shared path access in the vicinity of rail stations can cause problems due to
the significant pressures on the land for car parking, rail operational buildings, commercial
premises and high density housing.

Available options are constrained by VicTrack guidance which states that pathways are not
to terminate at or pass through commuter car parks. However, as all rail reserv e land is often
allocated for car parking this leaves no horizontal clearance available on either side of the
rail reserv e for shared paths.

Where clearance can be identified there is a vital need to consider design carefully due to
conflicts between fast moving pedestrians, cyclists, traffic, bus interchanges etc. Advice
should be sought from urban planners to achieve a desirable outcome f or 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


Final Report

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.

If these issues are not considered initially rail station design can suffer. For example, through
consultation it was identified that the redesign of Westall Rail Station to develop a car park,
station upgrade, ex tra track, new platform and rail storage yard the bike path was routed
through subdiv ision land leaving insufficient horizontal clearance between a new
dev elopment. This has now been corrected but required additional work.

Shared path proposals in New Zealand have been a little easier to implement around rail
stations which is due to more flexible path design requirements (Waitakere City Council,
2009, pp4):

minimum horizontal clearance of 5.25m from the centre of the rail track

horizontal clearance is reduced if the shared path is elevated above the level of the rail
tracks

for electrification of the rail line the overhead mast centre line is a maximum of 3.3m
from the centre line of the nearest track.

Where possible, the shared path has been routed behind the platforms to increase the
separation between cyclists and pedestrians on station platforms. However, some stations
do not hav e adequate space behind the platforms to direct the path around the station. In
these circumstances the path would be diverted onto local roads bypassing the stations.

Incorporating the shared path closer to the rail alignment allowed the path to run between
station car parking and the rail track and in some places the shared path runs on a
designated bicycle lane through the car park.

8.3 Other bridge / underpass infrastructure requirements
Access via existing bridges and underpasses within the rail corridors crossing the road
network, water courses and other f eatures have been consistently identified as part of the
consultation process as potential critical constraints in bicycle path connectiv ity and scheme
dev elopment. Sufficient horizontal and vertical clearances are required for the safe current
and future rail network operation but where insufficient clearance is available and/or
engineering solutions cannot be implemented such existing infrastructure may terminate the
shared path development.

Engineering solutions generally prove expensive, reducing the cost eff ectiveness of the
scheme and likelihood of the path securing funding for dev elopment. Analysis has identified
limited economic returns associated with bridges and underpasses at locations other than
road intersections. Caution should be taken when dealing with such infrastructure to ensure
the high costs of the scheme maintain economic returns.

8.4 Solutions and remedial measures for crossing facilities
Various remedial measures hav e been developed in an attempt to solv e the identified safety
problems of segregated cycle facilities:


Final Report

raising the cycle path onto a speed ramp type structure where it crosses side roads

road markings such as “shark s teeth”

road treatments using red, green or blue coloured tarmac

efforts to "traffic calm" the bicycle traffic by introducing tight curves or bends to slow the
cyclists down as they near a junction.

17
Green Lights for Bikes describes how road authorities can utilise a range of techniques to
provide for bike riders at traffic lights, including:

provision of traffic signals for bike riders and walkers using a local street (Napier St) to
cross the busy Johnston St. The new lights saw rider numbers increase 50% in the first
six months of use

bike signals give bicycle riders more confidence when they should cross an intersection
and they have enough time to cross. Our study has assumed the upgrade / inclusion of
bike signals to road intersections identified

two sets of inductive loops have been used to detect bike riders approaching the signals
on the Railway Cycleway in New Zealand. It is recommended that inductive loops be
considered for inclusion as potentially providing the optimum at grade crossing facilities

early bike rider clearance at the end of green has prov en v ery successful at the
intersection of Napier St and Johnston St in Fitzroy. For this study, early clearance
could be considered where routes are on-road

for bike riders travelling along Murrumbeena Rd (crossing Princes Hwy), the intersection
is very wide and as such it takes bike riders longer to get across than motor vehicles.
VicRoads hav e installed three aspect cyclist lanterns which turn yellow before the motor
vehicle lantern to avoid bike riders becoming trapped in the intersection.

Section 7.1 describes the safety impacts associated with off road paths and road intersection
crossings. CBA analysis undertaken for this study suggests more positive economic returns
that where bridges / underpasses are provide grade separation and are required for crossing
road intersections and such infrastructure should be considered where possible.

It is clear that road and/or rail crossings 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.
Options without intersection crossing facilities or grade separated crossing facilities are not
recommended and findings strongly encourage the development of grade separated
crossing facilities where necessary on shared paths, particularly at key road intersections.
The findings also present some key challenges in securing the approval and development of
shared paths, which include the high infrastructure costs and technical engineering solutions
associated with grade separated f acilities, as well as acceptance of the local community of
intruding structures.

Recently, there has been increased interest in 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.

17
Bicycle Victoria and SKM http://www.bv.com.au/bike-futures/41329


Final Report

Indeed, within the five corridors studied Middleborough Road and Springv ale Road level
crossings, both on the Box Hill to Ringwood corridor, have recently been grade separated.
Middleborough Road has been upgraded to include a shared path underpass under the new
road bridge to provide grade separated access for shared path users.

The new grade separated rail underpass at Springvale Road and Nunawading rail station
does not include any residual clearance for a shared path, and as such it is likely a shared
path must cross Springvale Road via the new ov erpass if other options cannot be
established. Existing pedestrian crossing facilities exist at the intersection to the north,
involv ing a detour for shared path users, and possibly encouraging careless crossing
behaviour to avoid the detour. The introduction of a dedicated bicycle crossing facility is
unlikely to be popular in this location due to the higher (and unimpeded) traffic flows and
speeds on Springv ale Road.

8.5 Provision of cycle routes along local roads
Integration with the PBN and local destinations and attractions is essential to dev eloping an
effectiv e bicycle network. Where constraints are encountered it may be necessary to divert
the alignment from the rail corridor to the local road network.

When a cycle route is forced to use a local road, several measures can be introduced to
minimise the risk to cyclists when mixing with traffic using the road. In the first instance it is
recommended to reduce the speed limit of the road to at least 50 kph. In addition it is
recommended that traffic calming measures be introduced to introduce a level of self
enforcement of the speed limit as relying on police enforcement would be ineffective.

To maintain the comfort of cyclists speed cushions are used as opposed to speed humps.
Cyclists are easily able to bypass these measures. Negotiating speed humps on a bicycle
can be dangerous and uncomfortable for the rider.

An alternativ e to speed cushions is sinusoidal shaped speed humps. The gentle transition in
slope improves cyclists comfort and safety while still providing a full width traffic calming
device.

Figure 8-1 Sinusoidal speed hump profile 18

Secondly clear markings should be applied to the road to alert both cycle riders and vehicle
drivers that the road forms part of a cycle route. These markings can either, if room allows,
consist of an advisory cycle lane, or prominent cycle symbols applied to the carriageway
surface. At junctions it is recommended that an advisory cycle land is applied along with
green coloured surfacing.

18
http://www.binnie.com/traffic/tc_devices/tc_speedhump.htm


Final Report

Where road widths are too narrow to accommodate a cycle lane it is recommended that
cycle symbols are placed in the centre of the lane to encourage cycle riders to take their
space on the highway rather than getting f orced to the side of the road. Although not an
Australian Standard this approach has been used to great eff ect in Europe.

8.6 Cycle route signage
A very important step of implementing a cycle route is to provide adequate signage along the
route to inform unfamiliar and first time users as to the direction of the route. This is
especially important where the route deviates from a dedicated shared or segregated cycle
facility and onto the road network. In all cases signs should be designed and sited to be
intuitively visible to cyclists.

Signs should be constructed to the relevant standards and should include distances to give
cyclists information on which route to take and the likely distance to be covered. In addition
clear markings should be applied to the carriageway to:

reassure cycle riders that they are travelling on a cycle route

remind other road users that cycle riders may be encountered.

8.7 Timescales for development
Consultation with stakeholders has suggested:

due to the multiple stakeholders and complexities in design of shared paths in the rail
reserve the planning /design/ approvals process for shared paths in rail reserves can
take in excess of one year, depending upon the circumstances

the realistic minimum viable lifespan of a shared path is approx 8 years. Beyond this
point significant additional maintenance is required to the facility

land in the rail reserve is ‘borrowed’ under license from VicTrack. Licenses are generally
established for a minimum of 5 years, commonly f or 10 years and occasionally for
longer periods.

Therefore, there is a strong case to develop shared paths on a temporary basis if it can be
identified with stakeholders that changes to rail operation (and requirement for the remaining
rail reserv e) are unlikely to occur in the next 10 years or more. The available land can be
effectiv ely 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.

8.8 Longer term considerations
Melbourne continues to grow significantly increasing travel demand. In order to ensure
growth is as sustainable as possible, a greater pressure is placed on public transport as the
principle means of transporting people to jobs and other activities, where possible. The
resulting situation presents a likely need to implement additional rail tracks for passenger


Final Report

and/or freight services which will further constrain land available within the rail reserv e
available for shared paths. Plans for additional rail tracks for the rail corridors in the study
include:

Pascoe Vale to Glenroy - will require two extra tracks (extra property/land adjacent to
the corridor will need to be purchased). DOT has a drawing to illustrate

Box Hill to Ringwood - may still want a third track at a later date although current policy
is to increase capacity. Third track has been designed at DOT

Lav erton to Werribee - has plans for seven tracks and at least some are likely to be
built. DOT has plans for the seventh line

Northbank - there are plans which detail two extra tracks on the south side of the
corridor. On the north side additional options opens in 2026

Dandenong corridor - the DOT is undertaking rail corridor planning work next year.
There is an opportunity to explore integration with a bike path alongside this process.

Whilst walking and cycling as sustainable modes hav e benefits which will only be increased
in the future as the population increases and demand for private vehicle and public transport
increases, for the benefit of the wider transport system it is imperative that rail expansion be
enabled where necessary. Successful rail corridors are able to transport large volumes of
people longer distances than cycling as a mode can deliver. Rail freight plays a vital role in
the efficiency of the Australian economy, reducing road freight volumes and the impact on
local communities.

In the future there will also be increases in road transport (such as cars, bus and commercial
vehicle), congestion around stations (particularly activity centres) and operation of lev el
crossings (requiring further grade separation).

Policies to increase density around stations and increase integration through transport
interchange can create other issues which need to be managed carefully:

increased shared mixed use such as Southbank

environments where people are running for trains and paying little attention to
pedestrian crossings

additional mix of bicycles in these locations can exacerbate the problems.

Longer term, consultation with stakeholders has identified an interest in continuing to ex pand
the grade separation of rail lev el 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
dev elopment of the rail network. Implementation of extra tracks to service f uture travel
demands are being considered for most, if not all, metro rail corridors. This puts the available
land in rail reserv es under increasing pressure and poses difficulties to the long term
establishment of shared paths within rail corridors if land is to be taken back into rail
operations. Howev er, should there be increasing levels of rail grade separation implemented
in the future it may be possible to integrate these dev elopments with a two level rail corridor;
rail operations running below a light weight cantilever shared path structure above. W hilst


Final Report

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.

8.9 Land acquisition
In the more distant future there may be further opportunities to develop synergies with the
dev elopment of the rail network. Implementation of extra tracks to service f uture travel
demands are being considered for most, if not all, metro rail corridors. This puts the available
land in rail reserv es under increasing pressure and poses difficulties to the long term
establishment of shared paths within rail corridors if land is to be taken back into rail
operations. Howev er, should there be increasing levels of rail grade separation implemented
in the future it may be possible to integrate these dev elopments with a two level rail corridor;
rail operations running below a light weight cantilever shared path structure above. W hilst
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.

The DOT PTD have suggested they have a drawing which identifies 2 critical locations
where there is a narrow rail reserve. As 2 extra tracks are required there is a need to buy
extra property/land adjacent to the corridor. They suggest that purchasing properties at the
critical locations may allow the DOT to agree to the bike path development but if land cannot
be purchased the DOT may have to reject the application.

Sustrans in the UK have 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.

It is recommended that this approach is considered for application in Melbourne as part of a
longer term strategy for viable development of the transport system.






Final Report

10. Conclusions and recommendations

10.1 Opportunities for shared path development
Consultation with the numerous stakeholders and background research clearly suggests that
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 approv als process can be time
and resource consuming.

This study has found there is a strong case to dev elop 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 ev er possible.

Longer term, consultation with stakeholders has identified an interest in continuing to ex pand
the grade separation of rail lev el 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.

There may be further opportunities to develop synergies with the dev elopment of the rail
network. Implementation of extra tracks to service future travel demands are being
considered for most, if not all, metro rail corridors. This puts the available land in rail
reserves under increasing pressure and poses difficulties to the long term establishment of
shared paths within rail corridors if land is to be taken back into rail operations. However,
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 cantilev er shared path structure abov e. 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.

10.2 Assessment framework


30(1)





Final Report

10.4 Design requirements
This study has identified the importance of good design in developing and implementing
successful shared paths in rail corridors. The study has clearly shown that 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.

Eff ective and safe design in the vicinity of rail stations also presents challenges. Advice
should be sought from urban planners to achieve a desirable outcome f or 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.


Final Report

10.5 Land acquisition
Sustrans in the UK have 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. It is recommended that this approach is considered for application in
Melbourne as part of a longer term strategy for viable dev elopment of the PBN and wider
transport system.

10.6 Funding

10.7 Wider promotion of cycling and synergies with other projects
It is important to remember that the success of shared paths in rail corridors, or anywhere
else, is limited without a broader strategies and interventions based on the promotion and
uptake of cycling. For example the Cycling in NSW – What the data tells us (PB, 2008, pp46)
finds that “a strategy that coordinates investment in connected bicycle infrastructure, bike
parking and encouragement programs – coupled with growing community interest in clean
and healthy personal transport – would off er the best prospect of achieving this increased
bicycle mode share”.


30(1)

Final Report

11. References
Austroads (2009) Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths.

Austroads (2005) Australian National Cycling Strategy 2005-2010.

Austroads [online]. Available at: http://www.austroads.com.au/interest_project_eva.html

Austroads [online]. Available at:
http://www.austroads.com.au/documents/Bicycle_Infrastructure_Prioritisation.pdf

Bicycle Victoria frequent crash locations [online]. Available at: http://www.bv.com.au/bike-
futures/12211/

Bicycle Victoria, SKM (2010) Green Lights f or Bikes [online]. Available at:
http://www.bv.com.au/bike-futures/41329

City of Greater Dandenong (2008) Springvale Structure Plan.

City of Greater Dandenong (2006) Revitalising Central Dandenong Urban Masterplan.

City of Greater Dandenong (2002) Bicycle Plan.

City of Melbourne (2008) Future Melbourne 2008.

City of Melbourne (2008) Melbourne Bicycle Account – Cycling Census 2008 [online].
Available at:
http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ParksandActivities/WalkingCyclingandSkating/Pages/Melb
ourneBicycleAccount.aspx

City of Melbourne (2007) Bicycle Plan 2007-2011.

City of Surrey Traffic calming devices [online]. Available at:
http://www.binnie.com/traffic/tc_devices/tc_speedhump.htm

Cycle Touring Club [online]. Available at:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0603_SSC_RS-Bill-Commons-Cttee_brf.doc

http://www.cemt.org/pub/pubpdf/00VulnerE.pdf

Department of Infrastructure (2002) Melbourne 2030.

Department of Planning and Community Development (2008) Melbourne @ 5 Million.

Department of Transport (2010) Guidelines for Cost Benefit Analysis, pp37.

Department of Transport (2009) Victorian Cycling Strategy.

Department of Transport (2009) Towards an Integrated and S ustainable Transport Future.

Department of Transport (2008) Victorian Transport Plan.

Department of Transport (2008) Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and
Development.


Final Report

Department of Transport Engineering Standards Victorian Rail Industry Operators Group
Standards (VRIOGS) 0001-2005 – Structural Gauge Envelopes [online]. Available at:
http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/Home.nsf /AllDocs/01924862252B11F9CA25765
4001BDD87?OpenDocument (web site accessed 5 May 2010)

Government of Western Australia Department of Transport (1996) Perth Bicycle
Network Plan.

Highways Agency (2005) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol 5 S2 P4 Provision for
Non Motorised Users.

Kingston City Council (2009) 2009-2013 Cycling and Walking Plan.

Maroondah City Council (2008) Ringwood Town Centre South Project Precinct Plan
Planning Report.

Moreland City Council (2008) Glenroy Structure Plan.

Moreland City Council (2000) Bike Plan.

Moreland City Council (1998) Integrated Transport Strategy.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [online]. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/4/2103492.pdf

Räsänen (1995) Traffic Safety Committee of Insurance Companies.

VicRoads (2010) Draft PBN Report, pp 1.

VicRoads (2009) Draft Principal Bicycle Network Review.

VicRoads Cycle Notes [online]. Available at:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Moreinfoandservices/Bicycles/StrategicDirectionsForC
ycling/BicycleFacilityDesignStandards.htm

VicTrack (2010) Shared User Pathways and Rail Trails on VicTrack Land – Draft Design
Guidelines f or Applicants.

VicTrack (2009) Shared User Pathways on VicTrack Land.

Wegman, Dijkstra (1992) Still more bikes behind the dikes, CROW. Originally presented to Roads and
Traffic 2000 conference, Berlin (1988).

Whitehorse City Council (2008) Nunawading MegaMile Structure Plan.

Whitehorse City Council (2007) Integrated Transport Strategy.

Whitehorse City Council (2007) Bicycle Strategy.

Whitehorse City Council (2004) Box Hill Precinct Structure Plan.

Wikipedia [online]. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities


APPENDIX

A

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION





APPENDIX

B

RAIL RESERVE PLANS

PAC

MAC

Melb

 Mon

 Werr

Train

PBN Supp
Off R
Off R
On R
On R
Flinders St Station Wide
Other
PBN
Buffer Line
<all o
BufferDist
100
11.6
5.8

PAC

MAC

Melb

 Mon

 Werr

Train

PBN Supp
Off R
Off R
On R
On R
Wide
Other
PBN
Buffer Line
<all o
BufferDist
100
11.6
5.8

PAC

MAC

Melb

 Mon

 Werr

Train

PBN Supp
Off R
Off R
On R
On R
Wide
Other
PBN
Buffer Line
<all o
BufferDist
100
11.6
5.8

Glenroy Station

Glenroy MAC

PAC

MAC

Melb

 Mon

 Werr

Train
PBN Supp
Off R
Off R
On R
On R
Wide
Other
PBN
Buffer Line
<all o
BufferDist
100
11.6
5.8

PAC

MAC

Melb

 Mon

 Werr

Train

PBN Supp
Off R
Off R
On R
On R
Wide
Other
Oak Park Station
PBN
Buffer Line
<all o
BufferDist
100
11.6
5.8

PAC

MAC

Melb

 Mon

 Werr

Train

PBN Supp
Off R
Off R
On R
On R
Wide
Other
PBN
Buffer Line
<all o
BufferDist
100
11.6
5.8

Pascoe Vale Station

Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network (Parsons Brinckerhoff) p51-80

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen (20)

Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network (Parsons Brinckerhoff) p51-80