UPDATE – Fri 26 September 2014
The Lord Mayor’s Office included BIKESydney’s recommendations (below) its own submission to the project (page 4).
UPDATE – Wed 10 September 2014
You can read our final submission to the project at our Submissions page.
As always, we’re keen to receive your thoughts or feedback on the points raised OR how we can improve our engagement to maximise contributions from the community. Add your comments below.
Sun 7 September 2014
We’re crowdsourcing our advocacy effort. More minds, more ideas. Better cycling outcomes. Improve our draft submission (below).
Transport for NSW is proposing to improve the accessibility of Museum Station. The station upgrade will provide three new lifts (connecting Elizabeth Street level to station entry concourse below, and two internal lifts to the train platforms – shown red in the figure below) and an accessibility ramp as well as upgrades of facilities (lighting and toilets).
You can read the fine detail of the proposal in the Review of Environmental Factors (REF), which is open for public comment until Wed 10 Sept 14.
Essentially, the following document gives an overview of the proposal:
…but if you’re really keen, you can burrow for more information in the detailed traffic management plan here:
- Museum Station Easy Access Upgrade Traffic, Transport and Access Impact Assessment Part 1 (pdf 5MB)
- Museum Station Easy Access Upgrade Traffic, Transport and Access Impact Assessment Part 2 (pdf 7MB)
We believe this is a terrific chance to improve cycling access to, and bike parking at the station. This is what integrated transport planning is all about isn’t it?
Below are our starting ideas on a submission. We’re seeking your ideas and feedback to sharpen up our case. Add your comments below.
…if you’re ready to act, why not make your own submission? It’s simple. All that’s required is a quick email to firstname.lastname@example.org outlining a few points. If you like, borrow from the points made below. Essentially, the call is simply for more at-surface bike parking and safe cycling links (paths and crossings) to the station. Easy.
Our draft response to the REF
The Review of Environmental Factors (REF) clearly states a commitment to “…deliver seamless travel to and between modes …and better integrate station interchanges”.
Transport for NSW’s Sydney’s Cycling Future vision includes many references to “multi-modal transport”, “integrated transport”, “connected networks ..to transport interchanges” and “a focus for [mode-shifting] short transport trips” that serve ample justification for having this project include provisioning (access and parking) for bicycles.
1) The REF (p47) grossly understates the relationship the CBD’s present and future cycling infrastructure has to the station. Indeed, by the time of completion of the station upgrade, it is likely that the College St cycleway will have been removed and new cycleways on Castlereagh, Liverpool and Park Sts completed. Notably each of these future cycleways will provide cycling links to the CBD and to Museum Station.
With this, there will be a significant increase in the number of riders seeking multi-modal (bike-train) use of Museum Station. The existing provision for bike parking is significantly inadequate. The REF rather should better analyse and account for the likely significantly increased future demand for bike parking at the station’s Hyde Park entrances. Such provisioning is remarkably easy and cost-efficient to provide. The introduction of additional bike parking should be viewed as an opportunity rather than an obligation.
2) Section 3.3.2 Design Standards – should include the standard that that prescribes bike parking rates for large public infrastructure such as train stations? If such a standard is not available, the Proposal should justify how it has determined that the bike parking quantum to be provided by this project is zero. Easily-accessible and secure bike parking should be provided at all Hyde Park station entrances and other entrances where space permits.
3) Section 3.3.3 – Table 1 – Point 7.34 – Safe pedestrian movement – this section states that “…there are no pedestrian / vehicular crossings within the scope of this project. For areas and items within the project scope, clear signage is being provided and passenger circulation areas are free of obstacles such as poles”. The Proposal has a responsibility to allow for legal and safe cycling crossings of (Elizabeth St) intersections at station entrances. It’s inappropriate that the Proposal ignores this responsibility.
4) Impacts on Cyclists during construction works – Section 3.4.1 outlines that “…Construction is expected to commence in late 2014. The overall duration to complete the Stage 1 works under this Proposal is approximately a year. This does not include the time it would take to undertake Stage 2 and 3 works.”
The REF appears to have miscalculated that the Liverpool St and Castlereagh St Cycleways are expected to have been completed during the last stages of the station upgrade’s construction period (Quarters 3 and 4 of 2015). Accordingly, not only is it incorrect for the REF to assert that “..There are no designated cycleways in the area that would be affected by the project”, indeed, there will be a significant increase in the number of cyclists accessing the Liverpool/Elizabeth Sts intersection. The REF should clarify whether station construction works would impact these cyclists.
5) Figure 15 of the REF intimates that “Entrance 3” to the station – the entrance at the north-west corner of the Liverpool/Elizabeth Sts intersection – will remain activate. If so, this gives yet more impetus to the need to have the (proposed) Liverpool St cycleway extend further east to Elizabeth St – rather than stop at Castlereagh St – so as to avoid congestion and conflicts on the northern footpath of Liverpool St. As proposed, the Liverpool St Cycleway will end at Castlereagh St (where it should have otherwise continued to connect with Elizabeth St) in order to accommodate another lane of motor vehicles, purportedly so that cars will not queue across Elizabeth St. (Providing the extra lane will in indeed increase queuing, and in any case, this phenomenon should be managed by better traffic signal design and compliance.) This choice has been taken in preference to providing safety and amenity for pedestrian and cyclists;
6) Sections 6.1.1 & 6.1.2 – while there is detailed analysis of the Level of Service (LoS) and impacts on amenity for pedestrians, there is insufficient detail of the station’s amenity and ease of access for cyclists. There should be so as there is no reason that the station shouldn’t be developed as a multi-modal “bike-and-ride” interchange;
7) New station lifts should be designed to accommodate bicycles, including cargo bikes;
8) Section 6.13 Cumulative Impacts – the project should assure itself that the construction of the Liverpool St Cycleway (mid-2015) will not occur concurrently with construction of the project and therefore give rise to to cumulative impacts.