Fay Patterson

1. Achieving Exemplary Walking and Cycling Outcomes
in a Major Road Project
Fay Patterson

2. As if the project were a walking/ cycling/ PT
plan for the precinct:
comprehensive, convenient, safe walking and
cycling networks with a focus on amenity
AITPM Excellence Award for Transport Planning
(2015); Janet Brash Memorial Award as the most
outstanding of the three excellence award
winners
‘Exemplary’

3. • Upgrading South Road as part of a 78km long, high-
speed, non-stop transport corridor
• Darlington precinct: one of the most complex sections of
the corridor ($625 million project in itself)
• Obvious potential for severance impacts
• NB ‘Value review’ after this project was completed!
 How and why the transport planning achieved
exemplary results

4. REQUIRED:
DESIRABLE:
etc
walking
cycling
etc

5. Strategic context: freight (and cars)

6. Strategic context: active transport

7. Federal, state and local governments all strongly support
infrastructure that encourages walking, cycling and public
transport over freight (which is above private car use)
• These are the governments’ expressed desires,
intentions and priorities, and the community's
expectation
Transport planning:
• walking and cycling are not modes to be considered
after the traffic elements are finalised
• a holistic, societal view of the infrastructure needed
for the precinct to function well

8. Relevant Technical Standards
• Often: itemise a selection from design standards
 Applying standards after planning has occurred won’t
create a good environment for walking/ cycling
5 key attributes for walking:
• connected – access to key
destinations
• comfortable – width, surfaces, DDA
• convenient – crossings easy, safe,
no delay
• convivial – interesting, clean,
free from threat
• conspicuous – clearly signed,
published in local maps
6 key needs of cyclists:
• space to ride
• a smooth surface, free of
debris
• speed maintenance
• appropriate sight lines to
the path surface
• connectivity
• information

9. • Austroads' Guide Information for Pedestrian Facilities
• Research: how to encourage more cycling, with
reference to Austroads guidelines
• Cross-sector factors: design quality and wider
economic benefit of transport projects; pedestrians
and cyclists as consumers
 Compatible with future-proofing (e.g. modelling)
 Challenged perceptions, opened horizons re:
standards and guidelines
Emerging Technical Agenda

10. Existing Conditions
Wide footpaths, DDA compliant ramps, crossings at signals,
bike lanes, good bus stop spacing, modern bus shelters…
 Technical standards can be met and even exceeded,
but resulting conditions are still not good or safe
Not enough that facilities exist – user experience?
Old, retro-fitted, discontinuous, disconnected, inconvenient,
unpleasant, unmaintained, impinged upon (+ unsafe)
• crossing arterial roads a particular issue
• max. delays 120-143s ≈ 140-170m (cycle), 500-600m (walk)
• cycle crashes on Sturt Road, despite low levels of use
• all ped crashes except 1: crossing without signal control,
within 100m of a bus stop

11. Future Conditions
Ped projections (Uni, TAFE):
• 4,200 crossing South Rd (cf 1,700 now)
• 820 more crossing Sturt Rd east of Main South Rd
• 3,000 crossing Sturt Rd west of Main South Rd

12. • Entire study team (incl. traffic modellers, designer
drafters, economic analysts) understood/ internalised
transport planning concepts and aims
• Capacity to identify opportunities and impacts from
the road design base as it changed
• Delivering goals, not infrastructure
 Skilled professionals empowered to use talents
in a dynamic design process
Design Development

13. Main Design Elements*
• Overpass FMC to Laffer’s Triangle: no delay, -1 crossing, upgrade
entry to FMC, cyclists aligned to (safe) Uni route, retain potential
energy; ped crossing of Sturt Rd (long-term to rwy station), part
of Greenway, shade trees, continuous footpath treatment
• Infrastructure moved off footpaths
• Improved connection to Patrick
Jonker Bikeway
• Intersection improvements, Sturt
Road/ University Drive
• Bike lanes, Marion Rd and Sturt Rd
• Options for PT interchange
* Before the ‘value review’ and train
extension, so not what is now proposed

14. Main Design Elements*
• Separated walking/ cycling paths along Main South Road, with
trees, landscaping (NB Jensen Planning + Design) – European
design for bikes re: side street crossings
• Bus stops relocated to give ped access (+ opposite each other)
• PAC Sturt Rd for Sturt Linear Path + connected into Laffer’s
Triangle and the Greenway
• Two overpass crossings of Main South Road into Tonsley precinct
(+ one north, over Daws Rd) – also used to provide DDA access
to bus stops
• Cyclist underpass at Ayliffe’s Road
• Any slip lanes that couldn’t be justified removed
• Paths as alternatives to long cycle stand-up lanes (Sturt Rd)

15. Failures
• Benefit-Cost for active transport?
• Problem: forecasting usage
• Since then:
• BCR for av. cycle project, no connectivity = 3.5:1*
• BCR for good cycle project = ! (over 30:1 for some)
• with strategic network development + e-bike
scheme + peds + Uni + social/eco indicators, 15:1 to
20:1 is feasible –> why European infra is so good!
$615 m $10 m
1:1 3.5:1
$615 m $35 m
$650 m
$610 m $15 m
1:1 10:1
$610 m $150 m
$760 m
$600 m $25 m
0.9:1 15:1
$540 m $375 m
$915 m (>>1:1)
* The average BCR for cycling projects has been found to be 14:1 to 15:1, but this tends to be
skewed by a few projects with very high BCR. 3.5:1 is the ‘most common’ (modal) value.

16. • Shared use paths
• should be option of last resort where pedestrian
and cyclist numbers are expected to be high
• wide overpass to FMC allowed for possible future
conversion
• PT interchange
• original layout based on bus servicing with
minimal facilities for passengers
• the project identified a number of options based
on passengers but the original layout was
enforced
• ‘Value review’ – transport planning approach?
Failures

17. • ‘Up and over’ passes
• underpasses can be built that do not create
security issues
• less distance (= climb/descent) to get clearance
under than over a road = less effort
• for cyclists, underpasses preserve energy
• Later ‘value review’ didn’t incorporate this transport
planning approach: walking/ cycling results unknown
– detail vital, not obvious at consultation level
Failures

18. Dutch-style intersection treatment
• Used to improve safety by providing protection and
improving sight-lines
• Hard to fit, expensive, difficult to design?
• No. If you have enough room for a bike lane, you
have enough room for a minimal form of this
treatment, at low cost
 See handout
 Darwin City Council to
install the first in
Australia (at greater
than minimal design)

19. 90 degree angle parking
• AS2890.5 On-street parking –> AS 2890.1 (off-street)
• AS2890.1 Appendix B clause B4.4: field study
• park cars at end of bays (as if bays are 0.5m shorter for
the 85th %ile car/ 0.2m for the 99th %ile)
• reduce aisle width until can park in one manoeuvre –
both front-in and reverse-in (implications?)
• add 0.6m (but don’t use clearances in turning
templates in low speed situations, so why here?)
 Does this really give an aisle width that must always be
adhered to, or are there situations in which it could/
should be relaxed?
 Handout: finding space for cyclists (includes the above)