D. Traffic Report

    m) Any road widening necessary to cater for the frontage works

Response 9
Attached MRCagney Figure 2 illustrates the proposed location of the repositioned bus stop, the bus
manoeuvring and available sight lines / distances. References are made to this below, specific to each issue
raised:

    h) A review of TransLink service data indicates two services utilise the stop (629 and 630). On
           weekdays, the 629 service runs hourly between 8:00am and 6:00pm, with the 630 service running
           up to 4 services between 6:00am and 9:00am depending on the specific day. Based on the service
           frequency, the existing bus stop arrangement can be classified as a ‘regular stop’ - low frequency
           services with low customer demand, as per Table 5.1 of Translink’s Public Transport Infrastructure
           Manual (PTIM). A regular bus stop is an ‘on-road‘ bus stop. As specified in Table 5.7 of the PTIM,
           the layout of an ‘on-road’ bus stop comprises a minimum bay length of 25m (for a single bus; this
           allows for ~15m bus parking and ~10m entry taper, with a departure length of 10m). Attached
           MRCagney Figure 2 illustrates the designated bay length of 15m available for a bus, with a 21m
           entry taper available due to the proposed removal of kerbside parking along the parking lane.
           Buses are able to re-enter the flow of traffic unimpeded, with the parking lane and service station
           egress providing an exit taper of approximately 14m;

    i)     Maintaining the existing bus stop arrangement will not worsen the available sight distances for
           egressing motorists. The traffic report mentioned that the land surrounding the site is flat,
           meaning sight distance is not limited (section 3.1). As shown on the attached Figure 2, a Minimum
           Gap Stopping Distance (MGSD) of 97m would be available for motorists egressing the site,
           measured 3.0m back from the kerb line. Further, a Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) of 81m is
           available for a motorist travelling westbound. As a ‘regular’ bus stop would contain a seat and sign
           only, the sight lines between traffic flows is unimpeded. If the existing bus shelter is retained, the
           structure offers sufficient sight line permeability not to impede the sight line;

    j)     An indented bus stop has not been proposed, nor considered warranted when assessed against
           Translink’s PTIM. The existing ‘on-road’ bus stop is to be retained;

    k) As demonstrated in the initial traffic report (section 4.5), an Auxiliary Left Turn Treatment (AUL) is
           warranted. However, a turn lane treatment is not considered necessary due to the wide road verge
           and presence of kerbside parking along the approach to the site. There also appears to be no turn
           lanes for any other developments in the vicinity of the site, most of which have comparable traffic
           generations (including several service stations) to the proposed development;

    l)     In order to move the location of the bus stop, no existing infrastructure would require relocation.
           The existing power pole situated next to the current bus shelter is unaffected by the proposed stop
           layout. However, as illustrated by Figure 1 within Appendix B of the traffic report, some on-street
           parking will have to be removed to accommodate the ingress crossover; and

    m) Road widening is not required to accommodate the bus stop in its relocated position.

Issue 10




                                                      2

                                                                                                 6396_B_RFI_001(2)_NSC.docx