Melbourne Metro Rail Proj ect Expert Witness - Transport S haun S - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Melbourne Metro Rail Proj ect Expert Witness - Transport S haun S medley Agenda Role & Process Key Information from the TIAR S ummary of Key Opinions S ydney Light Rail Example Review of S ubmissions
S haun S medley
Role & Process
Key Information from the TIAR
S ummary of Key Opinions
S ydney Light Rail Example
Review of S ubmissions
Conclave
Technical Notes
Recommended EPRs
Initial Role as Peer Review
High level, focused on process and assessments to address EES
S coping Requirements
Assessment was supported, with several recommendations for further
consideration
Current Role as Expert Witness
A more detailed and thorough review Have relied on the modelling undertaken (calibrated models etc) Reviewed the TIAR and relevant technical notes
The TIAR has focussed on two discrete phases:
the operational (or legacy phase) once the proj ect is open and operating; and the construction phase, while works are being carried out to build the proj ect.
It is clear that the maj ority of the issues relate to the construction phase
The impacts vary across the 9 Precincts
S
Others are impacted by changes to the transport network typically resulting in
reduced capacity
Location Average Daily Truck Movements Peak Daily Truck Movements Precinct 1 – Tunnels Linlithgow Avenue Shaft 20 21 Precinct 1 – Tunnels Fawkner Park Shaft 20 20 Precinct 2 – Western Portal 50 62 Precinct 3 – Arden Station 260 364 Precinct 4 – Parkville Station 100 140 Precinct 5 – CBD North 150 210 Precinct 6 – CBD South 150 210 Precinct 7 – Domain Station 170 224 Precinct 8 – Eastern Portal 50 62 Precinct 9 – Western Turnback None stated None stated
Estimated Truck Volumes
S
My opinions are:
The TIAR provided a reasonable representation of the likely impacts of
the proj ect and addressed the S coping Directions
That a proj ect of this nature can be managed with appropriate
Performance Requirements
That the Environment Performance Requirements put forward with
respect to Transport are generally appropriate to provide control while still allowing the required flexibility for innovation for a proj ect of this size.
I endorse the establishment of the TTWG as noted in Technical Note 025
and referred to in the Conclave Joint S ummary Report recommendations.
I have recommended further EPRs around some other key aspects to assist
in providing adequate controls.
Further to the previous points, in my Expert Witness S tatement I investigated particular matters related to the following precincts:
Precinct 4: Parkville S
tation
Precinct 6: CBD S
tation
Precinct 7: Domain S
tation
While I have raised these issues, I believe they can be managed with the appropriate EPRs.
Relevant example proj ect
Central, impacts during construction, high profile, travel demand strategy
Key messages of note:
Central coordination office, similar to the proposed TTWG Capacity improvement programs, early start Travel demand management Monitoring and contingency
Many submissions had consistent issues or themes:
Issues from residents around truck haulage down residential streets
Impacts of construction traffic on roads and their ability to accommodate this
Use of on-street car parking spaces
To address these I recommended further EPRs
Other issues that did not warrant changes to the EPRs related to:
Issues around access (ped, cycle and vehicular)
Issues around emergency services access
Issues around loss of parking or impacts to parking
I believe these issues can be managed with the current recommended EPRs
The transport experts Conclave met with almost all required experts
Two experts were not able to attend due to leave or contact not being achieved
S everal broader EPR’s were discussed and agreed, these generally related to:
The TTWG; The content and considerations of the TMP’s; Construction haulage routes; Monitoring and implementation of mitigations; Construction worker parking restrictions; Development of Green Travel Plans; Public transport priority treatments for affected Tram and Bus routes; and Maintaining access for cyclists and pedestrians.
More specific EPR’s were discussed and not all were agreed. These tended to focus around the areas near the interests of the
clients that the other attending experts were representing:
Arden S
tation
Parkville S
tation
Domain S
tation; and
Eastern Portal.
The items not agreed were typically due to my opinion that they were
too specific for the EPR or were covered by other broader EPRs
S
15 T1 Precinct 3: Arden S tation Any call forward operations and / or
treet must not impact on the operation (vehicular / pedestrian) of George Weston Foods. Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by CC. S S Comments: I believe that the intent of this EPR is already covered in the development of the TMPs and oversight from the
that it may be possible to ‘ not impact’ the operation of this
impacts to effectively carry out the construction activities and as long as they are appropriately managed, I believe that should be acceptable. S S , CC
21 T1 Precinct 4: Parkville Station A review of the existing car parking conditions within the Parkville Precinct must be undertaken to confirm existing supply and demand levels. This information will be required to assess the impact of a loss of on‐street car parking as a result of the construction phase combined with a potential uplift in car parking demands attributable to construction workers. Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by JS. SS Comments: I believe that this issue is covered by the previous EPR recommended regarding construction workforce parking. SS, JS 29 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station Prepare a map which details potential diversion options around the Domain Road closure and which includes other relevant road closures to be provided to MGS for distribution to the relevant parties. Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY. SS Comments: This EPR is already covered by the requirement to prepare TMPs and consult with affected stakeholders through the TTWG. SS, BY
30 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station Contractors and subcontractors must be briefed on all access requirements relating to properties around the construction sites. Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY. SS Comments: This is standard practice and an EPR specific for this is not reflective on how these EPRs will be managed and enforced. SS, BY 32 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station Additional transport modelling to be undertaken for the Domain Precinct, as agreed with the TTWG in consultation with affected land uses, which demonstrates the expected transport performance, including but not limited to: ‐ Undertaking travel time analysis for travel to and from the Domain Precinct to include the key approaches into the Domain Station precinct (i.e. Toorak Road, Kings Way, Albert Road and Park Street) and provide expected travel times for all likely routes. This modelling is to incorporate sensitivity analysis that tests the impacts of a lesser number of diverted trips. ‐ Include the expected traffic generated by trucks and construction workers in the microsimulation model. Undertake analysis of the capacity for the public transport network to accommodate a travel mode shift. Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY. SS Comments: This EPR is not required as the TTWG should be able to determine the appropriate level of modelling and analysis. SS, BY
37 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station Works which restrict access to Melbourne Grammar (such as the tram track relocation works
school times (i.e. school holidays). Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY. SS Comments: I do not support this EPR. There are expected to be a number of changes to these services as outlined in Section 8.10.4 of the TIAR. Restricting these to school holiday periods may have significant impacts on construction staging and duration of the overall works. I believe that these impacts can be managed during core school times. SS, BY 45 T2 Precinct 7: Domain Station The temporary tram stop on St Kilda Road is to be located within 100 metres of the Melbourne Grammar frontage and should be supervised. Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY. SS Comments: I do not support this EPR. The Stop will be located considering a range of users, issues, safety concerns and direction from PTV. SS, BY
I have reviewed all the Technical Notes that relate to transport issues or
009 –This appears a reasonable approach to maintain access 012 –The revised operation phase configuration of Franklin S
treet is supported
019, 020 and 021 are covered on the following slides
Issue 1 – Grattan S treet eastbound only, no westbound movement
This appeared reasonable to me
Issue 2 –A right turn ban from Royal Pde into Macarthur Rd
This in itself was not a concern, but there is a need to maintain heavy east-west
flow at this intersection
Issue 3 –Analysis of travel times on S wanston S treet
This indicated an increase in travel times along this corridor, this was an area
where focussed mitigation treatments are recommended.
Issue 1 –Travel time and delay analysis in Parkville
There were considerable increases in east -west travel times. I have recommended
a focussed EPR to develop complimentary improvements to assist this flow
Issue 2 –Travel time delays to buses
PTV is investigating alternative routes. I have recommended consideration for
intersection improvements
Issue 3 – Flinders S treet cut and cover
It is noted that staged cut and cover is a possibility, this should be considered with
Tech Note 021
Issue 4 – S ensitivity testing along S t Kilda Road
This indicated little spare capacity during this construction phase – highlights the
importance of the TDM and mitigation works
This relates to the potential closure of Flinders S
treet Westbound
S
everal options are put forward
I believe that both option 1 and Option 2 have merit and would require
further analysis
S
everal intersections will struggle to cope with the diverted traffic
Any option would require a significant Travel Demand S
trategy combined with a range of intersection improvements
Closure of Flinders S
treet for construction works should be considered as a last resort
My witness statement included some new and modified EPRs
I have now considered the IAC Revision Version 1 and have the following
recommendations:
Flinders S
treet capacity / connectivity
Complementary improvements to assist College Crescent Protection of the ‘ tan’ running track