Melbourne Metro Rail Project Expert Witness -

TransportShaun Smedley

Agenda

Role & Process

Key Information from the TIAR

Summary of Key Opinions

Sydney Light Rail Example

Review of Submissions

Conclave

Technical Notes

Recommended EPRs

Role & Process

Initial Role as Peer Review

High level, focused on process and assessments to address EES Scoping Requirements

Assessment was supported, with several recommendations for further consideration

Current Role as Expert Witness

A more detailed and thorough review

Have relied on the modelling undertaken (calibrated models etc)

Reviewed the TIAR and relevant technical notes

Key Information from the TIAR

The TIAR has focussed on two discrete phases:

the operational (or legacy phase) once the project is open and operating; and

the construction phase, while works are being carried out to build the project.

It is clear that the majority of the issues relate to the construction phase

The impacts vary across the 9 Precincts

Some are impacted by increased truck traffic

Others are impacted by changes to the transport network typically resulting in reduced capacity

Key Information from the TIAR

Location Average Daily Truck Movements Peak Daily Truck Movements

Precinct 1 – Tunnels LinlithgowAvenue Shaft 20 21

Precinct 1 – Tunnels FawknerPark Shaft 20 20

Precinct 2 – Western Portal 50 62

Precinct 3 – Arden Station 260 364

Precinct 4 – Parkville Station 100 140

Precinct 5 – CBD North 150 210

Precinct 6 – CBD South 150 210

Precinct 7 – Domain Station 170 224

Precinct 8 – Eastern Portal 50 62

Precinct 9 – Western Turnback None stated None stated

Estimated Truck Volumes

Source: MMRP TIAR, App D, Figure 8-1

Summary of Key Opinions My opinions are:

The TIAR provided a reasonable representation of the likely impacts of the project and addressed the Scoping Directions

That a project of this nature can be managed with appropriate Performance Requirements

That the Environment Performance Requirements put forward with respect to Transport are generally appropriate to provide control while still allowing the required flexibility for innovation for a project of this size.

I endorse the establishment of the TTWG as noted in Technical Note 025 and referred to in the Conclave Joint Summary Report recommendations.

I have recommended further EPRs around some other key aspects to assist in providing adequate controls.

Summary of Key Opinions

Further to the previous points, in my Expert Witness Statement I investigated particular matters related to the following precincts:

Precinct 4: Parkville Station

Precinct 6: CBD South Station

Precinct 7: Domain Station

While I have raised these issues, I believe they can be managed with the appropriate EPRs.

Sydney Light Rail Example

Relevant example project

Central, impacts during construction, high profile, travel demand strategy

Key messages of note:

Central coordination office, similar to the proposed TTWG

Capacity improvement programs, early start

Travel demand management

Monitoring and contingency

Review of Submissions

Many submissions had consistent issues or themes: Issues from residents around truck haulage down residential streets

Impacts of construction traffic on roads and their ability to accommodate this

Use of on-street car parking spaces

To address these I recommended further EPRs

Other issues that did not warrant changes to the EPRs related to: Issues around access (ped, cycle and vehicular)

Issues around emergency services access

Issues around loss of parking or impacts to parking

I believe these issues can be managed with the current recommended EPRs

Conclave The transport experts Conclave met with almost all required experts

Two experts were not able to attend due to leave or contact not being achieved

Several broader EPR’s were discussed and agreed, these generally related to:

The TTWG;

The content and considerations of the TMP’s;

Construction haulage routes;

Monitoring and implementation of mitigations;

Construction worker parking restrictions;

Development of Green Travel Plans;

Public transport priority treatments for affected Tram and Bus routes; and

Maintaining access for cyclists and pedestrians.

Conclave More specific EPR’s were discussed and not all were agreed.

These tended to focus around the areas near the interests of the clients that the other attending experts were representing:

Arden Station

Parkville Station

Domain Station; and

Eastern Portal.

The items not agreed were typically due to my opinion that they were too specific for the EPR or were covered by other broader EPRs

Conclave Some examples of the recommendations not agreed are provided:

15 T1 Precinct 3: Arden Station

Any call forward operations and / or occupation of Laurens Street must not impact on the operation (vehicular / pedestrian) of George Weston Foods.

Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by CC.

SS Comments: I believe that the intent of this EPR is already covered in the development of the TMPs and oversight from the TTWG. Further I do not believe that it may be possible to ‘not impact’ the operation of this business. There may need to be impacts to effectively carry out the construction activities and as long as they are appropriately managed, I believe that should be acceptable.

SS, CC

Conclave21 T1 Precinct 4: Parkville Station

A review of the existing car parking conditions within the Parkville Precinct must be undertaken to confirm existing supply and demand levels. This information will be required to assess the impact of a loss of on‐street car parking as a result of the construction phase combined with a potential uplift in car parking demands attributable to construction workers. 

Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by JS.

SS Comments: I believe that this issue is covered by the previous EPR recommended regarding construction workforce parking.

SS, JS

29 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station

Prepare a map which details potential diversion options around the Domain Road closure and which includes other relevant road closures to be provided to MGS for distribution to the relevant parties.

Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY.

SS Comments: This EPR is already covered by the requirement to prepare TMPs and consult with affected stakeholders through the TTWG.

SS, BY

Conclave30 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station

Contractors and subcontractors must be briefed on all access requirements relating to properties around the construction sites.

Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY.

SS Comments: This is standard practice and an EPR specific for this is not reflective on how these EPRs will be managed and enforced.

SS, BY

32 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station

Additional transport modelling to be undertaken for the Domain Precinct, as agreed with the TTWG in consultation with affected land uses, which demonstrates the expected transport performance, including but not limited to:

‐ Undertaking travel time analysis for travel to and from the Domain Precinct  to include the key approaches into the Domain Station precinct (i.e. Toorak Road, Kings Way, Albert Road and Park Street) and provide expected travel times for all likely routes. This modelling is to incorporate sensitivity analysis that tests the impacts of a lesser number of diverted trips.

‐ Include the expected traffic generated by trucks and construction workers in the microsimulation model.

Undertake analysis of the capacity for the public transport network to accommodate a travel mode shift.

Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY.

SS Comments: This EPR is not required as the TTWG should be able to determine the appropriate level of modelling and analysis.

SS, BY

Conclave37 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station

Works which restrict access to Melbourne Grammar (such as the tram track relocation works on St Kilda Road) to be undertaken outside of core school times (i.e. school holidays).

Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY.

SS Comments: I do not support this EPR. There are expected to be a number of changes to these services as outlined in Section 8.10.4 of the TIAR. Restricting these to school holiday periods may have significant impacts on construction staging and duration of the overall works. I believe that these impacts can be managed during core school times.

SS, BY

45 T2 Precinct 7: Domain Station

The temporary tram stop on St Kilda Road is to be located within 100 metres of the Melbourne Grammar frontage and should be supervised.

Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY.

SS Comments: I do not support this EPR. The Stop will be located considering a range of users, issues, safety concerns and direction from PTV.

SS, BY

Technical Notes

I have reviewed all the Technical Notes that relate to transport issues or impacts. The following notes have issues worth discussing, in my opinion:

009 – This appears a reasonable approach to maintain access

012 – The revised operation phase configuration of Franklin Street is supported

019, 020 and 021 are covered on the following slides

Technical Note 019

Issue 1 – Grattan Street eastbound only, no westbound movement

This appeared reasonable to me

Issue 2 – A right turn ban from Royal Pde into Macarthur Rd

This in itself was not a concern, but there is a need to maintain heavy east-west flow at this intersection

Issue 3 – Analysis of travel times on Swanston Street

This indicated an increase in travel times along this corridor, this was an area where focussed mitigation treatments are recommended.

Technical Note 020 Issue 1 – Travel time and delay analysis in Parkville

There were considerable increases in east-west travel times. I have recommended a focussed EPR to develop complimentary improvements to assist this flow

Issue 2 – Travel time delays to buses

PTV is investigating alternative routes. I have recommended consideration for intersection improvements

Issue 3 – Flinders Street cut and cover

It is noted that staged cut and cover is a possibility, this should be considered with Tech Note 021

Issue 4 – Sensitivity testing along St Kilda Road

This indicated little spare capacity during this construction phase – highlights the importance of the TDM and mitigation works

Technical Note 021

This relates to the potential closure of Flinders Street Westbound

Several options are put forward

I believe that both option 1 and Option 2 have merit and would require further analysis

Several intersections will struggle to cope with the diverted traffic

Any option would require a significant Travel Demand Strategy combined with a range of intersection improvements

Closure of Flinders Street for construction works should be considered as a last resort

Recommended EPRs

My witness statement included some new and modified EPRs

I have now considered the IAC Revision Version 1 and have the following outstanding EPR recommendations further to the conclave agreed recommendations:

Flinders Street capacity / connectivity

Complementary improvements to assist College Crescent

Protection of the ‘tan’ running track