Original source · versioned page text
MCU14/0056 - Attachment K -Traffic Impact Assessment
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (13.2 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT MYALL STREET, COOROY TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT 16 MAY 2014 PREPARED FOR VERVE BUILDING DESIGN & CONCEPTS
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
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 94 pages
Page 2
DOCUMENT CONTROL RECORD DOCUMENT REV PURPOSE DATE AUTHOR REVIEWER APPROVED SIGNED COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 4.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 12 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23 DRAWING SK001 SITE ACCESS INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS APPENDIX B: DEVELOPMENT PLANS APPENDIX C: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS APPENDIX D: FORECAST TURNING VOLUMES APPENDIX E: CODE RESPONSES
Page 4
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1d 1.2 1.3 Background In March 2014, Pekol Traffic & Transport (PTT) was commissioned by Verve Building Design & Concepts to undertake a traffic impact assessment for a proposed mixed use development on a greenfield site at Myall Street, Cooroy. The location of the subject site is shown in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1: SITE LOCALITY Conroy Golf Club Ashmond Villa Aim The aim of this assessment was to evaluate the proposed development in terms of its likely peak hour traffic generation, impact on the surrounding road network, site access operations, parking and service arrangement. Scope of Report This report begins by summarising the characteristics of the existing road network (Chapter 2), followed by a description of the scope and scale of the proposed development, including a consideration of its likely traffic operating characteristics (Chapter 3). The latter are then overlayed on top of future year peak hour traffic operations on the adjacent road network to identify potential future traffic impacts (Chapter 4). The report concludes with a summary of key findings (Chapter 5). P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 1
Page 5
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Subject Site The subject site is located at no. 125 Myall Street and comprises Lot 4 on SP248479. It is bordered by Ferrells Road to the north-west, Myall Street to the north-east and the Bruce Highway ramps to the south- east and south-west. The site is currently vacant as shown in the aerial view presented in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE 2.2 Road Network Myall Street is a strategic state controlled arterial road which links the Bruce Highway to the town of Cooroy. It typically has one lane of traffic in each direction and is undivided. In the vicinity of the site, it has a speed limit of 60km/hr, which increases to 80km/hr approximately 250m to the south of the intersection with Ferrells Road. Ferrells Road meets Myall Street at a three-arm, priority-controlled intersection. This intersection includes a left turn deceleration lane and a channelised right turn (CHR) treatment on the major road. Ferrells Road is a local road which runs south-west from the intersection with Myall Street. Ferralls Road P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 2
Page 6
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 2.3 meets Overlander Ave at a three-arm priority intersection. The priority route is a right-angle bend from Ferralls Road to Overlander Ave, with the extension of Ferralls Road, a short cul-de-saq, forming the minor arm. Traffic Volumes To assist in the quantification of existing road network operations proximate to the site, turning movement surveys were conducted on Thursday 14 March 2014 and Saturday 16 March 2014 at the following intersections: w= Myall Street / Ferrells Road priority controlled intersection == Myalil Street/Bruce Highway ramps priority controlled intersection The weekday evening and Saturday peak periods are shown in Table 2.1, along with the key operational attributes of the adjacent intersections. The traffic count survey data is provided in Appendix A. Table 2.1: INTERSECTION ATTRIBUTES Evening Peak Peak Hour 4:00pm — 5:00pm 4:00pm — 5:00pm. Volume (vph) 880 860 % Heavy Vehicle 4% 5% Peak Flow Factor 98% 98% Saturday Peak Peak Hour 10:45am - 11:45am 11:00am — 12:00pm Volume (vph) 750 730 % Heavy Vehicle 2% 3% Peak Flow Factor 96% 96% P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 3
Page 7
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT
2.5 Intersection Operations
A series of SIDRA analyses were conducted to quantify the existing traffic operations at the Myall Street /
Ferrells Road priority-controlled intersection and the Myall Street/Bruce Highway ramps priority
controlled intersection. The existing intersection layouts and the equivalent SIDRA representations are
shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3 respectively.
Figure 2.2: MYALL STREET / FERRELLS ROAD
yall Street (nest
=
Mall Street (South)
Figure 2.3: MYALL STREET / BRUCE HIGHWAY RAMPS
yal Street {north}
f'
sdiney hewn son
4}
yall street (South
These analyses were based on the traffic count data presented in Appendix A with:
==: gap acceptance parameters as per Table 13.7 of Main Roads’ Road Planning and Design Manual
P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 4
Page 8
LEVEL OF DEGREE OF SATURATION
RATING
SERVICE SIGNALS ROUNDABOUT PRIORITY
PEAK HOUR & 95%
SCENARIO DOS QUEUE CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Page 9
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT The results indicate that both intersections currently experience “excellent” operations under existing weekday peak hour evening and Saturday peak hour conditions. Both intersections also currently operate well within DMTR’s acceptable limit during the weekday evening and Saturday peak hours. 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1. Site Layout The proposed development incorporates a new mixed-use facility comprising retail, recreational and commercial land uses. The proposed development includes the following components: service station (244m? GFA) and car wash fast-food restaurant with drive-thru (292m? GFA) food retail store (920m? GFA) self-storage units (1,110m? GFA) tourist park (27 caravan parks and 10 cabins) The layout of the proposed development is attached in Appendix B and is shown in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: SITE LAYOUT Q P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 6
Page 10
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 3.2 Access Arrangements It is proposed to provide one point of vehicular access to the site from Myall Street and one point of access from Ferrells Road, as shown in Figure 3.1. It is proposed that the Myall Street site access would be an all-movements intersection. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the proposed access intersection is designed to include a left turn auxiliary deceleration lane (AUL) and a channelised right turn treatment (CHR) to minimise the disruption to through traffic on Myall Street. For an 80kph speed environment (the posted speed to the south of the proposed access), the deceleration lane would need to be at least 70m long, including taper, based on the Road Planning and Design Manual. The location of an existing culvert on Myall Street to the south of the site limits the length of deceleration lane that can be provided without costly culvert extension works. It is therefore recommended that an 80m left turn auxiliary lane is provided, as shown in Figure 3.2. In a 60km speed environment, the posted speed to the north of the proposed access) the length of right turn lane should be 80m, including the taper and storage area, as shown in Figure 3.3. It is recommended that the design of the access intersection be conditioned to any development permission. Figure 3.2: LEFT TURN AUXILIARY LANE 60m 80m 10m 415,0m 80m End of line marking and island defined by design vehicle turning path it 11 # Double barrier line not to be used Site Access this side of the island Road P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 7
Page 11
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 3.3 A basic intersection arrangement (comprising a basic right turn and left turn on the major road) is proposed for the Ferrells Road site access intersection, which is considered appropriate given the low vehicle volumes anticipated to use this access. Parking 3.3.1 Requirement The most relevant parking standards from the Noosa Plan are as follows: m= retail store: Type 2 shop - one space per 15m”, or part thereof, of use area for areas in excess of 100m? m= fast food restaurant: Type 1 food and beverages - one space per 10m”, or part thereof of any outdoor dining area m= _ self-storage units: Type 1 warehouse — 1 space per 500m’ of use area == tourist park: Type 2 caravan park — a space per caravan site and 1 visitor space per 10 caravan sites The service station use would not have an on-site mechanical workshop. Therefore, the service station parking provision from the Noosa Plan, based on the number of service bays, has not been used with the Type 2 shop standard applied instead. Table 3.1 sets out the parking standards described above and the associated number of spaces to be provided under each. Table 3.1: PARKING REQUIREMENTS Service Station 1 space per 15m? Fast-food Restaurant 292m? 1 space per 10m? 30 Retail 920m? 1 space per 15m? 62 Self-Storage 1,110m? 1 space per 500m? 3 37 sites (27 caravan parks & 10 1 space per site + 1 space Tourist Park 41 cabins) per 10 sites for visitors TOTAL 153 3.3.2 Provision It is proposed to provide a total of 224 car parking spaces for the development. Of the total provision, 180 car parking spaces would be for the retail, fast-food restaurant and service station component of the development including four spaces allocated for persons with a disability. A total of three parking spaces P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 8
Page 12
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 3.4 are to be provided for the self-storage units with 41 spaces for the tourist park, comprising one space per site and four visitor spaces. The proposed car parking provision is well in excess of the minimum number of parking spaces required under the Noosa Plan. 3.3.3. Design The layout and provision of on-site car parking is generally consistent with the requirements of Australian Standard AS2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities Part 1: “Off-Street Car Parking” in terms of bay dimensions, aisle widths, vehicle circulation and manoeuvring. This is typified by: m= 2.6m x 5.4m vehicle parking spaces == 6.6m wide parking aisles — 7.2m- 8m wide circulation aisles 3.3.4 People With Disabilities Four Person with Disability (PWD) spaces are proposed which is in line with the standards set out in AS2890.6: 2009 Parking Facilities Part 6: “Off-Street Parking For People With Disabilities”, which requires one space for every 50 car parking spaces. As demonstrated in the site layout plans, the four PWD spaces are appropriately sized and located in close proximity to access points, in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.6. Sight Distance The Road Planning and Design Manual requires a safe intersection sight distance (SISD) of 121m for a 60kph speed limit and 181m for a 80kph speed limit, based on the desirable 2.5 second driver reaction time. The topography to the north is flat. However, the land to the south slopes upwards towards the intersection with the Bruce-Highway Ramps. Therefore, we have assumed a 4% downgrade correction factor to the southern Myall Street approach to the site access intersection, which increases the required SISD on this approach to 187m. On-site observations confirm that this sight distance can achieved in both directions along Myall Street at the proposed site access location. The site distance to the south would require the removal of some vegetation both within the site and the road reserve. Some signage within the road reserve may need to be relocated. P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 9
Page 13
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT A sketch of the proposed access location showing the measurement of the safe intersection stopping sight distance is shown in Figure 3.4 and attached in Drawing SKO01. Figure 3.4: SIGHT DISTANCE The site access on Ferrells Road should be located sufficiently far away from the intersection of Overlander Ave that appropriate sight distance can be obtained. The 90 degree bend in the major arm at the Ferrells Road / Overlander Ave would slow traffic down to below 40km/hr. On this basis we recommend a minimum of 72m sight distance be provided. It is our view that the proposed location of the access on Ferrells Road will achieve the appropriate sight distance. 3.5 Line Marking/Signage It is recommended that pavement arrows be painted at the site access intersections and throughout the internal layout to emphasise the intended directions of vehicle flow. P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 10
Page 14
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 3.6 3.7 Queuing It is estimated that there is a combined queuing distance (at the two points of vehicular access) of around 70m (sufficient to accommodate more than 10 cars). This is considered appropriate for the number of on- site parking spaces (ie 216 spaces) and complies with the requirements of AS2890.1. We estimate that the site would be able to accommodate at least 10 vehicles queuing for the fuel pumps (not including those parked at the pumps). Servicing An on-site loading / refuse collection area is proposed at the rear of the service station, restaurant and retail components of the development. The Noosa Plan does not specify a design vehicle for this type and size of development. However, this service area could comfortably accommodate a 12.5m heavy rigid vehicle (HRV). It is expected that all servicing movements would use the Myall Street access intersection and any amenity impacts associated with increased heavy vehicle movements on Ferrells Road would be limited. P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 11
Page 15
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 4.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 4.1 4.2 Development Staging It is standard practice when analysing future year traffic operations to adopt a ten year design horizon from the year of full occupation. Therefore, the following development staging has been adopted: == Traffic Counts: 2014 == Development Application: 2014 == Construction and Operation: 2016 — Operation plus 10 years: 2026 4.1.1 Background Traffic Growth A background traffic growth rate of 2.2% per annum has been applied to observed traffic volumes. This rate is consistent with the Department of Local Government, Planning and Sport and Recreation’s 2011 forecast growth rate for resident population in the Sunshine Coast region. The application of this rate equates to a 30% increase in local traffic volumes over the next 12 years (2014 to 2026). Traffic Generation 4.2.1 Service Station and Restaurant Drive-Through The service centre trip generation rates contained in the DTMR Road Planning and Design Manual and in the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments are not considered suitable for this study as they relate to service stations in urban areas. Service stations located on rural highways are likely to experience significantly different traffic generation rates and patterns to those in urban areas. We have previously undertaken surveys of traffic generation for three BP highway service centres located on the Pacific Highway at Coomera and Staplyton, and on the Bruce Highway at Caboolture. Each of these service centres comprises a petrol filling station with associated food / restaurant outlets (including drive-through facilities). The surveys identified the number of vehicles entering each site on a typical weekday, between the hours of 7am - 5pm. The traffic volumes along the adjacent section of highway were also recorded to calculate the site traffic generation as a proportion of the passing highway traffic. Figure 4.1 shows the percentage of turn-in traffic as a proportion of (one-way) passing highway traffic for each of the three service centre sites during the network peak hours. The data indicates that that during P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 12
Page 16
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT the typical morning and evening peak hours, the volume of vehicles entering from the highway did not exceed 9% of the passing traffic'. Therefore, for this assessment we have adopted a traffic generation rate of 9% of the passing (two-way) highway traffic for both the service station and restaurant drive-through components of the development. In the absence of corresponding data for the typical Saturday peak hour, we have adopted the same traffic generation rate. Figure 4.1: PERCENTAGE OF TURN-INS AS A PROPORTION OF PASSING TRAFFIC 10.0% Morning Peak Evening Peak 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% Percent Turn-Ins as a Proprotion of Passing Hihway Traffic 1.0% 0.0% 7:00 7:30 8:00 Hour Commencing 4:00 ™ Coomera @ Stapylton ® Morayfield The predicted peak hour traffic generation for the proposed development, comprising both the service station and restaurant drive-through component of the development is shown in Table 4.1. ' Note that as the surveyed period concluded at 5pm there is only one hour of data for the evening peak period P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 13
Page 17
PASSING HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
TRIPS GENERATED (VPH)
PEAK (VPH)
PERIOD NORTH SOUTH TWO- TWO-
IN OUT
BOUND BOUND WAY WAY
Page 18
2
Traffic Generation = 15vph per 100m
2
Retail Unit GLA 920m
SCALE TRIPS IN:OUT IN:OUT
PERIOD RATE
(m2) (Veh/hr) SPLIT SPLIT (VEHS)
Page 19
SCALE TRIPS IN:OUT IN:OUT
LAND USE RATE
(m2) (Veh/hr) SPLIT SPLIT (VEHS)
SCALE TRIPS IN:OUT IN:OUT
LAND USE RATE
(m2) (Veh/hr) SPLIT SPLIT (VEHS)
Page 20
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 4.2.5 Total Table 4.5 summarises the traffic generation for each component of the proposed development and for all the future year development scenarios. Table 4.5: TOTAL TRAFFIC GENERATION P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 17
Page 21
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 4.3 Traffic Distribution The distribution of the proposed development related traffic on the existing road network has been estimated based on the directional split inherent in the traffic surveys. We have made the assumption that 90% of traffic would arrive and depart the site using the main access on Myall Street with 10% using the Ferrells Road access. The expected development traffic distribution is shown in Figure 4.3. 4.4 Intersection Performance A series of SIDRA analyses were conducted for the following intersections: == Myall Street / Site Access priority intersection m= Myall Street / Ferrells Road priority intersection == § Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps priority intersection These were based on the turning movement forecasts presented in Appendix D for the following scenarios: Existing year (2014) Opening year (2016) pre-development Opening year (2016) post-development Future year (2026) pre-development Future year (2026) post-development The results of these analyses are presented in Appendix C and discussed in more detail below. We have not undertaken a SIDRA assessment of the Ferrells Road / Site Access intersection due to the low levels of traffic anticipated to use this intersection. 4.4.1 Myall Street / Site Access The SIDRA analysis of the Myall Street / Site Access priority intersection was undertaken using the intersection layout as shown in Figure 4.4. The results of these analyses are attached in Appendix C, and are summarised in Table 4.6. P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 18
Page 22
Overlander Ave Myall Street
5% 5% 45%
5%
5%
Ferrells Road
5% 5%
5% 5% 40%
Bruce Highway
45%
40%
50%
SITE
45%
10% 40%
40%
Bruce Highway Ramps
5%
Myall Street
Page 23
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT Figure 4.4: SITE ACCESS LAYOUT f Myall Street (North) ssanay aS Myall Street (South) Table 4.6: MYALL STREET / SITE ACCESS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Evening Peak 2016 Post Development 23% 0.5 Myall Street (North) - Ahead 2026 Post Development 28% 0.7 Myall Street (North) - Ahead Saturday Peak 2015 Post Development 19% 0.4 Myall Street (North) - Ahead 2025 Post Development 23% 0.6 Myall Street (North) - Ahead Table 4.1 demonstrates that the Myall Street / Site Access intersection is expected to experience “excellent” operations during all periods. In all post-development scenarios, the 95th percentile queue lengths are predicted to be minimal. P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 20
Page 24
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 4.4.2 Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection The SIDRA analysis of the Myall Street / Ferrells Road priority intersection was undertaken using the intersection layout as shown in Figure 2.2. The results of these analyses are attached in Appendix C, and are summarised in Table 4.7. Table 4.7: MYALL STREET / FERRELLS ROAD INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Evening Peak 2014 Existing 23% 0.1 Myall Street (North) - Ahead 2016 Pre Development 24% 0.1 Myall Street (North) - Ahead 2016 Post Development 25% 0.2 Myall Street (North) - Ahead 2026 Pre Development 30% 0.2 Myall Street (North) - Ahead 2026 Post Development 32% 0.3 Myall Street (North) - Ahead Saturday Peak 2014 Existing 19% 0.1 Myall Street (North) - Ahead 2016 Pre Development 20% 0.1 Myall Street (North) - Ahead 2016 Post Development 22% 0.2 Myall Street (North) - Ahead 2026 Pre Development 25% 0.2 Myall Street (North) - Ahead 2026 Post Development 27% 0.2 Myall Street (North) - Ahead Table 4.7 demonstrates that the Myall Street / Ferrells Road priority-controlled intersection is expected to experience “excellent” operations during the morning and evening peak periods. The addition of the development related traffic is not expected to significantly affect the critical degree of saturation. 4.4.3 Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps Intersection The SIDRA analysis of the Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps priority intersection was undertaken using the intersection layout as shown in Figure 2.3. The results of these analyses are attached in Appendix C, and are summarised in Table 4.8. P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 21
Page 25
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT Table 4.8: MYALL STREET / RRUCE HIGHWAY RAMP INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Morning Peak 2014 Existing 21% 0.1 Bruce Highway Ramps - Left 2016 Pre Development 22% 0.1 Bruce Highway Ramps - Left 2016 Post Development 24% 0.2 Bruce Highway Ramps - Left 2026 Pre Development 28% 0.2 Bruce Highway Ramps - Left 2026 Post Development 29% 0.2 Bruce Highway Ramps - Left Evening Peak 2014 Existing 18% 0.1 Bruce Highway Ramps - Left 2016 Pre Development 19% 0.1 Bruce Highway Ramps - Left 2016 Post Development 20% 0.2 Bruce Highway Ramps - Left 2026 Pre Development 23% 0.2 Bruce Highway Ramps - Left 2026 Post Development 25% 0.2 Bruce Highway Ramps - Left Table 4.8 demonstrates that the Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps intersection is expected to experience “excellent” operations during the morning and evening peak periods. The addition of the development related traffic is not expected to significantly affect the critical degree of saturation. P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 22
Page 26
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT 5.0 5.1 5.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The proposed development has been evaluated in terms of its impact on the surrounding road network, site access operations and internal layout. The main points to note are: it is proposed to redevelop the site to provide a mixed-use development comprising a service _ station, fast-food restaurant, retail store, self-storage units and tourist park with a total building GEA of 3,563m? == _ two points of vehicular access are proposed, one from Myall Street and one from Ferrells Road == _ the proposed development incorporates 224 car parking spaces across the site, which is consistent with the Noosa Plan and is expected to adequately cater for the anticipated parking demand == adequate provision is made for the standing, parking, loading and unloading, access and manoeuvring of service vehicles and petrol tankers within the development site m= service vehicles would predominantly use the Myall Street access and any amenity impacts associated with increased heavy vehicle movements on Ferrells Road would be limited == _ the development is expected to generate a maximum of 369 vehicle trip ends during the weekday evening peak period, and 363 vehicle trip ends during the Saturday peak period == of the weekday evening peak hour traffic generation, 137 vehicle trips are predicted to be new trips on the network, with the remaining 232 trips being diverted == of the Saturday peak hour traffic generation, 160 vehicle trips are predicted to be new trips on the network, with the remaining 203 trips being diverted m= _ the site access intersection on Myall Street is expected to experience excellent operations during the opening year (2016) and future year (2026) m= __ the Myall Street / Ferrells Road intersection is expected to demonstrate ‘excellent’ operations in the 2016 and 2026 scenario == the Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps intersection is expected to demonstrate ‘excellent’ operations in the 2016 and 2026 scenario Recommendations Based on our analysis it is recommended that: a left turn auxiliary deceleration lane (AUL) and a channelised right turn treatment (CHR) be provided at the Myall Street / Site Access intersection pavement arrows be painted at the site access crossover and throughout the internal layout to emphasise the intended directions of vehicle flow P:\2012-13\13-082 MYALL STREET, COOROY\REPORTS\MYALL STREET, COOROY TIA.DOCX 23
Page 27
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT DRAWING SKOO1 SIGHT DISTANCE AT MYALL STREET ACCESS
Page 28
| AMENDMENTS DRN DATE \ PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT ABN 96 067 593 962 MYALL STREET, COOROY r CHENT: VERVE BUILDING DESIGN & CONCEPTS P 07 3839 6771 WWW.PTT.COM.AU Level G 67 St Pauls Tce Spring Hill Q 4000 PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT SIGHT DISTANCE DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: MAY 2014 1:1250 @A3 CB \ DRAWING NO. REV | JOB NO. SK001 13-082
Page 29
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT APPENDIX A TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
Page 30
AUSTRAFFIC MANUAL INTERSECTION COUNT
Site No.: 2
Location: Myall Street/Bruce Hwy Ramps, Cooroy
Days/Dates: Thursday 13th March 2014
Saturday 15th March 2014
Summary: AM Peak : Hour ending - 5:00 PM
PM Peak : Hour ending - 12:00 PM Myall Street (north)
Total 1 2 3 Total Movements
418 0 93 327 420 vol
AM PEAK
4% 0% 5% 4% 5% % CV
AM PEAK PM PEAK 365 1 61 299 361 vol
PM PEAK
vol % CV vol % CV 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% % CV
Total 384 5% 307 3%
N
8 361 4% 305 3%
7 23 22% 2 0%
To/from Bruce Highway (west)
Total 95 5% 65 3%
vol 59 2 57 0 350
AM PEAK
% CV 2% 0% 2% 0% 5%
vol 63 4 59 0 301
PM PEAK
% CV 2% 0% 2% 0% 3%
Total 6 5 4 Total
Myall Street (south)
Legend
vol = total vehicle volume
% CV = percentage of commercial vehicles (trucks and buses)
Page 31
Myall Street (north)
AUSTRAFFIC MANUAL INTERSECTION COUNT
sjsjofo]}o OC OOO oO Oo O79 lo sjsjfo]}o So SOF 0 oO O79 lo
mols 855 kK KE Slovo Loe Pole & 2S Fk R Rhroo soe
2° 2°
5 5
5 gqeaddyjJoN}o OC OOO oO oO Olg lo 5 gqeaddyjoN}Se SS SG0 0 © Olg lo
8 8
= =
seen Meay] oo 10 © - + + wee ch seen MeaH] oO a a AK oO + vlgp 6
seen WO 8 8 SX X X Sieve ove seen WO BE SRL RK Kees 962
sIsJXAQ} 0 OC OOOO Oo O79 lo sisyAQ}O OS S800 0 Off lo
feJol]}o m © © 2 @ w A Igy lez feol]}o CON NK AN K|g iz
N N
5 5
E | avoid ioy}o © © Oo © © © ofp lo E | aqeoyddy ion} © © So © © ofp lo
$ $
saiyean AABAHT OD N COCO Fr + Og Is saiyean AARAHTS SOS S00 Oo Olg lo
sgaiyan 1y6i]]}o mo © OD © + ALD gL sgaiyan Iyi]]}o CONN YK WN |g z
sjso{g9}o 0 0 00 0 Oo olg lo s\sjofg9}@ © © 0.0 0 0 olg lo
1eol]}o 02 ON OO O Ke |g z feof] o 2 Oe - + © Olg ly
© ©
5 5
E | ageaiddyionfo oo oo © © Olp lo E | eqeoyddy ion}@ © © So © © ofp lo
3 3
= =
sgpiyan nea] oO 0 0 0 Oo olg lo saya, nea] © © 0.0 0 o olg lo
sgaiyep YbIT]}o CON OC OC Oo HK |g Zz saya, YT] SO 2 S = - - © Oflg iy
sjsjofo]}o OC OOO oO Oo O79 lo sjsjfo]}o So SOF 0 oO O79 lo
Iol|S 2 Roof ow lee us leojjo 222 2 FX 2 w Igor les
ro ro
5 5
5 gqeaddyjJoN}o OC OOO oO oO Olg lo 5 gqeaddyjoN}Se SS SG0 0 © Olg lo
8 8
= =
sqoan Mea] - CC OO Or Olg L seen Mea] O © © ro oo Off L
saya b= 2 Roo Nn ol06 log seiyen 1y6r7}0 2 2 N © + 2 w Igor leg
sIsJXAQ} 0 OC OOOO Oo O79 lo sisyAQ}O OS S800 0 Off lo
~ TOI] o 0 0 0 lO Oo Ol9 lo fol} o © SO 0 Oo Oo Olp lo
s + +
3 =e =
3 3 5
& E | avoid ioy}o © © Oo © © © ofp lo E | aqeoyddy ion} © © So © © ofp lo
2
3 $ $
{3 2
i saya, AARAH]}O OC COO CO oO Olg lo saiyean AARAHTS SOS S00 Oo Olg lo
3
a
=
seoyen ybr]o 0 000 0 oO lp lo soar wr}e © 0 0000 olf lo
sjso{g9}o 0 0 00 0 Oo olg lo s\sjofg9}o © = 00 0 o Off L
eon roll $5 $8 8 B Bless laze roles X 8 FSX & Bess le6z
° °
2¢ 5 5
2 g E | ageaiddyionfo oo oo © © Olp lo E | aqeaiddyionfS 6 5 Oo © © Olp lo
mo > >
gF 3 8
& z sqoiyen Mea] mo t+ ON AA K/|IZ Ih sajiyen Meo] NO NN + A &IOZ 6
seoyan o£ & KR B&B & Sles eve seoyan WoT RR SSR R Biers losz
sjsjOLQ} 0° 0 OOOO oO Olg lo sjsjofQ} 0 SO SO S200 0 Olg lo
Pola ZAR RN Aloo e6 Pol& = SS 2k 2 Rieer 19
a a
5 5
5 gqeaddyjJoN}o OC OOO oO oO Olg lo 5 gqeaddyjoN}Se SS SG0 0 © Olg lo
8 8
= =
sqoan Mea] KH KH CoN Ag 5 seen Mea] OM © 0.0 0 oO Olg z
pb
°
3
5 seen WOR 2 RA SR Row ge seyen WO | O BS 2 RK 2 For les
2 &
&& = > sisjfg}o 0 0 00 oC oO Olg lo sisjokg} © © © O00 Oo olg lo
Serax ae
kag Ss S
ge0AS8 TOI] o 0 0 0 lO Oo Ol9 lo leol]}o Oe © FOC oO Of L
BrsgeuQ - -
o5 ~
Seags z E
= 2 = Ss £ | aqeajddyjonj}o COCO fO CO Oo Olg lo £ | aqeajddyjonjo SC SOS 0 Oo Olg lo
Asa ww g $
SRetses
aeunss 2 2
£ >> 5 5 saya, AARAH]}O OC COO CO oO Olg lo saiyean AARAHTS SOS S00 Oo Olg lo
ASHioOx
sz2E 2
fo) 53 & mt sgiyan 1YBI]]2 So OC OO oO Oo Olg lo siya WB] o° So He SOC oO Oly L
ZARA
. 3 as z SSS2522222 = 22222222
g&s ag us aaacaaaa bead we Sess sot le Deed
Zs 8 n zs 23828382 8 BF glPLsye Irepsunys zs = SF S25 BF SlPOLins lepimes
os 2 go z ¥$¥$H 6 6 HS = ~~ S
~ = =
£Se 28 = =
Amro BH
Page 32
AUSTRAFFIC MANUAL INTERSECTION COUNT
Site No.: 1 Weather: Fine
Location: Myall Street/Ferrells Road, Cooroy
Days/Dates: Thursday 13th March 2014
Saturday 15th March 2014
Summary: Thurs Peak : Hour ending - 5:00 PM
Sat Peak : Hour ending - 11:45 AM Myall Street (north)
Total 1 2 3 Total Movements
417 0 12 420 432 vol
THUR PEAK
4% 0% 0% 4% 4% % CV
THUR PEAK SAT PEAK 369 0 16 351 367 vol
SAT PEAK
vol % CV vol % CV 2% 0% 0% 3% 2% % CV
Total 22 5% 27 0%
N
8 10 0% 18 0%
7 12 8% 9 0%
Ferrells Road (west)
Total 30 7% 25 0%
Northbound
426
vol 426 18 407 1 433
THUR PEAK
% CV 4% 11% 4% 0% 4% Southbound
vol 360 9 351 0 360 432
SAT PEAK
% CV 3% 0% 3% 0% 3%
Total 6 5 4 Total
Myall Street (south)
Legend
vol = total vehicle volume
% CV = percentage of commercial vehicles (trucks and buses)
Page 33
Myall Street (north)
AUSTRAFFIC MANUAL INTERSECTION COUNT
sjsjOLQ} 0° 0 OOOO oO Olg lo sjsjofQ} 0 SO SO S200 0 Olg lo
jejoy]n we wo - S w lez on jejoy]an wo NK KH mo alee et
2° 2°
5 5
£ | aqeajddyilonfo CO OO oO Oo Og lo £ | aqeajddyionjo SO SSO oO oO Op lo
= =
soar Mea] Oo OO OO Fr oO Op lo sean Mea] Oo © © 0.0 0 Oo Olg 0
sgaiya, y6T}.uN UN - HO HK MD HY NZ lol. sgaiyan yi} ON H- - OM WIZE gL
sIsJXAQ} 0 OC OOOO Oo O79 lo sisJAQ}O OS = SFC Oo Of L
eol]t t Ke on t om & (Zz (am pejoy]t Oo Ke He HK oO eK oly 6
N N
5 5
E | avoid ioy}o © © Oo © © © ofp lo E | aqeoyddy ion} © © So © © ofp lo
$ $
sapien fneay]o Oo Or HK Oo Ke L saya, neay]o © © Oo KH oO Of lo
soar yor}+ + - aw + 7 ole i soar wor} t @ - eH ww oly 6
sjso{g9}o 0 0 00 0 Oo olg lo s\sjofg9}@ © © 0.0 0 0 olg lo
fejol]t+ oO nN t+ OO AN KlyE gL fejoljo ee NN t © HK [zz 6
© ©
5 5
— | aqeayjddyjonjo 0 OOF oO Oo Ol”9 lo £ | aqeojddyjonj}o SC So Oo Co oO Olg lo
= =
sgpiyen nea] Oo oO NO mM Oo § fg z sgpiyen neay]o © © Oo - oc Off lo
saya, Yb] + mo OH +m OM — Ww \gz OL saaiyan 1Y6T] OK HK NN ODM © K|IZ 6
sjsjOLQ} 0° 0 OOOO oO Olg lo sjsjofQ} 0 SO SO S200 0 Olg lo
x cS) g
rmolS Sr & 8 8 S Sls 0b Polk SSR SR BS Xo ise
ro ro
5 5
£ | aqeajddyilonfo CO OO oO Oo Og lo £ | aqeajddyionjo SO SSO oO oO Op lo
= =
seen Meay]o ww + - H + w wee oy seen Meay| eo oO - AN oOo eH wl 6
sepyen 68 SSSSERS Slaw bee sepiyen HOTS GB & RSL & NR Izso eve
sIsJXAQ} 0 OC OOOO Oo O79 lo sisyAQ}O OS S800 0 Off lo
~ Teol]}o oor OO oO Of L feol]}o CS Or © Oo Off lo
3 t t
3 =e =
3 3 5
& E | avoid ioy}o © © Oo © © © ofp lo E | aqeoyddy ion} © © So © © ofp lo
2
3 $ $
{3 2
i saya, AARAH]}O OC COO CO oO Olg lo saiyean AARAHTS SOS S00 Oo Olg lo
3
=
seen yr]o oor OOO Ol L seoyen yor}o oO O- OO Ol 0
sjso{g9}o 0 0 00 0 Oo olg lo s\sjofg9}@ © © 0.0 0 0 olg lo
5 ear 2
on rio]S 8SSSR B Rize loz rojo FR 8 BK SB & Kise9 Ise
° °
ze 5 2
aé E | ageoyddy ion}o © © © © © oO ofp lo E | eqeoyddy ion}@ © © So © © ofp lo
= S S
a 3 3
= = =
E sgaiyan Aeay}in mo oH Oo AN HW ~ IDE sb sgaiyan Mea MN NON - ON + lZz 6
s
=
seoyenor]S 8 SS 5 LS Nex zov sepyen 468 © BBLS Slee eve
sjsjOLQ} 0° 0 OOOO oO Olg lo sjsjofQ} 0 SO SO S200 0 Olg lo
joy]+ om wot a + thz eb jejoy|t + a © am w Aiee ob
a a
5 5
£ | aqeajddyilonfo CO OO oO Oo Og lo £ | aqeajddyionjo SO SSO oO oO Op lo
= =
soar Mea] Oo OO OO Fr oO Op lo seen Mea] Oo © © OO + Oo Off lo
a sgaiya, y67]}t mo om ot N + + IOz zh saya YybT|+ +N ON A MH NYE lol
2 5
= VU > = gsjspofg}o Co OOo Oo oO Olg lo gsisyofg9}o SC SOS 0 oO Olg lo
st
gltt+ x
eBooks
SgZgVCTaASt
2 G Ss TOI] o 0 0 0 lO Oo Ol9 lo fol} o © SO 0 Oo Oo Olp lo
SeGaunrt - ~
SU ER E E
Ss oO oO
= ES Ss £ | ageayddyjonfo 0 OC OO oo ofp lo £ | ageayddyjonfo 0 SO Oo oC oO ofp lo
Bsg ye $ g
gangs 2 2
£ >> 5 5 saya, AARAH]}O OC COO CO oO Olg lo saiyean AARAHTS SOS S00 Oo Olg lo
ASHioOx
sz2E 2
“~SR22n seoyen ybr]o 0 000 0 oO lp lo soar wr}e © 0 0000 olf lo
ZARA
y 4 3 s
- 2 Ss. = = 2222232283
228 “4 ¥3 Beers =e a peo us Ses: ss peo
Zs 8 n 2 zt ©3232 8 8 S/POLiNZ Jrepsunyy zt Sr aFs FH LIPOLae leoomes
s Bo z ¥YPHK 6 GS z Eertretsdaaa
237 5. = = oe YN SN
2 gS is = =
Ama BH
Page 34
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT APPENDIX B DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Page 35
RPD DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT:
LOT 4 on T_T oomomn®ere
SP240679 BUILDING USE SITE COVERAGE
PARISH OF TEWANTIN aap 2 2
COUNTY OF MARCH FUEL SALES/SHOP = 14d e TOTAL SITE AREA = 66,643m
x LOCAL GOVERNHENT; NOOSA © FAST FOOD RESTAURANT - 292m? TOTAL USEABLE SITE AREA - 50,333m?
© SELF STORAGE = 1,110m? © TOTAL BUILDING GFA. = 3,563m?
ADMIN, OFFICE ~ 50m2
STORAGE UNS - 1,060m2 TOTAL PAVED SURFACE ~ 30,276m?
© TOURIST PARK - 820m? 2
ADM HE Sten ¢ TOTAL LANDSCAPING ~ 16,494m
CABINS - 320m2
AMENITIES = 180m2 « — BUILDING/SITE COVERAGE - 67%
“BUILDING” INCLUDES ENCLOSED BUILDINGS AND PAVED IMPERVIOUS
. e ANCILLARY USE (CAR WASH) - 14m? AREAS (LE. CARPARKING AREAS AND PAVED WALKWAYS)
FAST FOOD & D/THRU TOTAL BUILDING GFA ~ 3,543n? « LANDSCAPING COVERAGE - 33%
GFA. - 292m2 (EXCLUDES FUEL DISPENSING FORECOURT)
SALES/SHOP 2 PLEASE NOTE:
FA 1h ¢ FUEL DISPENSING FORECOURT = - 538m = AREAS INDICATED ABOVE ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY.
(UNENCLOSED BUILOING FOOTPRINT) - LANDSCAPING SHOWN INDICATIVE ONLY. REFER TO
LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR DETAILS, PREPARED BY
SAUNDERS HAVILL
LANDSCAPING BUFFER TO
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
4.0m HIGH
ACOUSTIC BARRIER:
EXISTING HEADWALL TO
BE MODIFIED/RELCOATED
NEW ENTRY EXIT
= ALL TURNS
4.0m HIGH
ACOUSTIC
ENTRY ONLY J
é
4.0m HIGH
ACOUSTIC
SURPLUS SITE FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
APPROX, AREA = 5,808m2
OVERLAND
AVENUE
4.0m HIGH
ACOUSTIC BARRIER-
5.0m HIGH
ACOUSTIC BARRIER
BIO-RETENTION
BASN A /7/
4
LADSCAPING BUFFER TO
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
=
BESS
SS
STORMWATER
DETENTION AREA
10.0m EXCLUSIONS ZONE TO
EXISTING VEGETATION DRIP
LINE, SHOWN DASHED.
2
*
TP,
LAND AREA ~
5.0m HIGH
ACOUSTIC BARRER-
AREA TO BE RETAINED AS
NATURAL VEGETATION
APPROX. LAND AREA - 13,250m2
SELF STORAGE UNITS
52 UNITS - 20.4m2 ea,
TOTAL LAND AREA ~ 4,770n2
i
|
| s
. ~~ a
me
fone SSB SSS See eee maar
HGH CABINS x 10
~~ ___ ACOUSTIC BARRIER GFA. - 32m? each
BETES TOTAL GRA, - 3202
SITE PLAN BRY strato
SCALE 1750 @At; 11500 @A3 CE HIGH WA y
DA ISSUE
LOCALITY PLAN.
NOT TO SCALE
thie craig.
dimensions on site ptnt commencement of works
ae oe Dar
cf expe | oe | on issue
8 | ziost4 | GW | Se PLAN UPDATED, MAN BULONG ALTERED
A_| wos | op | Prete 6suE
Vorve
Building Design é& Concepts
[BULDING DESIGNERS LICENCE No, 1002212 PH. 0412 384
257 HLNVAROAD, ARANAHILS, QLD Exgeng@varetdzor
Imagine o create o delive
DO commercial /industrial/retai
0D fastfood restaurant design
0 travel centre / service stations
0D project concept tocompletto
Projet Descitin
PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
CNR. MYALL STREET & FERRELLS ROAD,
COOROY, QLD.
Urwig Tite
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
Droving Krier
14004-DA02
Page 36
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT APPENDIX C INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Page 37
SITE LAYOUT
Site: 2014 PM Existing
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2014 PM Existing
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Created: Thursday, 15 May 2014 2:21:32 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13 -082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 38
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2014 PM Existing
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2014 PM Existing
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 20 4.0 1806 0.011 100 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 70 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 428 4.0 1901 0.225 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 448 4.0 0.225 0.3 NA 0.0 0.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 442 4.0 1901 0.233 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 13 4.0 681 0.019 100 8.3 LOS A 0.1 0.5 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 455 4.0 0.233 0.3 NA 0.1 0.5
West: Ferrells Road
Lane 1 24 4.0 717 0.034 100 8.7 LOS A 0.1 0.8 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 24 4.0 0.034 8.7 LOS A 0.1 0.8
Intersection 927 4.0 0.233 0.5 NA 0.1 0.8
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Thursday, 15 May 2014 2:22:24 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 39
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2016 PM Pre Dev
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2016 PM Pre-Development
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 21 4.0 1806 0.012 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 70 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 447 4.0 1901 0.235 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 468 4.0 0.235 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 462 4.0 1901 0.243 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 15 4.0 661 0.022 100 11.4 LOS B 0.1 0.5 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 477 4.0 0.243 0.4 NA 0.1 0.5
West: Ferrells Road
Lane 1 25 4.0 686 0.037 100 11.6 LOS B 0.1 0.9 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 25 4.0 0.037 11.6 LOS B 0.1 0.9
Intersection 971 4.0 0.243 0.7 NA 0.1 0.9
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 12:05:39 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 40
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2016 PM Post Dev
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2016 PM Post-Development
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 21 4.0 1806 0.012 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 70 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 472 4.0 1901 0.248 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 493 4.0 0.248 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 489 4.0 1901 0.258 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 22 4.0 638 0.035 100 11.7 LOS B 0.1 0.9 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 512 4.0 0.258 0.5 NA 0.1 0.9
West: Ferrells Road
Lane 1 34 4.0 674 0.050 100 11.7 LOS B 0.2 1.2 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 34 4.0 0.050 11.7 LOS B 0.2 1.2
Intersection 1038 4.0 0.258 0.8 NA 0.2 1.2
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 12:07:56 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 41
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2026 PM Pre Dev
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2026 PM Pre-Development
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 26 4.0 1806 0.015 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 70 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 556 4.0 1901 0.292 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 582 4.0 0.292 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 574 4.0 1901 0.302 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 17 4.0 553 0.030 100 12.7 LOS B 0.1 0.7 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 591 4.0 0.302 0.4 NA 0.1 0.7
West: Ferrells Road
Lane 1 32 4.0 543 0.058 100 13.3 LOS B 0.2 1.4 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 32 4.0 0.058 13.3 LOS B 0.2 1.4
Intersection 1204 4.0 0.302 0.7 NA 0.2 1.4
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 12:09:41 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 42
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2026 PM Post Dev
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2026 PM Post-Development
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 26 4.0 1806 0.015 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 70 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 579 4.0 1901 0.305 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 605 4.0 0.305 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 600 4.0 1901 0.316 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 26 4.0 532 0.049 100 13.1 LOS B 0.2 1.2 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 626 4.0 0.316 0.6 NA 0.2 1.2
West: Ferrells Road
Lane 1 41 4.0 537 0.076 100 13.3 LOS B 0.3 1.8 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 41 4.0 0.076 13.3 LOS B 0.3 1.8
Intersection 1273 4.0 0.316 0.9 NA 0.3 1.8
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 12:11:04 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 43
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2014 SAT Existing
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2014 SAT Existing
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 9 2.0 1831 0.005 100 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 70 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 369 2.0 1925 0.192 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 379 2.0 0.192 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 369 2.0 1925 0.192 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 17 2.0 765 0.022 100 7.6 LOS A 0.1 0.5 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 386 2.0 0.192 0.4 NA 0.1 0.5
West: Ferrells Road
Lane 1 28 2.0 855 0.033 100 7.6 LOS A 0.1 0.8 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 28 2.0 0.033 7.6 LOS A 0.1 0.8
Intersection 794 2.0 0.192 0.5 NA 0.1 0.8
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Thursday, 15 May 2014 2:24:55 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 44
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2016 SAT Pre-Dev
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2016 SAT Pre-Development
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 9 2.0 1831 0.005 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 70 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 386 2.0 1925 0.201 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 396 2.0 0.201 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 386 2.0 1925 0.201 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 18 2.0 748 0.024 100 10.7 LOS B 0.1 0.6 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 404 2.0 0.201 0.5 NA 0.1 0.6
West: Ferrells Road
Lane 1 29 2.0 834 0.035 100 10.4 LOS B 0.1 0.9 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 29 2.0 0.035 10.4 LOS B 0.1 0.9
Intersection 829 2.0 0.201 0.7 NA 0.1 0.9
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 12:33:44 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 45
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2016 SAT Post-Dev
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2016 SAT Post-Development
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 9 2.0 1831 0.005 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 70 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 415 2.0 1925 0.215 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 424 2.0 0.215 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 419 2.0 1925 0.218 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 26 2.0 719 0.037 100 11.0 LOS B 0.1 0.9 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 445 2.0 0.218 0.7 NA 0.1 0.9
West: Ferrells Road
Lane 1 38 2.0 804 0.047 100 10.6 LOS B 0.2 1.1 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 38 2.0 0.047 10.6 LOS B 0.2 1.1
Intersection 907 2.0 0.218 0.9 NA 0.2 1.1
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 12:36:25 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 46
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2026 SAT Pre-Dev
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2026 SAT Pre-Development
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 13 2.0 1831 0.007 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 70 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 480 2.0 1925 0.249 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 493 2.0 0.249 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 480 2.0 1925 0.249 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 22 2.0 651 0.034 100 11.6 LOS B 0.1 0.8 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 502 2.0 0.249 0.5 NA 0.1 0.8
West: Ferrells Road
Lane 1 37 2.0 708 0.052 100 11.4 LOS B 0.2 1.2 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 37 2.0 0.052 11.4 LOS B 0.2 1.2
Intersection 1032 2.0 0.249 0.8 NA 0.2 1.2
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 12:40:35 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 47
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2026 SAT Post-Dev
Myall Street / Ferrells Road Intersection
14-082 Myall Street, Cooroy
2026 SAT Post-Development
Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 13 2.0 1831 0.007 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 70 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 508 2.0 1925 0.264 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 521 2.0 0.264 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 513 2.0 1925 0.266 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 32 2.0 623 0.051 100 12.0 LOS B 0.2 1.2 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 544 2.0 0.266 0.7 NA 0.2 1.2
West: Ferrells Road
Lane 1 46 2.0 683 0.068 100 11.6 LOS B 0.2 1.6 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 46 2.0 0.068 11.6 LOS B 0.2 1.6
Intersection 1112 2.0 0.266 1.0 NA 0.2 1.6
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 12:42:58 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Ferrells Rd\Myall St - Ferrells Rd.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 48
SITE LAYOUT
Site: 2026 SAT Post-Dev
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2026 SAT Post-Development
Stop (Two-Way)
Created: Thursday, 15 May 2014 2:18:58 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13 -082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
Page 49
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2014 PM Existing
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2014 PM Existing
Stop (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 62 5.0 2112 0.029 100 8.5 LOS A 0.1 0.7 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 62 5.0 0.029 8.5 LOS A 0.1 0.7
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 344 5.0 1889 0.182 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 98 5.0 1793 0.055 100 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 442 5.0 0.182 1.3 NA 0.0 0.0
West: Bruce Highway Ramps
Lane 1 380 5.0 1793 0.212 100 5.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 24 5.0 1425 0.017 100 6.2 LOS A 0.0 0.3 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 404 5.0 0.212 5.7 LOS A 0.0 0.3
Intersection 908 5.0 0.212 3.7 NA 0.1 0.7
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Thursday, 15 May 2014 2:09:25 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 50
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2016 PM Pre-Dev
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2016 PM Pre-Dev
Stop (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 65 5.0 1554 0.042 100 11.4 LOS B 0.1 1.1 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 65 5.0 0.042 11.4 LOS B 0.1 1.1
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 360 5.0 1889 0.191 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 102 5.0 1793 0.057 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 462 5.0 0.191 1.8 NA 0.0 0.0
West: Bruce Highway Ramps
Lane 1 397 5.0 1793 0.221 100 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 25 5.0 1138 0.022 100 9.5 LOS A 0.1 0.4 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 422 5.0 0.221 7.7 LOS A 0.1 0.4
Intersection 949 5.0 0.221 5.1 NA 0.1 1.1
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 1:31:53 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 51
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2016 PM Post-Dev
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2016 PM Post-Dev
Stop (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 68 5.0 1503 0.046 100 11.5 LOS B 0.2 1.2 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 68 5.0 0.046 11.5 LOS B 0.2 1.2
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 388 5.0 1889 0.206 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 109 5.0 1793 0.061 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 498 5.0 0.206 1.8 NA 0.0 0.0
West: Bruce Highway Ramps
Lane 1 425 5.0 1793 0.237 100 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 25 5.0 1105 0.023 100 9.6 LOS A 0.1 0.5 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 451 5.0 0.237 7.7 LOS A 0.1 0.5
Intersection 1017 5.0 0.237 5.1 NA 0.2 1.2
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 1:33:49 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 52
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2026 PM Pre-Dev
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2026 PM Pre-Dev
Stop (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 81 5.0 1384 0.059 100 11.8 LOS B 0.2 1.5 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 81 5.0 0.059 11.8 LOS B 0.2 1.5
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 447 5.0 1889 0.237 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 127 5.0 1793 0.071 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 575 5.0 0.237 1.8 NA 0.0 0.0
West: Bruce Highway Ramps
Lane 1 494 5.0 1793 0.275 100 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 32 5.0 1031 0.031 100 9.9 LOS A 0.1 0.6 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 525 5.0 0.275 7.7 LOS A 0.1 0.6
Intersection 1181 5.0 0.275 5.1 NA 0.2 1.5
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 1:35:32 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 53
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2026 PM Post-Dev
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2026 PM Post-Dev
Stop (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 84 5.0 1335 0.063 100 11.9 LOS B 0.2 1.6 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 84 5.0 0.063 11.9 LOS B 0.2 1.6
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 476 5.0 1889 0.252 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 135 5.0 1793 0.075 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 611 5.0 0.252 1.8 NA 0.0 0.0
West: Bruce Highway Ramps
Lane 1 522 5.0 1793 0.291 100 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 32 5.0 999 0.032 100 10.0 LOS B 0.1 0.6 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 554 5.0 0.291 7.7 LOS A 0.1 0.6
Intersection 1248 5.0 0.291 5.1 NA 0.2 1.6
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 1:36:53 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 54
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2014 SAT Existing
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2014 SAT Existing
Stop (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 66 3.0 2214 0.030 100 8.3 LOS A 0.1 0.8 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 66 3.0 0.030 8.3 LOS A 0.1 0.8
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 315 3.0 1913 0.165 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 65 3.0 1818 0.036 100 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 380 3.0 0.165 1.0 NA 0.0 0.0
West: Bruce Highway Ramps
Lane 1 321 3.0 1818 0.177 100 5.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 2 3.0 1495 0.001 100 6.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 323 3.0 0.177 5.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0
Intersection 769 3.0 0.177 3.6 NA 0.1 0.8
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Thursday, 15 May 2014 2:11:08 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 55
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2016 SAT Pre-Dev
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2016 SAT Pre-Development
Stop (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 69 3.0 1684 0.041 100 11.2 LOS B 0.1 1.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 69 3.0 0.041 11.2 LOS B 0.1 1.0
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 328 3.0 1913 0.172 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 68 3.0 1818 0.038 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 397 3.0 0.172 1.4 NA 0.0 0.0
West: Bruce Highway Ramps
Lane 1 336 3.0 1818 0.185 100 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 2 3.0 1209 0.002 100 9.3 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 338 3.0 0.185 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0
Intersection 804 3.0 0.185 4.9 NA 0.1 1.0
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 1:43:53 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 56
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2016 SAT Post-Dev
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2016 SAT Post-Development
Stop (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 74 3.0 1627 0.045 100 11.3 LOS B 0.2 1.1 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 74 3.0 0.045 11.3 LOS B 0.2 1.1
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 362 3.0 1913 0.189 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 77 3.0 1818 0.042 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 439 3.0 0.189 1.5 NA 0.0 0.0
West: Bruce Highway Ramps
Lane 1 368 3.0 1818 0.203 100 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 2 3.0 1170 0.002 100 9.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 371 3.0 0.203 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0
Intersection 883 3.0 0.203 4.9 NA 0.2 1.1
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 1:47:10 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 57
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2026 SAT Pre-Dev
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2026 SAT Pre-Development
Stop (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 86 3.0 1546 0.056 100 11.4 LOS B 0.2 1.4 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 86 3.0 0.056 11.4 LOS B 0.2 1.4
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 408 3.0 1913 0.214 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 85 3.0 1818 0.047 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 494 3.0 0.214 1.4 NA 0.0 0.0
West: Bruce Highway Ramps
Lane 1 417 3.0 1818 0.229 100 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 3 3.0 1114 0.003 100 9.6 LOS A 0.0 0.1 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 420 3.0 0.229 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.1
Intersection 1000 3.0 0.229 4.9 NA 0.2 1.4
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 1:48:37 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 58
LANE SUMMARY
Site: 2026 SAT Post-Dev
Myall Street / Bruce Highway Ramps
13-082 Myall Street Cooroy
2026 SAT Post-Development
Stop (Two-Way)
Lane Use and Performance
Demand Flows Deg. Lane Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Lane Lane Cap. Prob.
Total HV Cap. Satn Util. Delay Service Veh Dist Config Length Adj. Block.
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec m m % %
South: Myall Street (South)
Lane 1 91 3.0 1489 0.061 100 11.5 LOS B 0.2 1.5 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 91 3.0 0.061 11.5 LOS B 0.2 1.5
North: Myall Street (North)
Lane 1 442 3.0 1913 0.231 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 93 3.0 1818 0.051 100 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Short 50 0.0 0.0
Approach 535 3.0 0.231 1.4 NA 0.0 0.0
West: Bruce Highway Ramps
Lane 1 451 3.0 1818 0.248 100 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Lane 2 3 3.0 1076 0.003 100 9.7 LOS A 0.0 0.1 Full 500 0.0 0.0
Approach 454 3.0 0.248 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.1
Intersection 1079 3.0 0.248 4.9 NA 0.2 1.5
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000).
Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.
Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.
NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a
good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 1:50:03 PM Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.20.4660 www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: P:\2012-13\13-082 Myall Street, Cooroy\Calcs\SIDRA\Myall St - Bruce Highway Ramps\Myall St - Bruce
Highway Ramps.sip6
8000122, ADAM PEKOL CONSULTING, PLUS / 1PC
Page 59
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT APPENDIX D FORECAST TURNING VOLUMES
Page 60
2014 PM EXISTING
Overlander Ave Myall Street
12 420
10
13
Ferrells Road
19 407
433
Bruce Highway
SITE
426
93 327
361
Bruce Highway Ramps 23
2 57
Myall Street
Page 61
2014 SAT EXISTING
Overlander Ave Myall Street
16 351
18
9
Ferrells Road
9 351
Bruce Highway
360
SITE
360
62 299
305
Bruce Highway Ramps 2
4 59
Myall Street
Page 62
2016 PM PRE-DEVELOPMENT
Growth Factor 1.04
Overlander Ave Myall Street
13 439
10
14
Ferrells Road
20 425
452
Bruce Highway
SITE
445
97 342
377
Bruce Highway Ramps 24
2 60
Myall Street
Page 63
2016 SAT PRE-DEVELOPMENT
Growth Factor 1.04
Overlander Ave Myall Street
17 367
19
9
Ferrells Road
9 367
376
Bruce Highway
SITE
376
65 312
319
Bruce Highway Ramps 2
4 62
Myall Street
Page 64
2026 PM PRE-DEVELOPMENT
Growth Factor 1.30
Overlander Ave Myall Street
16 545
13
17
Ferrells Road
25 528
562
Bruce Highway
SITE
553
121 425
469
Bruce Highway Ramps 30
3 74
Myall Street
Page 65
2026 SAT PRE-DEVELOPMENT
Growth Factor 1.30
Overlander Ave Myall Street
21 456
23
12
Ferrells Road
12 456
467
Bruce Highway
SITE
467
81 388
396
Bruce Highway Ramps 3
5 77
Myall Street
Page 66
2016 PM DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
Overlander Ave Myall Street
3 8 26
8
8
Ferrells Road
3 8
8 8 23
Bruce Highway
72 - 41
64
80
SITE
72 - 41
7 27
27
Bruce Highway Ramps
3
Myall Street
Page 67
2026 PM DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
Overlander Ave Myall Street
3 9 25
9
9
Ferrells Road
3 9
9 9 22
Bruce Highway
83 - 52
74
92
SITE
83 - 52
7 27
27
Bruce Highway Ramps
3
Myall Street
Page 68
2016 SAT DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
Overlander Ave Myall Street
4 8 32
8
8
Ferrells Road
4 8
8 8 28
Bruce Highway
73 - 37
65
81
SITE
73 - 37
8 32
32
Bruce Highway Ramps
4
Myall Street
Page 69
2026 SAT DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
Overlander Ave Myall Street
4 9 31
9
9
Ferrells Road
4 9
9 9 27
Bruce Highway
82 - 46
73
91
SITE
82 - 46
8 32
32
Bruce Highway Ramps
4
Myall Street
Page 70
2016 PM POST-DEVELOPMENT
Overlander Ave Myall Street
21 465
18
8 14
Ferrells Road
8
8 8 20 448
72 411
64
80
Bruce Highway
SITE
72 403
104 369
404
Bruce Highway Ramps 24
2 63
Myall Street
Page 71
2016 SAT POST-DEVELOPMENT
Overlander Ave Myall Street
25 398
27
8 9
Ferrells Road
8
8 8 9 394
73 339
65
81
Bruce Highway
SITE
73 339
73 344
350
Bruce Highway Ramps 2
4 66
Myall Street
Page 72
2026 PM POST-DEVELOPMENT
Overlander Ave Myall Street
3 25 570
22
9 17
Ferrells Road
3 9
9 9 25 550
83 510
74
92
Bruce Highway
SITE
83 501
128 452
496
Bruce Highway Ramps 30
3 77
Myall Street
Page 73
2026 SAT POST-DEVELOPMENT
Overlander Ave Myall Street
30 487
32
9 12
Ferrells Road
9
9 9 12 483
82 422
73
91
Bruce Highway
SITE
82 422
88 420
428
Bruce Highway Ramps 3
5 81
Myall Street
Page 74
PEKOL TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT APPENDIX E CODE RESPONSES
Page 75
MYALL STREET, COOROY
Access to state-controlled roads state code
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response Comment
Location of the direct vehicular access to the state-controlled road
PO1 Any road access location to the state- AO1.1 Any road access location to the state-controlled road from
controlled road from adjacent land does not adjacent land complies with a decision under section 62 of the TIA.
compromise the safety and efficiency of the state- OR all of the following acceptable outcomes apply
controlled road.
AO1.2 Any road access location for the development is provided from a Complies The nature of the development requires
lower order road where an alternative to the state-controlled road access from a state controlled road.
exists. AND
AO1.3 A traffic impact assessment certified by a Registered Professional Complies A Traffic Impact Assessment has been
Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) demonstrates that the development prepared, which demonstrates that the
will maintain the safety and efficiency of the state-controlled road. AND transport network has sufficient capacity
to accommodate anticipated development
movements
AO1.4 Any road access location meets the sight distance requirements Complies Sight distance requirements in both
nd
outlined in Volume 3, Part 3 of the Road planning and design manual, 2 directions are met.
edition, Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2013. AND
AO1.5 Any road access location is not located adjacent to an existing or Complies The proposed access is not located
planned functional area of an intersection in accordance with Volume 3, adjacent to an existing or planned
nd
parts 4 and 4A of the Road planning and design manual, 2 edition, intersection
Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2013. AND
AO1.6 Any road access location does not conflict with any adjacent Complies The road access location does not conflict
lands’ access location and operation. with any adjacent point of access.
Editor’s note: In order to demonstrate that the acceptable outcomes can
be achieved, it is recommended that a traffic impact assessment,
certified by an RPEQ, be provided. It should be prepared in accordance
with the Guidelines for assessment of road impacts of development
(GARID), Department of Main Roads, 2006, and the requirements of
nd
Volume 3, parts 4 and 4A of the Road planning and design manual, 2
edition, Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2013, SIDRA analysis
or traffic modelling.
Direct access to a limited access road
PO2 Access to a limited access road is in No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not
page 1
Page 76
Access to state-controlled roads state code
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response Comment
accordance with the approved limited access applicable
policy.
Editor’s note: Limited access roads are declared by
the chief executive under section 54 of the TIA.
Details can be accessed by contacting the
appropriate DTMR regional office.
Number of road accesses to the state-controlled road
PO3 The number of road access locations to the AO3.1 Development does not increase the number of road access Complies A single point of access from the site to
state-controlled road maintains the safety and locations to the state-controlled road. the state controlled road is proposed.
efficiency of the state-controlled road.
PO4 The number of road access locations to the AO4.1 Where multiple road access locations to the premises exist, Complies A single access to the state controlled
state-controlled road is rationalised to maintain access is rationalised to reduce the overall number of road access road is proposed.
the safety and efficiency of the state-controlled locations to the state-controlled road. AND
road. AO4.2 Shared or combined road access locations are provided for Not
adjoining land having similar uses to rationalise the overall number of applicable
direct accesses to the state-controlled road.
Editor’s note: Shared road access locations may require easements to
provide a legal point of access for adjacent lots. If this is required, then
the applicant must register reciprocal access easements on the titles of
both of the lots for the shared access.
Design vehicle and traffic volume
PO5 Any road access location maintains the safety AO5.1 Any road access location meets the minimum standards Complies The access has been designed to
and efficiency of the state-controlled road. associated with the design vehicle. accommodate an articulated vehicle and
Editor’s note: The design vehicle to be considered is the same as the petrol fuel tanker.
design vehicle set under the relevant local government planning
scheme. AND
AO5.2 Any road access location is designed to accommodate the Complies It has been demonstrated that the access
forecast volume of vehicle movements in the peak periods of operation intersection can accommodate future
or conducting the proposed use of the premises. AND forecast vehicle volumes.
AO5.3 Any road access location is designed to accommodate 10 year Complies As above.
traffic growth past completion of the final stage of development. AND
AO5.4 Any road access location, for an urban activity, is designed in Not
applicable
page 2
Page 77
Access to state-controlled roads state code
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response Comment
accordance with the relevant local government standards or IPWEAQ R-
050, R-051 and R-053 drawings. AND
AO5.5 Any road access location for all other uses other than urban Complies The access has been designed in
activities is designed in accordance with Volume 3, parts 4 and 4A of the accordance with the Road Plannign and
nd
Road planning and design manual, 2 edition, Department of Transport Design Manual
and Main Roads, 2013.
Internal and external manoeuvring associated with direct vehicular access to the state-controlled road
PO6 Turning movements for vehicles entering and AO6.1 The road access location provides for left in and left out turning Not The road access intersection would cater
exiting the premises via the road access location movements only. AND applicable for all movements.
maintain the safety and efficiency of the state- AO6.2 Internal manoeuvring areas on the premises are designed so the Complies The design vehicle will be able to access
controlled road. design vehicle can enter and leave the premises in a forward gear. and egress the site in a forward gear.
Editor’s note: The design vehicle to be considered is the same as the
design vehicle set under the relevant local government planning
scheme.
PO7 On-site circulation is suitably designed to AO7.1 Provision of on-site vehicular manoeuvring space is provided to Complies On-sire manoeuvring space is provided
accommodate the design vehicle associated with ensure the flow of traffic on the state-controlled road is not and there would be no adverse impact on
the proposed land use, in order to ensure that compromised by an overflow of traffic queuing to access the site in vehicle flow on the state controlled road.
there is no impact on the safety and efficiency of accordance with AS2890—Parking facilities. AND
the state-controlled road. AO7.2 Mitigation measures are provided to ensure that the flow of Complies Mitigation measures are proposed to
traffic on the state-controlled road is not disturbed by traffic queuing to prevent queuing on the state controlled
access the site. road.
Temporary vehicular road access location to the state-controlled road
PO8 Any proposed temporary road access No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not
locations ensure that the safety and efficiency of applicable
the state-controlled road is maintained.
Editor’s note: Temporary road access locations
may be conditioned to ensure the temporary
nature of the access. Where appropriate, use of
the temporary access may be restricted to the
approved type and number of vehicles, and the
times the temporary access is able to be used will
also be limited.
page 3
Page 78
Access to state-controlled roads state code
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response Comment
Vehicular access to local roads within 100 metres of an intersection with a state-controlled road
PO9 Development having road access to a local AO9.1 The road access location to the local road is located as far as Not
road within 100 metres of an intersection with a possible from where the road intersects with the state-controlled road applicable
state-controlled road maintains the safety and and does not compromise the existing operation or any future upgrades
efficiency of the state-controlled road. to the intersection or state-controlled road. AND
AO9.2 The road access location to the local road network is in Not
accordance with Volume 3, parts 4 and 4A of the Road planning and applicable
nd
design manual, 2 edition, Department of Transport and Main Roads,
2013, and is based on the volume of traffic and speed design of both the
local road and intersecting state-controlled road for a period of 10 years
past completion of the final stage of development. AND
AO9.3 Vehicular access to the local road and internal vehicle circulation Not
is designed to remove or minimise the potential for vehicles entering the applicable
site to queue in the intersection with the state-controlled road or along
the state-controlled road itself.
page 4
Page 79
MYALL STREET, COOROY Response column key:
Achieved
P/S Performance solution
19.3 Transport infrastructure and network design state code N/A Not applicable
Table 19.3.1: All development
Transport infrastructure and network design state code
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response Comment
All state transport infrastructure – except state-controlled roads
PO1 Development does not compromise the AO1.1 Any impact from the development on the safe and Complies The Traffic Impact Assessment has demonstrated the
safe and efficient management or operation efficient management and operation of the state transport impact of the development on the surrounding road network.
of state transport infrastructure or transport corridor or transport network is identified and mitigated. Mitigation measures and upgrade works have been
networks. Editor’s note: A traffic impact assessment will assist in proposed.
addressing this acceptable outcome. A traffic impact
assessment should identify any upgrade works required to
mitigate impacts on the safe and efficient management and
operation of the state transport corridor.
PO2 Development does not compromise AO2.1 Written advice has been provided by DTMR that there
planned upgrades to state transport are no planned upgrades of state transport infrastructure or
infrastructure or the development of future future state transport corridors which will be compromised by
state transport infrastructure in future state the development.
transport corridors. OR both of the following acceptable outcomes apply
AO2.2 The layout and design of the proposed development Complies The layout and design of the development does not
accommodates planned upgrades to adjacent state transport compromise planned upgrades or future state controlled
infrastructure in the state transport corridor. AND transport corridors.
AO2.3 The layout and design of the development does not
compromise the delivery of state transport infrastructure in
future state transport corridors.
Editor’s note: A traffic impact assessment will assist in
addressing this acceptable outcome.
State-controlled roads
PO3 Development does not compromise the AO3.1 Any impact from the development on the safe and Complies The Traffic Impact Assessment quantifies the impact of the
safe and efficient management or operation efficient management and operation of the state-controlled development on the state controlled road and identifies
of state-controlled roads. road is identified and mitigated. appropriate mitigation measures.
Editor’s note: A traffic impact assessment Editor’s note: A traffic impact assessment will assist in
will assist in addressing this performance
page 1
Page 80
Transport infrastructure and network design state code
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response Comment
outcome. addressing this acceptable outcome.
PO4 Development does not compromise AO4.1 Written advice has been provided by DTMR that there Complies The impact of the development does not compromise
planned upgrades of the state-controlled are no planned upgrades of state-controlled roads or future planned upgrades or future state controlled transport
road network or delivery of future state- state-controlled roads which will be compromised by the corridors.
controlled roads. development. OR
AO4.2 Any impact from the development does not
compromise planned upgrades of the state-controlled road
network or the delivery of future state-controlled roads.
Editor’s note: A traffic impact assessment will assist in
addressing this acceptable outcome.
PO5 Upgrade works on, or associated with, AO5.1 Upgrade works for the development are consistent with Complies Proposed road upgrade works are in accordance with the
nd
the state-controlled road network are the requirements of the Road planning and design manual, 2 Road Planning and Design Manual.
undertaken in accordance with applicable edition, Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2013. AND
standards. AO5.2 The design and staging of upgrade works on or
associated with the state-controlled road network are
consistent with planned upgrades.
PO6 Development does not impose traffic AO6.1 New roads proposed as part of the development are Complies The development road hierarchy is appropriate.
loadings on the state-controlled road consistent with the road hierarchy adopted by the relevant
network which could be accommodated on local government, and new lower order roads do not connect
the local road network. directly to a state-controlled road. AND
AO6.2 Where the opportunity is available, development Complies Access to a lower category road is proposed.
provides for road access locations to lower order roads. AND
AO6.3 Where possible, the layout and design of the Complies Some local traffic likely to utilise access to lower category
development encourages traffic generated by the road.
development to use lower order roads.
page 2
Page 81
MYALL STREET, COOROY
Driveways and Carparking Code
Specific Outcome Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
14.113 General
O1 Vehicular access does not adversely impact on safety, S1.1 Vehicular access is located and designed in The vehicle access locations are designed in accordance
capacity and operations of the existing or planned road accordance with AUSTROADS-Guide to Traffic with AUSTROADS and the Road Planning and Design
network, the proposed driveway, cycleways or pedestrian Engineering Practice requirements for sight distance Manual, with appropriate sight distance.
pathway systems.
and Section 3 of AS2890.1 Parking Facilities; AND
S1.2 Only one footpath crossing is provided22; AND A single vehicular access is provided from Myall Street
with a single point of access from Ferrells Road.
S1.3 Driveways, other than within any setback have a Appropriate grades will be used at the vehicle access
maximum grade in accordance with Section 3 of locations
AS/NZS 2890.1
O2 Driveways and crossovers— S2.1 Design of the driveway across the footpath is in The access driveway to Ferrells Road will be designed in
a) are suitable and safe for their intended use; and accordance with Council’s Standard Drawings 9002 or accordance with Council specifications.
b) match Council infrastructure. 9005 as appropriate for the particular type of
development as annotated on the drawings; AND
S2.2 Driveways are designed and constructed in As above.
accordance with Council Standard Drawings 9014,
9019, 9020, 9021, as appropriate for the particular type
of development as annotated on the drawings; AND
S2.3 The change in grades in the driveways and ramps Appropriate grades will be used within the
is in accordance with Section 3 of AS2890.1 Parking development site.
Facilities.
O3 In commercial zoned areas, the number of driveways across S3.1 Design of multi-tenanted developments in The development has shared access driveways and
pedestrian footpaths is minimised. commercial zoned areas include shared driveways and parking areas.
parking areas; AND
page 1
Page 82
Driveways and Carparking Code
Specific Outcome Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
S3.2 Driveways are located so they abut existing Not applicable.
driveways of adjoining development where practicable
and reciprocal easements are created to reduce the
sealed driveway width.
O4 Vehicular access does not adversely impact on the capacity, S4.1 Footpath and kerb crossings are located clear of Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
operations and maintenance of the existing infrastructure; existing stormwater inlet structures, water and
sewerage infrastructure fittings, any other exiting
utility infrastructure, existing landscaping and
vegetation.
O5 Vehicular access does not adversely impact on the integrity S5.1 No solution provided Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
of existing landscaping or native vegetation.
O6 Driveway run-off is filtered prior to leaving the premises. S6.1 For— Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
a) Ancillary dwelling unit, Multiple housing Types 1
or 2 if less than 5 carparking spaces, Visitor
accommodation Type 1 and Home-based business
Type 3—the driveway is formed to drain to landscaped
areas; and
b) for other uses—grease and oil arrestors or
stormwater quality improvement devices are
incorporated into the design to treat run-off prior to
run-off exiting from the premises.
14.114 Carpark design and layout
O7 Sufficient carparking is provided to accommodate the S7.1 The number of parking and loading bays is not less The number of parking and loading bays meets or
number and type of vehicles likely to be generated by the than the minimum number specified in Table 14-51 exceeds the minimum required in Table 14-51.
development having regard to the specifics of the use Vehicle Parking Requirements;
including—
a) the type and intensity of land use;
b) any existing parking available on the site;
c) hours of operation;
d) likely numbers of users;
page 2
Page 83
Driveways and Carparking Code
Specific Outcome Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
e) the peak parking demand periods of uses on the site; and
f) the availability of alternative carparking.
O8 The layout of the development provides adequate, clearly S8.1 Parking bays, manoeuvring areas, queuing areas, Parking bays, manoeuvring areas, queuing areas,
defined and easily accessible— loading, setdown and pickup areas and driveways are loading, set-down and pickup areas are designed in
a) on-site vehicle parking and manoeuvring areas; and designed to the standards set out in Sections 2 and 3 of accordance with AS2890 Part 1 and Part 2.
Australian Standard AS 2890.1 Parking Facilities (Part 1:
b) loading and manoeuvring areas for delivery and service Off-street Carparking) and AS 2890.2 – Off-street
vehicles Parking (Part 2: Commercial Vehicles); AND
S8.2 The number of loading bays is not less than the Appropriate loading areas are proposed.
minimum number specified in Table 14-51.
O9 Parking areas are located where they will not unduly conflict S9.1 Carparking areas are accessed from rear laneways Car parking areas are accessed appropriately
with pedestrians and will not dominate the streetscape. where practicable.
O10 Provision is made for a reasonable number of on site S10.1 Carparking spaces are provided for people with Carparking spaces are provided for people with
carparking spaces identified and reserved for people with disabilities at the rate specified in Section 2.4.5 of AS disabilities in accordance with AS2890.1 and AS2890.6.
disabilities. 2890.1 – Parking Facilities (Part 1: Off-street
Carparking).
O11 Access and egress points do not impact on the safety and S11.1 Vehicle manoeuvring areas are provided in Vehicle manoeuvring areas are provided to ensure all
operations of the road system. accordance with Section 3 of AS 2890.1 Parking access and egress is in a forward gear.
Facilities (Part 1: Off-street Carparking) so vehicles
enter and leave the site in a forward gear.
O12 Parking areas are designed to - S12.1 At locations where pedestrian and vehicle Appropriate sight distance is provided at access
a) provide a progressive reduction in speed between the conflicts are likely to occur – intersections within the development site.
external road and internal parking spaces; a) sight distances of at least 2.5 seconds of travel time
b) ensure lower speeds near areas of high pedestrian activity
through the use of appropriate road geometry or devices at the designated speed are provided;
designed to limit speed; and b) splayed corners on structures are incorporated;
c) maintain sight distances which are appropriate for the likely c) landscaping is designed to allow clear views;
operating speeds in all areas of potential pedestrian/vehicle and d) sign placement ensures that views are not impeded;
vehicle/vehicle conflict;
page 3
Page 84
Driveways and Carparking Code
Specific Outcome Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
O13 A clearly defined pedestrian network is provided that – S13.1 In large open car parks with greater than 200 car No car park within the development site has in excess
a) is located in areas where people will choose to walk; parking spaces, a pedestrian path between parking of 200 spaces.
b) ensures that pedestrian movement through car parking areas spaces is provided on every second aisle;
or structures are along aisles rather than across them;
O14 Provision is made for pedestrian and vehicular queues at S14.1 No probable solution identified; Appropriate vehicle queuing areas have been provided.
conflict points;
O15 Parking areas are lit to provide security for night-time S15.1 Lighting is provided in accordance with Parking areas are to be appropriately lit at night time.
users. Australian Standard 1158.1:1997 - Road Lighting -
Vehicular Traffic (Category V) Lighting - Performance
Installation and Design Requirements
O16 In mixed use areas of Business centres residents do not S16.1 Resident carparking is limited to one space per Not applicable.
compete with customers for carparking spaces. dwelling unit or accommodation unit. AND
S16.2 Resident carparking is not located in the road Not applicable.
reserve or between the residential or business building
and the principal street frontage.
O17 Car parking areas are landscaped to— No solution provided Car parking areas are appropriately landscaped
a) provide shade;
b) maximise infiltration of stormwater run-off;
c) define parking areas;
d) reduce direct visibility of car parking areas from external
viewpoints;
e) soften views of hardstand areas
O18 Development with the potential to generate significant No solution provided Consideration has been given to transport and land use
traffic and parking impacts gives appropriate consideration to issues.
transport and land use issues23.
Motor Cycles & Motor Scooters S19.1 For Commercial businesses, Entertainment & No designated motor cycle spaces have been provided.
O19 Designated Motor cycle or motor scooter parking spaces dining business, Industrial business Types 1 and 2, However, motorcycle users will be able to use standard
reduce the reliance on cars. Retail business Types 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Education Types 1 car parking spaces.
and 2, Open Space, Wellbeing Uses and Transport
page 4
Page 85
Driveways and Carparking Code
Specific Outcome Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
Types 1, 2, 3 and 4 motor cycle parking spaces accord
with Planning Scheme Policy PSP26 Motor Cycle &
Motor Scooter Parking
O20 Carparks are designed to ensure run-off is treated to S20.1 Grease and oil arrestors or stormwater quality Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
remove pollutants prior to leaving the premises. improvement devices are incorporated into the design
to treat run-off prior to it leaving the premises.
O21 Carparking areas are designed to ensure drainage without No solution provided Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
the use of pumps or other electrical apparatus
O22 Site layout and building design provides for soft S22.1 Below ground components of buildings, Not applicable.
landscaping to be established. including car parks, do not extend beyond the above
ground footprint to allow for the provision of
landscaping, particularly within building setbacks.
Education Types 1, 2 or 3
O23 Carparking and setdown areas are designed and located to S23.1 Paved setdown areas are provided within the Not applicable.
facilitate their safe and efficient use. site; AND
S23.2 For a minimum of 50% of carparking spaces, Not applicable.
pedestrian access to buildings is not across or through
driveways, carparks, setdown or manoeuvring areas;
AND
S23.3 Carparking and setdown areas are visible from Not applicable.
off-site.
page 5
Page 86
MYALL STREET, COOROY
Transport, Roads and Drainage Code
Specific Outcomes Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
14.145 Strategic Transport Network
O1 Traffic generation from the development is considered in S1.1 Where the development leads to the need to increase transport
a localised and a Shire wide context to ensure that— infrastructure in the Shire, the development contributes to the
transport network in accordance with the requirements of the A Traffic Impact Assessment report has been
a) the transport network has the capacity to safely and applicable infrastructure charging instrument and the Priority prepared which shows that the transport
efficiently accommodate projected movements; and/or Infrastructure Plan in Part 15; and where developments requires network has sufficient capacity to
b) the development includes measures to upgrade the infrastructure not included in the priority infrastructure plan, the accommodate the anticipated future traffic
transport network to meet the imposed demands. development upgrades the infrastructure at no cost to Council.
movements.
Advisory note
Council may for some development require the preparation of a
Transport Impact Assessment Report. Planning Scheme Policy PSP1
details matters to be addressed in the Report.
S2.1 Road planning and development design facilitates as many The development is not expected to generate
O2 The street network has high street connectivity, both pedestrian and cycle movements as possible and provides for future significant demand for pedestrian and cycle
within the development and to the surrounding local area. connectivity and integration with adjoining sites; AND movements.
S2.2 Arterial and sub-arterial roads are designed so they can operate Not applicable
with high volumes of traffic during peak times;
AND
S2.3 Collector and local streets are provided to support short trips for Not applicable
local traffic moving in and between neighbourhoods. Local traffic is
channelled towards collector streets to ensure that traffic volumes on
local street are kept low; AND
S2.4 Collector and local streets are designed to discourage through Not applicable
traffic; AND
S2.5 A collector street is provided parallel to arterials particularly where Not applicable
they pass through town centres; AND
S2.6 Appropriate width of road and verge is provided to allow streets to Not applicable
perform their designated functions in the street network; AND
page 1
Page 87
Transport, Roads and Drainage Code
Specific Outcomes Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
S2.7 A network of local streets focused towards an activity centre or Not applicable
school is provided for safe and efficient pedestrian and bike access to
the school, safe conditions for school buses, setdown facilities, with on-
site parking where practical; AND
S2.8 Passive surveillance is maximised by designing streets to enable Not applicable
development to front all streets and roads, including arterials; AND
S2.9 Streets near Public Passenger Transport facilities are orientated to Not applicable
optimise the walkable catchments within 800 metres walking distance;
AND
S2.10 The street network has no more than 15 percent of lots fronting Not applicable
cul-de-sacs. The maximum cul-de-sac length is 120 m; AND
S2.11 Street stubs to adjacent future development areas are provided at Not applicable
spacings of 200 m or closer to enable future street connections to be
made; AND
S2.12 Street block lengths are not more than 240 m long, and Not applicable
predominantly around 150-180 m long. Street block lengths are
generally shorter closer to town and neighbourhood centres; AND
S2.13 Direct, safe and attractive pedestrian and cycle routes are There are facilities provided within the
provided within and through the development and connect to bus development site to facilitate safe pedestrian
stops. movement.
S3.1 Higher density development is concentrated along public transport Not applicable
O3 Development is designed – Routes; AND
a) To encourage travel by community transport, walking and
S3.2 There is provision for bus routes through development sites; AND Not applicable
cycling rather than by private car; and
b) To maximise accessibility via existing and planned S3.3 Bus routes are located to maximise patronage catchment and to Not applicable
community transport facilities consider personal safety, lighting and traffic management; AND
page 2
Page 88
Transport, Roads and Drainage Code
Specific Outcomes Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
S3.4 At least 90 percent of all residents are located within 400 metres of Not applicable
an existing or planned bus route; AND
S3.5 Pedestrian and cycle movement is provided within local streets to Not applicable – the development is not
and through development; AND expected to generate demand for pedestrian
and cycle movements.
S3.6 Attractive and safe pedestrian and cycle connections are provided Not applicable
with shade trees, graded walking and cycle paths and lighting; AND
S3.7 Buildings and pedestrian entrances are oriented to the street; AND Not applicable
S3.8 Pathways have ramps at all kerb corners for wheelchair and pram Pathways within the development will provide
access; AND ramps to cater for wheelchair and pram
access.
S3.9 Every development has convenient and prominent pedestrian Access locations are convenient and
entrances that cater for all pedestrians including older people, children prominent.
and the mobility and vision impaired;
AND
S3.10 Expanses of ground level blank walls along street frontages, and Not applicable
large driveways and entrances to carparks are avoided; AND
S3.11 Bus routes are not be located away from activity centres; AND Not applicable
S3.12 Facilities for boarding and exiting community transport facilities Not applicable
are incorporated into developments; AND
S3.13 Pedestrian and cycle routes within or adjacent to the development Not applicable
are overlooked by adjoining buildings, make use of views and attractive
sights, have lighting and are signposted; AND
page 3
Page 89
Transport, Roads and Drainage Code
Specific Outcomes Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
S3.14 Suitable car restraint measures are adopted within the The nature of the development layout would
development such as lower speed limits or traffic calming ensure low vehicle speeds
measures to support greater pedestrian and cycle movement; AND
S3.15 Traffic management devices on potential bus routes are provided Not applicable
in accordance with the Self-assessable code for undertaking road works
on local government roads, under the Transport Planning and
Coordination Regulation 2005; AND
S3.16 Streets identified as potential bus routes are— Not applicable
a) collector streets and sub-arterial/arterial roads which provide highly
accessible and relatively direct routes wherever practical;
b) those that provide for the shortest and most direct route for an
efficient public transport service; and
c) those that can efficiently service adjoining development areas.
No solution provided. Development access does not adversely
O4 Development access does not compromise the functions impact on the safety, capacity and operations
of particular roads as indicated in the road hierarchy, and of the road system.
does not adversely impact on the safety, capacity and
operations of the road system.
14.146 Pedestrian and Cycle Path Infrastructure
S5.1 Consideration is given to existing and future pathway linkages and Not applicable – no pedestrian or cycle path
O5 Pedestrian and cycle path infrastructure is provided – pathways link to the Local and Regional Cycle Network and to the infrastructure is proposed.
a) to form an integrated component of the movement Priority Infrastructure Plan in Part 15.
network and the open space system;
b) to encourage walking and cycling;
S5.2 Direct and accessible linkages are provided into the site. The development has linkages to the
c) to add variety and visual interest;
d) to conserve street trees, vegetation and other significant adjoining residential area to the north.
features;
S5.3 Pathway and landscape works are provided to a high standard to Not applicable – no cycle paths are proposed
page 4
Page 90
Transport, Roads and Drainage Code
Specific Outcomes Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
e) to allow equitable access to public areas and community Council specifications and assessed for compliance with local within the development
facilities; government cycling facility design standards.
f) with adequate lighting where subject to high night time
usage;
S5.4 Pathways are provided to cater for shared use and cater for both Not applicable
g) in locations where there is casual surveillance;
commuting and recreational usage and exceed minimum standards.
h) or widened at potential conflict points;
i) to incorporate—
i) street tree planting to enhance the streetscape;
ii) directional signage that is visible under all conditions.
S6.1 Pedestrian and cycle path infrastructure is designed and Not applicable
O6 Pedestrian and cycle path infrastructure is designed and constructed –
constructed to – a) in accordance with AUSTROADS Part 14 - Bicycles, Section 6;
a) provide a stable, smooth surface, including across b) to comply with local government design standards.
driveways, sections and joins; c) to have navigational signs in accordance with Council ‘Wayfinding’
b) be easily maintained; signage specifications.
c) a width and longitudinal gradient to cater for projected d) to incorporate –
usage, including nearby— i) kerb ramps at all intersections and designated crossings;
i) high activity nodes; ii) refuge islands on all roads with median strips;
ii) public transport; iii) holding rails for cyclists at the intersection of trunk collector, sub-
iii) centres; arterial and arterial roads that are positioned in accordance with –
d) provide clear sight-lines for safe use; A. Australian Standard 1742.9: 2000 - Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
e) be free of any obstructions such as fences, signage and Devices - Bicycle Facilities; and
bollards. B. AUSTROADS Part 14 - Bicycles - Section 9; and
C. AUSTROADS Part 13 – Pedestrians.
Advisory Note
All pathways are considered shared use pathways, which Cyclists can
legally use, unless bicycles are specifically prohibited through signs or
markings (such as in town centres).
Table 14-59 — Roads and drainage
page 5
Page 91
Transport, Roads and Drainage Code
Specific Outcomes Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
14.147 Road and drainage design and construction
S7.1 Road planning and design supports the hierarchy and functional Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
O7 Roads and pedestrian and cycle paths are planned and aspects identified in Sections 2 and 3 of PSP5 Engineering Design
designed to support the hierarchy and functional aspects Standards – Roads, Drainage and Earthworks;
identified in Sections 2 and 3 of PSP5 Engineering Design AND
Standards – Roads, Drainage and Earthworks and to ensure
that—
S7.2 Road and pathway planning and design is in accordance with, in Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
a) design and alignment of the roads, intersections and all
order of precedence—
associated works—
a) Noosa Integrated Local Transport Plan;
i. provides a safe environment for all users;
b) Queensland Transport’s Shaping Up;
ii. is adequate for the design speed environment;
c) Queensland Design Code for Residential Streets;
iii. is adequate for predicted traffic volumes; and
d) AUSTROADS Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice;
iv. maintains the safe and efficient functioning of the road
e) Sections 2 and 3 of PSP5 Engineering Design Standards – Roads,
network without the use of traffic signals;
Drainage and Earthworks; or
v. is compatible with existing roads;
f) the Noosa Cycling and Walking Network Development Plan;
vi. is easily maintained by Council equipment; and
vii. where appropriate, has the ability to accommodate
OR
public transport services;
g) A combination of the principles in these documents.
b) road pavement surfaces—
i. are durable enough to carry estimated wheel loads of
AND
travelling and parked vehicles;
ii. provide for the safe passage of vehicles, pedestrians, S7.3 On-road cycling treatment is utilised to provide safe and Not applicable
cyclists, and discharge of stormwater run-off from continuous movement of cyclists along a roadway, such as--
contributing catchments and the preservation of all weather a) sealed shoulders;
access; b) wide kerbside lane;
c) kerb and channel— c) exclusive or peak period bicycle lane;
i. controls vehicle movement by delineating the carriageway d) advisory treatments such as Bicycle Awareness Zone;
for all users; e) shared parking / bicycle lane;
ii. conveys road pavement run-off to stormwater drainage in f) contra flow bicycle lane; and
a manner that allows the road to be trafficable in Q100 ARI g) bus/bicycle lane.
local rainfall events; and
d) verges and footpaths provide—
page 6
Page 92
Transport, Roads and Drainage Code
Specific Outcomes Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
i. safe access for pedestrians and cyclists clear of S7.4 The provision of bicycle lanes at intersections is generally in Not applicable
obstructions; accordance with AUSTROADS Part 14, section 5 and the Manual of
ii. an access area for vehicles onto properties; Urban Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Part 9.
iii. a corridor allocated for services and utilities; and
iv. additional amenity for minor roads.
O8 Stormwater drainage infrastructure is planned, designed S8.1 Stormwater drainage planning, design and construction is in Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
and constructed to— accordance with Section 4 of PSP5 Engineering Design Standards –
a) be accessible, cost effective and easily maintainable; Roads, Drainage and Earthworks;
b) protect downstream capacity; AND
c) protect downstream water quality;
S8.2 As Constructed data is submitted in accordance with Section 6 of Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
d) maximise on-site stormwater retention and retardation;
PSP5 Engineering Design Standards – Roads, Drainage and Earthworks;
and
AND
e) convey run-off to stormwater drainage in a manner that
allows roads to be trafficable in Q100 ARI local rainfall S8.3 Stormwater drainage planning, design and construction is in Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
events. accordance with the Queensland Urban Drainage Design Manual.
S9.1 Roads and stormwater drainage infrastructure is constructed in Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
O9 Roads and stormwater drainage infrastructure is accordance with—
constructed— a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of PSP5 Engineering Design Standards – Roads,
a) in accordance with appropriate engineering standards; Drainage and Earthworks;
and b) Queensland Design Code for Residential Streets;
b) to minimise adverse environmental impacts, including c) AUSTROADS; or
from run-off and erosion. d) A combination of the principles in these documents;
AND
S9.2 Erosion and sediment control measures are designed and Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
implemented in accordance with the Institution of Engineers Australia
page 7
Page 93
Transport, Roads and Drainage Code
Specific Outcomes Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
(Queensland Division) Soil Erosion and Sediment Control - Guidelines for
Queensland Construction Sites.
Environmental Protection S10.1 Roads and stormwater drainage follow the edge of existing Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
O10 Roads and stormwater drainage infrastructure are disturbed areas,
located and aligned so as to— or alternatively, these works are co-located within a combined utility
corridor;
a) minimise disturbance to native vegetation and/or other AND
habitat areas;
b) protect and maintain wildlife corridor movements and the
safety of native fauna;
c) minimise changes to the hydrological regime, including
drainage patterns, run-off and water quality;
d) avoid crossing watercourses, drainage lines and wetlands,
but where such crossings are unavoidable, disturbed areas
are reinstated and revegetated on completion of works; and
e) minimise bulk earthworks.
S10.2 Roads avoid native vegetation and provide for fauna underpasses Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
and associated fencing where appropriate;
AND
S10.3 Road infrastructure within or adjacent to native habitat Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
incorporates fences which allow for protected wildlife movement and
controls unrestricted access of domestic cats and dogs;
AND
S10.4 Native vegetation is protected from clearing or construction Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
activities by—
a) clearly marking vegetation to be retained with flagging tap;
b) installing protective fencing around the dripline of vegetation; and
c) ensuring stock piling, storage and vehicle parking occur outside the
areas of vegetation to be retained;
AND
S10.5 Low impact construction techniques are used around areas of Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
vegetation to be retained to minimise interference with the vegetation.
page 8
Page 94
Transport, Roads and Drainage Code
Specific Outcomes Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
No solution provided Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
O11 Roads and stormwater drainage infrastructure is proven
to be suitable for its use prior to Council accepting the
dedicated asset.
S12.1 The location, design and construction of stormwater drainage Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
O12 Alignment of stormwater drainage infrastructure is to structures is in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of PSP5, Engineering
allow for easy access for the ongoing maintenance by Design Standards - Roads, Drainage and Earthworks;
Council. AND
S12.2 Where infrastructure is located on private land an easement is Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
dedicated over the infrastructure in accordance with Section 4 of PSP 5,
Engineering Design Standards – Roads, Drainage and Earthworks.
14.148 Frontage works
S13.1 The following infrastructure components already exist at the Refer to Civil Engineering Report.
O13 Development is provided with external roadworks along frontage of the site or are provided at the developer’s expense—
the full extent of the frontage of the site to an appropriate a) full width sealed road;
standard having regard to the specified function of the road. b) concrete kerb and channel where appropriate;
c) forming and grading to footpaths;
d) vehicular kerb and footpath crossings;
e) a constructed bikeway;
f) a constructed footpath;
g) a constructed carriageway;
h) required alterations to public utility mains, services or installations;
i) construction of any required alterations to public utility mains,
services or installations;
j) stormwater drainage works; and
k) installation of electrical conduits;
AND
S13.2 Road and drainage design and construction is in accordance with
page 9
Page 95
Transport, Roads and Drainage Code
Specific Outcomes Acceptable Solutions/Probable Solutions Compliance
Sections 3 and 4 of PSP5 Engineering Design Standards – Roads,
Drainage and Earthworks.
14.149 Road and rail corridors
S14.1 Noise sensitive uses including residential uses are separated by a Refer to Acoustic Report.
O14 Noise sensitive uses including residential uses are not minimum of—
subjected to high traffic noise levels from the major road a) 40m from the property boundary of roads within the major road
network or rail corridors. network; and
b) 80m from the property boundary of rail corridors;
OR
S14.2 Development in the vicinity of road corridors meets the following
external design criteria for roads in the major road network—
a) 54dB(A)L based on predicted traffic volumes ten years hence;
10 (18hours)
AND
S14.3 Development in the vicinity of rail corridors meets the following
external design level noise criteria—
a) 65dB(a), assessed as the 24hour average equivalent continuous A-
weighted sound pressure level; and
b) 87dB(A), assessed as a single event maximum sound pressure level.
14.151 Alterations to services and utilities
O16 Any alterations or repairs to infrastructure as a result of S16.1 Any alterations or repair to infrastructure as a result of the
the development are made at no cost to Council. development are completed at the developer’s expense.
page 10