Original source · versioned page text
MCU10/2083 Development Application part 2 - Attachment 5 - Traffic and Transport Assessment Report
Traffic & Transport Assessment Retail Development (37 Gibson Rd - Noosaville) 21 October 2010
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 34 pages
Page 2
Page 3
Halcrow Melbourne Level 1, 542 Station Street, Box Hill, VIC 3128 Tel +61 (0)3 9899 9777 Fax +61 (0)3 9899 1214 Email: [email protected] Sydney PO Box R1573, Royal Exchange NSW 1225 Level 22, 68 Pitt Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 Tel +61 (0)2 9250 9900 Fax +61 (0)2 9241 2228 Email: [email protected] Brisbane Level 5, 20 Wharf Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Tel +61 (0)7 3169 2900 Email: [email protected] © Halcrow Pacific Pty Ltd 2009 ABN: 45 061 920 849 www.halcrow.com/australasia
Page 4
Page 5
Traffic & Transport Assessment Retail Development (37 Gibson Rd, Noosaville) Contents Amendment Record This document has been issued and amended as follows: Issue 1 Rev Description Date Prepared by Checked by Authorised by 00 Draft for internal comment 28/09/10 D Hayward M Hulbert M Hulbert 01 Draft for Client comment 28/09/10 D Hayward M Hulbert M Hulbert 02 Final for DA Submission 21/10/10 D Hayward M Hulbert M Hulbert Document Location Y:\Consulting\Projects\CTLRNO - Gibson Rd (37) - Noosaville\30 - Programme & Progress\32 - Reports\CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL.doc Halcrow Melbourne Level 1, 542 Station Street, Box Hill, VIC 3128 Tel +61 (0)3 9899 9777 Fax +61 (0)3 9899 1214 Email: [email protected] Sydney PO Box R1573, Royal Exchange NSW 1225 Level 22, 68 Pitt Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 Tel +61 (0)2 9250 9900 Fax +61 (0)2 9241 2228 Email: [email protected] Brisbane Level 5, 20 Wharf Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Tel +61 (0)7 3169 2900 Fax +61 (0)7 3169 2999 Email: [email protected] © Halcrow Pacific Pty Ltd 2009 ABN: 45 061 920 849 www.halcrow.com/australasia
Page 6
Page 7
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Contents
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................1
2. Background Situation ............................................................................................2
2.1 Subject Site .......................................................................................................2
2.2 Existing Land Use .............................................................................................3
2.3 Surrounding Development.................................................................................3
2.4 Adjacent Roads .................................................................................................3
2.5 Public Transport ................................................................................................3
2.6 Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities...........................................................................4
3. Proposed Development .........................................................................................5
3.1 Proposed Land Use Area Schedule ..................................................................5
3.2 Proposed Car Parking Arrangements................................................................5
3.3 Proposed Access Driveway Arrangements .......................................................5
3.4 Proposed Service Vehicle Arrangements ..........................................................6
4. Car Parking Arrangements ....................................................................................7
4.1 Council Car Parking Requirements ...................................................................7
4.2 Adequacy of Proposed Car Parking Arrangements...........................................8
5. Existing Road Network Traffic Demands............................................................11
5.1 Existing Peak Period Traffic Surveys ..............................................................11
5.2 Existing Surveyed Truck Movement Percentages ...........................................11
5.3 Estimated Traffic Growth .................................................................................11
6. Estimated Future Road Network Traffic Demands ............................................12
6.1 Proposed Development Traffic Generation .....................................................12
6.2 Estimated Development Traffic Distribution.....................................................12
6.3 Future (2022) Base Case Traffic Demands .....................................................14
6.4 Future (2022) Project Case Traffic Demands ..................................................15
7. Road Network Performance.................................................................................16
7.1 SIDRA Analysis ...............................................................................................16
7.2 Gibson Rd / Thomas St / Skipper Pl Intersection Performance .......................16
7.3 Conclusion.......................................................................................................16
8. Access Driveway Arrangements .........................................................................17
8.1 Council Access Driveway Requirements .........................................................17
8.2 Access Driveway Arrangements & Their Adequacy ........................................17
9. Service Vehicle Arrangements ............................................................................18
9.1 Council Service Vehicle Requirements ...........................................................18
9.2 Proposed Service Arrangements & Their Adequacy .......................................18
10. Conclusion ............................................................................................................21
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL i
Page 8
Page 9
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Introduction
1. Introduction
This report has been prepared on behalf of Marquette Properties (the Applicant) to present the
findings of a study assessing the traffic and transport elements of a proposed retail development on
land at 37 Gibson Road, Noosaville. This report presents an assessment of the proposed
development in terms of on-site car parking, vehicular access, commercial vehicle servicing and
traffic impact on adjacent road network.
The assessment is presented in this report through the following sections:
• Section 2 - describes the background details of the subject development site,
adjacent road network and other related transport modes
• Section 3 - describes the proposed development
• Section 4 - assesses the proposed development’s car parking arrangements
• Section 5 - summarises the existing traffic demands on the surrounding road
network
• Section 6 - provides calculations on the future road network traffic demands
over the 10 year planning horizon with the proposed development
traffic included
• Section 7 - analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed development traffic
generation on the surrounding road network
• Section 8 - assesses the proposed development’s vehicular access
arrangements
• Section 9 - assesses the proposed development’s commercial vehicle
servicing arrangements
• Section 10 - concludes the study
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 1
Page 10
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Background Situation
2. Background Situation
2.1 Subject Site
The subject development site at 37 Gibson Road, Noosaville is described as Lot 1 on RP802167.
As shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, the subject site has frontage to Gibson Road and Skipper
Place. The subject site is contained within Sunshine Coast Regional Council (SCRC).
SUBJECT SITE
LOCATION
Copyright: 2010 Google – Map data
Figure 2-1 Site Locality - Map
SUBJECT SITE
LOCATION
Figure 2-2 Site Locality – Aerial Photo
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 2
Page 11
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Background Situation
2.2 Existing Land Use
Currently the subject site comprises of a nursery (Lifestyle Home and Garden) which includes
provision for approximately 25 car parking spaces that front Gibson Street as per the development
proposal.
2.3 Surrounding Development
The subject site is bound by residential dwelling subdivisions in most directions.
Opposite the site on the north-eastern corner of the Gibson Road / Thomas Street roundabout
intersection, is the Noosa Village Shopping Centre.
2.4 Adjacent Roads
The roads surrounding the subject site are under the jurisdiction of the SCRC. The characteristics
and hierarchy of the surrounding road network is presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Subject Site – Road Hierarchy and Characteristics
Road Lanes Speed Limit Classification Jurisdiction
2
Gibson Road 60kph Major Collector Road SCRC
(two-way, undivided)
2
Thomas Street 50kph Minor Collector Road SCRC
(two-way, undivided)
2
Skipper Place 50kph Minor Collector Road SCRC
(two-way, divided)
2
The Cockleshell 50kph Neighbourhood Access SCRC
(two-way, undivided)
2
Keel Court 50kph Local Access SCRC
(two-way undivided)
Approximate dimensions of cross-sectional elements of those roads fronting the subject site are
presented in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 Subject Site – Road Frontage Dimensions
Road Carriageway Width Verge Width Road Reserve Width
Gibson Road 9.5m 6m-17m 33m
Thomas Street 12.5m 4m-13.5m 30m
Skipper Place 12.5m 2m-10m 27m
2.5 Public Transport
Sunshine Coast Sunbus provide bus services for the subject site with bus stops located within
500m of the subject site. The bus services provide regular trips to key destinations within Noosa
Heads, Noosaville and Tewantin as well as Nambour Railway Station and Maroochydore. The
locations of the bus stops in relation to the subject site are presented in Figure 2-5. The frequency
of each bus service within the vicinity of the subject site are presented in Table 2-3.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 3
Page 12
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Background Situation
ROUTES 626, 627, 630, 631
WALK DISTANCE = 485M
SUBJECT SITE
LOCATION
Copyright: 2010 Google – Map data
Figure 2-5 Site Locality – Bus Stop Locations
Table 2-3 Subject Site – Bus Route Service Frequencies
Bus Service Provider Route Destination Peak Hour Trips Off Peak Trips
Sunshine Coast Sunbus 620 Maroochydore 0 per hour 1 per hour
Sunshine Coast Sunbus 626 Noosa Junction 2 per hour 2 per hour
Sunshine Coast Sunbus 627 Sunshine Beach 2 per hour 2 per hour
Sunshine Coast Sunbus 630 Nambour Station 0 per hour 1 per hour
Sunshine Coast Sunbus 631 Nambour Station 0 per hour 1 per hour
Total 4 per hour 7 per hour
2.6 Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian footpaths are provided on both sides of Gibson Road and the western side of Skipper
Place. The nearest formal pedestrian crossing of Gibson Road and Skipper Place is located at the
roundabout intersection located at the north-eastern corner of the subject site.
On-street bicycle lanes are provided on Gibson Road fronting the subject site.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL
Page 13
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Proposed Development
3. Proposed Development
3.1 Proposed Land Use Area Schedule
The schedule of land uses and gross floor areas (GFA) for the proposed development are
presented in Table 3-1. The proposed development is shown on drawings included in Appendix A.
Table 3-1 Subject Site – Proposed Land Use Area Schedule
Tenancy Land Use GFA
Gourmet foods / Café 165m2
1
Outdoor Dining Area 74m2
2 Liquor 144m2
3 Bank 143m2
4 Convenience Store 111m2
5 Pizza 92m2
6 Noodles / Sushi 73m2
7 Chicken 100m2
Burgers 87m2
8
Outdoor Dining Area 24m2
Total 1013m2
3.2 Proposed Car Parking Arrangements
The proposed retail development plan has provision for 65 car parking spaces which include the
following allocations:
• 55 visitor / customer car parking spaces
• 8 staff car parking spaces
• 2 disabled car parking spaces
Furthermore, it is proposed that 2 Service Van parking will have shared allocation for visitor /
customer parking spaces with visitors / customers able to utilise the van bays during the evening
period (i.e. after 5pm).
3.3 Proposed Access Driveway Arrangements
The access driveway arrangements for the proposed development including the following two
driveways:
• 8.5m wide (1m median divided) access driveway crossover located on Gibson Road for
left-in and left-out movements only
• 6.2m wide access driveway crossover located on Skipper Place
The design and location of the two access driveways are presented in Figure 3-1.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 5
Page 14
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Proposed Development
PROPOSED 8.5M WIDE
LEFT-IN / LEFT-OUT ACCESS
PROPOSED 6.2M WIDE
ACCESS DRIVEWAY
Figure 3-1 Proposed Access Driveway Design and Location
3.4 Proposed Service Vehicle Arrangements
The proposed development includes provision for three (3) service vehicle bays which include the
following:
• One (1) bay catering for deliveries of Medium Rigid Vehicles (MRV) and waste collection
by way of Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCV); and
• Two (2) bays catering for Service Van deliveries
The location of the service vehicle bays are presented in Figure 3-2.
PROPOSED RCV /
MRV LOADING BAY
PROPOSED TWO
SERVICE VAN BAYS
Figure 3-2 Proposed Service Vehicle Facility Locations
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL
Page 15
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Car Parking Arrangements
4. Car Parking Arrangements
4.1 Council Car Parking Requirements
4.1.1 Car Parking Provision Requirements
SCRC’s The Noosa Plan provides car parking provision rates for developments of this nature. The
calculation of the proposed development’s car parking provision requirement based on the land
uses proposed are presented in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Proposed Development SCRC Car Parking Provision Requirement
SCRC Car
Tenancy Land Use GFA SCRC Car Parking Rate Parking Provision
Requirement
Gourmet foods / Café 165m2 1 space per 15m2 GFA 11 spaces
1
Outdoor Dining Area 74m2 1 space per 10m2 GFA 7.4 spaces
2 Liquor 144m2 1 space per 15m2 GFA 9.6 spaces
3 Bank 143m2 1 space per 20m2 GFA 7.15 spaces
4 Convenience Store 111m2 1 space per 15m2 GFA 7.4 spaces
5 Pizza 92m2 1 space per 20m2 GFA 4.6 spaces
6 Noodles / Sushi 73m2 1 space per 15m2 GFA 4.87 spaces
7 Chicken 100m2 1 space per 15m2 GFA 6.67 spaces
Burgers 87m2 1 space per 15m2 GFA 5.8 spaces
8
Outdoor Dining Area 24m2 1 space per 10m2 GFA 2.4 spaces
Total 1013m2 67 spaces
4.1.2 Car Parking Layout Requirements
SCRC’s The Noosa Plan specifies that car parking layouts are to be designed in accordance with
Australian Standards AS/NZS2890.1 (2004). Therefore, the key car parking design requirements
for the proposed development are as follows:
• Visitor / Customer Bay widths: 2.7m
• Staff Bay widths: 2.4m
• Disabled Bay widths: 3.2m
• Standard Vehicle Bay lengths: 5.4 m
• Parking aisle width: 5.8 m
• Circulation aisle width: 5.5m
• Blind aisle extension: 1.0 m
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 7
Page 16
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Car Parking Arrangements
4.2 Adequacy of Proposed Car Parking Arrangements
4.2.1 Proposed Car Parking Provision Adequacy
The proposed retail development proposes 65 car parking spaces to be provided on-site which
include the following:
• 55 visitor car parking spaces
• 8 staff car parking spaces
• 2 disabled car parking space
The proposed car parking provision has a shortfall of 2 spaces in comparison to Council’s planning
requirements. However, the shortfall in car parking provision is considered acceptable based on
the following assessment.
The land uses for the proposed development comprise of differing trading hours and operating
peak periods for car parking utilisation as presented in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2 Estimated Development Land Use Trading Hours & Periodic Parking Utilisation
Trading Estimated Peak Car Parking Utilisation Rate Profile
Tenancy Land Use
Hours 6-9am 9-12pm 12-3pm 3-6pm 6-9pm
Gourmet foods / Café 25% 50% 100% 75% 0%
1 6am - 6pm
Outdoor Dining Area 25% 50% 100% 75% 0%
2 Liquor 11am - 10pm 25% 50% 50% 100% 100%
3 Bank 9am - 5pm 50% 100% 100% 75% 0%
4 Convenience Store 24 hours 25% 50% 75% 75% 100%
5 Pizza 11am - 10pm 0% 25% 100% 50% 100%
6 Noodles / Sushi 11am - 9pm 0% 25% 100% 50% 100%
7 Chicken 11am - 9pm 0% 25% 100% 75% 100%
Burgers 0% 25% 100% 75% 100%
8 11am - 9pm
Outdoor Dining Area 0% 25% 100% 75% 100%
Based on the estimated car parking utilisations for each land use as presented in Table 4-2, the
calculations for the estimated maximum car parking demand at any point during an average day
are presented in Table 4-3.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL
Page 17
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Car Parking Arrangements
Table 4-3 Estimated Development Peak Period Parking Demands
SCRC Car Parking Estimated Peak Car Parking Periodic Demands
Tenancy Land Use Provision
Requirement 6-9am 9-12pm 12-3pm 3-6pm 6-9pm
Gourmet foods / Café 11 spaces 2.75 5.5 11 8.25 0
1
Outdoor Dining Area 7.4 spaces 1.85 3.7 7.4 5.55 0
2 Liquor 9.6 spaces 2.4 4.8 4.8 9.6 9.6
3 Bank 7.15 spaces 3.575 7.15 7.15 5.3625 0
4 Convenience Store 7.4 spaces 1.85 3.7 5.55 5.55 7.4
5 Pizza 4.6 spaces 0 1.15 4.6 2.3 4.6
6 Noodles / Sushi 4.87 spaces 0 1.22 4.87 2.43 4.87
7 Chicken 6.67 spaces 0 1.67 6.67 5 6.67
Burgers 5.8 spaces 0 1.45 5.80 4.35 5.80
8
Outdoor Dining Area 2.4 spaces 0 0.6 2.4 1.8 2.4
Total 67 spaces 12 spaces 31 spaces 60 spaces 50 spaces 41 spaces
The maximum estimated peak parking demand, as presented in Table 4-3, for the proposed
development is approximately 60 spaces which equates to the development providing 5 more than
the estimated peak parking demand.
Consequently, the proposed development car parking provision of 65 spaces is considered
acceptable from a traffic engineering perspective based on the following:
• The proposed car parking provision is within 3% of Council’s car parking provision
requirement for the development which is unlikely to create any adverse impacts on the
amenity of parking arrangements in the precinct;
• The proposed car parking provision exceeds the estimated peak parking demand of the
development by 5 car parking spaces;
• It is proposed that 2 Service Van parking will have shared allocation for visitor / customer
parking spaces with visitors / customers able to utilise the van bays during the evening
period (i.e. after 5pm) which effectively creates a total parking provision of 67 spaces
during this period and satisfies Council’s car parking provision requirement.
• There is expected to be a level of parking usage associated with the linking of trips (i.e.
persons associated with a single parked vehicle accessing more than one of the on-site
uses); and
• As detailed in Section 2 of the report, the proposed development is well serviced by Public
Transport, pedestrian and bicycle facilities which ensure the development adequately
services non-private car transportation modes.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 9
Page 18
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Car Parking Arrangements
4.2.2 Proposed Car Parking Layout Adequacy
The proposed car parking layout incorporates the following dimensions:
• Visitor parking spaces measuring 2.7m wide x 5.4m long – Council requirements
are satisfied
• Staff parking spaces measuring 2.4m wide x 5.4m long – Council requirements are
satisfied
• PWD parking spaces measuring 3.2m wide x 5.4m long – Council requirements are
satisfied
• Minimum car parking aisle width of 6.2m – Council requirements are not satisfied,
however Australian Standards are satisfied
• Minimum circulation aisle width of 6.2m – Council requirements are satisfied
Therefore the proposed car parking layout for the proposed development is in accordance with
Council design requirements.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL
Page 19
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Existing Road Network Traffic Demands
5. Existing Road Network Traffic Demands
5.1 Existing Peak Period Traffic Surveys
Halcrow engaged AusTraffic to conduct peak period traffic surveys at the following locations during
4:00-6:00pm on Thursday 16th September 2010 respectively:
• Gibson Road / Thomas Street / Skipper Place intersection (all movements)
• Gibson Road / The Cockleshell intersection (turning movements only)
• Gibson Road / Site Access intersection (turning movements only)
The peak hour periods for the survey were found to be between 4:00-5:00pm on Thursday.
The results of the peak hour surveys are presented in Figure 5.1.
THOMAS ST
THE COCKLESHELL
206
469
240
8
27
14
70
20
5
0
668 5
2
0 GIBSON RD
12 2
654
8
4
20
0
67
0
0
2
0 416
23
SUBJECT KEEL CT
SITE
SKIPPER PL
Figure 5-1 Existing (2010) Gibson Rd Noosaville Road Network Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
5.2 Existing Surveyed Truck Movement Percentages
The percentage of truck movements surveyed within the road network was approximately 1% of
total traffic volumes.
5.3 Estimated Traffic Growth
It is estimated that future background traffic growth for the road network will be in the order of
approximately 2% per annum.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 11
Page 20
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Estimated Future Road Network Traffic Demands
6. Estimated Future Road Network Traffic Demands
6.1 Proposed Development Traffic Generation
The Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) specifies in their Road Planning and Design
Manual (with reference to the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority’s Guide to Traffic Generating
Developments) appropriate traffic generation rates for commercial developments of this nature.
The estimated traffic generation for the proposed development based on these rates are presented
in Table 6.1.
Table 6-1 Proposed Development Peak Hour Traffic Generation Calculations
Thursday PM Peak Hour
GFA
Tenancy Land Use DTMR/RTA Land Use Peak Development Peak
(sqm)
Hour Traffic Generation Hour Traffic
165 Gourmet foods / Café 12 trips per 100 sqm GFA 19.8 trips (in+out)
1
74 Outdoor Dining Area 12 trips per 100 sqm GFA 8.88 trips (in+out)
2 144 Liquor 12.5 trips per 100 sqm GFA 18 trips (in+out)
3 143 Bank 20 trips per 100 sqm GFA 28.6 trips (in+out)
4 111 Convenience Store 12.5 trips per 100 sqm GFA 13.88 trips (in+out)
5 92 Pizza 12 trips per 100 sqm GFA 11.04 trips (in+out)
6 73 Noodles / Sushi 12 trips per 100 sqm GFA 8.76 trips (in+out)
7 100 Chicken 12 trips per 100 sqm GFA 12 trips (in+out)
87 Burgers 12 trips per 100 sqm GFA 10.44 trips (in+out)
8
24 Outdoor Dining Area 12 trips per 100 sqm GFA 2.88 trips (in+out)
Total 1013 134 trips (in+out)
Given the majority of land uses generate high-turnover traffic flows with durations of stay no longer
than 1 hour, it is envisaged that there will be a ratio of 50% inbound traffic and 50% outbound
traffic.
6.2 Estimated Development Traffic Distribution
The estimated traffic distributions for the proposed development are presented in Figure 6.1.
20%
35% 35%
SUBJECT SITE
LOCATION
10%
Copyright: 2010 Google – Map data
Figure 6-1 Estimated Development Traffic Distribution
The estimated traffic distribution and generation movements for the proposed development are
presented in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3 respectively.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL
Page 21
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Estimated Future Road Network Traffic Demands
THE COCKLESHELL
THOMAS ST
0
0
15%
0
5%
25%
0
0
0
0
0
35%
0 10%
GIBSON RD
0
0
0
0
0
20%
35%
0
0
0
35%
40%
25%
10%
50%
SUBJECT
SITE 55%
10%
KEEL CT
SKIPPER PL
10%
Figure 6-2 Estimated Thurs PM Peak Hour Development Traffic Distribution
THOMAS ST
THE COCKLESHELL
0
0 0
10
17
0
0
0
0
3
0
24
0 7
GIBSON RD
0
0
0
0
13
24
0
0
24
0
0
27
17
7
SUBJECT
34
SITE 37
7
KEEL CT
SKIPPER PL
7
Figure 6-3 Estimated Thurs PM Peak Hour Development Traffic Generated Volumes
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 13
Page 22
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Estimated Future Road Network Traffic Demands
6.3 Future (2022) Base Case Traffic Demands
In order to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding road
network over the 10 year planning horizon, an annual growth rate of 2% has been applied to all
traffic volumes for a period of 12 years (i.e. 10 years beyond anticipated project completion date of
2012). The estimated 2022 base case traffic volumes are presented in Figure 6-3.
THOMAS ST
THE COCKLESHELL
261
595
304
10
34
18
89
25
6
0
6
850
3
0 GIBSON RD
15 3
830 10
5
25
0
85
0
0
0
0 528
29
SUBJECT KEEL CT
SITE
SKIPPER PL
Figure 6-3 Estimated Future (2022) Base Case Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL
Page 23
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Estimated Future Road Network Traffic Demands
6.4 Future (2022) Project Case Traffic Demands
The estimated future (2022) traffic volumes, with proposed development generated traffic included,
is presented in Figure 6-4.
THOMAS ST
THE COCKLESHELL
261
595
307
10
34
28
89
42
6
0
6
874
10
0
GIBSON RD
15 3
830
10
18
49
0
85
24
0
0
27 545
36
SUBJECT
34
SITE 37
7
SKIPPER PL KEEL CT
7
Figure 6-3 Estimated Future (2022) Project Case Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 15
Page 24
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Road Network Performance
7. Road Network Performance
7.1 SIDRA Analysis
Halcrow adopted the SIDRA software package to analyse the performance of the Gibson Road /
Thomas Street / Skipper Place roundabout intersection as a result of the proposed development
traffic generation over the 10 year planning horizon.
7.2 Gibson Rd / Thomas St / Skipper Pl Intersection Performance
The results of the SIDRA intersection performance analysis for the Gibson Road / Thomas Street /
Skipper Place roundabout intersection are presented in Table 7-2.
Table 7-1 Intersection Performance Analysis Results Summary
Intersection Performance Measure
Scenario Level of Degree of Average 95th Percentile Queuing (m)
Service Saturation Delay South East North West
2010 Thurs PM Peak B 53.9% 14.8s 2.8 34.3 23.7 40.4
2010 Thurs PM Peak with Development B 58.3% 16.2s 6.3 40.1 28.1 44.4
2022 Thurs PM Peak Base Case B 71.0% 19.9s 5.1 71.4 52.3 67.9
2022 Thurs PM Peak Project Case C 76.1% 23.0s 10.6 87.7 65.8 76.8
The analysis of the existing peak hour periods, with and without development traffic included, found
that the intersection operates within acceptable performance parameters with a maximum Degree
of Saturation of 58% (max. allowable 85%).
Analysis of the intersection over the 10 year planning horizon, with and without development traffic
included, found that the intersection also operates within acceptable performance parameters
during the Thursday PM peak hour period with a maximum Degree of Saturation of 78% (max.
allowable 85%).
7.3 Conclusion
The analysis finds that there are no adverse impacts on the surrounding road network as a result of
the proposed development.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL
Page 25
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Access Driveway Arrangements
8. Access Driveway Arrangements
8.1 Council Access Driveway Requirements
SCRC’s The Noosa Plan specifies that the proposed development provide access arrangements
that are in accordance with Australian Standards 2890.1 (2004). The key following access
driveway design arrangements for the proposed development are as follows:
• Gibson Road access – For a high turnover car park with 25-100 spaces located on a local
road a Category 2 (6-9m wide) access driveway crossover is required
• Skipper Place access – For a high turnover car park with 25-100 spaces located on a local
road a Category 2 (6-9m wide) access driveway crossover is required
• The location of access driveways are to achieve minimum separations of 6m from the
Tangent Point of adjacent intersections
• Access driveway is to achieve sight distances of 83m (desirably), or an absolute minimum
of 65m
• The first 6m of driveway within the property boundary is to be at a gradient no steeper
than 1:20
8.2 Access Driveway Arrangements & Their Adequacy
The proposed access driveway crossover arrangements and their adequacy for the residential
development are as follows:
• Gibson Road access – 8.5m wide left-in and left-out (3.5m entry + 1m median + 4m exit)
access driveway crossover design – Council requirements are satisfied
• Skipper Place access – 8.5m wide left-in and left-out (3.5m entry + 1m median + 4m exit)
access driveway crossover design – Council requirements are satisfied
• The proposed Gibson Road access driveway is located approximately 17m from The
Cockleshell intersection and 35m from the Skipper Place roundabout intersection– Council
requirements are satisfied
• The proposed Skipper Place access driveway is located approximately 6m from the Keel
Court intersection and 23m from the Gibson Road roundabout intersection– Council
requirements are satisfied
• Halcrow observed the sight distances to be at least 150m to the west and clear to the
nearest intersection to the west for the Gibson Road access – Council requirements are
satisfied
• Halcrow observed the sight distances to be clear to both adjacent intersections for the
Skipper Place access – Council requirements are satisfied
• The first 6m of driveway within the property boundary for both accesses do not exceed a
gradient of 1:20 – Council requirements are satisfied
The proposed access driveway arrangements for the proposed retail development are in
accordance with Council requirements and are therefore considered suitable.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 17
Page 26
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Service Vehicle Arrangements
9. Service Vehicle Arrangements
9.1 Council Service Vehicle Requirements
MCRC’s The Noosa Plan specifies that the proposed retail development is required to provide on-
site waste collection facilities.
In accordance with good traffic engineering practice, the waste collection facilities must ensure that
RCV’s (standard 10m length) are able to enter the site in a safe forward motion, load waste bins,
and depart the site in a safe forward motion.
9.2 Proposed Service Arrangements & Their Adequacy
The service vehicle facilities for the proposed development include one (1) MRV bays with
dimensions of 3.5m in width and 9m in length which is in accordance with Australian Standards
2890.2 (2002). The proposed MRV bay is also capable of accommodating RCV turn paths for the
development’s waste collection services.
To demonstrate the adequacy of the proposal, Halcrow have applied AutoTurn to assess the MRV
and RCV turn paths on the proposed development layout. The turn path assessment found that
both MRV’s and RCV’s can enter the site, access their respective loading areas, and depart the
site in a safe and efficient manner as depicted in Figures 9.1 and 9.2 respectively.
Furthermore, the proposed development provides two (2) Service Van bays with dimensions of 3m
in width and 5.4m in length which is in accordance with Australian Standards 2890.2 (2002).
Therefore the proposed service vehicle facilities for the proposed development are in accordance
with Council design requirements.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL
Page 27
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Service Vehicle Arrangements
Figure 9-1 Proposed Development Layout - MRV Turn Path Diagram
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 19
Page 28
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Service Vehicle Arrangements
Figure 9-2 Proposed Development Layout - RCV Turn Path Diagram
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL
Page 29
Traffic & Transport Assessment -
Conclusion
10. Conclusion
Findings and conclusions from Halcrow’s traffic engineering assessment of the proposed retail
development at 37 Gibson Road, Noosaville are:
• The proposed car parking provision and layout for 65 spaces is considered adequate for
the retail development based on the justifications presented in Section 4.
• The traffic impact assessment provided in Sections 5-7 found that the proposed
development will not create any adverse impacts on the surrounding road network.
• The proposed 8.5m wide (left-in and left-out movements only) and 6.2m access driveway
crossovers, located on Gibson Road and Skipper Place respectively, are considered
suitable from a traffic engineering perspective based on the assessment provided in
Section 8.
• The proposed service vehicle arrangements for the proposed development which
incorporate one (1) MRV bay with the ability to accommodate waste collection services
and two (2) Service Van bays are considered suitable based on the assessment provided
in Section 9.
CTLRNO_r01_v02_FINAL 21
Page 30
Appendix A. Development Drawings [OCR of page images] s1alcrow
Page 31
1000
3000 8000 1500 29538 5000
2000 3200 2700
3200 2700 3000
1640
1800
3300
5400 6200
6200
1000
1058
1238
to carpark
2700 6638
6200
[OCR of page images]
OTOZ/0T/8T Vv anss| NVId ¥OO14 GNNOYD ToOO-va
WS
ev @oszit
ove YB
Yi F. 4930 8 ADNYNEL
Le)
Z
BA |
z 8 AONWNEL (2 AONYNEL 9 AONYNSL
Cf:
G AONYNEL P AONWNEL |
Yi
gan Surspes
ov
‘38l]
Buyspco onowas
uct uare OIE
j
aides posnojco —_/ |
‘aay, Suysere axows A \
SKIPPER PLACE
7
Yi |
4008 40 NN
we tool Ube pegs Unie
APIS | LeISSy Nes’) yeis”) eis | els | pels
pat
“ile
aay |
Bugsy ovowel >
\
4 e
NY
6)
dvou Nosald
oo™~
soo-va (
L
“
SORIUOWE
€ AONWNAL
ZAONYNAL
FAONYNAL
are ae,
punavopar
sean, Supspes
weg
axis se
ADUROG |
ug
‘0008
20-081
ey
you we
Page 32
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2010 Thurs PM Peak Gibson Rd / Skipper PI / Thomas St Intersection 2010 Thurs PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Roundabout eMC eT nl Mee KoliUt T= Me An) co) (214 Demand Deg. PN It-1e|-) Levelof 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average WN ou] NY era) Delay Service Vehicles Distance © Queued StopRate Speed Acial/a) WA wie Eo Atal ful per veh km/h South: Skipper Place 1 L 8 1.0 0.083 11.4 LOS B 0.4 28 0.73 0.72 45.3 2 T 4 1.0 0.053 10.7 LOS B 0.4 28 0.73 0.69 45.6 3 R 23 1.0 0.053 15.8 LOS B 0.4 28 0.73 O77 426 Approach 36 1.0 0.053 14.2 LOS B 0.4 28 0.73 0.75 43.5 East: Gibson Road East 4 L 24 1.0 0.504 9.0 LOSA 49 34.3 0.67 0.71 473 5 T 438 1.0 0.507 8.3 LOSA 49 34.3 0.67 0.68 47.1 6 R 73 1.0 0.508 13.3 LOS B 49 34.3 0.67 0.81 45.2 Approach 535 1.0 0.507 9.0 LOS B 49 34.3 0.67 0.70 46.9 North: Thomas Street 7 L 74 1.0 0.405 10.6 LOSB 3.4 23.7 0.74 aso 46.1 8 T 15 1.0 0.409 98 LOSA 3.4 23.7 0.74 0.77 45.9 g R 258 1.0 0.405 148 LOS B 3.4 23.7 0.74 0.85 43.3 Approach 346 1.0 0.405 13.7 LOS B 3.4 23.7 0.74 0.83 43.9 West: Gibson Road West 10 L 217 1.0 0.537 76 LOSA 5.7 40.4 0.43 0.58 48.4 1 T 494 1.0 0.537 69 LOSA 5.7 40.4 0.43 0.52 48.6 12 R 23 1.0 0.539 12.0 LOS B 5.7 40.4 0.43 0.74 45.8 Approach 734 1.0 0.537 73 LOSB 5.7 40.4 0.43 0.54 48.4 All Vehicles 1651 1.0 0.539 93 LOSA 57 40.4 0.58 0.66 46.8 Level of Service (Aver. Int. Delay): LOS A. Based on average delay for all vehicle movements. LOS Method: Delay (HCM). Level of Service (Worst Movement): LOS B. LOS Method for individual vehicle movements: Delay (HCM). Approach LOS values are based on the worst delay for any vehicle movement. Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. Processed: Wednesday, 22 September 2010 11:51:57 AM Copyright © 2000-2010 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd SIDRA -_ SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.0.2.1437 www. sidrasolutions.com INTERSECTION Project: Y:\Consulting\Projects\CTLRNO - Gibson Rd (37) - Noosaville\60 - Design & Construction\67 - Calcu- lations\SIDRA\Gibson Rd - Skipper Pl - Thomas St Intersection.sip 8000324, HALCROW PACIFIC PTY LTD, FLOATING
Page 33
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2010 Thurs PM Peak with Development Gibson Rd / Skipper PI / Thomas St Intersection 2010 Thurs PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Development Roundabout Movement Performance - Vehicles Demand Deg. PN It-1e|-) Levelof 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average WN ou] era) Delay Service Vehicles Distance © Queued StopRate Speed Acial/a) wie Eo Atal ful per veh km/h South: Skipper Place 1 L 8 1.0 0.114 11.9 LOS B a9 6.3 0.77 0.78 44.9 2 T 18 1.0 0.115 11.2 LOS B ag 63 0.77 0.76 45.1 3 R 48 1.0 0.114 16.2 LOS B ag 63 0.77 0.83 42.3 Approach 75 1.0 0.115 14.5 LOS B ag 63 0.77 0.81 43.2 East: Gibson Road East 4 L 32 1.0 0.554 9.7 LOSA 5.7 40.1 0.73 0.76 47.0 5 T 456 1.0 0.552 9.0 LOSA 5.7 40.1 0.73 0.73 46.8 6 R 73 1.0 0.554 14.0 LOS B 5.7 40.1 0.73 0.84 44.7 Approach 560 1.0 0.552 9.7 LOS B 57 40.1 0.73 0.75 46.5 North: Thomas Street 7 L 74 1.0 0.447 11.4 LOS B 4.0 28.1 0.79 0.85 46.3 8 T 25 1.0 0.443 10.7 LOSB 4.0 28.1 0.79 0.83 45.4 g R 261 1.0 0.445 15.6 LOS B 4.0 28.1 0.79 0.89 42.7 Approach 360 1.0 0.446 14.4 LOSB 4.0 28.1 0.79 0.88 43.3 West: Gibson Road West 10 L 217 1.0 0.583 8.0 LOSA 63 44.4 0.62 0.60 48.0 1 T 494 1.0 0.583 73 LOSA 63 44.4 0.62 0.56 48.0 12 R 48 1.0 0.583 126 LOS B 63 44.4 0.52 0.75 45.6 Approach 759 1.0 0.583 78 LOSB 63 44.4 0.52 0.58 478 All Vehicles 1754 1.0 0.583 10.1 LOS B 63 44.4 0.65 071 46.2 Level of Service (Aver. Int. Delay): LOS B. Based on average delay for all vehicle movements. LOS Method: Delay (HCM). Level of Service (Worst Movement): LOS B. LOS Method for individual vehicle movements: Delay (HCM). Approach LOS values are based on the worst delay for any vehicle movement. Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. Processed: Thursday, 21 October 2010 11:23:43 AM Copyright © 2000-2010 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd SIDRA -_ SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.0.2.1437 www. sidrasolutions.com INTERSECTION Project: Y:\Consulting\Projects\CTLRNO - Gibson Rd (37) - Noosaville\60 - Design & Construction\67 - Calcu- lations\SIDRA\Gibson Rd - Skipper Pl - Thomas St Intersection.sip 8000324, HALCROW PACIFIC PTY LTD, FLOATING
Page 34
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2022 Thurs PM Peak Base Case Gibson Rd / Skipper PI / Thomas St Intersection 2022 Thurs PM Peak Hour Base Case Traffic Volumes Roundabout Movement Performance - Vehicles Demand Deg. PN It-1e|-) Levelof 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average WN ou] era) Delay Service Vehicles Distance © Queued StopRate Speed Acial/a) wie Eo Atal ful per veh km/h South: Skipper Place 1 L 11 1.0 0.086 14.1 LOS B 07 5.1 0.87 0.81 42.9 2 T 5 1.0 0.086 13.3 LOS B a7 5.1 0.87 0.80 43.0 3 R 27 1.0 0.086 18.4 LOS B a7 5.1 0.87 0.84 40.6 Approach 43 1.0 0.086 16.7 LOS B O7 5.1 0.87 0.83 41.4 East: Gibson Road East 4 L 31 1.0 0.710 124 LOSB 10.1 71.4 0.89 0.90 45.1 5 T 556 1.0 0.703 11.7 LOS B 10.1 71.4 0.89 0.89 45.2 6 R 93 1.0 0.702 16.7 LOS B 10.1 71.4 0.89 O93 426 Approach 679 1.0 0.703 12.4 LOS B 10.1 71.4 0.89 0.90 44.9 North: Thomas Street 7 L 94 1.0 0.616 15.7 LOS B 7.4 52.3 0.93 1.05 415 8 T 19 1.0 0611 149 LOSB 7.4 52.3 0.93 1.04 41.6 g R 326 1.0 0.615 19.9 LOS B 7.4 52.3 0.93 1.06 39.5 Approach 439 1.0 0.615 18.8 LOSB 7.4 52.3 0.93 1.06 40.0 West: Gibson Road West 10 L 275 1.0 0.701 8.2 LOSA 9.6 67.9 0.63 0.60 475 1 T 626 1.0 0.701 74 LOSA 9.6 67.9 0.63 0.56 474 12 R 29 1.0 0.702 126 LOS B 9.6 67.9 0.63 0.71 45.6 Approach 931 1.0 0.701 78 LOSB 9.6 67.9 0.63 0.58 473 All Vehicles 2092 1.0 0.710 118 LOS B 10.1 71.4 0.78 a79 446 Level of Service (Aver. Int. Delay): LOS B. Based on average delay for all vehicle movements. LOS Method: Delay (HCM). Level of Service (Worst Movement): LOS B. LOS Method for individual vehicle movements: Delay (HCM). Approach LOS values are based on the worst delay for any vehicle movement. Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. Processed: Wednesday, 22 September 2010 4:25:03 PM Copyright © 2000-2010 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd SIDRA -_ SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.0.2.1437 www. sidrasolutions.com INTERSECTION Project: Y:\Consulting\Projects\CTLRNO - Gibson Rd (37) - Noosaville\60 - Design & Construction\67 - Calcu- lations\SIDRA\Gibson Rd - Skipper Pl - Thomas St Intersection.sip 8000324, HALCROW PACIFIC PTY LTD, FLOATING
Page 35
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2022 Thurs PM Peak Project Case Gibson Rd / Skipper PI / Thomas St Intersection 2022 Thurs PM Peak Hour Project Case Traffic Volumes Roundabout Movement Performance - Vehicles Demand Deg. PN It-1e|-) Levelof 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average WN ou] era) Delay Service Vehicles Distance © Queued StopRate Speed Acial/a) wie Eo Atal ful per veh km/h South: Skipper Place 1 L 11 1.0 0.175 149 LOS B 1.5 10.6 0.91 0.88 42.2 2 T 19 1.0 0.174 14.2 LOS B 1.5 10.6 0.91 0.87 42.3 3 R 53 1.0 0.174 19.2 LOS B 1.5 10.6 0.91 a.90 40.1 Approach 82 1.0 0.174 175 LOS B 1.5 10.6 0.91 08g 40.9 East: Gibson Road East 4 L 38 1.0 0.758 146 LOSB 12.4 87.7 0.96 1.00 43.2 5 T 574 1.0 0.761 13.8 LOS B 12.4 87.7 0.96 1.00 43.3 6 R 93 1.0 0.759 18.9 LOS B 12.4 87.7 0.96 1.01 41.0 Approach 704 1.0 0.761 145 LOS B 12.4 87.7 0.96 1.00 43.0 North: Thomas Street 7 L 94 1.0 0.689 18.8 LOS B 9.3 65.8 1.00 1.16 39.1 8 T 29 1.0 0.685 18.1 LOSB 9.3 65.8 1.00 1.16 39.2 g R 329 1.0 0.688 23.0 Losc 9.3 65.8 1.00 1.16 37.5 Approach 453 1.0 0.687 21.8 Losc 9.3 65.8 1.00 1.16 37.9 West: Gibson Road West 10 L 275 1.0 0.753 89 LOSA 10.9 76.8 0.74 0.65 46.9 1 T 626 1.0 0.753 8.2 LOSA 10.9 76.8 0.74 0.62 46.6 12 R 55 1.0 0.750 13.5 LOS B 10.9 76.8 0.74 0.72 45.2 Approach 956 1.0 0.753 87 LOSB 10.9 76.8 0.74 0.63 46.6 All Vehicles 2195 1.0 0.761 13.6 LOS B 12.4 87.7 0.87 0.87 43.1 Level of Service (Aver. Int. Delay): LOS B. Based on average delay for all vehicle movements. LOS Method: Delay (HCM). Level of Service (Worst Movement): LOS C. LOS Method for individual vehicle movements: Delay (HCM). Approach LOS values are based on the worst delay for any vehicle movement. Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. Processed: Thursday, 21 October 2010 11:33:41 AM Copyright © 2000-2010 Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd SIDRA -_ SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.0.2.1437 www. sidrasolutions.com INTERSECTION Project: Y:\Consulting\Projects\CTLRNO - Gibson Rd (37) - Noosaville\60 - Design & Construction\67 - Calcu- lations\SIDRA\Gibson Rd - Skipper Pl - Thomas St Intersection.sip 8000324, HALCROW PACIFIC PTY LTD, FLOATING