Microsoft Word - 0008Marrickville PAMP Review Final
Report.docNovember 2009
particular instructions and requirements
relied upon by any third party and no
responsibility is undertaken to any third
party Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
13 Fitzroy Street, London W1T 4BQ
Tel +44 (0)20 7636 1531 Fax +44 (0)20 775 Extn www.arup.com
Job number 206184
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Document Verification
Page 1 of 1
Job title Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan Review
Job number
206184
Document ref
Name JOL/SM CCH CCH
Description Final
Name JOL/SM CCH CCH
Name
Signature
Filename
Description
Name
Signature
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Contents
Page
1.3 The review of the 2001 PAMP 2
1.4 Aims 2
1.5 Objectives 3
1.7 Universal Access Principles 4
1.8 Methodology 5
1.9 Evaluation 8
2.1 Population 10
2.3 Road Hierarchy 12
2.4 Public Transport 13
3.2 Data Review 19
3.4 Council’s Current Road Safety Program 22
4 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 25
4.2 Questionnaire Surveys 25
5.1 Pedestrian Route Network 31
5.2 Facilities Standard 31
6 ROUTE AUDITS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 38
6.1 Prioritising Facilities 38
6.3 Issues Arising from the Audit 47
6.4 Design of Pedestrian Facilities 51
6.5 Cost Estimates 51
6.7 Estimated Cost 52
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
7 CURRENT ISSUES - PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, MOBILITY AND SAFETY 54
7.1 Walking as a Sustainable Mode of Transport 54
7.2 Council Policy 54
7.3 Funding Sources 56
8.1 Conclusion 58
8.2 Recommendations 58
9 REFERENCES 60
Table 1 Traffic Volumes on Major Roads
Table 2 Marrickville Pedestrian Accidents/ Injuries 2007 (within
the study area)
Table 3 Location of Pedestrians Involved Accidents, 2007
Table 4 Footpath Surface Texture Traversable by Wheelchair
Table 5 Width Requirements for Paths
Table 6 Design Requirements for Sloped Walkways
Table 7 Suitability of Crossing Type
Table 8 Problem Ranking and Solution Assessment Method
Table 9 Solution Assessment Chart
Table 10 Crossing Opportunities Identified
Table 11 Estimated Unit Costs of Actions
Table 12 Estimated Cost of Works from Route Audit
Table 13 Identified PAMP Works Sorted by Action Type
Figures
Figure 2 Universal Access Principles
Figure 3 Marrickville PAMP Study Area – Five Focus Centres
Figure 4 PAMP Methodology
Figure 6 Marrickville Pedestrian Accidents 2007
Figure 7 Marrickville Pedestrian Accident History 2003-2007
Figure 8 Mode of Transport
Figure 9 Issues and Main concerns expressed in Questionnaires
Figure 10 Locations of issues and concerns gathered from
Questionnaires
Figure 11 Marrickville PAMP Route Network
Figure 12 Footpath Audit – Footpath Issues
Figure 13 Footpath Audit – Footpath Obstruction, Drainage and
Lighting Issues
Figure 14 Footpath Audit – Kerb Ramp Issues
Figure 15 Footpath Audit – Bus Stop Issues and Crossing
Opportunities
Appendices
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Appendix B
Appendix D
Appendix F
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 1 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Marrickville Council engaged Arup Planning (Arup) to undertake a
review of the 2001
Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP). The study area includes
the whole local
government area (LGA). The suburbs include Petersham, Lewisham,
Stanmore, Newtown,
Enmore, Dulwich Hill, Marrickville, St Peters, Sydenham and
Tempe.
1.2 2001 Marrickville PAMP
Background
In 1999, Marrickville Council has initiated the pioneer PAMP
project in NSW. The first
Marrickville PAMP study was conducted and completed by Arup in
2001. The 2001 study
identified high pedestrian activities area (Figure 1) and developed
a prioritised work program
to implement the proposed PAMP works. Council has been working
through the
implementation of the program since 2001.
Recommendations
The 2001 PAMP recommended the Council to adopt the proposed 2001
PAMP routes and
the corresponding work program to improve the footpath
accessibility within the study area.
Work Progress
The council has approved and adopted the 2001 PAMP recommendations,
acquired funding
from the RTA and implemented most of the works identified by the
2001 PAMP. Council
has since developed the Accessible Footpath Program to further
extend the accessible
footpath network. Recently, Council has carried out proactive
measures like footpath
grinding to remove trip hazards within 20-25mm height produced by
lifted concrete slab on
major streets.
Review
It has been eight years since the first PAMP was completed. Some
original PAMP routes
have experienced new issues with the rise of new development and
increase in pedestrian
flow. In considering pedestrian issues in the development of the
2007 Marrickville
Integrated Transport Strategy, the need to review the 2001 PAMP and
develop a new
PAMP was identified. This resulted in Recommendation No.5.1:
“Evaluate and review
implementation of Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan (PAMPs) and
undertake further
pedestrian and access improvements with a focus on commercial
centres, public transport
stops and other areas with high levels of pedestrian
activity”.
This 2009 PAMP review study is a response to the recommendation
made in the
Marrickville Integrated Transport Strategy 2007.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 2 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 1 Marrickville PAMP Routes 2001
1.3 The review of the 2001 PAMP
This PAMP review is build on the lessons learned in implementing
the 2001 PAMP. The
review also reflects the community responses received by the
Council on pedestrian safety
and amenity issues since 2001. The PAMP review has redefined the
study area whilst
retaining the focus on areas of high pedestrian activity.
1.3.1 Redefining Study Area
During the inception meeting of the study, study team has refined
the study area to focus on
the five major centres for the PAMP development. The five centres
in the order of priority
are:
3. Dulwich Hill Village
5. Parramatta Road
1.4 Aims
The main aim of the Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review is to improve
the pedestrian network's:
• equity of access;
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 3 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
• comfort; and
1.5 Objectives
This PAMP review is aim to redefine (widen) the study area to
include new areas, whilst
retaining the focus on areas of high pedestrian activity. The main
objectives of the PAMP
as identified in the Marrickville Council Brief are to:
• Facilitate improvements in the level of pedestrian access and
priority, particularly in
areas of high pedestrian concentrations;
• Reduce pedestrian access severance and enhance safe and
convenient crossing
opportunities on major roads;
• Further Council's obligations under the Commonwealth Disability
Discrimination Act
1996.
• Facilitate improvements in the level of personal mobility and
safety for pedestrians with
disabilities and older persons through the provision of pedestrian
infrastructure and
facilities which cater to the needs of all pedestrians;
• Provide links with other transport services to achieve an
integrated land use and
transport network of facilities that comply with best technical
standards;
• Ensure pedestrian facilities are provided in a consistent and
appropriate manner, both
within the Marrickville LGA and compared to other councils in
NSW;
• Ensure that pedestrian facilities remain appropriate and relevant
to the surrounding land
use and the user group;
• Facilitate the integration of walking into the transport system
as a legitimate transport
mode in its own right
• Accommodate special event needs of pedestrians; and
1.6 Walking as a Sustainable Mode of Transport
In recent years, there is an increasing recognition of walking as a
sustainable mode of
transport globally. Current issues related to traffic and climate
change have challenged
traditional traffic oriented development to recognise the
importance of sustainable transport
modes like walking.
There are significant benefits to be derived from encouraging
walking and creating walkable
neighbourhoods, particularly for shorter distance trips. The
benefits of walking include
better access for all including access to schools for children as
well as safer integrated
transport between private and public modes. Highlighting the
importance of the pedestrian
within neighbourhood planning relates to the essential role of
public spaces in the
community. Pedestrian routes are planned to provide links between
commercial and
residential uses and act as a source of activity in the community
to provide a sense of
belonging. Encouraging pedestrian activity in the community
benefits not only residents, but
encourages activity in commercial areas that benefits local
businesses.
Broader benefits of walking and pedestrian activity include
improved health, better
environmental conditions, decreased traffic congestion and improved
safety. Increasing the
proportion of journeys that are undertaken on foot can make a
significant contribution to
achieving a better quality of life and environment for all, and
relate to wider sustainable
transport themes of promoting alternatives to the private motor
vehicle.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 4 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
1.7 Universal Access Principles
Universal Access Principles highlight the rights of all citizens in
relation to all transport
needs, including non-vehicle forms of transport. These are
presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Universal Access Principles
• Universal Access is the ability of all citizens to reach every
destination served by the
public road and transit system.
• Every local road and intersection should be designed and
regulated to preserve
reasonably safe access to all lawfully behaving citizens as
intended and expected
users (i.e. all citizens are Design Users.)
• Engineering designers and policy should aim for acceptable Level
of Service
measures, such as delays, that are similar for all road users –
motorists,
pedestrians, cyclists and mobility-impaired persons.
• Avoid road “improvements” which reduce the Level of Service below
acceptable
levels for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility-impaired
persons.
• Provide footpaths on at least one side of all streets so that
wheelchair users have
accessible routes outside of vehicle travel lanes.
• Public facilities or policies that discriminate against the
“car-less” violate the most
basic rights described in law.
(Acknowledgments to S.B. Goodridge)
Existing and Potential Users
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 5 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
1.8 Methodology
1.8.1 Study Area
The original 2001 PAMP focused on the following high pedestrian use
areas:
• King Street/ Enmore Road
• Marrickville Road/ Illawarra Road
• Parramatta Road
Since then, Council has been implementing the works recommended in
the 2001 study.
The latest Accessible Footpath Program (Figure 1) implemented by
the Council has further
extended the accessible footpath network. Accessible Footpath
Program is an ongoing
works program that aims to create an accessible footpath network
across the LGA. The
Program’s aim has been to create a course network of footpaths that
are sealed and
maintained to ensure they provide comfortable and unobstructed
passage for wheelchair
users and others with mobility impairments. Provision of kerb ramps
at all road crossings is
an important element of the program. There were gradual renewals of
the Marrickville area
with new mixed residential/commercial development along major roads
in the town centres
since 2001 PAMP.
This PAMP review includes all the original 2001 PAMP routes, with a
focus on the five major
business centres as shown in Figure 3. Overall, the high risk, high
concentration routes
have not changed significantly. The community consultation
conducted for this study shows
that the public’s major concerns remain at the high pedestrian use
areas. This review has
identified new issues arising since the 2001 PAMP routes were
developed.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 6 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 3 Marrickville PAMP Study Area – Five Focus Centres
1. King St / Enmore Rd 2. Marrickville 3. Dulwich Hill 4. Petersham
5. Parramatta Road
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 7 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
1.8.2 Outline of Study Methodology
The methodology for the study involved a number of components
including the following:
• Define the study area;
• Conduct a data review;
• Develop action recommendations; and
• Consider Council policies and funding sources.
The process is illustrated in Figure 4. All components of the study
have been discussed
within this report.
Define Study Area
Research and Review
Develop PAMP Routes
Implementation Monitoring
P A M P S tu d y
Im p le m e n ta ti o n
Define Study ObjectivesDefine Study Team
Define Study Area
Research and Review
Develop PAMP Routes
Implementation Monitoring
P A M P S tu d y
Im p le m e n ta ti o n
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 8 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
1.9 Evaluation
1.9.1 Introduction
Planning specifically for pedestrians is a relatively new activity
in Australia. Authorities such
as Local Councils and the RTA have difficulty in addressing
pedestrian problems and
solutions without a clearly established framework for assessing
problems, evaluating
potential actions and developing priorities and implementation
programs.
The PAMP process provides authorities with a framework which is
leading the way to a
systematic evaluation of pedestrian facilities improvement and
provides a foundation for the
facilitation of funding for pedestrian improvements.
The objectives for PAMPs include:
• Economic objectives
travel time savings for other road users;
accident cost reduction; and
redistribution of costs and benefits within community groups;
redistribution of costs between community groups;
effect on mode split;
decrease in fuel consumption;
healthy lifestyle; and
personal physical safety.
sustainability;
Measurements of PAMP performance against these objectives is
challenging because the
objectives are qualitative and hence subjective, and rating of the
importance of different
(and in some cases, conflicting) objectives proves difficult at
times.
1.9.2 PAMP Actions
Possible actions for Council to be developed as part of the PAMP
process are wide-
ranging, and perhaps can be categorised in the same manner as
planning for bicycles, the
so - called 4E's approach:
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 9 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
This PAMP study and the resulting Action Recommendations focus on
engineering actions
and recommendations. The Action Recommendations have been developed
primarily
through pedestrian audits undertaken on selected routes throughout
the study area. The
Action Recommendations are presented in Appendix E in this
report.
The main considerations of the audit included:
• paths of travel;
• fixtures/furniture - seating, bus stops, rubbish bins, Decaux ad
shell etc;
• barriers to pedestrian movement;
• general comments (land use, road user behaviour, road
environment).
It is recommended that a Pedestrian Strategy be developed by
Council to address and
prioritise pedestrian planning under a strategic plan for the
whole-of-area approach within
Marrickville.
1.9.3 Implementation
A method for problem ranking and solution assessment has been
developed as part of the
PAMP methodology. The method identifies problems, audits problems
in the field, identifies
potential solutions, ranks these and recommends a set of actions in
the form of Action
Recommendations.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 10 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
2 CHARACTERISTICS OF MARRICKVILLE
2.1 Population
The 2006 ABS Census indicates the Marrickville population was close
to 71,800, which has
decreased by 1.8% since the 2001 Census. Marrickville population’s
age profile suggest
the largest age groups in Marrickville in 2006 were people 30 -34
(3.7% increase from
2001), 35 – 39 (increase of 3.0% from 2001) and 25 – 29 years (2.9%
increase from 2001).
There was a slight decline in the proportion of people aged 10 – 14
(2.8% decrease from
2001). Pockets of high density populations in the suburbs of
Newtown, Marrickville, Dulwich
Hill and Petersham have been identified. The pedestrian routes
within these areas were
considered in the PAMP route development.
2.2 Geographic Features of the Study Area
The Marrickville Local Government Area covers an area of 15.4 km²
and is located
approximately 8 kilometres south west of the Sydney CBD. Suburbs in
Marrickville include
Stanmore, Lewisham, Petersham, Enmore, Dulwich Hill, Marrickville,
St Peters, Sydenham,
Tempe, and parts of Newtown and Camperdown. There are wide
socio-economic
differences throughout the suburbs and a high percentage of rented
accommodation
compared to the Sydney average.
Marrickville is contained by both natural and built features.
Parramatta Road (Great
Western Highway) forms the northern boundary of the municipality.
The Princes Highway
cuts through the municipality a short distance from the eastern
boundary. An extensive rail
network runs through the municipality with both passenger and goods
lines. The Cooks
River system forms the southern boundary of the municipality. The
Cooks River presently
offers four vehicle/pedestrian crossings, limiting access to
neighbouring municipalities. A
pedestrian bridge over the Cooks River is located between the
Marrickville Golf Club and
Flinders Road in Earlwood.
Marrickville is a densely populated and historic inner city area.
Marrickville’s urban form has
in the main developed prior to the need for consideration of the
provision of access and the
importance of safety and access of the pedestrian. Many areas of
Marrickville are dense
building form, narrow frontages and raised footpaths.
Potential pedestrian attractors in the municipality include schools
and colleges; shopping
centres including Marrickville Metro, Parramatta Road, Marrickville
Road, Dulwich Hill and
King Street shopping areas; and parks, sporting and recreational
areas. The Cooks River
provides an important open space corridor for recreational walkers
through the LGA.
Marrickville Council is predominantly residential in nature with
the exception of a large
industrial component in the south-east corner of the municipality.
Pockets of industrial and
light industrial activities also exist along Parramatta Road and in
areas surrounding New
Canterbury Road and Old Canterbury Road.
Major retail centres are located along arterial and collector roads
such as King Street,
Enmore Road, Marrickville Road, Illawarra Road and Victoria Road.
Figure 5 shows the key
pedestrian attractors and generators in Marrickville
Municipality.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 11 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 5 Marrickville Pedestrian Attractors and Generators
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 12 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
2.3 Road Hierarchy
Arterial Roads
• Parramatta Road
Arterial roads often present problems for crossing opportunities
for pedestrians due to high
traffic volumes. Arterial roads are often the most direct route to
retail and commercial
centres and therefore are suitable for pedestrians.
Sub-Arterial Roads
• Frazer Street
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 13 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume data (average annual daily traffic - AADT) on the
major roads within the study
area was available from the RTA for year 2005 and is summarised in
Table 1. The traffic
volume in the study area was steady over the period between 1996
and 2005.
Table 1 Traffic Volumes on Major Roads
Location 1996 Volume
King Street, St Peters 33,272 28995 32699
Crystal Street 34,202 31840 30938
Enmore Road 28,241 26009 25208
Stanmore Road 29,975 23243 22696
New Canterbury Road,
Salisbury Road, Stanmore 25,063 21268 21447
Unwins Bridge Road,
2.4 Public Transport
The majority of the area is relatively well connected to public
transport with buses, trains
and taxis operating in the area.
2.4.1 Rail
Within the Marrickville LGA are eight train stations that provide
access to areas along three
suburban rail lines (see Figure 5). Newtown Station is located in
the City of Sydney but
serves the suburbs of Newtown and Enmore that are part of the
Marrickville LGA. All
railway stations and bus routes provide opportunities for dual mode
travel.
Full disabled access to the rail network, as defined by the State
Rail Authority/RailCorp, is
where the station has either a lift, level access or a compliant
ramp (1:14 grade) from street
level to all platforms, and a portable platform to train
ramp.
2.4.1.1 Easy Access Stations
In March 2007, the Minister for Transport announced upgrades would
be undertaken on
Newtown and Sydenham Stations along with 9 other stations, with $12
million being
allocated to the works over four years.
Marrickville Council has produced an Accessible Transport Strategy
2008 that identifies the
need for upgrades to the rail stations within the Marrickville LGA
to meet Easy Access
requirements. The stations listed in order of priority are:
• Newtown
• Sydenham
• Marrickville
• Petersham
• Stanmore
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 14 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
• St Peters
• Dulwich Hill
• Tempe
• Lewisham
The patronage estimates for railway stations within Marrickville
are as follows:
Station 2007 Ranking
St Peters 84 5760 -11% 5180
Stanmore 76 5360 3% 5540
Lewisham 114 3200 1% 3220
Dulwich Hill 117 3120 5% 3280
Tempe 142 2060 6% 2180
Sydenham Station will be the first station to undergo the easy
access upgrade. Tenders
were received for the design and construction of Sydenham Station
in late April 2009.
2.4.2 Bus and Taxi
Marrickville is within the bus service contract Region 6. There are
more than 18 bus
services operate by STA throughout the Marrickville LGA. These
routes generally serve
pedestrian attractors such as those identified on Figure 5. There
is also taxi zones located
within Marrickville LGA.
Due to the gradual nature of improvements to bus fleets across NSW
there is a variety of
buses operating within the study area. These can be summarised as
follows:
1) Original Buses - these have a two-step entry and are the least
accessible of the fleet;
2) Kneeling Buses - these have a two-step entry, however they can
be lowered, or kneel,
so that the bottom step can be made effectively level with the
kerb. These buses also
have bright yellow handrails, easier to read signs, better
lighting, filtered air conditioning
and elderly/frail priority seating. These buses therefore offer
improved access for less
mobile or visually impaired members of the community;
3) Scania Buses - These offer all the features of Kneeling Buses,
but with a level entry
rather than two steps, making them more easily accessible;
and
4) Easy Access Buses - In terms of accessibility these buses offer
all the features of a
Scania Bus. In addition, they offer ramp access to allow for
passengers in wheelchairs
and parents with prams. Within the bus, room is provided for people
in wheelchairs, or
alternatively babies in prams. These buses therefore provide access
to the entire
community.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 15 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
It is recommended that Marrickville Council lobby State Transit
Authority to introduce more
Easy Access buses into the area. Council should also give
consideration to the
requirements of Easy Access buses including:
• minimum kerb height of 150mm 1 ;
• clearances and unobstructed spaces at bus stops to meet
Australian Standards
AS1428;
• bus zones for kerb side bus stop with capacity for one standard
bus, as described in the
State Transit Bus Stop Style Guide 2 .
• a full 27m length as stipulated in the Australian Road
Rules;
• bus zones on the departure side of signalled intersections or no
standing zones on the
approach side of bus zones to increase the opportunity of buses
making straight-in
approaches to bus stops; and
• low floor bus friendly road geometry e.g. careful choice of
traffic calming devices and
elimination of dish gutter drains.
All bus stops in the study area will require auditing to ensure
that they meet these
requirements for the successful use of Easy Access buses.
2.4.3 Other Transport Mode Initiatives
The Marrickville LGA had a comprehensive tramway network until
trams were removed from
Sydney in the late 1950s and largely replaced by buses. Trams
played a key role in
creating the long mainstreet commercial centres that are
characteristic of inner-Sydney.
Over many years there have been discussions about new light rail
extensions in the inner
west. The main project discussed has been the Lilyfield to Dulwich
Hill extension which
would utilise the now disused Rozelle Freight Line. In June 2009,
the NSW Minster for
Transport wrote to Marrickville, Leichhardt, Ashfield and City of
Sydney Councils proposing
to undertake a feasibility study for the Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill
light rail extension. A Steering
Committee for the Study was formed and held its first meeting on 7
October 2009. A
consultant will soon be appointed to undertake the study. This
project, when implemented,
will have a significant impact on pedestrian behaviour in the
vicinity of light rail station. This
project however, is located well beyond the study area for this
PAMP review, so does not
have a direct impact.
1 The preferred kerb height of 150mm coordinates with the minimum
requirements of ‘kneeling’ and hoist bus, and
providing reasonable access to the step height of STA buses (step
height of 12.5m bus ranges between 320mm and
380mm). 150mm is also the recommended maximum kerb height by the
RTA. Higher kerb height can impact on the
approach angle of buses due to the front overhang clearance. It
also impacts on kerb ramp size and slope at
crossings. Higher kerb of up to 300mm can be provided at specific
high demand accessible bus stop. Such raised
bus stops should be designed in consultation with authorities and
transport provider to ensure that the ramp access
system, provision for bus approach angle and the surrounding
footpath complies with relevant design standards.
2 The length of the bus zone is calculated from the length of the
design bus (12.5m) + associated pull in and pull out
zone. Stops for a longer bus or stop for multiple buses would
require a longer bus zone, e.g. a bus stop for single
14.5m bus would require a 26.5m bus zone. According to the
Australian Road Rules, all non-public bus vehicles are
not allowed to stop within the bus zone. Therefore, the minimum bus
stop and pull-in pull-out distance can be
provided for with adequate “no stopping” zones before and after the
bus stop.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 16 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
3 DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW
3.1 Review of Relevant Documents
This section places the PAMP study in its broader context. The
documents listed below
were reviewed as they inter-relate with the PAMP, either because
the PAMP study works
towards meeting their aims and objectives or because they outline
ideas and issues that are
relevant to the development of this PAMP.
3.1.1 Key NSW Government Planning Policies and Guidelines
Following are the key NSW Government planning policies and
guidelines designed to
improve the pedestrian environment:
• Recently released 2009 NSW State Plan, which includes an action
to Increase walking
and cycling. Further detail on this action will be in the
forthcoming Transport Blueprint
for NSW;
• 2005 Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, which includes an action to
Improve local and
regional walking and cycling infrastructure through implementation
of the Planning
Guidelines for Walking & Cycling;
• 2004 Planning Guidelines for Walking & Cycling includes
information, case studies and
illustrations designed to assist planners to integrate walking and
cycling into all aspects
of their work;
• 2002 Integrating Land Use & Transport policy includes an
accessible development
principle to Improve pedestrian access; and
• 2002 How to Prepare a Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan
(PAMP) aims to assist NSW
councils to provide safe, convenient and connected pedestrian
routes that encourage
people to walk. This PAMP review is instructed by this
document.
There are also general walking policy and guideline documents used
by pedestrian planners
around Australia, including:
• 1995 Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 13:
Pedestrians. These
guidelines inform several of the NSW Government and Marrickville
Council pedestrian
policies;
• 2007 Active Living Statement by the NSW Premiers Council for
Active Living (PCAL)
and associated guidelines information
• 2001 Active Everyday: A plan to promote physical activity in NSW
by NSW Health
3.1.2 Marrickville Integrated Transport Strategy 2007 (MITS)
To provide framework for Marrickville to move towards a sustainable
transport system, the
Marrickville Integrated Transport Strategy considers improvements
not only in public
transport, walking and cycling facilities but also elements of land
use and urban form, roads
traffic and parking and council policies and processes as integral
in working towards
reduced car use and increasing use of public transport, walking and
cycling.
The Strategy makes recommendations specific to walking and
cycling:
• Evaluate and review implementation of Pedestrian Access and
Mobility Plans and
undertake further pedestrian and access improvements, with a focus
on commercial
centres, public transport stops and other areas with high levels of
pedestrian activity.
• Plan and implement a network of functional cycling routes and
bicycle parking facilities
through the Marrickville Bicycle Strategy
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 17 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
• Plan and implement active transport improvements in green
corridors along the Cooks
River, GreenWay and Alexandra Canal
• Implement active travel to school projects, supported by
TravelSmart and related
programs, in partnership with the NSW Government and P&C
associations
3.1.3 2001 Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan
(PAMP)
The 2001 Marrickville PAMP has been Council’s key plan for
improving the walkability. It is
a pioneering PAMP in NSW, and most of the works proposed in the
document have been
completed. This review is intended to update and carry forward the
work of the 2001 PAMP
into future years.
3.1.4 Marrickville Bicycle Strategy 2007
The bicycle plan proposed an extensive network of local and
regional cycling routes for the
whole Marrickville LGA. The plan aims to facilitate increased
bicycles use in Marrickville
over the next ten years and beyond. The four key action plans
consist of:
• A bicycle network plan
• A bicycle parking plan
• Bicycle friendly streets neighbourhoods
The PAMP development is in line with the bicycle plan as certain
bicycle strategy facilities
improve conditions for pedestrians as well as cyclists, e.g.
installation of refuges which can
be used by pedestrians and cyclists, installation of No Standing
signs to prevent parking in
front of kerb ramps. Installation of signage and centreline marking
on shared pathways
through parks to can also improve path use behaviour by pedestrians
and cyclists. Bicycle
planning also runs parallel to pedestrian planning as it promotes
alternative transport modes
to cars and facilitates the integration of transport modes.
3.1.5 Marrickville Village Centres Urban Design Study 2009
The Study has investigated opportunities for sites and precincts
renewal and increase in
residential and commercial uses for Marrickville’s various town
centres. The identified
precincts with future development opportunities include:
Centres Sites Location
Marrickville
Arthur Street)
The sites identified are incorporated into the PAMP route
development.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 18 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
3.1.6 2007 Marrickville Urban Strategy
This document is a basis for the preparation of a new Local
Environmental Plan (LEP) for
Marrickville. It includes Transport and Access actions to “consider
local transport [including
walking and cycling] in the centre planning process and to “review
development controls to
prioritise walking, cycling and access to public transport”.
3.1.7 Marrickville Community Plan 2025 and Marrickville Council
Strategic Plan
2006 - 2011
The Community Plan includes three goals closely relevant to the
development of the PAMP:
“Develop a community which is more liveable, safer and accessible
to all citizens; Promote
a vibrant street-life that encourages the community to engage and
welcomes visitors, where
local businesses flourish, and local village shopping precincts are
attractive and sustainable;
and plan, promote and lobby for a sustainable and integrated
transport system that
improves the quality of life for the people of Marrickville.”
The Council Strategic Plan includes a number of specific Council
objectives, actions and
targets designed to guide all of Council’s activities and budgets
for the forthcoming five
years. Several of the objectives, actions and targets are relevant
to pedestrian planning.
For example, in the section on Guided Development & Sustainable
Transport, there is a
Strategy to “reduce traffic on local roads and increase pedestrian
safety” and an associated
Target “reduction in pedestrian accidents”.
3.1.8 Current review of the 2001 Marrickville Local Environmental
Plan
All LEP and DCP objectives and provisions are being reviewed and
sustainable transport
objectives/provisions have been included. Behind the review are
design studies which are
intended to guide proposed zonings and other planning controls for
Marrickville’s centres.
Key studies are the Marrickville Village Centres Urban Design
Study, described in Section
3.1.5 above, the St Peters and McGill Street Urban Design Studies
& Draft Masterplans.
These studies are good practice case studies in providing an
improved pedestrian
environment through appropriate redevelopment. The first of these
studies – the
Marrickville Village Centres Urban Design Study - is most relevant
to this review as it
applies to sites within the PAMP review study area.
3.1.9 Sustainable Sydney 2030 Strategic Plan, City of Sydney,
2008
Neighbouring Marrickville Council, the City of Sydney developed a
Strategic Plan to guide
development towards 2030. The Plan outlines ‘A liveable green
network’ that identifies
routes for pedestrians and cyclists that connect green space
through the City of Sydney and
that link to neighbouring LGAs, including Marrickville.
Relevant to the development of the PAMP, City of Sydney identifies
two corridors;
Corridor 8 Newtown to Randwick Education and Health
‘Providing a southern City connection from the Inner West tot eh
Easter Suburbs and
beaches. Connecting Newtown through Erskineville, to Green Square
along the Green
Square Boulevard and water channel beneath Southern Cross Drive to
Kensington and the
University.’
Corridor 9 Cooks River to Centennial Park
‘Connecting Cooks River and Botany Bay to Green Square, Centennial
Park and beyond to
the Eastern Beaches. A green corridor along the tributary channels
of the Alexandra Canal
that over the long term could be investigated for mixed–use
residential and business
activities.’ The Alexandra Canal master plan has been marked for
transformation info a
‘recreational and ecological asset, part of a green, regional spine
linking the Cooks River
with Sydney and Moore Parks. The Corridor would feed into
pedestrian routes into
Marrickville.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 19 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
3.1.10 2004 Access Policy & Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
Access Action
Plan and 2008 Marrickville Accessible Transport Information
Kit
These are Council’s key policies in relation to equity of access
and inclusion. This review
furthers the aims of these documents as it will in most instances
lead to improvements in the
pedestrian environment for all of Marrickville’s residents.
3.1.11 Others
Beyond this list, there are a number of other Council policies that
indirectly relate to
pedestrian planning in Marrickville. For example, Council’s 2008
Ageing Strategy includes a
goal “To work towards creating an age-friendly built environment to
enhance the health and
wellbeing of all members of the community” and an associated action
to “Implement the
PAMP to ensure roads, footpaths, parks and other public areas are
maintained to provide a
safe, clean and accessible environment for all.”
3.2 Data Review
3.2.1 Existing Facilities
There are many existing pedestrian facilities located within the
study area including:
• footpaths,
• pedestrian footbridge
The study area faces two key challenges. Within the study area the
age of infrastructure in
general, and footpaths in particular, means that many are either in
poor condition because
of their age and repeated repair over the years, or are of
old-style designs with high barrier
kerbs, no pram ramps and no tactile warning devices. The Council
has recently developed
the Accessible Footpath Program to improve pedestrian access on
major routes.
All traffic management devices should consider the use of areas by
pedestrians. Local Area
Traffic Management (LATM) devices, with careful design, can be
beneficial to pedestrians.
Local streets often provide attractive routes for pedestrians,
particularly when running
parallel to State or Regional roads.
3.2.2 Trip Generators and Attractors
A number of trip or pedestrian generators and attractors are
located within the study area as
identified in Figure 5. Pedestrian generators and attractors
include schools, child care and
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 20 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
aged care centres, community centres, shopping centres and retail
strips, recreation
facilities (e.g. pools, sports facilities and parks), licensed
clubs, places of worship and public
transport facilities (railway stations and bus stops). The
prioritisation of the pedestrian
network is closely linked to the proximity to facilities as
discussed in Section 5.
Major generators and attractors located within the study area
include:
• train stations;
• Retail and restaurant uses along the five key focus centres (King
Street/ Enmore Road,
Marrickville Road/ Illawarra Road; Dulwich Hill village, Petersham/
New Canterbury
Road, and Parramatta Road
• Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre;
• Parks; and
• Recreational reserves.
The location of trip generators and attractors was central to the
PAMP network development
and the prioritisation of the Action Recommendations.
3.2.3 Proposed Developments
Marrickville has a long history of urban development. Some old
developments are gradually
undergoing a renewal process. There are opportunities for some
sites to be redeveloped in
the future as identified in the Marrickville Village Centres Urban
Design Study 2009. The
revision of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) would also create
further opportunities for
commercial and residential development in the commercial
centres.
3.2.4 Opportunities
Recreation Reserves
Reserves, waterfront reserves and open space facilities throughout
the study area provide
some opportunities for walking paths, as well as passive and active
recreational areas for
walking. Larger parks present opportunities for pedestrian paths
whilst smaller parks are
useful in providing on-road routes with off-road access, improving
the safety and aesthetic
quality of the route. Open space facilities throughout the study
area are shown Figure 5.
The major parks that can be found within the study area include
Camperdown Park, Enmore
Park, Henson Park, Marrickville Park, Petersham Park and along
Cooks River. Larger parks
in the area include: Camperdown Park, Camperdown Memorial Rest
Park, O’Dea Reserve,
Petersham Park, Johnston Park, Arlington Reserve, Steel Park,
Mackey Park, Tempe
Reserve, Enmore Park, Marrickville Park and Henson Park.
Road Crossing Opportunities
Opportunities for pedestrians to cross major roads safely occur at
pedestrian crossings and
central refuges. Crossing opportunities are particularly important
on busy State and
regional roads.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 21 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Through the community consultation process, as part of the PAMP
development, concerns
were raised regarding road crossing facilities at a number of
locations throughout the study
area. All issues raised during the consultation process have been
included in Section 4.2.
In determining appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities, the
recommendations of Section 3 -
Treatments for Pedestrians Crossing Roads of AUSTROADS Part 13,
Pedestrians, 1995
should be taken into consideration.
3.2.5 Constraints
Railway Lines
Walking is constrained in the study area by the railway line. The
railway lines run through
Marrickville around almost all sides of the LGA boundary. Either
over bridges or
underpasses for vehicles and pedestrians are provided at major
crossover of the railway line
and the roads. Additional crossings are also provided by a small
number of pedestrian -
only underpasses, such as Stanmore, Petersham and Lewisham Stations
and at Bedford
Street, Newtown. Pedestrian opportunities may be improved in the
future through
construction of a pathway along the discussed Rozelle Goods Line –
known as the
‘GreenWay Trail.’
Major Roads
Pedestrian activities within the study area are also significantly
restricted by major traffic
routes. There are routes with high traffic volumes and high street
side activities such as
Parramatta Road, King Street and Princess Highway.
Pedestrian Hazard Spots
Hazardous locations for pedestrians have been identified through
community consultation
and crash data. These are shown in Section 4.2 and presented in
Appendix C.
3.3 Pedestrian Accident Statistics
3.3.1 Pedestrian Accident Distribution and Type - 2007
The accident data was central to the PAMP network development and
the prioritisation of
the Action Recommendations.
RTA pedestrian accident data has been reviewed for 2007 for the
Marrickville LGA. In 2007,
47 pedestrian accidents were recorded in the study area. One of
these accidents involved a
fatality. It occurred in 2007 at the Enmore Road / Station Street
intersection at Newtown.
The distribution of these pedestrian accidents through the areas is
detailed in Table 2:
Table 2 Marrickville Pedestrian Accidents/ Injuries 2007 (within
the study area)
Degree of Accident Total % Total
1 Fatal 1 2%
2 Injury 46 98%
Total 47 100%
Most of the accidents involving pedestrians occurred near to the
side of the road (52%).
The far side accidents are the second most common type of accident.
Table 3 summarises
the pedestrian accidents by the location of pedestrians.
Table 3 Location of Pedestrians Involved Accidents, 2007
RUM code Location of Pedestrian Total % Total
00 Near Side 24 52%
01 Emerging 5 11%
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 22 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
03 Playing, Working etc. 1 2%
04 Walking with Traffic 0 0%
05 Facing Traffic 1 2%
06 On Footpath/Median 1 2%
07 Exiting/Entering Driveway 1 2%
09 and others Others 1 0%
Total 47 100%
Note: RUM refers to the Road User Movement coding used by the RTA
to categorise accident types, an
explanation of terms: near side, emerging and far side are shown in
the diagrams below.
3.3.2 Pedestrian Accident History 2003-2007
The locations of the reported pedestrian accidents history for year
2003 – 2007 are shown
in Figure 7. Figure 7 shows the major accident clusters tend to
occur in or near major
commercial areas where the number of pedestrian and motor vehicle
traffic movements are
at its highest.
Pedestrian Accident Clusters
From the five years accident data, it can be summarised that major
pedestrian accidents
clusters are located at:
• Intersection of Stanmore Road and Crystal Street
3.4 Council’s Current Road Safety Program
Marrickville Council has an ongoing Road Safety Program. It
encompasses road safety
education (behavioural as well as implementation of infrastructure
designed to improve
safety for all road users.
New pedestrian crossing facilities are investigated as the demand
for crossing facilities
arises from the community. Council also conducts site visits at
locations where there is an
opportunity for new crossing provision. RTA’s warrant for traffic
facilities are observed in
considering the appropriate type of crossing to be provided.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 23 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 6 Marrickville Pedestrian Accidents 2007
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 24 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 7 Marrickville Pedestrian Accident History 2003-2007
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 25 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
4 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Consultation was considered to be an essential part of the PAMP
development to ensure
public needs were considered and incorporated into the PAMP route
development and
action recommendations.
4.1 Media and Web Site Coverage
A web site information page were prepared by Arup and issued to
Marrickville Council for
release (Appendix A). The information about the PAMP study was
published on the
Council’s web page From March to April 2009. These items sought
input from the
Marrickville community in the preparation of the PAMP.
Direct feedback was received from members of the public, raising
issues regarding the
pedestrian environment. Ninety five online submissions and five
mail back questionnaires
were received from individuals and community groups.
4.2 Questionnaire Surveys
Questionnaires were distributed throughout the study area to
capture the community’s
comments on pedestrian access issues. A sample of the questionnaire
is included in
Appendix B. About 85 questionnaires were posted to community groups
and businesses in
Marrickville schools, churches, day care centres, health centres
and Chamber of Commerce
etc. The list of organisations contacted was provided by
Marrickville Council. The
questionnaire was also made available on Marrickville Council’s
website to allow resident
feedback.
A total of 100 completed questionnaires were received (95 from
online submissions, 5 from
mail back questionnaires). In general, the questionnaires focussed
upon the following
issues:
• What are the travel patterns of Marrickville residents?
• Where are the major problem locations in relation to pedestrian
safety, access and
mobility in the study areas?
• What facilities (and where) could be upgraded/provided in the
study area to improve
pedestrian safety, access and mobility?
Key issues were identified through questionnaires and summarised
below.
Mode of transport
When asked about the modes of transport the Marrickville community
used to travel within
the LGA, walking was indicated as the main transport mode. Private
vehicle and bus were
indicated as second and third respectively most popular transport
options as indicated by
Figure 8.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 26 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
What are your main modes of transport?
private vehicle, 23%
Concerns over facilities
In general the community have concerns regarding the safety of
Marrickville’s footpaths and
pedestrian facilities that they are not easy to use.
The five main facilities community members were concerned about
included:
• Pedestrian safety on footpaths and crossings
• Footpath design – width and clutter
• Uneven footpath surfaces
• Cars travelling at high speeds
Examples of pedestrian concerns are shown in the following images.
A summary of
comments and issues are represented on the chart below in Figure
9.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 27 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Photograph 1 Footpath obstructed by parked vehicles on Murray
Street near Smidmore Street
Photograph 2 Cracked footpath on Victoria Road near Mitchell
Road
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 28 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Issues and main concerns from Questionnaires
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 9 Issues and Main concerns expressed in Questionnaires
The questionnaire also asked respondents to map and locate areas
that were of particular
concern. The locations of the pedestrian issues are mapped in
Figure 10. Areas where a
high number of concerns were indicated include:
• King Street surrounding Newtown Station
• Along Illawarra Road near Marrickville Station
• Marrickville Road and New Canterbury Road near Dulwich Hill
shopping area
• Marrickville Road near Sydenham Station
• Enmore Road near Enmore Park
• Salisbury Road near Stanmore Station
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 29 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 10 Locations of issues and concerns gathered from
Questionnaires
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 30 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Improvements needed
These concerns were reflected in the facilities that community
members felt needed
improving. The five main improvements included:
• Increased pedestrian crossing opportunities
• Improved lighting and security
• Providing pedestrian barriers on busy roads to stop illegal
crossings
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 31 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
5 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK AND FACILITIES STANDARD
5.1 Pedestrian Route Network
The Marrickville PAMP route network is shown on Figure 11. The high
and low priority
routes were established by examining the following factors:
• the location of pedestrian accidents;
• hazardous locations identified through the community consultation
process;
• key pedestrian routes identified through the community
consultation process;
• the location of pedestrian generators and attractors; and
• path nature / function.
5.2 Facilities Standard
A general facility standard guideline was developed for this study
area in the Marrickville
based on the literature review, comments from the public
consultation process and nature of
the pedestrian demand and environment in the study area. General
standards and
recommendations are presented in this section while recommendations
for high priority
routes and low priority routes are presented in Sections 5.4 - 5.3.
These pedestrian network
and facilities standard are aimed to assist council in developing a
consistent approach to
pedestrian provision within the study area.
The Standards and Guidelines are subject to revision by Australian
Standards,
AUSTROADS and other authorities. It is to be noted that new
Australian Standards for traffic
management are being developed to be released in February 2010.
Current AUSTROADS
standards apply but should be regularly updated against the latest
source documents.
5.2.1 Path Surface and Dimension
5.2.1.1 Path Provision
Path surface and dimensions standards and guidelines are addressed
in AUSTROADS Part
13: Pedestrians, AUSTROADS Part 14: Bicycles and in the Australian
Standard 1428
series. According to AUSTROADS, all roads (with the exception of an
Access Place)
should have some type of walking facility out of the vehicle path.
A separate walkway is
preferable; however a roadway shoulder can also provide safer
pedestrian accommodation
than walking in traffic lanes.
The building edge should be kept clear of any obstructions such as
outdoor dining areas,
retail activities, and other structures, to provide for a
consistent walking path. For locations
where such obstruction is necessary, the clear width of the
remaining footpath should meet
the minimum standard and the obstruction should be delineated from
the footpath with
structure, texture, or colour where feasible to warn and direct all
users including vision-
impaired persons.
5.2.1.2 Path Surface
Surface treatments should be stable, firm even and relatively
smooth but slip resistant. It is
also important for many people that surfaces be flat. The AS 1428.1
states that “All
continuous accessible paths of travel shall have a slip-resistant
surface. A continuous
accessible path of travel shall have a texture that is traversable
by a wheelchair. Grates on
an accessible path of travel shall have spaces not more than 13mm
wide and not more than
150 mm long.”
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 32 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 11 Marrickville PAMP Route Network
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 33 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Table 4 Footpath Surface Texture Traversable by Wheelchair
Non-Slip Surface Texture
2) Concrete with exposed aggregate finish
3) Bituminous concrete
5) Paving bricks with special abrasive finish
6)Slip- resistant tiles
5.2.1.3 Path Dimensions
Path dimensions are addressed in AS 1428 and AUSTROADS Part 13
& 14. The clear
requirements outlined in these documents are provided in Table
5.
Table 5 Width Requirements for Paths
Type of Use Required width General minimum width Absolute minimum
width
1.2m 0.9m
High pedestrian volumes 2.4m or greater depending on demand For
wheelchairs to pass Absolute minimum
1.8m 1.5m
For people with disabilities 1.0m to 1.8m For shared (joint use
with bicycles) where Cyclist passing in opposite directions are
rare Two way cyclists are common, minimal pedestrians Two way
cyclists and pedestrians are common
2.0m 2.5m 3.0m
Source: AUSTROADS Part 13: Pedestrian, p18
In general a minimum footpath width of 1.2m is considered adequate.
However, in high
demand locations, such as transport nodes, commercial and main
retail locations and
entrances to schools, etc., a wider width is recommended.
AS 1428 adopts a minimum height clearance of 2.0m above the
trafficable surface with a
preferred height clearance of at least 2.4m.
In addition to this, AS1428 also lists requirements for the design
of sloped footpaths. The
requirements for landings of at least 1.2m long and maximum lengths
of sloped footpaths
are dependent on the gradient of the slope. These are included in
Table 6 below.
Table 6 Design Requirements for Sloped Walkways
Gradient (constant along whole length)
Maximum length between landing
1 in 20 15m
(1)
Between 1:33 and 1:20 Linear interpolation from above Ramp 1 in
14
(2) 9m
(2) Calculated by linear interpolation
(1) Maximum length can be increased by 30% if one side of a walkway
is bound by handrail as specified in AS 1428.1.
(2) Handrails as specified in AS 1428.1 shall be provided on both
sides of the ramp
Furthermore, crossfall on footpaths should be as flat as
practicable, consistent with
achieving an adequately drained surface. Excessive crossfall causes
problems for people
in wheelchairs and prams. AS1428.1 specifies that any crossfall of
ramps and walkways
should not exceed 1:40.
5.2.1.4 Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSI)
According to AS 1428.4, TGSI can be used to “alert people who are
blind or vision impaired
to pending obstacles or hazards on, or changes in direction and
location points of, the
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 34 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
continuous accessible path of travel, where those hazards or
changes could not reasonably
be expected or anticipated using existing tactile and environmental
cues.
The Standard states that “when the kerb ramp is the only crossing
entry point and the
footpath is 3.0m or less, and the grade of the kerb ramp is greater
than 1 in 8.5, TGSI are
not required on face of kerb ramp”.
5.2.2 Crossing Facilities
At all road crossings, kerb ramps should be provided for
pedestrians to gain access to
roadway with minimum impediment. They are also essential for people
in wheelchairs and
other pedestrians with mobility impairments. Kerb ramps should be
aligned in the direction
of travel.
For non-standard kerb ramp design and placement, the following
should be satisfied:
• The ramp path should be at least 1 metre wide,
• The ramp should land within the pedestrian crossing zone and not
into vehicle paths.
This is of particular concerns for kerb ramps at corners.
• There should be no lip or step.
• The link between the path of travel and the offset kerb ramp
should be paved.
• There should be at least 1 metre clear width of footpath around
the kerb ramp to allow
most wheelchairs to pass without being affected by the grade
changes in the kerb ramp.
Determining the appropriate crossing facility to install is mostly
dependent on pedestrian
and traffic volumes as well as the nature of the surrounding area.
According to
AUSTROADS the provision of formal pedestrian crossing facilities
should be considered
when at least one of the following conditions exist:
• Whenever there is the need for increase visibility and
designation of the crossing area,
where pedestrians cross at numerous locations along a short section
of road and a
formal crossing would serve to channel pedestrian crossing activity
to a single point;
• Where there is substantial conflict between motorist and
pedestrian movements;
• Where the best location for pedestrians to cross may be unclear
due to geometric or
traffic operational conditions; and
• At locations recommended as part of the “Safer Routes to Schools”
scheme.
Australian Standard 1742.10 specifies installation guidelines in
the form of numerical
warrants for the establishment of a crossing.
In additional to these numerical warrants, AUSTROADS also provides
a guide to the most
appropriate crossing type for each road classification. This guide
is included in Table 7.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 35 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Table 7 Suitability of Crossing Type
Facility Road Classification Primary Arterial (non-
freeway)
Local Street
Pedestrian operated signals A A C Pedestrian device should not be
needed
Pelican B A C Pedestrian operated school signals A A B Pedestrian
(zebra) crossing C B B Children’s crossing C B A Pedestrian refuges
B B A Footpath (kerb) extension C B A Road narrowings, indented
parking, kerb extension, line marking
C C A
A Most likely to be appropriate treatment B May be an appropriate
treatment C Inappropriate treatment
Source: AUSTROADS Part 13: Pedestrian, pp 28-29
It should be noted that neither numerical warrants, nor the
guidelines provided above should
be taken as the sole criteria for determining the requirement for a
particular facility.
AUSTROADS recommends that a careful engineering study be conducted,
considering
matters such as safety and capacity to fully determine the need for
a crossing facility.
5.2.3 Other Facilities
Bus Shelters
AUSTROADS recommends that all bus stops should be provided with
adequate signage,
lighting, and related treatments to clearly identify them. All
shelters should be adequately lit,
have Australian Standard seating and be as draught proof as
possible. All bus stops should
also be accessible.
Street Furniture
According to AS 1428.2 all items of street furniture should be
positioned away from the path
of travel and should be of a colour which contrasts with its
background. Where possible,
furniture should not be positioned along the building line as it is
used as a physical cue for
people with sight impairments.
All seating should meet the standard measurements listed in the
design standards reference
(Appendix D). In addition, AS 1428.2 states that in areas of high
use by people with
ambulatory disabilities, such as areas frequented by elderly
peoples, seats should be
provided no more than 60m apart alongside the path of travel.
Directional Signage
The issue of directional signage placement is addressed in
AUSTROADS Part 13. For a
standing person signs should be placed less than 10° above or below
eye level; for a seated
person signs within 15° of eye level are acceptable. Signs mounted
between 900mm and
1.5m from the group level provide the most appropriate compromise
between the
requirements of seated and standing people. All signs should be
placed within 30°
horizontally of the direction of travel to allow them to be easily
read whilst maintaining a
clear path of travel.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 36 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
5.3 High Priority Routes
5.3.1 Definition
In general, high priority routes are routes that provide access to
the most significant
pedestrian attractors and generators, particularly those connecting
to major public transport
nodes. They also form the skeleton of the pedestrian network and
provide the pedestrian
trunk routes through the study area. These routes would often
experience high pedestrian
demand. Typical examples are routes accessing railway stations and
major shopping
areas.
5.3.2 Path Surface and Dimension
All roads in the study area should have paved footpaths on both
sides, with a minimum
width of 2.4 metres where possible. The paths provided should meet
the minimum
dimension requirements stated in Section 5.2.1.
All paths of travel along high priority routes should be fitted
with Australian Standard kerb
ramps. Tactile indicators (Section 5.2.1.4) should be provided at
crossing points, steps,
ramps and other obstacles if it is appropriate. Additional
requirements outlined in Section
5.2.1 such as type and positioning of grates should also be adhered
to.
5.3.3 Crossing Facilities
The installation of crossing facilities would be dependent on the
ability of a location to meet
the numerical warrants, taking into account the local features of
the area. At intersections
with major traffic routes where crossing opportunities are limited,
pedestrian crossings
should be considered. Provision of additional crossings is a
consideration for Council’s
Local Area Traffic Management Scheme program.
5.3.4 Lighting
Lighting meeting the AS 1158 requirements is recommended for all
pedestrian generators
and attractors and around any hazard spots. Adequate lighting
should also be provided at
crossing points.
Additional facilities recommended along high priority routes
include bus shelters at key
stops, seating at all bus stops, directional signage, bins and
seating at 60m to 100m
intervals. All additional facilities should meet the requirements
outlined in Section 5.2.1.
Facilities should not be placed along the building edge as this is
used as guidance by
persons with vision impairment.
The building edge should be kept clear of any obstructions such as
outdoor dining areas,
retail activities, and other structures for the same reason. For
locations where such
obstruction is necessary, the clear width of the remaining footpath
should meet the minimum
standard and the obstruction should be delineated from the footpath
with a structure that is
solid along the ground.
5.4 Low Priority Routes
5.4.1 Definition
In general, low priority routes provide access to pedestrian
attractors and generators. They
also connect with the core high priority routes and extend the
pedestrian network over the
study area. Some examples are routes to local shopping areas, bus
routes and local parks.
5.4.2 Path Surface and Dimension
All roads in the study area should have a paved footpath on both
sides, with width of 1.2
metres minimal and 2.4 metres adjacent to key pedestrian
generators. The paths provided
should meet the minimum dimension requirements stated in 5.2.1.
Australian Standard kerb
ramps should be provided at road crossings along the path of
travel.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 37 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
5.4.3 Crossing Facilities
The installation of crossing facilities would be dependent on the
ability of a location to meet
the numerical warrants, taking into account the local features of
the area. At intersections
with major traffic routes where crossing opportunities are limited,
pedestrian crossings
should be considered even if warrants are not met.
5.4.4 Lighting
Lighting meeting the AS 1158 requirements is recommended for all
pedestrian generators
and attractors and around any hazard spots. Lighting should also be
adequate at crossing
points.
5.4.5 Other Facilities
It is recommended that bus shelters be provided along low priority
routes at major stops
where pedestrians are not already protected by other structures
such as building awnings.
As with the general route requirements, Australian Standard seating
should also be
provided in areas frequented by the elderly.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 38 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
6 ROUTE AUDITS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
6.1 Prioritising Facilities
There are many actions that could be undertaken to improve
conditions in the study area for
all pedestrians including the elderly and people with disabilities.
These actions are
categorised as follows:
• all actions;
• actions for which Marrickville Council is primarily responsible
(i.e. not State or Federal
Government, RTA, Education Department, Health Department
etc);
• actions that differ by means of implementation (effectively the
‘4Es’ approach to non-
motorised transport used in Bikeplans: Engineering, Enforcement,
Encouragement,
Education); and
• engineering actions able to be undertaken by Marrickville Council
through the Action
Recommendations.
The PAMP has been developed as shown in the PAMP Methodology
flowchart (Figure 4).
Within this, the Step 4 tasks are shown in more detail in the
diagram that follows. Table 8
and Table 9 flowcharts provide a summary of the process.
6.1.1 Solution Assessment
For each problem that is considered worthy of further
investigation, the potential solutions
available vary with the problem type and the road environment. The
different road
environments are:
• Local road;
Typical solutions for the various problem type/road environment
combinations have been
considered. For some problem types the optimal solution may be a
combination of actions.
For each problem under investigation, each potential solution is
assessed against a set of
performance criteria. The five assessment criteria used are:
• benefit to pedestrians;
• impact on other road users (including 'cross' public transport
routes);
• cost;
• local impacts (social, environmental etc).
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 39 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Table 8 Problem Ranking and Solution Assessment Method
High Medium Low
Audit Sheet for Priority (red) Routes
Do you wish
Prioritise
sub-routes
Prioritise
Actions
Solution
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 40 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Table 9 Solution Assessment Chart
Description of solution to be tested:
Solution Criteria Score
(s) Weight* (w)
Benefit to pedestrians
Cost
Assessment with respect to Government strategies
-2 -1 0 1 2
Local impacts
Total Score
* The weights attributed to each criterion are fixed by the
relevant agency or agencies responsible for design, funding and
implementation
The performance of each potential solution is scored against each
criterion using simple,
easily identifiable measures. The overall performance of each
potential solution is then
established by combining its performance against the full set of
criteria into a single score.
This could be achieved by weighting the criteria according to their
relative importance, as
shown in the sample sheet in Table 8. Determination of the weights
to be applied to the
various criteria could be achieved by polling representatives of
the various groups with an
interest in maintenance, development and operations of transport
infrastructure and
government services. A mechanism for consolidating these views into
common weighting of
the criteria has been developed. This is an extension of the method
applied in the Social
Audit approach used by Arup in ranking projects in other
multi-dimensional evaluation
framework (Singleton & Hulse, 1989).
Application of this method would allow each potential solution to
be assigned an overall
performance score. The scores of the range of potential solutions
could be compared to
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 41 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
identify the most appropriate solution (or combination of
solutions) for the problem under
investigation. In some cases, the scores may also identify that no
solution is appropriate.
For the current PAMP study, these assessments and weightings were
estimated, rather
than calculated for each problem and set of potential
solutions.
6.1.2 Application
The data collection program was felt to represent the level of
survey effort likely to be
possible under full implementation of the assessment program.
Actions were assessed subjectively using the assessment procedure
described above,
applying arbitrary weights. Although no significance can be
assigned to the final score
because of the arbitrary weights applied, the procedure was
considered to be able to
provide differentiation in the rating of potential solutions.
This assessment confirms the value of the implementation procedure
in a number of
respects. Firstly, the procedure provides a mechanism for
identifying operational problems
worthy of attention. Secondly, it invites the designer to consider
a range of potential
solutions, rather than only the most obvious solution. Thirdly, it
provides a means of
assessing the performance of those potential solutions not only
against operational
objectives but also against broader community goals. The procedure
therefore is likely to
generate solutions, appropriate to operational and community needs,
to the most important
problems confronting the PAMP study.
Prioritisation has been considered on two levels - the location of
the works and the nature of
the works. The high priority routes have been selected through the
route network selection
process outlined below in section 6.2. Identified works on those
routes have been
prioritised as high or low. The prioritisation of works is based
on:
• Safety and Access - crossing opportunities, kerb ramps, minimum
paths of travel, and
repairing footpath cracks.
6.2 The Audit Process
A physical access audit of the high priority routes (Figure 11)
within the study area was
completed in June 2009. Auditing of the low priority routes is
outside of the scope of this
study.
6.2.1 Pedestrian Facility Deficiencies Identified
The key focus of the audit was to identify access barriers for
pedestrians with a specific
focus on access for less mobile pedestrians such as the elderly and
people with disabilities.
The identified barriers found in a number of cases included:
• Uneven footpath surface
• Kerb ramp not align with the direction of travel
• lip, step or no kerb ramps; and
• footpath obstructions (e.g. poorly placed trees, bus shelters,
signage, retail activities
impinging on paths of travel.
Other individual barriers were identified and highlighted within
audit spreadsheets
(Appendix E).
The locations of items that need to be addressed were also mapped
in Figure 12 to Figure
14.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 42 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
6.2.2 Crossing Opportunities identified
During the audit, along the High Priority Route, the following
locations were identified for
opportunities of crossing facilities provision.
Table 10 Crossing Opportunities Identified
Audit ID Location Opportunity
south connections to facilitate permeability
through the area.
west arms
St from New Canterbury Rd creates
uncertainty for pedestrians crossing Herbert
St.
is no a signal or signage to respond to the
pedestrian movement along Parramatta Rd at
Percival Rd. The high traffic movement from
Percival Rd onto Parramatta Rd creates
uncertainty for pedestrians crossing Percival
Rd.
Signalised crossing
It is recommended that the identified locations to be investigated
referring to the RTA
numerical warrants and the crossing facilities guidelines to
determine the need for a suitable
crossing facility.
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 43 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 12 Footpath Audit – Footpath Issues
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 44 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 13 Footpath Audit – Footpath Obstruction, Drainage and
Lighting Issues
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 45 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 14 Footpath Audit – Kerb Ramp Issues
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 46 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
Figure 15 Footpath Audit – Bus Stop Issues and Crossing
Opportunities
Marrickville Council Marrickville Pedestrian Access and Mobility
Plan Review Final Report
J:\206184-00 MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW\04 ARUP PROJECT DATA\02
REPORTS\0008MARRICKVILLE PAMP REVIEW FINAL REPORT.DOC
Page 47 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Issue 12 November 2009
6.3 Issues Arising from the Audit
Full list of the issues arising from the footpath audit is included
in Appendix E. Each issue
has a unique ID number that links to the issues maps and the
corresponding information in
the audit spreadsheet. Photos of the audited issues are documented
in the Audit Photos
CD provided in Appendix F.
6.3.1 Kerb Ramp Issues
The audit found that most of the kerb ramps are provided along the
footpath in the study
area. However, some ke