Pedestrian Forum

Canberra Pedestrian Forum - consolidated comments on walking and cycling infrastructure projects

Table of Contents

General comments/priorities...... 1 Priorities for 2011...... 3 Future Priorities...... 4 Ranking methods...... 6 North Canberra - Civic Cycle Loop...... 9 North Canberra – Bunda St Shared Space...... 9 South Canberra - Brisbane Avenue on road lanes...... 10 South Canberra - Kings Avenue on road lanes...... 10 South Canberra - Kings Avenue off road path...... 10 South Canberra - Kingston foreshore temporary connection...... 11 Woden Accessible Street project – Bradley St...... 11 Woden - Wisdom Street link...... 11 Accessible Street Project – Pittman St and Athllon Dr...... 12 Tuggeranong - Athllon Drive on-road cycle lanes - Atkins to Hindmarsh...... 12 Gungahlin Accessible Street Project – Hibberson St...... 12 Gungahlin - Hibberson Street Shared Space...... 12 Belconnen Accessible Street project – Lathlain & Chandler Sts...... 12 Belconnen - Chandler Street On Road Cycle Lanes...... 13 General comments/priorities

These comments supersede our previous comments. Recommendations

The Canberra Pedestrian Forum recommends that: 1. the following projects proceed:

• Woden Accessible Street project – Bradley St.

• Woden - Wisdom Street link.

• Tuggeranong Accessible Street Project – Pittman St and Athllon Dr.

• Gungahlin Accessible Street Project – Hibberson St;

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 1 Canberra Pedestrian Forum

2. The South Canberra - Kings Avenue off road path proceed, subject to speed controls where pedestrian and cycle routes coincide, and a minimum shared path width of 3.5 metres; 3. the following projects proceed only if sufficient funds are available in 2011-2012:

• South Canberra - Brisbane Avenue on road lanes.

• South Canberra - Kings Avenue on road path.

• Belconnen Accessible Street project – Lathlain & Chandler Sts.

• Belconnen - Chandler Street On Road Cycle Lane (for safety reasons, subject to either the speed limit being reduced to 30 km/h or the median being retained); 4. the following projects not proceed in their current form:

• Civic Cycle Loop.

• Bunda St Shared Space.

• South Canberra - Kingston foreshore temporary connection.

• Tuggeranong - Athllon Drive on-road cycle lanes - Atkins to Hindmarsh.

• Gungahlin - Hibberson Street Shared Space; 5. as recommended by Professor Leo Dobes of the Crawford School of Economics and Government, walking and cycling infrastructure projects should in future be short-listed on the basis of cost- effectiveness, measured if feasible by willingness to pay; 6. the twenty most cost-effective projects (Table 2) be considered for future funding, ahead of the less cost-effective of the projects in the 2011 short list; 7. future reviews of Canberra's walking infrastructure consider the entire walking and cycling network, noting that every journey begins and ends at home, but not every journey involves travel on a trunk route; 8. the economic measures that the ACT Treasury requires, to justify expenditure on walking and cycling projects, be equivalent to the economic measures that the Treasury requires to justify expenditure on motor vehicle infrastructure projects; and 9. Projects be weighted more favourably if they cater for both walking and cycling, rather than for only one mode of transport.

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 2 Canberra Pedestrian Forum Priorities for 2011

The Canberra Pedestrian Forum has ranked the cost-effectiveness of the projects short listed for 2011, using July 2011 costings. The results are shown in Table 1. Rank Project Cost per unit effectiveness 1 Accessible Street – Bradley St Woden $0.29m 2 Shared Space $0.40m 3 Accessible Street – Pittman St and Athllon Drive $0.44m Tuggeranong 4 Kingston Foreshore Link - off road path1 $0.59m 5 Hibberson St Shared Space $0.63m 6 Accessible Street – Hibberson St Gungahlin $0.64m 7 Kings Avenue - off road path $0.94m 8 Wisdom street link - off road Options 1A and 2A2 $1.88m 9 Accessible Street – Lathlain and Chandler Sts $2.10m Belconnen 10 Chandler Street - on road lanes $2.55m 11 Kings Avenue - on road lanes $3.05m 12 Brisbane Avenue - on road lanes Option 1 $6.05m 13 Civic Cycle Loop - Copenhagen lanes along Marcus $12.02m Clarke, Rudd and Allara Streets and part of Bunda Street. 14 Athllon Drive cycle lanes - Atkins to Hindmarsh $30.75m Table 1: Cost-effectiveness ranking of projects short listed for 2011.

1 The Kingston Foreshore Link is a temporary measure, pending completion in 2012 of the off-road lakeside shared path. 2 The proposed Wisdom Street Link does not include the Kent St section that was included in the original proposal.

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 3 Canberra Pedestrian Forum

Future Priorities

Using the method described below, we have identified the twenty most cost-effective of the initial 201 projects (Table 2). Rank Project name Effec- Initial Cost per tiveness cost unit effec- score estimate tiveness 1 Thesiger Court Link - off road path 0.52 $10,000 $19,274 2 Widen footpath on Wentworth 0.53 $15,000 $28,261 Avenue - off road link 3 Knox Street to Simpson Street - off- 0.55 $25,000 $45,131 road path sealing 4 University avenue - off road path 0.30 $15,000 $49,408 5 Bunda Street shared space 0.49 $30,000 $61,440 6 Fisher off-road path 0.49 $30,000 $61,828 7 Menindee Drive off-road path 0.53 $35,000 $65,788 8 The Valley Avenue to Gundaroo 0.24 $20,000 $82,235 Drive link - on road lanes 9 Accessible Street - Gungahlin 0.30 $25,000 $84,155 10 Mawson Shops bypass route - off 0.53 $45,000 $84,728 road path 11 Lake to War Memorial Links - off 0.54 $50,000 $92,274 road path 12 Easty Street link - off road path 0.26 $25,000 $95,764 13 Athllon Drive off-road path missing 0.52 $50,000 $96,265 link 14 Aikman Drive cycle lanes extension 0.24 $25,000 $102,477 - on road lanes 15 Edinburgh Ave - on road lanes 0.27 $30,000 $109,229 16 Launceston Street - on road 0.31 $35,000 $111,314 17 Tuggeranong Bus Interchange 0.23 $30,000 $128,003 access 18 off-road path, 0.49 $65,000 $133,203 UoC to Lake Ginninderra 19 Weston to Tuggeranong - off road 0.55 $75,000 $136,754 path 20 Improvement of off-road path 0.17 $25,000 $144,675 crossing at Miller Street between Macarthur and Quandong Streets Table 2: Twenty most cost-effective projects (based on initial costings) Two of the projects short-listed for 2011 are also among the twenty most cost-effective projects. These are Bunda Street shared space and Accessible Street Gungahlin. Pedestrian Forum cost-effectiveness ranking method

The Canberra Pedestrian Forum ranking method uses the same data as the Cardno ranking method, but differs in the following respects:

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 4 Canberra Pedestrian Forum

Criterion Canberra Cardno method Pedestrian Forum method

Project “Cost per unit Project cost was divided by the number of cost effectiveness” people living within 500 metres of the route. was obtained by This factor was normalised to 10% of the dividing the maximum possible score, and added to the project cost by total of the other scores. the weighted Because two projects with extreme cost-per total of the 3 other scores. person scores were included , the normalised cost scores of the remaining 199 projects ranged over less than 1% of the maximum possible score.

Criteria As determined “Number of attractors” was changed to from community “weighted number of attractors per km.” consultation – see Table 5.3 of “Total population served by route” was the Cardno changed to “total population served by route report. per km.” “Total jobs served by route” was changed to “total jobs served by route per km.”

Criteria Proportional to “Connectivity” weighting was reduced from 7 weightings “points scored points out of 33 (21%) to 20%. in consultation workshop” as “Demand” weighting was increased from 5 reported in points out of 33 (15%) to 20%. Table 5.3 of the “Network Enhancement” weighting was Cardno report. reduced from 8 points out of 33 (24%) to 20%. “Safety” weighting was reduced from 11 points out of 33 (33%) to 20%. “Strategic Importance” weighting was increased from 2 points out of 33 (6%) to 10%.

Population Mouat St project The Mouat St project was erroneously excluded from attributed a population of 170,148. This consideration. resulted in the “population” scores of all other projects being normalised to much less than the nominated 10%.

3 “Lanyon Drive on-road cycle lanes”($65,000, population zero, infinite cost per person) and “Fyshwick-to-airport off-road path” ($17m, population 34, cost-effectiveness” factor $0.5 million per person).

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 5 Canberra Pedestrian Forum

Criterion Canberra Cardno method Pedestrian Forum method

Multiple Projects that Projects that cater for both walking and mode cater for both cycling are given the same weight as projects walking and projects that cater for only one mode. cycling are given twice the weight of projects that cater for only one mode.

Table 3: Pedestrian Forum and Cardno ranking methods compared. Ranking methods

Adjunct Associate Professor Leo Dobes, of the ANU's Crawford School of Economics and Government, was invited to address the final meeting of the Trunk Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Working Group. Professor Dobes advised that the best method for evaluating projects is cost benefit analysis, based on willingness to pay. Professor Dobes recommended cost-effectiveness as a simpler and less costly measure. A full cost benefit analysis of a cycling or walking project requires the expression of the benefits of a project – including factors such as amenity - in monetary terms. It also requires an estimate of the number of trips that the project will either generate or attract from other transport modes. It is very difficult to estimate the absolute number of trips that will occur on a project that is yet to be built. In contrast, projects can be ranked for cost-effectiveness without monetising their benefits or estimating absolute trip numbers. The benefits of a project are proportional to the number of trips, and so the number of trips is a useful measure of benefits. For comparative purposes the important factor is the relative number of trips, rather than the absolute number of trips. One of Professor Dobes' criticisms of Multi Criteria Analysis is that the relevant measures are adjusted “by subjective weights that are chosen to represent the analyst’s assessment of the relative importance of each impact.”4 Cardo Eppel Olsen they used public consultation (rather than their own subjective assessments) to determine weightings for various factors - effectively measuring relative willingness to pay. However they then changed the factors5 and arbitrarily adjusted their weightings6.

4 Dobes, Leo and Bennett, Jeff, 2009, “Multi-Criteria Analysis: "Good Enough" for Government Work?;” Agenda, Vol 16 no. 3, p. 7. (http://epress.anu.edu.au/agenda/016/03/pdf/whole.pdf) 5 Cardno Eppell Olsen, February 2011, ACT Cycling and Pedestrian Network Priority Network for Capital Works - compare the factors used in public consultation (Table

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 6 Canberra Pedestrian Forum

Instead of using the available information to rank projects by cost- effectiveness, Cardno Eppel Olsen used it to perform a complex, error- affected, untested variant of the flawed Multi Criteria Analysis method. Cardno's ranking method was complex

As one example, the method addressed cost by defining a factor defined as “cost of the link divided by the population it serves” and simplistically called “cost-effectiveness” (Cardno report, p. 55). This factor was given a 10% weighting (p. 56) and converted to a “normalised score” (p. 57) calculated as “project score-minimum score (all projects)/maximum score (all projects)-minimum score (all projects).” (p. 58). According to the above description, the highest “cost-effectiveness” rankings went to the most expensive projects that serve the smallest populations. The consultants told the Working Group that their final “cost-effectiveness” scores were higher for less expensive projects and for projects that served more people. They did not explain how those final “cost-effectiveness” scores were derived. Cardno's ranking was affected by errors

The 201st-ranked 810-metre-long Mouat St Lyneham on-road lanes project was erroneously attributed a population of 170,148. This would imply that almost half the residents of Canberra live within 500 metres of this project. On this basis, Mouat St had the highest “population” factor (“Total population within adjacent catchment within 500m radius (scored on population per km)7” of 210,000. The normalisation process meant that this affected the “population” scores of all other projects. Having the highest “population” factor, Mouat St would score the maximum “population” score of 10%, and the “population” scores of the other projects would be normalised proportionally, ranging from Lanyon Drive on-road cycle lanes (1.1 km, population 0, population factor 0, score 0%) to Improvement of off-road path crossing at Miller Street between Macarthur and Quandong Streets (length 0.01 km, population 1,161, population factor 97,662, score 4.7%). If the correct population had been entered for the Mouat St project, the population scores of the 200 top-ranked projects would have ranged from zero to 10% of the maximum possible score. Because of the data error, they ranged only up to 4.7%.

5.3, p. 59) with those actually used in the analysis (Tables 5.1 and 5.2). 6 Cardno Eppell Olsen, February 2011, ACT Cycling and Pedestrian Network Priority Network for Capital Works, Table 5.3, p. 59. 7 Cardno report, p. 57

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 7 Canberra Pedestrian Forum Cardno's ranking method was an untested variant

The 2011 method produced rankings that were almost completely independent of value-for-money. As the method was complex and untested, there was no experience base from which to recognise results which were anomalous or affected by errors The 2005 and 2007 Multi Criteria Analysis rankings allocated each project a score that ranged from zero to 36 points. A project that cost more than $1 million got zero points for “cost,” and a project that cost less than $200,000 got the maximum “cost” score of six points – 17% of the maximum possible score. Using the 2007 method, the “cost” scores of the current top 199 projects would have ranged from zero (e.g. Athllon Drive/Sulwood Drive intersection treatment, $1.67m) to 17% of the maximum possible score (e.g. Thesiger Court Link, $10.000). In the 2011 ranking method, criteria were redefined (see Table 3 above), re- weighted (Table 3 above) and/or normalised as “project score-minimum score (all projects)/maximum score (all projects)-minimum score (all projects)” (p. 58 of the Cardno report). The final normalised “cost effectiveness” scores were essentially determined by the 200th-ranked Fyshwick-to-airport off-road link (cost $17.5 million, population served 34, “cost effectiveness” factor 0.5 million). Based on the method described in the report, the Fyshwick-to-airport off- road link would have scored the maximum 10%. The “cost effectiveness” scores of the remaining projects would have been calculated proportionally, ranging from Eloura St on road lanes ($20,000, population 3,687, cost-effectiveness factor 5.4, score 0.0001%) to on-road lanes ($560,000, population 161, cost-effectiveness factor 41,778, score 0.9%). So the cost scores of the top 199 projects (excluding the Fyshwick-to-airport off-road link and Mouat St on-road lanes) ranged over less than 1% of the maximum possible score. Cardno's ranking method was flawed.

According to Professor Dobes, “Multi-criteria analysis is fundamentally flawed in principle, and is open to abuse by special-interest groups,” and “the social cost of taking a misguided decision based on ‘junk evaluation’ techniques can also be high”8.

8 Dobes, Leo and Bennett, Jeff, 2009, “Multi-Criteria Analysis: "Good Enough" for Government Work?;” Agenda, Vol 16 no. 3, p. 7. (http://epress.anu.edu.au/agenda/016/03/pdf/whole.pdf)

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 8 Canberra Pedestrian Forum North Canberra - Civic Cycle Loop

This project should not proceed in its current form. Taken as a whole, the Civic Cycle Loop is an expensive, inappropriate solution to a small problem. There may be merit in individually evaluating the merits of some of the Civic Cycle Loop's components. The concept of the Loop is like that of a display village for a housing estate – it brings together a range of potentially good designs, but they are not necessarily in their most appropriate locations. The Civic Cycle Loop is expensive. At Cardno's original cost estimate of $180,000, the Pedestrian Forum ranks Copenhagen-style bicycle lanes along Marcus Clarke, Rudd, Allara streets as the 69th most cost-effective of the initial 201 projects. At AECOM's revised cost estimate of $5.25 million, the Civic Cycle Loop ranks second-last of the thirteen short-listed projects. The Civic Cycle Loop is inappropriate. It will route additional bicycle traffic into Bunda St, which is already one of Canberra's most congested streets. Directing through-traffic into already congested streets goes against fifty years of traffic management practice. Since Sir Colin Buchanan's “Traffic in Towns” Report, the preferred option has been to route traffic around city centres, rather than through them. This additional bicycle traffic will travel in a direction that conflicts with 88% of Bunda St traffic – pedestrians crossing the street9. The number of pedestrian crossings on Bunda Street means that, during business hours, it will be slower for cycling than the alternative cycle routes. The Civic Cycle Loop addresses a small problem. Cycling around Civic is only an issue for the small number of people who (1) have already cycled to Civic, and (2) want to cycle to other parts of Civic. As an illustration of the level of demand for the Loop, cyclists currently make up only 1% of the traffic on Bunda St10. The proposed project does not address the issue of making it feasible for people to cycle to or from the Civic Cycle Loop. North Canberra – Bunda St Shared Space

The Canberra Pedestrian Forum rejects the proposal in the AECOM report, because it offers a “mixed traffic space for vehicles and cyclists; but no pedestrians” instead of the “low speed environment that can be safely used by cars, walkers and cyclists” promised by Simon Corbell in October 2010, or the “shared space … to increase safety for pedestrians” that was evaluated in the Cardno report.

9 Pedestrian Forum count of 384 traffic movements on Bunda St, Saturday 15 May 2010, approx. 11am, 10 Pedestrian Forum count of 384 traffic movements on Bunda St, Saturday 15 May 2010, approx. 11am,

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 9 Canberra Pedestrian Forum

We support a Shared Zone or a Shared Space for Bunda Street. The proposed mixed traffic area would exclude the pedestrians who make up 88% of the traffic on Bunda St11. The Bunda St Shared Space project was the fifth most cost-effective of the initial two hundred projects, and is the second most cost-effective of the thirteen short-listed projects. As with the Hibberson St Shared Space project, some legal and quasi-legal issues relating to shared space would need to be addressed. South Canberra - Brisbane Avenue on road lanes

This project should only proceed if sufficient funding is available in 2011- 2012. The principal benefit for pedestrians would be Improved pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction of Brisbane Ave and Wentworth Ave. This project ranked 57th for cost-effectiveness, of the initial 200 projects. Of the fourteen short-listed projects, it ranks twelfth. South Canberra - Kings Avenue on road lanes

This project should only proceed if sufficient funding is available in 2011- 2012. Kings Avenue on-road cycle lanes ranked 84th of the initial 200 projects for cost-effectiveness, and eleventh of the fourteen short-listed projects. South Canberra - Kings Avenue off road path

At a third the cost of on-road lanes, an off-road path is a more cost-effective option for Kings Avenue. This project ranks seventh for cost-effectiveness, of the fourteen short-listed projects. Off-road cycling on Kings Avenue provides a particular challenge, because it mixes significant numbers of pedestrians with commuter cyclists who regularly travel at 20-30 km/h. This is potentially dangerous on a shared path, or where pedestrians regularly cross a cycle path to access buses. We understand that Section 6.3.2 of Part 14 of the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice recommends a minimum width of 3.5 metres for bi- directional shared paths. The western side of Kings Avenue has more space and less pedestrian traffic. It should be feasible to have a separated (cycles only) cycle path, and a separated (pedestrians only) footpath located in the space between the cycle path and the road and bus stops. The eastern side of Kings Avenue has less space available for separated paths, and it also has significant numbers of pedestrians who access buses from the adjacent office buildings.

11 Pedestrian Forum count of 384 traffic movements on Bunda St, Saturday 15 May 2010, approx. 11am,

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 10 Canberra Pedestrian Forum

The best off-road cycling option on the eastern side would be a shared path designed to limit bicycles to 20 km/h in areas of high pedestrian use. This could be done by means such as speed bumps, chicanes or squeeze points. South Canberra - Kingston foreshore temporary connection

This proposal includes widening of a section of footpath on Wentworth Avenue. This widening should proceed as part of the Wentworth Avenue Off- road link, which is the second most cost-effective of the two hundred projects considered. Aside from inexpensive signposting, the remainder of this proposed project should not proceed because:

• This project will have a life only until 2012, when a permanent off- road foreshore link is to be constructed alongside Eastlake Parade and Newcastle Street.

• The proposed off-road route is poorly suited to round-the-lake cycling, because it is away from the lake and alongside a busy road, and because it is interrupted by six through-streets. At each of these intersections, except where there are traffic lights, off-road cyclists must give way to all motor vehicles. This compromises both convenience and safety.

• There is a safer, more convenient and more attractive existing round- the-lake on-road link route via Eastlake Parade, Eyre St, Printers Way, The Causeway and Newcastle St. In one direction this route crosses no through-streets, and in the other direction it crosses only four through-streets. It carries few, generally slower-moving, motor vehicles, and at most intersections those vehicles must give way to cyclists who are following the route. This route is safer for cyclists and pedestrians aged over ten, and also for children under ten who should be walking or cycling under adult supervision. We understand that Section 6.3.2 of Part 14 of the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice recommends a minimum width of 3.5 metres for bi- directional shared paths. Woden Accessible Street project – Bradley St

This project should proceed as a high priority. It is the most cost-effective of the short-listed projects, and is also the least expensive. Woden - Wisdom Street link

The Canberra Pedestrian Forum supports Options 1A and 2A because they are less expensive than options 1B and 2B, and because Option 1B does not connect to the Hughes shops or the Malkara School. Option 1A connects from Carruthers St via Groom St and Wisdom St to . Option 1B, via Webster St and part of Groom St. We understand that Section 6.3.2 of Part 14 of the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice recommends a minimum width of 3.5 metres for bi- directional shared paths.

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 11 Canberra Pedestrian Forum Tuggeranong Accessible Street Project – Pittman St and Athllon Dr

This project should proceed as a high priority, as it is the third most cost- effective of the fourteen short-listed projects. The Accessibility study extends beyond the original brief, to include parts of Anketell St, Reed St and Soward Way. Despite this, the project's detailed costing is only 25% above the initial cost estimate. Tuggeranong - Athllon Drive on-road cycle lanes - Atkins to Hindmarsh

This project should not proceed. At its initial cost estimate of $280,000, this project ranked 135th of 200 projects, for cost-effectiveness. At its revised cost, it is the least cost-effective of the fourteen short-listed projects. An alternative off-road route, which may be more cost-effective, could be considered for future funding. Gungahlin Accessible Street Project – Hibberson St

This project should proceed. It ranked ninth for cost-effectiveness, of the initial 200 projects, and it ranks sixth of the fourteen short-listed projects. Gungahlin - Hibberson Street Shared Space

We reject the current design, which adds a segregated cycle path to the existing segregated road and footpath. It will reduce footpath width and create a cycle path adjacent to the busy footpath. This is not the “shared space” mentioned in Simon Corbell's October 2010 media release. It is also inconsistent with the description in the Cardno report: “shared space project. This project intends to transform the main street of Gungahlin into a high quality, pedestrian friendly shared space.” As with the Bunda St Shared Space project, there are legal and quasi-legal issues relating to shared space, that would need to be addressed. Belconnen Accessible Street project – Lathlain & Chandler Sts

This project should only proceed if sufficient funds are available in 2011- 2012. We recommend that the high priority/low cost components of this project be implemented, subject to availability of current funding. This project ranked 56th for cost-effectiveness, of the 200 initial projects, and ninth of the fourteen short-listed projects.

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 12 Canberra Pedestrian Forum Belconnen - Chandler Street On Road Cycle Lanes

This project should only proceed if sufficient funds are available in 2011- 2012. At its original cost estimate of $35,000, this project ranked 32nd of the initial 200 projects for cost-effectiveness. At the much higher cost that is now estimated, it ranks tenth of the short-listed fourteen. For safety reasons either the speed limit on Chandler St should be reduced to 30 km/h or less, or the median should be retained to provide a safe refuge for pedestrians crossing Chandler St – especially where visibility is limited near the north-east corner of Chandler St.

Canberra Pedestrian Forum www.tinyurl/walkact 13