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 Conclave Technical Notes Recommended EPRs
Role & Process 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
Key Information from the TIAR 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 ome are impacted by increased truck traffic Others are impacted by changes to the transport network typically resulting in reduced capacity
Key Information from the TIAR Estimated Truck Volumes Average Daily Truck Location Peak Daily Truck Movements Movements Precinct 1 – Tunnels Linlithgow 20 21 Avenue Shaft Precinct 1 – Tunnels Fawkner 20 20 Park Shaft 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
ource: MMRP TIAR, App D, Figure 8-1 S
S ummary of Key Opinions 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.
S ummary of Key Opinions 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 outh S tation Precinct 7: Domain S tation While I have raised these issues, I believe they can be managed with the appropriate EPRs.
S ydney Light Rail Example 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
Review of S ubmissions Many submissions had consistent issues or themes: Issues from residents around truck haulage down residential streets Impacts of construction traffic on roads and their ability to accommodate this Use of on-street car parking spaces To address these I recommended further EPRs Other issues that did not warrant changes to the EPRs related to: Issues around access (ped, cycle and vehicular) Issues around emergency services access Issues around loss of parking or impacts to parking I believe these issues can be managed with the current recommended EPRs
Conclave The transport experts Conclave met with almost all required experts Two experts were not able to attend due to leave or contact not being achieved 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.
Conclave More specific EPR’s were discussed and not all were agreed. These tended to focus around the areas near the interests of the clients that the other attending experts were representing: Arden 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
Conclave S ome examples of the recommendat ions not agreed are provided: 15 T1 Precinct 3: Arden S tation Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by CC. S S , CC Any call forward operations and / or occupation of Laurens S treet must not S S Comments: I believe that the impact on the operation (vehicular / intent of this EPR is already pedestrian) of George Weston Foods. covered in the development of the TMPs and oversight from the TTWG. Further I do not believe that it may be possible to ‘ not impact’ the operation of this business. There may need to be impacts to effectively carry out the construction activities and as long as they are appropriately managed, I believe that should be acceptable.
Conclave 21 T1 Precinct 4: Parkville Station Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by JS. SS, JS A review of the existing car parking conditions within the Parkville Precinct SS Comments: I believe that this must be undertaken to confirm existing issue is covered by the previous supply and demand levels. This EPR recommended regarding information will be required to assess the construction workforce parking. 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. 29 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY. SS, BY Prepare a map which details potential SS Comments: This EPR is already diversion options around the Domain covered by the requirement to Road closure and which includes other prepare TMPs and consult with relevant road closures to be provided to affected stakeholders through MGS for distribution to the relevant the TTWG. parties.
Conclave 30 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY. SS, BY Contractors and subcontractors must be briefed on all SS Comments: This is standard practice and an access requirements relating to properties around the EPR specific for this is not reflective on how these construction sites. EPRs will be managed and enforced. 32 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY. SS, BY Additional transport modelling to be undertaken for the SS Comments: This EPR is not required as the Domain Precinct, as agreed with the TTWG in consultation TTWG should be able to determine the with affected land uses, which demonstrates the expected appropriate level of modelling and analysis. 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.
Conclave 37 T1 Precinct 7: Domain Station Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY. SS, BY Works which restrict access to Melbourne SS Comments: I do not support this EPR. Grammar (such as the tram track relocation works There are expected to be a number of on St Kilda Road) to be undertaken outside of core changes to these services as outlined in school times (i.e. school holidays). 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. 45 T2 Precinct 7: Domain Station Not Agreed This EPR is put forward by BY. SS, BY The temporary tram stop on St Kilda Road is to be SS Comments: I do not support this EPR. located within 100 metres of the Melbourne The Stop will be located considering a Grammar frontage and should be supervised. range of users, issues, safety concerns and direction from PTV.
Technical Notes I have reviewed all the Technical Notes that relate to transport issues or impacts. The following notes have issues worth discussing, in my opinion: 009 –This appears a reasonable approach to maintain access 012 –The revised operation phase configuration of Franklin S treet is supported 019, 020 and 021 are covered on the following slides
Recommend
More recommend
