Council archive · source document
Attachment 2 - Holland Traffic Consulting · MCU13/0251
Attached to the e-mail MCU13/0251 - Peregian Village Market response to information request.
Our Ref: 13S12.6.SAH Date: 24 March 2014 Scanlon Property Group By Email Attention Mr Tony Scanlon Dear Sir 215 David Low Way, Peregian Beach: Proposed Retail development: Noosa Council RFI dated 31 January 2014: Traffic responses Introduction This report has been prepared to respond to items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 23 (as they relate to traffic) of the Request for Information issued by Noosa Council on 31 January 2013, concerning the proposed retail development at 215 David Low Way, Peregian. RFI Items 2, 3 and 4 – Further assessment of the David Low Way / Unnamed Road access and bus stop improvement The traffic report dated 13 December 2013 that was submitted with the development application recommended improvement to the David Low Way intersection with the Unnamed Road to achieve a 7m median width at the intersection, and thus satisfactorily provides for a 2-stage right turn from the Unnamed Road toward David Low Way in the south. There was a sketch on an aerial photo base included in the report to demonstrate how this would be achieved. Detailed ground survey of the intersection has since been obtained. Preliminary intersection layouts achieving the 2-stage right turn indicated that widening of up to about 1.5m would be required on the eastern side of David Low Way opposite the intersection. Discussions with Council officers indicated their concern with the extent of that encroachment into the existing vegetated embankment along that section of David Low Way. Hence, an alternate arrangement has been proposed as indicated in the HTC sketch plan 13.s.12-1, which prohibits right turn exit from the Unnamed Road toward the south along David Low Way, achieves 18m of storage in the David Low Way right turn lane, and upgrades the existing bus stop on the western side of the road to a satisfactory configuration, clear of the on-road cycle lane. Details of that plan have been discussed and agreed with Council’s traffic experts. Prohibition of the right turn exit from the Unnamed Road toward the south along David Low Way will overcome any capacity concerns at that intersection. Vehicles departing the site with a destination in the south along David Low Way will need to turn left from the Unnamed Road onto David Low Way, and then u-turn at the Heron Street roundabout which is only a short distance to the north of the site. This will increase traffic loadings at that roundabout. As a basis to assess associated impacts at the roundabout, peak period traffic counts were undertaken by Austraffic on Thursday 13 March 2014 in the periods 7.00-9.30am and 2.30-6.00pm. The survey indicated peak hours in the periods 7.45-8.45am and 3.15-4.15pm. Peak hour traffic flows indicated by the survey are attached
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 10 pages
Page 2
at Figure 1.
Comparison of peak hour David Low Way traffic flows from the recent Heron St roundabout count, with
peak period traffic flows in David Low Way on the southern leg of the Heron St roundabout from 2007 and
on several days in 2009, as documented in Appendix B of our 13 December 2013 report, indicates
negligible change in traffic flows over that 5-7 year period.
In addition, it is noted that we understand the economic assessment of the development predicted
catchment growth of about 1%pa over the next 10 year period. This contrasts with the 3%pa growth rate
in traffic flows that was assumed in our 13 December 2013 report. For the purposes of this assessment
we have conservatively used that same 3%pa growth rate in traffic flows (even though the historical
growth rate and the rate used in the economic report are much lower).
On the above basis, predicted 2024 peak hour traffic flows at the Heron St roundabout, without the
development are as follows:
2024 AM background peak (high growth):
David Low Way
16 0 805 63
0 51
Hotel access 0 3 Heron St
0 90
3 602 92 34
David Low Way
2024 PM background peak (high growth):
David Low Way
12 5 551 66
1 67
Hotel access 1 4 Heron St
3 137
13 581 105 29
David Low Way
Capacity analysis of the existing roundabout has been undertaken using the Sidra package, with default
Page - 2
Page 3
settings of that package. The analysis indicated operation well below capacity with degrees of saturation
as follows (full movement summary output from the analysis is attached at Figures 2 and 3):
2024 Background (with high 3%pa growth rate) Degree of Saturation
AM peak 0.71
PM peak 0.56
Using the predictions of traffic generation for the development outlined in our 13 December 2013 report
(conservatively assuming all generated traffic is new traffic, without any discounts for drop-in traffic),
including an allowance for the full number of accommodation units that for part of the existing approval,
predicted 2024 peak hour traffic flows at the Heron Street roundabout with the development fully
operational are as follows:
2024 AM peak with development (high growth):
David Low Way
16 0 828 63
0 51
Hotel access 0 3 Heron St
0 90
3 625 92 57
David Low Way
2024 PM peak with development (high growth):
David Low Way
12 5 607 66
1 67
Hotel access 1 4 Heron St
3 137
13 637 105 85
David Low Way
Capacity analysis of the existing roundabout has been undertaken using the Sidra package, with the
same assumptions as previous. The analysis again indicates operation well below capacity with degrees
of saturation as follows (full movement summary output from the analysis is attached at Figures 4 and 5,
and results of analysis without the development are included in brackets for comparison):
Page - 3
Page 4
2024 with dev (with high 3%pa growth rate) Degree of Saturation
AM peak 0.75 (0.71-without dev)
PM peak 0.64 (0.56-without dev)
It is reiterated that the analysis is conservative because it uses a growth rate in background traffic that is
much higher than indicated by traffic counts over the past 7 years at this location, and much higher than
used in the economic assessment. The assessment is also conservative because it assumes that all
development related traffic at the roundabout is new traffic, whereas a proportion of shopping centre
traffic at the roundabout would be drop-in traffic that would have been travelling through the roundabout
site in any event.
It is noted that the predicted degree of saturation at the roundabout in the evening peak with the
development operational, when the proposed development will generate greatest traffic flows, remains
lower than the degree of intersection saturation in the AM peak without the development operational.
It is concluded that the proposed access arrangements onto David Low Way as depicted in HTC sketch
plan 13.s.12-1 (prohibiting right turns exit from the Unnamed Road toward David Low Way in the south),
would operate in a satisfactory manner and would not lead to congestion issues on other parts of the road
network, and would satisfactorily upgrade the bus stop configuration at the site frontage to David Low
Way on its western side.
RFI Items 5, 6, and 7 – Sketch of future access to accommodation units and service vehicle
manoeuvring
The sketch on the following page shows the future access to the accommodation units along the western
side of the proposed building, together with the turning path of the maximum sized vehicle that would use
the proposed loading area (12.5m HRV). This is the same as the turning path sketch included in our 13
December 2013 report, but with the future accommodation access added.
It has been previously predicted that the currently approved accommodation units in future stages of site
development would generate traffic flows of up to 30 vehicle movements per hour in peak periods. That
is a very low level of traffic. It is also important to note that the driver of large service vehicles typically
sits above the height of normal vehicles. In that regard the Austroads Guidelines recommend a truck
driver eye height of 2.4m, compared with a car driver eye height of 1.1m, and a car height of 1.25m. It is
also noted that the maximum height of a car for access to basement carparks is typically 2.2m, and trucks
are typically greater than 3.0m in height. Thus, drivers of the low volume of cars using the future
accommodation units access road, and the drivers of the low volume of trucks, will be able to view each
other’s vehicles across the top of cars in the staff carpark well before any areas of potential conflict in this
low speed environment. This is provided any fencing and landscaping between the staff parking area and
the future accommodation access is implemented and maintained to a relatively low level, no more than
about 1.5m in height about ground level. It is recommended this height restriction for fencing and
landscaping along the western side of the site (south of the building enclosing the loading area) be
included as a condition of approval.
The staff parking area should be clearly identified as being for staff parking only, including “staff parking”
pavement markings on each parking bay, and a “staff parking only” sign at the end of each parking bay.
This could also be included as a condition of approval. Due to the layout of the development, its
pedestrian access points, and relationship to the carpark, the staff parking area will be the least attractive
for use by customers of the development. This fact, together with the staff parking delineation proposed,
will negate any need for barriers between the staff and customer parking areas.
It should also be noted that virtually all customer vehicles would enter the carpark via the first access
point, and most would also exit at that first access point. There will be a small number of customer
vehicles that exit the carpark via the second access (service access), but they will do so via a terminating
aisle and will thus slow and give way to any reversing service vehicles that they will easily be able to see.
Page - 4
Page 5
RFI Item 8 – Carparking provisions
Proposed carparking provisions are less than required by the standard provisions of The Noosa Plan’s
Driveways and Carparking Code. This was highlighted in our 13 December 2013 report which also
outlined justification for the proposed relaxation of Councils standard requirements. The basis for this
was essentially that parking requirements at shopping centre developments are widely accepted to be
satisfied with a provision rate of 5.25 spaces per 100 sq m of floor area. That rate has been developed
based on many parking demand surveys at shopping centres, and while lower than the shopping centre
parking requirements of most Town Plans (which were typically developed based on outdated parking
surveys in the 1980’s), the lower rate is almost universally accepted. Discussions with Council’s traffic
expert indicates that the proposed parking rate is satisfactory.
RFI Item 23 – Refuse truck manoeuvring requirements
The sketch above shows the manoeuvring requirements of a HRV at the end of the service aisle.
We understand that all refuse bins would be collected from the one location at the end of the service aisle
(with specialty tenancies transporting bins on-site to that location for collection). A refuse truck is a
smaller vehicle than the full size 12.5m HRV shown in the sketch, and a refuse truck has a smaller turning
Page - 5
Page 6
envelope. Thus, if a 12.5m HRV can manoeuvre at the end of the service aisle, then a refuse truck would
not have issue manoeuvring as well (even allowing for the refuse truck to drive in forward, and then
reverse out).
Yours faithfully
HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING PTY LTD
S A HOLLAND
RPEQ 5611
Page - 6
Page 7
FIGURE 1: PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS AT THE HERON STREET ROUNDABOUT
Page - 7
[OCR of page images]
B
EH T CHE
HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS AT THE HERON STREET ROUNDABOUT
FIGURE 1
(sasng pun syanal) sapauyaa joj24auiuod Jo aspjuaosad = 4%
DUEYJOA B,21Y9A JDO} — JOA
(Hynos) ke MOT placa
~ pussy
O | $id We
6
a |
wed AY
|AD%
Vdd Wa
[oa
WVad We
aoe] es
AD %
you
wVad WV
Wd We
a
wea KY ed WY
(jse9) 39049g WOId HY
wwea{ vo [oer [ae [|
[ade] 18 [AD %
[pwaawa [vad ay
Ten
vad wa
wvad WY
‘sqUaMIaAoyA]
Wd
a | AC KY |
{ypsou) Ae qy Moy] praeg
Wd SUF ~ 3uipua inoyy syed Wd
WY Sb: - Suppua anopyp : yeog Wy :Areutumg
$107 Yue €[ ABpsuny rayeq/évq
N uBiSolog ‘sso00 Vy Ja}0]}4/2eNg UOJ} /ABA MOTT PARC :uOrBI0T
1 ON ans
LNNOD NOLLDASUALNIIWANVIA OLAV ELV
Page -7
Page 8
FIGURE 2: MOVEMENT SUMMARY OUTPUT FROM ANALYSIS OF THE HERON STREET
ROUNDABOUT UNDER PREDICTRED YEAR 2024 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS WITHOUT
THE DEVELOPMENT (HIGH GROWTH)
Page - 8
Page 9
FIGURE 3: MOVEMENT SUMMARY OUTPUT FROM ANALYSIS OF THE HERON STREET
ROUNDABOUT UNDER PREDICTRED YEAR 2024 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS WITHOUT
THE DEVELOPMENT (HIGH GROWTH)
Page - 9
Page 10
FIGURE 4: MOVEMENT SUMMARY OUTPUT FROM ANALYSIS OF THE HERON STREET
ROUNDABOUT UNDER PREDICTRED YEAR 2024 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT (HIGH GROWTH)
Page - 10
Page 11
FIGURE 5: MOVEMENT SUMMARY OUTPUT FROM ANALYSIS OF THE HERON STREET
ROUNDABOUT UNDER PREDICTRED YEAR 2024 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT (HIGH GROWTH)
Page - 11
Used in these records
Attachment 2 - Holland Traffic Consulting.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 3.2 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.