Township Network Planning – Shared Use Pathway and Footpaths – Concept Development and Prioritisation

Bradley Jones Premise Australia Pty Ltd

Mackay Regional Council (MRC) engaged Premise Mackay Pty Ltd (Premise) to undertake pathway network planning for townships outside the urban area. The purpose of the project was to identify and prioritise potential shared use pathway and footpath projects.

Demand for travel between producers (developed lots in township and rural residential zones, and tourist parks) and attractors (education, commercial, public transport, open space, tourism, and other facilities) was estimated in QGIS and converted to monthly return trips by pedestrians and bicycles using off-road paths with consideration to trip length, mode share and environment (road hierarchy). A range of prioritisation framework options were developed which considered demand (unweighted), crash history, environment, transport disadvantage, trips by children on bicycles (weighted), total trips (weighted) and cost. Significant findings from comparison of the prioritisation framework options were: • The very low numbers of pedestrian and bicycle related crashes in the study area meant that accident and incident history along was inadequate to identify projects which warrant prioritisation for reasons of safety. • Giving equal weight to accident and incident history, and the demand for off-road trips by children on bicycles gave a more complete prioritisation of projects for safety but still did not prioritise all potential projects. • Prioritisation of lower cost projects identified more projects for delivery over the next 25 years with the unexpected consequence of broadly distributing projects across townships. • Projects with a higher safety priority generally cost more than projects with a lower safety priority, so a prioritisation framework giving equal weight to safety and value was adopted to produce a project prioritisation which balances, safety, providing for demand and addressing transport disadvantage. • The demand for active travel was insufficient to justify the provision of paths in townships with no open space of tourism attractors.

2016 Census data (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017) for the Mackay Region indicates that residents of non-urban areas are up to 60% more likely to walk to work than the local government area average, however, forward planning programs focus on delivery of active transport infrastructure in urban areas. Recognising this inconsistency, Mackay Regional Council (MRC) engaged Premise Mackay Pty Ltd (Premise) to undertake pathway network planning for townships outside the urban area.

Project Overview

The purpose of this project was to identify and prioritise potential shared use pathway and footpath projects. Planning was undertaken for 27 townships within the Mackay Region (MRC 2017) and areas within 5km, cycling distance (Department of Transport and Main Roads 2016), of the townships. This resulted in the grouping of the 27 townships into 16 networks.

Potential projects were identified and classified as either footpath or shared use pathway projects through an assessment of needs process. This process was based on modelling of existing conditions in the study area including land use and road hierarchy. Producers were identified as developed lots in township and rural residential zones, and tourist parks, Attractors were identified as education, commercial, public transport, open space, tourism, and other community facilities.

Demand for travel between

producers and attractors was estimated in QGIS. The methodology for estimating demand for each mode was as follows: 1. All trip producers and attractors were identified as points. 2. Road hierarchy data provided by MRC was plotted with all links classified as either Arterial,

Distributor or Local Street. Some additional links were added and classified as Off-Road. 3. All producers and attractors were assigned to the nearest point on the network. 4. Trips from each producer to the nearest attractor of each type were assigned a route on the network using the QGIS

‘Shortest Path’ algorithm. 5. For each producer / attractor route, referred to as a demand unit (DU), the length was calculated. When estimating walking demand, routes longer than 800m were discarded and shorter routes retained. When estimating bicycle demand the relevant length was 5km. 6. For each link, the length of

DU on the link was summed for each attractor class / demand mode to determine an associated demand value, V, measured in DU-metres.

The demand values, V, were converted to total travel distance in trip-metres for the relevant mode by multiplying by a conversion factor, F. By dividing the total travel distance, FV, by the length, L, of the link the number of trips, Q = FV/L, was estimated. The conversion factor, F, is the product of factors representing mode share (M), population (P), trip frequency (f), and environment (E). The adopted factors were:

• Mode share (M) • 4.0% for walking • 1.2% for bicycles • Population (P) • For developed township and rural residential lots: • 2.5 for public transport, tourism facilities and libraries (trips by all household members • 2.0 for halls and commercial facilities (trips by adults) • 0.5 for schools and open space (trips by children)

• For tourist parks • 0 for schools and libraries (no trips by tourists) • The number of sites in the tourist park for all other attractors • Trip frequency (f) • 20 for schools and public transport (weekday trips) • 14 for open space and tourism facilities (trips every second day) • 4 for commercial facilities (weekly trips) • 1 for other community facilities (monthly trips)

• Environment • 1 for all walking trips in all environments • For bicycle trips to schools, open space, tourism facilities and libraries (by children) • 1 for arterial, distributor and off-road environments (using off-road paths) • 0 for local streets environments (sharing road space)

• For bicycle trips to bus stops, halls and commercial facilities (by adults) • 1 for arterial and off-road environments (using off-road paths) • 0 for distributors (with cycle lanes) and local streets (sharing road space)

A range of prioritisation framework options were developed as listed in Table 1. Table 1 also lists the criteria that were considered in the prioritisation frameworks. The Option 0 / Base prioritisation framework is consistent with criteria that were adopted by MRC to prioritise Mackay Isaac Whitsunday Principal Cycle Network Plan (MIWPCNP) and shared cycle path projects in more urbanised areas of Mackay.

Table 1 - Prioritisation Frameworks

Prioritisation Framework Options

Option 0 / Base Option 1 / Safety Option 2/ Demand Option 3 / Value Option 4 / Crashes & Demand Option 5 / Cycling Option 6 / Safety & Demand Option 7 / Safety & Value

Demand (unweighted) Crash history Environment Transport disadvantage Trips by children on bicycles (weighted) Total trips (weighted) Cost

Criteria

 

 Adopt Option 1 / Safety

Project Findings

Significant findings from comparison of the prioritisation framework options were: • The very low number of pedestrian and bicycle related crashes in the study area meant that accident and incident history alone was inadequate to identify projects which warrant prioritisation for reasons of safety. Therefore, the demand for off-road trips by children on bicycles was also adopted as a safety criterion. • Even with inclusion of demand for off-road trips by children on bicycles, many of the potential projects were not warranted on safety grounds. Therefore, to allow all projects to be prioritised and provide a more holistic prioritisation of projects, it was recommended that safety be given only 50% weighting in the overall prioritisation framework unless identifying projects to be funded through specific safety grants such as Black Spot funding. • As an alternative to safety (Option 1), prioritisation of projects based on demand (Option 2) or value (Option 3) was also considered. Demand was assessed based on the estimated number of offroad trips by pedestrians and bicycles served by the project. Value was assessed based on the number of tripmetres of off-road travel by pedestrians and bicycles per $1,000 of construction cost.

Not surprisingly, value gave higher priorities to lower cost projects than demand or safety.

This had the follow-on effect of identifying more projects for delivery over the next 25 years.

An unexpected consequence of this was a broad distribution of projects across townships which is considered a positive outcome in the addressing of transport disadvantage. • Further investigations of project costs concluded that projects with a higher safety priority generally cost more than projects with a lower safety priority. It was concluded

that a prioritisation framework giving equal weight to safety and value (Option 7) resulted in a reasonable balance between improving safety, providing for pedestrian and bicycle demand, and addressing transport disadvantage. • There were three (3) townships for which none of the considered prioritisation frameworks identified any projects for delivery in the next 25 years. These were identified as three (3) of the five (5) smallest / most isolated townships in the local government area (LGA). The study areas associated with these three (3) townships are unique in that they include no open space or tourism attractors. It is concluded that, without playgrounds, sports fields and tourism attractors, the demand for active travel is insufficient to justify the provision of paths. • The Option 5 / Cycling prioritisation framework was intended to prioritise projects through funding for cycling infrastructure, however, upon further investigation it was found that Department of

Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) cycling grant programs are not applicable to township pathways and the federal government will not fund cycling infrastructure except as part of a larger project.

Project Conclusions and Recommendations

The recommendations of this project were that: • Potential projects be prioritised using what is referred to as the Option 7 / Safety & Value prioritisation framework unless identifying projects for funding through safety grants.

The Option 7 / Safety & Value prioritisation framework is based 25% on accident and incident history, 25% on the demand for off-road trips by children on bicycles, and 50% on the number of trip-metres of off-road travel by pedestrians and bicycles per $1,000 of construction cost.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017, Mackay (R) (LGA34770), 2016 Census of Population and Housing, General Community Profile, Catalogue number 2001.0, Canberra

Department of Resources 2021, Queensland imagery latest state program public basemap service, Queensland Spatial Catalogue, Mapping Service, viewed 28 September 2021, http:// qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/ catalogue//

Department of Transport and Main Roads 2016, Mackay Isaac Whitsunday principal cycle network plan (MIWPCNP), viewed 8 October 2021, https:// www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/ Travelandtransport/Cycling/ Principal-Cycle-Network-Plans/ MIW_PCNP.pdf?la=en

Google 2021, Google Maps, Mapping Service, viewed 22 September 2021, https://www. google.com/maps

Mackay Regional Council 2017, Mackay Region Planning Scheme 2017 (MRPS), viewed 20 September 2021, https://www. mackay.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0011/258896/Mackay_ Region_Planning_Scheme_2017_ Version_3.1_.pdf

Mackay Regional Council 2021, Mackay regional integrated transport strategy (MRITS), Mackay https://www. connectingmackay.com. au/50028/widgets/313485/ documents/209024

Mackay Regional Council, Mackay’s internet mapping and property system (MiMAPS), Mapping Service, viewed 22 September 2021, https://mimaps. mackay.qld.gov.au/

Queensland Government 2019, Mackay – general transit feed specification, Open Data Portal, Dataset, viewed 20 September 2021, https://gtfsrt.api.translink. com.au/GTFS/MKY_GTFS.zip

Queensland Government 2021, Crash data from Queensland

roads, Open Data Portal, Dataset, viewed 20 September 2021, https://www.data.qld.gov. au/dataset/crash-data-fromqueensland-roads

Over more than 16 years, Bradley Jones has gained a diverse range of traffic engineering experience across the length and breadth of the Queensland. He has worked on projects that range in size from providing an access solution to a small, commercial development, through planning transport networks for areas comprising several developing suburbs, to assessment of route options for transport of mining products from western Queensland to the east coast. He reflects critically on transport planning and traffic impact assessment techniques to adopt best practise in urban design and freight movement. Through presentations at conferences, he has shared his knowledge and insights with peers and industry representatives.