Stirling City Centre ModellingWestern AustraliaJuly 2016

2

A range of modelling studies were undertaken to assess and inform the transport planning process:Largely relied on the Main Roads Road Operation Model (ROM), a road-

based regional travel demand model focussing on daily trafficMultimodal travel demand model - Strategic Transport Evaluation Model

(STEM) maintained by DoP/DoT was not used Spreadsheet modelling and SIDRA was also used to inform the road

strategy and transport impact assessmentThe proposed development would add significant pressure on the road

network, and would require significant investment in transport infrastructure.

PREVIOUS MODELLING

“Insufficient time was allocated for transport modelling and the modellers were under pressure from the Alliance to deliver something quickly”

An independent review was undertaken which included, reviewing past reports and a series of interviews. This found:The adopted mode share assumptions were based on aspirational targetsA review needed to be undertaken of the land uses and employment

growth (by type) adopted by the strategic models. STEM is needed to estimate the future mode shares and to identify the

transport improvements that would achieve the mode share targets.An effective transport solution had to be multimodal to address the needs

of both local movements and regional through movements.

Modelling going forward:

MODELLING REVIEW

LAND USE STRATEGIC MODELLING REVIEWAs a result of the modelling review, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff were then engaged to:

1. Establish and agree future land uses.

2. Review strategic model forecasting and land use assumptions.

3. Implement recommendations from components 1 and 2.

LAND USE ASSESSMENT 5

  2014 2021 2031 Increase 2014 to 2031

Population 22,562 29,944 41,068 82%

Dwellings 10,975 14,255 19,175 75%

Employment 31 070 38 614 43 675 41%

 Floor Space (m2) 2014 2021 2031 Increase

2014 to 2031

Office 186 847 218 028 328 608 76%

Community 33 222 34 848 43 538 31%

Retail & Food 235 374 320 816 357 846 52%

Entertainment 18 263 24 963 31 463 72%

Industrial 619 283 627 983 632 383 2%

Total 1 092 989 1 226 638 1 393 838 28%

6

Develop mesoscopic model of Stirling City Centre study area

Assess alternative transport network improvement options

Identify preferred transport network improvement options

Undertake microsimulation modelling of preferred transport improvement options together with “do minimum” case

SCOPE OF STUDY

STUDY AREA4 km

4 km

8

TRANSPRIORITY

9ISSUES WITH THE ROAD NETWORK

10SCARBOROUGH BEACH ROAD

11PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY

FREEWAY AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE

DATA COLLECTION

STRATEGIC MODEL DISAGGREGATION

CALIBRATION

CALIBRATION

VALIDATION

VALIDATION

VALIDATION

20POSSIBLE TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS

Powis Street – north facing ramps

McDonald / Main Street signalised

Main Street to Cape Street westbound, right turn removed

McDonald Street bridge

Stephenson Avenue extension

Drake Street signalised

Liege Street 4 way intersection

Bus Queue Jumps

Freeway ramp modifications

Hutton Street extension

Hector/Hutton signals replaced by Collingwood/Hutton

Scarborough Beach Road bus lanes

21PROPOSED NETWORK

COMPARISON OF ACTIVITY CENTRE NETWORK

23ROUTE 998 AND ROUTE 999

24CIRCLEROUTE AM

25CIRCLEROUTE PM

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 26

Green : 800m

Yellow : 1600m

Red : 2400m

Option C

Option E/G

27

Option 

Time Period

Network Performance Metrics

Travel Time (sec/km)

Average Speed (km/h)

Travel Time (vehicle .

hours)

Travel Distance (vehicle

kms)

Option EAM -10.5 +1.4 -1100 -6320

PM -19.3 +2.9 -1911 -5462

Option G AM -3.6 +0.4 -501 -4988PM -17.5 +2.2 -1478 +1956

NETWORK WIDE PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE TO OPTION C

Vehicle Hour reduction (h) Vehicle kilometre reduction (km)

Option E 3 011 11.6% 11 782 1.3%

Option G 1 979 7.6% 3 032 0.3%

COMBINED PEAK HOUR REDUCTIONS

28

 Average travel time (all routes)

2014 Option C Option E Option G

AM (mm:ss) 9:46 10:54 8:45 9:09

PM (mm:ss) 10:10 11:18 10:02 10:05

PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Lower cycle times reduce bus journey times

Removal of freeway ramps at Cedric Street provides the majority of the benefit to the public transport network

Option E is the superior option for both peaks

% Improvement E G

AM Bus journey times 25% 19%

PM Bus journey times 13% 12%

29

To cater for the additional demand in 2031 there will need to be the following considerations made:

Parking cap enforced

Less attractive parking

More attractive public transport

Additional signalised intersections into residential areas

Better use of the freeway and arterial network

Less development to be considered

CONCLUSIONS

30

Option E performs the best, especially for public transport

Large improvements can be made to the study area by splitting the freeway interchange and bus station

McDonald Street Bridge provides good access to the study area and slightly alleviates congestion at Hutton Street Bridge

Hutton Street extension relieves Scarborough Beach Road of congestion, however the interchange itself experiences severe delays due to additional demand using Hutton Street

The bus lanes along Scarborough Beach Road offer limited benefit

Possible alternatives involve queue jump lanes or turning lanes and a median to improve safety and pedestrian facilities

CONCLUSIONS

LESSONS LEARNED

Significant challenges calibrating the base network.Managing stakeholder perception of congestion and the best solutions.The performance difference between the mesoscopic and the hybrid

model was significant at congested locations.