Pigdon Street project brief

During community consultations conducted in the last week of August 2014, the residents of Pigdon Street were asked a number of questions aimed at understanding the demographics of the area, and more importantly who you are. This investigation was particularly important for Streets Without Cars, as the eventual urban intervention will be designed with the local community in mind.

Also important was the introduction of residents to the urban design agenda of Streets Without Cars:

Imagine if there were no cars, no need for car parking or wide moats of asphalt reserved for car traffic. What could we do with the space and how might we foster new ways of living together as a community?

This was the overall thinking framework presented during the community consultation. It was an interesting experience as a lot of you were surprised or even confused by my interview, as no one had really bothered to ask these type of questions before.

Some of the questions I asked residents during the consultation process were designed to prompt and enable you to start thinking about your street as not just that bit of infrastructure in front of your homes, but also a space that you could extend your front yards into.

I asked you to imagine alternative uses for your street if the traffic were significantly reduced and pedestrians / residents were given priority over this space. I prompted you with these issues for consideration:

  • Current key traffic and traffic flow issues you feel need to be addressed.
  • Your ideas for the street and median street, and any alternative uses you could image for them.
  • When you would use these new facilities and spaces i.e. during what times of the day, week and year.
  • Who gets to use the street i.e. would you like to see community oriented spaces, or spaces reserved for private use and local residents only?
  • Who you imagine will maintain the new spaces and facilities in your street, and who you feel should pay for it.

Here are some of the ideas and issues raised by your community.

20141003 pigdon brief #1
Your thoughts on current traffic conditions
  • The majority of you (82%) felt that the current large amount of traffic along Pigdon Street was either not an issue or you had not noticed it before. The remainder expressed your concern for the bottlenecks and noise created by the car traffic during peak hour periods.
  • While the amount of traffic did not seem to be an issue, you all thought that more can be done in terms of how the traffic flows through your street. A vast majority (80%) of you expressed your concern over the Garton Street roundabout, which you thought was an accident waiting to happen again, with many of you highlighting previous accidents and daily near misses between cyclists and cars. This was identified as being the result of cyclists not being given the right of way by cars entering the intersection too fast.
  • A number of you felt that more can be done in terms of bicycle lane separation and connectivity at intersections, as the currently extra wide bike paths along Pigdon Street still remain dangerous as they discontinue at the roundabouts of Garton and Arnold Streets, creating havoc between cars and cyclists.
  • Nearly three quarters (73%) of you felt that cars were cutting the roundabout and going too fast over the “mellow” speed bumps which are currently not an effective speed control strategy.

The traffic issues aside, a lot of you had an exciting range of ideas for a new look Pigdon Street. The following images show all the ideas highlighted by the community and the size of the circles indicate the popularity (number of times the idea was suggested) amongst the residents interviewed.

20141003 pigdon brief #2
Your ideas for a new look Pigdon Street
20141003 pigdon brief #3
When you would use the new spaces
20141003 pigdon brief #4
Who gets to use the street
20141003 pigdon brief #5
Your ideas around funding and maintenance of the proposed upgrades

Based on your ideas and input here are some of the conclusions I have made and the beginnings of your brief for Pigdon Street.

  • A vast majority of you would like to see more space provided where you can meet with friends to socialise and have picnics, gatherings and the ability to sit down. Most households have limited private open space where such activities can take place. Eating (80% ), socialising (75%) and extensions of your living spaces at home (90%) are amongst the most popular and widely suggested ideas for Pigdon Street.
  • The most widely suggested idea for Pigdon Street is the provision of temporary structures and spaces (90%) where a variety of short term “pop-up” activities such as local community markets, night markets, street food and coffee, community events and small “rent a plot” vegetable gardens can take place.
  • Approximately 50% of you would like to see a community garden within the area of Pigdon Street, with a suggestion by one resident for those spaces to have a “rent a plot” arrangement, which will contribute to any maintenance costs and offer the flexibility to residents who want to plant and farm seasonally. Other residents would like to see more landscaping and winter gardens, with the additional space required provided by a reduced amount of asphalt.
  • Spaces for recreation, outdoor activities and ball games were also popular (40%), with a number of you (50%) suggesting more community oriented meeting spaces, such as communal seating and tables for people to gather, a small “book-share” community library and spaces for community events.
  • All of you saw the need for an improvement in the way traffic enters and moves through the street, with an overwhelming 80% of residents wanting the cars to be slowed down, and the intersection of Pigdon and Garton Streets to be addressed for the safety of cyclists. You were also concerned that the current methods of slowing down cars are not effective and would like to see something be done about it.
  • Some of you (27%) felt that the number of non-resident permit car parking spots can be reduced as they are currently exploited by visitors to Princes Park who do not want to pay for parking tickets along Bowen Crescent.
  • The majority of the community (64%) accepted the idea of looking after and maintaining your new spaces if you felt you had somewhat of an ownership of them. The remaining residents expect the council to look after any improvements to the street, with a small number feeling that they would simply not have the time to do so.
  • A very small number of residents would like to see any new spaces or activities provided along Pigdon Street remain private, while the vast majority of residents supported the idea that these spaces be either for the broader community (36%) or for both the local and broader communities(65%).
  • The question of funding was one that received a variety of responses, with nearly half of the residents (45%) wanting the City of Yarra to provide the capital investment. These residents felt they already pay high council rates and land tax. Some residents suggested the improvements be absorbed through paying higher taxes, but the second most widely accepted funding approach (36%) was a contribution on behalf of the residents through either crowdfunding or fundraising along with council.

Image sources

  1. Your thoughts on current traffic conditions, this and subsequent images copyright the author.
  2. Your ideas for a new look Pigdon Street.
  3. When you would use the new spaces.
  4. Who gets to use it.
  5. Your ideas around funding and maintenance of the proposed upgrades.
Advertisements

Pigdon Street community

During community consultations conducted in the last week of August 2014, the residents of Pigdon Street were asked a number of questions aimed at understanding the demographics of the area, and more importantly who you are. This investigation is particularly important for the Streets Without Cars agenda, as my eventual urban intervention will be designed with the local community in mind.

The residents were asked a number of questions:

  • Age and gender.
  • Household members.
  • Ownership and how long you’ve been living there.
  • Occupation, location of workplace and distance from home.
  • Modes of transport used for commuting.
  • Bicycle and car ownership.
  • Private open space availability and use.
  • Current use of the street and nearby public parks.

Gender and age

20141003 pigdon community #1

Household and ownership

20141003 pigdon community #2

Work location and occupation

20141003 pigdon community #3

Commute and distance to workplace

20141003 pigdon community #4

The overall picture

20141003 pigdon community #5

Based on these findings, the following observations can be made about the community:

  • The community is a mix of predominantly young professionals, retired couples and students.
  • The majority of residents are young professionals in the 21 – 30 age bracket, who represent 56% of the community. Older individuals and retired couples are the second most represented group in the community with 24%.
  • The households are a mixture of young and older family units, young professionals living together in a shared house arrangement and young couples. There are only a small number of family households with children.
  • Over half the properties (64%) are rented and approximately 63% of the current residents have either recently moved or have lived on Pigdon Street for around 2 years.
  • A large proportion of the residents work and study within a 2km to 5km radius from home, with approximately 76% of the residents’ daily commute being to and from the CBD and inner northern suburbs of Melbourne.
  • The residents’ preferred method of commuting to and from work is via the short walk to Lygon Street and Royal Parade trams, with 62% of all residents making their daily commute via this route. The second most popular daily commute method is the bicycle, with 19% of locals choosing their bicycle over public transport and the car. Only 14% of all residents use their cars as the preferred method of commuting.
  • An interesting characteristic of the community is the limited use of their cars, despite their being an average 1.6 cars per household. According to residents, the car is used only 2 – 3 times a week for short trips to and from the shops, with only a small number of cross town trips being made during the month.

During the community consultation residents were also asked about the amount and type of private open space available in their homes as well as any existing uses of Pigdon Street, its large median strip and the adjacent Princes and Park Street parks.

Private open space and use

20141003 pigdon community #6

Use of Pigdon Street and local parks

20141003 pigdon community #7

Based on these findings, the following observations can be made about the use and availability of private open space:

  • Almost all the residents along Pigdon Street have access to a private open space, although more often then not it is relatively small and not well used. Approximately 27% of the residents interviewed had no access to any private open space at all.
  • Approximately 30% of households have access to a small backyard referred to by residents as their “concrete pad”, which in 30% of cases is used for storage.
  • A very small number of households have access to a front yard as well as a backyard, which are predominantly used for gardening and entertaining family and friends
  • Every resident has access to private car parking, accessed through the laneways at the back of their properties. However, only 36% of all households use this space for their cars, opting instead to park on adjacent streets as they prefer to have the additional backyard space.
  • The most popular uses for residents’  limited private open space is entertaining and socialising (54%), and reading and studying (20%).
  • 25% of the residents interviewed do not use Pigdon Street or the green median strip at all. The other three-quarters of residents predominantly use Pigdon Street for car parking (21%) and ball games in the median strip (21%), with a small number of residents choosing to use the median strip for picnics (12.5%) and reading / studying (12.5%)
  • The limited or non-existent private open space seems to be substituted by the Princes and Park Street parks, with 100% of all residents interviewed using the parks at least 5 times a week.
  • A vast majority of residents use the park for exercising, socialising with friends and a number of residents take their lunch to the park if they want to eat outside due to the lack of usable private open space in their own homes.

The residents of Pigdon Street seem to be an active bunch, with a vast majority indicating that the short walk to Princes Park is not an issue and having access to one of the city’s great parks compensates for the lack of green private open space.


Image sources

  1. Gender and age, this and subsequent images copyright of author.
  2. Household and ownership.
  3. Work location and occupation.
  4. Commute and distance to workplace.
  5. Overall picture.
  6. Private open space and use.
  7. Use of Pigdon Street and local parks.

Pigdon Street site detail

20140916 pigdon street site #1

The site chosen for my Streets Without Cars thesis research and design case study is Pigdon Street, with the stretch between Bowen Crescent to the west and Arnold Street to the east being the initial chosen site boundary. The approximately 280m long section of Pigdon Street is intersected by the north-south running Garton Street and Arnold Street, with two smaller unnamed laneways running north-south further intersecting the site.

20140916 pigdon street site #2

Pigdon Street is bordered by a mixture of one and two story Victorian terraces, brick veneer and Californian Bungalow type dwellings to the north and south. The Victorian terraces are predominantly 5 – 7m wide and represent the largest portion of the overall building fabric. This area of Princes Hill is also predominantly residential, with the exception of the social housing units and large retirement home to the north east of the site, bordered by Holtom Street West, Arnold Street and Wilson Street. The Princes Hill Primary School in the north eastern corner of the site is the only other major building.

20140916 pigdon street site #3

The site has a mixture of both well established and immature street trees. Pigdon Street has very well established Palm and Oak tree canopy cover. Although Arnold and Garton Streets have very limited tree cover, recently planted trees will provide additional canopy in the near future. The 35 properties facing onto Pigdon Street within the site do not seem to have sufficient private open space to support large trees in comparison with the properties further to the south.

20140916 pigdon street site #4

This end of Pigdon Street has access to Princes Park to the west and and Park Street Park to the north, which creates a very visible and distinct visual and physical border to the site. As mentioned above, the properties along the Pigdon Street have very limited private open space, in particular the small Victorian terrace houses, which have little or no private gardens at all. It can be argued that the need for a private garden can be substituted with access to two of Melbourne’s great public parks, however they do stand in contrast to the properties to the south of the site, which all have very well established and extensive private gardens.

20140916 pigdon street site #5

This area of Princes Hill does feel particularly green, with the immediate access to the public parks to the north and west, and extensive tree cover along Pigdon Street. The large nature strip running east-west also provides an additional green corridor running through the site.

20140916 pigdon street site #6

With almost all properties having a rear laneway or alleway access to their garages, car parking does not seem to be an issue, with plenty of on-street car parking available. Although the site has limited non-resident car parking, with only small sections at the west end of Pigdon Street, and additional sections along Arnold and Garton Streets, there seems to be areas where a restriction has not been designated, implying free parking. This seems to be used by residents as their primary parking area, with their garages at rear being used for other private uses and additional private open space.

Major bicycle lane corridors run along Pigdon Street and Garton Street, with particularly wide and well separated bike lanes along the former. The Park Street bicycle path runs in the green corridor to the north of the site and is amongst the most used corridors within the Carlton North and Fitzroy areas.

20140916 pigdon street site #7

The street profile along Pigdon Street is an interesting one, and as previously noted, one of the major reasons for my decision to choose the street in the first place. With a cross sectional width of 40.5m, Pigdon Street has reasonably wide 4.5m side walks on each side. The 12m wide central median strip is a unique feature of the site as it provides residents along Pigdon Street with a semi-public green open space. The road verge is also interesting, with 3.8m wide bicycle lanes being almost half a meter wider than the adjacent 3.4m wide car lanes. The asphalt itself represents 48% of the street’s cross sectional area, with side walks at 22% and the median strip at 30%. On the asphalt, it seems that the bicycle lanes are given the greatest share or priority.

20140916 pigdon street site #8

Having conducted this detailed study along Pigdon Street, a number of initial research direction ideas and areas of opportunity were highlighted:

  • The nature strip, which presents itself as a great green corridor running through the site, can be perhaps utilised further and become an important link to stitch together the other major green corridors to the north and west of the site.
  • The lack of private gardens and private open space for the properties on Pigdon Street is also an area where research and community consultations could focus.
  • The lack of commercial, hospitality and community oriented spaces is also an interesting character of this Princes Hill enclave, creating an opportunity to test and analyse the impact such uses may have on the chosen case study area. Or more broadly, why do they currently not exist within the site, and what type of building uses and typologies would residents rather have?

You can download a .pdf version of the above maps here (45Mb).


Image sources

  1. Figure ground, this and subsequent images copyright of author.
  2. Building types.
  3. Tree types.
  4. Green space types.
  5. Green space and tree overlay.
  6. Street use.
  7. Site area.
  8. Street section.

Pigdon Street traffic conclusions

The traffic surveys conducted on Pigdon Street on Thursday 21st of August and Saturday the 23rd of August 2014 identified a number of distinct traffic patterns. The surveys were conducted along a 200m section of Pigdon Street, with Arnold Street and Garton Street intersections running north-south through the observation area.

20140916 pigdon conclusions #1

20140916 pigdon conclusions #2

The overall traffic flow along this stretch of Pigdon Street is fairly heavy and dominated by car traffic, with bicycle traffic and pedestrian traffic being significantly lower in comparison.

The above images show a summary of the traffic surveys conducted across the two days, with a 4 hour observation period recorded on Thursday and a 2 hour period on Saturday. The observations indicated that traffic patterns experience a significant shift between daily weekday and weekend usage.

The following analysis details a snapshot of this shift.

Car usage

  • Cars are the predominant users of the street, representing 1807 out of 2472 journeys during the week (73%) and 710 out of 911 during the weekend (78%). The increase in 5% of weekend traffic share comes from the observed decrease in bicycle traffic in comparison with weekday traffic.
  • The majority of car journeys are made during the morning peak hour, 546 out of 1807 car journeys (30%), and the evening peak hour, 628 out of 1807 (35%). Car traffic during the day is significantly less, only 286 out of 1807 journeys, which is around half of either the morning or evening peak periods.
  • Car traffic is concentrated along Pigdon Street, 1656 out of 1807 journeys (67%). The remainder of car traffic during a weekday is along Arnold Street, mainly involving school drop offs in the morning, and Garton Street in the afternoon with people coming home from work. The proportion of traffic along Pigdon Street remains high on the weekend with 674 of all 911 car journeys (74%).
  • There is a shift in the number of cars observed along Pigdon Street during the day with a rise in 32% from 286 during the week to 378 on the weekend. Garton and Arnold Streets have very low volume on the weekend, with only 22 and 14 journeys respectively.

Pedestrian usage

  • Pedestrians represent the smallest share of all traffic through the observation area. During the Thursday observation sessions only 327 of 2472 journeys (13%) were made by pedestrians. 151 (46%) of these were along Pigdon Street.
  • The largest proportion of all pedestrian traffic comes from the morning peak hour where school kids walk along Arnold Street heading north to Princess Hill Primary School and south to Princess Hill Secondary College, representing 18% of all daily pedestrian traffic.
  • Pedestrian traffic shifts during the weekend with the absence of school kids. It also represents the second highest traffic share, with 134 of all 911 journeys (15%), a slight increase of the 13% observed during the week.
  • The shift in traffic patterns comes from the increased number of pedestrians along Pigdon Street, with 95 out of 134 pedestrian journeys (71%). This is a substantial shift from the 46% observed during the week and is largely due to the Princess Park to the west of the observation area, which attracts a large number of local residents, particularly mothers and joggers.

 

Bicycle usage

  • The site is very well used by bicycles, particularly during the week with 333 of 2472 journeys (13.4%). Bicycle journeys are predominantly made during the morning peak hour period, 136 of 333 bicycle journeys (41%). A large proportion of all bicycle journeys is made along the north south bicycle corridors of Garton and Arnold Streets, with 213 of 333 journeys (64%).
  • Bicycle journeys during the weekend decrease by almost 50%. Only 67 of 911 journeys equates to 7.3% of all traffic, or half of the 13.4% observed during the week.
  • Another significant shift between weekday and weekend usage comes from the substantial shift in bike usage along the north-south corridors of Garton and Arnold Streets, with only 31 of all 67 journeys (46%) in comparison to the 64% observed during the week.

20140916 pigdon conclusions #3

20140916 pigdon conclusions #4

The other distinct traffic pattern and a feature of Pigdon Street is the amount of through traffic in proportion to those that originate within the area.

During the week

  • 98.7% of all car journeys observed were transit, with only 24 out of 1807 journeys being arrivals or departures. Of the 1783 transit journeys, 1592 (89%) travelled along Pigdon Street.
  • 96.6% of all pedestrian journeys observed were transit, with only 11 out of 327 journeys being arrivals or departures. Of the 316 transit journeys, 151 journeys (48%) were made along Pigdon Street.
  • 100% of all bicycle journeys observed were transit, with no journeys observed to arrive to or depart from the site. Of the 333 transit journeys, 211 journeys (63%) were made along Pigdon Street.

20140916 pigdon conclusions #5

20140916 pigdon conclusions #6

During the weekend

  • 95.4% of all car journeys observed were transit, with only 33 out of 710 journeys being arrivals or departures. Of the 677 transit journeys, 641 journeys (94.6%) were made along Pigdon Street.
  • 89.7% of all pedestrian journeys observed were transit, with only 14 out of 134 journeys being arrivals or departures. Of the 120 transit journeys, 95 journeys (79%) were made along Pigdon Street.
  • 100% of all bicycle journeys observed were transit, with no journeys observed to arrive to or depart from the site. Of the 67 transit journeys, 36 journeys (53.7%) were made along Pigdon Street.

20140916 pigdon conclusions #7

20140916 pigdon conclusions #8

Another distinct feature of this site was the frequency of journeys made and the amount of time cars and pedestrians spent within the site.

During the week

  • Cars travelled along Pigdon Street at an average speed of 37km/h, with a car journey observed every 11s during the 4 hour observation period. Cars spent 109 minutes every hour driving along Pigdon Street, with 20s taken by each car to travel through the observation area.
  • Cars travelled along Arnold Street and Garton Street at an average speed of 30km/h, with a car journey observed every 102s. Cars spent 7 minutes every hour driving along these streets, with 12s taken by each car to travel through the observation area.
  • Pedestrians travelled along Pigdon Street at an average speed of 5km/h, with a pedestrian journey observed every 125s. Pedestrians spent 65 minutes every hour walking along Pigdon Street, with 136s taken by each pedestrian to travel through the observation area.
  • Pedestrians travelled along Arnold Street and Garton Street at an average speed of 6km/h, with a pedestrian journey observed ever 168s. Pedestrians spent 21 minutes every hour walking along these streets, with 60s taken by each pedestrian to travel through the observation area.
  • Bicycles travelled along Pigdon Street at an average speed of 19km/h, with a bicycle journey observed every 181s. Bicycles spent 12 minutes every hour riding along Pigdon Street, with 37s taken by each cyclist to travel through the observation area.
  • Bicycles travelled along Arnold Street and Garton Street at an average speed of 19km/h, with a bicycle journey observed every 161s. Bicycles spent 9 minutes every hour riding along these streets, with 24s taken by each cyclist to travel through the observation area.

During the weekend

  • Cars travelled along Pigdon Street at an average speed of 35km/h, with a car journey observed every 11s during the 2hr observation period. Cars spent 115 minutes every hour driving along Pigdon Street, with 21s taken by each car to travel through the observation area.
  • Cars travelled along Arnold Street and Garton Street at an average speed of 30km/h, with a car journey observed every 200s. Cars spent 4 minutes every hour driving along these streets, with 12s taken by each car to travel through the observation area.
  • Pedestrians travelled along Pigdon Street at an average speed of 5km/h, with a pedestrian journey observed every 79s. Pedestrians spent 109 minutes every hour walking along Pigdon Street, with 144s taken by each pedestrian to travel through the observation area.
  • Pedestrians travelled along Arnold Street and Garton Street at an average speed of 4km/h, with a pedestrian journey observed every 289s. Pedestrians spent 19 minutes every hour walking along these streets, with 90s taken by each pedestrian to travel through the observation area.
  • Bicycles travelled along Pigdon Street at an average speed of 18km/h, with a bicycle journey observed every 203s. Bicycles spent 12 minutes every hour riding along Pigdon Street, with 40s taken by each cyclist to travel through the observation area.
  • Bicycles travelled along Arnold Street and Garton Street at an average speed of 14km/h, with a bicycle journey observed every 233s. Bicycles spent 7 minutes every hour riding along these streets, with 26s taken by each cyclist to travel along the observation area.

The difference between peak and off peak traffic during the day also gives an interesting insight into the way Pigdon Street is used. All modes of traffic experiences a significant shift between morning and evening peak hours.

20140916 pigdon conclusions #9

20140916 pigdon conclusions #10

The frequency of car journeys along Pigdon Street during peak hours is double that during other parts of the day, with a car journey observed every 7s during peak hours and every 14s during the day.

The frequency of pedestrian and cyclist journeys decreases significantly from peak hours to during the day, with a pedestrian journey observed every 60s during peak hours and 200s during the day, and bicycle journeys every 78s during peak hour and 327s during the day.

20140916 pigdon conclusions #11

20140916 pigdon conclusions #12

The frequency of car journeys along Garton Street and Arnold Street during peak hours is nearly two and a half times that during the day, with a car journey observed 68s during peak hours and every 164s during the day.

Again, the frequency of pedestrian and cyclist journeys decreases significantly from peak hours to during the day, with a pedestrian journey observed every 38s during peak hours and 240s during the day, and bicycle journeys every 40s during peak hours and 360s during the day.

20140916 pigdon conclusions #13

20140916 pigdon conclusions #14

An interesting shift in traffic frequency happens during the weekend, with car journeys along Pigdon Street observed every 10s during the day and 12s during the night. This indicates a fairly constant flow of traffic.

The 63s frequency of pedestrian traffic during the weekend day is also interesting, as it is very close to that of weekday peak hours, indicating that Pigdon Street sees a significant rise in pedestrian traffic during the weekend. It is likely this is due to people visiting adjacent parks.

A greater frequency during the weekend can be seen in bicycle traffic, with a bicycle journey taking place every 180s, nearly double the 327s weekday frequency of cyclists.

20140916 pigdon conclusions #15

20140916 pigdon conclusions #16

The most significant change in traffic and usage of the site happens during the weekend along Garton Street and Arnold Street, with night-time frequency of cars and cyclists being almost three times less than that observed during weekday nights. With car journeys taking place every 200s during the night on Saturday as opposed to every 75s on Thursday, and bicycle journeys going down from every 84s to 240s, we see that these streets experience a significant decrease in traffic on the weekends.

Conclusions

The above detailed traffic analysis of Pigdon Street and the site have allowed me to reach the following conclusions about the nature of traffic use of the street.

  • Traffic flow along Pigdon Street is heavy for a residential street, and dominated by car journeys.
  • Car traffic along Pigdon Street is constant across the day, with only about a 50% drop in patronage between peak and off-peak periods. This indicates that the street is used as a thoroughfare and a regular used east-west link by motorists.
  • On average, 73% of car traffic is concentrated along Pigdon Street, with intersecting streets, Arnold and Garton, only experiencing heavier traffic during weekday morning peak hours. They remain fairly quiet on weekends.
  • Bicycle usage is significantly higher during weekday peak hour periods, with Garton and Arnold Streets predominantly used by cyclists (students and young professionals) during the week. There is little patronage during the weekend. Bike usage drops by 50% during the weekend, with Pigdon Street becoming the major bicycle corridor instead of Garton and Arnold.
  • Pedestrians represent the smallest share of traffic, with only 13% of all patronage during the week and a small increase to 15% on weekends.
  • Pedestrian traffic along Pigdon Street is significantly less than that along Garton and Arnold Streets. Arnold Street experiences a high number of pedestrian traffic during school drop off and pick up hours.
  • Pedestrians predominantly use Pigdon Street on the weekends as they travel to and from Princes Park to the west. This is also when the highest number of joggers, dog owners and mothers with prams use the street. On the weekend, pedestrians spend over a 100 minutes in the street each hour, at an average frequency of 79s.
  • Cars on average spend over a 100 minutes along Pigdon Street every hour, compared to 12 minutes spent by cyclists and 65 minutes by pedestrians, which again indicates they are the dominant road users during any given time.
  • A very small percentage of all journeys start or finish within the site, indicating that the major users of Pigdon Street are transient and not the residents of the site area.

You can download a detailed .pdf version of this traffic analysis here (10Mb).


Image sources

  1. Thursday summary, this and subsequent images copyright of author.
  2. Saturday summary.
  3. Thursday transit journeys.
  4. Thursday E-W transit journeys.
  5. Saturday transit journeys.
  6. Saturday E-W transit journeys.
  7. Frequency and time taken.
  8. Time spent.
  9. Thursday E-W frequency and time taken.
  10. Thursday E-W time.
  11. Thursday N-S frequency and time taken.
  12. Thursday N-S time.
  13. Saturday E-W frequency and time taken.
  14. Saturday E-W time.
  15. Saturday N-S frequency and time taken.
  16. Saturday N-S time.

Pigdon Street traffic surveys

The traffic data presented in the images below has been gathered and collated during 4x 1 hour observation periods on Thursday the 21st of August 2014, and 2x 1 hour observation sessions on Saturday the 23rd of August 2014. The detailed traffic study was conducted in order to get a better understanding of the nature and volume of traffic along my chosen Streets Without Cars case study site, Pigdon Street in Princess Hill.

The observation site was focusing on Pigdon Street east-west traffic flow, as well as traffic flow running north-south along intersections with Garton Street and Arnold Street.

20140916 pigdon traffic #1

The traffic survey conducted during each observation period tracked the numbers of cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians. The survey also recorded information on the direction of travel, average speed and time taken to travel between Bowen Crescent to the west, and the Arnold Street roundabout to the east. The same information regarding speed, time and direction of travel was recorded for the traffic travelling along 150m north-south sections of Garton and Arnold Streets, with the roundabout at each intersection being the centre point. The traffic survey also recorded any arrival or departures from Pigdon Street and the demographics of the pedestrian traffic.

The following images illustrate the total number of journeys made during each of the Thursday and Saturday observation periods. The time slots for each of the traffic surveys have been strategically selected to highlight the busy morning and evening peak periods, as well as weekday and weekend daytime and night-time periods.

20140916 pigdon traffic #2

Weekday morning peak
Thursday 21st August
8.09 – 9.09am
Partly cloudy, light wind, 8.5 degrees
Total number of journeys = 840

20140916 pigdon traffic #3

Weekday daytime
Thursday 21st August
11.47am – 12.47pm
Partly cloudy, light wind, 14.5 degrees
Total number of journeys = 346

20140916 pigdon traffic #4

Weekday evening peak
Thursday 21st August
5.16 – 6.16pm
Partly cloudy, light wind, 14.5 degrees
Total number of journeys = 820

20140916 pigdon traffic #5

Weekday night-time
Thursday 21st August
6.45 – 7.45pm
Partly cloudy, light wind, 12 degrees
Total number of journeys = 466

20140916 pigdon traffic #6

Weekend daytime
Saturday 23rd August
3.30 – 4.30pm
Partly cloudy, no wind, 19 degrees
Total number of journeys = 488

20140916 pigdon traffic #7

Weekend night-time
Saturday 23rd August
6.30 – 7.30pm
Partly cloudy, no wind, 16 degrees
Total number of journeys = 423

For a more in depth analysis into the traffic flow along Pigond Street please continue reading and visit my Pigdon Street traffic conclusions blog entry.


Image sources

  1. Aerial map, sourced from Google Maps.
  2. Weekday morning peak, this and subsequent images copyright of author.
  3. Weekday daytime.
  4. Weekday evening peak.
  5. Weekday night-time.
  6. Weekend daytime.
  7. Weekend night-time.

Pigdon Street

20140908 pigdon street #1

In the beginning of our design thesis research, we conducted a comprehensive study of every street in the entire City Of Yarra. The aim of the study was to strategically disperse students across the entire municipality in order to establish a broad picture of the municipality and provide a platform for students to select a their own case study for our Streets Without Cars urban design projects.

The council is divided into three wards each comprising of multiple suburbs, which we divided between the members of our design studio.

The Nicholls Ward, which comprises of Princess Hill, Carlton North, Fitzroy North and Fitzroy was selected by our team of 4 students. The Nicholls Ward was then further divided amongst the group in two parts, shown in the image below, with myself and Micha Woodhouse studying the section of the ward west of St. Georges Road.

20140908 pigdon street #2

The street mapping exercise involved each the students visiting every street and recording as much information as possible in order to get a detailed picture of our chosen case study areas. During the study we recorded the street dimensions, cross sectional properties, locations of car parking, trees and public parks, as well as the building types and public transport networks. This organic research allowed us to build a very detailed and comprehensive taxonomy of the streets within the ward. Visiting and recording the streets over a couple of days ultimately helped us develop an in-depth understanding of the general street proportions and urban planning strategies deployed across the 100+ streets we visited. The entire study undertaken by myself and Micha Woodhouse can be downloaded in .pdf format here (24Mb).

20140908 pigdon street #3

The image above has been compiled from the observations we recorded during our extensive street mapping. We found that the majority of streets within our study area are predominantly residential (65%), followed by laneways (19%), main (14%), alleyways (2%) and no major arterial roads.

The public transport street coverage is fairly low, with buses (4%) and trams (2%) being the only services available. What we found is that the road share is greater for bicycles (16.5%), with well established bicycle corridors along Canning Street and Park Street.

The major tram routes are along Nicholson Street and Lygon Street, with bus routes running east-west and north-south between the two major tram corridors. We also noted that the majority of public transport users are along the tram networks, with bus routes supporting very low patronage.

Tram routes: 1, 8, 96        

  • Nicholson Street
  • Lygon Street

Bus routes: 250, 251, 504, 508          

  • Rathdowne Street
  • Amess Street
  • Park Street
  • Holden Street
  • Fenwick Street
  • Nicholson Street

20140908 pigdon street #4

In terms of building types and use, we found that the majority of our streets were residential, with only 37% of streets supporting commercial and business activities. There was an approximately equal share of streets which have access to schools and educational facilities (22%) and other health and community services (23%). Hospitality was also one of the major building uses with 26% of the streets having access to a cafe, restaurant, hotel or a pub. Industrial zones are not part of the streetscape with only 2% of all streets supporting any industrial activities. Institutional buildings such as places of worship (11%) were the other building use we observed.

Major commercial and hospitality precincts:

  • Rathdowne Street
  • Lygon Street
  • Nicholson Street
  • Scotchmer Street

Small commercial and hospitality precincts:

  • Pigdon Street, east of Lygon Street
  • Rae Street
  • Newry Street

An interesting finding of our research was that the majority of streets within our chosen study area had either well established or planted trees with only 27% of all the streets we visited having no trees at all. The access to public parks was about 35%, followed by 14% of streets having access to semi-public parks scattered around the ward. Although Princes Park, which lies west of the City of Yarra municipality boundary (it falls within the City of Melbourne), could not be considered as part of our study area, we did observe large patronage to this large inner Melbourne park from within our ward.

The entire map collection of the Nicholls Ward street mapping study can be downloaded in .pdf format here (6Mb).

This extensive research of our ward led to the selection of Pigdon Street as the site of my own Streets Without Cars design thesis case study.

20140908 pigdon street #5

The selection of Pigdon Street was an intuitive one for me, as I observed it to be what I consider the odd one out within our taxonomy of streets. The street was particularly interesting for me as it’s incredibly wide in cross-section (40.5m), which is 10m wider than both Nicholson and Lygon Streets.

20140908 pigdon street #6

The large nature strip was also a major attraction point as when we visited the street it seemed very under utilised and we could not see any local residents making use of this great green open space. The proximity of Princes Park and Park Street Park were also a major consideration, as I saw them to be major anchor points that in a sense framed a little enclave within Princes Hill.

20140908 pigdon street #7

The predominantly residential nature of this end of Pigdon Street and lack of any hospitality or commercial activities also drew my attention as I considered that the closest commercial precincts of Lygon Street and Barkly Square to be the only option for the residents.

20140908 pigdon street #8

The absence of public transport was also an interesting observation, with bicycle lanes being the predominant transport network in Princes Hill, in contrast to the streets we observed within the Carlton and Fitzroy North area, where bicycle lanes were present but often not well separated from car traffic as they are on Pigdon Street.

20140908 pigdon street #9

20140908 pigdon street #10

Above all, the under utilised nature strip and the sheer width of what is essential a residential street were the major deciding factors in my selection of Pigdon Street. I saw the nature strip as a great opportunity to stitch together the great Princes and Park Street Parks, and an opportunity to rethink the space and its use within the framework of our Streets Without Cars urban design project.

How would the streetscape change if the amount of asphalt was substituted with alternative, pedestrian friendly spaces ? Can the street become another anchor and nucleus of the community? How might Pigdon Street foster new ways for residents to live together as a community?

These are the questions I would like to answer with my research and ultimately my architectural intervention.


Image sources

  1. Pigdon Street, copyright of author.
  2. Nicholls Ward maps #1, #2 and #3, all copyright of author in conjunction with Micha Woodhouse, Cicero Nguyen and William Hallett.
  3. Pigdon Street aerial map, sourced from Google Maps.
  4. Pigdon Street, copyright of author.
  5. Nicholls Ward maps #4, #5, #6 and #7, all copyright of author in conjunction with Micha WoodhouseCicero Nguyen and William Hallett.

The Hamburger Deckel

20140822 hamburger deckel #1

The Hamburger Deckel is an infrastructure improvement project on one of Germany’s busiest and longest motorways, the A7. The project is in direct response to the increasing traffic congestion and growing patronage along the motorway, which runs for 964km and linking Denmark in the north and Austria in the south.[1]

For decades this vital road link has been a major headache for the residents of Hamburg, Germany’s second largest city and Europe’s second largest port. Since its construction several decades ago, the 6 lane freeway has created a major physical barrier disconnecting the communities on either side. The residents of the Schnelsen, Stellingen and Bahrenfeld districts of Hamburg have endlessly expressed their concerns over the large levels of unwanted noise and air pollution generated by the heavy truck and car traffic along these sections of the freeway. Community pressure groups have been campaigning for over three decades, demanding that federal and local governments provide a solution to the noise and air pollution problems generated by the A7. These demands remained unanswered for a long time due to a lack of government funding.[2]

20140822 hamburger deckel #2

However, the A7 has developed into one of the worst bottlenecks in the country and has finally managed to attract the German government’s attention. The current flow of 152,000 vehicles per day is predicted to rise to as much as 165,000 by 2025 between the Bahrenfeld and Schnelsen sections of the motorway. The current and predicted vehicle flows will exceed the designed threshold by at least 26%, which has lead to the decision by the City of Hamburg and Federal Government to install an additional two lanes and a number of new slip roads to relieve this bottleneck.[3]

The City of Hamburg has decided to tackle this project of cross generational significance not only as an infrastructure and engineering problems, but also one that will eliminate the “wall of noise” and physical barrier stretching across the three districts of Hamburg.[4]

20140822 hamburger deckel #3

This primary design principle gave rise to the “Hamburger Deckel cut and cover” solution consisting of three new road tunnels through the districts of Schnelsen, Stellingen and Bahrenfeld, with a total combined length of 3.5km. The concrete and parkland canopy for the tunnels span on average 34m and have an average structural depth of 2 to 3 meters. Aimed at reconnecting the disconnected districts and stitching together the urban fabric, each tunnel deck is to support new extensive parklands, allotments of community gardens and parcels for new residential developments.[5]

20140822 hamburger deckel #4

The project is expected to cost around AUD$1 billion and take almost 10 years to complete, with the largest 2km section at Bahrenfeld to be completed last by approximately 2025.[6]

20140822 hamburger deckel #5

The first section of the project at Stellingen began construction in 2012. The standard cross section of this part of the tunnel is 22.5m wide and 893m long.[7]

20140822 hamburger deckel #6

The tunnel cover supports a surface of park, new residential development parcels and allotment gardens. A planning and design competition was conducted in 2010 with the winning design chosen to be implemented once the tunnel deck is completed.

The main design principle followed in this section of the Hamburger Deckel project was primarily to reconnect the communities on either side of the A7. This will be achieved by the establishment of a green corridor through the city. The tunnel deck will provide a new vast open space for leisure and recreation activities. This “cut and cover” solution aims to directly solve the noise and air pollution problems raised by the community by providing an effective physical noise barrier. It will also offset pollution generated by traffic exhaust through the establishment of new parklands and meadows.[8] The landscape designers also saw the tunnel deck as an opportunity to create a new tree lined town centre square where the community can hold festivals and markets, further facilitating the initial design idea of bridging the previously disconnected communities.

20140822 hamburger deckel #7

Following the same design principles, the 560m long tunnel deck at Schnelsen will create a spacious new park bordered by trees and flanked by small gardens. The idea of reconnecting communities is again addressed through the establishment of a new town centre and market space.

20140822 hamburger deckel #8

The residents of the district can also make use of the series of community garden allotments located to the north of the deck with a pedestrian and cycle connection running along the length of the freeway. Once again, cafés and public open spaces will be established where community activities such as markets and festivals can be held, turning the area into a new heart of the Schnelsen district.[9]

20140822 hamburger deckel #9

Extending along 2030 metres, reaching from the S-Bahn urban railway line all the way to Volkspark, the Bahrenfeld section of the tunnel will be the project’s longest covered motorway segment. The construction period will last approximately four years and the cost will be shared between Hamburg and the federal government.[10]

20140822 hamburger deckel #10

A new urban neighbourhood comprising approximately 1700 homes will be built in between the horse racing track and Schnackenburgallee with most of the existing allotment gardens transferred on top of the tunnel cover. Once again, this new urban landscape is primarily dedicated to the community’s leisure and recreation activities. The new tunnel deck will also provide a link into the existing parkland around the northern section of the tunnel and establish a green corridor through the city.[11]

The success of the “cut and cover” solution is that it not only provides an effective noise barrier to protect the community and mitigate the air pollution problems created by the A7, it also provides new opportunities for residential development which can contribute to the financing of the project.

The Hamburger Deckel project has been community driven from the outset. During the planning process the community was engaged at a number of stages, with regular workshops and public events held within the communities. These workshops were used as an opportunity to create a design brief for the landscape design competitions, ensuring the needs of the residents were incorporated into the design outcome. Throughout the planning process, consultants and planners were in close contact with the districts’ residents through public consultations and regular publications of design proposal documentation. This created a transparent planning process with regular community feedback.[12]

20140822 hamburger deckel #11

In terms of project financing, an infrastructure improvement scheme on a scale such as that proposed for the Hamburger Deckel was inevitably to be shared by the federal government. The only precondition for obtaining federal funding was that the German Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan classified the project as being urgent. This was established to be the case for the A7, with consideration given to the large amounts of community pressure to solve the traffic congestion and noise issues, as well as the issue of increasing vehicle patronage.[13]

First estimates put the City of Hamburg’s share at AUD$215 million in investment costs, plus AUD $24 million for planning. It was decided that the land owned by the City of Hamburg at the edge of the noise-reduced motorway was to be offered to private property developers. The sale of this land will contribute to the costs of the project and offset the financial burden on Hamburg. The total project cost is split between the City of Hamburg (17%) and the federal government (83%).[14]

20140822 hamburger deckel #12

The only negative response to the Hamburger Deckel so far has been the concerns of existing owners of garden allotments which will be forced to relocate during construction and then again to the tunnel roof once completed. Critics have also showed concern over possible loss of business productivity due to the long delays caused by construction activities. Similar fears are shared amongst road users which feel that the lengthy construction will cause major disruptions to an already strained vital roadway in Hamburg and Germany.[15]

20140822 hamburger deckel #13

This type of project procurement and community involvement is very interesting and an important case study for the Streets Without Cars agenda, as local community support and feedback will be essential in identifying what opportunities exist when we reimagine our local streets as spaces for pedestrians instead of cars.


Footnotes

  1. City of Hamburg, Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg; A7 Information Brochure.
  2. Ibid.; p. 18.
  3. Ibid.; p. 12.
  4. Ibid.; pp. 4-5.
  5. Mark Boyer; Hamburg is building a giant green roof cover over sections of the A7 MotorwayInhabitat; November 2011.
  6. Ibid.
  7. City of Hamburg, Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg; A7 Information Brochurepp. 6-7.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Ibid.; pp. 6-7.
  10. Ibid.; pp. 7-8.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Ibid.; pp. 18-19.
  13. Ibid.; pp. 16-17.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Simon Tomlinson; The underground motorway: Germans plan to cover one of Europe’s longest autobahns with a giant parkDaily Mail; December 2011.

Image sources

  1. A7 Motorway, image sourced from The City Fix.
  2. Issues with the A7, author’s own image.
  3. Hamburger Deckel, image sourced from The City Fix.
  4. Project overview, author’s own image.
  5. Project timeline, author’s own image. Maps sourced from the City of Hamburg: here and here.
  6. Project proposal, author’s own image. Renders sourced from the City of Hamburg: here, here and here; and Inhabitat.
  7. Stellingen design principles, author’s own image. Renders sourced from Inhabitat.
  8. Project images, sourced from the City of Hamburg: here, here, here and here.
  9. Schnelsen design principles, author’s own image. Renders sourced from the City of Hamburg.
  10. Bahrenfeld design principles, author’s own image. Renders sourced from the City Hamburg: here and here.
  11. Planning process, author’s own image.
  12. Project cost analysis, author’s own image.
  13. Community response, author’s own image.

The East-West Link

20140821 east west link #1

The East-West Link, if given the go ahead will be one of the largest infrastructure projects to be ever constructed in Melbourne. Over the years a lot of work has been completed to understand the benefits of the project and needs of Melbournians. This has taken the form of feasibility studies, early planning investigations and business case development. [1]

20140821 east west link #2

The East-West Link was conceived following a study by Rod Eddington in 2008 into Melbourne’s future east-west travel needs. The report provided a number of recommendations, including new rail tunnels, public transport improvement plans and the East West link as a duplication of the West Gate bridge. According to the study, as the demand for travel increases, fast and reliable connections around the city will become more and more important for businesses and the future prosperity of Melbourne.[2]

According to studies undertaken by the Linking Melbourne Authority (LMA), the demand for the East-West Link is driven by the need to enhance connectivity to critical destinations, including the Port of Melbourne and Melbourne International Airport. In order to accommodate rapidly growing freight movement, nationally significant industrial precincts in the south-east and the east must be linked with both the port and interstate supply chain corridors in the north and west of Melbourne.[3] The LMA study attempts to show that improving the travel choice for businesses and individuals accessing goods, services, education and employment through the new east-west link will maximise Victoria’s competitive advantage, even though a comprehensive business case is yet to be published.

20140821 east west link #3

The study concentrates on evidence that Melbourne’s congestion and road network unreliability are getting worse. The annual cost of congestion is estimated to grow to $5 billion by 2021 and to $7.2 billion by 2031, more than double current levels. The East-West Link is intended to provide a long term alternative to the congested West Gate bridge and address growth forecasts in population, freight and traffic.[4]

The project has been surrounded by controversy, in particular related to its very short design development and feasibility study period, which it seems has been fast-tracked by state and federal government for political motivations. The published project timeline by the LMA shown below suggests that the $8 billion Stage 1 of the East-West Link is to go ahead with just over a year of project planning.

20140821 east west link #4

The controversy has been stoked by industry reports showing that the previously considered $1.5 billion assistance for the Metro Rail Tunnel would have been a better use of public funds, with a capacity to shift the passenger equivalent of 24 lanes of freeway. Further reports by Infrastructure Australia, such as Spend more, waste more, argue that the existing level of road expenditure is unsustainable and unjustified.[5]

As yet, there has been no East-West Link business case published by the state government. Writing in The Age, Senior Columnist Kenneth Davidson has suggested that this may in part be because it relies on increasing car dependence at the expense of public transport. The East-West Link ties into Planning Minister Matthew Guy’s Plan Melbourne, which envisages a growth in Melbourne’s population by 2020 of an extra 1.3 million people, almost all of whom will be housed in dwellings with one or two cars. Davidson suggests that “if the East-West Link goes ahead there will be no money for public transport for at least a generation, irrespective of political promises.”[6]

Despite the strong criticism of the project, the current design for Stage 1 has been given the green light by the Naphtine government. The design for Stage 1 consists of :

  • Twin 4.4km long, three lane tunnels connecting Eastern Freeway to Royal Park
  • Tunnel portal west of Hoddle Street
  • Tunnel portal in Royal Park
  • Elevated roadways linking the tunnel to the City Link Tollway
  • Eastern Freeway widening at the junction of Hoddle Street and Tram Road
  • Upgrades to Hoddle Street in both north and south directions
  • City Link connection to M1, M80 Freeways
  • Connections to Port of Melbourne and Melbourne International Airport

20140821 east west link #5

The proposed tunnels are to be three lanes in each direction and will carry commercial and private vehicles. As part of the contract signing with the winning construction and maintenance consortium, the tunnel route and detailed design will be finalised and influenced by geological conditions along the route. The tunnels are likely to use a combination of construction methods because of different ground conditions and design requirements.[7]

Some of the major issues raised with the current design proposal are the flyover connections to the City Link Tollway, which will effected the Ross Straw Field part of Royal Park, substantially compromise the adjacent wetlands, compromise the visual amenity of surrounding suburbs and significantly encroach on the Arden Street and Macaulay Road precincts.

In terms of project financing, Stage 1 of the East-West Link is being procured as an Availability Public Private Partnership (PPP), with the state government initially retaining tolling and traffic risk. Under the PPP model, the private sector designs, constructs, finances, operates and maintains the road to specified standards in exchange for availability payments over the term of the concession period. A competitive tender process commenced in late 2013 with a successful project proponent expected to be determined by late 2014.[8] The Victorian State Government has contributed $294 million towards project procurement costs, with the Federal Government pledging an additional $1.5 billion towards Stage 1 Costs. The Federal Government has also recently announced an additional $1.5 billion towards the future costs of Stage 2.[9]

20140821 east west link #6

Major criticisms of the project have come from community action groups such as the BetterEWL residential action group. In collaboration with architecture studio Atelier Red+ Black, they argue that the LMA did not undertake appropriate community consultation, a specific directive of the Planning Minister’s scoping directions for the project. The LMA instead developed a reference design that would have what it termed acceptable outcomes. To achieve the intent of the scoping directions, the LMA puts the onus on the tenderers, which according to BetterEWL is outside the statutory approval process.[10] The BetterEWL team has also commented on the LMA’s lack of consideration for design alternatives as part of the statutory approval process. This and other public groups feel that the LMA should be required to go back and conduct a thorough investigation of the alternative designs presented.

20140821 east west link #7

The decision to build the first stage of the East-West Link has also been criticised as a misuse of public funds that could be better spent on public transport. This has been particularly highlighted by the City of Yarra-sponsered action group, Trains Not Toll Roads. Polls indicate that the Melbourne Metro Rail project is the preferred infrastructure option and is viewed as the infrastructure project of highest priority. The support of this group by the City of Yarra is particularly interesting for the Streets Without Cars agenda, as the design proposals will be looking at transforming and reimagining streets strategically selected throughout the municipality.

Further information on alternative designs proposals for the East-West Link’s controversial interchange and link to the City Link Tollway, visit the BetterEWL Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 information pages.

20140821 east west link #8

20140821 east west link #9


Footnotes

  1. East-West Link: Project overviewLinking Melbourne Authority.
  2. Rod Eddington; Investing in Transport overviewDepartment of Transport; 2008; p.5.
  3. East-West Link: Project benefitsLinking Melbourne Authority.
  4. East-West Link Stage 1 Short Form Business CaseLinking Melbourne Authority.
  5. Spend More, Waste More: Australia’s roads in 2014Infrastructure Australia; 2014.
  6. Kenneth Davidson; East-West Link: The case against this road gets ever strongerThe Age; 28th July 2014.
  7. Tunnel Fact SheetLinking Melbourne Authority.
  8. East-West Link Stage 1 Short Form Business CaseLinking Melbourne Authority.
  9. Jason Dowling; Victoria gets federal budget funding for East-West Link but not airport railThe Age; 14th May 2014.
  10. Design alternatives, BetterEWL.

Image sources

  1. East-West Link Stage 1, copyright Linking Melbourne Authority; screen grab at 0:15 seconds.
  2. Project overview, author’s own image.
  3. Why the East-West Link, author’s own image.
  4. Timeline overview, author’s own image.
  5. Tunnel cross section, copyright Linking Melbourne Authority.
  6. Financing overview, author’s own image.
  7. Project criticism, author’s own image.
  8. A better alternative for Arden Macaulay, copyright Atelier Red + Black.
  9. A better alternative for Parkville, copyright Atelier Red + Black.