Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

I filled in the feedback form to ask if they would be building separate pedestrian/cycle paths along Burswood. Got this back:

**

Thank you for your email regarding the cycle ways that service the Burswood Peninsula.

The Public Transport Authority transport modelling has identified that the number of cyclists on game days as generally low due to the large pedestrian flows. While these figures may be low on game day, the new Perth Stadium will transform the Burswood Peninsula by taking advantage of its riverside views and central location and the improved cycle/pedestrian network opportunities, linking with the existing network, will activate the sports precinct on non-game days. For those patrons who choose to access the Stadium on event days on bicycle, consideration will be required to select a suitable location for bicycle parking and end of trip facilities in proximity to the Stadium, which minimises conflict with other modes of transport and high volume pedestrian areas.

The full extent of these improvements will be determined through the Transport Project Definition Plan due for completion by late 2012. The Transport Project Definition Plan will then be considered by Government and the extent of the work will be confirmed in early 2013.

Thank you for your interest in this exciting project.
____________________________________________________________

New office buildings are required to provide end of trip facilities, why not a stadium?

My translation of the the responce
We are going to build plenty of wide flat paths linking the rail stations, pedestrian bridges, the stadium and Mr Packers club, we will call them dual use so you can use them on days when the stadium is not in use

ramp wrote:New office buildings are required to provide end of trip facilities, why not a stadium?

I recall that there is a national built environment standard from a couple of years back that included things like one locker per ten occupants and some formula for showers etc. But at the time it was published it was not binding on anyone and I suspect still isn't. And I never paid much attention to the details at the time.

Though of course a stadium is not an office building.

I don't know that there is any overall requirement - it's a council by council and planner by planner thing I suspect.

"End Of Trip Facilities In Government Buildings" at http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFil ... f_trip.pdf may be of general interest to some.

I heard a report the other day that there was going to be parking for VIP's only. To access the stadium about 80 percent of patrons would need to use public transport. Other 20 percent need to park city side and use the footbridge. If they aren't even put in car parks it may be a little optimistic to get showers and lockers. I like the idea of getting the stadium out of subi but not convinced to right amount of planning has gone into the project.

I heard a report the other day that there was going to be parking for VIP's only. To access the stadium about 80 percent of patrons would need to use public transport. Other 20 percent need to park city side and use the footbridge. If they aren't even put in car parks it may be a little optimistic to get showers and lockers. I like the idea of getting the stadium out of subi but not convinced to right amount of planning has gone into the project.

Yagan wrote:I heard a report the other day that there was going to be parking for VIP's only. To access the stadium about 80 percent of patrons would need to use public transport. Other 20 percent need to park city side and use the footbridge. If they aren't even put in car parks it may be a little optimistic to get showers and lockers. I like the idea of getting the stadium out of subi but not convinced to right amount of planning has gone into the project.

Well duh! The premier decided on his own whim that he wanted the stadim on Burswood Iasland.

He doesn't seem to to have sought advice from engineers, soil scientists, geologists, hydrologists, etc etc.

It was not a favoured option by previous deliberations paid for by the long-suffering taxpayer.

Planning? Right amount of planning? What planning?

ColinOldnCranky wrote: Well duh! The premier decided on his own whim that he wanted XXXX.

He doesn't seem to to have sought advice from engineers, soil scientists, geologists, hydrologists, etc etc.

It was not a favoured option by previous deliberations paid for by the long-suffering taxpayer.

Substitute your own favourite "leadership moment" from The Other Colin. Cottesloe beach front, Perth water front, rail line to airport......

Talk about feeding the opposition!