Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Attachments: 1. Supporting Attachment 2. Independent Review Report
F U T U R E M E L B O U R N E ( C O N N E C T E D C I T Y ) C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T
Agenda Item 5.2
GATEHOUSE STREET, PARKVILLE - INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT TRAFFIC CHICANES
13 December 2011
Presenter: Geoff Robinson, Manager Engineering Services
Purpose and background
1. The purpose of this report is to present the findings of the independent review of traffic behaviour in Gatehouse Street and to recommend the way forward for construction of traffic calming measures in the street between Story Street and Park Drive. The installation of the two treatments recommended in this report will complete all six of the proposed traffic calming treatments in Gatehouse Street.
Key Issues
2. The City of Melbourne commenced the construction of the six permanent traffic calming treatments in Gatehouse Street in May 2011 following an extensive community consultation process. At subsequent meetings with representatives of the Parkville Association and Gatehouse Street residents, the need for the construction of the two chicanes was discussed. Consequently it was agreed that the construction program would be paused for a two month period to gather data to assess the effect of the initial four treatments on traffic behaviour and to compare the change to the earlier installation of temporary treatments.
3. The "terms of reference" for the trial required recording the number of vehicles in the street and the speed at which they crossed the tube counters. The data was then analysed to determine the 85th percentile speed (not the average) range at each hour of the day. The street has a posted limit of 40 kph which was approved by VicRoads. The trial was intended to determine, through operational measurement, whether the treatments support an 85th percentile speed range of 40 kph.
4. Average speed was not used for the trial because of the varying nature of traffic flow. At peak times, the speeds can be quite slow and hence were not considered. Notably, the installation of calming measures is to assist in making the speed limit "self enforcing". It is unlikely that sufficient resources from Victoria Police will be available to constantly monitor the street and hence the installations are aimed to encourage motorists to drive in accordance with the posted limit.
5. The review compared traffic speed and truck volume data collected over the two month period with that recorded during traffic surveys undertaken over the two year period that the six temporary traffic calming treatments were in place.
6. The independent review report is annexed to this report as Attachment 2. The key findings of the review are summarised below:
6.1. average weekday mid-block 85th percentile speeds between Bayles and Morrah Streets have increased from approximately 43km/h to approximately 48 km/h; and
6.2. average weekday mid-block 85th percentile speeds between Story and Morrah Streets have increased from approximately 39km/h to approximately 47 km/h.
7. The findings reveal that mid-block vehicle speeds have increased significantly without the mid-block chicane treatments between Story and Morrah Streets and between Morrah and Bayles Streets.
Recommendation from management 8. That the Future Melbourne Committee approve the installation of the two permanent mid-block chicane
treatments in Gatehouse Street, Parkville between Story and Morrah Streets and between Morrah and Bayles Streets.
Page 1 of 20
1
SUPPORTING ATTACHMENT
Legal
1. Legal advice will be provided, as required, in relation to the installation of the final two ‘chicane’ treatments.
Finance
2. Council allocated $400,000 in its 2011-12 Capital Works Budget for the traffic calming works. No further allocation is required.
Conflict of interest
3. No member of Council staff, or other person engaged under a contract, involved in advising on or preparing this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in relation to the matter of the report.
Stakeholder consultation
4. Representatives of the Parkville Association and Gatehouse Street residents were consulted extensively in the preparation of the traffic calming measures and the process supporting the assessment period. Ongoing communications have been maintained.
Relation to Council policy
5. The proposal to promote reduced vehicle speeds in Gatehouse Street is in line with Objective 6.1.3 of Council Plan 2009-2013 and Section 1.4 of the Road Safety Plan; namely:
Objective 6.1.3: “Expand a connected bike and pedestrian network, and prioritise safe and easy pedestrian access, to promote cycling and walking in the city.”
Section 1.4 “….to create a significantly safer street environment for vulnerable road users….”
Environmental sustainability
6. There are unlikely to be any significant environmental impacts associated with this proposal.
Attachment 1Agenda Item 5.2
Future Melbourne Committee13 December 2011
Page 2 of 20
November 2011
Level 3, 246 Bourke Street Melbourne VIC 3000 | [email protected] | www.urbantrans-anz.com
Prepared by: For:
Gatehouse Street Review of Traffic Calming Measures
Page 3 of 20
P a g e | 1
Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 History & Background ......................................................................................................... 2
2 Traffic Surveys........................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Locations and Periods of Automatic Traffic Counters ......................................................... 7
2.2 Survey Results..................................................................................................................... 9
3 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Summary of key findings ................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Alternative Treatments ...................................................................................................... 15
3.4 Other Recommendations................................................................................................... 16
Page 4 of 20
P a g e | 2
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
UrbanTrans has been commissioned to undertake an independent review of the design of traffic calming measures in Gatehouse Street, Parkville. In particular, the review considers:
the appropriateness of the existing traffic calming treatment in the context of Gatehouse
Street’s desired role and function the recent history and success in terms of improved safety and amenity in Gatehouse
Street measured as “impact on traffic volumes, classification and speeds” (culminating in
the impact measured at the time that the temporary devices were installed) the likely effectiveness of the “full” treatment (if the remaining chicanes are implemented)
and
whether action/s could be pursued for additional or more effective treatments
1.2 History & Background
For almost 40 years, the City of Melbourne has received regular representation from the local
community, abutting Gatehouse Street, regarding the volume, composition and speed of traffic using the street, including the overall volume of trucks.
In response to these representations, Council’s long-standing policy has been to support and
implement a range of traffic calming initiatives – aimed at reducing the volume of trucks as well as through traffic volumes and speeds in Gatehouse Street. Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) initiatives were first implemented in 1973. At that time, approximately
21,000 vehicles used Gatehouse Street on a daily basis.
1973 to 2000
The traffic calming initiatives introduced between 1973 and 2000 include:
Narrowing of the trafficable carriageway through the planting of kerbside trees in the parking lane – the aim being to create a more confined environment for moving vehicles to deter through vehicles and to encourage lower speeds;
Removal of left-turn traffic slip lanes to and from Royal Parade; Reduction in the number of “stand up” lanes at major intersections; Alterations to traffic signal operations design to reduce the attractiveness of Gatehouse
Street as a traffic route; and The implementation of a night-time truck ban.
These traffic calming measures were successful in reducing daily traffic volumes to
approximately 11,000 in the late 1990s prior to the completion of City Link (2000) and approximately 9,500-10,000 post opening of City Link.
Page 5 of 20
P a g e | 3
Average weekday daily traffic volumes have remained relatively constant since the early 2000s at approximately 9,000 to 10,000. This stabilisation of traffic volume represents a
significant achievement, considering that if traffic volumes had increased by 1% per annum since 1973 (as has been the case on many other roads across inner Melbourne), then Gatehouse Street’s traffic volumes could have grown to more than 30,000 vehicles per day.
2000 to 2005
In the early 2000s, the City of Melbourne made several unsuccessful attempts to gain VicRoads’ support for a road closure of Gatehouse Street at Flemington Road, a proposal
which would have practically eliminated through traffic from Gatehouse Street. This closure was proposed in the form of an extension of the northern traffic separator of Flemington Road across Gatehouse Street.
2006 to 2009
In October 2006, the Council’s Engineering Services officers met with Minister Bronwyn Pike MLA , the Parkville Association and representatives from VicRoads to discuss traffic
management in Gatehouse Street. Specifically, the discussions centred on measures that could be implemented to reduce vehicular speeds and the high volume of through traffic, including trucks, using the street. The parties agreed that the traffic situation in Gatehouse
Street would be addressed in two stages, as follows:
Stage 1: Full-Time Truck Ban
The existing night-time truck ban was extended to a 24 hour per day / full-time truck ban (with local truck access exempted) following receipt of VicRoads approval. This was implemented in December 2007. The Victorian Road Rules define that a truck has a gross vehicle mass of 4.5 tonne or greater.
Stage 2: Implementation of 40km/h Speed Limit and Physical Calming Treatments
The 40km/h speed limit which required VicRoads approval was implemented in June 2009 together with six physical traffic calming treatments. The calming treatments, which were also
a requirement designed to reinforce the lower speed limit, were installed in temporary form at the time pending Council allocation of funding to implement permanent works. The treatments comprised:
o Two ‘gateway’ treatments
o Two ‘modified T-intersections’
o Two ‘mid-block chicanes’
It should be noted that the installation of the temporary traffic calming devices resulted in a net loss of 14 ‘resident priority’ parking spaces on the residential (east) side of Gatehouse Street. Council installed 16 additional ‘resident priority’ spaces on the park side of Gatehouse Street to offset the loss of resident parking on east side of the street. Traffic surveys suggest
that the full-time truck ban was successful in significantly reducing the number of trucks. At the mid-block location between Morrah and Bayles Streets the number of trucks fell from 138 per day to 15 per day in the initial months following the introduction of the full-time truck ban.
Page 6 of 20
P a g e | 4
The surveys undertaken at this same location revealed that the installation of the 40km/h speed limit and six temporary physical traffic calming devices was successful in reducing the
85th percentile speed (the speed at which 85% of traffic travels at or below) from around 54-55km/h to approximately 40-43km/h.
2010 to 2011
Following the installation of the six temporary physical traffic calming devices, the City of Melbourne received representations from residents located in the vicinity of the chicanes regarding the design of the chicanes. It was alleged that the geometry and alignment was
potentially hazardous to pedestrians walking on the footpath on the residential side of Gatehouse Street as the chicane design in temporary form channelled traffic towards the residential side rather than toward the park side. Subsequently, Council developed a revised
design for the chicanes which channelled traffic away from the residential side and towards the park side. The revised final design of the six physical treatments is shown in Figure 1.
Almost 18 months after the introduction of the six temporary physical traffic calming devices,
the Council met with approximately 50 Gatehouse Street residents to discuss the revised design of the proposed permanent physical traffic calming devices and any residents’ objections to this revised design. Subsequently, it was agreed that Council would survey
owners and occupiers of properties of Gatehouse Street to establish the level of support for the proposed installation of six revised permanent physical traffic calming devices.
More than 100 letters were distributed to the owners and occupiers of properties abutting
Gatehouse Street inviting them to express their opinion on the proposed permanent traffic calming works in the street. A total of 53 responses were received, 43 from property owners and 10 from property occupiers. In total 38 respondents (72%) supported the
installation of the six permanent traffic calming devices. 15 respondents expressed opposition to the proposal. Based on the level of majority support for the proposed permanent works, Council distributed a letter dated 30 April 2011 to inform residents that
the City of Melbourne would be proceeding with the installation of all six permanent physical traffic devices and that the works would be funded from Council’s 2010/11 budget.
Following the installation of the initial four treatments (the two ‘gateway’ treatments and the two ‘modified T-intersections’), Councillors directed Engineering Services to delay the installation of the final two ‘chicanes’ due to the ongoing concerns expressed by some
residents regarding these treatments. A letter dated 19 August 2011 was distributed to all residents of Gatehouse Street stating the construction of the final two chicanes would be put on hold to enable a two month audit of traffic speeds along Gatehouse Street to be
undertaken. Residents were informed that the audit would be independently reviewed on completion of the two months and that the results of this traffic speed audit will help determine the need for future traffic calming works along Gatehouse Street.
Page 7 of 20
P a g e | 5
Figure 1: Location of Existing & Proposed Permanent Traffic Calming Devices
Page 8 of 20
P a g e | 6
1.3 Review of Speed Data
As part of this independent review, an examination has been undertaken of recent traffic
speed data collected over a two to three month period (during the period of time when four permanent physical traffic calming devices have been in position – but without the two ‘chicane’ treatments). A comparison has been made with historical traffic survey data to
evaluate the effectiveness of the recently implemented traffic calming measures (full-time truck ban, 40km/h speed limit and physical traffic calming devices) and to help determine the need for future traffic calming works along Gatehouse Street, such as the installation of the
already-approved two additional ‘chicane’ treatments. The examination of speed data will help to reveal whether the four permanent physical traffic calming devices have been as successful at minimising vehicular speeds in comparison to the presence of the six temporary
physical traffic calming devices. Photographs of the permanent traffic calming devices are shown below.
Page 9 of 20
P a g e | 7
2 Traffic Surveys
2.1 Locations and Periods of Automatic Traffic Counters
Three automatic traffic counters were placed at the following locations:
1) Between Storey and Morrah Streets (close to Flemington Road); 2) Between Morrah and Bayles Streets (approximately mid-block); and
3) Between Bayles Street and Park Drive (close to Royal Parade).
“Location 2” provides the most comprehensive comparison of changes in traffic speed, volume and composition over time. This was the only survey location recorded during the
following periods:
May 2007 o Immediately prior to the full-time truck ban o 50km/h speed limit o No physical traffic calming devices
March 2009 o Full-time truck ban o 50km/h speed limit o No physical traffic calming devices
Thus, “Location 2” provides an insight into traffic conditions prior to the implementation of a full-time truck ban and prior to the installation of the reduced 40km/h speed limit and complementary physical traffic calming devices. In addition, all three locations were surveyed
during 2010 and 2011 to provide a comparison of traffic conditions during the period when the six temporary devices were in position and under the current arrangement (with only four permanent devices). These surveys were conducted during:
June / July 2010: o Six Temporary Physical Traffic Calming Devices o 40km/h Speed Limit o Full-Time Truck Ban o Tube counter positioned mid-block between treatments
July / August 2011 (two weeks of data): o Four Permanent Physical Traffic Calming Devices o 40km/h Speed Limit o Full-Time Truck Ban o Tube counter positioned in ‘original’ location (which is no longer exactly mid-block
between treatments) September / October 2011 (seven weeks of data):
o Four Permanent Physical Traffic Calming Devices o 40km/h Speed Limit o Full-Time Truck Ban o Tube counters at Locations 1 and 2 re-positioned to be mid-block between
treatments and at the ‘gateway / road narrowing treatment’ for Location 3.
Figure 2 shows the approximate locations of the automatic traffic counters.
Page 10 of 20
P a g e | 8
Figure 2: Location of Traffic Counters
Page 11 of 20
P a g e | 9
2.2 Survey Results
Tables 1, 2 and 3 summarise the results of the automatic traffic surveys at each of the three
locations and for the various time periods outlined in Section 2.1. The results are averaged over the 5-day weekday period. The key findings derived from an analysis of the surveys are summarised below.
Traffic Volumes
As discussed earlier, Location 2 provides the most meaningful comparison of how traffic volumes have changed since the introduction of the full-time truck ban in December 2007 and
the introduction of the 40 km/h speed limit and installation of six temporary physical traffic calming devices in June 2009.
Table 2 highlights that average weekday traffic volumes in this section of Gatehouse Street
have remained relatively constant between 2007 and 2011, generally fluctuating between approximately 10,000 and 11,000 vehicles per day (with the exception of the July / August 2011 surveys when it is understood some construction may been occurring in the street –
thereby affecting traffic volumes). Tables 1 and 3 also reveal that traffic volumes have generally remained relatively consistent.
Truck Volumes
As discussed earlier, Location 2 provides the only meaningful comparison of how truck volumes have changed since the introduction of the full-time truck ban in December 2007. The ban applies to large trucks of 4.5 tonne or greater only.
Table 2 highlights that the full-time truck ban has been successful in practically eliminating trucks from Gatehouse Street. The number of large trucks in the section surveyed between Morrah and Bayles Streets has reduced from 132 trucks per weekday prior to the truck ban to
less than 15 trucks per weekday during each of the subsequent surveys. It is possible that some of the remaining trucks have local destinations and are therefore exempt from the truck ban. The presence of small to medium trucks (which are not banned from Gatehouse Street)
in this section of Gatehouse Street has also reduced from 412 trucks per weekday, prior to the truck ban, to approximately 200 trucks per weekday (as recorded during the 2011 surveys).
In summary, the results indicate that the full-time truck ban and physical traffic calming measures have been extremely successful in removing large trucks from Gatehouse Street and significantly reducing the presence of other smaller trucks.
Page 12 of 20
P a g e | 10
Vehicle Speeds
As discussed earlier, Location 2 provides the only meaningful comparison of how vehicle
speeds have changed since the 40 km/h speed limit and six temporary physical traffic calming devices were installed in June 2009. Council’s intention, in line with VicRoads’ requirement for physical calming measures being installed in conjunction with the reduced speed limit, has
been for the physical traffic calming devices to encourage motorist compliance with the 40 km/h speed limit. More specifically, it was hoped that these measures would be successful in reducing the maximum 85th percentile speeds in the street to approximately 40 km/h. The
85th percentile speed is the speed that 85% of traffic travels at or below.
Table 2 highlights that the 85th percentile speeds in Gatehouse Street were recorded in the mid 50 km/h range prior to the installation of the 40km/h speed limit and six temporary physical traffic calming devices. Tables 1 and 2 highlight that the installation of the reduced
speed limit and six temporary physical traffic calming devices was immediately successful in reducing weekday 85th percentile speeds to speeds in the high 30s / low 40s. However, under this same arrangement, the weekday 85th percentile speed at Location 3 (between
Bayles Street and Park Drive) was almost 46 km/h. This suggests that the temporary ‘gateway’ treatment was less effective at reducing vehicle speeds in comparison to the modified ‘T-Intersections’ and chicanes. It also suggests that the spacing of approximately
106 metres between the eastern-most ‘gateway’ treatment and modified ‘T-Intersection’ of Gatehouse Street / Bayles Street may have been too long to reduce mid-treatment 85th percentile speeds to 40km/h. The other temporary treatments were spaced at intervals of
approximately 55 to 60 metres. However, it is also understood that the initial intention of the ‘gateway’ treatments was to provide a visual cue to motorists approaching traffic calmed section of Gatehouse Street with the kerb outstands facilitating the installation of “slow point”
and “40km/h” signs in clear view of approaching traffic.
The current arrangement of only four permanent physical traffic calming devices has resulted in weekday mid-block 85th percentile speeds at Locations 1 and 2 increasing to approximately 47-48 km/h. Furthermore, the average speed in Gatehouse Street now ranges between 39 to
42 km/h, indicating that approximately 50% of motorists exceed the speed limit.
The increase in 85th percentile vehicle speeds of approximately 5 km/h (under the four traffic calming device arrangement) has been consistently recorded throughout the day, including peak hours and at night-time.
Table 3 highlights that the 85th percentile speed recorded directly at the ‘gateway’ treatment is
approximately 48 km/h. This result would seem to indicate that the ‘gateway’ treatments are not entirely successful in reducing vehicle speeds. Instead the ‘gateway’ treatments seem to be providing more of a visual cue to motorists that they are approaching changed traffic
conditions and providing the ability to install “slow point” and “40km/h” signs in direct view of motorists.
In summary, it can be concluded that the six temporary traffic calming devices were relatively successful in reducing 85th percentile speeds close to the posted speed limit of 40 km/h.
However, the current arrangement with only four traffic calming devices has resulted in significant increase in mid-treatment vehicle speeds with approximately 50% of all motorists exceeding the speed limit.
Page 13 of 20
P a g e | 11
Table 1: Traffic Survey Results – Location 1 – Between Story and Morrah Streets (5-Day Weekday Period)
Speed Trucks Weekday Volume
Weekday 85th Percentile Speed Break-Down
Date Status 85th
PercentileAverage Maximum Large
Small / Medium
Daily AM
Peak (8am to
9am)
Highest Day-Time
(9am to 5pm)
PM Peak
(5pm to 6pm)
Highest Night-Time
(6pm to 8am)
June 2010 After Truck Ban, 40km/h &
6 Temporary Traffic Calming 39.0 31.8 135.4 20 212 10234 37.5 39.0 36.8 46.5
July-Aug 2011
(2 weeks)
WITH 4 TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES (not exactly mid-
block) 45.7 38.5 80-90 13 196 9541 43.8 45.0 44.0 57.8
Sep-Oct 2011
(7 weeks)
WITH 4 TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES (New mid-block
location) 46.6 39.3 86.1 31 284 10822 45.3 46.2 45.5 55.4
Page 14 of 20
P a g e | 12
Table 2: Traffic Survey Results – Location 2 – Between Morrah and Bayles Streets (5-Day Weekday Period)
Weekday Speed Weekday Trucks Weekday Volume
Weekday 85th Percentile Speed Break-Down
Date Status 85th
Percentile Average Maximum Large
Small / Medium
Daily AM
Peak (8am to
9am)
Highest Day-Time
(9am to 5pm)
PM Peak
(5pm to 6pm)
Highest Night-Time
(6pm to 8am)
May 2007 Before Truck Ban, 40km/h and
Traffic Calming 54.3 47.3 107.0 132 412 10835 51.7 54.0 52.6 63.0
Mar 2008 After Truck Ban
Before 40km/h & Traffic Calming
54.7 47.8 98.4 14 277 11054 52.7 54.7 53.5 63.6
June 2010 After Truck Ban, 40km/h &
6 Temporary Traffic Calming 42.9 37.1 73.4 14 390 10328 41.5 42.9 41.4 48.9
July-Aug 2011
(2 weeks)
WITH 4 TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES (not exactly mid-
block) 44.7 38.8 80-90 6 176 9217 43.3 44.5 43.7 54.9
Sep-Oct 2011
(7 weeks)
WITH 4 TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES (New mid-block
location) 48.0 41.5 85.7 12 218 10383 46.8 48.1 47.2 57.0
Page 15 of 20
P a g e | 13
Table 3: Traffic Survey Results – Location 3 – Between Bayles Street and Park Drive (5-Day Weekday Period)
Weekday Speed Weekday Trucks Weekday Volume
Weekday 85th Percentile Speed Break-Down
Date Status 85th
Percentile Average Maximum Large
Small / Medium
Daily AM
Peak (8am to
9am)
Highest Day-Time
(9am to 5pm)
PM Peak
(5pm to 6pm)
Highest Night-Time
(6pm to 8am)
July 2010 After Truck Ban, 40km/h &
6 Temporary Traffic Calming 45.8 39.8 75.1 7 289 9051 44.1 45.5 43.7 53.6
July-Aug 2011
(2 weeks)
WITH 4 TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES (mid-block)
46.4 40.2 80-90 14 363 8966 44.6 46.5 44.4 56.0
Sep-Oct 2011
(7 weeks)
WITH 4 TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES (at road narrowing)
47.9 41.2 83.2 13 299 10073 47.4 47.9 46.6 56.9
Page 16 of 20
P a g e | 14
3 Conclusions
3.1 Summary of key findings
Analysis of the traffic surveys has revealed that the implementation of the full-time truck ban and physical traffic calming devices have been extremely successful in reducing the number of large trucks using Gatehouse Street and significantly reduced the volume of smaller trucks
in the street as well.
The initial design for managing traffic in Gatehouse Street included the use of six temporary physical traffic calming devices (two ‘gateway’ treatments, two modified T-Intersections and
two chicanes) and a 40 km/h speed limit. The surveys revealed that the design was generally successful in reducing 85th percentile speeds at locations mid-way between the treatments to the posted speed limit of 40 km/h.
The only exception was the vehicle speeds detected at Location 3 (between the eastern-most ‘gateway’ treatment and the modified ‘T-Intersection of Gatehouse Street / Bayles Street) – these speeds were higher than at the other two speed survey locations. It is considered that
the general ineffectiveness of ‘gateway’ treatments (in terms of speed reduction potential) and the approximate 106 metre separation between the gateway and the modified T-Intersection is the reason for the higher 85th percentile speed of 46 km/h at this location. In fact, more
recent surveys recorded directly at the eastern-most ‘gateway’ treatment have revealed 85th percentile speeds of approximately 48 km/h. However, discussions with City of Melbourne’s Engineering Services Branch have suggested that the ‘gateway’ treatments were originally
intended as a visual warning to motorists of the other upcoming traffic calming devices and to enable kerb outstands to be constructed to allow “slow point” and “40km/h” signs to be positioned clearly in motorists’ immediate sight lines.
The revised current traffic scheme on Gatehouse Street includes only four permanent physical traffic calming devices (two ‘gateway’ treatments and two modified T-Intersections). The two chicanes part of the original design scheme have not been installed. The speed
surveys have revealed that the revised permanent design has resulted in mid-treatment 85th percentile speeds increasing consistently by approximately 5 km/h at all times of the day. This is due to the increased spacing of treatments (in the absence of the chicanes) to
approximately 110 to 130 metres.
3.2 Recommendations
The significant rise in 85th percentile speed associated with moving from six temporary traffic
calming devices to four permanent traffic calming devices warrants reconsideration of the merits of installing chicanes. It is evident that the temporary chicanes played an important role in reducing speeds along Gatehouse Street to the desired level – close to 40 km/h. It is
therefore considered that all six physical traffic calming devices are required in order to produce an environment where the majority of motorists adhere to the 40 km/h speed limit. Installation of chicanes is thus recommended – as per the original design intent.
Page 17 of 20
P a g e | 15
It is also recommended that Council determine whether the ‘gateway’ treatments should be modified to more effectively reduce vehicle speeds at these locations. While it is understood
that these treatments were not originally intended to reduce speeds to the extent of the chicanes or modified T-Intersections, improved speed reduction at these locations could be achieved by the installation of a splitter island between the opposing traffic lanes, in order to
minimise the width of the traffic lanes and hence help to reduce speeds at these locations. The ‘gateway’ treatments currently provide a carriageway width of 5.4 metres (at the west end of Gatehouse Street) and 5.6 metres (at the east end). The resultant traffic lane widths of 2.7
to 2.8 metres respectively are considered relatively comfortable for motorists to negotiate and are comparable with the traffic lane widths found on many streets across inner Melbourne such as those in the central city. In fact, such traffic lane widths are also found on busy
arterials such as the section of Punt Road under the rail overpass near Richmond Station. Within this context, it is recommended that a splitter island could be installed to reduce the traffic lane widths to approximately 2.5 metres and thereby encourage motorists to reduce
speed on the approach to these treatments. However, the splitter island would need to be 1.0 metre in width in order to ensure that warning signage could be safely and comfortably installed on the splitter island with low risk of damage from passing traffic. Therefore, the
existing kerb outstands would need to be marginally cut-back by 0.2 to 0.3 metres on each side of the roadway in order to maintain traffic lanes of adequate width of approximately 2.5 metres. These works would likely be relatively expensive and Council may determine that the
original intention of the ‘gateway’ treatments of providing a visual warning to motorists of the other upcoming traffic calming treatments is sufficient.
Ideally, an additional (third) ‘chicane’ treatment could also be installed between the existing
eastern-most ‘gateway’ treatment and the modified ‘T-Intersection’ of Gatehouse Street / Bayles Street. This new chicane treatment would reduce the comparatively large spacing between the gateway and the modified T-intersection treatments. The on-street parking
impacts would need to be resolved in consultation with abutting residents.
3.3 Alternative Treatments
Consideration of other potential traffic treatments (capable of reducing speeds) has also been
made as part of this independent review. The most obvious alternative is the installation of standard profile Watts road humps at intervals of 80 to 100 metres. Such a treatment is likely to be equally as successful in reducing 85th percentile vehicle speeds in Gatehouse Street to
approximately 40 km/h.
However, as Gatehouse Street provides an important emergency access route to the Royal Children’s Hospital, Ambulance Victoria has consistently advised (when consulted in the past)
that the installation of any road humps would cause significant inconvenience for patients being transported in ambulances – on this basis Ambulance Victoria has expressed strong objection to the installation of road humps. In this regard Ambulance Victoria has also
highlighted that Gatehouse Street remains the most direct route to the Royal Children’s Hospital from the north-east.
It is also noted that the installation of road humps in streets which carry substantial traffic
volumes (such as Gatehouse Street) would be unprecedented. Road humps are generally installed on streets carrying much lower traffic volumes. Such devices on Gatehouse Street
Page 18 of 20
P a g e | 16
are likely lead to significant noise created by vehicles negotiating the road humps – thus reducing amenity for residents. In the past, the City of Melbourne has only installed road
humps in streets carrying less than 4,000 vehicles between 7.00am and 7.00pm in accordance with the then VicRoads guidelines. The average daily volume in Gatehouse Street during this 7.00am to 7.00pm period is approximately 8,000 vehicles and would result
in one car negotiating the road humps every 5.4 seconds during this period and one car every 38 seconds during the night (between 9.00pm and 7.00am). Such frequencies would be source of significant noise disturbance for the local community.
In summary, the installation of road humps in Gatehouse Street is not recommended given the problems associated with the movement of ambulances and the likely significant noise associated with vehicles negotiating the road humps – affecting residential amenity.
3.4 Other Recommendations
Morrah Street – Pedestrian Crossings
On-site observations have revealed that pedestrian linkages across Gatehouse Street at the
intersection of Morrah Street could be improved through the installation of a pram ramp on the south-west corner of the intersection. The photograph below shows that a ramp is already provided to a path which leads through the park. However, there is no connecting pram ramp
to the footpath on the residential side of Gatehouse Street. This treatment should be implemented in order to improve access not just for able-bodied pedestrians but also for the disabled, mothers with prams and cyclists.
1) Parking – at eastern end of Gatehouse Street
Additional on-street parking could be installed on the residential side of Gatehouse Street
between Royal Parade and the eastern-most ‘gateway’ treatment. The photographs below illustrates one vehicle parking illegally in a chevron painted area which is essentially protected and indented by the road narrowing / gateway treatment. It is recommended that ‘resident
priority’ parking be installed in this location to further assist adjacent residents. Alternatively, the City of Melbourne could consider footpath or median widening at this location.
Page 19 of 20
P a g e | 17
Parking – at eastern end of Gatehouse Street
There is an existing ‘dead-space’ of kerbside road space on the residential side of Gatehouse Street between Royal Parade and the eastern-most ‘gateway’ treatment. The photographs
below illustrate one vehicle parking illegally in a chevron painted area which is essentially protected and indented by the road narrowing / gateway treatment that precedes it. It is understood that the City of Melbourne has planned to undertake a median widening project as
the second stage of the Gatehouse Street traffic calming works.
Page 20 of 20
