transport assessment bingara gorge transport assessment
Post on 12-Apr-2022
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Transport Assessment
Bingara Gorge NA82013034
Prepared for Lend Lease
November 2015
Bingara Gorge Transport Assessment
Bingara Gorge - Land and Environment Court – Appeal 10554 of 2015 NA82013034
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease ii
Document Information Prepared for Lend Lease
Project Name Bingara Gorge
File Reference NA82013043.TransportAssessment.151125.Final.doc
Job Reference NA82013034
Date November 2015
Contact Information Cardno (Qld) Pty Ltd
ABN 57 051 074 992
Level 11 Green Square North Tower
515 St Paul’s Terrace
Locked Bag 4006
Fortitude Valley Qld 4006
Telephone: 07 3369 9822
Facsimile: 07 3369 9722
International: +61 7 3369 9822
transportqld@cardno.com.au
www.cardno.com.au
Document Control
Ve
rsio
n
Date Description of Revision
Au
tho
r
Init
ials
Author
Signature
Rev
iew
er
Init
ials
Reviewed Signature
Draft 23 November, 2015 Draft Report KS Not signed
Final 25 November, 2015 Final Report KS
SH
Ve
rsio
n
Reason for Issue / Stage of Deliverable
Ap
pro
ve
r
Init
ials
Approved
Signature Approved Release Date
Draft Issue to Client for Review KS Not signed 23 November, 2015
Final Issue for Submission KS
25 November, 2015
© Cardno 2015. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno.
This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement. Cardno does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third party on the content of this document.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease iii
Executive Summary
Cardno has been engaged by Lend Lease to prepare a Transport Assessment for the Bingara Gorge
Residential Development. This reporting has specifically been prepared in relation to the Land and
Environment Court proceedings 10554 of 2015. The report addresses the traffic and transport items raised
in the Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and Contentions document, included at Appendix A.
The subject of this Transport Assessment and the above mentioned appeal proceedings relates to the
proposed increase in the Bingara Gorge residential yield to 1,800 dwellings from the already approved
1,165 dwellings. The subject yield change only relates the residential component of the existing Bingara
Gorge development.
At the October 20th 2015 Section 34 conference, Cardno entered into discussions with the Craig McLaren
of McClaren Traffic Engineering who is acting as the opposing traffic expert on behalf of Wollondilly Shire
Council. Subsequent to the October 20th conclave discussions, a technical approach and assessment
scope was developed jointly between Cardno and McLaren Traffic Engineering.
In response to the Wollondilly Shire Council SOFC and the conclave discussions, Cardno has reassessed
a selection of the primary analysis assumptions and developed a new SATURN mesoscopic model that is
representative of the Bingara Gorge development and the adjacent road network at the 2036 time horizon.
The model has been used to quantify and assess the internal and external traffic demands and operations
for the already approved 1,165 dwelling scenario in addition to the proposed 1,800 dwelling scenario.
The SATURN traffic demand estimations include two-way link demands for each of the internal
development road sections as well as intersection turning movements. The turning movements have been
used as inputs to the supplementary SIDRA assessment of the key internal and external traffic
intersections to confirm traffic operations and upgrading requirements.
The SIDRA analysis confirms that engineering solutions are possible at the external Picton Road
intersections of Pembroke Parade and Almond Street. The analysis confirms that both intersections will
ultimately require signalisation irrespective of the Bingara Gorge residential yield scenario. The internal
development intersections have also been assessed as operating well within typically adopted performance
thresholds for both yield scenarios. Ongoing discussions are recommended relating to the timing and
funding of the external intersection solutions.
As would be expected, the SATURN assessment confirms that the proposed yield expansion will result in
an increase in traffic demands on many of the major internal road connections. The daily traffic demands
output from the model indicate key development connections including Pembroke Parade, Oxenbridge
Avenue, Greenbridge Drive, and Fairway Drive will cater for traffic demands that are at the upper range of
the broader planning thresholds typically published by a selection of Australian planning and approvals
authorities.
Cardno suggests that the demands may be considered reasonable based on consideration of:
> The traffic assumptions adopted as part of the SATURN modelling exercise are conservative,
especially at the 2036 time horizon where the car mode share is projected to be lower given
improved public transport and nearby external employment and retail development
> The majority (86-87%) of the proposed 1,800 residential dwellings do not have any frontage to
internal development roads which have been modelled as carrying more than 1,500 vpd. This
figure is comparable or higher than that referenced in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating
Developments (Section 7.3)
> Each of the critical internal road sections include separate provision for kerbside or indented car
parking, thereby ensuring the full-time provision for two general traffic lanes
> The density of direct residential frontage access on the critical road sections is relatively low
> Road reserves are relatively wide and include pathway provisions for pedestrians and cyclists
> The already constructed residential dwellings on critical internal sections have been located
such that they are set-back 12-25m from the edge of the kerb. These larger than typical set-
back characteristics will likely reduce any acoustic or amenity impact resulting from the
modelled increase in traffic demand.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease iv
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iii
1 Introduction 1
1.2 Expert Witness Code of Conduct Statement 2
2 Background 3
2.1 Bingara Gorge Development Background 3
2.2 Appeal Background 3
3 Transport Assessment Scope 4
4 Existing Situation 5
4.1 Hume Motorway (Federal Motorway) 5
4.2 Picton Road (State and Regional Road) 5
4.3 Pembroke Parade (Local Road) 5
4.4 Almond Street (Local Road) 6
4.5 Oxenbridge Avenue 6
4.6 Fairway Drive 7
4.7 Greenbridge Drive 9
4.8 Wollondilly Street (Wilton Oval Road) 11
4.9 Key Intersections 11
5 Proposed Development 12
5.1 Proposed (Revised) Yield 12
5.2 Proposed (Revised) Internal Road Layout 12
6 Transport Assessment Methodology 14
6.1 Traffic Generation 14
6.2 School Traffic Generation 17
6.3 Retail Traffic Generation 17
6.4 Leisure and Golf Course Generation 18
6.5 SATURN Traffic Model Development 18
6.6 External Traffic Assignment and Distribution 21
6.7 External Traffic Growth on Picton Road 21
6.8 SIDRA Model Development 22
7 Intersection Operations 23
7.1 External Intersections 23
7.2 Internal Intersections 30
7.3 Other Internal Intersection Operations 33
8 Internal Traffic Demand and Amenity Assessment 34
8.1 Specific Road Section Amenity Comment 39
8.2 General Road Amenity Comment 40
9 Response to Statement of Facts and Contentions 41
10 Summary and Conclusions 45
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease v
Tables
Table 6-1 Primary Cardno External Traffic Distribution Assumptions 21
Table 6-2 Wollondilly Shire Council Requested External Traffic Distribution Assumptions 21
Table 7-1 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Existing) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 24
Table 7-2 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Upgraded) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 25
Table 7-3 Picton Road / Almond Street (Existing) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 27
Table 7-4 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded Seagull) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 28
Table 7-5 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded Seagull) – Failure Year Sensitivity Test 28
Table 7-6 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 29
Table 7-7 Existing Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 31
Table 7-8 Existing Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary 33
Table 8-1 Summary of Published Residential Traffic Amenity Thresholds 34
Table 8-2 Summary of Daily Traffic Demands on Internal Bingara Gorge Road Sections 35
Figures
Figure 1-1 Indicative Boundary and Immediate Site Location of Bingara Gorge Development 1
Figure 4-1 Pembroke Parade Existing Formation 5
Figure 4-2 Pembroke Parade – Road Sections and Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings 6
Figure 4-3 Oxenbridge Avenue Existing Formation 7
Figure 4-4 Oxenbridge Avenue –Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings 7
Figure 4-5 Fairway Drive – Existing Cross-Section With Indented Car Parking 8
Figure 4-6 Fairway Drive Bridge – Existing Cross Section 8
Figure 4-7 Fairway Drive –Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings – Section 3 9
Figure 4-8 Greenbridge Drive – Section 1 Existing Cross Section 10
Figure 4-9 Greenbridge Drive – Section 2 Existing Cross Section 10
Figure 4-10 Greenbridge Drive – Section 3 Existing Cross Section 10
Figure 4-11 Wollondilly Shire Council – Category C Road Cross-Section 11
Figure 5-1 Bingara Gorge Key Internal and External Road Arrangements 13
Figure 6-1 Residential Traffic Generation Survey Area 15
Figure 6-2 Residential Traffic Generation Survey Results 16
Figure 6-3 SATURN Road and Development Network 20
Figure 6-4 2013 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP) 21
Figure 6-5 2024 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP) 22
Figure 6-6 2036 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP) 22
Figure 7-1 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – Existing Unsignalised Form (Seagull T-Junction) 23
Figure 7-2 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation 24
Figure 7-3 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded Formation 25
Figure 7-4 Picton Road / Almond Street – Existing Unsignalised Form (T-Junction) 26
Figure 7-5 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation 26
Figure 7-6 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded (Seagull) Formation 27
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease vi
Figure 7-7 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded Formation 29
Figure 7-8 Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – Existing Roundabout Form 30
Figure 7-9 Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation 31
Figure 7-10 Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive – Existing Roundabout Form 32
Figure 7-11 Pembroke Parade / Fairway / Greenbridge Drive– SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation 32
Figure 8-1 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – 1,165 Residential Dwellings 36
Figure 8-2 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – 1,800 Residential Dwellings 37
Figure 8-3 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – Difference Plot between 1,800 and 1,165 Residential Dwellings 38
Appendices
Appendix A Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and Contentions
Appendix B Section 34 Conclave Traffic Scope and Agreement
Appendix C SATURN Modelling Outputs
Appendix D SIDRA Modelling Outputs
Appendix E Report Author Curriculum Vitaes
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 1
1 Introduction
Cardno has been engaged by Lend Lease to prepare a transport assessment for the Bingara Gorge
Residential Development.
This reporting has specifically been prepared in relation to the Land and Environment Court proceedings
10554 of 2015. The report addresses the traffic and transport items raised in the Wollondilly Shire Council
Statement of Facts and Contentions document, included at Appendix A.
The subject of this transport assessment and the above mentioned appeal proceedings relates to the
proposed increase in the Bingara Gorge residential yield to 1,800 dwellings from the already approved
1,165 dwellings. The subject yield change only relates the residential component of the existing Bingara
Gorge development. Cardno understand that the non-residential uses and yields including golf course,
ancillary leisure (i.e. private gym and pools), and the neighbourhood retail centre will remain consistent with
the existing approval.
The Bingara Gorge development comprises 450 hectares of land that is approximately 80 kilometres south
of the Sydney CBD. The site is located in the Wollondilly Shire local government area.
The site is generally bounded by Picton Road to the south, the Hume Highway to the west and north, open
space/natural environment to the north and east, and an existing residential catchment in the south-east.
Vehicular access to the site is achieved via Picton Road and primarily via its intersections with Pembroke
Parade and Almond Street.
The indicative location of the proposed Bingara Gorge development is shaded in Figure 1-1 below.
Figure 1-1 Indicative Boundary and Immediate Site Location of Bingara Gorge Development
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 2
1.2 Expert Witness Code of Conduct Statement
The technical advice and opinion documented herein is based on transport modelling and investigations
undertaken by Cardno. The transport modelling includes many traffic engineering assumptions, the source
of which are summarised throughout the report. A physical inspection of the current Bingara Gorge site
arrangements was completed prior to the preparation of this advice.
The authors of this report acknowledge the Expert Witness Code of Conduct and we confirm that as far as
is practicable or that we are aware, the facts and statements documented in this report are true and correct
and that the professional opinions made herein are genuinely held. Furthermore, it is our opinion that there
are no matters of significance relating to the issues addressed in this report which we regard as relevant,
which may have been withheld from the Court.
1.2.1 Shane Healey Experience
Shane Healey Shane has a Bachelor of Engineering degree and is a Registered Professional
Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ no. 8343) specializing in traffic engineering and transport
planning.
Shane is a Principal Transport Engineer with Cardno and is currently the Market Sector
Leader – Traffic & Transport for the groups’ operations in both Queensland and Western
Australia. Shane has over 18 years’ experience in the delivery of traffic engineering and
transport planning projects across Australia, having held senior positions within Cardno in both Queensland
and Western Australia.
Shane is regularly called upon to provide expert evidence in Queensland’s Planning and Environment
Court as he is considered an expert in the traffic engineering field. In recognition of his expertise Shane
was seconded to the Department of Transport and Main Roads during 2002 during which time he authored
their guidelines for impact assessments, now known as the Guidelines for Assessment of Road Impacts of
Development (GARID).
A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided at Appendix E.
1.2.2 Kris Stone Experience
Kris is a Senior Traffic Engineer with a Bachelor of Engineering degree. Kris is also a
Department of Transport and Main Roads accredited Senior Road Safety Auditor with eleven
years’ experience in the fields of traffic engineering, transport planning and road safety. Kris
has significant experience in delivering traffic planning and operational input as part of the
design for residential communities, commercial, and super-regional shopping centres.
Kris has recently finalised a 12 month role with the City of Gold Coast where he acted as the
Senior Road Safety Officer. During this time, he was responsible for the development of the City’s first
Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan in partnership with Department of Transport and Main Roads,
Queensland Police, RACQ and the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety.
A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided at Appendix E.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 3
2 Background
2.1 Bingara Gorge Development Background
This Transport Assessment builds upon previous investigations and reporting prepared by Cardno in
relation to the proposed residential yield expansion. It is intended that the results and outcomes reported
herein supersede previous traffic findings where there is conflict.
In the undertaking of this assessment, Cardno has been provided access to a selection of background
traffic and transport studies which may relate to the current Bingara Gorge development. The following is a
brief summary of these documents:
> Bingara Gorge Residential Development – Traffic Impact Assessment (Cardno, April 2015).
This analysis and reporting was submitted in support of the proposed residential yield
expansion. It is understood that the items raised in the SOFC document reference this
particular report
> Wilton Junction Development – Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (PB, June 2014).
This analysis and reporting was prepared by PB for the broader Wilton Junction development
which proposes 11-13,000 residential dwellings inclusive of the Bingara Gorge development
> Traffic Report for Proposed Rezoning for Employment Land, Wilton (Colston Budd Hunt &
Kafes, August, 2005). This is understood to be the original traffic reporting submitted in support
of the (now approved) 1,165 residential dwellings
> Wilton Parklands (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, March, 2006). This advice built upon the
information provided by CBH&K in their February advice. Cardno understand that the combined
information supplied by CBH&K in the 2005/2006 studies formed the basis for the original
approval of the 1,165 residential dwellings
> Wilton Parklands – Review of External Traffic Effects (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, February
2006). This summary report was prepared by CBH&K in response to RTA and Council queries
raised in relation to the original Development Application traffic reporting.
2.2 Appeal Background
This Transport Assessment has been undertaken in relation to the Land and Environment Court
proceedings 10554 of 2015. Cardno has been engaged to provide traffic and transport advice on behalf of
Lend Lease. While acting in this role, Cardno has been party to the following appeal matters:
> Response to the Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and Contentions document
> Attendance at Section 34 conclave meeting with opposing traffic expert.
2.2.1.1 Statement of Facts and Contentions
Cardno was involved in preparing a preliminary formal response to the traffic and transport items raised in
the SOFC document. The Cardno technical positions and views has been refined during supplementary
data collection and analysis and this reporting includes updated responses to the SOFC items.
2.2.1.2 Section 34 Conclave meeting with opposing traffic expert
At the October 20th 2015 Section 34 conference, Cardno entered into discussions with the Craig McLaren
of McClaren Traffic Engineering who is acting as the opposing traffic expert on behalf of Wollondilly Shire
Council. Subsequent to the October 20th conclave discussions, a technical approach and assessment
scope was developed jointly between Cardno and McLaren Traffic Engineering.
A copy of the most recent Summary of Section 34 Expert Conclave and Agreed Actions is attached at
Appendix B. The Transport Assessment summarised herein has been undertaken generally in accordance
with this October 23rd scope of works.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 4
3 Transport Assessment Scope
The Bingara Gorge development already has an existing planning approval for 1,165 residential dwellings.
The subject of the Development Application is the proposed expansion of this existing approved yield by
635 residential dwellings to 1,800 dwellings.
The scope of this Transport Assessment has been developed such that it assesses both the proposed
(1,800 dwellings) and the approved (1,165 dwellings) scenario. The simultaneous analysis of both yield
scenarios with the same technical methodology (i.e. assumptions, background data, and modelling
tool/package) means that the Transport Assessment can quantify both the ultimate 1,800 dwelling traffic
situation as well as the incremental impacts or effects compared to the already approved situation.
The comprehensive Summary of Section 34 Expert Conclave and Agreed Actions document is included at
Appendix B. The key elements as they relate to the Transport Assessment scope are summarised below:
> The revised analysis will assess and compare the subject residential yield increase (1,165
dwellings to the proposed 1,800 dwellings)
> The Cardno technical approach will utilise a combined SATURN and SIDRA assessment
methodology given the PB AIMSUN model originally requested to be used by RMS in the SOFC
could not be provided in a timely manner
> The revised analysis will assesses the morning and evening peak hour periods, and the daily
traffic demand scenario. The assessment should consider:
- Internal road link demands and possible traffic amenity issues
- External Picton Road intersection operations and upgrade requirements
> The revised assessment should not consider any possible future development identified as part
of the broader Wilton Junction plan as this has already been assessed as part of the Wilton
Junction TMAP.
Based on the items included in the SOFC and the conclave discussions, this Transport Assessment
focuses on the following key traffic and transport aspects:
> External traffic operations at Picton Road intersections
> Internal intersection operations within the Bingara Gorge development
> Internal two-way traffic demands on individual road sections within the Bingara Gorge
development.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 5
4 Existing Situation
4.1 Hume Motorway (Federal Motorway)
The Hume Motorway links Sydney and Melbourne, running approximately 807km in the southwest-
northeast direction. In the vicinity of the subject site, the Hume Motorway consists of two-lane roads in
either direction within an approximate 13.0m carriageway, with a speed limit of 110 km/h.
4.2 Picton Road (State and Regional Road)
Picton Road runs approximately 37.0km in a west-east direction and links Wollongong and Picton. Picton
Road is a two-lane road for most of its length, with a 14.0 metre carriageway within a 40.0 metre road
reservation. Five million dollars of works are anticipated to begin on Picton Road in mid-2015 to upgrade
the intersection of Hume Motorway and Picton Road. The upgrade to the intersection from priority control to
signals is to improve capacity and safety in response to recent crash history with 45 crashes occurring at
the intersection within the last five years.
In the vicinity of the Bingara Gorge development Picton Road has a speed limit of 90km/hr, with 80km/hr
for westbound traffic west of the intersection of Pembroke Parade. Picton Road provides access to the
Bingara Gorge Residential Development via the intersections with Pembroke Parade and Almond Street.
Picton Road also serves as a major freight corridor and is subject to increased freight movement with the
anticipated expansion at Port Kembla and growth in associated industries.
4.3 Pembroke Parade (Local Road)
Pembroke Parade is a local road that serves as the majority access route to the site to/from Picton Road.
At present, Pembroke Parade has been constructed with a two-lane, median divided form within an
approximate 31-32m road reserve.
Both directions of trafficable pavement are approximately 6m wide and consist of a 3.5 general traffic lane
and a 2.5m kerbside parking lane. Active travel facilities for pedestrians and casual cyclists are provided
via shared 2.5m footpaths constructed in each verge for the entirety of its length. The already constructed
residential dwellings fronting Pembroke Parade are set-back from the kerb by approximately 15-25m.
Figure 4-1 Pembroke Parade Existing Formation
The form of Pembroke Parade is consistent along its entire length; however, it can be evaluated in two
separate sections:
> Section 1 – No direct residential access between Picton Road and Oxenbridge Avenue
> Section 2 – Direct residential access between Oxenbridge Avenue and Fairway / Greenbridge
Drives.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 6
Figure 4-2 Pembroke Parade – Road Sections and Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings
There are no residential dwellings that achieve direct site access in Section 1 of Pembroke Parade. The
dwellings that are located adjacent to the section achieve access via minor intersecting roadways and
associated laneways.
There are only 17 residential dwellings that achieve vehicular access directly from Section 2 of Pembroke
Parade. Of the 17 total dwellings, there are six on the northern (entry route) and 11 on the southern (exit
route). Vehicles entering these dwellings may decelerate in the kerbside parking lane and should not pose
a significant hazard or delay to other following vehicles continuing straight north or south.
4.4 Almond Street (Local Road)
Almond Street is a local road which extends approximately 1km in a north-south direction and provides
indirect access between Picton Road and Bingara Gorge. Almond Street is constructed with a 7.0 metre
carriageway within a 20.0 metre road reservation. There is limited pedestrian provision with no footpaths,
and no on-street parking available throughout the majority of its length. Almond Street has a speed limit of
50km/h and provides access to the Wilton Recreation Reserve, the existing township of Wilton, and a
selection of existing Bingara Gorge residential dwellings.
4.5 Oxenbridge Avenue
Oxenbridge Avenue has been constructed with a 6.5m trafficable pavement and additional provision for
indented car parking (2.25-2.5m) on both sides of the street within a 19m reserve. The indented car
parking has been constructed for a significant proportion of the length of the street with the exception of
some shorter sections to achieve landscaping and separation between turning movements opposite
intersections.
Section 1 Section 2 Direct Frontage Access Dwellings - Entry Route
- Exit Route
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 7
Figure 4-3 Oxenbridge Avenue Existing Formation
In the 480m section between Pembroke Parade and Hornby Street, there are currently 14 residential
dwellings that achieve direct frontage access to Oxenbridge Avenue. The majority of dwellings are set-
back from the edge of the traffic lane by 12-15m.
Figure 4-4 Oxenbridge Avenue –Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings
4.6 Fairway Drive
Fairway Drive has been constructed with a 6.5-7m trafficable pavement and additional provision for
indented car parking (2.25-2.5m wide) on both sides of the street within an approximate 22m reserve. The
indented car parking has been constructed for a significant proportion of the length of the street with the
exception of some shorter sections to achieve landscaping and separation between turning movements
opposite intersections.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 8
Figure 4-5 Fairway Drive – Existing Cross-Section With Indented Car Parking
The form of Fairway Drive is generally consistent along its entire length; however, it can be evaluated in
three separate sections:
> Section 1 – No direct residential access between Pembroke Parade and Kangaloon Close
> Section 2 – Limited access between Kangaloon Close and Stirling Drive / Kirkwood Chase
> Section 3 – Moderate residential access proposed north of Stirling Drive / Kirkwood Chase.
An exception to the typical form described above occurs in Section 1 at the bridge crossing approximately
110-150m west of Pembroke Parade. In this short bridge section, the following approximate dimensions
have been constructed:
> 2.5m southern footpath
> 4.3m northbound traffic lane
> 1.2m raised central median
> 3.9m southbound traffic lane
> 2.5m northern footpath.
Figure 4-6 Fairway Drive Bridge – Existing Cross Section
No properties front Section 1 of and there are no proposals to ever achieve site access from this section of
Fairway Drive.
Section 2 can only ever accommodate five dwellings that would have the potential to achieve direct access
to the 210m length of Fairway Drive. The four (of five) dwellings that have already been constructed are
set-back from the edge of the traffic lane by 12-15m.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 9
The proposed plans of development (1,800 dwellings) indicate that there may be a further 22 dwellings
developed north of Stirling Drive / Kirkwood Chase which would achieve direct access to/from Fairway
Drive in the 560m section measured to the far right (north) of Figure 4-7. The remainder of dwellings that
front Fairway Drive will achieve access via the minor intersecting roads.
Figure 4-7 Fairway Drive –Summary of Direct Frontage Residential Dwellings – Section 3
The following is a summary of the number of direct residential access driveways that will ultimately be
located on reviewed section of Fairway Drive:
> Section 1 – 0 dwellings
> Section 2 – 5 dwellings
> Section 3 – 22 dwellings
> Combined - 27 dwellings.
4.7 Greenbridge Drive
Greenbridge Drive has been constructed with a variety of configurations and can be described in three
sections:
> Section 1 – Two lane (divided and undivided) with angle car parking adjacent the
neighbourhood retail between Pembroke Parade and Chisolm Street
> Section 2 – 8.5m trafficable pavement with additional indented or kerbside car parking or coach
set-down facilities on both sides of the street creating a 12.75-13m kerb-to-kerb cross-section
opposite the school between Chisolm Street and Beatty Street / Woodward Road
> Section 3 – 7m trafficable pavement with additional indented car parking (2.25-2.5m) on both
sides of the street between Beatty Street / Woodward Road and the (current) terminus near
Maloney Chase.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 10
Figure 4-8 Greenbridge Drive – Section 1 Existing Cross Section
Figure 4-9 Greenbridge Drive – Section 2 Existing Cross Section
Figure 4-10 Greenbridge Drive – Section 3 Existing Cross Section
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 11
4.8 Wollondilly Street (Wilton Oval Road)
Cardno understand that there is a planning agreement obligation for Lend Lease to construct Wollondilly
Street to a Category C type road cross-section, illustrated on Figure 4-11.
Figure 4-11 Wollondilly Shire Council – Category C Road Cross-Section
The 8m road pavement does not include any indented car parking. The Bingara Gorge development does
not include any frontage to the street section.
4.9 Key Intersections
4.9.1 External Intersections
The following existing key external intersections are located within close proximity to the Bingara Gorge
Residential Development:
> Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (priority control – seagull intersection)
> Picton Road / Almond Street (priority control)
> Hume Highway / Picton Road – (RMS signalisation upgrade).
4.9.2 Internal Intersections
The following internal Bingara Gorge development intersections have been identified as being key:
> Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge – roundabout intersection
> Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge – roundabout intersection.
The assessment of other lower order internal intersections has been undertaken exclusively in SATURN,
not SIDRA.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 12
5 Proposed Development
The already approved Bingara Gorge development is comprised predominately of detached residential
dwellings lots. The approved development also incorporates the following land uses and yields:
> Primary school with 460 enrolments
> 1,252sq.m neighbourhood retail centre
> 18 hole golf course
> Ancillary (private for Bingara occupants) recreation facilities.
Cardno has been advised that it is likely that the already approved 1,165 dwellings would be fully occupied
by 2024-2026.
5.1 Proposed (Revised) Yield
The proposed development includes an expansion of the approved residential yield to include an additional
635 dwellings for a total of 1,800 dwellings. Cardno understand that the proposed development does not
include any notable revisions to the already approved land uses and yields.
5.2 Proposed (Revised) Internal Road Layout
The proposed developable ‘foot print’ remains unchanged from that already approved as part of the 1,165
dwellings scenario. The internal road arrangements therefore remain generally unchanged and could be
considered an evolution of the already approved network.
The internal network will continue to be structured with two separate ‘central spine’ connections providing
access to the northern residential precincts. These routes will also continue to be connected by two east-
west roads; one being the (current) partially constructed Greenbridge Drive / Maloney Chase route passing
through the school and retail centre area, and the other being the existing Hornby Street which connects to
Pembroke Parade via Oxenbridge Avenue.
Only minor modifications are proposed to the secondary and tertiary level street connections as a result of
the proposal to achieve the additional residential yield. No significant modifications are proposed to the
primary Major Collector routes.
The higher order road network that has been included in the traffic assessment is indicated in Figure 5-1.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 13
Figure 5-1 Bingara Gorge Key Internal and External Road Arrangements
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 14
6 Transport Assessment Methodology
Consistent with the scope identified in Section 3 of this report, the objective of this Transport Assessment is
to determine the following:
> Investigate and confirm traffic assumptions previously adopted in earlier analysis submitted as
part of the Development Application
> Assess external traffic operations and upgrading requirements at Picton Road intersections
> Assess internal intersection operations within the Bingara Gorge development
> Evaluate internal two-way traffic demands on individual road sections within the Bingara Gorge
development.
In order to deliver outcome for these key elements, the following is addressed:
> Quantify the development traffic generation
> Determine the external development trip distribution
> Evaluate the projected background traffic growth on the adjacent road network (i.e. Picton
Road)
> Develop a network traffic model and assign development traffic to the local road network for the
following scenarios:
- 2013 ‘No Development’ AM, PM, and Daily traffic scenario;
- 2036 ‘With Development’ AM, PM, and Daily traffic scenario.
6.1 Traffic Generation
Cardno has reinvestigated the traffic generation assumptions that were previously adopted in the April
2015 Development Application reporting. The following section outlines the revised generation technical
position and also summarises a selection of the preceding assumptions.
6.1.1 Previous Residential Traffic Generation Assumptions
The following is a summary of the residential traffic generation assumptions made in previous traffic
reporting prepared by Cardno and other engineering consultants. This information is reproduced herein to
provide clarity regarding the previous planning for the development.
6.1.1.1 Traffic Report for Proposed Rezoning for Employment Land, Wilton (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, August, 2005).
Traffic generation rates for the residential component are not documented.
6.1.1.1.1 Wilton Parklands – Review of External Traffic Effects (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, February 2006)
This 2006 advice prepared by CBH&K referenced the following traffic generation assumptions:
> 0.64 trips per dwelling which was determined from the 0.85 vph per dwelling referenced in the
then current RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development guideline with an additional 25%
containment factor
> 0.57 trips per dwelling which references the 0.64 vph rate with an additional 10% reduction to
consider travel plans, public transport, and internal employment
> 0.48 trips per dwelling based on a previous assessment undertaken by Kilsby.
6.1.1.1.2 Wilton Parklands (Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, March, 2006)
This 2006 advice prepared by CBH&K referenced the following traffic generation assumptions:
> Survey of Wilton township (250 dwellings) where the findings were:
- 0.7 trips per dwelling in the AM peak including internal trips adopted for assessment
- Directional Split 65% out and 35% in
- Analysis considered an additional 25% reduction to account for internal development trips.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 15
6.1.1.1.3 Wilton Junction Development – Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (PB, June 2014)
> 0.7 trips per dwellings referenced from the CBH&K surveys, however, assuming that this figure
did not include internal trips
> 0.08 and 0.14 trips per dwelling (AM and PM respectively) increase to account for internal trips
> 0.78 and 0.84 trips per dwelling (AM and PM respectively) adopted for assessment.
6.1.1.1.4 Bingara Gorge Residential Development – Traffic Impact Assessment (Cardno, April 2015)
In the 2015 Development Application reporting, Cardno adopted the residential generation rates used by
PB in their study to ensure consistency when comparing results.
> 0.78 and 0.84 trips per dwelling (AM and PM respectively).
6.1.2 Proposed Residential Traffic Generation Assumptions
This Transport Assessment adopts the following trip generation rates for the residential component:
> 0.8 vph per dwelling in the AM and PM peak hours
> 8.1 vpd per dwelling throughout the day
> 75%/25% in/out (out/in) peak hour directional split.
These rates were determined from pneumatic tube count surveys undertaken for the adjacent Wilton
residential catchment. The surveys were conducted by sub-consultant Austraffic between Saturday
September 5th and Friday September 11th, 2015. The survey area encompassed 167 residential dwellings
located in Wilton, NSW as shown on Figure 6-1 below.
Figure 6-1 Residential Traffic Generation Survey Area
The surveyed catchment includes detached residential dwellings of a similar general nature to those that
have been and are proposed to be constructed as part of the Bingara Gorge development. The survey
area did include a sports club, however, the use is minor and the surveying of any of its related traffic
movements would produce a conservative (higher) generation result.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 16
The survey results are summarised at Figure 6-2. The results indicate that the AM peak hour was lower
than the PM. The PM result was adopted for both peak hour periods so as to provide a conservative
estimate of the potential traffic generation during the critical AM (egress) peak hour.
Figure 6-2 Residential Traffic Generation Survey Results
Cardno suggests that the 0.8 vph per dwelling result is appropriate for use as part of this Transport
Assessment given the similar nature of the residential dwellings and the similar site location. The survey
boundaries will included trips that could be described as being ‘internal’.
The Wollondilly Shire SOFC text (items i and ii) suggests that generation rates equalling 0.94 and 0.9 vph
per dwelling may be more appropriate for the respective AM and PM peak hours. Cardno understands that
these generation rates were determined by Wollondilly Shire Council based on comparisons to the Journey
to Work (JTW) which documents a vehicle driver proportion of 86%.
JTW data reported by Bureau of Statistics for the Local Government Areas surveyed as part of the RMS
TDT 2013/04a advice are very similar to Wollondilly:
> Wollondilly – 85% as driver / 5% as passenger
> Coffs Harbour – 83% as driver / 8% as passenger
> Orange – 83% as driver / 8% as passenger
> Wagga Wagga – 81% as driver / 8% as passenger
> Wollongong – 76% as driver / 6% as passenger.
The SOFC reference to the Journey to Work dataset is reasonable, however, it does not consider trips
made for other non-employment purposes. Based on the most recent 2012/13 Household Travel Survey
(HTS), only 26% of Wollondilly trips are made for commuting or work related business. Furthermore, the
2012/13 HTS reports that 58% of total dwelling trips are made as a car driver and an additional 23% as a
passenger. These proportions are similar to the RMS surveyed Wollongong LGA (53% and 23%).
Based on the JTW and HTS results, Cardno suggests that the Wollondilly travel behaviours are similar to
those surveyed at the five regional RMS sites referenced in TDT 2013/04a, summarised as:
> AM average – 0.71 vph per dwelling
> PM average – 0.78 vph per dwelling
> Daily average – 7.4 vpd per dwelling.
The rates adopted as part of the Transport Assessment are therefore considered reasonable and
appropriate given they have been determined from actual data and are higher than the rates summarised in
the most recent RMS TDT2013/04a advice.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 17
6.2 School Traffic Generation
The already approved primary school has been designed to accommodate an enrolment of 460 students.
Cardno has assumed that this enrolment figure was determined based on the already approved 1,165
residential dwellings and that the majority of students will live locally within the development.
The school traffic generation has been determined via a first principles approach using the following
assumptions:
> 90% - proportion of enrolled students living within Bingara Gorge
> Vehicle mode share
- 60% of internal enrolments travel via car
- 100% of external enrolments travel via car
> 1.33 students per vehicle – average occupancy of all car trips
> Trip assignment
- 20% of internal enrolment school trips are wholly internal to the site (i.e. they are generated
at the dwelling and return to the dwelling after the trip)
- 80% of internal enrolment school trips occur as a segment of a longer multi-leg trip (i.e. drop-
in trip) and continue to external destinations after visiting the school to drop off children
> Peak hour proportions
- 100% of the morning peak school trips are made during the AM road peak hour
- 60% of the afternoon peak school trips are made during the PM road peak hour
> 5% - proportion of peak hour trips that enter, but do not exit during the AM peak hour (i.e. staff
and/or parents arriving at the end of the peak hour). The inverse (5% more) exit without
entering during the PM peak hour
> Daily traffic factor
- The daily traffic generation for the school has been estimated via the application of a factor
of five to the combined AM and PM peak hour demands. This approach is the same as that
employed for the residential trips where the peak to daily factor equals 10. This
approximation is conservative.
The resulting school traffic generation is 430 trips (entering and exiting) during the AM peak hour. This
figure is higher than the previously assessed 359 trips which referenced surveys of other primary schools
(0.78 trips per enrolment).
These school trip end parameters are fixed for the 1,165 dwelling scenario. The level of internalisation
relating to the 1,800 dwelling scenario is therefore lower given no additional residential peak hour trips are
made to/from the school. Any additional education related trips generated by the incremental 635
dwellings therefore travel external to the site to complete their trip purpose.
6.3 Retail Traffic Generation
The already approved neighbourhood retail centre (1,252sq.m GFA) will be of a scale that limits tenants to
those that only serve a convenience or ‘local’ retail focus. The retail is therefore projected to primarily be
frequented by Bingara Gorge residents and is not projected to generate significant external traffic
demands. The following general traffic assumptions have been adopted for the retail component:
> Traffic generation rates
- 5.4 vph per 100sq.m in the AM peak hour
- 12.3 vph per 100sq.m in the PM peak hour
- 121 vpd per 100sq.m throughout the daily assessment period
> Trip origin/destination
- 95% - proportion of retail trips with an internal residential trip end
- 5% - proportion of retail trips generated from external origins
> Internalisation and drop-in trips
- 90% - proportion of the internal trips referenced above that are drop-in trips that are made as
part of an existing multi-leg trip to/from an external origin/destination
- 10% - proportion of the internal trips that originate from an internal dwelling and return to the
same dwelling after visiting the retail use.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 18
Importantly, all of these assumptions still result in a vehicle trip being made on the internal Bingara Gorge
road network. The following is a summary of the trip end traffic generation at the retail node:
> 68 vehicles – AM peak hour
> 154 vehicles – PM peak hour
> 1515 vehicles – Daily period.
The majority of these trip ends are trips that are already made on the internal road network as part of the
residential dwelling generation. The small scale convenience nature of the retail use will mean that many
of the trips occur as part of an existing employment, education, or leisure trip. An example of this trip
expected frequently would include a resident stopping for milk or bread on the way to/from work.
6.4 Leisure and Golf Course Generation
Previous iterations of the Bingara Gorge traffic analysis submitted by Cardno and other consultants have
not included the approved golf course land use. This Transport Assessment has adopted the following
traffic generation assumptions:
> 60 vehicle trips – AM and PM peak hour generation based on surveys of other locations
> 600 vehicle trips – Daily generation
> 50% - proportion of peak hour trips that have an internal residential origin or destination.
The already approved Bingara Gorge development includes a variety of recreational facilities (i.e. pools,
gyms etc.) available only to community residents. The provision of these facilities will mean that some of
the residential trips made for recreational purposes will no longer travel external to the site. The following
assumptions were adopted to account for these internal recreational trip ends:
> 2% - proportion of AM, PM, and daily residential trips with internal recreational destinations.
These trips do not travel external to the site but importantly are still made on the internal road
network.
Importantly, these trips are still made on the internal road network and are considered as part of the two-
way demand assessment.
6.5 SATURN Traffic Model Development
A SATURN mesoscopic model was developed for the internal Bingara Gorge development network
consistent with the discussion between Cardno and McLaren Traffic Engineering subsequent to the Section
34 Conclave meeting.
SATURN is a mesoscopic modelling package that is capable of both intersection and conventional road
segment capacity analysis and assignment. Link based assignments assume that all the delay in
traversing a network is in the mid-block passage and the intersections add zero delay to the travel time.
Delays due to congestion are modelled by modifying the speed along each link as a function of the volume
on the link.
The SATURN ‘simulation’ network assumes that the delay at the ends of each link due to increased link
volume is the major factor in delay and usually only models the on link delay as the time taken to traverse
at free flow speed.
The SATURN model was developed in accordance with best practice principles including reference to
industry guidelines. The following is a summary of the SATURN model development process:
> Create a node and link representation of the existing and proposed development and road
network including:
> Development locations (i.e. traffic generators)
> Road cross-sections
> Posted speed limits
> Intersections arrangements
> Develop a trip end matrix including estimations for each centroid consisting of:
> Peak hour traffic generation (entry and exit)
> Trip origin/destination (internal and external).
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 19
The modelled road network was traced from aerials and development plans in MapInfo which allowed for
the modelling of accurate distances between intersections. Each intersection was coded in SATURN as a
simulation node with the saturation flows for each type of movement referenced from the Queensland
Department of Transport and Main Roads SATURN Modelling - Guidelines and Criteria for Queensland
SATURN Model Development (Draft, February 2013).
Development zone were chosen to allow for matching with the planned development subdivisions and to
not have much more than three intersections in any one zone. The one exception to this process occurs at
the northern extremity of the site where dwellings have no alternate route choice for entering/exiting the
development except to travel via either of the major ‘spine roads’.
Figure 6-3 is a reproduction of the Bingara Gorge SATURN model and includes the following:
> Road links
> Intersection nodes
> Development centroids.
A trip matrix was developed based on the assumptions reported earlier herein. The SATURN matrix
assigns the development trips to the internal and external road network via an analytical process which
seeks to find the optimal travel time for all trips.
The analytical SATURN process is suggested as being more logical and accurate compared to the EXCEL
desktop modelling approach previously adopted by Cardno in the April 2015 analysis. The approach is
similar in nature to that employed in 2006 by CBH&K (PARAMICS) and also the AIMSUN micro-simulation
model prepared by PB which was originally requested to be used for this process by RMS.
Peak hourly demands output for the AM and PM peak hour were multiplied by a factor of 5 (i.e.
(AM+PM)*5) in order to estimate the daily traffic demand. This approach is typical of mesoscopic models
where daily demands are produced from peak hour demands.
Traffic demand plots and intersection turning movement estimates were output from the SATURN model
for reference in the following sections of this report.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 20
Figure 6-3 SATURN Road and Development Network
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 21
6.6 External Traffic Assignment and Distribution
The April 2015 traffic analysis and reporting prepared by Cardno assessed two different sets of external
traffic distribution assumptions. Table 6-1 summarises the primary distributions developed and
recommended by Cardno based on a review of the available background data and evidence provided by
Lend Lease. Table 6-2 summarises an alternate set of distribution assumptions requested to be used by
Wollondilly Shire Council.
Table 6-1 Primary Cardno External Traffic Distribution Assumptions
Road Destination / Origin Development Traffic Assignment
Hume Motorway (N) Sydney, Campbelltown, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith
55%
Hume Motorway (S) Canberra 5%
Picton Road (E) Wollongong 30%
Picton Road (W) Picton 10%
Table 6-2 Wollondilly Shire Council Requested External Traffic Distribution Assumptions
Road Destination / Origin Development Traffic Assignment
Hume Motorway (N) Sydney, Campbelltown, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith
60%
Hume Motorway (S) Canberra 5%
Picton Road (E) Wollongong 20%
Picton Road (W) Picton 10%
The Wollondilly Shire Council requested sensitivity scenario assumptions have been adopted as part of this
revised Transport Assessment.
6.7 External Traffic Growth on Picton Road
The rate of Picton Road traffic growth has been determined from the PB AIMSUN modelling outputs
referenced in the Wilton Junction Development – Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (PB, June
2014) report. The following Figures 6-3, 6-4, and 6-5 were specifically referenced and are reproduced
herein.
The PB modelled demands refer to PCU units which are similar to demand, however, heavy vehicles have
a weighting factor of 2.
Figure 6-4 2013 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP)
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 22
Figure 6-5 2024 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP)
Figure 6-6 2036 Modelled Traffic Demand Outputs (PB Wilton Junction TMAP)
6.8 SIDRA Model Development
The April 2015 Cardno analysis of the external traffic intersection operations and upgrading requirements
was undertaken using an earlier version of the SIDRA program. This Transport Assessment utilises the
updated SIDRA Version 6.0.
The previous assessment of the existing unsignalised intersections with Picton Road adopted modified gap
acceptance parameters which were consistent with those summarised in the Austroads Guide to Road
Design: Part 4A – Guide to Unsignalised and Unsignalised Intersections. This Transport Assessment no
longer proposes the use of these revised gap acceptance parameters.
The latest version of SIDRA now includes a new method to provide a more systematic approach to the
estimation of gap acceptance parameters (critical gap and follow-up headway) for two-way stop and give-
way / yield sign controlled intersections as a function of intersection geometry, control and flow conditions.
SIDRA documentation recommends that the setting should be engaged which Cardno has in the low
setting. All other SIDRA capacity parameters have been maintained in the default setting.
The intersection operational analysis and results are documented in the Section 7 of this report.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 23
7 Intersection Operations
This Transport Assessment has analysed the future year traffic operations at the 2036 planning time
horizon for the following scenarios:
> Existing approved 1,165 dwelling scenario (i.e. No Development)
> Proposed 1,800 dwelling scenario (i.e. With Development).
Consistent with the discussion in Section 3, the Transport Assessment does not consider the Wilton
Junction plan. Consideration of the possible broader Wilton Junction consistent with the PB analysis is not
possible without having access to the AIMSUN model which was not provided.
Detailed SIDRA output results are included at Appendix D and electronic copies will also be provided for
review.
7.1 External Intersections
The following existing key intersections are located within close proximity to the Bingara Gorge Residential
Development:
> Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (priority control – seagull intersection)
> Picton Road / Almond Street (priority control).
7.1.1 Picton Road and Pembroke Parade Intersection
The intersection of Picton Road and Pembroke Parade has been constructed with an unsignalised seagull
T-Junction formation. Figure 7-1 illustrates the existing layout from recent aerial imagery and Figure 7-2
summarises the existing form assessed in SIDRA.
The right turn egress from Pembroke Parade has been assessed as only being opposed by the eastbound
through movement from Picton Road (west) and the right turn entry movement from Picton Road (east).
The left turn auxiliary lane on Picton Road (west) has been constructed in such a way that these vehicles
do not represent a potential conflict to vehicles exiting Pembroke Parade, hence, the exit flow effect has
been set to 0%.
Figure 7-1 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – Existing Unsignalised Form (Seagull T-Junction)
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 24
Figure 7-2 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation
Table 7-1 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the existing intersection formation
for both residential yield scenarios.
Table 7-1 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Existing) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary
Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DoS Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m) DoS
Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m)
1,165 Dwelling Scenario
East – Picton Rd 0.634 0.5 N/A 1.5 0.547 1.4 N/A 5.8
North – Pembroke Pde 2.501 2357.3 F 3424.7 0.729 27.4 B 23.8
West – Picton Rd 0.632 1.2 A 3.7 0.561 3.0 A 17.3
Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Unsignalised Seagull)
2.501 547.8 N/A 3424.7 0.729 4.2 N/A 13.8
1,800 Dwelling Scenario
East – Picton Rd 0.637 0.6 N/A 2.1 0.548 2.0 N/A 8.6
North – Pembroke Pde 3.599 3780.4 F 5855.1 1.167 296.9 F 396.8
West – Picton Rd 0.633 1.7 A 6.0 0.614 3.9 A 36.3
Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Unsignalised Seagull)
3.599 1172.2 N/A 5855.1 1.167 56.2 N/A 396.8
The Table 7-1 results confirm that the existing unsignalised T-Junction (Seagull) arrangement will require
upgrading at the 2036 time horizon regardless of the Bingara Gorge residential yield.
Consistent with the April 2015 traffic analysis, signalisation of the intersection is necessary to cater for future year traffic demands. Figure 7-3 overleaf summarises the upgraded signalised formation that has been assessed as part of this assessment. This formation is consistent with the arrangements assessed as part of the April 2015 analysis for the ‘No Wilton Junction’ scenario.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 25
Figure 7-3 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded Formation
Table 7-2 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the upgraded signalised intersection
formation for both residential yield scenarios.
Table 7-2 Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Upgraded) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary
Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DoS Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m) DoS
Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m)
1,165 Dwelling Scenario
East – Picton Rd 0.746 20.2 B 138.6 0.547 13.2 A 78.5
North – Pembroke Pde 0.752 31.5 C 78.7 0.499 30.2 C 19.8
West – Picton Rd 0.757 18.5 B 144.2 0.561 10.4 A 81.2
Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Upgraded Signals)
0.757 22.1 B 144.2 0.561 12.9 A 81.2
1,800 Dwelling Scenario
East – Picton Rd 0.833 30.6 C 186.9 0.603 14.7 B 79.3
North – Pembroke Pde 0.895 39.6 C 170.1 0.681 29.5 C 28.3
West – Picton Rd 0.878 30.2 C 219.8 0.685 11.3 A 83.0
Picton Road / Pembroke Parade (Upgraded Signals)
0.878 33.2 C 219.8 0.685 14.1 A 83.0
The Table 7-2 results indicate that the assessed signalised intersection upgrade will operate within typically
accepted performance thresholds irrespective of the Bingara Gorge residential yield.
The 156m queue reported on Pembroke Parade in the AM peak hour is anticipated to reach the Oxenbridge Avenue roundabout intersection. The queueing will be transitory as the 95th percentile queue only just exceeds the available 145m intersection separation.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 26
7.1.2 Picton Road and Almond Street Intersection
The intersection of Picton Road and Almond Street has been constructed with an unsignalised T-Junction
formation. Figure 7-4 illustrates the existing layout from recent aerial imagery while Figure 7-5 summarises
the form assessed in SIDRA. The left turn auxiliary lane on Picton Road (west) has been constructed in
such a way that these vehicles do not represent a potential conflict to vehicles exiting Almond Street,
hence, the exit flow effect has been set to 0%.
Figure 7-4 Picton Road / Almond Street – Existing Unsignalised Form (T-Junction)
Figure 7-5 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 27
Table 7-3 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the existing unsignalised intersection
formation for both residential yield scenarios.
Table 7-3 Picton Road / Almond Street (Existing) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary
Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DoS Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m) DoS
Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m)
1,165 Dwelling Scenario
East – Picton Rd 0.558 0.5 N/A 1.5 0.540 0.8 N/A 2.6
North – Almond St 5.913 7023.9 F 1204.7 3.405 3001.2 F 944.5
West – Picton Rd 0.595 1.2 N/A 0.0 0.504 0.9 N/A 0.0
Picton Road / Almond Street (Unsignalised T-Junction)
5.913 569.3 F 1204.7 3.405 278.4 N/A 944.5
1,800 Dwelling Scenario
East – Picton Rd 0.555 0.6 N/A 2.2 0.551 1.4 N/A 5.7
North – Almond St 7.453 8269.8 F 1458.8 4.458 4238.5 F 1136.6
West – Picton Rd 0.606 1.2 N/A 0.0 0.509 1.0 N/A 0.0
Picton Road / Almond Street (Unsignalised T-Junction)
7.453 835.8 N/A 1458.8 4.458 411.2 N/A 1136.6
Table 7-3 confirms that the existing unsignalised T-Junction arrangement will require upgrading before the
2036 time horizon regardless of the Bingara Gorge residential yield.
Cardno understand that Lend Lease that there is a planning agreement obligation for to Lend Lease to
provide a monetary contribution towards the upgrading of this intersection to deliver an upgraded seagull
arrangement as part of the already approved 1,165 dwelling yield. Figure 7-6 illustrates the potential form
assessed in SIDRA.
Figure 7-6 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded (Seagull) Formation
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 28
Table 7-4 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the conditioned upgraded
unsignalised seagull intersection formation for both residential yield scenarios.
Table 7-4 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded Seagull) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary
Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DoS Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m) DoS
Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m)
1,165 Dwelling Scenario
East – Picton Rd 0.558 0.5 N/A 1.5 0.540 0.8 N/A 2.6
North – Almond St 0.841 50.13 D 31.2 0.538 24.5 B 15.2
West – Picton Rd 0.595 1.2 N/A 0.0 0.504 0.9 N/A 0.0
Picton Road / Almond Street (Unsignalised T-Seagull Junction)
0.841 4.9 N/A 31.2 0.538 3.0 N/A 15.2
1,800 Dwelling Scenario
East – Picton Rd 0.555 0.6 N/A 2.2 0.551 1.4 N/A 5.7
North – Almond St 1.045 140.1 F 129.1 0.652 28.6 C 19.9
West – Picton Rd 0.606 1.2 N/A 0.0 0.509 1.0 N/A 0.0
Picton Road / Almond Street (Unsignalised T-Seagull Junction)
1.045 15.0 N/A 129.1 0.652 3.9 N/A 19.9
Table 7-4 confirms that the conditioned seagull arrangement will operate beyond typically accepted
performance thresholds during the morning peak hour irrespective of the Bingara Gorge residential yield
scenario.
Table 7-5 summarises the results of a supplementary sensitivity review to investigate the likely ‘failure year’
for each yield scenario. A negative growth rate was applied to the Picton Road arterial movements to
backwards estimate the point at which the seagull intersection arrangement capacity was exceeded.
Table 7-5 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded Seagull) – Failure Year Sensitivity Test
Scenario Failure Year (i.e. DoS < 0.80)
1,165 dwellings – AM peak hour 2035 (Worst Case DoS = 0.79)
1,800 dwellings – PM peak hour 2030 (Worst Case DoS = 0.79)
The Table 7-5 results indicate that the proposed residential expansion to 1,800 dwellings will bring forward
the failure year of the intersection by approximately four-five years. Signalisation of the intersection will
therefore be required at around 2030 if the proposed expanded development was to proceed.
Ongoing discussions are recommended between Lend Lease and approval authorities regarding the timing
and possible contribution to the future signalisation of the intersection over and above the already
conditioned monetary contributions to deliver the seagull arrangement. Cardno suggests that a partial
bring forward amount may be appropriate based on the assessed two year period identified in Table 7-5.
Consistent with the April 2015 traffic analysis, signalisation of the intersection is ultimately necessary to
cater for the 2036 traffic demands. Figure 7-7 summarises the upgraded signalised formation that has
been assessed as part of this Transport Assessment. This formation is consistent with that assessed as
part of the April 2015 analysis.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 29
Figure 7-7 Picton Road / Almond Street – SIDRA Assessed Upgraded Formation
Table 7-6 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the upgraded signalised intersection
formation for both residential yield scenarios.
Table 7-6 Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded) – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary
Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DoS Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m) DoS
Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m)
1,165 Dwelling Scenario (1)
East – Picton Rd 0.592 13.4 A 86.2 0.612 14.1 A 79.2
North – Almond St 0.608 27.7 B 31.9 0.599 23.5 B 27.8
West – Picton Rd 0.631 12.5 A 94.7 0.571 12.3 A 72.2
Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded Signals)
0.631 15.5 A 94.7 0.612 14.2 A 79.2
1,800 Dwelling Scenario (2)
East – Picton Rd 0.611 14.4 A 88.4 0.681 15.9 B 81.5
North – Almond St 0.626 25.4 B 36.7 0.693 22.9 B 28.9
West – Picton Rd 0.667 13.4 A 100.6 0.630 12.7 A 71.5
Picton Road / Almond Street (Upgraded Signals)
0.667 15.0 B 100.6 0.693 15.2 B 81.5
The Table 7-6 results indicate that the assessed signalised intersection upgrade will operate within typically
accepted performance thresholds irrespective of the Bingara Gorge residential yield. It should be noted
that SIDRA has been permitted to optimise the cycle length and phase timing for each scenario. This
characteristic is responsible for the DoS improvement seen between the Table 7-6 results for the 1,165 and
1,800 dwelling scenarios.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 30
7.2 Internal Intersections
The following existing internal Bingara Gorge development intersections have been identified as being key:
> Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge – roundabout intersection
> Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge – roundabout intersection.
7.2.1 Pembroke Parade and Oxenbridge Intersection
The existing internal intersection of Pembroke Parade and Oxenbridge has been constructed as a single
circulating lane roundabout with an internal island radius approximating 22m. The roundabout intersection
is located approximately 140m north of Picton Road and 570m south of the next Pembroke Parade
intersection.
The existing roundabout formation is illustrated in Figure 7-8 from recent aerial imagery and Figure 7-9
assessed in SIDRA.
Figure 7-8 Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – Existing Roundabout Form
Table 7-7 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the existing roundabout formation for
both residential yield scenarios.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 31
Figure 7-9 Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation
Table 7-7 Existing Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary
Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DoS Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m) DoS
Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m)
1,165 Dwelling Scenario
South – Pembroke Pde 0.138 5.6 A 6.1 0.443 5.5 A 25.4
East – Oxenbridge Ave 0.250 7.3 A 10.7 0.076 5.8 A 2.8
North – Pembroke Pde 0.369 4.3 A 17.3 0.144 4.9 A 5.4
Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue (Existing Roundabout)
0.369 5.3 A 17.3 0.443 5.4 A 25.4
1,800 Dwelling Scenario
South – Pembroke Pde 0.207 5.7 A 10.4 0.639 5.7 B 52.4
East – Oxenbridge Ave 0.457 10.5 A 25.3 0.123 6.0 A 4.9
North – Pembroke Pde 0.536 4.8 A 31.1 0.222 5.7 A 9.1
Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Avenue (Existing Roundabout)
0.536 6.4 A 31.1 0.639 5.8 B 52.4
The Table 7-7 results indicate that the existing roundabout formation will operate within typically
acceptance performance thresholds at the 2036 time horizon regardless of the Bingara Gorge residential
yield. Importantly, the peak hour queues on the northbound Pembroke Parade approach do not come
close to reaching Picton Road.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 32
7.2.2 Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive Intersection
The existing internal intersection of Pembroke Parade, Fairway Drive, and Greenbridge Drive has been
constructed as a single circulating lane roundabout with an internal island radius approximating 18m. The
roundabout intersection is located approximately 570m north of the next Pembroke Parade intersection.
The existing roundabout formation is illustrated in Figure 7-10 from recent aerial imagery and Figure 7-11
assessed in SIDRA.
Figure 7-10 Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive – Existing Roundabout Form
Figure 7-11 Pembroke Parade / Fairway / Greenbridge Drive– SIDRA Assessed Existing Formation
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 33
Table 7-8 summarises the SIDRA results for the 2036 time horizon for the existing roundabout formation for
both residential yield scenarios.
Table 7-8 Existing Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive – 2036 Traffic Operations Summary
Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DoS Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m) DoS
Delay
(s) LoS
95th %ile
Queue (m)
1,165 Dwelling Scenario
South – Pembroke Pde 0.126 5.3 A 5.0 0.401 5.8 A 19.8
East – Greenbridge Dr 0.175 6.6 A 6.8 0.058 5.6 A 2.1
North – Spearing St 0.119 6.8 A 4.5 0.075 8.3 A 2.7
West – Fairway Dr 0.287 7.8 A 12.3 0.135 9.2 A 5.1
Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive (Existing Roundabout)
0.287 6.9 A 12.3 0.401 6.7 A 19.8
1,800 Dwelling Scenario
South – Pembroke Pde 0.170 5.1 A 7.3 0.547 5.8 A 33.0
East – Greenbridge Dr 0.236 8.2 A 9.9 0.069 5.9 A 2.5
North – Spearing St 0.157 8.2 A 6.4 0.087 8.7 A 3.2
West – Fairway Dr 0.413 8.2 A 20.8 0.195 9.6 A 7.9
Pembroke Parade / Fairway Drive / Greenbridge Drive (Existing Roundabout)
0.413 7.5 A 20.8 0.547 6.8 A 33.0
The Table 7-8 results indicate that the existing roundabout formation will operate within typically
acceptance performance thresholds at the 2036 time horizon regardless of the Bingara Gorge residential
yield.
7.3 Other Internal Intersection Operations
The remainder of the internal development traffic intersections have not been assessed in SIDRA based on
the SATURN intersection results which indicate that the turning demands are low enough that there is
adequate capacity.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 34
8 Internal Traffic Demand and Amenity Assessment
Many Local and State government agencies publish their own daily traffic thresholds for different types and
hierarchies of road and streets and there can be substantial variance between these sources. The NSW
RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments itself raises this issue with the text “there is no precise
level at which the traffic environment can be said to be acceptable or unacceptable”.
The RMS Guide references the Australian Model Code for Residential Development (AMCORD) which is
referenced in Table 8-1 below which also summarises a selection of other relevant source documents
describing typical daily traffic thresholds for different hierarchical levels of roads and streets.
Table 8-1 Summary of Published Residential Traffic Amenity Thresholds
Road Hierarchy Level
Road Hierarchy Description Daily Traffic
Threshold (vpd)
LANDCOM – Street Design Guidelines
Collector Street Collector streets link neighbourhood streets together 3,000 – 6,000 vpd
Local Streets Local streets are the predominate street type within a neighbourhood > 3,000 vpd
AMCORD Urban (1997)
Major Collector Generally short and connects collector streets with the road corridor network. Fronting development should still be encouraged, but with siting conditions which ensure acceptable amenity and safety
<6,000 vpd
Minor Collector Collects traffic from access streets and carries higher volumes of traffic <3,000 vpd
Local Street Access streets are generally streets where the residential environment is dominant, traffic is subservient
<2,000 vpd
Access Place The lowest order or street 300 vpd
Queensland Urban Land Development Authority – Street and Movement Network (2012)
Trunk Collector Distributes traffic from the arterial network to the connector network <10,000 vpd
Neighbourhood Connector Street
Connects neighbourhood destinations including shops and parks. Provides access to the surrounding road network…
<7,500 vpd
Neighbourhood Access Street
Provides direct residential property access 2,500 – 5,000 vpd
Western Australian Planning Commission – Liveable Neighbourhoods (2009)
Integrator B Two lane roads that will have at least one clear travel lane in each direction, and a parking and/or manoeuvring lane
7,000 – 15,000 vpd
Neighbourhood Connector A
A two lane divided street used for higher neighbourhood connector volumes, or for character
7,000 vpd
Neighbourhood Connector B (no median)
A two lane undivided street for lower volume neighbourhood connectors 3,000 vpd
Access Street 3,000 vpd
Queensland Streets – Design Guidelines for Subdivisional Networks (1993)
Trunk Collector A two lane road with an 8m cross-section (including kerbside parking) 10,000 vpd
Collector Street A two lane road with a 7.5m cross-section (including kerbside parking) 3,000 vpd
Access Place / Street A two lane road with a 5.5m cross-section (including kerbside parking) 750 vpd
City of Port Phillip
Local Street Provide access to properties within the local area 500 – 3,000 vpd
Collector Road Distributes traffic within the main residential area to link traffic from local roads to the arterial network
3,000 – 8,000 vpd
Major Road Major traffic movement through the network in an efficient manner > 8,000 vpd
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 35
The SATURN modelling process described earlier in Section 6 generated estimates for the two-way traffic
demand on every internal Bingara Gorge road section. Outputs of this demand assessment are included in
this section and higher quality A3 versions are also attached at Appendix C for reference. The following
scenarios have been assessed:
> 1,165 dwelling scenario
- AM peak hour traffic demand
- PM peak hour traffic demand
- Daily traffic demand
> 1,800 dwelling scenario
- AM peak hour traffic demand
- PM peak hour traffic demand
- Daily traffic demand.
Table 8-2 summarises the results of the two-way traffic demand for both residential yield scenarios with the
corresponding daily traffic demand SATURN plots included at Figures 8-1 and 8-2. Figure 8-3 is a
difference plot for comparisons between the two yield scenarios.
Table 8-2 Summary of Daily Traffic Demands on Internal Bingara Gorge Road Sections
Road Name Road Section Daily Traffic Demand
1,165 Dwelling Scenario 1,800 Dwelling Scenario
Pembroke Parade
Between Picton Road and Oxenbridge Avenue
9630 vpd 14610 vpd
Between Oxenbridge Avenue and Greenbridge / Fairway Drive
6960 vpd 9630 vpd
Fairway Drive
Between Pembroke Parade and Sutton Crescent
5500 vpd 7890 vpd
Between Sutton Crescent and Stirling Drive / Kirkwood Chase
5470 vpd 7850 vpd
North of Stirling Drive / Kirkwood Chase
3350 vpd 4550 vpd
Greenbridge Drive Between Pembroke Parade and Maloney Chase
2510 vpd 2840 vpd
Oxenbridge Avenue / Hornby Street
Between Pembroke Parade and Wollondilly Street
3020 vpd 3900 vpd
Wollondilly Street Between Greenbridge Drive and Hornby Street
2320 vpd 3610 vpd
Eastern Spine Road North of Greenbridge Drive 2790 vpd 4040 vpd
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 36
Figure 8-1 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – 1,165 Residential Dwellings
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 37
Figure 8-2 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – 1,800 Residential Dwellings
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 38
Figure 8-3 2036 Internal Two-Way Daily Traffic Demand – Difference Plot between 1,800 and 1,165 Residential Dwellings
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 39
8.1 Specific Road Section Amenity Comment
The following conclusions are made following an evaluation of the SATURN two-way traffic results
summarised in Table 8-2 and Figures 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3.
8.1.1 Pembroke Parade Summary
8.1.1.1 Section 1
> The 14,610vpd demand modelled in Section 1 is at the upper range of the typical traffic capacity
threshold for a two lane urban road. This section will ultimately be constructed with a partial
three lane cross-section (one entry and two exit lanes) for more than half of its length
> No residential dwellings will achieve direct access from this road section
> Residential dwellings that are located adjacent to this section are set back 15-25m from the
kerb, thereby reducing any amenity or acoustic impacts.
8.1.1.2 Section 2
> The 9,630vpd demand modelled for Section 2 is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a
two lane road
> This section could be defined as a Trunk Collector with limited access given consideration of the
following:
- The road is median divided and includes a kerbside parking and/or deceleration lane
- Fewer than 20 residential dwellings achieve direct access along the 750m length of
road which equates to an average site driveway separation of 90m (median controls
movement to/from one direction)
- Relatively wide verges that are approximately 6-7.0m wide
- Provision on both sides of the road for shared 2.5m pathways
> The residential dwellings that front this road section are set-back 15-25m from the kerb, thereby
reducing any amenity impact.
8.1.2 Fairway Drive Summary
8.1.2.1 Section 1
> The 7,890vpd demand modelled for Section 1 is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a
two lane road
> This section could be defined as a Trunk Collector given it primarily services a traffic carrying
function and does not facilitate any direct residential frontage or site access.
8.1.2.2 Section 2
> The 7,850vpd demand modelled for Section 2 is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a
two lane road
> This section could be defined as either a lower order Trunk Collector or a higher order Major
Collector based on the following attributes:
- Only five residential dwellings achieve direct access along the 210m length of road
which equates to an average site driveway separation of 85m (measured along each
individual kerb)
- The current built form provides four effective lanes of travel (i.e. two travel lanes and
two parking lanes)
- Relatively wide verges that are approximately 7-7.5m wide
- Provision on both sides of the road for 2.0m pathways
> Residential dwellings that are located adjacent to this section are set back 15-25m from the
kerb, thereby reducing any amenity impact
8.1.2.3 Section 3
> The 4,550vpd demand modelled for Section 3 is within the typical traffic capacity threshold for a
two lane road
> This section could be defined as a Major Collector based on the following attributes:
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 40
- 22 dwellings are likely to be developed and achieve direct access along the 560m
length of road which equates to an average site driveway separation of 50m
(measured along each individual kerb)
- The current built form provides four effective lanes of travel (i.e. two travel lanes and
two parking lanes)
- Relatively wide verges that are approximately 7-7.5m wide
- Provision on both sides of the road for 2.0m pathways
> Residential dwellings that are located adjacent to this section are set back 15-25m from the
kerb, thereby reducing any amenity impact.
8.1.3 Greenbridge Drive Summary
> The 2,840 vpd demand modelled for Greenbridge Drive is within the typical traffic capacity
threshold for a two lane road
> This section could be defined as a Major or Minor Collector route
> Projected traffic demands and adjoining land uses and residential character and site access is
consistent with many of the amenity and road design thresholds.
8.1.4 Oxenbridge Avenue Summary
> The 3,900 vpd demand modelled for the westernmost section of Oxenbridge Avenue is within
the typical traffic capacity threshold for a two lane road
> This section could be defined as a Major or Minor Collector route given it also connects to
Hornby Street
> There are 14 dwellings that achieve direct access from the 480m section of Oxenbridge Avenue
which equates to an average site driveway separation of 65m (measured along each individual
kerb)
> Residential dwellings that are located adjacent to this section are set back 12-15m from the
kerb, thereby reducing any amenity impact.
8.1.5 Wollondilly Street Summary
> The 3,610 vpd demand modelled for Wollondilly Street is within the typical traffic capacity
threshold for a two lane road
> This section could be defined as a Major or Minor Collector route given the connection function
it provides to the broader development
> The 8m cross-section conditioned by Wollondilly Shire Council would be appropriate to
accommodate the project traffic demands while also providing for informal kerbside car parking
for some fronting land use.
8.2 General Road Amenity Comment
Cardno has assessed that approximately 230-250 or 13-14% of the residential dwellings proposed as part
of the expanded 1,800 dwelling scenario would front a section of internal road where the daily traffic
demand has been modelled as exceeding 1,500vpd. This figure can be compared to the following RMS
reference made in Section 7.3 of the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments:
“Despite the difficulty of arriving at accurate figures, consideration should be given to the level of
comfort that may be appropriate for residents. In most cases it is reasonable to require that the flow
of traffic passing 85% of households should not exceed 1500 vpd, as a design objective.”
The majority (approximately 86-87%) of residential dwellings will be located on streets where traffic
demands are relatively low.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 41
9 Response to Statement of Facts and Contentions
Table 9-1 summarises updated responses to the Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and
Contentions (SOFC) document. The responses and references to sections of this Transport Assessment
supersede the preliminary responses made by Cardno in August.
Item ID
Original SOFC Text Summary of Cardno Response
4 Road Capacity, Traffic and Infrastructure
i
The residential traffic generation adopted for the Bingara Gorge proposal relies upon the findings of the Wilton Junction TMAP (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2014), however neither assessment identifies the number of dwellings surveyed or assessment of construction vehicles which may skew survey results. The residential traffic generation is inconsistent with the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments 2002, RMS Technical Direction TDT 2013/04a, Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes 2005 and 2006 assessment or 2011 Journey to Work data for Wilton which indicates a car driver percentage of 86%.
Cardno has undertaken traffic surveys to confirm an appropriate residential traffic generation rate.
Traffic generation surveys were completed in the adjacent Wilton residential township/precinct accessed from Almond Street and Hornby Street.
The survey results confirm an existing residential generation rate of 0.8vph (peak) and 8.1vpd (daily) per dwelling. Refer to Section 6.1.2.
The survey results are generally consistent with broader industry evidence including that reported by RMS in the TDT 2013/04a advice for regional centres.
JTW data reported by Bureau of Statistics for the Local Government Areas surveyed as part of the RMS TDT 2013/04 advice are very similar to Wollondilly:
Wollondilly – 85% as driver / 5% as passenger
Coffs Harbour – 83% as driver / 8% as passenger
Orange – 83% as driver / 8% as passenger
Wagga Wagga – 81% as driver / 8% as passenger
Wollongong – 76% as driver / 6% as passenger.
The reference to the Journey to the Work dataset is reasonable, but it does not consider trips made for other non-employment purposes. Based on the most recent 2012/13 Household Travel Survey (HTS), only 26% of Wollondilly trips are made for commuting or work related business.
The Cardno traffic generation survey results are considered to be conservative at the 2036 assessment horizon where it is likely that public transport will be significantly improved and possibly some components of Wilton Junction employment and retail improve internalisation.
ii
The RMS Technical Direction is the most up to date RMS publication for recommended traffic generation, with prescribed regional rates of 0.74 & 0.71 trips / dwelling in the AM and PM respectively. The survey sites utilised was based on a car driver percentage of 65.6% to 70.2%, with an average of 67.6%. Linearly increasing the Technical Direction suggested trip generation rates based on the Wilton car driver percentage of 86% results in 0.94 and 0.90 trips / dwelling during the AM & PM respectively.
iii
Traffic assignment detailed within the Applicant’s traffic report relies upon information provided by Lend Lease to determine travel patterns. This information is not presented in any form within the traffic report and needs to be presented.
Cardno has revised the external traffic assignment assumptions such that they are now consistent with an earlier sensitivity scenarios requested received by Wollondilly Shire Council. Refer to Section 6.6.
The revised assignment proportions are as follows:
North via Hume Hwy – 60%
South via Hume Hwy – 5%
East via Picton Rd – 20%
West via Picton Rd – 10%
The revised assessment no longer adopts or references information previously supplied by Lend Lease which informed the primary traffic assignment assumptions.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 42
iv
The Applicant’s traffic report focuses on the Picton Road intersections with Pembroke Parade and Almond Street whilst neglecting to analyse internal subdivision roads and traffic flows. The Applicant’s traffic assessment does not include the two-way traffic flows for the approved condition (1,165 Lots), the proposed increase associated with the proposal (1,800 Lots) or the impact of the Wilton Junction TMAP which needs to be separated into the individual scenarios for the following road segments:
Pembroke Parade
Greenbridge Drive
Malony Chase
Hornby Street
Almond Street
Oxenbridge Avenue
Fairway Drive
Wollondilly Street
Spine Road (1 & 2)
Bridge over Hume Highway connecting to the western side from Spine Road 1
Kirkwood Chase
Sarazen Crescent
The revised Cardno transport assessment now considers internal Bingara Gorge traffic demands including link and intersection capacities. Refer to Section 8.
The analysis has been undertaken for both the approved 1,165 and proposed 1,800 residential dwelling scenarios.
The revised transport assessment does not consider the impact or any change relating to the Wilton Junction TMAP. This approach has been agreed with Council’s traffic engineering expert. Any consideration of the ‘With Wilton Junction’ development should be made using the AIMSUN modelling already developed by PB.
The Cardno assessment confirms that the internal Bingara Gorge intersections have sufficient capacity to cater for the 2036 traffic demands estimated to be generated by the proposed 1,800 residential dwelling scenario.
v
The Applicant’s traffic report does not assess two-way traffic flows with consideration to RMS residential amenity criteria or pedestrian / cyclist safety at sensitive locations
The revised Cardno transport assessment now considers internal Bingara Gorge traffic demands including the two-way link demands. Refer to Section 8.
Consideration is given to the RMS and other State and National guidelines published in relation to residential amenity criteria.
The Cardno assessment does indicate that the proposed 1,800 dwellings scenario will generate two-way traffic movements on some sections of road that are at the higher end of normally accepted demand thresholds.
vi
The critical gap and headway gap parameters within the SIDRA modelling have been adjusted. The Applicant is to provide SIDRA modelling for review as well as referenced AUSTROADS Guidelines for justification of reduced gap parameters.
The revised Cardno transport assessment no longer adopts the previously used SIDRA gap acceptance parameters. Refer to Section 7.
vii
The intersection performance of Pembroke Parade / Picton Road is reported as LoS D & C during the AM and PM peak period respectively under Council’s sensitivity testing for the year 2036. The Wilton Junction TMAP reports a LoS B for the AM and PM peak period for the year 2036. It can only be concluded that the additional development associated with the proposed 1,800 Lots reduces the intersection performance from B to D in the AM and B to C in the PM. The Applicant’s traffic report should assess further treatments to retain LoS B for the intersection of Pembroke Parade & Picton Road for the year 2036. The underpinning traffic assignment may be relevant.
The revised Cardno transport assessment include new Level of Service results which supersede the previous April 2015 results. Refer to Section 7.
It is important to note that direct comparisons between LoS results obtained from the two different studies are not accurate given the differences in assumptions, modelling software, and LoS calculation (thresholds).
Importantly, the Section 7 results indicate that upgraded Picton Road intersection formations will operate with good level of performance at the 2036 horizon.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 43
viii
The Applicant’s traffic report identifies the intersection of Picton Road / Almond Street being modified for left in / left out only for the year 2036 however the Wilton Junction TMAP details this intersection to be signalised in the year 2036. The Applicant is requested to clarify the intersection treatment for Picton Road / Almond Road.
The revised Cardno transport assessment has updated the analysis of this intersection to remove consideration of a left in/left out formation. Refer to Section 7.
A signalised intersection formation has been assessed which is understood to be generally consistent with the Wilton Junction TMAP reporting.
An interim Seagull unsignalised formation is possible to delay the construction of the traffic signals.
ix
The Applicant’s traffic report focuses on the Picton Rd intersections with Pembroke Pde and Almond St whilst neglecting to analyse internal subdivision intersections. The following internal subdivision intersection should be assessed:
Pembroke Parade / Oxenbridge Av roundabout taking into account the queue lengths associated with the Pembroke Pde / Picton Rd intersection
Pembroke Pde / Greenbridge Dr roundabout
Fairway Drive / Kirkwood Chase
Hornby Street / Wollondilly Street
Greenbridge Drive / Wollondilly Street
The revised Cardno transport assessment now considers internal Bingara Gorge traffic demands including intersection capacities. Refer to Section 7.2.
The analysis has been undertaken for both the approved 1,165 and proposed 1,800 residential dwelling scenarios.
The Cardno assessment confirms that the internal Bingara Gorge intersections have sufficient capacity to cater for the 2036 traffic demands estimated to be generated by the proposed 1,800 residential dwelling scenario.
x
The Applicant’s traffic report does not assess the proposal’s impact on the road network in the year 2036 without Wilton Junction beyond Bingara Gorge.
The revised Cardno transport assessment has been updated to evaluate the traffic operations at the 2036 time horizon for the ‘Without Wilton Junction’ scenario. Refer to Section 7.
xi
The Applicant’s traffic report recommends that the majority of residents are to be within an 800m walking catchment of a bus stop. Current design criteria requires majority of dwellings to be within 400m walking distance of a bus stop. This criteria is acknowledged within the Wilton Junction TMAP and the Draft Wilton Junction Masterplan (2012). As a consequence road widths / road design may need to be altered to cater for bus movements and bus stop provision.
Cardno submits that the public transport route coverage achieved to the 1,800 dwellings will not vary significantly compared to the already approved 1,165 dwellings.
The site ‘developable area’ remains unchanged, as will the already approved bus routes. Only the density of the residential development will change.
Any deficiency in public transport route coverage will a direct result/outcome of the already approved layout.
xii The applicant should provide further details of the intended bus routes and frequency of service for the 1,800 Lot yield.
Proposed bus routes will not change compared to existing provisions already made as part of the existing 1,165 dwelling approval.
The broader Wilton Junction TMAP considers future possible bus routes, although ultimately, the provision of these routes is dependent on local and state government agencies.
xiii
The Applicant’s traffic report does not consider future road works associated with the Hume Highway / Picton Road interchange and should contain an assessment of the potential impacts on the interchange performance related to the proposal.
The revised Cardno assessment has been updated to consider the incremental demand increase at the Hume Hwy interchange, although an analysis of any potential traffic operations has not been undertaken at this time.
Cardno understand that RMS have immediate/short term plans to install traffic signals at each of the interchange intersections which will improve traffic operations compared to the existing situation.
xiv
The Applicant’s traffic report does not clearly identify the traffic assignment associated with the approved 1,165 Lots, the proposed additional 635 Lots and the impact of the Wilton Junction TMAP particularly along internal roads as well as at the Picton Road intersections. The volume of traffic for the 1,165 Lots and 1,800 Lot condition should be based on the Figure 4.1 of the Applicant’s traffic report.
The revised Cardno transport assessment utilises a SATURN analysis procedure to assign traffic to the internal road connections. Section 8 of the upgraded Transport Assessment provides information regarding the estimated internal traffic demands, as well as the difference between the approved 1,165 dwelling scenario and the proposed 1,800 dwelling scenario.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 44
xv The traffic impact assessment has not given any consideration to the capacity of the bridge located between Sutton Crescent and Pembroke Parade.
The revised Cardno transport assessment now considers the link traffic capacity of the section of Fairway Drive at the bridge location. Refer to Section 8.
xvi The bridge over Stringy Bark Creek does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the increased traffic generation.
The revised Cardno transport assessment determines the future peak hour and daily traffic demands over the Stingy Bark Creek bridge. Refer to Section 8. The results indicate that a two lane cross-section is adequate.
xvii
The construction of Wollondilly Street has been delayed due to flora and fauna impacts within the road reserve (the review of the REF has raised a number of issues which are yet to be resolved – letter sent to the applicant May 2014 is yet to be responded to). While a requirement of the Voluntary Planning Agreement, there is no timeframe as to when this road will be constructed and this will inevitably only increase the impact along Oxenbridge and Hornby Streets.
The Cardno analysis indicates that the Wollondilly Street connection would have to be delivered before any approval of additional dwellings over and above the already approved 1,165 dwellings.
xviii
Baseline traffic volumes require modelling the junctions onto Picton Road. The Roads and Maritime Services consider that network modelling is required to determine the likely distributions onto the network with considerations to the additional 635 lots on the interchange given.
The revised Cardno transport assessment utilises a SATURN analysis procedure to assign traffic to the internal road connections. Information to be provided in support of the report will confirm the internal traffic demands, as well as the difference between the approved 1,165 dwelling scenario and the proposed 1,800 dwelling scenario.
Refer to Section 6.5.
As stated previously, the ‘network modelling’ does not include the AIMSUN modelling requested by RMS, but instead adopts a partial network model produced in SATURN.
xix
No information has been provided to demonstrate that pedestrians will be able to cross Fairways Drive and/or Greenbridge Drive from the existing residential area in the Highlands and Pembroke releases to the school, shopping centre and child care having regard to the additional traffic placed on Fairways Drive and Greenbridge Drive by this development.
This aspect has not been fully addressed at this time as part of the revised Transport Assessment. The SATURN modelling outputs indicate that traffic demands will not preclude typical pedestrian movement. Refer to Section 8.
Cardno suggests that safe and efficient pedestrian movements can be provided within the development.
xx
The NSW Roads and Maritime Services have requested SIDRA or any other traffic modelling that has been prepared for this application prior to any further assessment of the development proposal.
Electronic copies of all SIDRA and SATURN files will be provided to RMS as part of the revised Cardno transport assessment.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 45
10 Summary and Conclusions
Cardno has been engaged by Lend Lease to prepare a Transport Assessment for the Bingara Gorge
Residential Development. This reporting has specifically been prepared in relation to the Land and
Environment Court proceedings 10554 of 2015. The report addresses the traffic and transport items raised
in the Wollondilly Shire Council Statement of Facts and Contentions document, included at Appendix A.
The subject of this Transport Assessment and the above mentioned appeal proceedings relates to the
proposed increase in the Bingara Gorge residential yield to 1,800 dwellings from the already approved
1,165 dwellings. The subject yield change only relates the residential component of the existing Bingara
Gorge development.
At the October 20th 2015 Section 34 conference, Cardno entered into discussions with the Craig McLaren
of McClaren Traffic Engineering who is acting as the opposing traffic expert on behalf of Wollondilly Shire
Council. Subsequent to the October 20th conclave discussions, a technical approach and assessment
scope was developed jointly between Cardno and McLaren Traffic Engineering.
In response to the Wollondilly Shire Council SOFC and the conclave discussions, Cardno has reassessed
a selection of the primary analysis assumptions and developed a new SATURN mesoscopic model that is
representative of the Bingara Gorge development and the adjacent road network at the 2036 time horizon.
The model has been used to quantify and assess the internal and external traffic demands and operations
for the already approved 1,165 dwelling scenario in addition to the proposed 1,800 dwelling scenario.
The SATURN traffic demand estimations include two-way link demands for each of the internal
development road sections as well as intersection turning movements. The turning movements have been
used as inputs to the supplementary SIDRA assessment of the key internal and external traffic
intersections to confirm traffic operations and upgrading requirements.
The SIDRA analysis confirms that engineering solutions are possible at the external Picton Road
intersections of Pembroke Parade and Almond Street. The analysis confirms that both intersections will
ultimately require signalisation irrespective of the Bingara Gorge residential yield scenario. The following
upgrades have been identified:
> Picton Road and Pembroke Parade – Upgrade to a signalised intersection. Lend Lease has
already delivered the unsignalised seagull upgrade conditioned as part of the 1,165 dwelling
scenario
> Picton Road and Almond Street – Ultimately, a signalised intersection will be required by 2029
or 2031 depending on the Bingara Gorge residential yield. The already conditioned Lend Lease
contribution to delivering an unsignalised seagull arrangement may be modified to deliver the
ultimate signals sooner if this results in cost savings and is agreeable to all parties.
Ongoing discussions are recommended between Lend Lease and approval authorities regarding the timing
and possible contribution to deliver the external intersection solutions.
The internal development intersections have also been assessed as operating well within typically adopted
performance thresholds for both yield scenarios. The internal operations can be summarised as follows:
> Pembroke Parade and Oxenbridge Avenue – the existing roundabout will operate within
acceptance performance thresholds and no upgrading is required to accommodate the
proposed expanded yield. Importantly, queuing will not extend to or interfere with the Picton
Road intersection
> Pembroke Parade, Fairway Drive, and Greenbridge Drive - the existing roundabout will operate
within acceptance performance thresholds and no upgrading is required for the proposed
expanded yield
> All other internal development intersections have been assessed in SATURN as performing well
within acceptable performance thresholds.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 46
The SATURN assessment confirms that the proposed yield expansion will result in an increase in traffic
demands on many of the major internal road connections. The daily traffic demands output from the model
indicate key development connections including Pembroke Parade, Oxenbridge Avenue, Greenbridge
Drive, and Fairway Drive will cater for traffic demands that are at the upper range of the broader planning
thresholds typically published by a selection of Australian planning and approvals authorities.
Cardno suggests that the demands could be considered reasonable based on consideration of:
> The traffic assumptions adopted as part of the SATURN modelling exercise are conservative,
especially at the 2036 time horizon where the car mode share is projected to be lower given
improved public transport and nearby external employment and retail development
> The majority (86-87%) of the proposed 1,800 residential dwellings do not have any frontage to
internal development roads which have been modelled as carrying more than 1,500 vpd. This
figure is comparable or higher than that referenced in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating
Developments (Section 7.3)
> Each of the critical road sections include separate provision for kerbside or indented car
parking, thereby ensuring the full-time provision for two general traffic lanes
> The density of direct residential frontage access on the critical road sections is relatively low
and could be considered comparable to that achieved by medium density residential
development with consolidated access
> Road reserves are relatively wide and include pathway provisions for pedestrians and cyclists
> The demands modelled by Cardno in SATURN are in some locations lower than those
estimated by PB as part of the Wilton Junction Development – Transport Management and
Accessibility Plan (PB, June 2014)
The already constructed residential dwellings on critical sections have been located such that they are set-
back 12-25m from the edge of the kerb. These larger than typical set-back characteristics will likely reduce
any acoustic or amenity impact resulting from the modelled increase in traffic demand.
The analysis and findings summarised herein indicate that the proposed yield expansion to include 1,800
residential dwellings would be possible with some modifications and upgrades to the existing intersections
and road network.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 47
Bingara Gorge
APPENDIX A WOLLONDILLY SHIRE COUNCIL STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CONTENTIONS
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 48
Bingara Gorge
APPENDIX B SECTION 34 CONCLAVE TRAFFIC SCOPE AND AGREEMENT
NA82013043.Section34ConclaveSummary.151104.docx Page 1
Technical Memorandum
This Technical Memorandum has been prepared in relation to the proposed Bingara residential development and specifically, traffic engineering items relating to the Land and Environment Court proceedings 10554 OF 2015.
This advice summarises the 20th October Section 34 conclave discussions between traffic experts, being:
> Cardno, represented by Shane Healey and Kris Stone who act on behalf of Lend Lease
Communities; and
> McLaren Traffic Engineering, represented by Craig McLaren acting on behalf of Wollondilly
Shire Council.
Summary of Conclave Discussion
1. Shane Healey (SH) and Craig McLaren (CM) discussed and agreed that a revised transport
assessment would be required to evaluate the proposed increase in the approved yield from
1,165 dwellings to 1,800 dwellings
2. SH identified that the AIMSUN model requested to be used by the NSW Roads and Maritime
Services (RMS) as part of the Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFC) has not been
made available to Cardno. CM has requested whether the model can be provided via
Council
3. SH and CM agreed that an alternate assessment procedure (i.e. non AIMSUN) would be
acceptable to assess the proposed Bingara Gorge development traffic situation (assuming
it can be agreed that it has been properly calibrated etc). SH and CM agreed that the
assessment (and modelling tool) should address the following:
a. Internal road link demands and possible traffic amenity issues
b. External Picton Road intersection operations and upgrade requirements, including its
junction with the Hume Highway on/off ramp, Pembroke Parade, and Almond Street
It was also agreed that the assessment would consider the following scenarios:
i. Morning peak (7-9am), evening peak (3-4pm school and 4-6pm), and daily
traffic demand scenarios
ii. Approved 1,165 dwelling yield
iii. Proposed 1,800 dwelling yield
4. SH and CM agreed that the modelling procedure should be developed exclusive of the
broader Wilton Junction proposed development, although forecast flows over the bridge
connecting Bingara Gorge and Wilton Junction to be extracted from the AIMSUN model
5. SH and CM agreed that the Parsons Brinkerhoff AIMSUN modelling outputs and reporting
prepared to consider the broader Wilton Junction development and related traffic
Title Bingara Gorge Land and Environment Court Appeal
Summary of Section 34 Expert Conclave and Agreed Actions
Client Lend Lease Communities Project No NA82013043
Date November 4, 2015 Status Draft
Author Kris Stone Discipline Traffic and Transport
Reviewer Shane Healey Office Brisbane
Bingara Gorge Land and Environment Court Appeal Summary of Section 34 Expert Conclave and Agreed Actions
NA82013043 Cardno November 4, 2015
Prepared for Lend Lease Communities Page 2
implications within the Bingara Gorge site would be appropriate for consideration of broader
impacts
6. CM requested that the assessment identify timing thresholds and yield sensitivities,
including:
a. Timing and need for construction of Stringybark Creek and Wollondilly Street
connections
b. Yield thresholds beyond which internal link demands and intersection operations
would exceed environment amenity or operational thresholds. This assessment would
assume no additional bridge structure over the freeway that may be delivered as part
of the broader Wilton Junction development
c. Upgrade of Picton Road/Hume Highway northbound on ramp and southbound off
ramp including assessment of imminent traffic signals provided by RMS next year on
road safety grounds
7. CM identified that the assessment should also address and compare variations between the
approved and proposed yields for the following aspects, including detailed road width,
indented parking, bus stops locations, and pedestrian/cyclist paths:
a. On-street car parking
b. Public transport route accessibility and dwelling ‘coverage’
c. Pedestrian provisions
d. Cycle paths
e. Internal site traffic generation ‘containment’ (i.e. internalisation of development trips)
8. CM identified that emergency access routes would ideally be investigated and variances
identified as they relate to the approved residential yield
9. CM also requested details of current ‘catchment’ of trips
Suggested Next Steps
Cardno submits the following analysis procedure for discussion and agreement between the two traffic engineering expert groups.
10. Undertake traffic generation surveys to confirm the existing residential traffic generation
potential of the local residential dwelling catchment as well as current containment
11. Prepare a detailed SATURN transport model for the Bingara Gorge development site which
will be used to evaluate and compare the following outcomes for both the approved and
proposed yield scenarios
a. Morning peak, evening peak, and daily traffic demand scenarios
b. Route assignment and choice
c. Traffic demands on individual road segments
d. Intersection turning movements
12. Prepare a series of SIDRA analyses to assess the SATURN output turning movements at
critical intersection locations including:
a. Picton Road and Pembroke Parade
b. Picton Road and Almond Street
c. Picton Road and Hume Highway on/off ramps
d. Pembroke Parade, Greenbridge Drive, and Fairways Drive
e. Pembroke Parade and Oxenbridge Avenue
f. Greenbridge Drive, Beaty Street, and Woodward Road
The SIDRA analysis will confirm the need and timing for intersection upgrade requirements
resulting from the proposed residential yield increase to 1,800 dwellings.
13. The SATURN and SIDRA findings will be referenced to assess the items raised in Point 7.
The modelling will confirm either the appropriateness of the proposal or alternatively identify
a yield and/or timing threshold beyond which other works or the broader Wilton Junction
would need to be considered
14. All input data (including) link capacities of all road segments, traffic flows, and delays) and
output data to be provided in word format.
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 49
Bingara Gorge
APPENDIX C SATURN MODELLING OUTPUTS
NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - Road Network 23-11-15
SATURN
Atkins Ltd /
DVV / ITS
CARDNO T&T
23-11-15
06AMv12.UFS
bingaragorge
Scale 11779
NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1165 Lots 2036 Daily Total Tra 23-11-15
6980
15750
13290
24280
3150
870
170
670
1760
960150
110
120
520
80
1790
430
200
180
180
70
170 90
80
70
70
50
80
50
50
6090
170
140
50
60
80
100
60
110
90
90
70
90
50
90
120
180
100
110 70
60
7060
60
110110
60
140
200
50
70
90
50
70
90
90
12060
80
60
60
60
100
60
70
60
60
60
60
230
8060
120
310
480
24660
9190
10330
189001920
730630
860
110
90210
100
120
80
940
220
120
60
360
11201010
590
4860
3350
240
5470
3230
3220
25790
28690
5340
9450
7010
3030
70
50
31503090
7010
7150
25805500
1610
26603020
390
502930
510
2250
1790
1790
380
2430
710
60
120
90
180
260
190
180
180
340
2510 630
60
2550
2620
170
24709090
100
110
1040150
160
150
180
1090
130
1020
1050
1510
2320
2790
1210
330
240
170
70
24280
24380
2190
3340
3600
1050
1060
1070
200
200
70
90
3200
80
120 80
3150
80
630
630
200
210
200
190
180
200
190
370
2160
380
300
290
1610
12901130 80
990
940
790
110
2580
110
2330
310
19401850
180
230
130
160
120
60
480
480
2610
6960
4720
15750
6980
6390
15050
13290
60
4120
32810
1410
1840
5140
6390
15050
94403850
4470
SATURN
Atkins Ltd /
DVV / ITS
CARDNO T&T
23-11-15
06PMv12.UFS
bingaragorge
gorge06AMv14
Scale 11779
Link Annot:
Daily
Net. 1 Only
Bandwidths =
1000./mm
Summed data
NA82103043 - Bingara Corge Appeal - 1800 Lots 2036 Daily Total Tra 23-11-15
7100
16490
14770
25020
3400
860
170
640
1790
960150
170
170
520
80
2720
640
3 00
260
260
100
260 140
110
110
110
80
70
110
80
80
50
90140
60
230
190
60
70
90
100
140
90
150
120
120
90
120
60
70
130
70
180
270
150
160
100
9060
9080
8060 17
0160
80
200
280
70
100
120
70
60 90
110
120
1508060
130
8060
60
80
60
80
150
90
100
80
90
806060
60
80
60
340
110
70
80
60
170
60
450
690
27010
9930
11810
212401920
940
160
80
490
7850
4550
26480
30250
8110
1461
0
9630
4530
100
4460
9630
7890
2720
2710
550
2760
7 40
160
180240
470
2840
3860
3760120
120
120
1240
140150
1270
140
1170
1210
2180
3610
4040
1750
490
350
260100
25020
24910
3740
4280
1640
1560
300
240
90140
3470
80180 120
3400
120
940
300
310
280
260
280
280
540
3250
390
450
2330
1630
1430
150
450
2 800
2670
260
330
190
60
230
170
80
690
690
3900
4720
16490
7100
6510
16530
14770
90
6510
36750
1570
1840
6510
16530
10920
4590
SATURN
Atkins Ltd /
DVV / ITS
CARDNO T&T
23-11-15
06AMv13.UFS
bingaragorge
gorge06PMv11
Scale 11779
Link Annot:
Daily
Net. 1 Only
Bandwidths =
1000./mm
Summed data
NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1800 vs 1165 Lots 23-11-15
120
740
1480
740
250
60
930
210
100
90
90
80
60
50
60
90
50
5050
60
80
110
50
140
210
2340
740
1480
2340
360310420
50
100
50
60
460
110
60
130
580
490
240
2120
1390
90
2380
1340
690
1550
2770 5160
2610
1490
1310129
0
2610
2630
3702390 1
60
1310
1490
200
1230
1160
930
930
170
330
70
60
130
330250
1320129090
1300
200 180 150
160
670
1290
1250
540
160
110
80
740
530
520
400
680
580
570
480
90
270110
70
60
250
31031
0
100
100
100
90
80
80
90
170
1100
150
130
720
580
500
440
420
350
1150 1040
140860
820
80
100
60
70
50
210
210
1290
2600
740
120
120
1480
1480
2390
3940
160
120
120
1480
1480
120
SATURN
Atkins Ltd /
DVV / ITS
CARDNO T&T
23-11-15
06PMv12.UFS
bingaragorge
gorge06AMv14
gorge06PMv11
gorge06AMv13
Scale 11779
Link Annot:
+ Daily
- Daily
Net. 1 Only
Bandwidths =
1000./mm
Summed data
NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1165 Lots 2036 AM total traff 23-11-15
480
1040600 12
70
12701290
130
200
60
40
30
20
70130
9030
30
10
40
140
40
30
20
30
10
10
10
10
1020
20
20
40
10
7801800
480420
1330
5601480
220
60
20
10 5070
20
20
20
20
20
70
20
20
30
90
3020
80
40
10
350140
100
230
20
400
150
100
100
220
1420
1380
1990
1320
20
740
740
220
160 54
0
70
230
100210100
210
530
17018 0
540
130
170150
400
40
110
70
200 220
70
10
30
90
200
40
10
50
170
40
140
140
40
10 20
100
170
4 0 2 0
30
1010
10
10
10
20
110
180
20
40
60
190
200
70
10
60
180
30
8020
20
20
20
30
90
20
30
90 30
90
70
90
70
170
60
220
70
70
3020
10
1290
1270
1380
1250
20 170
200
140
17019
030
60
30 60
60
50
20
10
200
130
200
130
50
10
10 5020
2020
30
20
3030
160
50
60
30
20
130
40
30
100
30 90
20
80
70
20
20
60
60
200
50
180
20
4 0
1 50
40
14010
20
10
10
40
1040
10
60
200
160
530
6206001040
480
730
1950
1270
1901990
1520
170
120
360
730
1950
950
320
510
SATURN
Atkins Ltd /
DVV / ITS
CARDNO T&T
23-11-15
06AMv14.UFS
bingaragorge
Scale 11779
Link Annot:
Demand flow
Bandwidths =
100./mm
NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1800 Lots 2036 AM total traff 23-11-15
490
1060650 13
50
12901350
130
220
60
40
30
20
60130
9030
30
10
10
10
40
210
60
50
20
20
40
10
20 10
10
20
20
10
10
10
20
10 10
10
10
2020
10
30
10
4010
50
20
8002080
530440
1550
5901760
220
20 7020 30
10
580
140
130
1460
1410
2290
30
1150
1150
220
120
320
130
740
220
200210
580
280
120
60
210
210
60
20
110
200
4 0 2 0
30
10
20
20
120
210
110 20
110
40
100
1010
30
110
20
30
40
100
110
110
260
100
310
110
10 4030
20
1350
1290
1410
1280
220
170
22021
050
100
110
50
10
10
220
140
20
220
130
20
20 20
2020
4010
20
4040
10
250
80
60
40
180
60
40
130
40
110
90
10
10
10
30
7 0
2 20
60
21020
30
20
20
10
50
2050
100
6206501060
490
750
2170
1350
4002290
1610
180
120
750
2170
1030
530
SATURN
Atkins Ltd /
DVV / ITS
CARDNO T&T
23-11-15
06AMv13.UFS
bingaragorge
gorge06PMv11
Scale 11779
Link Annot:
Demand flow
Net. 1 Only
Bandwidths =
100./mm
NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1165 Lots 2036 AM total traff 23-11-15
6
18
55 74
18
55
6
18
72
23
16
5
8
13
6
6
6
8
10
16
5
25277
55
18
222
25
277
8 24
86
180
34
34
34
35
296 10
40940
9
55
45
92
33
204
56
3460
182
81
45
23
72
72
23
10
34
11
33
46
7
46
21 195
17
43
41 92
31
94
41
1296
55
18
35
25
18
27
55
1713 39
41
5
-7
17
8
13
18
6
8
8 8
88
13
6
1313
85
27
14
54
18
13 38
11
3226
10
2 2 6 5
21 62
6
8
5
16
516
39
55
18
618
222
74
202
296
99
9
18222
74
18
SATURN
Atkins Ltd /
DVV / ITS
CARDNO T&T
23-11-15
06AMv14.UFS
bingaragorge
gorge06AMv13
Scale 11779
Link Annot:
+ Demand flo
- Demand flo
Differ: 2-1
Bandwidths =
100./mm
NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1165 Lots 2036 PM total traff 23-11-15
920
650860 13
90
11601130
190
120
40
30
40
1060
8050
8030
40
20
40
140
30
20
30
10
10
10
10
20
10
20
20
10
40
10001350
610330
740
830
910170
20
60
50 2020
70
20
20
70
20
20 30
30
9080
20
10
50
130
350
240
100
10
150
400
230
230
100
1170
1190
1290
1140
90
220
220
720
530 170
220
90
230
90220
90
170
530
540
180
150
60400
150
100
80
190
80 90
220
30
10
210
90
20
30
170
50
140
40
40140
30 10
150
60
40
40
10
10
10
20
20
20
20 10
150
70
60
10
180
80
80
190
10170
80
80
20
70
20
70
2070
30
60
80
170
60
210
70
40
70
30
20
10
1130
1160
1190
1060
80
170
140
190
170
190
90
30
90
30
3080
10
20
130
190
10
120
190
20
50
50 20
20
2020
30
20
30 50170
20
20
20 40
120
100
30
90
30
80
20
20
70
60
20
200
60
180
50
30
150
50
140
40
10
20
10
10
10
40
10
40
190
80
530
170
320
860650
920
550
1060
1390
6301290
1770
110
250
670
550
1060
940
450
380
SATURN
Atkins Ltd /
DVV / ITS
CARDNO T&T
23-11-15
06PMv12.UFS
bingaragorge
Scale 11779
Link Annot:
Demand flow
Bandwidths =
100./mm
NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal - 1800 Lots 2036 PM Total Traff 23-11-15
930
710880 16
10
12201150
210
130
40
30
40
1060
8050
8030
10
10
40
20
70
210
20
50
20
10
40
20
10
10
20
10
10
10
10 20
10 10
1010
20
20
10
10
30
10
1030
20
50
10701450
630390
810
9001000
170
70 2010
40
210
330
330
1210
1230
1390
120
33033
0
730
330
140
320
240
730
70580
210
120
330
210
70
70210
40
160
70
5 0 4 0
20
20
30
160
80
270
260
90
30
80
30
70
70
30
90
260
90
310
100
50
40 10
30
20
1150
1220
1230
1070
150
210
19024
014
0
40
40
120
20
30
10
140
210
20
130
210
1070
70
20
20
1040
20
1010
40
80
250
20
30 10
60180
120
40
110
3030
10
40
10
2 10
7 0
200
60
20
30
20
20
10
20
5020
280
320
880710
930
560
1140
1610
9101390
2060
130
250
560
1140
1160
390
SATURN
Atkins Ltd /
DVV / ITS
CARDNO T&T
23-11-15
06AMv13.UFS
bingaragorge
gorge06PMv11
Scale 11779
Link Annot:
Demand flow
Net. 2 Only
Bandwidths =
100./mm
NA82013043 - Bingara Gorge Appeal Diff between 1800 7 1165 Lots PM
20
40
219
100
25
20
18
72
17
13
11
17
60
65
40
55
60
65
17
14
48
116
115
50
63
70 58
8282
211
101
38
113
54
211
12189
48
34
100
72
18
18
72
15
13
12
12
15
73
71
11
102
25
99
25
12
25
100
63
14
17
21
15
7876 14
54
11
20 20
17
17
13
21
24
93
14
15
57
40 10
36
126 8 1 8
65 17
17
80
40
20
55
219
245
70
279
36
55
219
SATURN
Atkins Ltd /
DVV / ITS
CARDNO T&T
11-11-15
06PMv06.UFS
bingaragorge
gorge06AMv07
gorge06AMv08
gorge06PMv07
Scale 11779
Link Annot:
+ PM_Diff
- PM_Diff
Net. 1 Only
Bandwidths =
100./mm
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 50
Bingara Gorge
APPENDIX D SIDRA MODELLING OUTPUTS
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Existing Layout - 1165 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 AM Base + Development NO WJ Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1124 17.0 0.634 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5
6 R2 22 1.0 0.063 16.8 LOS B 0.2 1.5 0.83 0.94 47.5
Approach 1146 16.7 0.634 0.5 NA 0.2 1.5 0.02 0.02 78.4
North: Pembroke Parade
7 L2 101 1.0 0.470 25.7 LOS B 1.6 11.5 0.91 1.04 41.5
9 R2 638 1.0 2.501 2726.5 LOS F 485.1 3424.7 1.00 20.01 1.3
Approach 739 1.0 2.501 2357.3 LOS F 485.1 3424.7 0.99 17.41 1.5
West: Picton Road
10 L2 194 1.0 0.121 7.4 LOS A 0.5 3.7 0.08 0.58 54.9
11 T1 1105 19.4 0.632 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5
Approach 1299 16.7 0.632 1.2 LOS A 0.5 3.7 0.01 0.09 74.5
All Vehicles 3184 13.0 2.501 547.8 NA 485.1 3424.7 0.24 4.08 6.1
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Existing Layout - 1165 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 PM Base + Development NO WJ Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1010 10.4 0.547 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
6 R2 85 1.0 0.223 17.0 LOS B 0.8 5.8 0.83 0.95 47.3
Approach 1095 9.7 0.547 1.4 NA 0.8 5.8 0.06 0.07 75.6
North: Pembroke Parade
7 L2 35 1.0 0.145 18.1 LOS B 0.4 3.0 0.84 0.92 45.3
9 R2 186 1.0 0.729 29.2 LOS C 3.4 23.8 0.94 1.22 39.5
Approach 221 1.0 0.729 27.4 LOS B 3.4 23.8 0.92 1.17 40.3
West: Picton Road
10 L2 629 1.0 0.415 7.7 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.25 0.58 54.3
11 T1 1040 9.7 0.561 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
Approach 1669 6.4 0.561 3.0 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.09 0.22 67.7
All Vehicles 2985 7.2 0.729 4.2 NA 3.4 23.8 0.14 0.24 66.9
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Existing Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 AM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1130 17.0 0.637 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5
6 R2 32 1.0 0.093 17.0 LOS B 0.3 2.1 0.84 0.94 47.4
Approach 1162 16.6 0.637 0.6 NA 0.3 2.1 0.02 0.03 78.0
North: Pembroke Parade
7 L2 239 1.0 1.120 274.8 LOS F 39.0 275.4 1.00 4.42 10.9
9 R2 910 1.0 3.599 4701.1 LOS F 829.3 5855.1 1.00 23.64 0.8
Approach 1149 1.0 3.599 3780.4 LOS F 829.3 5855.1 1.00 19.64 1.0
West: Picton Road
10 L2 290 1.0 0.183 7.4 LOS A 0.8 6.0 0.11 0.58 54.8
11 T1 1107 19.4 0.633 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5
Approach 1397 15.6 0.633 1.7 LOS A 0.8 6.0 0.02 0.12 72.6
All Vehicles 3708 11.4 3.599 1172.3 NA 829.3 5855.1 0.33 6.14 3.0
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Existing Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 PM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ Giveway / Yield (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1011 10.4 0.548 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
6 R2 116 1.0 0.313 18.5 LOS B 1.2 8.6 0.85 0.98 46.5
Approach 1127 9.4 0.548 2.0 NA 1.2 8.6 0.09 0.10 74.2
North: Pembroke Parade
7 L2 48 1.0 0.205 19.5 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.85 0.94 44.6
9 R2 277 1.0 1.167 344.9 LOS F 56.2 396.8 1.00 5.64 8.9
Approach 325 1.0 1.167 296.9 LOS F 56.2 396.8 0.98 4.95 10.2
West: Picton Road
10 L2 906 1.0 0.614 8.2 LOS A 5.1 36.3 0.39 0.59 53.8
11 T1 1050 9.7 0.567 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
Approach 1956 5.7 0.614 3.9 LOS A 5.1 36.3 0.18 0.27 65.1
All Vehicles 3408 6.5 1.167 31.2 NA 56.2 396.8 0.23 0.66 44.1
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Signals 1165 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 AM Base + Development NO WJ Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 70 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1124 17.0 0.746 19.8 LOS B 17.3 138.6 0.90 0.83 55.8
6 R2 22 1.0 0.138 41.1 LOS C 0.7 5.2 0.96 0.70 36.4
Approach 1146 16.7 0.746 20.2 LOS B 17.3 138.6 0.90 0.82 55.3
North: Pembroke Parade
7 L2 101 1.0 0.122 10.2 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.50 0.65 50.1
9 R2 638 1.0 0.752 34.8 LOS C 11.2 78.7 0.99 0.91 37.4
Approach 739 1.0 0.752 31.5 LOS C 11.2 78.7 0.92 0.87 38.7
West: Picton Road
10 L2 194 1.0 0.135 8.0 LOS A 0.7 4.6 0.20 0.66 54.5
11 T1 1105 19.4 0.757 20.3 LOS B 17.7 144.2 0.90 0.84 55.4
Approach 1299 16.7 0.757 18.5 LOS B 17.7 144.2 0.79 0.81 55.3
All Vehicles 3184 13.0 0.757 22.1 LOS B 17.7 144.2 0.86 0.83 50.3
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Signals 1165 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 PM Base + Development NO WJ Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1010 10.4 0.547 11.3 LOS A 10.3 78.5 0.74 0.65 64.2
6 R2 85 1.0 0.456 36.9 LOS C 2.5 18.0 0.98 0.76 38.0
Approach 1095 9.7 0.547 13.2 LOS A 10.3 78.5 0.76 0.66 61.0
North: Pembroke Parade
7 L2 35 1.0 0.048 7.6 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.41 0.60 52.0
9 R2 186 1.0 0.499 34.4 LOS C 2.8 19.8 0.99 0.77 37.5
Approach 221 1.0 0.499 30.2 LOS C 2.8 19.8 0.90 0.74 39.3
West: Picton Road
10 L2 629 1.0 0.454 8.8 LOS A 4.1 28.9 0.39 0.72 53.8
11 T1 1040 9.7 0.561 11.4 LOS A 10.7 81.2 0.74 0.66 64.1
Approach 1669 6.4 0.561 10.4 LOS A 10.7 81.2 0.61 0.68 59.8
All Vehicles 2985 7.2 0.561 12.9 LOS A 10.7 81.2 0.69 0.68 57.9
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Signals 1800 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 AM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 80 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1130 17.0 0.833 30.2 LOS C 23.3 186.9 0.96 0.95 48.2
6 R2 32 1.0 0.229 47.2 LOS D 1.3 8.9 0.97 0.72 34.3
Approach 1162 16.6 0.833 30.6 LOS C 23.3 186.9 0.96 0.95 47.7
North: Pembroke Parade
7 L2 239 1.0 0.265 12.9 LOS A 4.5 32.0 0.58 0.70 48.3
9 R2 910 1.0 0.895 46.6 LOS D 24.1 170.1 0.97 1.05 33.4
Approach 1149 1.0 0.895 39.6 LOS C 24.1 170.1 0.89 0.98 35.7
West: Picton Road
10 L2 290 1.0 0.201 8.0 LOS A 1.2 8.6 0.21 0.66 54.5
11 T1 1107 19.4 0.878 36.0 LOS C 26.9 219.8 0.97 1.02 44.8
Approach 1397 15.6 0.878 30.2 LOS C 26.9 219.8 0.81 0.95 46.5
All Vehicles 3708 11.4 0.895 33.2 LOS C 26.9 219.8 0.88 0.96 42.8
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Pembroke Pde - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Signals 1800 Picton Road / Prembroke Parade 2036 PM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 55 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1011 10.4 0.603 12.4 LOS A 10.4 79.3 0.80 0.70 63.0
6 R2 116 1.0 0.571 34.7 LOS C 3.2 22.9 0.99 0.80 38.9
Approach 1127 9.4 0.603 14.7 LOS B 10.4 79.3 0.82 0.71 59.2
North: Pembroke Parade
7 L2 48 1.0 0.064 7.9 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.45 0.62 51.7
9 R2 277 1.0 0.681 33.2 LOS C 4.0 28.3 1.00 0.87 38.0
Approach 325 1.0 0.681 29.5 LOS C 4.0 28.3 0.92 0.83 39.6
West: Picton Road
10 L2 906 1.0 0.685 9.8 LOS A 8.7 61.8 0.59 0.78 53.0
11 T1 1050 9.7 0.623 12.5 LOS A 10.9 83.0 0.81 0.72 62.8
Approach 1956 5.7 0.685 11.3 LOS A 10.9 83.0 0.71 0.74 57.9
All Vehicles 3408 6.5 0.685 14.1 LOS A 10.9 83.0 0.77 0.74 55.8
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Existing Layout 1165 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 AM Base + Development NO WJ Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 980 17.0 0.558 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
6 R2 22 1.0 0.064 17.0 LOS B 0.2 1.5 0.82 0.93 47.5
Approach 1002 16.7 0.558 0.5 NA 0.2 1.5 0.02 0.02 78.4
North: Almond Street
7 L2 43 1.0 0.282 32.8 LOS C 0.9 6.1 0.90 1.03 38.9
9 R2 151 1.0 5.913 9014.8 LOS F 170.6 1204.7 1.00 4.14 0.4
Approach 194 1.0 5.913 7023.9 LOS F 170.6 1204.7 0.98 3.45 0.5
West: Picton Road
10 L2 171 1.0 0.093 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9
11 T1 1030 19.4 0.595 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5
Approach 1201 16.8 0.595 1.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.09 77.2
All Vehicles 2397 15.5 5.913 569.3 NA 170.6 1204.7 0.09 0.33 5.9
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Existing Layout 1165 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 PM Base + Development NO WJ Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 988 10.0 0.540 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
6 R2 51 1.0 0.101 13.6 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.74 0.90 49.7
Approach 1039 9.6 0.540 0.8 NA 0.4 2.6 0.04 0.04 77.4
North: Almond Street
7 L2 69 1.0 0.278 22.6 LOS B 0.9 6.6 0.84 1.04 43.5
9 R2 142 1.0 3.405 4448.6 LOS F 133.8 944.5 1.00 5.24 0.8
Approach 211 1.0 3.405 3001.2 LOS F 133.8 944.5 0.95 3.87 1.2
West: Picton Road
10 L2 111 1.0 0.060 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9
11 T1 920 10.5 0.504 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.7
Approach 1031 9.4 0.504 0.9 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 77.9
All Vehicles 2281 8.7 3.405 278.4 NA 133.8 944.5 0.10 0.41 11.2
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Existing Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 AM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 975 17.0 0.555 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
6 R2 30 1.0 0.092 17.8 LOS B 0.3 2.2 0.83 0.94 47.0
Approach 1005 16.5 0.555 0.6 NA 0.3 2.2 0.02 0.03 78.0
North: Almond Street
7 L2 75 1.0 0.530 42.4 LOS C 1.8 12.9 0.94 1.09 35.3
9 R2 175 1.0 7.453 11795.8 LOS F 206.6 1458.8 1.00 4.02 0.3
Approach 250 1.0 7.453 8269.8 LOS F 206.6 1458.8 0.98 3.14 0.4
West: Picton Road
10 L2 171 1.0 0.093 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9
11 T1 1050 19.4 0.606 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5
Approach 1221 16.8 0.606 1.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 77.2
All Vehicles 2476 15.1 7.453 835.8 NA 206.6 1458.8 0.11 0.37 4.1
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Existing Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 PM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1008 10.0 0.551 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
6 R2 104 1.0 0.212 14.4 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.77 0.92 49.2
Approach 1112 9.2 0.551 1.4 NA 0.8 5.7 0.07 0.09 75.3
North: Almond Street
7 L2 78 1.0 0.323 23.8 LOS B 1.1 7.9 0.85 1.05 42.9
9 R2 155 1.0 4.458 6359.5 LOS F 161.0 1136.6 1.00 4.92 0.6
Approach 233 1.0 4.458 4238.5 LOS F 161.0 1136.6 0.95 3.63 0.9
West: Picton Road
10 L2 133 1.0 0.072 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9
11 T1 930 10.5 0.509 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.7
Approach 1063 9.3 0.509 1.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 77.6
All Vehicles 2408 8.4 4.458 411.2 NA 161.0 1136.6 0.13 0.42 8.0
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Interim Seagull Layout 1165 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 AM Base + Development NO WJ Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 980 17.0 0.558 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
6 R2 22 1.0 0.064 17.0 LOS B 0.2 1.5 0.82 0.93 47.5
Approach 1002 16.7 0.558 0.5 NA 0.2 1.5 0.02 0.02 78.4
North: Almond Street
7 L2 43 1.0 0.282 32.8 LOS C 0.9 6.1 0.90 1.03 38.9
9 R2 151 1.0 0.841 55.0 LOS D 4.4 31.2 0.97 1.40 31.5
Approach 194 1.0 0.841 50.1 LOS D 4.4 31.2 0.96 1.31 32.9
West: Picton Road
10 L2 171 1.0 0.093 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9
11 T1 1030 19.4 0.595 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5
Approach 1201 16.8 0.595 1.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.09 77.2
All Vehicles 2397 15.5 0.841 4.9 NA 4.4 31.2 0.08 0.16 70.0
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Interim Seagull Layout 1165 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 PM Base + Development NO WJ Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 988 10.0 0.540 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
6 R2 51 1.0 0.101 13.6 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.74 0.90 49.7
Approach 1039 9.6 0.540 0.8 NA 0.4 2.6 0.04 0.04 77.4
North: Almond Street
7 L2 69 1.0 0.278 22.6 LOS B 0.9 6.6 0.84 1.04 43.5
9 R2 142 1.0 0.538 25.4 LOS B 2.1 15.2 0.88 1.13 42.2
Approach 211 1.0 0.538 24.5 LOS B 2.1 15.2 0.87 1.10 42.6
West: Picton Road
10 L2 111 1.0 0.060 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9
11 T1 920 10.5 0.504 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.7
Approach 1031 9.4 0.504 0.9 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 77.9
All Vehicles 2281 8.7 0.540 3.0 NA 2.1 15.2 0.10 0.15 72.1
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Interim Seagull Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 AM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 975 17.0 0.555 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
6 R2 30 1.0 0.092 17.8 LOS B 0.3 2.2 0.83 0.94 47.0
Approach 1005 16.5 0.555 0.6 NA 0.3 2.2 0.02 0.03 78.0
North: Almond Street
7 L2 75 1.0 0.530 42.4 LOS C 1.8 12.9 0.94 1.09 35.3
9 R2 175 1.0 1.045 181.9 LOS F 18.3 129.1 1.00 2.79 15.0
Approach 250 1.0 1.045 140.1 LOS F 18.3 129.1 0.98 2.28 18.2
West: Picton Road
10 L2 171 1.0 0.093 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9
11 T1 1050 19.4 0.606 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.5
Approach 1221 16.8 0.606 1.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 77.2
All Vehicles 2476 15.1 1.045 15.0 NA 18.3 129.1 0.11 0.28 58.4
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond Rd - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Interim Seagull Layout - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Road 2036 PM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1008 10.0 0.551 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.6
6 R2 104 1.0 0.212 14.4 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.77 0.92 49.2
Approach 1112 9.2 0.551 1.4 NA 0.8 5.7 0.07 0.09 75.3
North: Almond Street
7 L2 78 1.0 0.323 23.8 LOS B 1.1 7.9 0.85 1.05 42.9
9 R2 155 1.0 0.652 30.9 LOS C 2.8 19.9 0.92 1.19 39.7
Approach 233 1.0 0.652 28.6 LOS C 2.8 19.9 0.90 1.14 40.7
West: Picton Road
10 L2 133 1.0 0.072 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 65.9
11 T1 930 10.5 0.509 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 79.7
Approach 1063 9.3 0.509 1.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 77.6
All Vehicles 2408 8.4 0.652 3.9 NA 2.8 19.9 0.12 0.18 70.4
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond St - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Signals 1165 Picton Road / Almond Parade 2036 AM Base + Development NO WJ Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)
Movement Performance – Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 980 17.0 0.592 12.9 LOS A 10.8 86.2 0.79 0.69 62.4
6 R2 22 1.0 0.118 35.2 LOS C 0.6 4.4 0.94 0.70 38.5
Approach 1002 16.7 0.592 13.4 LOS A 10.8 86.2 0.79 0.69 61.5
North: Almond Parade
7 L2 43 1.0 0.057 8.3 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.45 0.62 51.5
9 R2 151 1.0 0.608 33.2 LOS C 4.5 31.9 0.99 0.83 38.0
Approach 194 1.0 0.608 27.7 LOS B 4.5 31.9 0.87 0.78 40.4
West: Picton Road
10 L2 171 1.0 0.120 8.0 LOS A 0.6 4.0 0.23 0.66 54.4
11 T1 1030 19.4 0.631 13.3 LOS A 11.6 94.7 0.81 0.71 62.0
Approach 1201 16.8 0.631 12.5 LOS A 11.6 94.7 0.73 0.71 60.8
All Vehicles 2397 15.5 0.631 14.1 LOS A 11.6 94.7 0.77 0.71 58.7
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond St - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Signals 1165 Picton Road / Almond Parade 2036 PM Base + Development NO WJ Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 55 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 988 10.0 0.612 13.1 LOS A 10.4 79.2 0.82 0.72 62.1
6 R2 51 1.0 0.251 33.0 LOS C 1.3 9.5 0.95 0.74 39.4
Approach 1039 9.6 0.612 14.1 LOS A 10.4 79.2 0.83 0.72 60.4
North: Almond Parade
7 L2 69 1.0 0.085 7.6 LOS A 0.6 4.1 0.44 0.62 51.9
9 R2 142 1.0 0.599 31.3 LOS C 3.9 27.8 0.99 0.82 38.8
Approach 211 1.0 0.599 23.5 LOS B 3.9 27.8 0.81 0.76 42.3
West: Picton Road
10 L2 111 1.0 0.081 8.2 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.26 0.66 54.3
11 T1 920 10.5 0.571 12.8 LOS A 9.5 72.2 0.80 0.70 62.5
Approach 1031 9.4 0.571 12.3 LOS A 9.5 72.2 0.74 0.69 61.5
All Vehicles 2281 8.7 0.612 14.2 LOS A 10.4 79.2 0.79 0.71 58.5
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond St - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - AM Upgraded Signals - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Parade 2036 AM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 60 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 975 17.0 0.611 13.7 LOS A 11.0 88.4 0.81 0.71 61.5
6 R2 30 1.0 0.161 35.4 LOS C 0.9 6.1 0.95 0.71 38.4
Approach 1005 16.5 0.611 14.4 LOS A 11.0 88.4 0.82 0.71 60.4
North: Almond Parade
7 L2 75 1.0 0.097 8.8 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.48 0.64 51.1
9 R2 175 1.0 0.626 32.4 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.99 0.84 38.3
Approach 250 1.0 0.626 25.4 LOS B 5.2 36.7 0.83 0.78 41.4
West: Picton Road
10 L2 171 1.0 0.121 8.0 LOS A 0.6 4.0 0.23 0.66 54.4
11 T1 1050 19.4 0.667 14.2 LOS A 12.3 100.6 0.84 0.74 61.0
Approach 1221 16.8 0.667 13.4 LOS A 12.3 100.6 0.76 0.73 59.9
All Vehicles 2476 15.1 0.667 15.0 LOS B 12.3 100.6 0.79 0.73 57.5
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Picton Rd/ Almond St - 2036 w/o Wilton Junction - PM Upgraded Signals - 1800 Picton Road / Almond Parade 2036 PM Base + Development (1800) NO WJ Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 50 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
East: Picton Road
5 T1 1008 10.0 0.681 14.3 LOS A 10.7 81.5 0.88 0.79 60.9
6 R2 104 1.0 0.465 31.0 LOS C 2.6 18.1 0.97 0.77 40.3
Approach 1112 9.2 0.681 15.9 LOS B 10.7 81.5 0.89 0.79 58.1
North: Almond Parade
7 L2 78 1.0 0.097 8.0 LOS A 0.7 4.7 0.49 0.64 51.7
9 R2 155 1.0 0.693 30.5 LOS C 4.1 28.9 1.00 0.88 39.1
Approach 233 1.0 0.693 22.9 LOS B 4.1 28.9 0.83 0.80 42.6
West: Picton Road
10 L2 133 1.0 0.103 8.5 LOS A 0.6 4.1 0.32 0.67 54.1
11 T1 930 10.5 0.630 13.3 LOS A 9.4 71.5 0.86 0.74 61.9
Approach 1063 9.3 0.630 12.7 LOS A 9.4 71.5 0.79 0.73 60.8
All Vehicles 2408 8.4 0.693 15.2 LOS B 10.7 81.5 0.84 0.76 57.2
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Pembroke Oxenbridge - AM - 1165 Pembroke Pde - Oxenbridge Av - AM - 1165 dwellings Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
South: Pembroke Sth
2 T1 144 2.0 0.138 4.0 LOS A 0.9 6.1 0.11 0.48 54.0
3 R2 69 2.0 0.138 8.9 LOS A 0.9 6.1 0.11 0.48 53.5
Approach 213 2.0 0.138 5.6 LOS A 0.9 6.1 0.11 0.48 53.8
East: Oxenbridge
4 L2 208 2.0 0.250 6.9 LOS A 1.5 10.7 0.65 0.71 49.9
6 R2 18 2.0 0.250 12.0 LOS A 1.5 10.7 0.65 0.71 54.6
Approach 226 2.0 0.250 7.3 LOS A 1.5 10.7 0.65 0.71 50.4
North: Pembroke (Nth)
7 L2 2 2.0 0.369 4.2 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.25 0.40 54.8
8 T1 531 2.0 0.369 4.3 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.25 0.40 54.5
Approach 533 2.0 0.369 4.3 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.25 0.40 54.5
All Vehicles 972 2.0 0.369 5.3 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.31 0.49 53.4
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Pembroke Oxenbridge - PM - 1165 Pembroke Pde - Oxenbridge Av - PM - 1165 dwellings Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
South: Pembroke (Sth)
2 T1 508 2.0 0.443 4.0 LOS A 3.6 25.4 0.16 0.46 53.6
3 R2 205 2.0 0.443 9.0 LOS A 3.6 25.4 0.16 0.46 53.0
Approach 713 2.0 0.443 5.5 LOS A 3.6 25.4 0.16 0.46 53.4
East: Oxenbridge
4 L2 68 2.0 0.076 4.5 LOS A 0.4 2.8 0.33 0.53 50.5
6 R2 23 2.0 0.076 9.5 LOS A 0.4 2.8 0.33 0.53 55.4
Approach 91 2.0 0.076 5.8 LOS A 0.4 2.8 0.33 0.53 52.2
North: Pembroke (Nth)
7 L2 13 2.0 0.144 4.8 LOS A 0.8 5.4 0.38 0.48 54.3
8 T1 156 2.0 0.144 4.9 LOS A 0.8 5.4 0.38 0.48 53.5
Approach 169 2.0 0.144 4.9 LOS A 0.8 5.4 0.38 0.48 53.6
All Vehicles 973 2.0 0.443 5.4 LOS A 3.6 25.4 0.21 0.47 53.3
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Pembroke Oxenbridge - AM - 1800 Pembroke Pde - Oxenbridge Av - AM - 1800 dwellings Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
South: Pembroke (Sth)
2 T1 207 2.0 0.207 4.0 LOS A 1.5 10.4 0.13 0.48 53.4
3 R2 115 2.0 0.207 8.9 LOS A 1.5 10.4 0.13 0.48 52.8
Approach 322 2.0 0.207 5.7 LOS A 1.5 10.4 0.13 0.48 53.2
East: Oxenbridge
4 L2 312 2.0 0.457 10.2 LOS A 3.6 25.3 0.86 0.92 46.2
6 R2 20 2.0 0.457 15.2 LOS A 3.6 25.3 0.86 0.92 52.4
Approach 332 2.0 0.457 10.5 LOS A 3.6 25.3 0.86 0.92 46.8
North: Pembroke (Nth)
7 L2 2 2.0 0.536 4.6 LOS A 4.4 31.1 0.41 0.46 54.1
8 T1 736 2.0 0.536 4.8 LOS A 4.4 31.1 0.41 0.46 53.2
Approach 738 2.0 0.536 4.8 LOS A 4.4 31.1 0.41 0.46 53.2
All Vehicles 1392 2.0 0.536 6.4 LOS A 4.4 31.1 0.45 0.57 51.6
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Pembroke Oxenbridge - PM - 1800 Pembroke Pde - Oxenbridge Av - PM - 1800 dwellings Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
South: Pembroke (Sth)
2 T1 698 2.0 0.639 4.2 LOS B 7.4 52.4 0.27 0.46 52.9
3 R2 322 2.0 0.639 9.1 LOS B 7.4 52.4 0.27 0.46 52.2
Approach 1020 2.0 0.639 5.7 LOS B 7.4 52.4 0.27 0.46 52.7
East: Oxenbridge
4 L2 107 2.0 0.123 4.8 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.42 0.56 50.3
6 R2 32 2.0 0.123 9.9 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.42 0.56 55.2
Approach 139 2.0 0.123 6.0 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.42 0.56 51.8
North: Pembroke (Nth)
7 L2 13 2.0 0.222 5.5 LOS A 1.3 9.1 0.51 0.56 53.7
8 T1 223 2.0 0.222 5.7 LOS A 1.3 9.1 0.51 0.56 52.6
Approach 236 2.0 0.222 5.7 LOS A 1.3 9.1 0.51 0.56 52.7
All Vehicles 1395 2.0 0.639 5.8 LOS B 7.4 52.4 0.33 0.49 52.6
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Pembroke Greenbridge Fairway - AM - 1165 Pembroke Pd / Greenbridge Dr / Fairways Dr / Spearing St - AM - 1165 Dwellings Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
South: Pembroke Pde (Sth)
1 L2 122 2.0 0.126 4.2 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.16 0.51 54.3
2 T1 12 2.0 0.126 4.4 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.16 0.51 53.2
3 R2 39 2.0 0.126 8.8 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.16 0.51 54.2
3u U 3 2.0 0.126 10.8 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.16 0.51 56.4
Approach 176 2.0 0.126 5.3 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.16 0.51 54.2
East: Greenbridge Drive
4 L2 139 2.0 0.175 6.3 LOS A 1.0 6.8 0.54 0.65 52.4
5 T1 19 2.0 0.175 6.5 LOS A 1.0 6.8 0.54 0.65 53.3
6 R2 10 2.0 0.175 10.9 LOS A 1.0 6.8 0.54 0.65 34.9
6u U 1 2.0 0.175 12.9 LOS A 1.0 6.8 0.54 0.65 52.5
Approach 169 2.0 0.175 6.6 LOS A 1.0 6.8 0.54 0.65 51.7
North: Spearing Street
7 L2 1 2.0 0.119 6.3 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.54 0.61 45.6
8 T1 104 2.0 0.119 6.5 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.54 0.61 51.4
9 R2 7 2.0 0.119 10.9 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.54 0.61 50.4
9u U 1 2.0 0.119 12.9 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.54 0.61 33.0
Approach 113 2.0 0.119 6.8 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.54 0.61 51.2
West: Fairways Dr
10 L2 15 2.0 0.287 4.3 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.23 0.58 48.2
11 T1 91 2.0 0.287 4.6 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.23 0.58 52.0
12 R2 294 2.0 0.287 8.9 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.23 0.58 53.4
12u U 1 2.0 0.287 10.9 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.23 0.58 53.9
Approach 401 2.0 0.287 7.8 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.23 0.58 53.0
All Vehicles 859 2.0 0.287 6.9 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.32 0.58 52.9
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Pembroke Greenbridge Fairway - PM - 1165 Pembroke Pd / Greenbridge Dr / Fairways Dr / Spearing St - PM - 1165 Dwellings Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
South: Pembroke Pde (Sth)
1 L2 314 2.0 0.401 4.6 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.33 0.53 53.7
2 T1 86 2.0 0.401 4.8 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.33 0.53 52.3
3 R2 134 2.0 0.401 9.2 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.33 0.53 53.5
3u U 4 2.0 0.401 11.2 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.33 0.53 55.8
Approach 538 2.0 0.401 5.8 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.33 0.53 53.5
East: Greenbridge Drive
4 L2 18 2.0 0.058 5.0 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.37 0.51 52.7
5 T1 41 2.0 0.058 5.2 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.37 0.51 53.6
6 R2 5 2.0 0.058 9.6 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.37 0.51 35.5
6u U 1 2.0 0.058 11.6 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.37 0.51 52.9
Approach 65 2.0 0.058 5.6 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.37 0.51 52.2
North: Spearing Street
7 L2 1 2.0 0.075 5.4 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.43 0.62 44.3
8 T1 29 2.0 0.075 5.6 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.43 0.62 50.2
9 R2 49 2.0 0.075 10.0 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.43 0.62 49.2
9u U 1 2.0 0.075 12.0 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.43 0.62 32.1
Approach 80 2.0 0.075 8.3 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.43 0.62 49.4
West: Fairways Dr
10 L2 4 2.0 0.135 5.2 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.42 0.64 47.0
11 T1 17 2.0 0.135 5.4 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.42 0.64 50.9
12 R2 126 2.0 0.135 9.8 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.42 0.64 52.5
12u U 1 2.0 0.135 11.8 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.42 0.64 52.9
Approach 148 2.0 0.135 9.2 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.42 0.64 52.3
All Vehicles 831 2.0 0.401 6.7 LOS A 2.8 19.8 0.36 0.56 52.9
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Pembroke Greenbridge Fairway - AM - 1800 Pembroke Pd / Greenbridge Dr / Fairways Dr / Spearing St - AM - 1800 Dwellings Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
South: Pembroke Pde (Sth)
1 L2 179 2.0 0.170 4.2 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.19 0.50 54.3
2 T1 14 2.0 0.170 4.4 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.19 0.50 53.3
3 R2 39 2.0 0.170 8.8 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.19 0.50 54.3
3u U 5 2.0 0.170 10.8 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.19 0.50 56.5
Approach 237 2.0 0.170 5.1 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.19 0.50 54.3
East: Greenbridge Drive
4 L2 159 2.0 0.236 7.8 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.68 0.75 51.2
5 T1 22 2.0 0.236 8.0 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.68 0.75 52.0
6 R2 11 2.0 0.236 12.4 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.68 0.75 33.9
6u U 3 2.0 0.236 14.4 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.68 0.75 50.8
Approach 195 2.0 0.236 8.2 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.68 0.75 50.5
North: Spearing Street
7 L2 1 2.0 0.157 7.7 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.66 0.70 44.7
8 T1 117 2.0 0.157 7.9 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.66 0.70 50.6
9 R2 8 2.0 0.157 12.3 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.66 0.70 49.5
9u U 1 2.0 0.157 14.3 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.66 0.70 32.1
Approach 127 2.0 0.157 8.2 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.66 0.70 50.4
West: Fairways Dr
10 L2 15 2.0 0.413 4.4 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.28 0.59 47.7
11 T1 101 2.0 0.413 4.7 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.28 0.59 51.5
12 R2 466 2.0 0.413 9.1 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.28 0.59 53.1
12u U 1 2.0 0.413 11.1 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.28 0.59 53.5
Approach 583 2.0 0.413 8.2 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.28 0.59 52.8
All Vehicles 1142 2.0 0.413 7.5 LOS A 2.9 20.8 0.37 0.61 52.6
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Pembroke Greenbridge Fairway - PM - 1800 Pembroke Pd / Greenbridge Dr / Fairways Dr / Spearing St - PM - 1800 Dwellings Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Mov ID ODMov
Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Delay
Level of Service
95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued
Effective Stop Rate
Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h
South: Pembroke Pde (Sth)
1 L2 485 2.0 0.547 4.8 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.42 0.54 53.6
2 T1 95 2.0 0.547 5.0 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.42 0.54 52.2
3 R2 153 2.0 0.547 9.4 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.42 0.54 53.4
3u U 6 2.0 0.547 11.4 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.42 0.54 55.7
Approach 739 2.0 0.547 5.8 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.42 0.54 53.4
East: Greenbridge Drive
4 L2 22 2.0 0.069 5.3 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.43 0.54 52.5
5 T1 45 2.0 0.069 5.5 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.43 0.54 53.4
6 R2 5 2.0 0.069 9.9 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.43 0.54 35.3
6u U 1 2.0 0.069 11.9 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.43 0.54 52.6
Approach 73 2.0 0.069 5.9 LOS A 0.4 2.5 0.43 0.54 52.1
North: Spearing Street
7 L2 1 2.0 0.087 5.8 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.50 0.64 44.0
8 T1 33 2.0 0.087 6.0 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.50 0.64 49.9
9 R2 51 2.0 0.087 10.4 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.50 0.64 48.9
9u U 1 2.0 0.087 12.4 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.50 0.64 31.8
Approach 86 2.0 0.087 8.7 LOS A 0.5 3.2 0.50 0.64 49.1
West: Fairways Dr
10 L2 4 2.0 0.195 5.4 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.47 0.66 46.7
11 T1 19 2.0 0.195 5.7 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.47 0.66 50.6
12 R2 184 2.0 0.195 10.0 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.47 0.66 52.3
12u U 1 2.0 0.195 12.0 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.47 0.66 52.7
Approach 208 2.0 0.195 9.6 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.47 0.66 52.1
All Vehicles 1106 2.0 0.547 6.8 LOS A 4.6 33.0 0.43 0.57 52.8
Transport Assessment
NA82013034 Cardno November 2015 Prepared for Lend Lease 51
Bingara Gorge
APPENDIX E REPORT AUTHOR CURRICULUM VITAES
www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 1 of 6
Current Position
Senior Principal Business Unit Manger - Traffic & Transport
Profession
Traffic & Transport Engineer
Years' Experience
22 Years
Joined Cardno
October 1993
Education
BEng (Civil)
Professional Registrations
RPEQ (8343)
Affiliations
Member - Engineers Australia (EA)
Committee Secretary, EA Transport Panel
Member - Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management (AITPM)
Member - Queensland Environmental Law Association (QELA)
Summary of Experience
Shane is a Senior Transport Engineer and Principal with Cardno and functions as the Business Unit Manager for the Traffic and Transport activities of Cardno in the northern division of Asia Pacific. Shane has 22 years' experience in the delivery of traffic engineering and transport planning projects across Australia, having held senior positions in both Queensland and Western Australia. His business management experience includes being the Brisbane Office Manager, Perth Office Manager until 2010 and the founder of the firm’s Gold Coast traffic and transport team operations in 2003.
Shane has significant experience in the transport masterplanning of large scale projects drawn from senior level involvement in strategic and detailed transport assessment and design studies for retail, residential, commercial and industrial development proposals throughout Australia and overseas. Shane’s experience in the transport planning discipline includes corridor studies, master planning, parking assessments, transport infrastructure concept design management of road safety related projects, and infrastructure charges/contributions plans.
Key projects in which Shane has been heavily involved include detailed parking and transportation studies for key metropolitan centres at Helensvale, Mt Gravatt, Carindale, Chermside, Innaloo, Carousel and Whitfords, strategic and detailed road network master planning for the Varsity Lakes, Emerald Lakes, North Shore and Rocky Springs mixed use residential developments and direction of major transportation studies for resource projects in the Bowen and Surat Basins. Significant transport corridor studies in which Shane has been involved include strategic road network planning for the Cairns and Ballina Council regions. He has regularly been called upon to provide expert evidence in Queensland Planning and Environment Court appeal matters. Shane also has a thorough understanding of road safety audit and traffic management plan practices and guidelines.
Significant Projects
> Carousel Regional Centre Planning, Perth
> Sterling City Centre, Perth
> Bremer Industrial/Business Park, Ipswich
> Garden City Key Regional Centre, Brisbane
> North Shore Residential Development, Townsville
> Townsville Shopping Centre Expansion, Townsville
> Ballina Western Arterial Corridor Assessment, Ballina
> Rocky Springs Residential Development, Townsville
> Ballina Road Network Study, Ballina
> Goonyella Mine Expansion EIS
> Bowen Basin Arrow Gas LNG Field EIS
> Whole of Gold Coast Parking Strategy, Gold Coast
Shane Healey
www.cardno.com
www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 2 of 6
Professional History
May 2010 - Current Senior Principal & Business Manager, Traffic & Transport, Cardno (Brisbane)
Apr 2008 - May 2010 Principal & Manager, Traffic and Transport , Cardno (Perth)
Jul 2007 - Mar 2008 Senior Principal, Cardno Eppell Olsen (Brisbane)
Jan 2005 – Jun 2007 Principal, Cardno Eppell Olsen (Gold Coast)
Traffic and Transport Surveys
As a cadet engineer, Shane worked as a field supervisor/data analyst for Abacus Surveys Pty Ltd, a subsidiary company (at the time) of Eppell Olsen & Partners. Abacus Surveys specialised in the conduct of traffic and transport surveys and Shane was responsible for the installation of automatic speed and count equipment (pneumatic and magnetic), completion of travel time surveys, traffic generation, bus patronage surveys and parking studies. Shane managed the operations of Abacus Surveys and had extensive involvement in the design and management of numerous survey projects.
Retail Centre Traffic &Transport Planning
Shane has project managed the traffic and transport design for numerous retail developments ranging in scale from convenience facilities to regional centres. This work requires extensive assessment of traffic demands, parking requirements, infrastructure provision and public transport, pedestrian and cycle components. Technical analysis for these types of projects has included a combination of EMME/2 and SATURN area modelling combined with SIDRA, Paramics, Transyt detailed operational analysis. Major projects include Helensvale Town Centre (Gold Coast), Carindale Shopping Centre (Brisbane), Springfield Town Centre (Ipswich), Stirling City Centre (Perth) and Carousel Retail Centre (Perth).
Transportation Master Planning & Assessment
Significant residential growth in Queensland has led to Shane having significant involvement in the traffic/transport planning elements for a number of large Greenfield residential communities. This work has generally involved early identification of external road network connection constraints and development of appropriate road network plans which balance the needs of accessibility, connectivity and amenity. Elements of this work include consideration of road hierarchy principles, sub-divisional design, public transport, pedestrian and cycle planning.
Shane has also been required to investigate the detailed impacts of proposed residential developments on the operation of road and street networks throughout Australia for local and state authorities. These assessments have required the use of various analysis techniques for the identification of potential impacts (strategic and detailed modelling tools), calculation of infrastructure contributions and resolution of mitigation measures.
www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 3 of 6
Shane has provided traffic and transport direction to the master planning for integrated mixed use development precincts which generally include high density residential components, commercial office land uses and retail precincts.
Examples of projects include:
> Queens Wharf Integrated Resort, Brisbane: Greenland/Crown
> Varsity Lakes, Gold Coast: Lend Lease
> SALT Community, Kingscliff: Ray Group
> Sanctuary Cove, Gold Coast: Mulpha Sanctuary Cove
> CityPort, Cairns: Cairns Port Authority
> Emerald Lakes, Gold Coast: Nifsan
Mixed Use and Transit Orientated Development
Shane has directed input into numerous mixed use precincts particularly those focused around major transit corridors. These projects rely upon advanced understanding of demographic/land use and transport relationships combined with innovative solutions to travel demand, car parking, servicing, and sustainable transport modes.
Examples of projects include:
> Commonwealth Games Village, Gold Coast
> Varsity Lakes Transit Oriented Development, Gold Coast
> Southport Central Mixed Use Precinct, Gold Coast
Community Facilities and Event Traffic Planning
Shane has provided traffic and transport input to the development of a range of community facilities and major events. This work involved consideration of likely traffic and parking demands, identification of appropriate mitigation/management strategies, preparation of public transport event schedules and community consultation exercises to inform affected stakeholders.
Examples of relevant projects include:
> Cairns Esplanade & Foreshore Redevelopment: Cairns City Council
> Cairns Convention Centre: Project Services
> Kings Beach Redevelopment: Caloundra City Council
> SALT Central Park, Kingscliff Traffic Plan: Ray Group
> Woodford Folk Festival: Festival Organisers
www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 4 of 6
Development Traffic Impact Assessment
A principle component of Shane’s work during the past twenty years has been preparation of development impact assessments for private developer clients, local government authorities and the Department of Main Roads. Developments which Shane has assessed vary in form and scale but have included major shopping centres, fast food outlets, service stations, offices, residential subdivisions, high rise apartment buildings and commercial developments located throughout Australia and in USA.
The assessments generally incorporate estimation of traffic generation and traffic growth (for all transport modes including commercial vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians), identification of associated traffic impacts and any necessary road infrastructure upgrading works. Shane has extensive knowledge of the relevant planning legislation, relevant Austroads guidelines and Australian Standard policies.
Parking Assessment/Policy
Shane has significant experience with parking assessment and policy projects. Parking within centres can be an important travel demand management tool and is a significant consideration for the planning of major development proposals. Important aspects in which Shane has provided expert direction include quantification and forecasting of demand, cross utilization and temporal variations within mixed use precincts, enforcement procedures, parking efficiency measurement and policy advice regarding appropriate planning scheme requirements. Projects Shane has undertaken in this discipline include consideration of on-street and off-street parking.
Other aspects of which Shane has significant experience include the review and design of car park facilities with regard to appropriate access location and parking requirements relevant to Australian Standards and local authority guidelines. These elements are regularly reviewed for private developer clients and architects.
Project examples include:
> Whole of Gold Coast Parking Study: Gold Coast City Council
> Cairns CBD Parking Study: Cairns City Council
> Ballina CBD Parking Study: Ballina Shire Council
> Cairns Accommodation Parking Requirements: Cairns City Council
Local Area Transport Planning and Traffic Management
During the past twenty years, Shane has undertaken a number of local area studies which have incorporated identification of community issues, resolution of traffic deficiencies and preparation of local area traffic management strategies. These techniques have been applied to residential neighbourhoods, main street environments and school precincts.
Projects of this nature have also required community consultation and Shane has been responsible for the preparation and presentation of material at community meetings and workshops. Projects for which Shane has been responsible include:
> Ballina River Street Traffic Management; Ballina Shire Council
> Stanthorpe Schools Safety Review: Stanthorpe Shire Council
> Charters Towers Town Centre Plan: Charters Towers Council
> Cairns Parramatta Park/Manoora Area LATM: Cairns City Council
Expert Advice & Court Appeal Evidence
Shane has provided in house support to local and state authorities for review of development proposals and has provided technical input to a number of Planning and Environment Appeal matters. He is familiar with the legislative framework existing in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales and has been commissioned to provide expert traffic evidence in both the Planning & Environment and Criminal Courts.
www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 5 of 6
Transport Policy/Education
Due to his extensive experience in development assessment procedures, Shane was involved in the preparation of policy documentation for the Department of Main Roads to formalise traffic operations and pavement impact assessment procedures. This policy was stimulated by the State Government’s change in approach to infrastructure charging and a subsequent change in Planning and Environment legislation.
Shane has also provided input to strategic planning instruments, road hierarchy planning and documentation of professional resource material for AUSTROADS and the Department of Main Roads. Shane has contributed to the development of the profession by presenting lectures to third and fourth year civil engineering students at the Queensland University of Technology and University of Queensland.
Road Corridor Planning
Shane has directed corridor planning activities in both New South Wales and Queensland. Projects in which Shane has had involvement include detailed strategic modelling, detailed micro-simulation modelling, assessment of public transport corridors and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane strategies for major arterials. Studies have incorporated identification of existing and forecast occupancy/demand levels, consideration of possible geometric layouts, through traffic/local access separation options and demands for future interchanges and intersections. Studies include:
> Cairns Redlynch Deviation: Department of Main Roads
> Cairns HOV Assessment: Queensland Transport
> Western Freeway-Toowong Roundabout: Department of Main Roads
> Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrading: Department of Main Roads
> Ballina Western Arterial Route Alignment Assessment, Ballina Shire Council
> Ballina Road Network Study, Ballina Shire Council
> Skennars Head Road Network Planning, Ballina Shire Council
www.cardno.com SHANE HEALEY Page 6 of 6
Jan 2004 - Jan 2005 Senior Associate, Manager Gold Coast Office, Cardno Eppell Olsen (Formerly Eppell Olsen & Partners)
Jan 2001 - Jan 2004 Associate, Eppell Olsen & Partners (Gold Coast)
Jan 1998 - Jan 2004 Associate, Eppell Olsen & Partners
Jan 1994 - Jan 1998
Traffic Engineer, Eppell Olsen & Partners
Cadet Engineer, Eppell Consulting (Jan 93-94)
www.cardno.com
Current Position
Senior Traffic & Transport Engineer
Profession
Traffic & Transport Engineer
Years' Experience
11 Years
Joined Cardno
July 2004
Education
BEng (Civil)
Summary of Experience
Kris has developed extensive traffic engineering, transport planning, and road safety experience during his 11 years' working in private consulting and Local and State Government traffic roles. He has recently developed a specialisation in the field of road safety engineering and policy development.
Kris has been responsible for delivering successful outcomes across a variety of projects including environmental impact assessments, traffic and construction management planning, traffic analysis and modelling, parking studies, road safety auditing and policy development, and heavy vehicle route planning.
Kris has acted in traffic engineering and road safety roles at Brisbane City Council (2011), Toowoomba Regional Council (2013), City of Gold Coast (2014), and the Department of Transport and Main Roads where he is currently assisting the Safer Roads team.
In 2014, Kris finalised a 12 month role with the City of Gold Coast where he acted as the Senior Road Safety Officer. During this time, he was responsible for the development of the City’s first Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan in partnership with Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Police, RACQ and the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (CARRS-Q).
At Council, Kris also undertook road safety engineering reviews and an analysis of network safety. He also assisted the road network team in developing and programming engineering interventions and championed the incorporation of safety costs in the prioritisation of capacity upgrades in the Road Network Plan. Kris was also responsible for preparing the 2014-2015 Black Spot funding submissions for the City, all of which were successful and delivered an additional three million dollars in road safety funding for the region.
Kris is currently assisting the Department of Transport and Main Roads' Safer Roads team in understanding network safety issues and developing safer infrastructure solutions.
Significant Projects
Gold Coast Rapid Transit Broadbeach Early Works Traffic Manager, Gold Coast
Gold Coast Road Safety Plan, Gold Coast
2014-15 and 15-16 Gold Coast Black Spot analysis and procurement, Gold Coast
Surfers Paradise Hilton Hotel, Gold Coast
Horizon Shores Marina, Gold Coast
Road Safety Audits (ten plus of)
Brisbane City Council Infrastructure Charing Policy 2011 update, Brisbane
Stirling City Centre (Innaloo) Centre expansion, Perth
Chermside Shopping Centre expansion, Brisbane
Garden City Shopping Centre expansion, Brisbane
Pacific Fair Shopping Centre expansion, Gold Coast
Carindale Shopping Centre expansion, Brisbane
Gladstone Shopping Centre expansion, Gladstone.
.
Road Safety Auditing, Various.
Kris Stone
www.cardno.com
top related