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

Rail Corridors and the Principal Bicycle Network Final Report

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

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 fall 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

the majority of trips are made by car (approx 5,600 or 85% of trips), the remaining trips 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% for 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



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:


the majority of trips are made by car (approx 3,900 or 79% of trips), the remaining trips 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, falling 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

the majority of trips are made by car (approx 11,000 or 85% of trips), the remaining trips 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 fal l 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:




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

the majority of trips are made by car (approx 6,100 or 71% of trips), the remaining trips are via public transport (1,300 trips or 15% of trips) and walking (1,100 or 13% of trips)

the majority of trips made fal l into the ‘other’ trip purpose category (4,200 or 49%), approx one third of trips (3,000 or 35%) are for 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

the majority of trips are made by car (approx 5,500 or 70% of trips), the remaining trips are via public transport (1,100 trips or 14% of trips) and walking (1,100 or 14% of trips)

the majority of trips made fal l into the ‘other’ trip purpose category (4,600 or 58%), 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

the majority of trips made fal l into the ‘other’ trip purpose category (2,600 or 52%), 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:


the majority of trips are made by car (approx 11,700 or 90% of trips), the remaining trips are walking (1,100 or 8% of trips) and via public transport (300 trips or 2% of trips). No existing cycling trips are recorded



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 surveys 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 differently to the other corridors described above due to a number of different circumstances:

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

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

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 corridor

Spencer St-King St

King St-Queensbridge Rd

Queensbridge Rd-Swanston St Total

Collins St 1536 1559 1338 4434Flinders St 500 980 1725 3205Northbank 0 0 1686 1686



Existing E-W corridor

Spencer St-King St

King St-Queensbridge Rd

Queensbridge Rd-Swanston St Total

Southbank 3218 3218 4836 11271Total 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 developed 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..



8. Review of design and planning considerationsThis study has identified the importance of good design in developing and implementing successful shared paths in rail corridors. Consultation highlights the importance of identifying 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 rai l 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, PBN may be significantly restricted without adequate at grade level crossings

without effective 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. However, 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 development.

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 al l rail reserve land is often allocated for car parking this leaves no horizontal clearance available on either side of the rail reserve 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 for all although to some extent this may need to be on a case by case basis due to the variety of rail station layouts. It is recommended that these issues be considered for the development of new rail



stations in order to develop an inclusive design from the outset which if necessary can be retrofitted at a later date to include shared path access.

If these issues are not considered initially rai l 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 development. 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 rai l 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 have 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 features have been consistently identified as part of the consultation process as potential critical constraints in bicycle path connectiv ity and scheme development. Sufficient horizontal and vertical clearances are required for the safe current and future rai l 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 effectiveness of the scheme and likelihood of the path securing funding for development. 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 have been developed in an attempt to solve the identified safety problems of segregated cycle facili ties:



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

road markings such as “sharks 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.

Green Lights for Bikes17 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 facil ities

early bike rider clearance at the end of green has proven very 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 have 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 facilities, as well as acceptance of the local community of intruding structures.

Recently, there has been increased interest in the grade separation of rai l 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.

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



Indeed, within the five corridors studied Middleborough Road and Springvale 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 rai l 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 overpass 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 Springvale Road.

8.5 Provision of cycle routes along local roads

Integration with the PBN and local destinations and attractions is essential to developing an effective 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 alternative 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 profile18

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



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 forced to the side of the road. Although not an Austral ian Standard this approach has been used to great effect 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 unfamil iar 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 for 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 reserve) are unlikely to occur in the next 10 years or more. The available land can be effectively utilised whilst not contributing to rail operations and in the meantime it is important to make provision for future changes such as route diversion/infrastructure requirements in order to accommodate both rail upgrade and the shared path where ever possible.

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



and/or freight services which will further constrain land available within the rail reserve 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

Laverton 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 have 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 level 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 expand the grade separation of rail level crossings in Melbourne. VicRoads, in conjunction with DOT, need to be consulted regarding the inclusion of shared paths in future rail grade separation or station works designs.

In the more distant future there may be further opportunities to develop synergies with the development of the rail network. 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 cantilever shared path structure above. Whilst



this is certainly more a vision than a reality at this stage it is recommended that DOT continues to evaluate future opportunities for PBN development as they arise.

8.9 Land acquisition

In the more distant future there may be further opportunities to develop synergies with the development 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 cantilever shared path structure above. Whilst this is certainly more a vision than a reality at this stage it is recommended that DOT continues to evaluate future opportunities for PBN development as they arise.

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.



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 approvals process can be time and resource consuming.

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

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

There may be further opportunities to develop synergies with the development of the rail network. Implementation of extra tracks to service future travel demands are being considered for most, if not al l, 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 cantilever shared path structure above. Whilst this is certainly more a vision than a reality at this stage it is recommended that DOT continues to evaluate future opportunities for PBN development as they arise.

10.2 Assessment framework

30(1)



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.

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



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 development 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 offer the best prospect of achieving this increased bicycle mode share”.

30(1)



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 for 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/MelbourneBicycleAccount.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 Sustainable Transport Future.

Department of Transport (2008) Victorian Transport Plan.

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



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/01924862252B11F9CA257654001BDD87?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/StrategicDirectionsForCycling/BicycleFacilityDesignStandards.htm

VicTrack (2010) Shared User Pathways and Rail Trails on VicTrack Land – Draft Design Guidelines for 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

Flin

ders

St S

tatio

n

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gric

ultu

re, F

ood

& Te

chno

logy

Pre

cinct

Trai

n St

atio

ns

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Road

, Exi

stin

g

Off

Road

, Pro

pose

d

On

Roa

d, E

xistin

g

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exis

ting

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rout

e

Buffe

r Lin

es 2

0100

531

<all

othe

r val

ues>

Buffe

rDis

t

100

11.6

5.8

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gric

ultu

re, F

ood

& Te

chno

logy

Pre

cinct

Trai

n St

atio

ns

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Road

, Exi

stin

g

Off

Road

, Pro

pose

d

On

Roa

d, E

xistin

g

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exis

ting

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rout

e

Buffe

r Lin

es 2

0100

531

<all

othe

r val

ues>

Buffe

rDis

t

100

11.6

5.8

Gle

nroy

MA

C

Gle

nroy

Sta

tion

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gric

ultu

re, F

ood

& Te

chno

logy

Pre

cinct

Trai

n St

atio

ns

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Road

, Exi

stin

g

Off

Road

, Pro

pose

d

On

Roa

d, E

xist

ing

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exis

ting

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rout

e

Buffe

r Lin

es 2

0100

531

<all

othe

r val

ues>

Buffe

rDis

t

100

11.6

5.8

Oak

Par

k St

atio

n

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gric

ultu

re, F

ood

& T

echn

olog

y P

recin

ct

Trai

n St

atio

ns

PBN

Supp

ort R

oute

Off

Road

, Exis

ting

Off

Road

, Pro

pose

d

On

Roa

d, E

xistin

g

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exis

ting

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rout

e

Buffe

r Lin

es 2

0100

531

<all

othe

r val

ues>

Buffe

rDis

t

100

11.6

5.8

Oak

Par

k St

atio

n

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gric

ultu

re, F

ood

& Te

chno

logy

Pre

cinct

Trai

n St

atio

ns

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Road

, Exi

stin

g

Off

Road

, Pro

pose

d

On

Roa

d, E

xist

ing

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exis

ting

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rout

e

Buffe

r Lin

es 2

0100

531

<all

othe

r val

ues>

Buffe

rDis

t

100

11.6

5.8

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gric

ultu

re, F

ood

& Te

chno

logy

Pre

cinct

Trai

n St

atio

ns

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Road

, Exi

stin

g

Off

Road

, Pro

pose

d

On

Roa

d, E

xist

ing

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exis

ting

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rout

e

Buffe

r Lin

es 2

0100

531

<all

othe

r val

ues>

Buffe

rDis

t

100

11.6

5.8

Pasc

oe V

ale

Stat

ion

PAC

s

MAC

s

Mel

bour

ne C

BD

M

onas

h Un

iver

sity

Cla

yton

Cam

pus

W

errib

ee A

gric

ultu

re, F

ood

& Te

chno

logy

Pre

cinct

Trai

n St

atio

ns

PBN

Sup

port

Rou

te

Off

Road

, Exi

stin

g

Off

Road

, Pro

pose

d

On

Roa

d, E

xist

ing

On

Roa

d, P

ropo

sed

Wid

e K

erbs

ide

Lane

, Exis

ting

Oth

er

PBN

Prio

rity

Rout

e

Buffe

r Lin

es 2

0100

531

<all

othe

r val

ues>

Buffe

rDis

t

100

11.6

5.8

News & Politics

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