Planning for People Statement on Coburg level crossing removal

Moreland Bicycle User group at it’s monthly meeting on Thursday 24 October gave in-principle endorsement to the Community integrated veloway concept design for the Bell to Moreland level crossing removal.

The local Moreland Cycling advocacy group also gave in-principle endorsement to the following ‘Planning for People’ Principles and Requirements statement:


Bell to Moreland Level Crossing Removals – Planning for People

Principles:

  • Support active transport – walking, cycling and public transport
  • No reduction in amenity for any transport type
  • Safety – for people of all types – pedestrians, cyclists, train users, drivers, people with disabilities, bus and taxi users.

Specific requirements of the project to achieve this:

  • 1. Separate different transport types (especially different speeds) for amenity and safety.

    • a. Separate cycling and walking paths – for the whole length of the project.

      • Pleasanter and safer for cyclists and pedestrians

    • b. Cycling paths clearly different from walking paths

      • to avoid confusion

      • for appropriate pedestrian vigilance when crossing them (like crossing a road)

      • clear crossing points near stations, carparks, or other concentrations of pedestrians

    • c. Elevated veloway – to separate higher-speed long-distance cyclists from slower local-access pedestrians and cyclists.

      • Accessed via ramps at ends and via lifts at stations

      • Benefits drivers by reducing the frequency of button pressing

      • Benefits train users and all pedestrians by separating high-speed cyclists

  • 2. Paths without ‘blind corner’ conflicts – for safety

    • a. In relation to station enclosures

      • Ensure station enclosures are well back from path-path intersections

      • This may mean station ‘footprints’ not extending across the whole width of the corridor

    • b. In relation to piers

      • Ensure pier locations are well back from path-path intersections – e.g. near road crossings

      • Where paths and path intersections are near piers, provide low obstructions (bins, seats, garden beds etc.) to keep people away from the ‘blind’ conflict point

    • c. In relation to property boundaries and trees.

      • Where paths and path intersections are near fences, provide low obstructions (bins, seats, garden beds etc.) to keep people away from the ‘blind’ conflict point

  • 3. Paths well lit – for safety – for the whole length of the project.

  • 4. People with disabilities – amenity and safety

    • a. Tactiles warning of bicycle path crossings – as for road crossings

    • b. Escalator access to station platforms

  • 5. Pedestrian and cyclist crossings of roads and driveways – design for amenity and safety

    • a. Access to station platforms from both sides of Bell St and Moreland Rd (like at Mernda Stations with respect to Bridge Inn Rd).

      • To avoid red-running to catch trains as can be seen every morning peak at new stations like Carnegie and Hughesdale

      • Required to not reduce train user amenity and safety (as pedestrians can currently cross for trains when boom gates are down)

      • This would also allow direct transfers to and from buses, taxis and drop-off/pick-up in both directions along Bell St & Moreland Rd.

      • Benefits drivers by reducing the frequency of button pressing.

    • b. Traffic lights – path user priority at least equivalent to that for driving (subject to demand)

      i. Changes to path crossing traffic lights, so paths get green when Sydney Rd gets green (if path users are present)

      ii. Changing Cameron St / Moreland Rd traffic lights to change with Sydney Rd would assist trams entering Moreland Rd for the depot. (Currently they are often unable to enter during Cameron St green due to queued vehicles extending the whole distance from Sydney Rd to Cameron St)

    • c. Traffic lights for cyclists designed for cyclists

      i. Timed appropriate for cyclists

      • To provide appropriate flashing red times

      • Will reduce non-compliance with red signals

      ii. Buttons on the left of bicycle paths

      iii. Buttons and holding rails located prior to east-west footpathsiv. East-west footpaths stopped during north-south cyclist green

      • (In contrast with existing traffic lights along the Upfield Path)

    • d. Bicycle path alignments – for amenity and safety

      i. avoid 90° bends near road crossings (awkward for cyclists and can confuse drivers about where cyclists are headed) like currently on the south side of Moreland Rd

      ii. avoid crossing carpark driveways – to avoid bicycle vs car conflicts

    • e. Moreland Road – improve existing deficiencies

      i. shift bicycle path crossing away from Cameron St

      • To avoid conflicts with turning motor vehiclesii. Separate north side ramp from drainage pit (existing problem)

 

Reference:

‘Planning for People’ Principles and Requirements statement PDF

Upfield Bike Path at Moreland Station with 108 year old Sugar gums in background for the chop by LXRP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s