TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP – WESTGARTH Recommendation Report
Background
The Westgarth Community Reference Group for the Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project was convened by Council to provide community input into the re-work of the Project.
Seven nominees were selected by Council for the group and six members participated throughout the four meetings which were scheduled fortnightly over July/August 2009.
This Report contains a summary of the discussions and debates that were held between group members over the four meetings. The Notes of each meeting are presented in Appendix 1.
The Report is divided into sections; 1. The Recommendations 2. Other Considerations 3. Appendices
The group wishes to record again its strong opposition to any proposals that result in the creation of any form of sliplane which has the effect of bringing High Street traffic in closer proximity to those houses located on High Street south of Westgarth Street.
Council should be aware that in the course of this process an option was presented to the Reference Group and was seen as a breach of Council’s prior undertakings that a sliplane would not form part of any future considerations.
The Recommendations
In the first two meetings the group discussed the issues that were raised with the initial proposal for the Westgarth section. These included:
Impact on businesses Improved public transport & Pedestrian Access vs Vehicle Access Disability Access and Safety (40km/h) Resident Amenity vs Public transport access Ruckers Hill parking restrictions Merging of 2 lanes south of Westgarth in to 1 north of Westgarth Street Removal of Tram Stop 29 Control of regional traffic outside of Darebin Westgarth Street Link between High Street and St Georges Road Residential Access to High Street/Westgarth Street residential “pocket” Impact of increased population/traffic to the north of the municipality
The group considered the Objectives of the reference group and agreed that they were all supportive of the general goals and principles involved in the Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project.
By the close of the second meeting the group had requested a number of options be presented for the Westgarth/High Street intersection as this was seen as the key area to be solved. At the third meeting these options were presented to the group. The pros and cons of each option were discussed and the group agreed to present their preferred option to Council.
Recommendation 1:
A centre island platform tram stop north of the intersection was seen as more beneficial than south of the intersection.
The preferred option caters for pedestrians, residents, visitors, people with a disability, tram users and businesses. It also retains the parking in the strip shopping centre, the stop is easy to access, there is no slip lane, and the stop is located in a central position.
The group also recommends that when the intersection is adjusted, that crossing time for pedestrians be extended to take into account elderly and people with a disability using the crossings.
This recommendation meets the following Objectives of the Group, and the reasoning why is shown below:
Objective Why? To create tram stops that are accessible to people The central island stop north of the intersection of all abilities (Disability Discrimination Act is a platform stop and thus DDA compliant compliant) To provide priority to the tram over single occupant The right hand turn movement from High, east motor vehicles to gain tram travel time and onto Westgarth Street is not on the tram lane. reliability improvements. The DDA compliant nature of the tram stop means boarding and alighting will be faster
To improve safety for all road users A 40km/h zone will be implemented Tram passengers do not have to step out into traffic to access the tram Cyclists will not have to navigate a kerb outstand stop (and mix with pedestrians)
To improve connectivity to public transport and key The stop will be located in the centre of the destinations in centres of activity strip but still adjacent to the bus routes running along Westgarth Street to the east and west
To minimise parking losses in centres of activity. Parking can be retained around the central island platform in non-peak times
To minimise impact on local residents. There is no slip lane as part of this option also provides an options for the retention and improvement of the green space at the southern entrance to the Westgarth Shopping Precinct and Darebin.
Retaining the service lane outside houses 41-53 There is no slip lane as part of this option High Street as undertaken during the March/April consultation phase, generally in its current form for its current purpose (ie no left turn traffic on the service lane). To improve the experience for pedestrians in Slower traffic will be beneficial to pedestrians centres of activity. crossing the road within Westgarth. The central island stop may provide options for art, plantings etc.
To retain the trees in High Street south of These will be retained in this option Westgarth Street. To encourage through traffic to utilise alternative The dedicated left turn lane into Westgarth preferred traffic routes Street heading west will encourage traffic to utilise St Georges Road which is the preferred traffic route
Recommendation 2: Remove stop 28 and 29
Objective: To achieve tram stops every 400m (approximately) in accordance with public transport guidelines for land use and development.
The central island stop proposed by the Group to be north of the High/Westgarth Street intersection necessitated that the Group look at the stops adjacent to it for spacing purposes.
The following approximate distances would exist if the stop was to go ahead:
Stop 26 (Walker Street) to stop 27 (Westgarth Street) = 270 Stop 27 (Westgarth Street) to stop 28 (Candy/Union Street) = 160m Stop 28 (Candy/Union Street) to stop 29 (Roberts St, south bound) = 180m Stop 29 (Roberts St, south bound) to stop 30) = 140m (Proposed for removal in the original proposal) Stop 28 (Candy Union Street) to stop 30 (Clarke St, nth bound) = 340m
Given the Objective is for 400m between stops, what is the implication?
Stop 26: Walker Street remains (recently upgraded to DDA compliant) 270m between Stop 27: Westgarth Street moves north of the intersection 420m between Stop 30: Clarke Street with southbound stop south of the intersection
Proviso: Due to the loss of the pedestrian operated signals at Candy/Union Street the Group would like to see pedestrian facilities at the north end of the Westgarth shopping strip. For example a pedestrian refuge in the centre of the road with good protection and visibility of/for pedestrians.
Recommendation 3: To provide for cyclists where possible.
As kerb extension stops are not being recommended by the Group, the interaction between cyclists and pedestrians is not a concern.
Lane width around the central island platform may cause some concern for cyclists but it replicates the current situation.
Alternative cycling routes through Westgarth should be investigated and signed matching to a possible Northcote back-street route.
Signals for cyclists to cross Westgarth Street at McLaghlin Street or Rucker Street.
Recommendation 4: Parking on Rucker’s Hill
The group does not recommend further restrictions on Rucker’s Hill and thus parking to be allowed at the current restrictions
The current clearway times can continue where parking would be banned. The Group is open to, during clearway times, a part time tram fairway that would give the tram a dedicated tram lane between Westgarth Street and Clarke Street with cars having the second lane (no parking allowed due to the clearway).
Counter-peak clearways in the pm peak are opposed by the Group.
Recommendation 5: Traffic management outside of Darebin
The Council throughout all development and planning for the Route 86 Improvement Project should actively pursue actions and advocacy to encourage drivers to make decisions on through journey’s prior to entry into Darebin.
Other Considerations
In addition to the above recommendations to Council, the Group would like to convey the following messages to the Council and the community:
- The size and complexity of this project is immense.
- Understanding the opportunities (tram track realignment), obligations (DDA compliance legislation), impacts (traffic modelling, parking data, passenger impact assessments etc) pros, cons and alternative view points takes time to do.
- Four meetings of two hours has led us to these conclusions. The community, during consultation in October/November will not have that time to spend with officers in small groups and as such it will be difficult to grasp a complete understanding of the project. As a result, some weight should be attributed to these highly considered recommendations from a group of community members who have spent the time considering the options, pros and cons.
Report endorsed by:
John Crogan, Brendan Geary, David Cheal, Annie Russell, Palace Westgarth Cinema representatives, Simon Batterbury (to check) Westgarth Community Reference Group Appendix 1: Notes of the four Westgarth Community Reference Group meetings TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - WESTGARTH MEETING 1 NOTES
Date: Tuesday 14 July 2009, 6.30-8.30 pm
Attendees: 6 community members attended, Mandy Bathgate (Facilitator), Kate Downward (staff), Nigel Turner (staff – notetaker).
Apologies: 2 apologies from members
1. Welcome and introductions (15 mins)
Members introduced themselves
Councillors best wishes sent to the group for the coming weeks of meetings.
2. Terms of Reference and Group Agreements (10 mins)
Speak Respectfully (No Interruptions) Time-keeping Time to consider complex issues (allowing ongoing feed-back) Keeping to Terms of Reference Privacy Provisions Maintained Timely Communication (minutes) Facilitator Impartiality E-mail addresses won’t be circulated outside of the group.
3. Short summary of the project proposal for the area (10 mins)
To Clarify – Use of the Slip-lane is not an option for Council? (Staff to clarify if this has been a Council resolution and inform the group. Certainly it is on the record in the Notes of the Westgarth public meeting held on Tuesday 31 March)
Could be a request to Council for final Community Reference Group output if this hasn’t been done already.
Council views this project as an opportunity. Without community support for some form of DDA proposals, State Government becomes the project leader under their DDA program.
Track replacement is also an opportunity
4. Group Discussion of the issues (30 mins)
Immediate vs Long-term Issues – Tram Track Renewal makes Westgarth decisions making critical and imminent.
Impact on core business (Westgarth Cinema) will impact on all local businesses access problems factors out a percentage of society that could be using the precinct (DDA compliant stops will allow these people to access the precinct) large amount of parking lost on Ruckers Hill vs small amount of parking within the centre late night running of services (post-movie) business opportunities revolving around green centres 30min parking restrictions within the precinct impact of clearways on project.
Vehicles vs Stops - DDA Accessible Vehicles are prioritised for those routes with compliant tram stops.
Improved PT & Pedestrian Access vs Vehicle Access
Disability Access and Safety 40km/h limits
Resident Amenity vs PT Access
Ruckers Hill parking restrictions perceived to be unnecessary as queuing doesn’t start until within the Activity Centre.
Merging of 2 lanes south of Westgarth in to 1 north of Westgarth Street is perceived to be dangerous.
U-turn bans.
Removal of Tram Stop 29.
Control of regional traffic outside of Darebin. (Priority Traffic Routes signage strategy)
Westgarth Street Link between High Street and St Georges Road.
Residential Access to High Street/Westgarth Street pocket.
Stop Design (surface treatment).
Speed Limit Reduction (40km/h)
Access to Westgarth
Binding the franchisee to the requirements of this project.
Boarding and alighting time-saving should be considered as a factor of decision making.
Priority of Uses for Build-out Stops: Boarding and Alighting Cycle access across Build-Out Stops. Use of Build-outs by Local Businesses.
Impact of increased population/traffic to the north of the municipality.
Cyclists – providing for this mode along High Street.
5. Break (5 mins)
6. Part 2: Group Discussion of the issues (if required). If time permits, move towards brainstorming of solutions (15 mins)
Incorporated into point 4 above.
7. Objectives for the section (15 mins)
Look at this next meeting
8. Availability of studies and reports for this section (10 mins)
Westgarth Parking Study was distributed to members. This has been repeated following concerns over the initial study presented during the March/April consultation phase.
9. Discuss the Agenda for the next meeting and confirm day/time of next meeting
Late afternoon meeting might be preferable – 4:30-6:30? Agenda to be provided.
10. Discuss Councillor participation
As per initial comments, Councillors best wishes sent regarding the group’s work.
11. Evaluation of the Meeting
Terms of Reference may need to be updated regarding Councillor Involvement.
Participation Positive - Forum of Niceness
Time-keeping well handled.
Consider Holding Meeting in Westgarth
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - WESTGARTH NOTES MEETING 2
Date: Tuesday 28 July 2009
Attendees: 6 members, Mandy Bathgate (Facilitator), Kate Downward (staff), Nigel Turner (staff – notetaker).
Apologies: 2 members
Note: Group recommendations are noted in bold. ‘the pocket’ = the houses south of Westgarth Street and west of High Street.
1. Welcome and introductions for new attendees (5 mins)
No new attendees.
2. Council follow up on issues raised at the first meeting (15 mins)
a. Tram operators commitment to replacing the tram tracks in light of the new franchisee announcement
The Department of Transport has said previously to Council that the replacement of the tram tracks in the Westgarth/Northcote part of High Street is a requirement of whoever holds the franchise. It is not just connected to Yarra Tram's franchise.
b. Council resolution regarding the use of the service road as a slip lane
No, not specifically, however the Councillors acknowledged the conclusions and recommendations of the Community Consultation Report which included the full notes of the Westgarth Roundtable Discussions where it is clearly stated that "Daniel Kollmorgen, Manager of Transport Management and Planning made a commitment that the Proposal in its current form is unacceptable to Council particularly the use of the service road as a sliplane and that a further re-work of the proposal will occur".
For a copy of the minutes please go to page 41 of the following file: http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Files/1_June_2009_-_Council_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
As mentioned at the meeting, if gaining a specific resolution from Council of this nature is important to the Group, then it can be one of the recommendations of the Group to Council.
c. Population growth data for the Westgarth area
Currently being sourced, will be provided at the next meeting (or prior if possible). Where are visitors to the Activity Centre coming from? Can the local shops (the Cinema) provide some information on this? Cinema states that postcode requests they’ve done in the past have been very inaccurate.
Confirmed that VicRoads responsible for the section of High Street south of Westgarth Street – this was a query from last meeting.
3. Issues regarding the original proposal (15 mins)
The issues that weren’t discussed at the first meeting include:
Control of regional traffic outside of Darebin. Westgarth Street Link between High Street and St Georges Road. Residential Access to High Street/Westgarth Street pocket. Impact of increased population/traffic to the north of the municipality.
4. Review of Objectives and Constraints of the Westgarth section (5 mins)
Objectives :
DDA Compliance Tram Priority Improve Safety Improve Connectivity between PT Minimise Parking Loss Minimise Loss of Residential Amenity Improve Pedestrian Amenity Improve Cyclist Amenity Retain Trees Encourage Through traffic to use Preferred Traffic Routes Provide Tram Stops every 400m Maintain Access to Residential Property
5. Moving towards solutions (70 mins – including 5 minute break)
Westgarth/High Street intersection
Group looked at: Type/style/location of accessible tram stops Encouraging through traffic to utilise St Georges Road (via Westgarth Street/Merri Parade) Residential access to High Street/Westgarth Street pocket
Comments:
Merging traffic through the intersection is dangerous. Investigate a single lane going through the intersection in to the activity centre.
Queries regarding centre island stops and guard rail and are centre island stops are inherently dangerous (Melbourne Uni death from running out to a tram stopped at a centre island stop)
Can we do further investigation regarding the removal/movement of Telstra infrastructure located near the public toilets on the corner of High and Westgarth?
Investigate a dedicated right hand turn on to Westgarth Street from High Street south.
Moving Stop south of the intersection reduces connectivity from PT into the AC. Stops north of the intersection should be investigated.
Centre island stop seems more feasible than two build-out stops.
Discussion around where diverted traffic will relocate.
Improving pedestrian connectivity across Westgarth Street is critical in terms of pedestrian safety.
Slip Lane Removal is critical in terms of pedestrian amenity.
Investigate signal phasing for pedestrians crossing from ‘the pocket’ to the Activity Centre.
If alternative cycle routes are being promoted, can improved crossing of Westgarth at McLachlan be investigated. This may be combined with lights for vehicles at the same intersection.
Access issues for all modes from ‘the pocket’ to the Activity Centre.
Particularly vehicular access on to Westgarth and High Street from ‘the pocket’.
Type/style/location of accessible tram stops within Westgarth Including loss of parking as a result
Location
Agreed that any solution should provide excellent connectivity with the Activity Centre and other public transport.
Type/Style
Kerb Outstand - Potential for increased pedestrian space and business use but need to discuss how. Will existing footpath business uses (ie tables and chairs) be protected from misuse by people waiting for the tram? Or will there be any potential removal of existing seating?
Centre Island Platform - Less impact on parking is seen as positive by traders. Less impact on cycling seen as positive.
Easy Access Stops - Seen to be dangerous. No further consideration required.
The alternative to deciding to move forward with design of tram stops is getting a cookie cutter treatment from Department of Transport to meet DDA compliance in in 5-7 years time.
Ruckers Hill parking restrictions
Clearway on Ruckers Hill is seen as not desirable and does not impact tram travel times as congestion does not start until within the AC.
Times restrictions (within peaks) should be investigated.
Tram stop 29 removal
Seen as important to retain in terms of access to the government housing being rebuilt.
More info regarding levels of usage might help to inform a decision.
More information around the design of the government housing – is the pedestrian link to High Street from the third floor in the plans?.
Removal of south bound stop at Clarke Street (stop 30) seen as more desirable.
Cyclists / tram stop design /space allocation
Build-out Stop - Cyclists going over tram stop seen as dangerous. Bicycle management and education must be used to justify this type of treatment.
Centre Island Stop - Issue not applicable.
Through traffic / use of Westgarth Street & Merri Parade / Population growth
Issue but not controllable at this level. Bring up again at next meeting.
Trial treatments/piloting new types of treatment could be an option.
6. Summary of agreed outcomes/conclusions from the meeting and clear outline of the work for staff to do (10 mins)
See points in bold. Staff to try and provide plans of options for the intersection/activity centre for discussion at meeting 3.
7. Next meeting
Same time and place in a fortnight unless alternate time proposed by those who were an apology. TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - WESTGARTH NOTES MEETING 3
Date: Tuesday 11 August 2009
Attendees: Four members, Mandy Bathgate (Facilitator), Kate Downward (staff), Nigel Turner (staff – notetaker).
Apologies: 1 member
1. Welcome
2. Council follow up on issues raised at previous meetings
d. Population growth data for the Westgarth area
This information was requested at the first meeting. 2001 & 2006 Census Data Provided to the group. 8% growth in the Westgarth area to be taken into account.
Population in Westgarth* Darebin City Council (Number of total persons)
% change Location 2006 2001 1996 2001- 2006
Westgarth 5,962 5,514 na 8.1% Northcote 22,061 20,880 20,357 4.5% Northcote SLA 45,906 44,290 43,956 2.3% City of Darebin 128,068 123,484 121,792 2.4%
*Sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 1996, 2001 & 2006 Census of Population and Housing
e. Tram stop 29 versus tram stop 30 usage statistics
Metlink data that is used for tram patronage was taken in 2005. There is no data for stop 29 however.
Recent statistics collected by Council does not give an indication of the real usage of stop 29 as the Roberts Street housing facility has been missing.
f. Improved crossing for cyclists at McLachlan/Rucker Street
Works associated with the Merri Creek pipe bridge project (between Council, Yarra City, and Melbourne Water) will assist with the crossing of Westgarth Street near Rucker Street. Cyclists will most likely stop using the Rushall Station narrow pedestrian bridge in favour of the wider more appealing shared bridge that will be created close to the railway crossing of the Merri Creek.
3. Possible configurations of tram stops
Proposal from a group member – Moving trams to the side of the road. Parking issues were discussed by the group and the wholesale removal of parking to facilitate this proposal was considered too extreme to take any further.
Four options for tram stop 27 (at High Street and Westgarth Street) were presented to the group. These can be found in appendix 1.
Option 1; Central island platform tram stop located south of the intersection. Has a slip lane for a left turning lane (into Westgarth/Merri Street) that retains the service lane outside the houses.
Pros Cons Long turning lane Pedestrian provision across the slip-lane Good pedestrian access to the platforms. is not improved. (Possible signals across the slip lane)
Proximity of the slip-lane to residential properties is still unacceptable. Felt this was contrary to the statement made previously about not putting traffic down the slip lane.
Crashes associated with people pulling out of ‘the pocket’ (at Walker Street extension) at the same time as people slowing to turn left into the slip lane seen as a problem.
Residents won’t be able to get out from the service road into the slip-lane – cars won’t make room for them.
Where does the footpath fit between High Street and the slip-lane? Pedestrians need to be provided for, particularly if a pedestrian crossing is provided at the south end of the platform, it must lead to somewhere.
Loss of right turn for those heading south down High Street west into Westgarth Street.
Could look into bus priority on the tram tracks for buses turning right from High on to Westgarth.
Could look into possible inclusion of hook-turns into the project to facilitate right turn for those heading south down High Street west into Westgarth Street. To be investigated.
Option 2: Central Island platform stop north of the intersection with no slip lane south of the intersection as three lanes of traffic are accommodated – left, straight and right (off the tram tracks).
Pros Cons Potential for peak hours tram fairway Loss of pedestrian operated signals at through the centre (peak hour fairways Union/Candy Street as they are provided on Ruckers Hill also discussed and seen at Barry Street as a more acceptable outcome than the 24/7 fairway in the initial proposal) Loss of right turn for those heading south down High Street west into Westgarth Residents accepting of location of left Street. turning traffic lane
Pedestrian safety benefits with no slip lane to cross
Not needing to move the Telstra Infrastructure or toilets (expensive)
Opportunity for a gateway landscaping treatment coming into Westgarth (possibly with planting etc.)
Parking retention around stops in non peak times
LED lights to be investigated to delineate Fairways. Also signage. Cycling Provision seen as not getting worse (not a pro and not a con) Investigate whether left turns would be impacted by Fairways.
Option 2b: Central Island platform stop north of the intersection with no slip lane south of the intersection as three lanes of traffic are accommodated – left, straight and right (right hand turn is on the tram tracks however).
Pros Cons Potential for peak hours tram fairway Right turners on the tram tracks will through the centre (peak hour fairways impact tram travel times. Negates the on Ruckers Hill also discussed and seen point of the project. as a more acceptable outcome than the 24/7 fairway in the initial proposal) Loss of pedestrian operated signals at Union/Candy Street as they are provided Residents accepting of location of left at Barry Street turning traffic lane Loss of right turn for those heading south Pedestrian safety benefits with no slip down High Street west into Westgarth lane to cross Street.
Not needing to move the Telstra Infrastructure or toilets (expensive)
Opportunity for a gateway landscaping treatment coming into Westgarth (possibly with planting etc.)
Parking retention around stops in non peak times
Option 3: Central Island platform stop north of the intersection. Has a slip lane for a left turning lane (into Westgarth/Merri Street) that retains the service lane outside the houses.
Pros Cons Tram has a dedicated southbound lane Loss of pedestrian operated signals at (Not a huge issue unless traffic queues Union/Candy Street as they are provided back from Urquhart or the Hoddle Street at Barry Street lights.) Pedestrian provision across the slip-lane Long left turning lane provided by the slip is not improved. (Possible signals across lane. the slip lane.)
Good pedestrian access to the platforms. Proximity of the slip-lane to residential properties is still unacceptable. Felt this was contrary to the statement made previously about not putting traffic down the service lane.
Crashes associated with people pulling out of the pocket at the same time as people slowing to turn left seen as a problem.
Residents won’t be able to get out from the service lane in to the slip-lane.
Where does the footpath fit between High Street and the slip-lane?
Loss of right turn for those heading south down High Street west into Westgarth Street.
Summary of the four options presented:
Centre Island Stops north of the intersection seen as more beneficial than south of the intersection.
Option 2 seems to cater for residents, the tram and businesses – seems to be the better option. Retains the parking in the centre, the stop is easy to get to, there is no slip lane, stop is located in a central position.
Note – pedestrians out of Cunningham and across High Street. Currently have no facilities (ie signals). Are facilities required?
Stop location
Residents will fight strenuously for stop 29 due to the Roberts Street residents moving back in within 12 months, however group members see that there is some sense in combining it with stop 30 moving south of the intersection.
The Clarke Street southbound stop is proposed to move south of the intersection. Taking into account the easy access stop ramps and stop length, the first doors of the tram that you will come across is approximately 60m north of the current location of stop 29.
If Option 2 is agreed upon for stop 27 (stop located north of the High/Westgarth intersection), the following approximate distances would exist:
Stop 26 (Walker Street) to stop 27 (Westgarth Street) = 270 Stop 27 (Westgarth Street) to stop 28 (Candy/Union Street) = 160m Stop 28 (Candy/Union Street) to stop 29 (Roberts St, sth bound) = 180m Stop 29 (Roberts St, sth bound) to stop 30) = 140m Stop 28 (Candy Union Street) to stop 30 (Clarke St, nth bound) = 340m
Given the Objective is for 400m between stops, what is the implication?
Stop 26: Walker street remains (recently upgraded to DDA compliant) 270m between Stop 27: Westgarth street moves north of the intersection 420m between Stop 30: Clarke street with southbound stop south of the intersection
If this scenario was to occur (loss of stop 28 at Candy/Union – including the pedestrian operated signals?) and stop 29 combined with stop 30, then pedestrian facilities would be required at the Candy/Union end. For example a pedestrian refuge in the centre of the road with good protection and visibility of/for pedestrians. Pram ramps at either side of the road and possibly road narrowing for slowing of vehicles and shortening crossing length for pedestrians.
4. Summary of agreed outcomes/conclusions from the meeting and clear outline of the work for staff to do (10 mins)
Group agreed that the report template was worth working with. Kate to fill in the template for circulation, based on meeting notes, prior to the next meeting.
5. Evaluation of the Meeting
Good.
6. Possible agenda items for final meeting
Final report Consultation plan for comment by the group
7. Confirmation of date/time of final meeting
Time to change to half an hour later; 5-7pm.
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - WESTGARTH NOTES MEETING 4
Date: Tuesday 25 August 2009
Attendees: 6 members, Mandy Bathgate (Facilitator), Kate Downward (staff), Nigel Turner (staff – notetaker).
Apologies: 1 member
1. Welcome
2. Discussion regarding comments by absent members at meeting three
Feedback from member 1 who provided written feedback as he was absent from the third meeting:
- Central island stop north of the Westgarth Street intersection was seen as positive - Still a feeling that parking up Rucker’s Hill should be retained - Westgarth population is increasing with 50 new dwellings in Westgarth pushing up population numbers - Better crossing required at McLachlan/Westgarth Street for increasing numbers of cyclists - Pavement is too narrow for pedestrians on the High Street bridge over the Merri Creek into Clifton Hill
Feedback from member 2 who provided written feedback as he was absent from the third meeting:
Concern with re-inclusion of a slip-lane in some of the options presented to the Reference Group. • Group agreed that a recommendation should go to Council that no slip-lane in any format should be considered in options. • Group agreed that any options including a slip-lane should not be presented to Council for consideration.
3. Discussion of the draft recommendation report to Council
The draft report was compiled by the Group with careful wording of each recommendation and justification for the recommendations relating back to the Objectives of the project.
The draft recommendation report will be finalised and circulated to the group tomorrow for final sign off prior to attributing their names to it.
Group members to reply to Kate with their changes or willingness to accept the report prior to it being presented to Council.
4. Other considerations and issues
Concerns have been expressed to members of the Reference Group of the removal of tram stop 29. They will have their chance to comment on these during community consultation.
Some other considerations/questions raised by one member:
- Pedestrian crossing time at lights needs to be extended – added into recommendations - Cunningham Street pedestrian lights – are these required? No - Long left hand turn lane – is it long enough? Yes - Bus will be part of right turn traffic east into Westgarth Street? Yes - Removal of two car parks which are dangerous north bound on High Street? Not included in the group’s recommendations - Ban of right hand turn traffic west into Westgarth Street? Yes - Duplication of Merri Parade? No - Ban u turn in High Street? Already a solid white line, however u turns still occur - Pedestrian lights at Barry Street? will be added if the central island platform goes ahead - Remove stop south of Westgarth St? Yes, if the central island platform goes ahead - Remove Union/Candy stop? Yes, if the central island platform goes ahead - Not retaining stop 28? Yes as it will only be 100m from the central island platform if it goes ahead - Clarke Street stop moving? Yes the south bound stop will go south of the intersection - Traffic being diverted to St Georges Road? Yes, it is the preferred traffic route - Retain parking on Ruckers Hill? Yes, however the group recommends the current clearways are retained and during these times a part time tram fairway (priority for the tram) could be installed between Clarke Street and Westgarth Street
5. Questions/comments
Only five Councillors are eligible to vote on this project. Why? Because of the conflict of interest declarations, there are four Councillors who have property or close relatives with property directly on the tram line.
Disabled parking currently exists outside the cinema, Spanish language school and pharmacy – to be confirmed. If impacted these would not be lost but be re-located within the strip.
6. Draft Community Consultation Plan for October/November – input and comment from the group
Short presentation on the extent of consultation planned. The group saw there is two gaps that should be considered:
Residents of Roberts Street to be contacted via DHS Bicycle Victoria to be consulted – meetings already arranged
7. Wrap Up This being the final meeting will result in the dissolution of the Reference Group.
Appreciation of the commitment of Council officers for after hours commitment
Formal acknowledgement of group members for the time and energy and being part of the process.
Thanks Mandy for Facilitation
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP – NORTHCOTE Recommendation Report
Background
The Northcote Community Reference Group for the Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project was convened by Council to provide community input into the re-work of the Project.
Nine nominees were selected by Council for the group to attend fortnightly over July/August/September 2009.
This Report contains a summary of the discussions and debates that were held between group members over the four meetings. The Notes of each meeting are presented in Appendix 1.
The Report is divided into sections; 1. The bigger picture limitations – with advocacy actions for Council which were outside the scope of the project remit. 2. The Recommendations – including an acknowledgement of the impact these recommendations may have 3. Appendices.
The bigger picture limitations
It was recognised by the Group that the Tram Route 86 Project is not isolated from the wider metropolitan area including the transport network and land use patterns. As such there were numerous issues that were outside the scope of this group and broader than the Tram Route 86 Project that deserve some mention and continued advocacy from Council.
1. Population growth and the extension of the urban growth boundary is enabling housing to be built in areas which have little or no access to public transport. This in turn creates pressure on the inner areas, such as Northcote, as people particularly in single occupant vehicles, funnel their way through from the outer areas to the inner areas for work and social opportunities.
2. The level of public transport funding is insufficient for the needs of the populace. Public transport, to be a viable option for many, must be improved significantly and funded accordingly. This includes extending routes, extending service times and increasing the availability of trains, trams and buses in order to carry more patrons. It is particularly the role of trains for long distance public transport trips and this should be recognised with appropriate funding.
3. Council should recognise that in attempting to improve the amenity of High Street there will be detrimental effects to the local area – including; - increased traffic and parking in nearby side streets; and - an increased volume of traffic on parallel alternative routes and consequent traffic bottle necks (eg. St Georges Rd/Merri Parade intersection and along Merri Parade) which may at some hours of the day/night be detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area, adding to the current congestion; - some potential negative impacts, especially at peak hour to traffic flow on High Street. The Recommendations
Despite the bigger picture issues the group, on balance, is in favour of the project particularly given the more global positive changes which include:
- A connected and accessible transport network and improved public transport; - Increased retail/commercial activity; - Climate change and appropriate environmental responses; - Walkability and community amenity; - The use of Northcote into the future by increasing population by higher density residential development.
Objectives set by Council and the project stakeholders such as State Government departments for the group provided the focus for discussions and recommendations for the group. The Objectives were:
1. To create tram stops that are accessible to people of all abilities (Disability Discrimination Act compliant). 2. To provide priority to the tram over single occupant motor vehicles to gain tram travel time and reliability improvements. 3. To improve safety for all road users. 4. To improve connectivity to public transport and key destinations in centres of activity. 5. To minimise parking losses in centres of activity. 6. To minimise impact on local residents. 7. To improve the Northcote Streetscape with an emphasis on improving the experience for pedestrians and enhancing economic vitality. 8. To provide for cyclists where possible. 9. To encourage through traffic to utilise alternative preferred traffic routes. 10. To achieve tram stops every 400m (approximately) in accordance with public transport guidelines for land use and development.
Recommendations from the group are:
Recommendation 1: That tram stops that are Disability Discrimination Act compliant have more advantages than disadvantages within the Northcote Streetscape.
This recommendation was settled upon by the majority of Group members for the following reasons:
- That DDA compliant tram stops will be required within the next eight years – to meet the Federal Government’s targets of 90% compliance by 2017.
- Through Council’s involvement of the community in this project there is a local voice to how the stops may look and be placed. This avoids a cookie-cutter approach that may happen into the future as the deadline looms, which would not be a positive outcome for Northcote.
- That DDA compliant kerb extension stops will not materially change any operational aspects of High Street (except the loss of parking) for 22 hours of the day. The two hours of the clearway times is the main time an impact will be felt by traffic as they are required to merge into one lane at the kerb extension stops.
- That DDA compliant stops have more benefits than just accessibility for people with mobility impairments or for parents with prams and shoppers with jeeps. Combined with the Northcote Streetscape Masterplan they will add public space, green areas, safety improvements and art possibilities. They also provide improved tram travel times because of anticipated faster boarding and alighting as passengers are not crossing the road to get to the tram. This has the added safety benefits of passengers not interacting with passing cars.
- There is a desire to see DDA stops implemented in Northcote sooner rather than later, even though the State Government may fall behind on the target of 90% compliance by 2017.
- Even though low floor trams may not be available immediately on Route 86 if the platform tram stops go ahead in Northcote, the other safety, tram travel time benefits and streetscape improvements warrant the stops to be installed regardless. Additionally, boarding at a superstop is easier even on current tram vehicles.
Limitation:
- one group member disagreed with this recommendation and the views expressed by this member can be found in Appendix 2.
Recommendation 2: That the original plans for tram stop 32 at Hawthorn Road/Mitchell Street be altered to move the kerb extension stops away from these intersecting streets.
This recommendation was settled upon by the Group after an investigation of five different options as well as the original proposal. Discussions involved the following points:
- Emergency vehicles (Fire Brigade and Ambulance) exiting Mitchell Street up to ten times per day will find this configuration easier to ‘push’ cars out of the way to gain access to High Street.
- Still allows for streetscape improvements compared to central island platform tram stops that were also considered.
- Right hand turns into Mitchell Street and Hawthorn Road can still be facilitated.
- Verandahs may be seen as providing enough shelter to public transport users, however seats may still be required. This would result in the eastern side footpath reducing to 1.9 meters to accommodate a seat.
- Concern that tram users exiting the tram will cross over the road off the platform, not going to the pedestrian lights. This would probably happen anyway regardless of where the pedestrian lights are located.
- The group understands that these are preliminary drawings only and when Functional designs and 3D drawings are done, the crossfall on the west side of High Street (the slope of the road from the middle to the properties on the western side) may not be possible without the use of stairs and ramps that will create a barrier within the footpath. The group’s order of preference is for;
o Adjustments to make the proposal as seamless between the footpath and the kerb outstand o Consideration of barriers/steps/ramps in the footpath/platform area o The next preferred option (a pair of kerb outstand stops north of Mitchell Street) as per design option 1 as presented to the group.
The Group also recommends that the additional kerb extensions provided near the existing pedestrian operated signals could be extended over the front of the signals so pedestrians would only have 2 lanes of traffic to cross and not four.
Recommendation 3: That cyclists be provided for over the top of kerb outstand stops; that alternative, parallel routes for cyclists be signed, and marked; and that education campaigns for pedestrians and cyclists be undertaken on installation.
It was recognised by the Group that:
- The safest option for cyclists at kerb outstand tram stops is not to push them around the stop and into the tram/traffic lane, but to provide an option for them to go up and over the kerb outstand.
- The detailed design of the ramps and area for cyclists must involve visual clues, colour, tactile pavers and the use of furniture and lighting for pedestrians and cyclists to understand where their spaces are and what rules apply (ie cyclists give way to boarding/alighting tram users, pedestrians give way to through cyclists when no tram is present).
- That a close parallel route for cyclists (not as far away as St Georges Road shared path) be investigated for through cyclists, possibly originating in Westgarth. A “Canning Street” style route would be optimal.
- That an intensive education campaign for pedestrians and cyclists and drivers should be undertaken along Route 86.
- While a dedicated bike on High Street would be preferable, the group understands that the limitations of the road geometry does not enable this facility.
Other Recommendations made by the Group in addition to the three main recommendations above:
Recommendation 4: That stop 31, the extended kerb outstands outside the Northcote Town Hall, be kept as per the original proposal. With the following notes: - cyclists are on the ramps for the portion of the platform stop only - no loss of parking at Westbourne Grove - No loss of parking outside Peacock Hotel - Platforms can act as a reception stand for unloading of goods and equipment for Northcote Town Hall. Unloading provision also already provided at the back of the Civic Square.
Recommendation 5: That stop 33, the central island platform stop north of the Separation Street intersection, be kept as per the original proposal.
Recommendation 6: That the Barnes Walk proposed at the Separation Street intersection, which would allow pedestrians to cross diagonally across the intersection when the ‘green man’ phase is available to access the central island, be kept. The group recognises that the Barnes Walk will be beneficial for pedestrians but will have some implications on vehicle traffic waiting times. In addition, the Barnes Walk is positive in linking with the bus and train.
Recommendation 7: That the proposed slip lane removal at the Separation Street intersection, be kept in the plans. Some group members expressed concerns with left hand movements and through movements sharing the same lane.
Report endorsed by:
Daryl Colless; Alison Breach; Rob Seale; Nicole Oke; Liliana Rizzo; Diane Gardiner; Andrew McAdam; Kate Sieh; Sarah Haq;
Northcote Community Reference Group Members
Appendix 1: Notes of the four Northcote Community Reference Group meetings TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - Northcote MEETING 1 NOTES
Date: Tuesday 21 July 2009
Attendees: Eight members, Jim Barrett (Facilitator), Kate Downward (staff), James Dickson (staff).
Apologies: One member
1. Welcome and introductions (15 mins)
• Introduction to staff present • Welcome, each member introduced themselves • First meeting agenda is pretty tight. • Confidentiality: Notes from this meeting will be available to the public but with no names attached to comments.
2. Terms of Reference and Group Agreements (10 mins)
• Group agreement for respect, don’t talk over each other, allow others to contribute and treat other people’s opinions with respect. • Some aspects of the Terms of Reference were discussed. • Goal for the group is to run through positive and negative issues with the proposal and come up with a compromise plan at the end of four meetings. • No proxies • CRG is not a decision making body.
3. Short summary of the project proposal for the area (10 mins)
Kate provided a summary of the project and respective superstops planned for Northcote
4. Group Discussion of the issues (30 mins)
Pros and Cons received from the group.
Pros:
• Reducing speed limit • green aspect -trees • more space for pedestrians • disability access • safety improvement for PT users
Cons:
• Cycle facilities on platform tram stops. Space is a constraint. Two options exist; 1. Cyclists stay on the road and negotiate around outstands into tram tracks area and ride along road. 2. Cyclists go up and over the platform involves going up a ramp travel along the platform and down ramp back onto road. More preferable option than pushing vulnerable cyclists into the traffic.
Comments: Cyclists could be diverted to St.Georges Road. Safety on the platforms will be an issue. Through traffic would be encouraged along St. Georges Rd. Bicycle Victoria has made comments on their website on the plans. Pedestrian are our focus in Activity Centres.
Other option: For the 109 Tram treatment of bicycles, they were sent behind the tram stop to the footpath then back on the road. This is a residential zone, different circumstances, not appropriate for activity centres where there are shop fronts and street furniture etc.
Very large education program needed to inform cyclist and public transport users of the new arrangements.
• Disconnect of the aims of the project and what is being proposed? How will superstops and narrowing road surface will facilitate a faster reliable tram service? Project is mixing up streetscape improvements and Route 86. Is it about improving Route 86. Project as a whole but particularly in Northcote.
• Mitchell street and Hawthorn intersection: cars travelling south turning right. Right turn bans were proposed. Is this really an improvement?
• Is this project really going ahead and the CRG just tweaking the edges? No, everything is up in the air. All cards are on the table for discussion. CRG are being tracked by Councillors. CRG recommendations will carry weight.
Kate response; Tram Route 86 is a 7km project and travel time savings will happen along the whole stretch, not just in Northcote. Travel time savings in Northcote will be around the boarding from the super-stops rather than standard stops. Studies prove that improved times are received.
• Right hand turns. Concern that right hand turn bans will increase traffic in area. Believe that will slow down traffic and hence slow down tram movement along High Street.
• Public transport services are not good enough to support more frequent travel. Whittlesea population increase comes in by cars because there is not the infrastructure. Single lanes not going to matter whether it is peak hour or not. It will be busy regardless. Mitchell street intersections cars are able to move around at the moment, common for cars to turn int bastings street.
• Emergency services (ambulance) will have trouble getting out into single lane and will have trouble responding to emergencies. Ambulance issue is the congestion, stymied by narrow roads and cannot push cars out of the way as you can now.
• Parking at doctors surgery for Ambulance; at the moment they find park out the front, but if a 33 metre super stop is there that won’t be possible. Also old people who need taxis outside doctors.
Response: apart from the stop, it will be the status quo for the ambulance – if there is no where to park they double park and will block traffic and trams. Can look at a place for ambulance.
• Does there have to be a superstop at every stop? Yes according to law we have to provide Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant stops, includes all stops.
• Around Plaza- opportunity to upgrade bus stop outside Plaza. Currently, the Plaza interface could be significantly improved and provide a better private/public relationship.
• Intergrating the bus and tramstop public transport. Is this possible?
• St Georges Rd – what is going to happen along St Georges with less traffic going down High Street.
• Tree location will reduce visual connection.
Response: no lower planting only trees with lower branches cut out to ensure visibility is not restricted.
• Platforms – pedestrians will have right of way over cyclists.
• Education campaign about reducing hoon drivers particularly at night.
Our number one priority is pedestrians in Activity Centres. At Separation Street the Barnes Walk will need to be approved by Vic Roads. Traffic signal timing concern. Instead of pedestrians doing 2 legs we are looking at improving pedestrian crossover time.
5. Break (5 mins)
6. Part 2: Group Discussion of the issues.
Looking at the main issues in more detail:
Cyclists Melbourne City Council had a number of options in their Swanston Street proposals. Is there anything we take from those options?
• Possibility to mark an alternative (back street) route for cyclist if they don’t want to traverse the superstops along High Street. • Boom gates have been suggested as a possibility for platform locations to stop cyclists entering the platform when a tram is stopped. • Pedestrian safety improved with travelling across 2 lanes only at platform locations. Currently you travel across 4 lanes. • Danger overstated for cyclist at platforms. Putting a pram out on a normal stop is extremely dangerous. Perhaps danger with cyclist at platforms is over stated. • Copenhagen style 2 way cycle lanes to one side of the road. Would have to be 3 metres wide to provide 1.5 for each lane. Not enough road width.
Platforms: Three lanes of tram tracks were proposed by a member which included ‘easy access’ stops as originally proposed for Plenty Road whereby cars go up and over the platform and when a tram is there pedestrians walk out onto the platform to access the tram.
Raises the question of platform type; easy access versus kerb outstand. Easy access prioritises cars. Northcote being an activity centre Council was trying to cater for pedestrians. Further discussion required.
Mitchell Street Intersection: Is the easy access stop appropriate for this location? An easy access stop still won’t allow emergency vehicles exiting from Mitchell Street to utilise the kerbside lane as the platform is 30cm high. A hazard.
Other topics to discuss later:
Right Hand Turns Will PT match the new infrastructure / Advocacy Emergency Services
7. Objectives for the section (15 mins)
The objectives were read through
8. Availability of studies and reports for this section (10 mins)
• The Northcote Travel Survey was distributed to members. • Future studies that will be made available to the group as they are completed include a Passenger Impact Assessment, Cost-Benefit analysis, impact on the network and costings of the project.
9. Discuss the Agenda for the next meeting and confirm day/time of next meeting
Time, place and date agreed upon TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - Northcote MEETING 2 NOTES
Date: Tuesday 4 August 2009
Attendees: 8 members attended, Jim Barrett (Facilitator), Kate Downward (staff), James Dickson (staff).
Apologies: 1 member
10. Welcome (5 mins)
11. Recap of the first meeting (15 mins) • The discussion needs more structure. • Do we want / need superstops? • What are the CRG thoughts on size and type of superstops • Looking at superstops – discussion of type. Configuration. • Council’s perspective - Darebin transport strategy has signed on by Council. • Why we are not talking around objectives? • What do the superstops look like?
Debate regarding the want/need for superstops: • Concern over the proposal driven by Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). Has the State Government got exemptions to the DDA timelines? What is the State Government’s Action Plan for DDA and what is required/necessary for DDA compliance? Proposal at gov. level to not have them at every stop. Question whether we need 100% compliant along Route 86? • The timeframes set out in the Act are: 55% Compliance by 2012, 90 % by 2017. Investigate exemptions and compliance requirements. Council officers to report to the group next meeting. • There are many positive elements to introducing platforms. Not just driven by DDA requirements. Can there be a combination? • Business association has been lobbing council to slow traffic, increase amenity to street, better access, less emphasis on cars to get to the centre. 70% of customers coming by public transport. 30 % choosing to drive. • More people living in the Northcote community and less reliance on cars e.g 33% arrive by car.
12. Bigger issues that need acknowledging but are not part of the scope of Route 86 (5 mins) • Residents living along St. Georges road will be affected. Minimise impacts on residents living near by. • Improved public transport system before we are ready to be DDA compliant. • Advocating for public transport. • Acknowledging that in improving High St amenities there may well be detrimental impacts on Northcote/other areas. • Other people will be affected. e.g. St Georges Rd will be affected. • High Street is an Activity Centre where the priority is pedestrians • Concern over concentration of cars in side streets. • 22 hrs of the day there is currently only 1 lane for traffic. In peak hours there is currently 2 lanes for traffic. Peak hours will be the only real change in Northcote for traffic. • Acknowledge advantages of DDA compliant stops. Easier to board trams for parents with kids and for the able bodied. • Buses provide DDA compliance. DDA is about inclusiveness. Not about separate forms of transport.
13. DDA Compliant tram stops
Do Group members support DDA compliant tram stops in Northcote? Break down of peoples views: • Sitting on the fence. Support superstops in principal but what are the benefits and weighing up the negatives. • No. High Street too narrow for superstops. • Qualified yes. Strategic stops in place but not all along High Street. • Yes. Because it is an activity centre • Yes. Great viable public transport, making activity centres pedestrian friendly. Acknowledge creates congestion • Tentative Yes. Support superstops, streets safer. Are we going to have trams that do not need superstops? • Yes. mostly because it is about cultural change. See the benefits and see the bigger picture. • Tentatively yes. 22 hrs a day is one lane anyway. Difficulty visualise what is going to happen.
Yes – three members Tentative/qualified yes – three members No – one member Sitting on the fence – one member
14. Traffic modelling information has become available.
Summary only: • The existing traffic capacity along High Street Northcote does not change dramatically with the changes. • However there would be a reduction in cars along the corridor. • Model predicts the increase in tram users will come from cars (50%) and from the train (50%) • Minutes saved by tram users is significantly larger than the additional minutes people will spend in cars. • The model looks at the current situation versus the first proposal for Route 86. • Population growth in centre and Melbourne.
15. Key issues for discussion – raised at the first meeting (30 mins)
a) Right Hand Turn bans
• Turn bans are not proposed for the Northcote section of the project. • Cars turning right into Hawthorn Road (to access the car park around the back) may slow traffic. Currently a car can squeeze past a right turning vehicle at this point. With a superstop at the location, this would be impossible. • Comments from ambulance facilities is required to further this discussion.
b) Mitchell St/ Hawthorn St intersection • Extent of superstop impedes ambulances. Opportunity to have ambulance parking at front. Pedestrian facilities is in the right spot. • Option for just tram stops not extensions. Issue of through traffic through funnelling. • The group wants to look at other options for this stop. Council to prepare options in readiness for next meeting.
c) Town Hall Stop • Public space out front of hall
d) Separation Street Island treatment • 66 metres long almost to Robbs Parade and 2.4 metres wide. Trams never side by side.
e) Barnes Crossing
• Requires more discussion. • Not supported by some members of the group.
f) Emergency Services
To discuss at the next meeting when Ambulance representative present.
16. Discuss the Agenda for the next meeting
• Options for Hawthorn intersection • Swanston street option and cyclists • Exemptions on D.D.A. • Structure of final report. • Bring along Northcote Streetscape Master Plan Drawings to next meeting. • Check availability of Survey information.
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - Northcote MEETING 3 NOTES
Date: Tuesday 18 August 2009
Attendees: 8 members, Jim Barrett (Facilitator), Kate Downward (staff), James Dickson (staff)
Apologies: 1 member
1. Welcome
2. Follow up from previous meetings/ further information requested
• Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) exemptions and compliance
Kate followed this action up with Andrea McDonald, Manager of the Department of Transport’s Public Transport Division DDA compliance team.
Andrea indicated that the State Government’s Accessible Public Transport in Victoria, Action Plan 2006-2012 was the key document (Go to http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/doi/doielect.nsf/2a6bd98dee287482ca256915001cff0 c/db09215841890e3eca2571f0000b2760/$FILE/Accessible_Public_Transport_2006- 2012.pdf
The priorities for trams listed in the report are for boarding and tactile pavers. Trams may fall behind the target of 90% by 2017 because of the massive amount of work to be done, but the 2032 target is their ultimate.
Query raised: Concern over distance between stops. Answer: Applying the recommended guidelines of 400 metres between tram stops there are no stops set to be removed in the Northcote (Clarke Street to Separation Street) section. Whereas in Thornbury the proposal was for four stops to be removed as distances were as close as 135 metres in non-Activity Centre locations.
Query: Why is DDA compliance not implemented in 10 years time? Answered by the Group: - Business in the Northcote area does not want to wait. They do not want the area to be left behind. - Business would wants to get in early to ensure that they have input into the planning process rather than it all happening in ‘cookie-cutter’ fashion without consultation. - Want to see integrated into the street with the Streetscape Masterplan. - It was generally agreed by the group that we should not ‘wait and see’.
Query raised in the first meeting regarding the outcome of the Swanston Street options for cyclists/pedestrians/trams that the City of Melbourne were consulting on.
The City of Melbourne’s consultation showed that their design option 6 which removed cars from Swanston Street was the preferred model. Detailed design work will be required to further iron our how aspects of this model will work.
• Parking surveys for Northcote were commissioned by Council to prepare for queries the group may have over loss of parking.
The survey was distributed and the point regarding only 33% of shoppers to High Street arrive by car was noted again.
• Northcote Streetscape Master Plan Drawings
In response to a query last meeting, the drawings have been bought along to help with the discussions this evening.
3. Key issues for discussion
4. asdf
At the second meeting, tram stop 32 at Hawthorn Road /Mitchell Street intersection was raised as a concern for emergency vehicles exiting Mitchell Street, Ambulances parking at Doctors of Northcote and turning movements into Hawthorn Road and Mitchell Street.
Five options were designed for the group to assess.
Option 1; Offset kerb outstand stops located south of Mitchell Street
Pros Cons Less likely to cause disruptions with right Ambulance: still a little congested, turning vehicles into side streets. improvement on original layout.
Pedestrian crossing in good location.
Option 2: Central island platform stop 66 metres in length and 2.4 meters wide south of Mitchell Street. Trams must pull up offset to each other not opposite each other as the platform would need to be much wider for this.
Two pedestrian operated signals need to be installed for a central island platform – one at each end. The trams will have offside loading (opposite side to what currently occurs along High Street) and there is no room for pedestrian fencing between the trams and the passing cars. The Department of Transport has necessitated that the signals will stop cars entering the area beside the tram while is loading/unloading in case the driver opens the wrong door.
Pros Cons Potentially more disruptive to car travel Do not get any additional pedestrian with the pedestrian operated signals space. shutting the road down whenever a tram is at the stop. No opportunity for extra community spaces
Two pedestrian operated signals necessitates the loss of 30 metres of car parking.
Option 3: Offset kerb outstand stops located north of Hawthorn Road
Pros Cons Possibly of ramps and steps onto the platform stops because the crossfall of the road (sloping down from the centre to the western property boundary) may mean the platform on the west side is too steep for DDA compliance.
Option 4: Central island platform stop 66 metres in length and 2.4 meters wide north of Hawthorn Road.
High Street narrows slightly north of Hawthorn Road and the required widths of lanes and the platform cannot fit here.
Option 5: Kerb extension platform stops further separated – northbound north of Hawthorn Road and Southbound south of Mitchell Street.
Pros Cons Emergency vehicles (Fire Brigade and Verandahs may be seen as providing enou Ambulance) exiting Mitchell Street up to ten shelter to public transport users, however times per day will find this configuration eas may still be required. This would result in t ‘push’ cars out of the way to gain access to eastern side footpath reducing to 1.9 mete Street. accommodate a seat.
Still allows for streetscape improvements Concern that tram users exiting the tram w compared to central island platform tram st cross over the road off the platform, not go that were also considered. to the pedestrian lights. This would probab happen anyway regardless of where the Right hand turns into Mitchell Street and pedestrian lights are located. Hawthorn Road can still be facilitated.
Concern that the Northcote Social Club is at the northbound platform and the number of bikes parked here is large thus blocking access to the platform. If this proposal goes ahead Council will need to work with the Social Club during detailed design stage. Also noted that tenants come and go and decisions based on current premises uses should not be the focus.
The group understands that these are preliminary drawings only and when Functional designs and 3D drawings are done, the crossfall on the west side of High Street (the slope of the road from the middle to the properties on the western side) may render this design impossible without the use of stairs and ramps that will create a barrier within the footpath. In this case this design would not go ahead.
The Group also discussed that the additional kerb extensions provided near the existing pedestrian operated signals could be extended over the front of the signals so pedestrians would only have 2 lanes of traffic to cross and not four.
Recommendation: Option 5 was the most preferred, with extended kerbs as described above. Option 1 was the 2nd most preferred option.
5. Other stops for discussion
Town Hall, stop 31
- Cyclists are on the ramps for the portion of the platform stop only. - No loss of parking at Westbourne Grove. - No loss of parking outside Peacock Hotel. - Platforms can act as a reception stand for unloading of goods and equipment for Northcote Town Hall. Unloading provision also already provided at the back of the Civic Square.
Recommendation: That stop 31 remain as per the original proposal.
Separation Street, stop 33
Original proposal: Slip lane from west to north is removed for safer pedestrian environment, more pedestrian space. Barnes walk introduced to allow pedestrians to cross diagonally on the ‘green man’ similar to Elizabeth Street/Flinders Street in the city.
Discussion regarding keeping the slip lane. A Blackspot report was commissioned by Council on this point last year. Kate to circulate/bring the report to the next meeting. Possibly the conflict between cars exiting the sliplane and Separation Street traffic turning right up High Street.
Negative: Around 18 car spots taken as a result of island platform. Not a busy area for parking particularly with Northcote Plaza and Northcote Central and their large car parks so close.
Kate to check why a permanent loss of car parks is proposed when other central islands are able to retain parking in non-clearway times. Report back to the group next meeting.
Cyclists
Investigate use of different coloured tactile pavers to represent cycle lanes. Raised concern with horses on tactile pavers.
Canning Street, Carlton – look at this as an example of an alternative route for cyclists.
On the kerb outstands cyclist will have a 1.5 metre area marked appropriately delineating them from pedestrians.
It is expected that people boarding and alighting from trams would enter the cyclist zone only not the pedestrians along the street.
One positive is that people and cyclist mingling together is a better outcome than cyclists mingling with cars and trams.
Use of LEDs (lighting inlaid into the pavement) used to designate ramp areas.
Structure of final report
Base report on recommendations, provide a summary of the objectives. Start with bigger picture issue and drilling down to more detailed issues and recommendations.
A draft to be prepared and circulated one week prior to the next meeting.
6. Discuss the Agenda for the final meeting
Barnes walk data Slip lane report Is parking at Separation Street stop to be removed permanently? Draft community consultation plan for October/November Final report
Jim not available to facilitate the final meeting. Group agreed that they are happy to ensure that they will keep to the agenda without another facilitator required.
7. Confirm final meeting: Tuesday 1 September.
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - Northcote MEETING 4 NOTES
Date: Tuesday 1 September 2009
Attendees: 7 members, Kate Downward (staff)
Apologies: 2 members
1. Welcome
Last meeting of this Community Reference Group. Aiming to finalise the Recommendation Report to Council tonight.
One of the members who is an apology has provided written comments that will be incorporated into the discussions as we go.
2. Follow up from previous meetings/ further information
• Arthurton Road/Separation Street slip lane
The group requested more information at the last meeting on why the slip lane was proposed for removal.
Slip lanes, in their nature of having uncontrolled turning movements, are a danger to pedestrians. In addition, Council had a study commissioned in July 2008 to look at the impact on the intersection. It found:
• Left turn movements using the slip lane are relatively low compared to other turning movements at the intersection. • Pedestrian movements at the north of the intersection (and across the slip lane) are high and expected to be higher if the central island stop goes ahead. • In the morning peak traffic conditions become slightly worse on the Arthurton Road approach as a result of the slip lane removal (degree of saturation for through and left turning vehicles from this approach increases from 0.6 to 0.75). There will be fewer opportunities for left turning traffic can proceed. • The degree of saturation of 0.75 is still considered to represent good operating conditions. • In the morning peak the average delay to through and left turning vehicles of approximately 11 seconds and an increase in the average queue length in the kerbside lane of 30 metres. • During the afternoon peak, perhaps unexpectedly, the model predicts that conditions are expected to marginally improve on the Arthurton Road approach. • During the High Street through phase there would be minimal opportunities for left turning traffic to proceed. Accordingly, few left turn opportunities would be lost as a result of the slip lane removal. • With the removal of the slip lane, the left turn movements will no longer be opposed by other traffic during this phase. • During the afternoon peak the model predicts that the degree of saturation on the Arthurton Road approach will drop from 0.95 to 0.88 with delays dropping from 74 seconds to 57 seconds and queue drop by 24 metres. • In summary the results of the SIDRA analysis indicate that the removal of the left turn slip lane at the north-west corner of the intersection is not expected to result in a significant change to the intersection performance.
• Barnes Walk information
The group requested more information at the last meeting on the Barnes Walk and pedestrian movements at this intersection.
Pedestrian counts were conducted in October 2008
12.15pm for 60 minutes = 886 pedestrians 3pm for 60 minutes = 853 pedestrians Between 3.05pm and 3.15pm (10 minutes) there were 104 people crossing, 37% crossing two roads (would benefit from a Barnes Walk) and 63% crossing only one road.
• Parking at the Separation Street stop
Nine parking spaces on either side of High Street would be lost with the central island platform stop proposed here. It is confirmed that these would be a permanent loss of parks (better outcome for emergency vehicles) and not just during the clearway times.
3. Recommendation Report; changes, amendments, additions, wording etc.
Discussion regarding the recommendations to be included in the report, particularly around the bigger picture limitations and how to present the recommendations in the report.
It was also discussed how to deal with issues raised by members of the group regarding a number of the recommendations that weren’t fully supported by all the group members. This was dealt with in three ways:
- Some of the recommendation wording was adjusted
- Recommendation number 1 which states “That tram stops that are Disability Discrimination Act compliant have more advantages than disadvantages within the Northcote Streetscape”, the group added an additional point in the supporting text that says: “Limitation: One group member disagreed with this recommendation and the views expressed by this member can be found in Appendix 2.”
- And that those same limitations would be listed in these meeting notes. They are as follows: o According with the Design Guidelines for devices (8.6.11) inappropriate locations for Slow Points are where traffic volumes are greater than 5000 between 7am and 7pm. Currently the traffic volume on High Street at High Street/Separation Street intersection is around 14,270 vehicles per day and on Separation Street at the same intersection is about 9,400 vehicles per day (data obtained from survey performed on the 17/04/2009) o SIDRA shows that a central island platform and a Barnes Walk at High Street/Separation Street intersection could be achieved by a drastic reduction on vehicle volumes (greater than 50%) o Best performance is achieved by construction easy access platforms as the number of lanes is not affected. By applying SIDRA program the current situation at the mentioned intersection shows an acceptable value for degree of saturation (capacity ratio) o Bicycle Victoria’s website: “However traffic calming devices that create ‘squeeze- points’ discourage cycling and roundabouts are a hazard to cyclists and pedestrians” o Kerb extensions are not recommended by the consulted firm GTA Consultants as they reduce vehicular street capacity. o Minimum lane widths: Tram dimensions vary from 2.3m to 2.65m wide and CITADEL trams can be 30-50m long. Fire truck width 2.5m o Survey shows that during peak hour (4.45pm – 5.45pm) for tram stop 34 and 35 an average of 6 and 7 passengers for boarding and alighting respectively, while for tram stop 33 the results are 46 and 31 passengers for boarding and alighting respectively.
Council comments regarding the final dot point is that stop 33 at Separation Street/High Street has almost twice as many boardings/ alightings per day than any other stop on route 86 under investigation (ie between Westgarth Street and Albert Street). Over 1,900 people use this stop daily according to Metlink data (2005 – the latest available). As such the figures quoted above of 46 and 31 passengers during the peak hour period cannot be accurate.
The comments regarding stop 34 and 35 are out of scope of the Northcote Community Reference Group – these stops (Bent Street and Dennis Street) are being investigated by the Thornbury Community Reference Group. In the original proposal stop 34 was proposed for removal due to its proximity to Separation Street.
The Recommendation Report will be presented to Council on Monday 14 September at a Briefing Session, along with the State Government’s recommendations. Council will make a decision at the 21 September Council Meeting regarding the project and whether a proposal goes to consultation (and what that proposal contains) in October/November.
4. Draft Community Consultation Plan – feedback required
A draft consultation plan has been developed in preparation for possible consultation in October/November. A short presentation on the extent of the consultation planned. Includes letters to all within 1km radius, Darebin News to all properties in Darebin, contact with key destinations and stakeholders in Darebin, International students, workshops with established and emerging culturally and linguistically diverse communities and so on.
The group made no additional suggestions on groups/sectors to consult with.
5. Wrap up
Kate thanked all members for their time and energy over the past 8 weeks.
The final report will be circulated to all group members.
Appendix 1: Pedestrian count information for High Street and Separation/Arthurton Road
Total
N High St Location High & Separation Date Thursday 30/10/08 145 Time 3:00pm Duration 60 min 76
129 70 119 129 Separation/Arthurton
92
93 Note that at this date the Year 12 students had finished classes so the number of users is likely to be higher than recorded here at the beginning of the school term. Total
N High St Location High & Separation Thursday Date 23/10/08 148 Time 12:15pm Duration 60 min 114
116 140 110 108 Separation/Arthurton
73
77
Appendix 2 – One group member had a number of issues that the group agreed should be included in the appendix of this report.
o According with the Design Guidelines for devices (8.6.11) inappropriate locations for Slow Points are where traffic volumes are greater than 5000 between 7am and 7pm. Currently the traffic volume on High Street at High Street/Separation Street intersection is around 14,270 vehicles per day and on Separation Street at the same intersection is about 9,400 vehicles per day (data obtained from survey performed on the 17/04/2009) o SIDRA shows that a central island platform and a Barnes Walk at High Street/Separation Street intersection could be achieved by a drastic reduction on vehicle volumes (greater than 50%) o Best performance is achieved by construction easy access platforms as the number of lanes is not affected. By applying SIDRA program the current situation at the mentioned intersection shows an acceptable value for degree of saturation (capacity ratio) o Bicycle Victoria’s website: “However traffic calming devices that create ‘squeeze- points’ discourage cycling and roundabouts are a hazard to cyclists and pedestrians” o Kerb extensions are not recommended by the consulted firm GTA Consultants as they reduce vehicular street capacity. o Minimum lane widths: Tram dimensions vary from 2.3m to 2.65m wide and CITADEL trams can be 30-50m long. Fire truck width 2.5m o Survey shows that during peak hour (4.45pm – 5.45pm) for tram stop 34 and 35 an average of 6 and 7 passengers for boarding and alighting respectively, while for tram stop 33 the results are 46 and 31 passengers for boarding and alighting respectively.
Council comments regarding the final dot point is that stop 33 at Separation Street/High Street has almost twice as many boardings/ alightings per day than any other stop on route 86 under investigation (ie between Westgarth Street and Albert Street). Over 1,900 people use this stop daily according to Metlink data (2005 – the latest available).
The comments regarding stop 34 and 35 are out of scope of the Northcote Community Reference Group – these stops (Bent Street and Dennis Street) are being investigated by the Thornbury Community Reference Group. In the original proposal stop 34 was proposed for removal due to its proximity to Separation Street.
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP – THORNBURY Recommendation Report
Background
The Thornbury Community Reference Group for the Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project was convened by Council to provide community input into the re-work of the Project.
Six nominees were selected by Council for the group however only five members participated regularly throughout the four meetings which were scheduled fortnightly over July/August/September 2009.
This Report contains a summary of the discussions and debates that were held between group members over the four meetings. The Notes of each meeting are presented in Appendix 1.
The Report is divided into sections; 1. The Recommendations 2. Other considerations 3. Appendices
The Recommendations
The Group has made a series of recommendations with the following Objectives at their core:
1. To create tram stops that are accessible to people of all abilities (Disability Discrimination Act compliant) in the future when the tram contractor schedules this work. 2. To provide priority to the tram over single occupant motor vehicles to gain tram travel time and reliability improvements. 3. To improve safety for all road users. 4. To improve connectivity to public transport and key destinations in centres of activity. 5. To minimise parking losses in centres of activity. 6. To minimise impact on local residents. 7. To improve the experience for pedestrians in centres of activity. 8. To provide for cyclists where possible. 9. To encourage through traffic to utilise alternative preferred traffic routes. 10. To achieve tram stops every 400m (approximately) in accordance with public transport guidelines for land use and development.
Recommendation 1: Central island platform tram stops are the preferred design for the Thornbury section of the Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project
No clashes with traffic, easier for pedestrians to access tram, encourage a vista, centre median has safety benefits, visual amenity, consistent, efficient, once installed cannot be changed. Central island stops also allow a central median be created which allows for plantings, art etc to enhance the visual aspect of High St. Thornbury.
Recommendation 2: Location of stops:
Stop 34 – Remove Stop 35 – Central Island Platform stop south of Dennis Street Stop 36 – Central Island Platform stop north of Darebin Road with a 20 metre setback to allow turning of trucks into Darebin Road (depending on swept path investigation by council officers) Stop 37 – Remove Stop 38 – Central Island Platform stop north of Clarendon/Normanby intersection with a 20 metre set back to allow trucks to turn left from High St into Clarendon St. Stop 39 – Remove Stop 40 – Central Island Platform stop north of Hutton Street Stop 41 – Remove
This removal of stops was settled upon for the following reasons:
• After a significant amount of discussion, it was agreed that the removal of the four stops would not have a significant impact on tram users. • All remaining tram stops will be less than 400m apart, which is the recommended distance between tram stops. • Removal of these stops will greatly speed up the tram journey • It will also reduce the effect on parking: If Central Platform stops were built at these locations there would be reduced parking on High Street due to extra pedestrian signals. • Reduced cost of building new stops
Recommendation 3: Clearways in the afternoon (pm) peak period should be implemented.
• Partially in place already • Small price to pay • Traders strongly opposed to the introduction of 24hr Clearways and council should oppose introduction of these clearways if they are proposed by other authorities. • Peak hour clearways are natural
Recommendation 4: Monitoring following implementation of the project should be considered.
Comparison of trams patronage and volume on surrounding network before and after Northcote project, if there is more than 20% increase in traffic volume on non-declared roads, Council to introduce measures to reduce volumes.
Other Considerations
In addition to the above recommendations to Council, the Group would like to convey the following messages to the Council and the community:
- The size and complexity of this project is immense.
- Understanding the opportunities (tram track realignment), obligations (DDA compliance legislation), impacts (traffic modelling, parking data, passenger impact assessments etc) pros, cons and alternative view points takes time to do.
- Four meetings of two hours has led us to these conclusions. The community, during consultation in October/November will not have that time to spend with officers in small groups and as such it will be impossible to grasp a complete understanding of the project. As a result, some weight should be attributed to these highly considered recommendations from a group of community members who have spent the time considering the options, pros and cons.
- A special session for Thornbury Traders be advertised during the community consultation phase.
Report endorsed by:
Harry Cadle; Nick Nicholaou; John Psarakos; Gary Wissenden; Rowena Archer
Thornbury Community Reference Group Members Appendix 1: Notes of the four Thornbury Community Reference Group meetings
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - THORNBURY NOTES MEETING 1
Date: Tuesday 22 July 2009, 6.30 – 8.30 pm
Attendees: 5 members, Monique Bouma (Facilitator), Daniel Kollmorgen (staff), Daniel Neave (staff – notetaker).
Apologies: 1 member
1. Welcome and introductions (15 mins)
Group introductions.
2. Terms of Reference and Group Agreements (10 mins)
These were discussed.
3. Short summary of the project proposal and objectives for the area (15 mins)
Presented to the group.
4. Group discussion to draw out key issues
Brainstorm of positives & negatives
Positives • Allow people to make use of the tram who may not otherwise be able to utilise the tram • Safer access to trams • Improves streetscape • Improved amenity for those awaiting for trams / safe / comfort • Ensure trams future as a main transport provider • Shorten the time taken for tram • Reduced speed may increase volume of traffic as speed will be consistent • Provide for greener transport • Encourage more users / transport users • Encourage more cyclists and walkers / be able to combine their journey with the tram • Reduce carbon emissions • Deal with population increase / predicted 200,000 people in Whittlesea
Negatives • Height of rail bridge in Merri Parade wont stop traffic using High Street / flood zone • Impact on traders due to reduction of parking • Reduction in passing traffic impacting traders / only local people using businesses • Impact of all the traffic not using High Street onto surrounding streets / Victoria Road / Wales Street / St David Street • Conflict between cars and cyclists particularly at stops where they have to share the road • Loss of tram stops in Thornbury • Reduced speed limit (40) will encourage more traffic into surrounding streets / St David Street (50) Victoria Road (60) • Kerb extension stops make areas pronounced to flooding more prone / drainage concerns • Parking in side streets more difficult for residents • Low floor trams not coming for 5 years • Consultation with Thornbury was not as responsive as Westgarth, next consultation should engage more with Thornbury people
5. Short break
6. Discuss key issues in more depth (15 mins)
Reduced parking Preston market used as as example of reduced business due to no parking Fewer people walk to High Street / as more drive to shop now, shoppers may go other places
40km/h Reduced speed limit may deter others from outside to shop in Thornbury Lower speeds can have the affect of moving more traffic evenly
Loss of stops
Loss of business for traders Reduction of shoppers from outside Darebin
More parking on side streets
More traffic on other roads
Less access / loss of stops
Cyclist safety
Drainage issues
7. Start brainstorming solutions (15 mins)
Sunshine has changed layout of street introducing an environment which promotes lower speed Traffic calming measures promoting pedestrian amenity 40 zone benefit local people and disadvantage outside people 6 minutes saved in Plenty Road / High Street can be sped up more by a better connecting the tram with Clifton Hill Railway Station / two train lines / express trains Electric signs in westgarth displaying train times / tram times / so people can make best decision to get to city Better signs for car parking to better utilise existing car parks
8. Reports available about this project (5 mins)
Traffic Modelling available soon Passenger impact report soon Economic assessment soon
9. Agenda for next session (10 mins)
If data available may come up with solutions to above problems Discuss stop options
10. Councillor involvement (5 mins)
Can attend last meeting if requested to discuss solutions
11. Evaluation of the meeting (5 mins)
Positive Structure Location Presentation Material Allowed for lots of ideas Orderly Allow people time
Negative Pull people up more / too much time per person More ability to discuss / document areas outside Thornbury More detailed plans of particular sections
8.30 Close
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - THORNBURY NOTES MEETING 2
Date: Tuesday 5 August 2009
Attendees: 5 members, Monique Bouma (Facilitator), Daniel Kollmorgen (staff), Daniel Neave (staff – notetaker).
Apologies: 1 member
1. Welcome and introductions (10 mins)
2. Update on what the other CRGs are doing (5 mins)
Daniel provided brief update on the three other groups.
3. Traffic modelling information (10 mins)
Not public information so no detail can be provided at this stage.
4. Stop options for Thornbury
• location of stops/removal (Passenger Impact Assessment) • types of stops
Types of Stops • How will super stops affect Loading Bays? • Removing stops in Collins Street city did have negative feedback at the start but now very positive due to less stops and less pedestrians running for trams at intersections. • Could Raleigh Street stop substitute for the Clarendon Street stop? • Can a Council wide 50 km/h speed limit be introduced on all Council roads, i.e. Victoria Road which is now 60. If High Street becomes 40, Victoria Road 60 becomes more appealing for traffic. • When discussing which tram stops stay and go, need to take into account location of other services, Trains, Buses, supermarkets, Taxi rank, etc. • Lack of Loading Zones • Kerb outstand stops do not work near intersections due to one lane of traffic and no right turns • Are there reported safety improvements with superstops at the locations currently built in Melbourne? • As High St Thornbury is so straight and wide the 40 wont work anyway so the street does need some sort of narrowing. If centre island extended to make a longer central median when will there be breaks to allow for turning traffic? • Trucks turning left will be restricted by super stops at intersections, possible have stop on north side of Clarendon to bring it away from VicRoads route
Location of stops • Worse affected in regards to distance is Hutton Street to Mansfield Street, makes distance to Dundas 540m • Rossmoyne to Dundas will become 580m • Stop 41 was discussed and group was split between keeping and removing – will be discussed next meeting • Stop 39 was discussed and group agreed to remove • Stop 37 was discussed and group agreed to remove • Stop 34 was discussed and group agreed to remove
5. Discuss the Agenda for the next meeting (5 mins)
• Sketches of High Street and Clarendon Street intersection with the three types of stops • Discuss removal of stop 41 • Are there records of existing superstops - Can we get info on the different types of superstops already in and if there are any safety concerns with the different stops • Tram fairway, lane control • Trucks on side streets - What potential issues can Council deal with when large trucks start using local roads instead of High Street • How will the report be put together? • Cyclists • Climate change
6. Evaluation of the Meeting (5 mins)
☺ Made some decisions Clearer to understand what we are aiming for Good to stand around the plan and how the proposal fits into the strategic plan Well communicated, all listened well
Didn’t get through agenda, maybe not flexible or maybe too much in it Explain jargon
Additional request
Proposal to reconvene 12 months after Northcote section is completed to discuss data collected from those treatments and compare to discussions taken today TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - THORNBURY NOTES MEETING 3
Date: Tuesday 19 August 2009
Attendees: 5 members, Monique Bouma (Facilitator), Daniel Kollmorgen (staff), Nigel Turner (staff), Daniel Neave (staff – notetaker)
Apologies: 1 member absent
1. Welcome and catch up
- We are getting to the stage where we should make decisions on parking, trucks turning, type of stops, etc. - Last week was good to discuss and make decisions on stops, get things moving. - Happy with where we are going, since last meeting been thinking about Clarendon Street stops, need to advertise decisions were made after discussions and communicate this to others. - Have notice traffic flows have changed at St Georges and Merri new signals, concerned that changes to this plan will have affects. - Left and right turns at Clarendon Street have concerns by shop keepers, shop keepers also have concerns over Loading Zones.
2. Review decisions about tram stop locations and make a decision about stop 41
- Last meeting the group recommended the removal of the recommended stops except for stop 41. - Stop 42 in Plenty Road, as it is north of Dundas the intersection poses as a high risk to cross. - People with mobility aides are affected by the extra distance. - Stop 40 has a pedestrian signal. - Can Stop 41 be installed afterwards? - Without 41 there may be more people at 40 which in turn may provide a safer location because there is more people. - Change of demographics may make stop 41 less appropriate. - Distance is a greater barrier to the elderly than the steps on trams. - Stop 42 should be further north which will make 41 more needed. - If there is doubt – leave it in.
Vote to keep stop 41: 2 x yes; 1 x no; 2 x on the fence Therefore Group decision to retain stop 41.
3. Discuss sketches of tram stops
Centre island stops: - Trucks turning in and out of Clarendon Street not possible - Potential problem where tram lines not straight and moving into traffic - Extend centre island whole way is good - Swept path diagram for semi-trailer to be sent to group - Signing to deter B-doubles around High Street and Clarendon Street, veranda on south west corner been struck numerous times - No turning movements are proposed to be banned at Clarendon Street. - Can B-doubles be banned from this arterial road network (Darebin, High, Normanby)? - If we move stop south, Shaftesbury Parade will need to have right in and right out banned. - If stop moves north it impacts on other side streets - Can current right turn ban at Clarendon be removed with new signals dynamically getting trams through the intersection? - Can we get 5 lane High Street with centre line being right turns
Easy access stops - Potential for accidents as vehicles do not have to stop - Other stops have lights and you just step onto tram
Quick discussion on preference of Easy access or centre island Centre Island x 3 Easy access x 1 Unsure x 1
- Prefer easy access at Clarendon, but does conflict with senior safety - Different stops work at different locations - Centre island the whole way down High Street, long term vision of streetscape - Collins Street in the city used as a good example - Concerns over different types of stops at different locations, vehicles not expecting pedestrians
4. Discuss idea of Tram Fairway and Clearways
- Current right turn ban at Clarendon Street will remain with centre island stops as there will be a clearway and fairway arrangement and right turning vehicles will block trams - Clearways should not impact Loading Bays - Will right turns cause delays to trams out of clearways times? - If Clearways are not installed, what guarantee do we have that Clearways will not be installed in the future? - If centre island stop is preferred option, a PM peak clearway will need to be introduced on west side 4-7pm? - This affects Beavers – Shaftesbury and Gladstone – Hutton as outside these areas it is currently No Stopping 4:30 – 6:00pm - Parking during these times can be difficult as reverse parking in peak hours - Parking in side streets taken up by commuters - Small period of time so less of a problem - Does not want full time clearway - Fairway will depend on the clearway - Current fairway at Dundas Street not Policed and everybody uses it
5. Make a decision about the preferred type of stop
Tentative decision: Centre island stop
Start of next meeting make final decision on type of stop.
6. Make a decision about the Tram Fairway & Clearway
Start of next meeting make final decision on type of Fairway and Clearway as depends on type of stop.
7. Make a decision about how you want to report your recommendations – example attached
Straight to the point, avoid having to describe the decisions made A short description on the discussion points and why the decision was made.
8. Agenda for the final meeting
- Swept path diagrams for semi-trailers at High and Normanby - Will centre island fit at every location? - Holmes Street up-lighting segregating trams and vehicles. - Climate change - Cycling does not need to be formally discussed as spoken in part of everything - Draft recommendations
9. Evaluation of the meeting
☺ Made a couple of decsisions Understood fairways and clearways Healthy debate Getting near to deciding on the type of stop we want Clearer view the issues at hand
Lack of external expertise (counter argument made that local people know the area better) Felt no decisions are being made Lack of representation from business community
Other
Recommend sending the results of the community reference groups to the public, when can we do this? Produce a single document with the recommendations from the four reference groups for the public Are there opportunities for a trial? TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP - THORNBURY NOTES MEETING 4
Date: Wednesday 2 September 2009
Attendees: John, Gary, Harry, Nick, Rowena, Monique Bouma (Facilitator), Daniel Kollmorgen (staff), Nigel Turner (staff), Daniel Neave (staff – notetaker)
Apologies:
1. Welcome and catch up
Last meeting was productive, came to conclusions, maps and pictures made it easier to visualise, visited High St to see where the stops will be, glad to get to end of process Have concerns about central island stops, may not have it right, visited city and Royal Parade, good experience to be here with everyone Process being great, Officers been fantastic, good to debate the issues, quite happy with what been decided, this might brighten up High Street, this may encourage landlords and owners to put in some effort Tying in recommendations and ideas, using the tram everyday thinking of how the stop will work
2. Review agenda
3. Daniel to report back on B-Double truck turning paths and whether central island stops will fit at all locations
Truck turning swept paths showed currently this intersection does not work for b- doubles or semis, VicRoads have been advised of this and need to decide whether to resolve it by new design or ban b-doubles from area, group to decide in more detail if stop should be on north side of Normanby
Central island stops will work at all locations Concerns over a lateral deviation of tram as elderly are finding seat before and after stops, possible to have straight tracks to avoid this with central median
4. Short discussion about climate change and the need for reduced car use
Increased electricity charges during times of day, tram journey early on Sunday had few people, smaller trams to cater for demand, generating power for trams using green energy is easier than green power for personalised transport, even newer cars, diesel particulates more damaging than petrol, more trams hopefully less cars, don’t forget convenience Reduce speed limits on all non-declared roads to 50 to reduce emissions
5. Work through the Draft Recommendations a. Key decisions: Preferred type of stop & location of each stop Centre island with straight tracks (no deviation) – 4 No clashes with traffic, easier for pedestrians to access tram, encourage a vista, centre median has safety benefits, visual amenity, consistent, efficient, once installed cannot be changed,
Easy access - 1 Easier for pedestrians to access the stop, possible to alter later,
Discussion on location of stops around scale map with template for 30 mins, with the following resolution Stop 34 – Remove Stop 35 – South Dennis Stop 36 – North Darebin Stop 37 – Remove Stop 38 – North Clarendon/Normanby Stop 39 – Remove Stop 40 – North of Hutton Stop 41 – Remove
PM Peak discussion Partial already there due to No Stopping Small price to pay Traders concerned over permanent Clearways Peak hour clearways are natural
6. Monitoring traffic volume impact on side streets
Look at this after 12 months upon completion of Northcote section Will 40km/h shift traffic onto Station/ St Georges/ Victoria? If there is extra 10% on Victoria then we should cut it down After Northcote completed then traffic will start choosing alternate routes Increase in population in Whittlesea Extend light rail from Mill Park to South Morang to give those people an alternative
7. Next steps (including how the recommendations will be communicated to the community and the Draft Community Consultation Plan)
October and November next phase of public consultation, with properties along High Street getting a letter with information. The groups decision goes to Council and State so next proposal may not match the decisions made by this group
8. Evaluation of the Community Reference Group process
☺ Made ground towards meeting business concerns / compromise Getting interested people and thoughts into the project Good representation of the community / views / opinions Meeting times and timelines, was positive Quality advice from staff
Have the higher quality maps from the beginning Site visit as a group Hand deliver nomination forms to get more involvement / direct marketing Dips only for second session
Extra stuff During next community consultation phase, hold meeting with traders to allow for additional questions and answers New Recommendation : Comparison of trams patronage and volume on surrounding network before and after Northcote project, if there is more than 20% increase in traffic volume on non-declared roads, Council to introduce measures to reduce volumes
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP – PLENTY ROAD Recommendation Report
Background
The Plenty Road Community Reference Group for the Tram Route 86 Corridor Improvement Project was convened by Council to provide community input into the re-work of the Project.
Ten members were selected from 25 nominees by Council for the group and all ten members participated throughout the four meetings which were scheduled fortnightly over July/August/September 2009.
This Report contains a summary of the discussions and debates that were held between group members over the four meetings. The Notes of each meeting are presented in Appendix 1.
The Report is divided into sections; 1. The Recommendations – including an acknowledgement of the impact these recommendations my have, the pros and cons of the options raised and discussed by the group. 2. Other Considerations 3. Appendices.
The Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Tram stop type Preferred type is the central island stop (majority vote).
Recommendation 2: Tram stop locations 42: Kerb outstand on northbound (west) side, ‘le bump’ easy access on southbound (east) side. 43: Central island on south side of Raglan. 44: Remove 45: Central island on south side of Bell St. 47: Remove 48: Central island on the south side of Gower St 49: Central island on north side of Murray Rd. 50: Remove 51: Central island stop on south side of Wood St. 52: Central Island stop on the south side of Tyler St. Also: Northbound lane left turn only lane. (So all through cars have to stay behind the tram and won’t try to rush past.) 53: Central island stop between Kinkora and Robb St, near pedestrian lights. 54: Keep stop 54 but more investigation needed. Try to find a mid-point and put in a ‘le bump’ easy access stop.
Recommendation 3: Clearways/Fairways Clearway and fairway in peak direction, extended to Albert St (majority vote).
Recommendation 4: Removal of tram stop 44 and 54 This was resolved in recommendation 2.
Other Considerations
In addition to the above recommendations to Council, the Group would like to convey the following messages to the Council and the community:
- The size and complexity of this project is immense.
- Understanding the opportunities (tram track realignment), obligations (DDA compliance legislation), impacts (traffic modelling, parking data, passenger impact assessments etc) pros, cons and alternative view points takes time to do.
- Four meetings of two hours has led us to these conclusions. The community, during consultation in October/November will not have that time to spend with officers in small groups and as such it will be impossible to grasp a complete understanding of the project. As a result, some weight should be attributed to these highly considered recommendations from a group of community members who have spent the time considering the options, pros and cons.
Report endorsed by:
Tony Kouroumblis, Craig O’Donnell, Peter Caulfield, George Psaila, Mandy Baird, Jane Pearson, BE Jager, Carla Sala, George Kirby, Ray Jordan
Plenty Road Community Reference Group Members Appendix 1: Notes of the four Plenty Road Community Reference Group meetings
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP – PLENTY ROAD MEETING 1 NOTES
Date: Tuesday 14 July 2009, 6.30 – 9.10 pm
Attendees: 9 community members attended, Jim Barrett (Facilitator), Daniel Kollmorgen (staff), Monique Bouma (staff – notetaker).
Apologies: 1 member apologised
1. Welcome and introductions (15 mins)
Group introductions.
Message from the Councillors regarding their best wishes to the group for the next few weeks.
2. Terms of Reference and Group Agreements (10 mins)
Agreements: • Turn off mobiles • Don’t speak over each other • Treat others’ opinions with respect (even if you don’t agree)
Terms of Reference – points to highlight • Purpose • Roles & responsibilities • No quorum • No proxies (if you can’t make it, you can’t send a representative) • Group is not a decision-making body – it’s to give feedback • Meeting notes will be made available to the public
3. Short summary of the project proposal for the area (10 mins)
Presented by Daniel – the original project proposal.
4. Group Discussion of the issues (30 mins) 5. Positives Negatives • Better access for • Perception that Preston is treated like second people to transport class citizens – residents can see benefits for • More efficient public Northcote residents, but not Preston (even the transport literature refers a lot to benefits for Northcote, • More people using but not Preston) public transport – • Lack of street scaping in Preston area patronage • Bus routes – what happens when a bus stops in • Safety – people that one lane? crossing roads, not • Rubbish collection? just about accessing • Reduced parking the tram, in general • Reduction in the volume of cars travelling on the • Reduction in the road (business relies on cars passing and volume of cars stopping) travelling on the road • We have no control of how many trams will be • If creating a more bought and if they’re going on this line viable PT option, there • Infrastructure might be built but then may not will be some sort of suit future trams shift to PT - thus better • By making a single lane traffic with no parking it environmental is impacting on local residents’ access to outcomes parking (not allowing services to come to the • This group could resident) become an advocate • No right hand turns is a problem for PT reform • Also right hand turns into certain streets that were quiet in the past – may then have extra traffic turning in, taking short-cuts • Danger of cars taking short cuts down side streets • Cyclist safety down Plenty Road • Reduced or no access from some driveways onto Plenty Rd – due to tram stops • If there’s no loading zone on the street, some businesses can’t operate – deliveries • No spur of moment trade from passing cars • Even posties can’t pick up at letterboxes due to no stopping • We’ve paid a premium to have the flow of traffic going past (business coming in) • Reduced access to residences • Car break down - what then? • One lane means lack of access to building sites – new developments • Proposed savings of 6 mins – don’t think Plenty Rd is the problem spot – it’s already one of the quickest spots • Where is the partnership between Darebin and Yarra – will Smith St stops be compliant? • Currently the tram seems to be at capacity • Can’t believe it will actually have much benefit (in terms of really getting a better tram service) • Limited access results in reduced trade for businesses and then job losses • Businesses will not be able to continue on Plenty Rd • Maybe there is a better way to give people with disabilities travel – eg taxi vouchers • Concerns about accessing properties with trailer boat on back – difficult to turn around because of the no right hand turn rule • Residents feeling need to sell houses and move due to proposal • Concerns about removing 2 stops and increasing the distances
KEY ISSUES • Loss of parking Lack of access to residential properties • Lack of access to businesses (no business from passing cars, no loading zones) – resulting in reduced trade, and thus less local businesses • Other access issues – building sites, buses, services for Plenty Rd residents • Concern that new DDA trams may not even get on this line • Increased traffic in side streets • Cyclist safety • Lack of benefits for Plenty Rd area altogether (no landscaping, no business growth) • Concern that the overall benefits for the tram will be minimal – with a lot of sacrifice from Plenty Rd residents and businesses
6. Break (5 mins)
7. Part 2: Group Discussion of the issues (if required). If time permits, move towards brainstorming of solutions (15 mins)
BRAINSTORMING SOLUTIONS
• Clearway during peak times (providing tram priority), but not at other times • Clearway approaching intersections • Extension of clearways • At certain times of the day (during peak hour) the tram has a priority lane and cars would get fined if they followed the tram – crosses and ticks to show when can use the lane • Tram priority at Bell St intersection • Wider crossovers to businesses • Hook turns • More right-hand turn bans to improve priority for tram • Trams and cars in one lane – cars following trams – would allow parking and a bike lane. If this allowed quicker access on and off trams, it might not affect tram time much. • However – this might cause trams and cars to be slower • Dig out car park spots – eat into the naturestrips • Look at the changeover times – changing drivers at the depot • Maybe creating the reduced travel time just during peak hour is a good enough solution
NOTE: • Businesses open from 7am
8. Objectives for the section (15 mins)
9. Availability of studies and reports for this section (10 mins) • Parking report handed out
Available soon: • Economic impact assessment • Passenger impact assessment • Costings
10. Discuss the Agenda for the next meeting and confirm day/time of next meeting • Daniel will provide some sketches of the ideas raised tonight – he will email or mail out before next meeting
Suggestions for next Agenda: • Explore solutions: Clearway extended for trams & Peak Hour Tram lane • Side street traffic issues & traffic diversion • Cyclists • Accessibility • Parking – parking priorities for businesses and residents • Open ideas • Updates of what’s happening at other Reference Groups • Info on City of Yarra’s position
Same time same place in 2 weeks
11. Discuss Councillor participation
• May come to the last meeting to hear group’s proposal
12. Evaluation of the Meeting
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP – PLENTY ROAD NOTES MEETING #2
Date: Tuesday 28 July 2009
Attendees: 9 members, Monique Bouma (Facilitator), Daniel Kollmorgen (staff), Daniel Neave (staff – notetaker).
Apologies: 1 member
13. Welcome and Summary of Previous Meeting
14. Discussion: Comments about last meeting; Any new ideas?
• Last meeting was really positive, some people may be against plans but cars and trams have to share road. • Superstops aren’t suitable for Plenty Road due to width, DDA is not suitable for trams – trams should be made to suit DDA, Maroondah Highway superstop is only one in section • Highlighted key issues, lack of access to businesses, residents and businesses concerned over access, wanted further discussion on these issues, touched on how Plenty Road is unique, superstops cannot go everywhere • One stop will not be a superstop • Tram in Prague has been modified to suit DDA – unsure of costs • Government looking at the affect of the extension of clearway times, UK has every tram accessible for wheelchairs – unable to find detail • The cost of building superstops every 400m over Melbourne – wouldn’t it be cheaper to retrofit the trams? • Even with superstops we are not guaranteed the new trams • Any decision is dependant on Yarra Trams • Aware of threats of legal action against the project • Displaced traffic in peak times, same time as schools • Yarra Council have advised North-South links not as a priority as East-West links, why will Darebin have superstops and others not, all Councils should have them at the same time
15. Tram Stops: Location and Types.
Kerb extension platform tram stops: • With or without parking • With or without fairway • Congestion around stops • Where will the 30m kerb extension superstops fit?
Easy access stops • Reduce speed limit to 50 km/h or 40 km/h along Plenty Road • Will cars follow trams on tracks which will allow parking, and during peak hour will they have cars over the superstop and also on the tram track • No parking on superstops • How will it work for existing properties?
Central island platform tram stops • Not possible along Plenty Road due to width
General comments • Whole tram to be accessible • Would it be possible to negotiate a shorter stop • Better for trams we have now, but will still have a step for older trams • No guarantee that we will get new trams • Concerns over rear end accidents while accessing private property • Stops may affect DDA access to private property • Loading time required for ramps if trams were retrofitted to meet DDA • Staff on tram to manually provide ramp and assist with loading and unloading of passengers, stop traffic • How many wheelchairs will the trams be able to carry • If trams have to stop outside of superstop locations how will wheelchair users get off • Current traffic is possible to run in one lane • Diverted traffic onto Albert Street will be horrific due to current capacity in afternoon peak • Encouraging cars off roads by utilising car share lanes, not entirely supported by group due to issues with car sharing • Two trams following each other takes significant room
16. Discuss plans provided
Items for advocacy • Buy parking for public parking • Shorter easy access stops • Retrofit DDA trams instead of DDA stops • Some stops not DDA (not entirely agreed by group) • Staggered roll out of superstops • Staff on tram to manually provide ramp and assist with loading and unloading of passengers, stop traffic • Speed limits, if lower ramps do not have to be as long
Possible solutions • Change location of stops • No stop outside BL Marine
Discussion on options for traffic management of through traffic
Option 1: Extended peak hour tram lanes in the peak direction. Clearway times (6.30- 10am; 4-7pm). Preserve parking in convenience centres. 3-7pm clearway within 100m of intersection.
Outcome: Generally supported by group
Option 2: Peak hour tram lanes in both directions. Clearway times (6.30-10am; 4-7pm). Preserve parking in convenience centres. 3-7pm clearway within 100m of intersection.
Outcome: Some yes, some no
Option 3: Daytime tram lanes (7am – 7pm) in both directions. Preserve parking in convenience centres.
Outcome: No
Option 4: Tram lanes 24 hours both directions. Preserve parking in convenience centres.
Outcome: No
17. Cyclists
The stops will create environment where cars will not be able to drive around bikes
18. Discuss the Agenda for the next meeting and confirm time of next meeting
• Type of stops • Location of stops, Tyler Street, BL Marine • No right turns • Cyclist Safety • Designated Activity Centres • Access to properties
19. Evaluation of the Meeting (2 min)
Would like less time discussing issues with the project to allow more time to discuss solutions
Positives • No arguments • Everyone got a go • Tried to keep to agenda
Negatives • Keep to agenda more • Not knowing where there is a bit of give and take, and what is not an option • Not knowing when to say more or less, then not being able to discuss particular issues • Group does not have access to all of the scope of the project
TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP – PLENTY ROAD NOTES MEETING #3
Date: Tuesday 11 August 2009
Attendees: Seven members, Jim Barrett (Facilitator), Daniel Kollmorgen (staff), Monique Bouma (staff – notetaker)
Apologies: Three members
DISCUSSION
Q. Easy access stops – how many parking spots would be lost? Compared to other types of stops. A. Yes. More parking lost through easy access stops – 6 or 7 per stop – compared to build-out stops.
Q. With easy access stops, are we able to have cars driving on the tracks? A. Doesn’t happen in Melbourne as yet – Vic Roads is saying they expect it would be something that could happen.
Q. Width of the road – is it wider at different places (allowing different types of stops)? A. Yes. Central island stops could possibly work at all stops except 2 (9 out of 11 stops). Requires 1 kerb to be moved in order to fit them in however (would eat into nature strip).
Q. Will trees need to be removed for the new stops? A. Unsure. If the kerb has to be moved, that might mean loss of some trees.
Q. If parking is removed for 100m from intersections, that’s almost the whole road. A. This 100m only applies to signalised intersections – not other intersections. And this is the current situation anyway.
Q. Will we have to separate the tracks to create central stops? A. Yes, that’s a key reason on the timing of this project because they are re-laying the tracks anyway.
Q. Will the central island stops allow parking? A. It will be a similar situation to now.
Q. Would that mean a tram only lane? A. Could have various combinations: Current situation (with mixed parking/traffic lane and mixed traffic/tram lane) or could have dedicated tram lane and then a traffic lane (no parking).
Q. Would Yarra Trams (or new organisation) pay for the tram tracks to be moved? A. They are due to re-lay the tracks in this section in next 5 years and are funded to do that. So we could ask them to re-lay the tracks a bit differently to fit in with this project, and that might cost us a little more, but far less than if did from scratch. But the rest of the project – building the new stops etc – is an extra cost.
Q. What about safety for pedestrians? A. The safest is the kerb outstand because pedestrians don’t have to cross the road.
Q. But would that be safe for cyclists? A. Yes and No. You could have the cyclists going over the kerb outstand so they don’t have to go over the tram tracks, but then they clash with the pedestrians.
Notes about timeline – the tram tracks are due to be laid in 5 years, so in this time other options may become available.
Q. Concerns about turning into driveways. Would moving the kerb make it harder? A. If this is so, could install wider driveways.
Note about central island stops: Dept of Transport concerned about people getting off different sides – if driver opens wrong door would mean people stepping into traffic. Suggestion is that there must be something that could be done to stop the wrong doors being opened by drivers.
Decisions to make • 2 issues to decide – what type of stop, and how much clearway time will compromise on. • Note that reference group needs to think about what loss of parking willing to compromise on. • Original proposal suggested 24/7 loss of parking • What group suggesting now is no change • Asking group to consider if can compromise more – so can convince the State we’ve got a goer • Group saying already is extension of clearways & loss of parking
Current situation: 3-4pm outbound – clearway (no parking) 100m of signalised intersection 4-7pm outbound – clearway all along
Q. How does a clearway work with a kerb outstand stop? This won’t work very well. A. Traffic moves out around the kerb outstand. Yes, this is one of the disadvantages. Concern that in this situation you wouldn’t be actually increasing tram time.
Q. What is the CRG saying in Northcote? A. Group seems happy with the kerb outstand stop at the Northcote Town Hall – because it is in an activity centre. And no driveways.
Q. Effect on drainage? A. Might get ponding area at either side of kerb outstand, meaning have to put in new drainage pits.
Q. Do we need to decide on one stop for whole section? A. We can look at a plan to decide what type of stop is preferred, location of stops, and decision on extension of clearways. We can work out which stop ‘in general’ works best, and then if there are exceptions can note these locations and why need different type of stop. Note that the State Government is keen to have consistency in areas.
Q. Concerns about stop near Tyler St – quite dangerous, not enough visibility. Why has it been moved to the other side? A. Stop locations chosen looking at land uses and shape of centre. Decision to move to North side idea is it would serve the development of the shops there.
Q. How long are the centre island stops? A. Quite long – need to have northbound and southbound loading separate (further along from each other) so that makes it longer – 56-66m long.
Q. Is north side of intersections always the preferred? A. No – can look at other options.
Note – to put in central island stops, would need to put in pedestrian lights at both ends. At one end you’d use the intersection lights, and would need pedestrian lights at other end. This also helps to stop accidents where wrong doors are opened, because traffic would be stopped. Parking implications for pedestrian lights – 20m no parking.
Q. Could have tracks be re-laid so they cross to the footpath? Would be safer for pedestrians. A. Would mean a lot more loss of parking.
Note – if have central island stops can still have parking beside them in non-peak times.
Q. Is that set in stone that would need pedestrian lights at central island stops? A. Yes. Dept of Transport are still working on guidelines, but this is what’s on the table now.
Q. Could you stop people from accessing the ramp at the end, so don’t need lights? A. You’d still need the pedestrian lights at the start of the stops to ensure safety.
Q. Been thinking about the positives of the kerb extension stops – if it’s good for High Street might be good to have them the same all along. Safer for pedestrians to get on and off. On street parking retained. Less chance of Council taking away the parking. Improves the streetscape, could plant some trees. Think the central island stops will be more disruptive and expensive. A. Need to look at pros and cons for the different types of stops.
Q. What about residents – if you have a kerb extension stop in front of your house you won’t have access. A. No, because these stops would have to be between driveways.
BREAK
Q. With central island stops will there still be right hand turns? A. Not across the stops, but yes can have right turns at signalised intersections.
Tram Fairway Discussion • In the current situation we have one lane tram and car shared, and one lane of car and parking shared. And can do right hand turns. • When there is a tram fairway (separator between car lane and tram lane), cars can’t mix with the trams and there is no parking. In that situation, you can’t do right hand turns across the tram fairway, unless there’s a turning break or signalised intersection. • One option is to have the tram fairway during peak times in both directions (no parking), and then back to shared lanes outside peak times. • Reason for having the tram fairway in both directions is that expect traffic to increase over time and this would protect performance of the tram in the future. • This was not the preferred option of group last week – asking will group re- consider? • Concerns about this causing more parking in side streets. • Concerns about needing to access shops in afternoon, so want to be able to park on one side of the road. • One of major issues is loss of car parks. By allowing parking on the non-peak side, allows businesses to retain some parking. • To allow clearway both sides of the road is a BIG compromise for traders. • Right hand turn issue affects some businesses a lot. If can’t back out big trucks, we’re stuffed. • If there is the peak time fairway, there won’t be an actual physical barrier, it will be a legal requirement. • We need to accept that there will be some parking losses around the new stops. Both central platform and kerb outstands – about 30m. Easy access stops will mean about 70m parking lost. • Are there opportunities to let go of some more parking? Eg the peak hour clearways.
Note – advocacy letter has been done and will be emailed around.
General discussion Q. Can we have clearways in some areas and not others? That’s a compromise. A. Yes, that’s possible. Maybe not have both way clearways around shop areas but yes in other areas.
Q. Seems like a lot of pressure on Plenty Rd area to accept big changes, but not other areas. A. Northcote is recognised as a key activity centre in Melb 2030, for shops and pedestrians. Plenty Rd is not recognised in the same way – it’s seen as a transport corridor.
Q. Concerns expressed about the pressure being put on group to accept big changes. Also pressure from community about this – something they don’t see the need for. A. It’s possible that if we don’t come up with solutions, down the track there will be big changes imposed from above without discussion.
Q. Concerns about whether we do all this, and then changed again down the track. A. That won’t happen – once we put these stops in won’t change them.
Q. If central island stop would semi trailers be able to get in an out of business? A. No – although could widen the property access driveway to enable turning
Discussions of overall objections to the project • Want the preference for retrofitted trams noted in final report • We’re not getting anything out of this project • Who cares about 6 minutes • Only benefits tram users
Advantages of project • this could mean extra tram services • 6 minutes for every tram users • Increased likelihood of people choosing to use public transport
Other disadvantage not previously noted - Will impact Albert St – more traffic (note that this has been considered)
Homework for Transport Dept - measure south side of stop 51 and 52 to see if central island will fit - deliver maps to group
Types of stops – preferences for majority of stops (not final vote) Kerb outstands - 2 Central Island stops - 5 Easy Access – 0
• Suggestion to keep thinking about types of stops and at next meeting do a vote as first item • Note that the choice of stop will depend on the location of stops – access to properties is crucial • Maybe scope for different types in different areas
Notes about traffic modelling data • Amount of traffic going down Plenty Rd probably won’t chance much • Small amount would go down St Georges and Albert • 6 minute improvement on tram travel time • 2-3 minute increased travel time for cars on Plenty, St Georges and Albert
General discussion Q. What if we get to next meeting and don’t make a decision? A. We can document it in the report that there was a lot of discussion and some decisions made but maybe not all. It would be more powerful if the group does make decisions.
Q. If a central island stop is on the south side of an intersection, what would happen to the parking on the north side? A. It would be subject to the clearway times.
Q. How many car spaces are we talking about? A. 40m equals approx 6 car spaces
Q. With the central island stops what loss of parking will there be. A. No parking 20m from intersection (current situation) plus 30m for the pedestrian lights. Plus whatever clearway restrictions are decided.
Q. If modify kerb to fit the central island stop, how much? A. Enough to fit the extra width – depends on current width of road – this varies along the length of the road.
NEXT MEETING • Big maps with existing stops marked will be delivered to group members this week • At the meeting we’ll stand around the map and look at each stop to decide preferred types of stops and locations • Also need to decide clearways • Come up with a set of recommendations TRAM ROUTE 86 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP – PLENTY ROAD NOTES MEETING #4
Date: Tuesday 25 August 2009
Attendees: 9 members, Jim Barrett (Facilitator), Daniel Kollmorgen (staff), Monique Bouma (staff – notetaker)
Apologies: 1 member
1. Welcome and Summary of Previous Meeting
2. Items to discuss
Advocacy letter – finalise, sign and send • The shorter easy access stops ‘le bump’ - Dept of Transport says that would equal 46m no parking – letter said 43m • Idea is to sign and send to Dept of Transport tonight • Idea to retro-fit trams should go at top
Separate discussion: Right hand turns Q: What was discussed about right hand turns? A: At this stage situation looking at is it would allow right hand turns into side streets, but not properties. We’d need access into our car park.
Vote on advocacy letter: Majority yes
Type of stops • Previously voted for central island – now would vote for ‘le bump’ easy access stop • Note that ‘le bump’ has not been approved by Dept of Transport, but it appears it might be an option. • With low floor trams the wheelchair access is at the central doors anyway, so couldn’t get out front or rear doors anyway. • See it as the best compromise in being able to make it wheelchair accessible and balance needs of drivers • Note that the loss of parking with the central island stops is not much different to now - you’d need 30m before intersections (same as now) and 20m at other end of stop for pedestrian lights.
Q: Are they actual pedestrian lights, or just warning lights? A: Pedestrian lights
Q: Is there room for central island stops in this area? A: Yes, we found we have more options than thought. It would mean one kerb and channel would have to move out, which is expensive, but it’s possible. It would be a 5 lane cross section: parking/traffic, tram/traffic, central island, tram/traffic, parking/traffic
Q: Can install all along? A: Yes
Q: Wouldn’t the traffic lights cause chaos for the drivers? A: Not really, because they would be linked to the intersection signals, and would always show the same signal as the intersection.
Q: What about the risk of people getting out wrong side into traffic? A: It would stop traffic in that area when tram stopping.
Q: How high off the road would the traffic side of the tram be? A: 300mm
Q: Would the ‘le bump’ concept of having shorter stops be applicable to the kerb outstands? A: Good question. Unsure. One issue would be the mixing of the tram and traffic. Council has been told we have to design for the 33m kerb outstands, not shorter.
Voting on types of stops Central island: 4 Kerb outstand: 1 Easy Access: 1 (but okay about other options) ‘Le bump’ easy access: 2 Abstain: 1 (but leaning to central island)
Reason for kerb outstand: • Traffic calming
Concerns: • Right hand turns • Still prefer that trams be retrofitted with ramps • Size of central island very large
Outcome: Preferred stop is the central island.
Location of stops
Stop 42: • Proposal was to have kerb outstand stop on west because of gateway aspect, extra footpath (for people leaving the pub) and landscaping, and to have easy access on east. • Not wide enough to have kerb outstand on the east near the intersection. • Central island wasn’t originally recommended. • This stop is different because of the particular intersection, so might need to be the odd one out. • People turning into Safeway from High St south clogs up the traffic and tram. - suggestion to allow a right hand turn into Dundas street to enable people to access Safeway from Dundas st. • ‘Le bump’ easy access stop could be possible – it wouldn’t prevent right turns into Safeway petrol. • Concerns about having 2 different types of stops at same spot – may look weird. Vote: Kerb outstand on northbound (west) side, ‘le bump’ easy access on southbound (east) side. (Some flexibility in the group about potential other options.)
Stop 43: • Concerns about having the central island on the north of Raglan. Trucks would not be able to access the mechanic’s. • On both sides of street to the south of Raglan there is heaps of development – units, offices. So would make sense to have on the south side of Raglan. • Issue with having on north side of Raglan - Right turns out of Fleet St would be banned. • If have on south side of Raglan St, it would only be 250m between stop 42 and 43 – very short. Vote: Central island on south side of Raglan.
Stop 45: • Central island on south of Bell St – would mean no right turn into Garnet Street (in or out). No right turn into the shop front parking. Also a car exhaust place may have an issue. • Central island on north side of Bell St – would prevent trams accessing the tram depot, so not possible. • Concerns about the tram drivers doing the swap over north of Bell, near the depot. Dangerous and slows tram. And then stops again at the tram stop south of Bell St. Vote: Central island on south side of Bell St.
Stop 47: • If have it on north of David St – stop right turns out of Swift Street, which is the school entry • But would be perfect position for school students • If have south of David St – too close to stop 45 • Could we amalgamate stop 47 and 48 and have in the middle? Or remove stop 47 and have 48 south of Gower St? Issue is that the distance would be 500m and the guidelines say 400m. • Benefits of removing tram stop – less cost, more speed, more people at each stop. But Council will need to do a passenger impact study. State could overrule and say they want to keep it in, but possible for this group to recommend. Vote: Remove stop 47.
Stop 48 • See above discussion Vote: A central island on the south side of Gower St
Stop 49: • Central island on south side of Murray Rd – no side street issues, but would be very close to stop 48 (220m) • Central island on north side of Murray Rd – would mean no right turns into Beauchamp. Vote: Central island on north side of Murray Rd.
Stop 50: • Central island on south side – • If remove stop 50, and have 51 on south side, it would be 250m between stop 49 and 51. Vote: Remove stop 50
Stop 51: • Central island on south side of Wood St wouldn’t affect BL Marine, but would stop right turns into Thomas St. Vote: Central island stop on south side of Wood St.
Stop 52: • Central island on south side of Tyler St, would be 300m between stop 51 and 52. Would mean no right turns for Renee and Hawker. • Central island on north side of Tyler St would be 380m between 51 and 52. Would mean no right turns for Fryer and ?? • Concerns about dangers for pedestrians – cars whizz around the corner northbound and try to beat the tram and it’s dangerous for pedestrians. • Is there a way to slow the cars down? • Cars going southbound are going into a blind corner and won’t see central island stop. Can we slow the cars down before that intersection? • Feeling is that it is safer to have on north side. • If on north side, it will have no loss of parking because it is No Standing anyway. • Parking probably wouldn’t be reinstated because of traffic flow. • Might be good for businesses. • Bus stops are on north side – so if there is a central island stop there, during the fairway/clearway time all traffic would have to stop behind bus. This is a timing point for buses, so they stop a long time, and this could cause some issues for traffic. Can bus timetables be adjusted to avoid this? Probably – or move the bus stop? • Could have stop 52 on south of Tyler and stop 53 further north near pedestrian lights – means even spacing between stops. • South of intersection the central island fits better and only move one kerb – if have it north of intersection the road is very narrow and would have to move both kerbs. Vote 1: Central island stop on north side of Tyler St. One vote for south side. Also: Move the bus stop or change the bus time table and consider traffic safety options for whole intersection. Vote 2: After further discussion about stop 53, the vote was changed to: Central Island stop on the south side of Tyler St. Also: Northbound lane left turn only lane. (So all through cars have to stay behind the tram and won’t try to rush past.)
Stop 53: • Was originally proposed to be removed. • Total distance between stop 52 and stop 55 is 860m, so could remove either stop 53 or 54 and still have reasonable distance. • Could have it further north near pedestrian lights, near Robb and Ethel Sts. There is a pub and some lively take-away shops. But would affect right turns at Ethel and Robb Streets. But lots of people use Robb St a lot. School. So not an option. • If it is north of Robb, it will be too far from the activity area and pub. • But lots of residents who would lose right turns into their houses. And a panel beater. • If have it between Robb St and Kinkora, it would be fairly close to stop 52 and 580m to next stop – unless change stop 52 to south side. • What about kerb outstands? Vote: Central island stop between Kinkora and Robb St, near pedestrian lights.
Stop 54: • Should it be removed? It would then be 630m between Stop 53 and Stop 55. • North of Wilkinson – lots of houses/flats, concerns about accessing properties. • Possibility for stop 54 – could make a recommendation that it is kept and Council will have to research options. • Could have easy access stop to allow access to properties. Vote: Keep stop 54 but more investigation needed. Try to find a mid-point and put in a ‘le bump’ easy access stop.
Clearways/Fairways • Issue with not having right turn into Middendorp car park during fairway/clearway times – may need to provide an alternative entry.
State Gov proposal: Fairway and Clearway all way along during peak times.
• Concern that residents then have to get up at a crazy hour and move their cars. • However, data show that almost every property has access to an off-street car park. • Concern about services not having access – like roof repair, taxi, etc. • But these services would have access at non-peak times. • Clearways in both directions is not an unusual thing – eg Bell St • Don’t see the necessity of having clearway on both sides
Information about traffic during peak times - this data between Dundas and Albert at each intersection - In the AM peak 66% of traffic in peak direction, 33% travelling non-peak - PM peak, 75% in peak direction, 25% in non-peak direction - Thus it is not as much peak as we thought
• Having one lane of traffic and giving priority to the tram encourages traffic to move elsewhere or people to take the tram. • A main reason we voted for central island is because of retaining parking. • We’ve already compromised • It would be easy to add in Clearways down the track if needed. • This would affect the parking situation enormously. • Clearway on one side is how it is now – so if we stick with that there will be no change/compromise. • People leave their cars there day, so not much parking. • A concession is that the distance of the clearways is being extended from Wood to Albert St. • What about having clearways on both sides during AM peak (doesn’t affect businesses as much) but not PM peak. • Parking surveys done by Council show very little parking on Plenty Rd at night. • There will be more subdivisions, and thus more need for parking • But that’s why we should put clearways in now, to deter people from following unsustainable practices • Can we say yes to some sections but not others? • Bell to junction – yes people park there • Bell to Gower – no one parks there • Parking survey in the first meeting – concerns that only done over 2 days • The area from Wood to Tyler, it’s not easy to find a car park there. • Let’s look at the 2 peak times separately: If we’ve got to give the government something, maybe the morning clearway both sides would have minimal effect (only 1-1.5hr of business time) • AM clearway time 7-10am • However, would effect residents – but then they generally don’t park on the road – although in some sections they do • Don’t want to have clearways in just some sections – all or nothing • Well, we could put that back to the State, that double clearways in some areas and not others. If that’s the absolute maximum that’s what we say. • Maybe in the future, this could be re-assessed. • Need to clarify timing – the clearways would be put in sooner, with the rest of the project. It’s the new stops that will come in 5 years. • Concessions are enough at that point. • No one takes any notice of a fairway. • LaTrobe students catch tram in non-peak direction, so clearways both directions would help LaTrobe students. • About 1500 students come a day on the tram from the south – most come from Northcote, Collingwood, Thornbury, that direction. • Every side street will have right turns available during fairway times, but not properties. • Between Gower and Murray, a right turn would need to be created.
Vote on clearways: Clearway and fairway in peak direction, extended to Albert St: 8 Clearway both sides in both peaks: 1 (1 person absent)
Tram stop removals • Idea – with the tram stops marked for removal, could we remove them now and see what the reaction is? Before the stops are built. To do that we’d need to move them all into the new locations… but there are issues with this, as you need the islands to work in those locations.
3. Draft Recommendations Report to Council
4. Plans for Community Consultation over October/November
• What this group decides won’t necessarily be what goes out to the community • From here Council takes it to the State Government steering group • Then goes back to Councillors for decision about what to consult on • Extensive consultation planned – residents within 1km of tram tracks receive letters, engagement with tram users, schools, cultural groups, street consultations with shoppers. • Two months consultation period. • Specific property issues can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis eg if a driveway needs to be widened for trucks to access. • The CRG will be kept up to date throughout the process. • Hope that CRG can help to answer people’s questions as group knows a lot now.
5. Wrap up
Appendix B: Maps illustrating the location and design of accessible tram stops Northcote section: Stage 1 Central Island Platform Kerb Outstand Platform Stop to be removed
Keeping Melbourne Moving Clearways in peak direction: 6.30-10am; 4-7pm including part time tram lanes (including 100m around intersections: 3-7pm) Removal of Clearways Thornbury section: Stage 1 Keeping Melbourne Moving Clearway: 3-7pm (intersection) including part time tram lanes
Thornbury section: Stage 2 Central Island Platform Stop to be removed
Keeping Melbourne Moving Clearways in peak directions: 6.30-10am; 4-7pm including part time tram lanes (including 100m around intersections: 3-7pm) Plenty Road: Stage 1
Keeping Melbourne Moving Clearways in peak directions: 6.30- 10am; 4-7pm with part time tram lane (including 100m around intersections: 3-7pm)
Plenty Road: Stage 3 Central Island Platform Stop to be removed Plenty Road: Stage 1
Keeping Melbourne Moving Clearways in peak directions: 6.30- 10am; 4-7pm with part time tram lanes (including 100m around intersections: 3-7pm)
Plenty Road: Stage 3 Central Island Platform Stop to be removed