Council archive · source document
Attachment 2 - Traffic Report · MCU13/0251
SCANLON PROPERTY GROUP PROPOSED PEREGIAN VILLAGE MARKET DAVID LOW WAY, PEREGIAN TRAFFIC REPORT PREPARED BY S A HOLLAND 13 DECEMBER 2013
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 19 pages
Page 2
1.0 Introduction This traffic impact assessment report has been prepared in relation to the proposed Peregian Village Market development as depicted on Red Door Architects drawings titled “Peregian Village Market” and numbered 1-10. The site locality is depicted in the proposal plans, an extract of which is depicted below: There is a current approval over the site that was the subject to an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court (Appeal 2587 of 2008). That approval was for commercial development at the site of the current proposal (the approved commercial area is for a lesser scale development than now proposed) as well as tourist accommodation on the balance of the site in later stages. The current proposal increases the commercial areas of the approval, and we understand maintains the scale of approved tourist accommodation. This report assesses the traffic impacts associated with the altered proposal for the overall site (compared with what was previously approved via the Court Appeal), and also assesses proposed parking provisions for the retail area as well as the adequacy of the proposed traffic layout. 2.0 Existing traffic conditions David Low Way is a State-controlled road administered by the Department of Transport and Main Roads. It carries existing traffic flows of about 13,000 vehicles per day. David Low Way in the vicinity of the site is located within the Peregian village township area which has a low speed environment with a sign posted speed limit of 40km/hr. The 40km/hr limit begins about 130m south of the site, and continues well north of the site. There are indented bus stops and associated bus shelters on each side of David Low Way at the site frontage. There is also a zebra crossing of David Low Way at the site frontage. Consistent with the 40km/hr speed zone, the crossing is located on a flat top hump. The crossing provides for bus users to cross the road, and also for access directly into the Peregian Beach shopping precinct. 13.s.12.5 Page - 2
Page 3
The unnamed road at the southern end of the site is a short stub road. It does not include a cul-de-sac
bulb at its end. It provides access to an existing hardware located on the southern side of the road.
There are existing concrete footpaths along both sides of David Low Way, but not along the unnamed
road.
3.0 Current approval
The currently approved plan of development is depicted in the plans at Appendix A.
A copy of the Joint Expert Report (JER) prepared by the traffic engineers in the previous appeal is
attached at Appendix B.
Based on those documents, the approved overall development is summarised as follows:
Commercial building ground floor restaurant 323 sq.m.
Ground floor retail 387 sq.m.
First floor commercial 710 sq.m.
Basement car park 53 car parking spaces
14 motorcycle spaces
bicycle racks
Tourist accommodation multi-storey cabins 2 four bedroom (incl. manager unit)
19 three bedroom
9 two bedroom
30 total
Main buildings 32 shared units (usable as 64 units,
accommodating up to 320 persons)
Ground floor car park 77 car parking spaces
10 visitor spaces plus a bus bay
Total on-site parking provision 140 spaces.
4.0 Proposed development
The proposed Peregian Village Market development as depicted on Red Door Architects drawings titled
“Peregian Village Market” and numbered 1-10. From a traffic engineering perspective it involves the
following elements:
(i) 1626 sq m of retail GFA. In addition there is 94 sq m of outdoor dining area.
(ii) Based on Council’s definition we understand that the “use area” is 1690 sq m.
(iii) An on-site parking area containing 85 parking spaces, including 13 staff spaces, 2 disabled
spaces, and 2 motorcycle spaces.
(iv) Loading bays for 1 HRV, 2 SRV’s and 1 van.
(v) Bicycle parking for 15 bicycles.
(vi) For the purposes of this assessment we have assumed that the tourist accommodation
component on the balance of the site will change at the detailed level to accommodate the
change in the size and shape of the balance area as a result of the retail proposal, but that
13.s.12.5 Page - 3
Page 4
the number and type of units will remain as currently approved. This is to cover the worst
case scenario in terms of traffic impacts.
The proposal plan showing the parking layout for the retail component of the development is at Appendix
C.
5.0 Traffic impacts at the David Low Way intersection
Year 2020 traffic volume projections at the David Low Way intersection, assuming full operation of the
current approval, were documented in the Joint Expert Report (JER) at Appendix B.
5.1 Traffic generation of current approval
Both of the traffic experts in the JER agreed that the currently approved development would generate AM
peak hour traffic flows of 75 vehicles per hour, and PM peak hour traffic flows of 110 vehicles per hour.
A breakdown of how this was calculated follows:
USE TRAFFIC GENERATION RATE
morning evening
Commercial (*): 2 vehicles per hour per 100 sq m 2 vehicles per hour per 100 sq m
Retail (**): 3.8 vehicles per hour per 100 sq m 12.5 vehicles per hour per 100 sq m
Restaurant (*): 5 vehicles per hour per 100 sq m 5 vehicles per hour per 100 sq m
(*) Main Roads’ Road Planning and Design Manual
(**) RTA ”Guide to Traffic Generating Developments. The morning traffic generation of the retail
component of the development is assumed to be 30% of the evening rate.
Based on the above analysis, the traffic flows generated by the various components of the development
will be as follow:
USE GENERATED TRAFFIC FLOWS
morning evening
Commercial: 15 vehicles per hour 15 vehicles per hour
Retail: 15 vehicles per hour 50 vehicles per hour
Restaurant: 15 vehicles per hour 15 vehicles per hour
Accommodation: 30 vehicles per hour 30 vehicles per hour
Total: 75 vehicles per hour 110 vehicles per hour
5.2 Traffic generation of latest proposal
The previous assessment utilised a PM peak hour traffic generation rate of 12.5 vph / 100 sq m GFA for
the 387 sq m of retail in that proposal. It is widely accepted that the rate of traffic generation at shopping
centres reduces as the size of the centre increases. We have thus used a rate of 12.0 vph / 100 sq m
GFA for the 1626 sq m of shopping centre GFA. Note that we have not included the outdoor restaurant
area in the calculation for traffic generation. This is because restaurant traffic generation is significantly
lower than retail traffic generation. Thus, if there is a restaurant in the corner 84 sq m corner tenancy,
which also uses the 94 sq m outdoor dining area, the traffic generation of the combined restaurant area
would be very similar to the traffic generation of the 84 sq m tenancy if used for retail.
On the above basis, the predicted traffic generation of the overall development is as follows:
13.s.12.5 Page - 4
Page 5
USE GENERATED TRAFFIC FLOWS
morning evening
Retail: 62 vehicles per hour 195 vehicles per hour
Accommodation: 30 vehicles per hour 30 vehicles per hour
Total: 92 vehicles per hour 225 vehicles per hour
5.3 Revised year 2020 peak hour traffic projections with the proposed development
It can be clearly seen from those projections that the critical period in terms of operation of the David Low
Way intersection will be in the PM peak, not the AM peak, because through traffic flows along David Low
Way are similar in both peaks, but traffic flows generated by the development are significantly greater in
the PM peak. The circumstances are also the same for any traffic impact analysis of the current
approval. Thus, we have only considered the critical PM peak hour analysis in the balance of this traffic
impact assessment.
Using the traffic projections of Colin Beard from the JER (Appendix B) as a basis, predicted year 2020
PM peak hour traffic flows at the David Low Way intersection for the current approval, and for the current
proposal (with the accommodation the same intensity in both) are as follows:
2020 PM peak with current approval:
David Low Way
27 773
Unnamed 28
Road 28
27 872
David Low Way
2020 PM peak with current application:
David Low Way
61 773
Unnamed 61
Road 61
61 872
David Low Way
13.s.12.5 Page - 5
Page 6
5.4 Intersection capacity analysis Capacity analysis of the existing intersection has been undertaken using the widely accepted Sidra package, using default settings, with a single lane approach on the unnamed road leg, and a short right turn lane in David Low Way. As indicated by Colin Beard in the JER, operation of the existing intersection, with the current approval under year 2020 PM peak hour conditions with the current approval, using default Sidra gap acceptance parameters, indicates unsatisfactory operation. The summary output from that analysis is attached at Appendix D. This issue was overcome in the JER by adopting slightly lower gap acceptance parameters than the Sidra defaults. Obviously, if further traffic is generated by the proposed development, then the operating conditions would be worsened compared with those associated with the existing approval. The standard Sidra gap acceptance parameters could not be reasonably lowered to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the latest proposal in a satisfactory manner. There is an option to increase capacity of the existing intersection configuration by increasing the width of the existing median in David Low Way at the intersection to 7.0m, and thus satisfy the requirements of the Austroads Guidelines for a staged right turn arrangement, where the critical right turn movement from the unnamed road firstly crosses the northbound David Low Way traffic stream, and then waits within the wide median area before entering the southbound traffic stream. The 7.0m width requirement for such an arrangement is documented in the Austroads Guide to Road Design – Part 4A, where Section 7.8.2 refers to Figure 4.13 as a form of 2 stage crossing, and Figure 4.13 states that medians of 7m or greater are sufficient to shelter a car. A sketch shown how this could be achieved follows: 13.s.12.5 Page - 6
Page 7
Capacity analysis of the upgraded intersection with a 2-stage right turn, for 2020 PM with the proposed
development fully operational (including all of the currently approved accommodation units) has been
undertaken using the Sidra package.
The first stage of the analysis (for all movements, except the second stage of the right turn exit that
involves entering the southbound traffic stream) uses the same intersection layout as for the standard
analysis, with default Sidra parameters, but without a southbound traffic volume.
The second stage of the analysis uses a critical gap for the second stage of the right turn of 5s (which is
Sidra default for a left turns movement from a minor road – which is essentially the same conditions as
for the second stage of the right turn), and a follow-up headway also of 5s. Normally the follow-up
headway would be shorter than the critical gap, but because there will not be more than one vehicle
stored in the median waiting to undertake the second stage of the right turn, the follow-up headway is
input as being the same as the critical gap.
The analysis indicates satisfactory operating conditions with summary output as follows (movement
summary output from the analysis is attached at Appendices E and F). This represents significantly
improved conditions compared with the existing intersection configuration with the current approval, thus
indicating that the upgrading works would more than ameliorate additional development impacts at the
intersection:
Degree of Saturation 95th percentile queue on minor leg
2020 PM peak with development
1st stage right turn 0.65 3.1 vehicles
2nd stage right turn 0.42 0.6 vehicles
6.0 Parking provisions
The proposed retail component of the development comprises 1626 sq m GFA (excluding the 94 sq m
outdoor area) and has a use area according to Council’s definition of 1690 sq m (including the outdoor
area).
The development proposes 85 on-site parking spaces including 13 staff spaces, 2 motorcycle spaces,
and 2 disabled spaces.
Motorcycles comprise roughly 2% of the vehicle fleet so it is reasonable to include the 2 proposed
motorcycle spaces in the overall parking provision.
Also, staff parking at shopping centres typically comprises roughly 15% of the overall parking demand,
so the proposed 13 staff parking spaces is a reasonable number.
Council’s standard parking requirement at shopping centres is 1 space per 20 sq m for the first 100 sq m
of use area, plus 1 space per 15 sq m for the balance of the use area. This would generate a parking
requirement of 111 spaces. However, the provision of 85 parking spaces as proposed would be
satisfactory, and a relaxation of Council’s standard requirements is appropriate on the following basis:
(i) The proposal is essentially a shopping centre, which could all be utilised for shops, or there
could be some restaurant or office uses within the specialty tenancies.
(ii) The normal parking requirement at shopping centres based on parking demand surveys
throughout south east Queensland is 5.25 spaces per 100 sq m GFA. At that rate the
proposed 1626 sq m GFA would require 85 parking spaces.
(iii) It is then a question of whether or not to include the 94 sq m outdoor eating area in the GFA
calculation for carparking. For a stand-alone restaurant, or for a small development that
comprises predominantly restaurants, then the outdoor area would most definitely need to be
13.s.12.5 Page - 7
Page 8
included within the area calculation for carparking. However, when the restaurant is part of a
larger overall shopping centre development, where restaurants are a relatively minor part of the
development, the outdoor eating area does not need to be included. This is because
restaurants are typically busiest in the evening when the balance of the shopping centre is
relatively quiet (shopping centre parking demands where restaurants are a small proportion of
area typically peak in the middle of the day). Additionally in this instance, if the restaurant is
busy during the day, a high proportion of the restaurant patrons at that time are likely to be
tourists who have parked in other parts of the Peregian Beach township area (either at their
residential accommodation or at the beach parking area) and have walked to the centre as part
of their time at the beach.
7.0 Service vehicle provisions
The proposal includes provision for an SRV bay and a van bay for the specialty shops, and 2 loading
bays (both of which could be HRV’s if required) at the supermarket loading dock. That provision of
service loading bays is reasonable and sufficient for a development of the scale proposed.
The path of a HRV to the supermarket loading bay is shown in the sketch below. This will require
building of part of the extension of the roadway into the accommodation area to accommodate the HRV
manoeuvring. The reason the staff spaces have been allocated along the loading aisle is because they
will be very low turnover spaces, which is required given that the service vehicle will reverse along that
aisle.
There is a bin storage area at the rear of the specialty shops as well as a bin storage area at the
supermarket loading zone. We understand that the specialty bins will be moved to the supermarket bin
storage area for collection when then are full.
13.s.12.5 Page - 8
Page 9
8.0 On-site traffic layout The proposed on-site traffic and parking layout has been developed in consultation with this practice and would operate in a satisfactory manner consistent with the requirements of Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890.1-2004. The parking layout would be easy to use and vehicles would be able to pass in opposite directions at bends and intersections without issue. There is a logical and well located series of paths within the development and linking with David Low Way both via the unnamed road and also near the head of the existing bus stop at the frontage (for a good connection with the existing pedestrian crossing). There are also bicycle racks proposed. 9.0 Conclusion It is concluded that the proposed Peregian Village Market development as depicted on Red Door Architects drawings titled “Peregian Village Market” and numbered 1-10 would operate in a satisfactory manner from a traffic engineering perspective and there are no traffic related grounds on which the development could be reasonably refused. S A HOLLAND Director HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING PTY LTD 13.s.12.5 Page - 9
Page 10
APPENDIX A: PAGE 1 OF 2: CURRENT APPROVAL PLANS
13.s.12.5 Page - 10
[OCR of page images]
HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING [2
HEH T CHE
APPENDIX A: PAGE 1 OF 2: CURRENT APPROVAL PLANS
‘eS i woke: NV1d ONIDWIS / ALIS Nvi9343d JO 3ON3SS3
\ Dur, » bas
if
Lag uals
NouWorddy © ‘
NINNVIGNMOL \
vauvioarans =” \
- \
: . -- THOWLS
| 3OVLS - \
° A
= \
= \ | A
e ., \ WY
; \ 3
4 = f \
i i \ 2
1 ‘
ee ; i ‘
o ®
ot r \ \
BE ‘A
an 11 - \ -a9ovs
onaoa) t A
oi tS 3nuasay \
sue \ ‘WLNSIWNOIANS ‘
+ TyuWd \
t A
t \
i \
ZAOVIS | - \
\
® \
wk
\\
water enbhase nee ee ee ayy .
® oe
ez00eL Now | LN |
13AOUdd €39VLS } c J9VLS
f#NOIN3Y LSVOO ANIHSNNS
Page - 10
13.8.12.5
Page 11
APPENDIX A: PAGE 2 OF 2: CURRENT APPROVAL PLANS 13.s.12.5 Page - 11 [OCR of page images] HEH T CHE HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING n z < a a 2 > 9 a a a < Ke Zz Ww a a > oO N Le ° N Ww o <x a < x a z Ww a a < #4 sa00¥ HOV3d | HI¥sy Lieey e1z9v z1ioy b1leey taipey Ziv zrepy Spe: olor bh oil BS Siie 4 Page - 11 13.8.12.5
Page 12
APPENDIX B: PAGE 1 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL 13.s.12.5 Page - 12 [OCR of page images] HEH T CHE HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING [2 APPENDIX B: PAGE 1 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL Planning & Environment Court, Queensland Scanlan Property Group Pty Ltd -v- Sunshine Coast Regional Council and Others Appeal No. 2587 of 2008 (Brisbane) REPORT ON MEETING OF EXPERTS - TRAFFIC 24" July 2009 Robert Holland and Colin Beard Preamble Both engineers are aware of their duty in respect of expert evidence to the Planning and Environment Court in accordance with the Planning and Environment Court Rules 2008, and confirm that no instructions have been given or accepted in respect of any professional opinions expressed in this joint report. The only traffic engineering issues relevant in this matter are those discussed below. Background A caravan park has operated on the subject site for many years. It is proposed to redevelop the site with development components which can be summarised as: Commercial building ground floor restaurant 323 sq.m. 13.8.12.5 Ground floor retail First floor commercial Basement car park Tourist accommodation multi-storey cabins Main buildings Ground floor car park Total on-site parking provision 387 sq.m. 710 sq.m. 53 car parking spaces 14 motorcycle spaces bicycle racks 2 four bedroom (incl. manager unit) 19 three bedroom 9 two bedroom 30 total 32 shared units (usable as 64 units, accommodating up to 320 persons) 77 car parking spaces 10 visitor spaces plus a bus bay 140 spaces. The proposed development is shown on drawings 20517_A-16, A-17, A-18 and others. Traffic Issues in Dispute The traffic engineering issues in dispute in respect of the proposed development can be summarised as: e The impact of generated traffic on the David Low Way access intersection, e The adequacy of the proposed on-site parking facilities, e The adequacy of the on-site servicing facilities, and e Associated on-site traffic design issues. Page - 12
Page 13
APPENDIX B: PAGE 2 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL 13.s.12.5 Page - 13 [OCR of page images] HEH T CHE HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING [2 APPENDIX B: PAGE 2 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL Discussion of Traffic Engineering Issues in Dispute 1. Impacts of Generated Traffic The traffic engineers are reliant on manual traffic counts undertaken in May 2007 at the site access intersection and automatic traffic counts undertaken around the Heron Street roundabout in January 2009. It was noted that the 2007 afternoon peak counts probably did not commence until sometime after the actual afternoon peak period. The traffic engineers have interpreted this basic data, and made projections of design traffic generations of the subject development and of future traffic volumes. The traffic report originally submitted in support of the application estimated future background traffic growth as 5 percent per annum. It was agreed that such a growth rate is unreasonably high, and that it would be more reasonable to assume background traffic growth of 3 percent per annum, or 33 percent between 2009 and 2020, the appropriate traffic design horizon. The basic data and the future traffic estimates made by the two engineers are set out in the attached Table 1. It will be noted that Mr Beard’s future traffic volume estimates through the subject intersection are only marginally different from those prepared by Mr Holland. The estimates of design traffic generations made by the two engineers are substantially similar, although there is slightly greater difference between the estimates of turning traffic volumes without the subject development, particularly in the afternoon peak period. : Both engineers have assessed the future performance of the site access intersection with David Low Way using the SIDRA Intersection analysis package. Mr Holland assessed the future performance of the site access intersection with the subject development as satisfactory, based on the use of design gap acceptance parameters of: critical gap 5.0 seconds, follow-up headway 3.0 seconds, based on his interpretation of Table 13A.1 of Chapter 13 of the DMR Road Planning & Design Manual, and the recommendations of the Austroads publications “Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice”. Mr Beard assessed the future performance of the site access intersection with the subject. development as unsatisfactory, based on the default gap acceptance parameters used in the SIDRA package for the nominated intersection geometry, a different interpretation of Table 13A.1 referenced by Mr Holland, and Table 4.3 from Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 5 — Intersections at Grade. He believes that the SIDRA default values (7.0 seconds and 4.0 seconds respectively) are generally appropriate, and considers that the minimum values which could be reasonably assumed at the subject intersection are: critical gap 6.0 seconds, and follow-up headway 4.0 seconds. The differences between the assessments made by Mr Holland and Mr Beard depend more on the assumptions as to the gap acceptance parameters than they do on their traffic volume forecasts. 13.8.12.5 Page - 13
Page 14
APPENDIX B: PAGE 3 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL 13.s.12.5 Page - 14 [OCR of page images] HEH T CHE HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING [2 APPENDIX B: PAGE 3 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL 2. Adequacy of the Proposed On-site Parking Facilities Mr Holland has assessed the parking requirement of the proposed development in accordance with planning scheme parking requirements as follows: Restaurant 323 sq.m. @ 1:10 33 spaces Retail 387 sq.m. @ 1:16 24 spaces Office 710 sq.m. @ 1:20 36 spaces Cabins [email protected] per unit 33 spaces Hostel 320 persons @ 1:10 32 spaces plus one bus parking space Total 158 parking spaces. Note: The actual calculation of retail parking demand is based on one space per 20 square metres up to 100 square metres and one space per 15 square metres thereafter. It is also assumed that the hostel will have 5 staff. However, taking account of different components generating their individual peak parking demands at different times of the day and week, as provided for in the Town Plan, Mr Holland assesses the parking provision proposed on drawing 20517_A-16: e 54 resident parking spaces, e 10 residential visitor parking spaces, e 76 commercial parking spaces, e 14 motorcycle spaces under the commercial building, and e One bus parking space, as being adequate. Mr Holland notes that the above assessment of the hostel parking requirement is based on the parking provisions outlined in Council’s paper entitled “Budget Visitor Accommodation in Noosa Shire, May 2004”, which is reflected in the Town Plan. He also notes that, if the hostel component of the development operates more along the lines of a motel or serviced apartments, the overall peak parking demand for the total development in practice could be of the order of 150 parking spaces. The site layout as currently proposed could be readily modified to incorporate the requisite additional parking spaces. If it is decided the development may not operate in the manner envisaged in the above paper, and the parking requirements contained in Council’s Town Plan are not applicable then in Mr Holland’s opinion, it would be reasonable for the development to be approved subject to a condition requiring that at some agreed time subsequent to commencement of operation of the development, the actual parking demands generated by the development be surveyed and additional on-site parking spaces be constructed as appropriate. Mr Beard agrees with Mr Holland’s assessment of the parking requirements set out in the planning scheme, except that he does not agree that the parking provision for what has been classified as a hostel represents a reasonable estimate of the design peak parking demand. Mr Beard has assessed the design peak parking demand of the proposed development, taking account of all factors considered relevant, as approximately: e commercial components 65 spaces, e residential components 95 spaces. Consequently, even if is accepted that the proposed units can be classified as a hostel (a proposal with which he disagrees for car parking purposes), he considers that there is no reasonable justification for a relaxation of the planning scheme parking requirement of 158 on-site parking spaces plus a bus parking space. 13.8.12.5 Page - 14
Page 15
APPENDIX B: PAGE 4 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL 13.s.12.5 Page - 15 [OCR of page images] HEH T CHE HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING [2 APPENDIX B: PAGE 4 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL 3. On-site Servicing Facilities Drawing 20517_A-18 shows the position of an MRV service vehicle in a location which blocks access to four of the proposed commercial parking spaces. Mr Holland also notes that, in his opinion, it is also obvious that provision exists for two large service vehicles to stand in front of the “refuge store”. Mr Holland considers this provision to be adequate. Mr Beard considers that the service vehicle provisions for the total development should be one Van space, one LRV space and one MRV space. In his opinion, use of these spaces should not block access to parking spaces, although it would be acceptable for occasional deliveries by an LRV to block either more than one loading space or a few staff parking spaces. 4. On-site Traffic Layout It was agreed that the currently proposed on-site parking layout was generally acceptable, or could be made acceptable (Mr Beard noted that some of the height clearances were inadequate). Wt Bho sn 4 Robert Holland 27" July 2009 Colin Beard 27" July 2009 13.8.12.5 Page - 15
Page 16
APPENDIX B: PAGE 5 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL 13.s.12.5 Page - 16 [OCR of page images] HEH T CHE HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING [2 APPENDIX B: PAGE 5 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL TABLE 1 : TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT SITE ACCESS INTERSECTION ON DAVID LOW WAY (counts and future estimates) Design Scenario Peak Traffic Volume (vph) Period Through Right Through Left Left Right from Turn from Turn Turn Turn North = from South from from from North South West West Count - Thursday 3 May 2007 7.45 —8.45am AM 649 9 565 9 8 12 4.30 — 5.30pm PM 539 2 528 2 4 8 Counts — 27" to 30" January 2009 (total flows south of Heron Street roundabout) Weekday AM Peak Hourly Flows 597 547 (all 8.00 — 9.00am) 612 548 598 594 567 556 Weekday PM Peak Hourly Flows 645 581 (mostly 3.00 — 4.00pm) 689 553 656 561 544 587 Estimates Used in Mr Holland’s Assessments 2009 background flows AM 598 5 594 5 4 6 PM 645 1 581 1 2 - 4 2020 at 3 % pa growth AM 795 5 790 5 4 6 (through flows only) PM 858 1 773 ‘4 2 4 Design generations’ AM 18 17 20 20 PM 30 30 25 25 2020 with development AM 795 23 790 22 24 26 PM 858 31. 773 31 27 29 Estimates Used in Mr Beard’s Assessments 2009 background flows AM 598 5 594 5 5 5 PM 656 5 581 5 5 5 2020 at 3 % pa growth AM 795 7 790 v 7 7 PM 872 7 773 7 7 ¥ Design generations’ AM 18 17. 20.—-20 PM 27 27 28 28 2020 with development AM 795 25 790 24 27 27 PM 872 34 =773 34 35 35 1. Mr Holland notes that his design traffic generations do not take account of “self containment” of trips generated by different development components. Mr Beard’s estimates take account of all factors he considers to be relevant. 13.8.12.5 Page - 16
Page 17
APPENDIX C: PARKING LAYOUT PROPOSED IN RETAIL COMPONENT OF DEVELOPMENT 13.s.12.5 Page - 17 [OCR of page images] HEH T CHE HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING [2 APPENDIX C: PARKING LAYOUT PROPOSED IN RETAIL COMPONENT OF DEVELOPMENT w = at = So € Zz Zz a a Poet WV 2 5D c a Z 5 ay a. - Q Oo) o 8 . 5 8 Q Lu a Eze 13.s.12.5 Page - 17
Page 18
APPENDIX D: MOVEMENT SUMMARY OUTPUT FROM ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING DAVID LOW WAY INTERSECTION UNDER PREDICTED YEAR 2020 PM PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT 13.s.12.5 Page - 18
Page 19
APPENDIX E: MOVEMENT SUMMARY OUTPUT FROM ANALYSIS OF THE UPGRADED DAVID LOW WAY INTERSECTION UNDER PREDICTED YEAR 2020 PM PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT – FIRST STAGE OF RIGHT TURN 13.s.12.5 Page - 19
Page 20
APPENDIX F: MOVEMENT SUMMARY OUTPUT FROM ANALYSIS OF THE UPGRADED DAVID LOW WAY INTERSECTION UNDER PREDICTED YEAR 2020 PM PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT – SECOND STAGE OF RIGHT TURN 13.s.12.5 Page - 20
Used in these records
Attachment 2 - Traffic ReportRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 5.6 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.