Attachment 3 - Traffic Impact Assessment

9.    Adequate queuing space for vehicles has been provided and is demonstrated on the attached plans in
      Appendix A. Swept path analysis has been undertaken for a B99 vehicle (such as a Toyota Landcruiser or
      Nissan Patrol) and a car & caravan, demonstrating that these design vehicles can successfully ingress,
      manoeuvre relevant bays / areas and egress the subject site in a forwards direction. The swept path analysis
      can also be found in Appendix A. The subject site (where applicable) complies with the requirements of
      Australian/New Zealand Standard Parking facilities Part 1: Off-street car parking.
10.   Adjacent to the subject site is a long, parallel parking bay that is signed to be reserved for the Noosa Council’s
      mobile library on days it was timetabled to be present, and which is available for cars to parallel park outside of
      these times. However, since the construction of a permanent library in Cooroy, the town is no longer visited by
      the mobile library. As such, the signage is now obsolete. While the bay may be used by certain mobile medical
      vehicles (such as blood collection, breast screening etc.), I note that there are a number of other locations on
      Opal Street where parallel parking for such vehicles is available, if required. The proposed use will remove the
      existing parallel parking bay and replace it with 4× perpendicular public car parking bays and 2 motorcycle
      parking bays. This is suitable and sufficient to ensure that on street car parking is maintained with the proposed
      carwash in place. On the proposed development plans, the closest perpendicular parking bays are located
      around 15m from the Elm Street ‘hold line’. I note that numerous perpendicular parking bays exist on the
      northern side of Opal Street, indicating that reversing out of these bays generally onto Opal Street does not
      appear to be an issue. Whilst the location of the Proposed perpendicular bays is quite close to Elm Street, I
      consider them to be acceptable and advantageous to the surrounding public community. There are good sight
      lines for vehicles turning in to Elm Street to see a vehicle reversing from these bays. Travel speeds would be
      quite low as the vehicles turning into Elm Street would have slowed in order to undertake the turn. Vehicles
      reversing from the perpendicular bays would also have good sight lines to see vehicles turning in from Elm
      Street. Given the regional town nature of Cooroy and the relatively low traffic volumes expected on Opal Street,
      I consider the perpendicular car parking bays to be acceptably safe.
11.   I understand that the location of the subject site was chosen due to its proximity to the adjacent Cooroy–
      Tewantin road corridor. I corridor facilitates approximately ~10,000vpd. From a traffic engineering perspective,
      utilising this location makes sense — there is likely to be a high “drop-in” element to the customer base of the
      proposed use, including locals travelling to and from town, as well as visitors to Cooroy. Placing a use such as
      this nearby to this type of road corridor is complementary and minimises the need for vehicles to divert
      significantly from their routes, especially in areas where the drivers may be unfamiliar with the local road
      network.
12.   I further note that carwashes are complementary uses to service stations. From a traffic engineering
      perspective, it is an advantage to locate these uses adjacent to each other. Both uses involve a level of
      “maintenance” of a driver’s vehicle, with those wishing to wash their vehicles also taking advantage of refuelling,
      tyre inflation, retail facilities and toilet facilities. Placing such uses adjacent to each other again minimises the
      need for vehicles to have to divert significantly from a planned route, thus, minimising traffic impacts.
13.   The generation of the approved 620m² shopping centre is expected to be up to 41vph1 during a Thursday PM
      peak, with a 50%:50% ingress:egress split. I am advised by the carwash operation expert retained by the
      developer that the total hourly capacity of the carwash proposed at the subject site is 34 vehicles or an
      equivalent generation of 68vph during peak generation times (Saturdays), but would more reasonably operate
      at a traffic generation of 38vph during peak weekday use times (both generations having an ingress:egress split
      of 50%:50%). As such, given that 38vph < 41vph with similar ingress:egress splits, I do not consider that the
      proposed use will generate any negative capacity impacts on the surrounding network (over and above the
      approved use — in fact there would clearly be a lower level of traffic on the relevant streets). Therefore analysis
      of the capacity of the adjacent road network is redundant and unnecessary.




      1
          6.6vph / 100m² GFA — based on RPDM trip generation curve for shopping centres.


      20221115_10608_TTPlusReport.docx