07/2398 - Request for information response [As Published] · 132007.2398

Page 2

 UOISHeU 60'E0'60
Od - S080 :cu ‘Bmp

6002 yosew :aBp by@00d: +

ev@000:1 :eje08 (60'€0'60) pereoipuy jane puncubs

+ BAOe s1aA9j $002 +B Pasinas UBisap jOOU gq UCYSJAaY

A

SUOIIEARIO

ue ued - enue AWUNWIWUOD ebe|IIA
_i . "

   
   

22-2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ld. - Gzt'201-18 . uojensja SeM-4INOS
4 NW) fw eee
| rewen mst Rec ae = ut
. ODEEEES : a ere T ery
ee em 4 90l We
Sao 080i Ht —--- = S00Y-
j eo vet S00
: mengooin enim non eine
Sie uowengia sea-tanos |
Secon “ooreoiny_’ 4
“WN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aa oF

TO o> Sn Ae Ly
TE NOY:

weaeme meumsaor suse 1

     

speyyouy Asses, + UULUS ul AemUa pue Asis paysan si Buyneip gry jo 1yBpAdoo Sul B61 @

‘S)@A8] JOO) / Base UG eGeqreb -y uoysppey J

d

uoneags 1se9-yyOU

 

ued s00y

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3

ne

 UOISS! 60°£0'60.

‘i 60d.1 - S080 ‘ou ‘Bmp 800z 8uN| :ay2p | $¥@OSz: | :ayeos

Fan obe\IA JUSWSIIOL

 

wa AOJOOO ‘Jed [Si
Sued - sduapises aed pabe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Twn ons Ga =
TAN GNIS TANDN * TH
Ta SUG/BR =

ansow

 

swpayny Aece, + UUs U1 Aauiua pue Aajos paysan Si Buyaesp saa yo wy6pAGOO GULL 61610

i

4
, 2
ot oe FL teow ‘|
i os
|e
‘ : fi
: : - \ e
. . fi : - bi
. ca i ~ f
Bf >
bE L3 ‘ qj
{+ ea os) ott BH gE
P rol Tan Ye S
: S / \
4 b 4 by

PE}ED|PU} aA] PuNO/H eroge .
s1y8yoy JOO: / pase uaid joo g uospe if”
"Bere uMOp-ysem ulq eGequed ?
fea] Puno.6 fainyeu anoge 146iey
AAOYS 0} PaPUBE UR; 400 YY LOIS AaZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| De

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

; " gjoeiuoue Aeoesy+yyWs

ued sooy punosb, ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APRIL TA

  

 

4 a A To

pass
=

eel
MSE NO
Al ||

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Page 4

7a
|
—_ . . p
@ WOE GO'E0'60. . of €v@o0r: ‘ . th.
Old - $080 ‘ou “Bmp g00z aun! :eyep . LW@00Z: | :e}e08 - : Payeo1py! jena] PUNDIB eroge syBjay Joos / pesined JOO! g UOISAOL

As Obey IA JUSSI
WA AOJOOO ‘829 |S}

SUOIJEAR|S - SQOUBPISEI @1e0, pebe
. : {

  

S109] yore Agoe1}+ YyyIWWS

             

 

 

 

     

7
|
i
| |
a4 od
| _JUOReARIS SOM
\ . 7
eset a
eee: ee
* ee i
‘ . i
: : do:
5 ie . .
a ‘YO}BAg}a YOU a | Uo}eAg|e yINoS
a j t
. | . ft
- UONEAS/S, Sea
Hare a a PA STS oe PTT mere gil # 9
NOuWATE
tem cu re 1
oe
We
~ STOSWAS WOHKAL
| THD ones GARY = TH
TH ONS HEN = Be
Te Gum »
. | ONaz9o71

syampyy Aeon) + uns Uy Aaunus pue Apjos paisaa s Gumerp sun jo wiSpAdoo eu) 661 D

4

 

Page 5

ws

 

Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village
Cooroy

}

Noise Impact Assessment=

499 |ROIVO!.doc 12/03/2009

Prepared for

RSL Care

  

CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ABN 95 064 952 030

Corner Wickham Terrace & Leichhardt Street, Spring Hill Q 4000. PO Box 501, Spring Hill Q 4004.
107 3831 7511 FO7 3831 7661. [email protected] Wwww.askce.com

Page 6

6

 

  

 

Contents

I IMtrOCUCTION weesssetnsessesnnsunesstsnstisisnesinssstunsuneentinennnesiesneeneesassestsineetneeesestesttnntee |

2 — Subject Site and Surrounds...

3 Proposed Development...

4 Existing Noise Levels...... sean
4.1 Road Traffic Noise Levels oc escssccsssssssssssussesansssessessssssssssseusssesseessesseee 4
4.2 Train Noise Levells....eessssssessmseinessisstunensssisssiacsstsstnssiseestneetssee 5

5 Noise Criteria......
5.1 Road Traffic...
5.2 Rail Traffic

6 Road Traffic Noise Assessment .rsssusssssssusssesnsntustussistentsetnetertaninesisessee 8 [
6.1 Road Traffic Noise Model... nnnnnnnmnnunianinannnnnemnnnnnnannnnn® :
6.2 Road Traffic Noise Modelling Input Data
6.3 Verification of Road Traffic Noise Model
6.4 Road Traffic Noise Predictions occ

 

 

 

 

 

6.5 DiSCUSSION srcrsssssssnsesesecsseneeeaseeessesnseesssssstsstsnssensssesvonescnneceessounsessnssonaaeonanesasstae

 

7.2 Assessment of Predicted Noise Levels

 

8 Internal Areas

 

9 COOMCIUSION wssstssustsstssesessinsnntntestsstnsiseissesissinssasisssstnisneineiannstanneaennttetneeisee 13

APPeNIX A ceseesssesnsssstnssesnsessseesensesseetnseenessnsseonneeerneesiessenassseansesnresnnaceeeernetusneneesseeneeeneet |4

Page i

4991RO1VOl.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care P

 

Page 7

ask
| Introduction

ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd was commissioned by RSL Care to undertake a noise impact
assessment for proposed retirement village along Cooroy Connection Road between Pearsons Road
and Lamonts Road, Cooroy.

The purpose of this report is to:
e Predict the extent of road and rail traffic noise levels at the proposed residential dwellings;
e Assess predicted noise levels with respect to relevant noise guidelines;

e If necessary, propose ameliorative measures required to meet the nominated noise criteria.

2 Subject Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the eastern side of the Cooroy Connection Road between Pearsons *
Road and Lamonts Road, Cooroy (see Figure 2.1). The subject site is currently vacant land, except
for a shed and comprises mainly grassland with scattered trees and shrubs. The land is slightly
undulating with a slight ridge near the centre of the property.

State “Forest

   

 

 

% »

Figure 2.1 Locality Plan (Source: UBD)

4991 ROIVOI.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care od

Page 8

ask¢

To the west of the subject site is Cooroy Connection Road, a Department of Main Roads (DMR)
controlled road. Adjacent to the west of Cooroy Connection Road is the main railway line connecting
Brisbane with Central and North Queensland.

3 Proposed Development

It is proposed to develop a retirement village on the subject site, comprising the following elements:
(i) 159 single storey Independent Living Units (ILU’s);
(ii) a two storey apartment block comprising 20 units; and
(iii) a mutti-purpose community village centre.

Figure 3.1 shows the proposed layout of the subject site, noting the above-mentioned elements. _—

oe)

Page 2

4991RO1VO!.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care . dd

Page 9

 

  
  
   

2.0m high
acoust! barier|

 

 

Saeeess

Sues

 

2.1m high
acoustic barript ja

851, CARE PAY LID
mcm

 

 

a
r<.. So

 

ee eee eet
ee

 

 

 

 

 

rot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.1 Proposed Layout of Subject Site (Source: smith+tracey architects)

4991RO1VO1.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care

COMBATING ENGREERS

Page 3

d

Page 10

2

ask
4 Existing Noise Levels

Road traffic noise levels were measured in 2007 at location NMI'. The noise level monitoring
methodology was checked by ASK and found to be adequate.

ASK Consulting Engineers carried out attended and unattended noise monitoring at location NM2 to
determine current noise levels due to passing trains.

Figure 3.1 shows the noise monitoring locations. Both are on the boundary of the subject site with
the Cooroy Connection Road coridor, with location NMI and location NM2 being respectively
approximately 140m and 220m north of the southwestern comer of the subject site.

4.1 Road Traffic Noise Levels

The noise monitoring at location NMI was carried out on Wednesday 4 July 2007 and Thursday 5 .
July 2007. A summary of the results obtained is presented in Table 4.1. , {

Table 4.1. Measured Noise Levels 04/07/07 — 05/07/07 in dB(A) at Location
NMI

 

 

 

Lio(I8hour) | L90(i8hour) | Le0(8hour) | Leq(24hour) | Maximum | Maximum |
Leq( | hour) Lto(i hour) .
day : #
645 47.1 335 616 647 676

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The noise parameters are defined as follows:

Lio the noise level exceeded 10% of the time;

L90 the noise level exceeded 90% of the time, and commonly referred to as the
background noise level:

L10(|8hour) the average of the hourly L10 noise levels between 6:00am and midnight;

L90(1 8hour)
L90(1 8hour)

' Air Noise Environment Report Proposed RSL Retirement Village Cooroy — Road and Rail Noise Assessment (Revised)
Project Reference: 1750, dated August 2008

the average of the hourly L90 noise levels between 6:00am and midnight;
the average of the hourly L90 noise levels between 10:00pm and 6:00am;

Page 4

4991 ROIVOI.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care : @

Page 11

ask

.Leq(24hour) _ the energy average noise level over a 24 hour period;
Maximum Leq(I hour) day the maximum hourly Leq noise level between 6:00am and 10:00pm;
Maximum Leq(Ihour) night — the maximum hourly Leq noise level between 10:00pm and 6:00am.

The maximum Leq(Ihour) night was not recorded and is assumed to be 6 dB(A) below the
Leq(! hour) day, as is standard practice.

4.2 Train Noise Levels

Unattended noise monitoring took place at location NM2 using a calibrated ARL215 noise logger.
The microphone was located |.2 m above ground level. The monitoring period was from noon 8
March 2009 to noon 9 March 2009, although the last 2 hours had to be discarded due to showers.

The noise logger was configured to obtain samples of 15 minutes, including the Lmax, the maximum
noise level. In addition | second samples of noise levels were obtained. This allowed freight train
passes to be identified for sufficiently long trains. Due to the presence of road traffic only one such ‘
train pass could be clearly identified. Other trains did pass, but could not readily be identified. The i:
maximum noise levels did not exceed 80 dB(A), except for the one train pass clearly being able to be ;
identified. The maximum noise level for this pass was 86 dB(A).

Attended noise monitoring was also carried out. Noise levels due to other train passes were
obtained, including octave band spectra. The maximum noise levels for the trains monitored at
location NM2 were 81 dB(A), 75 dB(A) and 80 dB(A). Details are shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Summary of Passing Train Noise Levels

 

Sample Time Contribution to

 

 

 

 

 

Start Time | Train Type | (@PProximate | 1 upray | Leq dB(A) | Lea(2thour)
time for train dB(A)
to pass)
12:35pm Freight 55 sec 86 77 45
1:05pm Tikt train 25 sec 81 70 35
4:24pm Tit train 16 sec 75 70 32
5:00pm Freight 55 sec 80 74 42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In terms of noise modelling a maximum noise level of 83 dB(A) at a distance of 40m has been
assumed with a sound power spectrum as indicated in Table 4.3. This noise level may be considered
to be an upper average maximum noise level due to train passes.

Page 5

499 1RO1VOI doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care d

Page 12

ask

Table 4.3 Lmax Sound Power Spectrum used in Rail Noise Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Octave Frequency Band (Hz) Sound Power Level, dB

63 127
125 |28
250 122
500 12
1000 113
2000 114 —
4000 108
8000 98

5 Noise Criteria mei

5.| Road Traffic

DMR in its publication “Road Traffic Noise Management: Code of Practice” recommends the
following noise limits for proposed residential developments for habitable floors:

e 60 dB(A) L!0(1! 8hour) or less, where existing levels measured at the local govemment deemed-to-
comply dwelling setback distance are greater than 40 dB(A) L90(8hour) between !Opm and 6am;
or

e 57 dB(A) L!10(! 8hour) or less, where existing levels measured at the local govemment deerned-to-
comply dwelling setback distance are less than or equal to 40 dB(A) L90(8hour) between |Opm
and 6am;

© where the above criteria cannot be met, intemal maximum design criterion levels specified in Table
1, AS2107-1987

For balconies and formal external open space the following noise limits are required:

e 60 dB(A) L!10(! 8hour) or less, where existing levels measured at the local goverment deemed-to-
comply dwelling setback distance are greater than 45 dB(A) L90(1 8hour); or

Page 6

4991 RO1VOI doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care d

Page 13

ask

© 57 dB(A) L101 8hour) or less, where existing levels measured at the local govemment deemed-to-
comply dwelling setback distance are less than or equal to 45 dB(A) L90(1 8hour);

The definition of formal open space is as follows: the private or communal recreational area of a
development “required” by a local government”.

A note is to both of the above added which states:

Note: All external levels stated are free-field with the expectation that an additional 2.5dB(A) increase is
applied for the facade correction when thé building is constructed. This will achieve a level equal to or less
than 63 dB(A) and 60 dB(A) respectively, | metre from the most exposed facade of a building.

Based on the measured L90(8hour) of 33.5 dB(A), the appropriate noise limit for habitable floors is 57
dB(A) free field, or, equivalently, 60 dB(A) facade reflected.

Based on the measured L90(I8hour) of 47.1 dB(A), the appropriate noise limit for formal external
open space is 60 dB(A) free field, or, equivalently, 63 dB(A) facade reflected.

5.2 Rail Traffic

Discussions with a town planner from Sunshine Coast Regional Council indicated that the former
Noosa Shire Council did not have noise limits relating to train noise.

As a result Queensland Transport (QT) noise limits have been used to assess the noise impact of .
passing trains on the proposed development. vemaanimunn ‘sn

Queensland Transport's Interests in Planning Schemes No.3 sets indoor design level noise criteria. -
The indoor criterion to be met is an average maximum internal noise level between !Opm and 6am:
of no greater than 50 dB(A) for sleeping and living areas.

Recent experience with QT has lead to the use of an Lmax 60 dB(A) for living areas between 6am to
|Opm and the adoption of the Lmax 50 dB(A) for sleeping areas between |Opm and 6am. This
60 dB(A) living area criterion is in line with that utilised by BCC and has been adopted for this
assessment.

In addition Queensland Transport utilises external criteria, which are:

|. 65dB(A), assessed as the 24 hour average equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure
level; and .

2. 87dB(A), assessed as a single event maximum sound pressure level when measured | m from
the most exposed part of the noise-sensitive place.

Page 7
499 1ROIVOI doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care P)

Page 14

6 Road Traffic Noise Assessment

6.1 Road Traffic Noise Model

QDMR recommends that the prediction of road traffic noise is to be conducted according to the
United Kingdom Department of Transport (1988) procedure published as "Calculation of Road
Traffic Noise” (CoRTN88). The QDMR require that predictions of road traffic noise be carried out
for a 10 Year planning honzon.

The traffic noise modelling was based on plans of the site by Smith & Tracey Arcitects (Drawing
details here).

The road traffic noise levels have been predicted using the PEN3D computer model, based on the
CORTN88 traffic noise prediction method and is approved by QDMR.

In this report a calculated road traffic noise level refers to a road traffic noise level calculation of an
existing measurement. A predicted road traffic noise level refers to a likely future noise level. The
noise model generates both the calculated and predicted road traffic noise levels.

6.2 Road Traffic Noise Modelling Input Data

ee ee

Road traffic noise level predictions for the L10(18 hour), and Lto(! hour) maximum assume a 0.5

metre source height, and a dense graded asphalt road surface. A 1.5 m receptor height is assured,

above finished floor height.

The receiver heights are relative to natural ground heights and proposed finished floor levels as

provided by Smith & Tracey Architects.

The traffic noise calculations have been undertaken in accordance with CORTN88 and a +2.5 dB(A)
facade reflection allowance is included in the road traffic noise level predictions.

The road traffic noise level predictions are based on the traffic data provided by QDMR as shown in
Table 6.1.

It should be noted that the speed limit along Cooroy Connection Road changes in front of the
subject site. For northbound traffic the speed limit changes from 60 km/hr to 100 km/hr at
approximately 120 m from the southern boundary of the subject site.

At the same location along Cooroy Connection Road the speed limit changes from 80 km/hr to 60
km/hr as vehicles approach Cooroy.

The road surface was inspected and found to be between a wom chip seal or a dense graded asphalt
surface. As a result | dB(A) was added to the noise emission levels for a dense graded road.

Page 8

4991RO1VOl.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care : o

Page 15

ask

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6.1 Traffic Data used in noise model for Cooroy Connection Road
AADT Percent Heavy Traffic Speed
vehicles
Road (Vehicles) (%) (Km/h)
2007 2019 2007 2019 2007 2019
Cooroy Connection Road
Northbound 60/100 60/100,
—_—— : 6900 12391 8.0, 8.0 : ~
Cooroy Connection Road .
Southbound 60/80 60/80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 18-hour traffic flow has been taken to be 94% of the daily traffic flow.

6.3 Verification of Road Traffic Noise Model

The results of the 2007 noise monitoring at location NMI have been used to verify the road traffic
noise model of Cooroy Connection Road.

The road traffic verification model uses the 2007 traffic flows, as stated in Table 6.1 and current road
alignment to determine the L10(18 hour). Table 6.2 compares the results obtained from the noise
survey with the calculated results from the computer model.

Table 6.2 Existing Noise Measurements and Calculated L10(18 Hour)

 

 

 

Receptor Measured LI0(18 hour) | Measured L10(!8 hour) | Calculated L10(18 hour)
Height Noise Level (dB(A)) Noise Level (dB(A)) Noise Level (dB(A))
(m) Free field Facade Reflected Facade Reflected

1.2m 64.5 67.0 66.7

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Measured noise level were adjusted to account for a full facade reflection

The road traffic model is considered to be verified since the calculated level is within + 2.0 dB(A) of

the measured level.

499{RO1VOl.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care

Page 9

d

Page 16

ask

6.4 Road Traffic Noise Predictions

Preliminary noise modelling indicated that since the central section of the subject site was elevated,
there would be difficulty in shielding the traffic on the Cooroy Connection Road without a significantly
high noise barrier located on the boundary of the subject site with the Cooroy Connection Road
coridor. This means that the external DMR noise limit of 60 dB(A) would be difficult to meet.

The basis of the road traffic noise assessment is therefore that the external noise limit would be met
for all residential units located in the first row facing the road at the northern and southern ends of
the subject site, but that this limit would not be met at the first row of units located near the elevated
centre of the subject site. For all other units the external noise limit would be met.

As a result a 2.1m high acoustic barrier along the Cooroy Connection Road boundary has been
modelled. In addition a 2.0 m high acoustic barrier is required on the northern side of the subject site.
The required acoustic barriers are shown in Figure 3.1.

The 2019 road traffic noise levels have been predicted for the proposed residential dwellings, ===>
Appendix A shows the predicted Li0(|8hour) traffic noise levels Im from the facades of the ,
proposed rooms. The predicted road traffic noise levels include a plus 2.5 dB(A) facade correction |
allowance. "

From the measured results it is assumed that the 2019 maximum Leq(Ihour) day and maximum ~
Leq(Ihour) night are the predicted 2019 L10(!8hour) plus the difference between the measured
Lio(ihour) maximum noise level and the measured maximum Leq(Ihour) day and maximum .
Leq(!hour) night. ~—seeii a

6.5 Discussion

gre ty

The external L!0(| 8hour) noise limit is predicted to be exceeded at units 15-29, 31-33, 36, 37 and
39.

According to the DMR Code of Practice, for these units the AS2107 intemal noise limits are to be é
met. This is discussed in Section 8.

In terms of formal external open space, the road traffic noise level predictions shown in Appendix A
would be applicable at the side of the residence facing Cooroy Connection Road, with lower noise oe
levels applying at the other facades.

The noise limit of 63 dB(A) LI10(18hour) is predicted to be exceeded by | dB(A) at the side facing
the road at units 16, 17, 19-21, 23, 25, and 28. For these units formal external open space is provided
at the front facade, ie. away from Cooroy Connection Road.

As a result the formal open space noise limit would be met at all units.

Page (0

4991RO1VOI.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care : : d

Page 17

aslt
7 Rail Noise Assessment

The PEN-3D model railway module incorporates a standard environmental model to determine air
absorption, ground and barrier effects. The railway model incorporates propagation equations
consistent with a moving line source. It essentially simulates a train moving along the designated
railway line at the appropriate speed and calculates the Lmax. The model uses as inputs the source
noise level of the locomotive and wagons, or in the case of an electric train the passenger units, the
length of the train the source height and the speed of the train. The source height was assumed to
be 2.5m.

The Lmax source noise sound power spectrum used in the model is shown in Table 4.3, which is
representative of a diesel-powered freight train.

7.1 Verification of Rail Noise Model oe

The results of the noise survey carried out on 08/03/09 to 09/03/09 at monitoring Location NM2 i
have been used to verify the rail noise model. :

The rail verification model uses the existing conditions to determine the Lmax. Table 7.1 compares
the results obtained from the noise survey with the calculated results from the computer model.

Table 7.1 Calculations and Existing Noise Measurements Free Field

 

 

 

Receptor Height Measured Lmax Noise Level . Calculated Lmax Noise Level
(m) dB(A) dB(A)
1.2m 83.0 83.3

 

 

 

 

The rail noise model is considered to be verified since the calculated levels are within + 2.0 dB(A) of
the measured level.

7.2 Assessment of Predicted Noise Levels

The predicted noise levels in terms of the Lmax are shown in Appendix A.

 

The nominated Lmax noise level goal of 87 dB(A) is predicted to be met external to proposed
facades as shown in Appendix A. .

The nominated Leq(24 hour) noise level goal of 65 dB(A) would be met at all facades, since the
measured Leq(24 hour) on the boundary adjacent to Cooroy Connection Road was 61.6 dB(A), i.e.

Page II

4991 RO1VO | doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care d

Page 18

ask

64.1 dB(A) facade reflected. It is noted that the primary noise source at this location is road traffic and
not passing trains.

All units are further away from the road and rail, so that the Leq(24hour) at the facades would be
below 64.1 dB(A).

8 Internal Areas

The level of noise control required for the units was assessed with respect to Australian Standard
AS3671 - 1989 “Acoustics - Road traffic noise intrusion - Building siting and construction”.

As noted previously, the required interna! noise levels due to road traffic for residential buildings are
an Leq(! hour) maximum of 45 dB(A) and 40 dB(A) for the day and night respectively.

For railway noise the internal noise limits are an Lmax of 50 dB(A) in bedrooms and 60 dB(A) in living
rooms,

Using the methodology contained in AS3671-1989 “Acoustics — Road traffic noise intrusion — Building | i
siting and construction” the required Traffic [Noise Reduction TNR construction category was !
determined in accordance with Section 3 of AS3671. :

The Australian Standard AS3671 contains the following definition for construction categories.

Category |. Standard construction; openings including open windows and doors may comprise up .
to 10% of the exposed facade. TNR of approximately 10 dB(A) is expected. ee

Category 2. Standard construction, except for lightweight elements such as fibrous cement or metal .
cladding or all-glass facades. Doors, windows and all other openings must be closed. TNR of
approximately 25 dB(A) is expected.

Category 3. Special construction, chosen in accordance with Clause 3.4. Windows, doors and other
openings must be closed. TNR between 25 and 35 dB(A) is expected.

Category 4. TNR greater than 35 dB(A) is required; special acoustic advice should be sought.

The minimum construction details for the development are shown in Table 8.1.

Appendix A contains the predicted external noise levels due to road and rail traffic. It also shows the
TNR required to meet the internal noise limits due to both road and rail traffic. As is standard
practice, the TNR for rail traffic was calculated by adding 6 dB(A) to the calculated requirements to
allow for the low frequency components.

Page (2

4991R01VOl.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care d

Page 19

Table 8.1 Proposed Minimum Construction for Development

 

Building

 

 

 

 

 

 

Element Proposed Construction Rw
External Wall | Brick with internal layer of plasterboard 45
Windows 3mm float glass 23
Sliding Doors | 4mm toughened float glass 23
Tiled roof with |Omm plasterboard and R2.5 glasswool; or
Colorbond roof with 50mm Anticon, |Omm plasterboard and R2.5 40
glasswool (applicable to all units, except 49 and 50)
Rooficeiling Tiled roof with 2 layers of 10mm plasterboard and R2.5 glasswool;
or
43

 

Colorbond roof with 50mm Anticon, 2 layers of !Omm
plasterboard and R2.5 glasswool (applicable to units 49 and 50 only)

 

 

 

To meet the internal noise limits for both road traffic and rail traffic, additional window thicknesses are

required. The units concerned are shown in Appendix A. This appendix also shows the’ window™ —

requirements to meet the internal noise levels, assuming the external wall and roof/ceiling materials
shown in Table 8.1.

9 Conclusion

The noise impact due to road and rail traffic has been assessed. The DMR external noise limit of
Lio(l8hour) 60 dB(A) could not be met at all residential facades, due to the nature of the
topography. As a result the external L10(1 8hour) noise limit is predicted to be exceeded at units I5-
29, 31-33, 36, 37 and 39. Therefore the internal noise limits according to AS2107 are to be met.

The external Lmax and Leq(24hour) railway noise limits are predicted to be met at all residential
facades from noise emitted by passing trains.

To meet the internal noise limits for both road and rail traffic, the window Rw's shown in Appendix

-A are required. The Rw’s are based on construction details as per Table 8.1.

4991RO1VOI.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care

Page 13

d

Page 20

ask

Appendix A
The Table below indicates the Unit number, type, and assumed finished floor level.

The following predicted road traffic noise levels are shown: L10(18hour), maximum Leq(!hour) day,
and maximum Leq(| hour) night.

For rail traffic the predicted Lmax at the most exposed window of the most exposed facade has been
shown. For other facades or other windows the Lmax may be lower. This is certainly the case for
facades located away from the road and rail.

‘The Lmax can vary significantly at a facade, depending on whether or not intervening structures
(acoustic barriers, residences) obstruct direct line of sight.

The TNR for living rooms and bedrooms has been shown (for rail noise 6 dB(A) has been added to
the noise level reduction required), as well as the construction categories.

In terms of nomenclature for the duplexes (Unit Type Z4), “'F’ means the unit facing the road and
rail, “A” denotes the rear unit (located away from the road/rail), while “AF” means that both units are
more or less equally exposed to the noise from the road and rail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Road Traffic Rail Traffic

3 a}. Floor dB(A) aB(A) Living Sleeping Window Rw |

3 fe 8 Level | 1 10(18h) |Leq(1 hour)! Lmax [TNR|Constr.|TNR|Constr.f 9

z| 5 (RU) Max Cat. Cat.

Day | Night : Bed | | Bed 2 Living

| 23> |ground| 103.5 54 55] 48 61 10 | 17 2 23 23 23

2 Z4 = |ground} 103.8 55 564 49 6h It 2 17 2 23 23 23

3 Z3 > |ground| 104.0 56 56] 49 63 i 2 19 2 23 23 23

4 Z3 = |ground) 104.3 57 57 | 50 64 (2 2 20 2 23 23 23

5 Z4 = jground} 104.3 58 58] 51 64 13 2 20 2 23 23 23

6 Z4 = |ground} 104.5 59 60] 53 63 15 2 19 2 23 23 23

7 23 _|ground| 104.8 60 60} 53 64 15 2 20 2 23 23 23

8 Z4 = iground] 104.8 60 60] 53 63 / IS ; 2. , 19 2 23 23 23

9 ZI |ground} 103.3 55 55] 48 63 to} | 19 2 23 23 23

10 Zt ground] 103.3 54 55] 48 69 15 2 25 2 23 29 23
Page 14

4991 ROIVO|.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care d

Page 21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 | zt [ground] 1030] 57 |s7] 50 | 72 | 18 28 23 | 30 | 23
12 | 24 ground} 1028] 58 |sa] si | 68 | 14 24 4 | 24 | 23
13 | 23 Iground] 1033| 56 |se] 49] 65 [ut 21 23 | 23 | 23
14 | 246 |ground] 1035} 59 |60] 53 | 68 | Is 24 24 | 24 | 23
15 | 228 |ground| 1038] 61 |e] 54] 69 | 16 25 2 | 24 | 23
16 | 248 leround] 1033] 64 |e6s| s8| 72 | 20 28 2 | 29 | 23
17 | z2B ground] 1028] 64 |64] 57} 74 | 20 30 31 | 30 | 23
18 | 228 leround} 10231 63 |63| se | 72 | 18 28 2 | 28 | 23
19 | 226 |ground| 1027} 64 Jes] 57] 7 | 19 27 28 | 27 | 23
20 | 228 Iground| 1030| 64 |64] 57] 71 | 19 7 23 | 27 | 23
21 | 228 |ground] 1033] 64 Jes] 57} 71 [19 7 2 | 27 | 23
22 | 228 |ground] 1037] 63 [63] se] 69 | 18 25 25 | 24 | 23
23 | 248 leround] 1046] 64 | 64] 57] 70 | 19 26 27 | 26. Be _
24 | 24B |pround} 1052] 61 |o6i| s4 | 70 | 16 26 2 | 2% | 23
25 | 4B |pround} i067| 64 |64| 57] 72 | 19 28 28 | 2 | 23,
26 | 228 |groundl 1078] 63 |64] 57 | 72 | 19 28 28 | 27 | 23
27 | 248 leround| 1085] 63 |63] se | 72 | 18 28 28 | 28 | 23
28 | 248 |groundl 1093] 64 |6s] 58] 75 | 21 31 33 | 33 | 23
29 | 228 |ground} 1095] 63 |63| se] 75 | 21 31 34 | 33 | 23
30 | 226 |ground| 1093} 60 |é6o] 53} 73 | 19 29 31 | 30 | 23
31 | 248 jeround| 1085] 61 fer} sa | 74 | 20 30 32 | 32 | 23
32 | 228 |ground| to76| 61 |6i| 54 | 72 | 18 28 29 | 28 | 23
33 | 228 |groundl 1069] 61 oi] 54 | 70 | 16 26 27 | 2 | 23
34 | 226 |ground] 1065} 60 |6o] 53 | 70 | 16 26 2 | 25 | 23
35 | 24B |ground| 106.1} 60 | 60] 53 | 70 | 16 26 28 | 28 | 23

Page 15

4991ROIVOl.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care

¢d

 

Page 22

CONGLLTING BNGINEERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4991 ROIVO! doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care

36 | z2B |ground} 1063] 61 |e6i| 54] 70 | 16 26 2% | 2 | 23
37 | z2B |ground] 1065] 61 Joell 54] 7 | 17 7 2 | a7 | 23
38 | z4B leround| 1069! 60 |e] 54] 7 | 17 27 2 | 2 | 23
39 | 228 leround} 1073) 61 [or] 54] 71 | 17 27 23 | 27 | 23
40 | zi |ground] tos} 60 |60| 53] 73 | 19 29 23 | 30 | 23
4t | zi ground] i030} se |s9| s2| 74 | 20 30 23 | 30 | 23
42 | z3 [ground 077] 53 | 54] 47] 72 | 18 28 3 | 33 | 23
43 | Zt |ground] 1080] 53 |53| 46] 71 | 17 27 23 | 28 | 23
44 | ZI |groun| 10a2} 50 |so] 43] 65 | ut 21 23 | 23 | 23
45 | 23 |ground} 103s} si |si| 44] 65 | 4 21 23 | 23 | 23
46 | 23 leround| 1097] 53 |53] 46 | 72 | 18 28 33 | 33 | 23
47 | zi |ground| 1097} 54 | 54] 47 | 73 | 19 29 23 | 30 | 23.
48 | 22 |ground| 1098} se |s6| 49 | 74 | 20 30 31 | 33, | 23]
49 | 23 |ground| 1099] 60 |eo| 53 | 75 | 21 31 33 | 33 | 25
50 | zt leround| 1105] 60 |6o] 53 | 76 | 22 32 34 | 26 | 26
51 | zi |ground] tios} se |se] si | 75 | 21 31 34 | 26 | 26
52 | z4B |ground} 1103) 55 |56| 49 | 73 | 19 29 32 | 32 | 2s
52F | 24 |ground| ioa.1| 53 | 54] 47] 74 | 20 30 30 | 30 | 23
52A | 24 |ground} 108.1 31 | 30 | 23
53 | Z3 |ground} 1077] 54 | 54] 47] 75 | 21 31 29 | 29 | 25
sar | z4 |ground| 1073} 58 |se| si | 72 | 18 28 29 | 29 | 23
S4A | 24 ground 27 27 23
55 | zt |ground-io63} 57 |s58| si | 72 | 18 28 30 | 23 | 26
56 | 24 leround| 1060} 58 | 58] 51 | 73. | 19 29 25 | 25 | 25
57 | zi |ground] 1057] se |se| si | 72 | 18 28 30 | 23 | 26
Page 16

d

Page 23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58 | 22 |ground|ioss| sa |se| si | 72 | 18 28 2 | 2 | 23
59 | z4 |ground} 1057} 58 |sa] si | 72 | 18 28 25 | 25 | 25
60 | Zi Iground} 1062} 58 |ss} si | 72 | 18 28 30 | 23 | 26
61 | z2 |ground} 1068] 58 |ss] si] 70 | 16 26 29 | 29 1 2
62 | 24 Iground} 1075] 57 [ss] si | 72 | 18 28 2 | 25 | 25
63 | z3 ground} i050] so |so} 43} 6 | 7 I7 23 | 23 | 23
64 | z4 |eround} 1048] 53 |53] 46] 65 | 1 21 2 | 26 | 23
65 | zi Iground} 1046} 53 | 53] 46] 63 | 9 i9 23 | 23 | 23
66 | 23 |ground 10531 56 |se} 49 | 70 | 16 26 2 | 25 | 23
67 | z4 ground} 1057] ss | 55] 48] 70 | 16 26 28 | 2 | 23
68 | 226 |ground| 1058] 55 | 55} 48 | 70 | 16 26 29 | 28 | 23
69 | ZI |ground| 10631 ss | 56] 49 | 68 | 14 24 2 | 2% | 23
70 | ZI ground} 1067] 56 [se] 49 | 69 | 5 25 26 | 26 | 23,
71 | 23 Iground} 1062} 54 |sa] 47 { 69 | Is 25 24 | 24 | 2
72 | ZI ground 1083} 54 | 54] 47] 69 Jus 25 25 | 23. | 24
73 | z2 |ground} 1079} 54 | 54] 47 | 70 | 16 26 23 | 23 | 23
74} 23 |ground| 1075] 54 | 54] 47] 67 43 2B 23 | 23 | 23
75 | 23 |ground} 1076] 55 | 55] 48} 70 | 16 26 23 | 23 | 2
76 | Zi |groundl 07.1] 55 |ss] 48 | 69 | 1s 25 2 | 23 | 25
77 | 24 |ground| 1064] 55 [55] 48] 67° | 13 23 23 | 23 | 23
78 | ZI |ground} 1059} 54 |54] 47 | 66 | 12 2 23 | 23 | 2
79 | z3 |grounal oss] 54 [sa] 47 | 67 | 13 23 23 | 23 | 2
go | Z! ground 105.1} 54 | 541 47 | 67 | 13 23 23 | 23 | 2
‘ai | zi |ground| 1030) 52 }52] 4 | 63 || 9 | 19 23 | 23 | 2
a2 | 21 ground} i030] 52 |s2] 45] 65 | 2I 23 | 23 | 23

Page 17

499R01VOI doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care

d

Page 24

CONSATING ENGREERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 [20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83 | 22 |ground| 1038] 53 |53| 46] 66 | 12 22 23 | 23 | 23
84 | ZI |ground| 1040] 53 |53| 46] 71 | 17 27 23 | 23 | 23
85 | Z2 ground] 1053| 52 |52] 45} 62 | 8 18 23 | 23 | 23
86 | ZI ground] 1060] 52 |s52] 45} 62 | 8 8 23 | 23 | 23
87 | z3 |ground| 1064] 52 |52] 45 | 6 | 7 17 23 | 23 | 23
88 | Z1 |ground| 1068} 52 |52| 45] 63 | 9 19 23 | 23 | 23
89 | 24 |ground| 1071} 52 |s52] 45 | 64 | 10 20 23 | 23 | 23
90 | ZI ground 1076) 51 |si] 44] 64 | 10 20 23 | 23 | 23
91 | z2 ground] 1076] 5st |si| 44] 62 | 8 8 23 | 23 | 23
92 | Zi |ground| 1075] 49 | so] 43} 62 | 8 8 2B | 2
93F | Z4 ground] 1087} 57 [ss] si | 71 | 17 27 28 | 28 | 23
93A | Z4 [ground 26 26 23
94 | 21 ground] 1083} 56 |s56| 49} 70 | 16 26 2B 2B. 25
95F | 24 Iground] 1072} 55 |s6] 49 | 69 | 15 25 26 | 26 | 23
95A | 24 |ground 23 | 23 | 23
96 | Z2 |ground| 1062] 53 153] 46] 65 | 1 2I 23} 23 | 23
97 | Z2 |ground| 1068] 52 |53| 46] 64 | to 20 23 | 23 | 23
98 | Zi |ground| 1070] 53 153] 46] 63 | 9 9 23 | 23 | 23
99 | Z3 |ground| 1070] 52 |s2} 45 | 64 | to 20 23 | 23 | 23
100 | Z3 Iground] 1071] 53 |53] 46 | 63 | 9 19 23 | 23 | 23
iol | Zi fground| 1072} s4 | 54] 47 | 66 | 12 22 23 | 23 | 23
oF | 24 ground} 1073] 58 58] si | 67 | 13 2B 2 | 25 | 23
102A] 24  |ground ' 23 | 23 | 23
103 | 23 |ground} 1069] 60 |oo] ss} 71 | 17 27 23 | 23 | 23
104] Zi [ground] 1074] 59 [60] 53 | 74 | 20 30 33 | 33 | 23
Page 18

4991 ROI VOI.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care

d

Page 25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coxaues ees
105 | 24 |ground} 1067] 54 |55] 48] 68 | 14 24 23 | 29 | 24
106 | Z1 Iground} 1066} 53 | 54} 47] 66 | 12 2 25 | 25 | 23
107 | ZI |ground} 1065} 53 |53| 46] 65 | II 21 23 | 23 | 23
108 | Z4 [ground] 106.4 $3 53] 46 64 10 20 23 | 23 23
109 | ZI Iground] 1022} 52 [52] 45] 62 | 8 18 23 | 23 | 23
110 | 22 |ground| 1023] 53 |53] 4 | 62 | 8 18 23] 23 | 23
It | 22 [ground] 1023] 53 | 53] 46] 61 8 17 23 | 23 | 23
112 | 23 |ground| 1024] 53 | 53} 46] 61 8 17 23 | 23 | 23
113 | ZI |ground} 1026) 55 |55| 48] 63 | 10 19 23 | 23 | 23
114F} Z4 |groundl 1027] 56 [56] 49] 67 | 13 23 23 | 23 | 23
114A} 24 [ground 4 | 24 | 23}
115F | 24 ground 1020] 57 |57] So} 66 | 12 2 23 | 23 | 23
IISA} 24. ground 24 24, adn oo
116 | 22 |ground| 1020] 55 |S6} 49 | 64 | 1 20 23 | 23 | 23
117 | 24 |ground| 101.9] 54 | 54] 47] 65 Jul 21 23 2B 23
118 | Zt ground} to17] $3 53] 46 | 65 fit 21 23 | 23 | 23
119] zi |ground 1oie) 52 |s2| 45} 65 fu 21 23 | 23 | 23
120 | 24 |ground] 101.3] 50 |50| 43 | 57 | 5 13 23 | 23 | 23
121 | Zt |ground] 1023] 55 |55| 48 | 71 | 17 27 23 | 23 | 23
122 | 24 |ground] 1025] 55 |55| 48 | 72 | 18 28 24 | 30 | 23
123 | Zt |ground| 1023] 56 |56| 49 | 7 [17 27 29 | 29 | 23
124 | 22 |ground| 1020] 57 |57] 50 | 68 | 14 24 24 | 30 | 23
125 | Z3 |ground] 1020] 58 | 58] 51 69 | 15 25 2 | 23 | 23
luswG ground] 1030} 55 | 55} 48] 65 | UI 21 29 | 29 | 23
UWG ground] 103.0 54 54] 47 64 10 20 23 23 23
Page 19

4991RO1VO1.doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care

d

Page 26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNG ground} 103.0 52 §2] 45 62 8 18 23 23 23
USG ground! 103.0 53 54] 47 68 14 24 23 23 23
UsSWwI first | 103.0 58 59] 52 70 16 26 23 23 23
Uwl first | 103.0 $7 57} 50 69 15 25 28 28 23
UNI first | 103.0 $5 55} 48 67 13 23 27 / 27 / 23
USI first | 103.0 56 56] 49 70 16 26 29 29 23
vec ground] 103.5 5k 52] 45 60 7 16 23 23 23
Page 20

499 1ROIVOI doc Proposed RSL Care Retirement Village Cooroy RSL Care

d

 

Page 27

ifs

2

 

 

_

 
 
    
   
 

   

50 Park Road

PO Box 2185 Milton

' QLD 4064 Australia
+61 7 3320 3600 : tel

+61 7 3320 3636 : fax

[email protected]

 

   

 

pea
McCormickRankinCagney

aber 13 O50 308 504

3427

6 March 2009

RSL Care - Corporate Service
C\- Plan Tech Town Planners P/L
Po Box 228

Esk QLD 4312

Attention: Larry Kumskov

Dear Larry, 4

Re: Cooroy Retirement Community - 19 Trading Post Rd, Cooroy
-Response to Council's Further Information Request

We refer to Council’s further information request in relation to the operation of the Elm Street /
Diamond Street intersection which was included in an email from Sunshine Coast Regional
Council dated 6 February 2009.

The request and our response to the request are provided below.

We have had a brief telephone discussion with Council's town planner, Tracy Jones, to outline
the contents of this response.

1.0 Request
“Trafic

Council's latter of 4 October 2008 required a calibration of the traffic model for the intersection
analysis for Elim and Diamond Street including an associated validation report. Council's Traffic
Engineer was not satisfied with the response provided by MéCormick Rankin Cagney as no
evidence was provided to validate the model. With regard to the comment made in the
information response that it is a main roads intersection, the intersection also involves Council
roads and therefore an upgrade of this intersection would also require funding trom Council. In
the past, Council has sought contributions from other developments in the area towards the
upgrade of this intersection.”

 

3427-002(1) - RFl.doc

 

 

Page 28

 

 

"

2.0 Response

The submitted traffic report’ undertaken by McCormick Rankin Cagney (MRC) assessed the
impact that the proposed development would have on the external road network, which
included the intersection of Diamond Street and Elm Street, during the AM and PM peak hour
periods up to the design horizon year of 2020.

The 2010 and 2020 traffic volumes were determined from factoring 2007 survey data by a 3%
pa compound growth rate. Intersection analysis software SIDRA3.2 was used to determine
what additional impact the proposed development would have on the operation of the Elm
Street / Diamond Street intersection during the AM and PM road peak periods.

Figure 4 of the initial traffic report (Ref 1) illustrated the layout of the existing intersection and is
replicated below.

 

 

eT

 

 

Figure 1. Existing Eim Street / Diamond Street intersection

The performance criterion upon which performance intersections is assessed is defined in
Section 6.4.1 - Limits of acceptable operation of the Department of Main Roads document?
which states:

‘Priority junctions — the Degree of Saturation for any movement should not exceed 0.80
\ > Queue lengths — the 95%ile confidence limit should generally be used for queue fengthse ImN

80

' Cooroy Retirement Community, 19 Trading Post Road, Traffic impact Assessment, 14 July 2008. McCormick Rankin
Cagney.

? Guidelines for Assessment of Road impacts of Development, 1 April,2006, Queensland Department of Main Roads,

 

9427-002(1) - AFl.doc

if

ol he

 

 

 

get

Page 29

 

 

Based on the DMR defined limits, the analysis concluded the following:

1. During 2010, without the development the unsignalised intersection of Etm Street /
Diamond Street will operate within an acceptable degree of saturation in both the AM
and PM peak periods {ie 0.60 and 0.47 respectively). Refer Table 3 below extracted
from the traffic report (Ref 1).

Table 3: 2010 Base Case Traffic SIDRA Analyses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highest
Totat Highest
n Traffic En aerate OO rns oon a AM Level Of
intersection (vph) Delay (sec) 2 0. 9
‘AM Peak Hour
Em Street /
Stree! 1837 0.60 40 18.2 D
Ein Street /
865 0.30 12 12 8B
Elm Street / ¢
. rect 1693 0.47 22 29 Do 4
‘Bim Street 7
D Road 860 0.23 17 12 B

 

 

Note: Practical Maximum Degree of Saturation (X,) for unsignalised intersections is 0.80.

2. During 2010, the unsignalised intersection of Elm Street / Diamond Street will continue~ ~*~“

to operate within an acceptable degree of saturation in both the AM and PM peak
periods with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed development. Refer
Table 6 below extracted from the traffic report (Ref 1).

Table 6; 2010 Design Analysis - Elm Street / Diamond Street - unsignalised

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Movement Volume Degree of Delay (s) 95” %ile Queue
(vph) Saturation () (m)
/ AM Peak Hour
Elm Street (south (7) 334 0.18 0.0 0
Eim Street (south (R)) 252 0.35 14 18
Diamond Street (L) 427 0.62 16 42
Diamond Street (R) 89 0.51 40 20
Elm Street North (L) 272 0.15 8.4 0
Elm Street North (1) 533 0.28 0.0 0
PM Peak Hour
Elm Street.South (1) 399 0.21 0.0 0
Elm Street South (R) 306 0.30 11 14
Diamond Street (L) 370 0.43° 12 24
Diamond Strest (R) 132 0.57 34 24
Elm Street North (L) 215 0.12 9 0
Elm Street North (T) 374 0.20 0.0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Practical Maximum Degree of Saturation (x,) for unsignalised intersections is 0.80. c

 

werw.mrcagney.com consuitants in transportation

 

 

9427-002(1) - RFi.doc

 

 

Page 30

 

 

3.

As noted in our response dated 20 November to the Council's information request
dated 4” October:

As summarised in Table 3 and 6 of the traffic report (Ref 1) the aaSIDRA analysis of the
Elm Street / Diamond Street unsignalised T-intersection indicated that the intersection is
expected to operate within acceptable operational limits (i.e. Degree of Saturation < 0.8)
during the 2010 AM and PM road peak penods, albeit with an average delay for the
right tum movement from Diamond Street into Elm Street of approximately 40 seconds
and a corresponding 95%ile queue length of approximately 3 vehicles (20m) during the
AM peak.

While the Level of Service (LOS) ‘E’ for the nght tum movement during AM peak is a
reflection of duration of delay for this movement the volume of traffic affected is only
approximately 17% of the total volume approaching the intersection from Diamond
Street.

When considering both the left and rnght tum movements the aaSIDRA analysis :
indicated a LOS ‘C’ for the Diamond Street approach which is within acceptable limits. d

Prior to 2020 the Diamond Street / Elm Street intersection would exceed its operational

capacity and for this reason it is expected that this intersection would need to be

signalised prior to 2020. As summarised in Table 9 of the traffic report (Ref 1), the Elm .

St / Diamond St signalised intersection would operate satisfactorily with additional traffic ~~"
generated by the proposed development. Further, the addition of traffic generated by

the proposed development would only increase in the Degree of Saturation of the critical

movement by 0.01 which is considered to be negligible.

On the basis of the above the predicted traffic outcomes for 2020 are not considered
errant given the intersection needs to be signalised prior to 2020 without the proposed
development,

Council's concern appears to relate to the issue that the intersection is currently experiencing
congestion and delays.

In response to this issue it is unclear whether:

x

the delays are being experienced occur during the afternoon (ie school) period which is
outside the period required to be considered by the Applicant; or

the delays which would be a short duration (ie Smins) and would not be expected to
exceed more than 3-4 vehicles during the AM and PM road peak periods (which is
within acceptable DMR limits, albeit at the upper end of the threshold) are being
perceived by local motorists are unacceptable.

Regardless the assessed performance of the intersection is within acceptable limits.

 
   

 

weew.mrcagney.com consultants in transportation

3427-002(1) - AFI.doc

 

 

 

Page 31

 

 

Council has also requested validation of the traffic model.

It is important to note that SIDRA 3.2 is an analytical software package. Validation of transport
models is generally applicable to simulation model (eg. VISSIM, Paramics) and strategic
predictive models (eg VISUM, EMME/2). Validation is not generally applied to an analytical
software package, however consideration has been given to testing the input parameters to
determine if this makes any difference to the assessment. The following is a discussion on the
input parameter critical to the analytical analysis - gap acceptance.

2.1 Gap Acceptance Parameters

The assessment in the initial traffic report (Ref 1) adopted the following critical gap
acceptance (t.) and follow-up headway (t) parameters:

N MRC adopted Gap Acceptance Parameters for two-way / two-lane roads

® — Right-turn from Diamond Road - t= §.5s
, - t =3.0s ,
= Left-turn from Diamond Road - t=4.5s
- t =2.5s
* — Right-turn from Elm Street across one-lane—- ta = 4.0s
- t =2.0s _
These parameters — RRREE R  m

NM Are based on over 20 years of assessment undertaken by MRC and has been
accepted by the Planning and Environment Court in numerous appeals; and

Are similar to those provided within the Department of Main Roads’ (DMR)
“Road Planning and Design Manual”, although it is noted that the DMR
parameters would produce slightly modified results at the Diamond Street
approach as the critical gap (t,) in DMR’s manual is 5s for the right-tum
movement, which is less than the critical gap adopted in the initial assessment,
and 5s for the left-turn movement, which is higher than the critical gap adopted
in the initial assessment.

The DMR parameters are listed below:

DMR Gap Acceptance Parameters for two-way / two-lane roads

 

* — Right-turn from Diamond Road . - t = 5.0s
. : - t =3.0s
s — Left-turn from Diamond Road - t = 5.0s
- tr = 2.0-3.0s (~2.5s)
= Right-turn from Elm Street across one-lane-- t = 4.0s “
- t =2.0s

     

wrerw.mreagney.com cofsuttants in transportation
3427-002{1) - RFI.doc

 

 

Page 32

 

 

2.2 2010 Comparative Analysis

A comparative assessment using the parameters adopted in the initial traffic report and
the parameters recommended by DMR has been undertaken for the 2010 base and
2010 design traffic volumes. The 2010 base and design traffic volumes have been
extracted from the submitted traffic report (Ref 1). The results are depicted in Tables 1
and 2 below. The Movement Summary for each assessment are attached to this letter.

From the addition assessment:

N The Elm Street / Diamond Street intersection would theoretically operate within
acceptable limits in 2010 when adopting the two scenarios of gap acceptance
parameters (MRC adopted and DMR), with and without the subject
development;

N Average delays of up to 33.8s and 40.3s could be expected during the base
and design cases, respectively. These delays correspond to a Level of Service
of D during the base case and E during the design case.

te

N The right-turn movement would provide more capacity when adopting DMR’s
recommended gap acceptance parameters;

NM The left-turn movement would provide slightly less capacity when adopting ;
DMR’s recommended gap acceptance parameters- though this is not a critical -"““""~
movement;

NA maximum average increased delay, if adopting MRC’s gap acceptance
parameters, between the base and design cases would be 6.5s (i.e. from 33.8s
to 40.3s). This increased delay would reduce to just 3.5s if adopting DMR’s
recommended gap acceptance parameters for the same movement. This delay
would occur for right-turning traffic from Diamond Street. The average increase
in delay for all other movements and for both gap acceptance scenarios would
be equal to or less than 1s, which is considered insignificant;

The degree of saturation for the critical right-turn movement would increase by
between 7% and 10% with the traffic likely to be generated by the
development. The degree of saturation would increase by no more than 3% for
all other movements.

Overall, the SIDRA results indicate that the impact of the traffic likely to be generated by
the development is relatively consistent for the two gap acceptance scenarios (i.e. those
adopted by MRC and those recommended by DMR) assessed herein. Further, by
2010, the average delay for the right-turn movement from Diamond Street onto Elm
Street would be above 30s without the subject development, which provides some
acknowledgement to Council's comment in its information request dated 4 October
2008 that “..delay problems are occurring at this intersection now.”

 

3427-002(1) - RFl.doc

 

 

Page 33

 

 

This analysis provides a level of comparative validation that the parameters adopted
within the assessment of the Elm Street / Diamond Street intersection are appropriate
and considered as close as practicable to the existing traffic operations, and generally
consistent with the parameters recommended in DMR’s “Road Planning and Design
Manual”.

Table 1: SIDRA Output Data Summary: Anatysis of the Diamond Street / Elm Street
intersection during the 2010 base year (with the initially adopted and DMR gap
acceptance parameters)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degree aa Delay (2) 95" %ile Queue (m)
Time Movement MRC MRC MRC
Pertod Adopted | OMRGap | Adopted | OMRGap | Adopted | DMR Gap
Gap Parameters Gap Parameters Gap Parameters
Parameters Parameters Parameters
Etm St south (T) 0.17 0.17 0.0 0.0 0
Elm St south (R) 0.33 0.33 13.8 13.8 17 17
AM Diamond St (L) 0.60 0.66 15.1 18.5 40 54 7
Peak Diamond St (R) 0.42 0.34 33.8 26.1 16 12 :
Elm St North (L) 0.15 0.15 8.4 8.4 0
Elm St North (1) 0.27. 0.27, 0.0 _ 0.0 0 0
Elm St South (1) 0.19 0.19 0.0 0.0 0 0
Elm St South (R) 0.31 0.31 11.8 11.8 16 16
PM Diamond St (L) 0.41 0.43 11 12.4 22 27
Peak | Diamond St (R) 0.47 0.39 28.7 22.6 18 _14 cai
Elm St North (L} 0.11 0.11 8.2 8.2 0 om
Elm St North (T) 0.19 0.19 0.0 0.0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Practicat Maximum Degree of Saturation (X,) for unsignalised intersections ts 0.80."

Table 2: SIDRA Output Data Summary: Analysis of the Diamond Street / Eim Street
intersection during the 2010 design year (with the initially adopted and DMR gap
acceptance parameters)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degree ~O turation Delay (s) 96" %ile Queue (m)
Time Movement MRC MRG MRC
Period Adopted DMR Gap Adopted DMR Gap Adopted OMR Gap
Gap Parameters Gap Parameters Gap Parameters
Parameters Parameters Parameters
Elm St south (1) 0.18 0.17 0.0 0.0 0 0
Elm St south (R) 0.35 0.35 14.3 14.3 18 17
AM Diamond St (L) 0.62 0.69 15.9 19.5 42 54
Peak Dlamond St (R) 0.61 0.41 40.3 29.6 20 12
Elm St North (L) 0.15 0.15 8.4 8.4 0 0
Elm St North (1) 0.28 0.28 0.0. 0.0 0 mo
Elm St South (1) 0.21 0.21 0.0 0.0 0 0
Elm St South (R) 0.30 - 0.30 11.4 11.4 14 14
PM Diamond St (L) 0.43 0.46 11.6 13.0 24 30
Peak Diamond St (R) 0.57 0.47 33.8 25.4 24 18 |
~~ Elm St North () 0.12 0412 °- 8.5 8.5 0 0 _
Elm St North (1) 0.20 0.20 0.0 0.0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Practical Maximum Degree of Saturation (<) for unsignalised intersections is 0.80.

 

3427-002(1) - RFl.doc

 

 

 

Page 34

 

 

2.3 2020 Scenario

As detailed in the submitted traffic report, the Diamond Street / Elm Street intersection
would exceed its operational capacity by the base year of 2020 (.e. without the subject
development) and for this reason it is expected that this intersection would need to be
signalised by others prior to 2020.

As summarised in Table 9 of the traffic report (Ref 1), the Elm St / Diamond St
intersection as a signalised intersection would operate satisfactorily with the additional
traffic generated by the proposed development.

Based on the above, the additional detailed analysis indicates that the proposed development
does not adversely impact the operation of the network and therefore the Applicant should not
be responsible for contributing to the upgrade of the intersection.

Yours sincerely,

Gerard Reardon
Associate Director
McCormick Rankin Cagney

Enc.

 

 

9427-002(1) - RFI.doc

 

 

 

Page 35

ir
Ww

Movement Summary Page | of |

”

SIDRA =
INTERSECTION

Movement Summary

Elm Street / Diamond Street intersection

MRC Parameters 2010 Design - AM Peak - unsignalised
Give-way

Vehicle Movements

 

 

 

 

 

Dem Deg of Aver 95% Aver
MovID Turn Flow HV Satn Delay wevel or ‘Qucwe, Quonca Fee Stop Speed
(veh/h) {v/ce)} (sec) (m) (km/h)
Elm Street (South) .
2 T 334 10.5 0.183 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0 SES
3 R 252 9.9 0.349 14.3 LOS B 18 0.69 0.96 43.3
Approach 586. 10.2 0.348 6.2 LOS A 18 0.30 0.41 51.5
Diamond Street ‘
4 L 427 5.4 0.618 15.9 Los C 42 0.74 1.10 42.1
6 R 89 9.0 0.514 40.3 LOS E 20 0.92 1.07 28.5
Approach 516 6.0 0.618 20.1 Los c 42 0.77 1.09 38.9
a" ”
£im Street (North)
7 L 272 5.1 0.152 8.4 LOS A 0 0.00 0.67 49.0
8 T 533 5.4 0.283 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 80s 5.3 0.283 2.8 LOS A 0.00 0.23 55.8
All Vehicles 1907 7.0 0.618 85 appt a

 

Symbols which may appear In this table:

Following Degree of Saturation
# x = 1,00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow
* x = 1,00 due to minimum capacity

Following LOS
# - Based on density for continuous movements

Following Queue
# - Density for continuous movement

+

SIDRA SOLUTIONS

Site: 2010 Design - AM Peak - unsignalised . .
T:\3400-3499\3427 - Cooroy Retirément Community\SIDRA\March 2009\Elm Street - Diamond Street Intersectlon.aap
Processed Mar 06, 2009 02:30:38PM .

A1059, McCormick Rankin Cagney, Large Office

Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.2.2.1563
Copyright ©2000-2008 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com

 

about:blank 06/03/2009

Page 36

Movement Summary Page | of |

SIDRA ==
INTERSECTION

Movement Summary

Elm Street / Diamond Street intersection

MRC Parameters 2010 Base - PM Peak

Glve-way

Vehicle Movements

 

 

 

 

 

95%
Dem Deg of Aver Aver
MovID = Turn Flow HV Satn Delay yevel or Queue, Quowe d ert, Stop Speed
(veh/b) (w/c) (sec) (m) (km/h)
£m Street (South)
2 T 351 10.8 0.193 0.0 LOS A Oo 0.00 0.00 60.0
3 R 306 11.1 0.314 11.8 Los B 16 0.60 0.85 45.6
Approach 657 11.0 0,314 5.5 LOSA 16 0.28 0.39 52.3
Diamond Street
4 L 370 1.9 0.405 11.0 Los B 22 0.58 0.84 46.3
6 R 117 0.0 0.466 28.7 Los 0 18 0.88 1.05 33.4
Approach 487 1.4 0.466 15.3 Los ¢c 22 0.65 0.89 42.4
Elm Street (North)
7 L 200 0.0 0,108 8.2 LOS A 0 0.00 0.67 49.0
8 T 349 4.9 0.185 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach Ba9 3.1 0.185 3.0 LOSA 0.00 0.24 55.5
Not
All Vehicles 1693 5.7 0.466 7.5 Applicable 22 0.30 0.49 49.9

 

Symbols which may appear in this table:

Following Degree of Saturation
# x = 1,00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow
* x = 1.00 due to minimum capacity

Following LOS
# - Based on density for continuous movements

Following Queve
# - Density for continuous. movement

+ .

SIDRA SOLUTIONS

Site: 2010 Base - PM. Peak -. unsignalised .
T:\3400-3499\3427 - Cooroy Retirement Community\SIDRA\March 2009\Elm Street - Diamond Street Intersection.aap
Processed Mar 06, 2009 02:31:44PM

A1059, McCormick Rankin Cagney, Large Office

Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.2.2.1563
Copyright ©2000-2008 Akcellk and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com

about:blank 06/03/2009

Page 37

. +

‘SIDRA SOLUTIONS

Movement Summary , Page | of |

SIDRA =
INTERSECTION

Movement Summary

Elm Street / Diamond Street intersection

MRC Parameters 2010 Base - AM Peak

Give-way

Vehicle Movements

 

 

 

 

 

95%
Dem Deg of Aver Aver
MovID Turn Flow %HV Satn Delay bevel or Rocue Quons 'd Eff. Stop Speed
(veh/h) (v/c) (sec) (m) (km/h)
Elm Street (South)
2 T 306 10.5 0.168 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0 =
3 R 252 99 0.333 13.8 LOS B 17 0.67 0.95 43.7 .
Approach 558 10.2 0.333 6.3 LOSA 17 0.30 0.43 51.4
Diamond Street
4 L 427 5.4 0.596 18.1 Los c 40 0.72 1.07 42.7
6 R 82 8.5 0.421 33.8 LOS D 16 0.90 1.04 31.1
Approach s09 5.9 0.595 18.2 Los c¢ 40 0.75 1.07 40.3
ke te
Elim Street (North)
7 L 260 5.4 0.145 8.4 LOS A 0 0,00 0.67 49.0
8 T 510 5.5 0.271 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 770 5.5 0.271 2.8 LOSA 0.00 0.23 33.8
Not
All Vehicles 1837 7.0 0.596 8.1 Applicable 40 0.30 0.52 49.2

 

Symbols which may appear in this table:

Following Degree of Saturation
# x = 1,00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow
* x = 1,00 due to minimum capacity

Following LOS
# - Based on density for continuous movements

Following Queue
# - Density for continuous movement

/-

Site: 2010 Base - AM Peak - unsignalised ze
T:\3400-3499\3427 - Cooroy Retirement Community\SIDRA\March 2009\Elm Street - Diamond Street Intersection.aap
Processed Mar 06, 2009 02:32:30PM

A1059, McCormick Rankin Cagney, Large Office

Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3,2,2,1563
Copyright @2000-2008 Akcefik and Assoclates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com

 

* about:blank 06/03/2009

Page 38

 

 

 

 

 

Movement Summary Page 1 of |
SIDRA ==
INTERSECTION
Movement Summary
Elm Street / Diamond Street intersection
DMR Parameters 2010 Design - PM Peak - unsignalised
Give-way
Vehicle Movements
. 95%
: Dem Deg of Aver Aver
MovID = Turn Flow %HV Satn Delay hevel of Gocue. Quevcs Eff, Stop Speed
(veh/h) (v/c) {sec) (m) (km/h)
Elm Street (South)
2 T 399 1.3 0.206 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0
3 R 306 2.9 0.303 11.4 LOS B 14 0.60 0.85 45.7
Approach 705 2.0 0.303 5.0 LOS A 14 0.26 0.37 52.9 ;
Diamond Street
4 L 370 49 0.458 13.0 LOS B 30 0.67 0.94 44.5
6 R 132 3.8 0.470 25.4 LOS D 18 0.86 1.05 35.3
Approach 502 4.6 0.470 16.2 Los c 30 0.72 0.97 41.7
Sonera ae
£lm Street (North)
7 L 215 8.8 0.123 8.5 LOS A 0 0.00 0.67 49.0
8 T 374 5.6 0.199 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 589 6.8 0.199 3.1 LOS A 0.00 0.24 55.4
Not
All Vehicles 1796 4.3 0.470 7-5 appticable 30 0.30 0.50 49.9

 

Symbols which may appear In this table:

Following Degree of Saturation

# x = 1.00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow

* x = 1.00 due to minimum capacity

Following LOS

# - Based on density for continuous movements

Following Queue

# - Density for continuous movement

+

SIDRA SOLUTIONS

Site: 2010 Design - PM Peak - unsignalised
T:\3400-3499\3427 - Cooroy Retirement Community\SIDRA\March 2009\DMR Gaps Elm Street - Diamond Street

Intersection.aap

Processed Mar 06, 2009 02:25:23PM

A1059, McCormick Rankin Cagney, Large Office

Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.2.2.1563
Copyright ©2000-2008 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com

about:blank

06/03/2009

el

Page 39

»

 

 

 

 

 

Movement Summary Page 1 of |
SIDRA
BOR SECTION
Movement Summary
Elm Street / Diamond Street intersection
DMR Parameters 2010 Design - AM Peak - unsignalised
Give-way
Vehicle Movements
. 95%
Dem Deg of Aver Aver
MovID Turn Flow %HV — Satn = Delay Level of mack of Quewed EF. StOP Speed
(veh/h) (v/c) (sec) (m) (km/h)
Elm Street (South)
2 T 334 10.5 0.183 0.0 LOS A o 0.00 0.00 60.0
3 R 252 9.9 0.349 14,3 LOS B 18 0.69 0.96 43.3
Approach 586 10.2 0.348 6.2 LOSA 18 0.30 0.41 51.5 }
Diamond Street
4 L 427 5.4 0.689 19.8 Los C 58 0.81 1,23 39.2.
6 R 89 9.0 0.412 29.6 LOS D 15 0.88 1.03 33.2
Approach 516 6.0 0.688 21.5 Los c 58 0.82 1.19 38.0
ae een» le
Etm Street (North) :
7 L 272 5.4 0,152 8.4 LOS A 0 0.00 0.67 49.0 7
8 T 533 5.4 0.283 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 805 5.3 0.283 2.8 LOSA 0.00 0.23 55.8
Not é
All Vehicles 1907 7.0 0.689 8.9 Applicable 58 0.31 0.54 48.4

 

Symbols which may appear In this table:

Following Degree of Saturation

# x = 1,00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow

* x = 1,00 due to minimum capacity

Following LOS

# - Based on density for continuous movements

Following Queue
# - Density for continudus movement

+

SIDRA SOLUTIONS

Site: 2010 Design - AM Peak - unsignalised

T:\3400-3499\3427. - Cooroy Retirement Community\SIDRA\March 2009\DMR Gaps Elim Street - Diamond Street

Intersection.aap
Processed Mar 06, 2009 02:25:22PM

A1059, McCormick Rankin Cagney, Large Office
Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.2.2.1563
Copyright ©2000-2008 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd

www.,sidrasolutions.com

about:blank

06/03/2009

Page 40

 

 

 

 

 

Movement Summary Page 1 of 1
‘
SIDRA wo
INTERSECTION
Movement Summary
Elm Street / Diamond Street intersection
DMR Parameters 2010 Base - PM Peak
Give-way
Vehicle Movements
95%
Dem Deg of Aver Aver
MovID Turn Flow  %HV Satn _—Delay tevet or Gocue Quewed Eff. Stop Speed
: (veh/h) (v/e) (sec) (m) (km/h)
Elm Street (South)
2 T 351 10.8 0.193 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0
3 R 306 11.1 0.314 11.8 Los B 16 0.60 _ 0.85 45.6
Approach 657 11.0 0.314 5.5 LOSA 16 0.28 0.39 §2.3
Diamond Street
4 L 370 1.9 0.434 12.1 LOS B 27 0.64 0.89 45.2
6 R 117 0.0 0.389 22.6 Los C 14 0.83 1.01 36.9
Approach 487 1.4 0.434 14.6 Los B 27 0.69 0.92 42.9
Elm Street (North) =
7 L 200 0.0 0.108 8.2 LOS A 0 0.00 0.67 49.0
8 T 349 49 0.185 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0
Approach 549 3.1 0.185 3.0 LOS A 0.00 0.24 55.5
Not
All Vehicles 1693 5.7 0.434 7.3 Applicable 27 0.31 0.50 50.1

 

Symbols which may appear tn this table:

Following Degree of Saturation

# x = 1,00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow

* x = 1.00 due to minimum capacity

Following LOS

# - Based on density for continuous movements

Following Queue
# - Density for continuous movement

+

SIDRA SOLUTIONS

Site: 2010 Base - PM Peak - unsignalised

T:\3400-3499\3427 - Cooroy Retirement Community\SIDRA\March 2009\DMR Gaps Elm Street - Diamond Street

Intersection.aap .
Processed Mar 06, 2009 02:25:21PM

A1059, McCormick Rankin Cagney, Large Office
Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.2.2.1563
Copyright ©2000-2008 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd

www. sidrasolutions,com

about:blank

06/03/2009

Page 41

Movement Summary Page 1 of !

é

SIDRA =>
INTERSECTION

Movement Summary

Elm Street / Diamond Street intersection

DMR Parameters 2010 Base - AM Peak

Give-way

Vehicle Movements

 

95%

 

 

 

 

Dem Deg of Aver Aver
Mov ID Turn Flow HV Satn Delay evel or ‘Que x of Quewes Bet. Stop Speed
{veh/h) (v/c) (sec) (m) (km/h)
Elm Street (South)
2 T 306 10.5 0.168 0.0 LOS A ° 0.00 0.00 60.0
3 R 252 9.9 0.333 13.8 Los B 17 0.67 0.95 43.7
Approach 588 10.2 0.333 6.3 LOSA 17 0.30 0.43 51.4 ;
i
i
Diamond Street . 3
4 L 427 5.4 0.660 18.5 Los Cc 54 0.79 1.19 40.1
6 R 82 8.5 0.342 26.1 Los D 12 0.85 1.00 35.0
Approach 509 5.9 0.660 19.7 tosc [email protected] 1.16 39.2
- ne ellie
Elm Street (North)
7 L 260 5.4 0.145 8.4 LOS A oO 9.00 0.67 49.0
8 T 510 5.5 0.271 0.0 LOS A oO 0.00 0.00 60.0. -
Approach 770 5.5 0.271 2.8 LOsSA 0.00 0.23 55.8
- Not
All Vehicles 1837 7.0 0.660 8.5 Applicable s4 0.32 0.55 48.7

 

Symbols which may appear In this table:

Following Degree of Saturation
# x = 1.00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow
* x = 1,00 due to minimum capacity

Following LOS
# - Based on density for continuous movements

Following Queue
# - Density for continuous movement

4
Cc ;
SIDRA SOLUTIONS

Site: 2010 Base - AM Peak - unsignalised

T:\3400-3499\3427 - Cooroy Retirement Community\SIDRA\March 2009\DMR Gaps Elm Street - Diamond Street
Intersection.aap

Processed Mar 06, 2009 02:25:21PM

A1059, McCormick Rankin Cagney, Large Office

Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.2.2.1563
Copyright ©2000-2008 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions,com

about:blank 06/03/2009

Page 42

Movement Summary Page 1 of 1

a

SIDRA eel -
INTERSECTION

Movement Summary

Elm Street / Diamond Street intersection

MRC Parameters 2010 Design - PM Peak - unsignalised
Glve-way

Vehicle Movements

 

 

 

 

 

 

95%
Dem Deg of Aver Aver
MovID Tum Flow %HV  Satn Delay Level or rte cof Quoved Eft. Stop Speed
(veh/h) (w/c) (sec) (m) (km/h)
£tm Street (South)
2 T 399 13 0.206 0.0 LOS A 0 0.00 0.00 60.0
3 R 306 2.9 0.303 11.4 LOS B 14 0.60 0.85 45.7 4
Approach 705 2.0 0.303 5.0 LOSA 14 0.26 0.37 52.9 j
Diamond Street é
4 L 370 4.9 0.425 11.6 Los B 24 0.60 0.89 45.8
6 R 132 3.8 0.569 33.8 Los D 24 0.91 111 31.1
Approach 502 4.6 0.570 17.5 tos c 24 0.68 0.94 40.8
. “ sae
Elm Street (North)
7 L 215 8.8 0.123 8.5 LOS A 0 0.00 0.67 49.0
8 T 374 5.6 0.199 0.0 LOS A 0 6.00 0.00 60.0
Approach s89 6.8 0.199 3.2 LOSA 0.00 0.24 55.4
: Not
All Vehicles 1796 43 0.569 7.8 Applicable 24 0.29 0.49 49.5

 

Symbols which may appear in this table:

Following Degree of Saturation
#x = 1,00 for Short Lane with resulting Excess Flow
* yx = 1.00 due to minimum capacity

Following LOS
# - Based on density for continuous movements

Following Queue
# - Density for continuous movement

+

SIDRA SOLUTIONS

Site: 2010 Design - PM Peak - unsignalised sty
T:\3400-3499\3427 - Cooroy Retirement Community\SIDRA\March 2009\Elm Street - Diamond Street Intersection.aap
Processed Mar 06, 2009 02:31:10PM

A1059, MeCormick Rankin Cagney, Large Office

Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.2.2.1563
Copyright ©2000-2008 Akcellk and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com

 

about:blank 06/03/2009