glenlee precinct rezoning€¦ · 6.4 traffic distribution and assignment 36 6.5 traffic forecasts...

Sada Services Pty Ltd 20-May-2016

Glenlee Precinct Rezoning Traffic Impact Assessment

AECOM

Glenlee Precinct Rezoning

Revision G – 20-May-2016 Prepared for – Sada Services Pty Ltd – ABN: 48 002 984 447

Glenlee Precinct Rezoning Traffic Impact Assessment

Client: Sada Services Pty Ltd ABN: 48 002 984 447

Prepared by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Level 21, 420 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000, PO Box Q410, QVB Post Office NSW 1230, Australia T +61 2 8934 0000 F +61 2 8934 0001 www.aecom.com ABN 20 093 846 925

20-May-2016

Job No.: 60301834

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to the latest version of ISO9001, ISO14001, AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001.

© AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM). All rights reserved.

AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and AECOM’s experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.

AECOM



Quality Information Document Glenlee Precinct Rezoning

Ref 60301834

Date 20-May-2016

Prepared by Jacky Leung

Reviewed by Nick Bernard

Revision History

Revision Revision Date Details Authorised

Name/Position Signature

A 04-Apr-2014 Draft Report Andy Yung Associate Director

Original Signed

B 11-Apr-2014 Final Report Andy Yung Associate Director

Original Signed

C 21-Nov-2014 Revised Final Report Andy Yung Associate Director

Original Signed

D 21-May-2015 Updated Final Report Andy Yung Associate Director

Original Signed

E 03-May-2016 Updated Final Report Andy Yung Associate Director

Original Signed

F 17-May-2016 Updated Final Report Andy Yung Associate Director

Original Signed

G 20-May-2016 Updated Final Report Andy Yung Associate Director

AECOM



Table of Contents Executive Summary i 1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Study area 1 1.2 Background 3 1.3 Objective of this technical study 4 1.4 Report framework 5

2.0 Strategic planning context 6 2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 Document review 6 2.3 Regional planning context 7 2.4 Local planning context 12

3.0 Existing environment 15 3.1 Site description 15 3.2 Road network 16 3.3 Rail network 18 3.4 Bus network 20 3.5 Walking and cycling 21

4.0 Future transport context 22 4.1 Rail network upgrade 22 4.2 Bus services upgrade 22 4.3 Walking and cycling network upgrade 24 4.4 Road network upgrade 25

5.0 The proposal 27 5.1 Concept Plan 27 5.2 Access strategy 30

6.0 Traffic impact assessment 33 6.1 Introduction 33 6.2 Trip generation 33 6.3 Strategic modelling 35 6.4 Traffic distribution and assignment 36 6.5 Traffic forecasts 37 6.6 Intersection assessment 40 6.7 Sensitivity testing 48 6.8 Summary 50

7.0 Package of measures 51 7.1 Introduction 51 7.2 Infrastructure 51 7.3 Service responses 53 7.4 Policy responses 53 7.5 Package of measures summary 55

8.0 Conclusion 56 Appendix A A

Compliance Checklist A Appendix B B

Trip Generation Profile and Summary B Appendix C C

TransCAD Turning Flows C Appendix D D

SIDRA Results for future development scenarios D Appendix E E

Sensitivity test – increased employee density with RMS warehousing trip rate E

AECOM



Appendix F F Sensitivity test – increased employee density with industrial land use only F

Appendix G G Sensitivity test – warehouse land use only G

Appendix H H Sensitivity test – RMS 85th percentile trip rate with warehouse land use only H

AECOM



i

Executive Summary Introduction

AECOM was commissioned to provide an assessment of the traffic, transport and accessibility impacts associated with the industrial rezoning of the Glenlee Precinct (the Precinct) for employment and related purposes. As part of this project, it is necessary to undertake traffic and transport investigations to assess the existing conditions of accessibility to the Precinct and to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding road and rail networks, proposed cycle and pedestrian networks, and the public transport network. The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) supports the Planning Proposal to rezone land within the Glenlee Precinct.

Context

Glenlee is located near Narellan, approximately 50 km south-west of Sydney, within the Camden and Campbelltown Local Government Areas (LGAs). The Precinct has been used for industrial-related purposes for a number of years, notwithstanding the current rural zoning of the land. These industrial uses include the Sada Services landholding (truck maintenance and depot, coal washery and reject coal emplacement), Camden Soil Mix (truck maintenance and depot, greenwaste and recycling facility), and TRN (truck maintenance and depot) operations.

The Proposal

The Precinct is proposed to be rezoned from a rural primary production zone (RU1) in Camden and Rural Landscape in Campbelltown to general industrial (IN1), Infrastructure (SP2) and Environmental Conservation (E2) zones, as shown in Figure ES.1. A concept plan has been prepared and proposes most of the employment land within the Precinct as a mix of warehouse / logistics and industrial use, with an intermodal facility. The development of the Precinct close to residential areas will provide employment and investment in the local economy. The provision of jobs close to where people live supports the reduction of longer-distance journey to work trips, thereby increasing productivity and reducing environmental impacts. Figure ES.1 Indicative Layout Plan

Source: Geolyse, 2016

accounts

Typewritten Text

AECOM



ii

Traffic Impact Assessment

The objectives of the TIA are to assess the transport impacts of the proposed development scheme and to recommend infrastructure upgrades and other measures to address these impacts. For the purpose of the traffic assessment, it was assumed that Liz Kernohan Drive between Camden Bypass and the western boundary of the Precinct would be completed by 2021, providing direct access to the Precinct. The extension of this road (known as Spring Farm Parkway) connecting to the M31 Hume Motorway and Menangle Road was assumed to be completed by 2031, although an assessment of 2031 traffic conditions without Spring Farm Parkway was also provided.

As there are other significant committed residential developments in Camden and the South West Growth Centre, traffic forecasts on the regional road network were provided by SMEC (on behalf of UrbanGrowth NSW and Camden and Campbelltown City Councils) for the future years of 2021 and 2031. Trips generated by the proposed Precinct development were added to the 2021 and 2031 base model (without the Precinct) with assumptions of proposed regional land use, including the Spring Farm precinct, and network improvements. These forecasts provided the basis for intersection assessments of vehicular traffic impacts from the Precinct development. This modelling approach was agreed with both Camden and Campbelltown City Councils as the model was approved ‘in principle’ by Roads and Maritime Services.

The forecast vehicle trip generation from the Glenlee Precinct is dependent on assumptions of the types of land use and employment densities, which result in varying levels of trip generation.

The expected development trip generation assumptions were:

- A first principles trip generation approach based on employment density assumed at 15 employees per hectare of site area for industrial uses and 10 employees per hectare of site area for warehousing uses.

- Land use breakdown of the total site area: intermodal (34%), warehousing (21%), industrial (41%), concrete plant (1%) and bulk materials (3%).

- A 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to other modes.

The impact of the expected development is discussed in section 6.6 and Appendices B-D.

In discussions with Councils, TfNSW and Roads and Maritime Services, a number of trip generation sensitivity scenarios were also tested in the TIA and are summarised below:

1) Councils’ initial sensitivity test – increased employee density with RMS warehousing trip rate

- The potential 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to other modes was disregarded.

- Adopted a first principles trip generation approach based on employment density assumed at 25 employees per hectare of site area for industrial uses.

- Adopted average Roads and Maritime Services trip rate of approximately 0.5 trips per 100sqm GFA for warehousing

The results of this test are discussed in section 6.7 and Appendix E.

2a) RMS / TfNSW / Councils’ initial worst case sensitivity test – increased employee density with industrial land use only


- Adopted a first principles trip generation approach based on employment density assumed at 25 employees per hectare of site area for industrial uses.

- Land use breakdown was adjusted to include only industrial with no other development, while maintaining acceptable intersection performance.

The results of this test are discussed in section 6.7 and Appendix F.

AECOM



iii

2b) RMS / TfNSW / Councils’ initial worst case sensitivity test – warehousing land use only


- Adopted average Roads and Maritime Services trip rate of approximately 0.5 trips per 100sqm GFA and a 35 per cent site development ratio.

- Land use breakdown was adjusted to include only the land use with the highest trip generation (warehousing) with no other development, while maintaining acceptable intersection performance. Based on this, the scenario intersection modelling suggested a trip volume equivalent to a warehousing GFA cap of 166,000sqm could be accommodated.

The results of this test are discussed in section 6.7 and Appendix G.

3) RMS / TfNSW revised worst case – warehousing land use only with 85th percentile RMS trip rate


- Adopted 85th percentile Roads and Maritime Services ‘Industrial and Business Park’ trip rate of approximately 0.9 trips per 100sqm GFA. It should be noted that these rates are more reflective of multi-storey, office-style developments with relatively high employee densities. Due to the site filling, it is considered that the site will never be suitable for multi-storey buildings and will only be suitable for industrial buildings.

- The 35 per cent site development ratio has been maintained.

- Land use breakdown was adjusted to include only the land use with the highest trip generation (warehousing) with no other development, while maintaining acceptable intersection performance. Based on this, the scenario intersection modelling suggested a trip volume equivalent to a warehousing GFA cap of 90,000sqm could be accommodated.

The results of this test are discussed in section 6.7 and Appendix H.

Analysis of the performance of key intersections in the vicinity of the site was undertaken to understand the impact of development on the surrounding road network. With the Spring Farm Parkway providing a direct connection to the M31 Hume Motorway, it is anticipated that approximately 70 per cent of the additional Glenlee Precinct traffic would also be directed towards the M31 Hume Motorway. Therefore, the development related traffic would have negligible impacts on Narellan Road and Camden Bypass (north of Liz Kernohan Drive).

Intersection modelling was undertaken for the various trip generation scenarios for 2021 and 2031, with and without the Spring Farm Parkway (2031 only). A summary of the scenario outcomes is provided in Table ES.1. The results indicate:

- There is no requirement for intersection upgrades at the Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road intersection, which operates satisfactorily in all scenarios.

- The proposed northern and eastern access intersections to the Precinct operate satisfactorily as either single lane roundabouts or signal controlled intersections in all scenarios.

- At the Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection, under the expected development scenario, the right turn storage lanes on the eastern approach need extension to avoid overspill of the vehicle queue into the adjacent lanes in 2021 and 2031 without Spring Farm Parkway, and an extension of the right turn storage lane on the southern approach in 2031 with Spring Farm Parkway. Under sensitivity scenarios 1 and 2a, the intersection would require an extension of the right turn storage lanes on the southern and eastern approaches in 2021 and 2031 with and without Spring Farm Parkway. Under sensitivity scenarios 2b and 3, in 2021 and 2031 without Spring Farm Parkway, the intersection would require an additional short through lane on the northern approach and southern departure.

It is noted that the development of Spring Farm Parkway causes significant changes in the traffic patterns in the surrounding road network and therefore the volume and direction of traffic travelling through the intersections.

AECOM



iv

Table ES.1 Summary of scenario intersection testing outcomes

Scenarios 2021 2031 (no SFP) 2031 (with SFP)

Proponent’s expected development (discussed in section 6.6 and Appendices B-D)

Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection: Extension of right turn storage lanes on the eastern approach (as shown in Figure 24)

Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection: Extension of right turn storage lanes on the eastern approach (as shown in Figure 24)

Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection: Extension of right turn storage lanes on the southern and eastern approaches (as shown in Figure 25)

Sensitivity 1: Increased employee density (discussed in section 6.7 and Appendix E)




Sensitivity 2a: All industrial (discussed in section 6.7 and Appendix F)




Sensitivity 2b: All warehousing (discussed in section 6.7 and Appendix G)

Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection: Additional short through lane on the northern approach and southern departure and extension of the right turn storage lanes on the southern and eastern approaches (as shown in Figure 30).



Sensitivity 3: All warehousing with increased trip rate (discussed in section 6.7 and Appendix H)




SFP: Spring Farm Parkway As the access to the Glenlee Precinct from Springs Road is to be closed, minimal impacts on the local roads in the Spring Farm precinct, such as Richardson Road, Springs Road and Macarthur Road, are forecast. There is little change to traffic on local roads as the majority of development traffic is expected to use the strategic and regional road network. From a roadway capacity perspective, Liz Kernohan Drive and the proposed Spring Farm Parkway would adequately cater for both short to medium term (2021) and long-term (2031) traffic.

AECOM



v

Recommendations

The recommendations of this study are reflected in the package of measures developed for the site discussed in Section 7. The integrated package requires implementation of all measures if the objective of increasing public transport use, walking and cycling is to be achieved. The strategic analysis undertaken suggests that a mode shift of between five and 10 per cent could be achieved through the implementation of this integrated package of measures. The implementation of the package will clearly need to occur over a number of years, and will therefore require a sustained commitment from key stakeholders, as well as robust funding and contributions mechanisms. Key measures include:

- A comprehensive accessibility policy to be prepared with a view to increasing levels of pedestrian and cycle movement and a reduction in vehicle usage.

- Transport service improvements, including potential new or extended bus services that are responsive to the development of the Precinct.

- Infrastructure improvements to provide easy pedestrian and cyclist access to Camden, Narellan and possibly Campbelltown, and improved vehicular connectivity, with the connection of Spring Farm Parkway to the M31 Hume Motorway, together with cycle parking and comprehensive directional signage.

Table ES.2 provides a summary of the recommended measures developed and the associated funding arrangements. Table ES.2 Summary of package of measures

Area Measure Details Funded by

Infrastructure Pedestrian / Cyclist Facilities

Create a cohesive pedestrian network within the Glenlee Precinct that provides excellent accessibility to public transport services and surrounding land uses.

Proponents

Provide shared paths of at least 3.0m width on all major local and collector roads.

Proponents

Provide connections from the Precinct to Liz Kernohan Drive and Camden Bypass

Proponents

Bus Provide bus stops on bus routes (6 stops) Proponents

Rail Proposed intermodal facility at Glenlee Proponents

Road Network Provide a new intersection at eastern access with Spring Farm Parkway (only if Spring Farm Parkway is extended to connect with the Hume Motorway)

Proponents

Transport Service

Bus Services Provide bus services between Glenlee and Macarthur Interchange and/or Campbelltown Interchange.

TfNSW

Rail Services Increase frequency of services from Macarthur Interchange

TfNSW

Maximise freight rail services to Glenlee TfNSW

Policy Parking Provide location responsive parking provision rates

Proponents

Pedestrian and Cyclist Make pedestrian and cycle planning issues fundamental priorities

Proponents

Bushfire Management / Emergency Management

Provide a Bushfire management / emergency management plan

Proponents

AECOM



1

1.0 Introduction AECOM was commissioned on behalf of the Glenlee Consortium1 to provide an assessment of the traffic, transport and accessibility impacts associated with the industrial rezoning of the Glenlee Precinct (the Precinct) for employment and related purposes.

1.1 Study area Glenlee is located near Narellan, approximately 50 km south-west of Sydney, within the Camden and Campbelltown Local Government Areas (LGAs). The regional context of the Study Area is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Regional context of Glenlee

Source: Sada Services Pty Ltd, 2008

1 Sada Services, Glenlee Properties Pty Ltd and J & W Tripodi Holdings Pty Ltd

AECOM



2

The location of Glenlee in relation to major local centres and features is as follows:

- 6 km west of Campbelltown

- 3.5 km south of Narellan Town Centre

- 5 km east of Camden Town Centre

- Immediately west of the Hume Motorway and Main Southern Railway

- South-west of Australian Botanic Gardens

- Immediately south-east of the proposed Spring Farm Residential Release Area

- South of Mount Annan residential area

- Adjacent to the Spring Farm Advanced Resource Recovery Park (SFARRP) (formerly Macarthur Resource Recovery Park and originally Jacks Gully Waste and Recycling Centre (WRC))

- North of Menangle Park Residential Release Area

- North and east of the Nepean River and its expansive flood plain.

The Precinct comprises the following holdings and respective ownerships, as shown in Table 1: Table 1: The Site – property descriptions

Owner Property Description Size

Sada Services Lot 38 DP 1098588 71.04 Ha

Lot 1 DP 250033 3,071 m2

Part Lot 1 DP 405624 2,800 m2

J&W Tripodi Holdings Pty Ltd (Camden Soil Mix) Lot 1102 DP 883495 27.16 Ha

Glenlee Properties Pty Ltd (TRN Group) Lot 54 DP 864754 8.836 Ha Source: Planning Proposal – Glenlee Precinct, October 2012

The Precinct has been used for industrial related purposes for a number of decades, notwithstanding the current rural zoning of the land. These industrial uses include the Sada Services landholding (truck maintenance and depot, coal washery and reject coal emplacement), Camden Soil Mix (truck maintenance and depot, greenwaste and recycling facility), and TRN (truck maintenance and depot) operations.

The Local Government boundary between Camden Council and Campbelltown City Council traverses the study area. The Precinct is shown Figure 2.

AECOM



3

Figure 2 Study area

Source: Inspire Urban Design and Planning 2014

1.2 Background In December 2006, Camden Council and Campbelltown City Council resolved to prepare a Local Environmental Study (LES) and Draft Local Environmental Plan (DLEP) for the rezoning of the subject site. A draft LES was submitted to both Councils in February 2009, which included a number of technical support studies listed in Table 2. Table 2 List of technical support studies and consultants

Technical Support Studies Consultant Land Capability AECOM

Ecology Hayes Environmental Services

Noise AECOM

Air Quality/Odour AECOM

Water Cycle Management AECOM

European and Aboriginal Heritage Historyworks and Cultural Heritage Connections

Transport/Traffic/Accessibility AECOM

Landscape and Visual Musecape

Bushfire Eco Logical

Civil Infrastructure/Servicing AECOM

Masterplanning/Urban Design Inspire Urban Design & Planning

Human Service BBC Consulting

AECOM



4

In addition to these studies, a draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and draft Development Control Plan (DCP) were prepared for each Council area, including an Infrastructure Strategy/Section 94 Contributions Plan.

The LES, LEP and DCP were not placed on public exhibition due to a number of issues arising from the technical studies, which required additional information to be provided to Councils. Since then, the key issues pertaining to the development have been progressively resolved to the extent which would satisfy the requirements of the Planning Proposal to gain a Gateway Determination.

On 28 February and 23 April 2013, Campbelltown City Council and Camden Council respectively resolved to provide ‘in principle’ support to the intentions of the Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal received a Gateway Determination on 3 July 2013 to proceed with the rezoning of the Glenlee Precinct subject to various conditions including additional / updated information for a number of specialist technical studies.

These specialist studies were prepared for the rezoning application lodged with the Local Environmental Study in 2008. However, legislation has changed in respect of a number of studies and therefore there is a need for these studies to be reviewed and revised. In addition, the SITA lands no longer form part of the Planning Proposal.

In August 2013, a Preliminary Draft Project Plan was submitted to Councils, including an outline of the various specialist technical study requirements. Camden and Campbelltown City Councils responded with comments addressing these requirements, therefore forming the basis of the sub-consultant’s brief for the various specialist technical studies. AECOM has since responded to confirm required expectations.

An additional meeting was held on 18 December 2013 with Camden and Campbelltown City Councils to confirm the traffic scope and modelling approach for this study.

1.3 Objective of this technical study As part of this project, it is necessary to undertake traffic and transport investigations to assess the existing conditions of accessibility to the Precinct and secondly, to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding road and rail networks, proposed cycle and pedestrian networks, and the public transport network. The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) will support the Planning Proposal to rezone land within the Glenlee Precinct.

The main objectives of the report are to:

- Assess the transport impacts of the development scheme.

- Assess potential impacts on adjoining/adjacent land and develop strategies to manage that conflict.

- Recommend infrastructure upgrades and other measures to address the impacts.

- Develop a package of transport measures to facilitate transport outcomes of increasing public transport use, walking and cycling while maintaining satisfactory levels of performance for vehicles.

- Ensure rail access is optimised.

- Explore regional transport infrastructure levy contribution.

- Ensure that bushfire management/emergency management outcomes are integrated with the traffic/transport/access strategy.

- Identify “need” issues that s94 developer contributions plans must address

A compliance checklist of the objectives for the study is provided in Appendix A.

AECOM



5

1.4 Report framework The remainder of the report has been structured as follows:

- Section 2 reviews the strategic transport planning context of the Precinct.

- Section 3 details the existing conditions of the transport network in the vicinity of the Precinct.

- Section 4 provides the details the future transport context of the Precinct.

- Section 5 provides a summary of the development Concept Plan and access strategy.

- Section 6 provides the traffic impact assessment of the proposed development.

- Section 7 provides the management strategy (package of measures) to alleviate the impacts of the proposed development, with indicative costs for appropriate components of the package.

- Section 8 provides the study conclusions.

AECOM



6

2.0 Strategic planning context

2.1 Introduction The strategic context of the Precinct is governed by three frameworks:

- Regional planning policies

- Local planning policies

- Local transport context.

This section provides an overview of the main aspects of the first two frameworks and their relevance to the Precinct. The local transport context is discussed in Chapter 3.

2.2 Document review Existing studies/literature relevant to the site were reviewed and the following list of documents and policies were used to inform the transport assessment in this report:

- A Plan for Growing Sydney

- NSW Premier’s and State Priorities

- NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan

- South West Subregional planning

- Employment Lands Development Program Report

- Roads and Maritime Services Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002, 2013)

- Camden Local Environmental Plan 2010

- Camden Contribution Plan 2011

- Camden Council Strategic Plan: Camden 2040

- ICampbelltown City Council Local Environmental Plan 2015

- Campbelltown City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2011

- Campbelltown City Council Development Control Plan 2015

- Integrated Transport Strategy – Camden and Campbelltown Councils

- Campbelltown City Local Planning Strategy

- Menangle Park Local Environmental Study and draft Local Environmental Plan (amendment 25)

AECOM



7

2.3 Regional planning context 2.3.1 A Plan for Growing Sydney

A Plan for Growing Sydney is the NSW Government’s guide for land use planning in the 16 years to 2031. Released in December 2014, the Plan’s vision is for Sydney to be a strong global city and a great place to live. Four goals, 22 directions and 59 actions aim to make this vision a reality. The Greater Sydney Commission has been established to oversee the delivery of the plan with a strong focus on monitoring, reporting and public consultation.

A Plan for Growing Sydney also contains a breakdown by subregions. The Glenlee Precinct is located within the South West subregion, which covers the Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Liverpool and Wollondilly LGAs.

For the South West subregion or district, the following relevant metropolitan priorities are provided for this Planning Proposal2:

- Identify suitable locations for housing, employment and urban renewal – particularly around established and new centres and along key public transport corridors including the Cumberland Line, the South Line, the Bankstown Line, the South West Rail Link and the Liverpool-Parramatta T-way

- Continue delivery of the South West Growth Centre through greenfield housing development and the expansion of local employment

- Protect land to serve Sydney’s future transport needs, including intermodal sites and associated corridors

- Identify and protect strategically important industrial-zoned land

- Recognise and strengthen the subregion’s role in Sydney’s manufacturing, construction and wholesale/logistics industries by maximising existing employment lands particularly in Fairfield and Liverpool

- Protect infrastructure of metropolitan significance including freight corridors, intermodal terminals and Sydney’s drinking water supply catchment, key water storages and the Upper Canal.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the above metropolitan priorities and in this regard the following is provided:

1. The Glenlee Precinct has been identified in a number of planning documents for employment lands. The Site is located close to the residential areas of Spring Farm, Mount Annan and Narellan Vale, and the future Menangle Park Urban Release Area. The development of the Glenlee Precinct close to residential areas will provide local jobs and investment in the local economy (refer to Figure 3). The rezoning of the land is consistent with this Strategy and providing such land close to where people live, supports reducing the number of employment trips outside the region, increasing productivity and reducing environmental impacts.

The Site is a ‘brownfield’ site having been used for ‘industrial’ uses for a number of decades, but is currently zoned for rural purposes notwithstanding the current land uses. The Site will promote further employment opportunities when fully developed. Currently, the Site is under-utilised with a majority of the Site used for low-key uses, mainly due to the fact that emplacement of coal reject operation is currently being undertaken. When complete there will be a level platform to enable the land to be developed for industrial-related uses. Infrastructure has been addressed in a number of technical reports.

2. An opportunity exists for start-up businesses to occur on the Site at the same time as the emplacement operations or when the land is ready for development.

3. The Site has an existing rail spur into the Site, which connects to the Main Southern Rail Network. This siding provides for opportunities for freight-related businesses such as intermodal terminals to establish on the Site, once developed for industrial purposes. The presence of the existing siding presents specific site characteristics that could be enhanced to promote freight and logistics-type industries to locate at Glenlee.

2 NSW Department of Planning & Environment, A Plan for Growing Sydney, December 2014

AECOM



8

Figure 3 Glenlee in the context of A Plan for Growth Sydney – Connecting Western Sydney’s population growth to jobs

Source: Figure 13 in A Plan for Growing Sydney, 2014

Glenlee

AECOM



9

2.3.2 NSW Premier’s and State Priorities

The NSW Premier’s and State Priorities (NSW Making it Happen) is the NSW Government’s plan for making NSW a better place to live. Thirty reforms are identified in the plan, categorised under five broader objective areas:

- Strong budget and economy

- Building infrastructure

- Protecting the vulnerable

- Better services

- Safer communities.

Relevant transport and land use priorities for the NSW Government, and for the Glenlee Precinct, include: - Creating jobs

150,000 new jobs by 2019 - Encouraging business investment

Be the leasing Australian state in business confidence - Improving road travel reliability

90% of peak travel on key road routes is on time - Ensure on-time running for public transport

Maintain or improve reliability of public transport services over the next four years - Reducing road fatalities

Reduce road fatalities by at least 30 per cent from 2011 levels by 2021.

2.3.3 NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan

The NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan, issued in December 2012, sets the framework for the NSW Government to deliver an integrated, modern transport system. The Master Plan identifies the challenges that the transport system needs to address to support the State’s economic and social performance over the next 20 years. It also identifies a planned and coordinated set of actions (reforms, service improvements and investments) to address these.

The Master Plan identifies solutions and actions that integrate, modernise, grow and manage the transport system in the short term, medium term and longer term, such as:

- Integrating modes to meet customer needs

- Getting Sydney moving again

- Sustaining growth in Greater Sydney

- Providing essential access for Regional NSW

- Supporting efficient and productive freight.

Actions proposed in the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan that will assist future development at the Glenlee Precinct include:

- The introduction of the Opal integrated electronic ticketing system, which has the potential to improve and increase interchange between bus and rail at Campbelltown Station and Macarthur Station.

- An Interchange Strategy to set the overall direction for improving management of interchanges.

- Modernisation of Greater Sydney’s rail network.

- Better bus services for regional towns and growing regional cities with a focus on more frequent services, wider network coverage and better integration with other modes.

AECOM



10

2.3.4 South West subregion

Subregional planning is an important aspect of the planning and implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney. The metropolitan area is too large and complex to resolve all the planning aims and directions down to a detailed local level through one metropolitan strategy.

The Greater Sydney Commission will work in partnership with local government, local businesses and the community to lead the development of new subregional plans, including for the South West subregion. This will supersede the previous South West Sub-region – Draft Sub-region Strategy, released in 2010.

The South West subregion is proposed to grow by 325,850 people over the next 20 years, at a faster rate compared to Sydney overall3. Priorities for the South West subregion have been included in A Plan for Growing Sydney, as described within Section 2.3.1. The Glenlee Precinct has opportunities to be consistent with these priorities, especially with regard to employment, intermodal and logistics industries. The location of the Glenlee Precinct in the context of the South West subregion is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4: Glenlee in the context of the South West subregion

Source: Extract from Figure 31 in A Plan for Growing Sydney, 2014

3 NSW Department of Planning & Environment, Population household and dwelling projections, 2015

Glenlee

AECOM



11

2.3.5 Employment Lands Development Program Report

The Employment Lands Development Program (ELDP) Report is a comprehensive analysis of the current state of play of industrial land supply and major business parks across Metropolitan Sydney and the Central Coast Region. It provides data on existing and future planned stocks of industrial and business park lands. It offers insights into the current availability of vacant industrial land, where land is already serviced and ready for development, where industrial development is currently taking place and where future land will be provided.

The ELDP report, produced annually, tracks the rate of industrial and business park development over time to assess if there is enough land available, or in the pipeline, to meet likely future demand (supply standards). It is a source of information for Government agencies, utilities and councils involved in the planning and servicing of these lands to ensure supply matches future demand of industry to support the continued economic growth for the region. As shown in Figure 5, the Glenlee Precinct is identified in the ELDP as Proposed Employment Lands. Figure 5: Glenlee in the context of the Employment Lands and Business Parks in the South West subregion (Jan 2015)

Source: Figure 45 in Employment Lands Development Program Report, 2015

Glenlee

AECOM



12

2.3.6 Regional Policies and Strategies

A number of regional policies and strategies have been developed, particularly focussing on the employment and industrial development of the south west sector of Sydney, and the region known as “MACROC” (or Macarthur Regional Organisation of Councils). MACROC comprises Camden, Campbelltown and Wollondilly LGAs (the Macarthur region accommodates approximately 250,000 people).

In this regard, the subject land is located on the fringe of Urban Release Areas and close to employment workforce. Employment opportunities for future residents of these areas are essential to meet the objectives of the above Policies.

2.3.7 Roads and Maritime Services Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002, 2013)

The Roads and Maritime Services of NSW (formerly RTA) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments outlines all aspects of traffic generation considerations relating to developments. The information provided gives background into the likely impacts of traffic from various types of development.

The guide provides a section on various land use traffic generation and a section on interpretation of traffic impacts. The impact on traffic efficiency at intersections is used in this study and intersection performance is based on the level of service criteria for intersections (see Section 6.6).

2.4 Local planning context 2.4.1 Camden Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010

The Camden LEP 2010 shows that the Glenlee Precinct is currently zoned as Primary Production (RU1). The adjacent lands have been used as Waste or Resource management Facility (SP2) or Low Density Residential (R2). This is consistent with the development of the Glenlee Precinct as employment land zone.

2.4.2 Camden Contribution Plan 2011

The Camden Contribution Plan sets out the contribution rates for the anticipated types of development in the area to fund the identified local infrastructure that are being required to address the impacts of the expected development.

The current total contribution rates for residential development (per subdivided lot or dwelling house) are $55,707 in the Spring Farm Development Area and $56,062 in the Elderslie Development Area4.

2.4.3 Camden Council Strategic Plan: Camden 2040

The Camden Strategic Plan portrays a vision of Camden in the year 2040, as adopted at the Council meeting of 14 December 2010. To realise this vision, six key direction areas are established around which strategies and actions are fashioned:

Actively managing Camden’s growth

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the relevant aspects of the Growing Pains – Key Challenges Objectives. The development is consistent with a number of planning documents produced for the site, as detailed in this report. The Planning Proposal will provide job opportunities for residents of the LGA.

Healthy urban and natural environments

The proposal will have a beneficial impact on nearby natural systems. A green corridor will be provided to link to the Spring Farm Bush Corridor and Australian Botanic Gardens and Nepean River.

A prosperous economy

The Planning Proposal is focused upon contributing to a positive prosperous economy by allowing the Site to be developed for industrial development and more employment.

4 Camden Contributions Plan 2011: Contributions Schedule, May 2012

AECOM



13

Effective and sustainable transport

The Site provides opportunities to link to major transport links. There are further opportunities for linkages to the Sydney Rail Network by the connection of Spring Farm Parkway to the Hume Motorway and then to Menangle Road and Macarthur or Menangle Park Railway Stations.

An enriched and connected community

Residents will conversely be linked to employment opportunities close to where they live. This is one of the key objectives of a number of planning documents.

A strong local leadership

Council is providing strong visionary leadership through its policies.

2.4.4 Campbelltown City Council Local Environmental Plan 2015 ̀̀

The subject land (Glenlee) is zoned RU2 Rural Landscape with a 40ha minimum area of subdivision under the provisions ofCampbelltown LEP 2015. In a similar fashion to the Camden Planning Instrument, Campbelltown LEP 2015 is not geared to facilitate industrial development. Indeed industry (apart from rural industries, extractive industries) is expressly precluded. Bulk stores, commercial premises, shops, transport terminals and warehouses, amongst other land uses, are also prohibited under the prevailing zoning.

2.4.5 Campbelltown City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2011

The Campbelltown City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan sets out the contribution rates for the anticipated types of development in the area to fund the identified local infrastructure that are being required to address the impacts of the expected development.

The current Percentage Levy for Section 94A Contributions Plan are:

- 0 per cent: for development, comprising work valued at less than (or equal to) $100,000.

- 0.5 per cent for development, comprising work valued at between $100,001 and $200,000.

- 1 per cent for development, comprising work valued at more than $200,000.

2.4.6 Campbelltown City Council Development Control Plan 2014

Off-street vehicle parking requirements within the Campbelltown City Council LGA are set up in the Campbelltown DCP. The minimum numbers of vehicle parking spaces that are required to be provided for off-street parking in industrial area are set out in Table 3. Table 3 Off-street car parking requirements

Development Type Parking requirements

Industrial: Office areas, lunch rooms and any associated office storage areas

1 space per 35 sqm GFA

Industrial: Other than office areas, lunch rooms and any associated office storage areas

A minimum of 2 spaces per unit, plus 1 space for every 100 sqm GFA for buildings up to 2,000 sqm, plus 1 space for every 250 sqm GFA for that part of the building exceeding 2,000 sqm GFA.

Industrial: Outdoor storage space 1 space per 300 sqm Source: Campbelltown DCP 2014

AECOM



14

2.4.7 Campbelltown and Camden Councils Integrated Transport Strategy (September 2006)

Camden and Campbelltown Councils prepared an Integrated Transport Strategy for the region to integrate transport strategies, land use planning, transport objectives and policies as well as all modes of transport across the region of Camden and Campbelltown.

The main objectives of the Integrated Transport Strategy are:

- To provide improved transport options for residents of Camden and Campbelltown to reduce the dependence on the private motor vehicle; and

- To encourage residents of the region to make more sustainable transport choices.

The strategy will provide a framework to plan, facilitate and implement an integrated transport system for Campbelltown and Camden that is based on the principles of sustainability.

Key recommendations of the Integrated Strategy include:

- Encouraging greater employment within the region through appropriate zoning and promotion;

- Managing the road network to achieve local accessibility objectives balanced against amenity and environmental aims; and

- Defining a regional public transport network to inform regional and local planning, to be linked to development, traffic conditions and community expectations.

The Strategy’s recommendations are in accordance with the goals of the Metropolitan Strategy and should be pursued in order to achieve an effective integrated transport system for the Camden and Campbelltown region. Transport targets within the strategy will provide guidelines for establishing performance targets for Glenlee.

2.4.8 Campbelltown City Local Planning Strategy (March 2013)

The Campbelltown City Local Planning Strategy (LPS) has been developed by Council as a fundamental framework for working with the community in providing for the realisation of a shared strategic vision for the future of the Campbelltown LGA.

The LPS provides the long term strategic planning framework for future development of the City over the next 15-20 years. In setting out such long term planning directions, regard has been given to local opportunities and constraints and State and Regional planning policies/strategies, objectives and targets. Further, the LPS provides the rationale for the statutory planning provisions to be included in a comprehensive Local Environmental Plan

The LPS identifies objectives to inform the framework for sustainable employment lands and centres, which include encouraging a diverse employment base, to protect employment generating capacity and provide diverse opportunities for employment and to capitalise on opportunities provided by future transport and road infrastructure enhancements

The Planning Proposal is consistent with these relevant strategic objectives for local employment opportunities.

2.4.9 Menangle Park LES and draft LEP (amendment 25)

Campbelltown City Council, in conjunction with UrbanGrowth NSW, prepared a Local Environmental Study (LES) in 2010 to investigate the environmental, social and economic opportunities and constraints of Menangle Park Urban Release Area. Following this assessment a preferred development option was identified for the site, comprising approximately 3,400 residential dwellings proposed to be developed over a 15 year timeframe.

Through the study, Spring Farm Parkway is proposed from the Camden bypass to the M31 Hume Motorway and Menangle Road.

AECOM



15

3.0 Existing environment

3.1 Site description The Precinct is located in the South West Sub-region of the Sydney Metropolitan area, as defined by the Metropolitan Strategy 2031. Approximately 6km from Campbelltown Town Centre and 3.5km from Narellan Town Centre, the Precinct is located at the boundary of Camden and Campbelltown LGA. The strategic transport context of Glenlee is shown in Figure 6. Figure 6 Strategic transport context of Glenlee

Source: AECOM 2014

The Precinct access is currently via a private haul road which links to Richardson Road at the intersection with Springs Road. Liz Kernohan Drive, from Camden Bypass to Richardson Road, was completed in August 2014 and an extension to the east to provide access to the Spring Farm development is currently being constructed. There is a plan to further extend Liz Kernohan Drive as the new access road and close the existing haul road to Glenlee. A development application (318/2013) for the new haul road from the site to Liz Kernohan Drive has been lodged with Camden Council and approved. Construction of the extension of Liz Kernohan Drive is expected to commence shortly. The future road network upgrades and its impact on site access are discussed in Section 4.4 and Section 5.2.

AECOM



16

Land uses within the Precinct have been historically occupied by waste emplacement and recycling and industrial uses, although it is currently zoned rural under the current Campbelltown and Camden planning instruments. At present, a large proportion of the traffic generated by the Precinct is observed to be heavy vehicles. A recent survey in 2013 at the entrance/exit of the Precinct at Glenlee Road shows there are approximately 630 heavy vehicle movements per day accessing the Precinct which represents approximately 65 per cent of total traffic generated by the Precinct. The number of vehicle movements is illustrated in Table 4. Table 4 Existing vehicle trip generation

Land Use Vehicle movements (number of vehicles) per average weekday

Light vehicles Heavy vehicles Total

Sada Services 80 (40) 260 (130) 340 (170)

J&W Tripodi Holdings Pty Ltd (Camden Soil Mix) 60 (30) 210 (105) 270 (135)

Glenlee Properties Pty Ltd (TRN Group) 220 (110) 160 (80) 380 (190)

Total 360 (180) 630 (315) 990 (445) Note: Each movement is a one-way movement i.e. a trip into the Precinct is one movement with the trip out a second movement.

Source: Sada Services 2014

3.2 Road network 3.2.1 Hume Motorway (M31)

The M31 Hume Motorway is a national highway running north-south near the western edge of the Campbelltown LGA. The Hume Motorway is the major connector to the rest of Sydney including the M5 and M7 Motorways, Airport and Port Botany and south towards Canberra. The Precinct, located approximately 2.5km west of the motorway, can be currently accessed from the Hume Motorway via the Narellan Road Interchange. The motorway is a six lane carriageway road in the vicinity of this interchange. The Hume Motorway in Menangle carried approximately 42,800 vehicles per day in 2012.

3.2.2 Narellan Road (A9)

Narellan Road is an arterial road running east-west connecting the M31 Hume Motorway (and Campbelltown) to Camden Valley Way and The Northern Road (A9). Located approximately 4km north of the Precinct, Narellan Road is generally a four lane dual carriageway road, although an upgrade is underway to widen it to a six lane divided road, generally three lanes in each direction with a central median. Stage 1 of the upgrade covers 1.6km between the M31 Hume Motorway and the TAFE/Western Sydney University access road, Campbelltown, and is expected to be completed in early 2016, while Stage 2 covers 5.2km from the M31 Hume Motorway to Camden Valley Way and from the TAFE/Western Sydney University access road to Blaxland Road, Campbelltown, and is expected to be completed by mid-2018.

Narellan Road provides access to the residential suburbs of Narellan Vale, Currans Hill, and Mount Annan and the industrial area of Smeaton Grange. Further, it provides a link to the traffic network servicing the nearby rural areas. Narellan Road currently carries approximately 2,500 to 5,500 vehicles per hour between the Hume Motorway and Camden Valley Way during the peak hours. Currently, significant delays can be experienced by traffic at signalised intersections along Narellan Road towards the Hume Motorway and Campbelltown during the morning and afternoon peak hours.

3.2.3 Camden Valley Way

Camden Valley Way is an arterial state road, north of The Northern Road and a regional arterial road south of The Northern Road. Camden Valley Way connects Camden with Liverpool via Elderslie, Narellan Town Centre and Leppington. Camden Valley Way has undergone a staged upgrade to a four-lane road between Oran Park Drive and Bringelly Road over the past few years and is now generally two lanes in each direction with a central median, north of The Northern Road.

During the peak hours, Camden Valley Way currently carries about 1,500 vehicles per hour north of Macarthur Road and between 2,000 and 3,000 vehicles per hour in the vicinity of the Narellan Town Centre.

AECOM



17

3.2.4 Camden Bypass

Camden Bypass is a four-lane dual carriageway arterial road running parallel to Camden Valley Way. It provides access south to Menangle and Picton and north to the M31 Hume Motorway and Campbelltown via the Narellan Road interchange. Camden Bypass, located about 3km northwest of the Precinct, can also be currently accessed via the Macarthur Road Interchange, while a new interchange connecting to Liz Kernohan Drive was completed in August 2014.

Camden Bypass currently carries approximately 1,500 vehicles per hour during the peak hours south of Narellan Road. Based on this traffic flow, there is reserve mid-block capacity on the Camden Bypass for additional traffic.

3.2.5 Liz Kernohan Drive

Located 2km northwest of the Precinct, Liz Kernohan Drive is a four lane collector road between Camden Bypass and Richardson Road, with a posted speed limit of 60km/h. It is planned to extend eastward to provide access to other parts of Spring Farm developments to the western boundary of The Spring Farm Advanced Resource Recovery Park. Construction of this extension is planned to commence shortly.

3.2.6 Richardson Road

Located 2.3km northwest of the Precinct, Richardson Road is a local collector road with one traffic lane and a parking lane in each direction connecting Springs Road with Camden Valley Way. The northern section (north of Welling Drive) currently provides access to residential areas in Narellan and Narellan Vale and has a speed limit of 60km/h; while to the south of Welling Drive, Richardson Road provides controlled access to the Spring Farm Urban Release Area.

Richardson Road is also a designated B-Double route for the short distance between Springs Rd intersection and the entrance to the WSN facility. Richardson Road is not used as a primary heavy vehicle access route to the Precinct. Richardson Road to the south of Camden Valley Way currently carries less than 1,000 vehicles per hour, while it carries approximately 350 vehicles per hour north of Springs Road.

3.2.7 Springs Road

Springs Road is a local collector road of a similar standard to Richardson Road, located 2km west of the Precinct. It is a two-lane road (one lane in each direction) with sealed shoulders and a speed limit of 60km/hr connecting Richardson Road and Macarthur Road. Springs Rd is a designated B-Double route.

Springs Road, being the more direct route to the Camden Bypass via the Macarthur Road Interchange, currently carries nearly all heavy vehicles from/to the Precinct. A development application (319/2013) for Springs Road extension from Richardson Road to Nicholson Parade was approved by Council in November 2013.

AECOM



18

3.3 Rail network 3.3.1 Passenger rail transport

There are currently no rail services in the vicinity of Glenlee in the Camden LGA. The nearest train stations are at Campbelltown and Macarthur, both in the Campbelltown LGA. The Precinct is currently outside the walking and cycling catchment for both stations (typically 800m and 2.5km respectively). The existing passenger rail network is shown in Figure 7. Figure 7 Existing passenger rail network

Source: Sydney Trains, November 2014

The Cumberland, Airport, Inner West and South Railway Lines operate via Ingleburn and Glenfield Stations providing connectivity to key employment areas Sydney CBD, Liverpool, Fairfield, Bankstown and Parramatta. The number of railway services operating during the peak hours is shown in Table 5. Table 5 Railway services to key destinations

Railway Line Key Destinations AM Peak Headway from Campbelltown (7:00-9:00am)

PM Peak Headway to Campbelltown (5:00-7:00pm)

T2 Airport Sydney CBD 9 minutes 8 minutes

Macarthur 15 minutes 13 minutes

T2 Inner West and South Fairfield and Bankstown 20 minutes 30 minutes

T5 Cumberland Parramatta 30 minutes 30 minutes* *Three services

Source: Sydney Trains, February 2014

AECOM



19

3.3.2 Freight rail network

Glenlee is located on the up (north western) side of the Main Southern Railway Line, about 60km from Sydney Central Station (kilometrage 60.085km). The Precinct lies on the ARTC interstate network immediately outside of the RailCorp Metropolitan boundary, defined as kilometrage 57.965km. Figure 8 Track Configuration at Glenlee Colliery Junction

Source: AECOM, 2014

The Glenlee Siding connects with the Up Main South Line at two locations via a facing and a trailing turnout. These two connections provide mainline access in either the Up (towards Sydney) or Down (away from Sydney) directions.

The condition of the existing rail infrastructure at the junction and the operational capacity of the surrounding network have been examined in earlier investigations including:

- Appraisal report on the Glenlee Rail Sidings prepared by Taylor Railtrack (24 March 2004).

- “Review of the Rail Operational Capacities of the Glenlee Sidings” report prepared by TMG International (6 February 2006).

- Results of Speno ultrasonic test of Glenlee siding (dated 3 May 2006).

Excluding the requirement for minor maintenance works (needed to bring the sidings back to Class 2 track condition5), the reports indicate that there are no major constraints to utilising the Precinct as a rail terminal. These reports also confirm that neither the operational capacity nor the condition of the existing infrastructure would prevent the Precinct from becoming fully operational again.

The rail siding has been used as a marshalling yard for 15 freight trains per week since 2009. Each train is approximately 1.2 km long.

5 Class 2 track condition as defined in ARTC standard TDS11 – Standard Classification of Lines (http://extranet.artc.com.au).

AECOM



20

3.4 Bus network Glenlee is not currently served by any bus services. However, the residential and urban areas in the locality including Camden, Narellan, Elderslie, Spring Farm and Mount Annan are served by bus routes (Route 890, 891, 892, 893, 894 and S17) operated by Busabout. The bus routes operating in the vicinity of Glenlee are shown in Figure 9. The majority of bus routes operate between Campbelltown/Camden with other local destinations along Camden Valley Way and Narellan Road. Figure 9 Bus route map in the vicinity of the precinct

Source: Busabout, November 2014

The bus routes in the locality of Glenlee and their weekday service frequencies are summarised in Table 6. Buses generally operate with a frequency of 30/60 minutes during weekends. Apart from bus services operated by Busways, Picton Buslines also operates route 900 between Picton and Narellan Town Centre or Campbelltown Station. Route 900 operates five daily services along Camden Valley Way during the weekdays. Table 6 Existing bus routes and frequencies

Route Description Weekday Service Frequencies

AM Peak PM Peak Off Peak

890 Campbelltown to Harrington Park 25-40 mins 30 mins 30-45 mins

Harrington Park to Campbelltown 30 mins 30 mins 30-45 mins

891 Campbelltown to Mt Annan (South) 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins

Mt Anna (South) to Campbelltown 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins

892 Campbelltown to Narellan Vale 30 mins 30 mins 60 mins

Narellan vale to Campbelltown 30-45 mins 30 mins 60 mins

893 Narellan to Campbelltown via Spring Farm 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins

Campbelltown to Narellan via Spring Farm 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins

AECOM



21

Route Description Weekday Service Frequencies

AM Peak PM Peak Off Peak

894/ 894X

Campbelltown Station to Bridgewater Estate 20-30 mins 30 mins -

Bridgewater Estate to Campbelltown Station 20-30 mins 30 mins -

S17 Narellan Town Centre to Camden 2 services 2 services 4 services

Camden to Narellan Town Centre 2 services 1 service 4 services Source: Busabout November 2014

3.5 Walking and cycling There is limited infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists within the Precinct due to its current land use. Cyclists are permitted to use shoulder facilities along the national highway. Although on-road cycle routes are provided on Narellan Road and Camden Bypass, these routes are classified by RMS as a ‘high difficulty on-road environment’ for the cyclists in Figure 10. Off road shared paths are provided through the Narellan Town Centre as well as the section from Kirkham Park to the Nepean River. The latter section extends south along the Nepean River and finishes at Elizabeth Macarthur Reserve.

Footpaths are generally provided on at least one side of the local road in urban residential areas in Mount Annan, Currans Hill, Narellan Vale and Harrington Park. There are no walking and cycle facilities along the private haul road leading to the Precinct. However, new footpaths are progressively being constructed within the Spring Farm residential area. Figure 10 Existing cycleway facilities

Source: Roads and Maritime Services 2014

AECOM



22

4.0 Future transport context

4.1 Rail network upgrade 4.1.1 Passenger rail network

There is a plan to construct a turnback facility including construction of 1.1 km of new track and a new fourth platform at Macarthur Station as part of the Rail Clearways Program. This could increase capacity for more services to terminate at Macarthur Station during peak and some off-peak periods. There is no committed funding and timing on this project.

Since the Glenlee Precinct is not located within walking distance from any train station, any demand of train trips to/from Glenlee will have to rely on connecting bus services. Therefore, it is not expected that there will be a significant impact on the passenger rail services and the proposal to increase services to/from Macarthur Station would be able to cater for the additional demand for passenger rail services generated by the Precinct.

4.1.2 Freight rail network

The Southern Sydney Freight Line (SSFL) was completed in January 2013. SSFL is a dedicated freight line between Macarthur and Sefton in southern Sydney. The SSFL provides a third track in the rail corridor specifically for freight services, increasing the effectiveness and competitiveness of rail freight. Therefore, there will be capacity, especially outside peak passenger train hours to cater for additional freight services to/from the Glenlee Precinct into metropolitan Sydney. As Glenlee is outside the Sydney metropolitan area, there should be fewer restrictions for any freight trains travelling south.

4.2 Bus services upgrade When the Spring Farm residential area is developed, new bus services are proposed to be implemented in the area as shown in Figure 11. These new bus routes could be extended to operate along Liz Kernohan Drive to the Glenlee Precinct. If the planned bus only link to Mount Annan does not proceed, buses could still operate to Glenlee Precinct and back to Richardson Road via Liz Kernohan Drive.

When Spring Farm Parkway is completed, some services could operate directly to Menangle Park and Macarthur Station via the new link road. Figure 11 Spring Farm indicative bus route

Source: Camden DCP 2011

AECOM



23

NSW Government has a long term plan to introduce Rapid bus routes and Suburban bus routes to connect major centres for jobs, shopping and services. The “Sydney’s Bus Future” highlights the following transport improvements that would benefit the Camden / Campbelltown area (as shown in Figure 12):

- Implementation of Rapid bus route linking South West Growth Centre to Campbelltown via Narellan.

- Implementation of Suburban bus route connecting Liverpool and Camden via South West Growth Centre.

As the South West Growth Centre has capacity for around 110,000 new dwellings, these new suburban and other local bus routes could provide a link for people living in the area to Glenlee Precinct.

Figure 12 Future rapid bus routes and major suburban bus routes

Source: Sydney’s Bus Future, TfNSW 2013

AECOM



24

4.3 Walking and cycling network upgrade 4.3.1 Regional walking and cycling network upgrades

The development of the Macarthur Regional Recreation Trail in The Australian Botanic Garden is underway following Council’s success in securing funding from the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure in December 2013. The Trail is a 3.5m wide recreation and cycle path planned from Macarthur Station through the UWS Campbelltown site, Mount Annan Botanic Gardens, Menangle Park and Spring Farm release areas to Camden. The Trail will improve linkages between existing communities as well as providing an attractive future mode of active transport between Camden and Macarthur / Campbelltown. This is illustrated in Figure 13. Other parts of the trail are still unfunded. Figure 13 Macarthur Regional Recreation Trail Cycleway traversing the study area

Source: Clouston associates, 2010

The Macarthur Regional Recreational Trail provides the following new connections:

- Macarthur Rail Station to University of Western Sydney Campus.

- Macarthur Rail Station to Mount Annan Botanic Gardens.

- Macarthur Rail Station to the Nepean River.

- Future connection from University of Western Sydney Campus to Campbelltown Rail Station.

- Macarthur Square and Macarthur Rail Station to the suburbs of Macarthur Gardens, Mount Annan, Garden Gates and the future Spring Farm and beyond.

- Proposed new playing fields at Spring Farm to the playing fields at University of Western Sydney Campus.

- New links that form a regional connection between Campbelltown’s Cycleway and Camden’s cycleways.

Australian Botanic Garden

Glenlee Precinct

AECOM



25

4.3.2 Local walking and cycling network upgrades

Camden DCP 2011 includes a future pedestrian and cycle path network planned to be constructed in the Spring Farm area, shown in Figure 14. The proposed cycle network in Spring Farm will provide a link to the neighbouring town centres and could potentially further extend into the Precinct. Figure 14 Spring Farm indicative pedestrian and cycle path network

Source: Camden DCP 2011

4.4 Road network upgrade 4.4.1 Liz Kernohan Drive / Spring Farm Parkway

Camden DCP 2011 indicates that a 35 metre road reserve has been set aside for the construction of the link road6 between the Camden Bypass and Menangle Road with a connection to the M31 Hume Motorway. At present, Liz Kernohan Drive and part of Spring Farm Parkway have been committed and are shown in Figure 15.

The section of Liz Kernohan Drive between Camden Bypass and the eastern boundary of Spring Farm Urban Release Area (western boundary of Glenlee and The Spring Farm Advanced Resource Recovery Park) is being progressively constructed from the Camden Bypass towards the east as the Spring Farm development progresses. This section is shown by dark blue dotted lines in Figure 15. The section between Camden Bypass and Richardson Road was completed in August 2014. The extension to the east to provide access to the Spring Farm development is currently being constructed with construction of the extension to the western boundary of the SFARRP planned to commence shortly.

6 The new link road between Camden Bypass and Richardson Road is called Liz Kernohan Drive in Council’s roadwork drawings at Camden Bypass intersection. For the eastern section of the new link road, it is named as Spring Farm Parkway in Menangle Park Urban Release Area reports.

AECOM



26

Figure 15 Committed Liz Kernohan Drive upgrade

Source: AECOM, 2014

As Liz Kernohan Drive will serve heavy vehicles to the Glenlee Precinct and the SFARRP, the Camden DCP7 proposes noise attenuation measures (acoustic barriers or architectural treatments) for the residential properties adjacent to Liz Kernohan Drive.

The section of Spring Farm Parkway between Menangle Park Collector Road and Menangle Road (except the bridge over the M31 Hume Motorway) and the ramps to the M31 Motorway are committed by UrbanGrowth NSW as part of their delivery to provide infrastructure for Menangle Park Release Area.

The remaining sections of Spring Farm Parkway (between Glenlee and Menangle Park Collector Road) and the bridge over the M31 Hume Motorway are currently unfunded. Therefore, further discussions are required between all stakeholders to determine funding of the missing sections of Spring Farm Parkway.

7 Camden Council, Development Control Plan 2011, Section C7.2

AECOM



27

5.0 The proposal

5.1 Concept Plan The zoning request is in accordance with the proposed zoning map shown in Figure 16, which highlights General Industrial (Zone IN1), Infrastructure (Zone SP2) and Environmental Conservation (Zone E2) zones. An indicative concept plan for the Precinct is shown in Figure 17. The proposed zones and stated objectives are as follows:

Zone IN1 General Industrial

Objectives of zone:

- To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

- To encourage employment opportunities.

- To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

- To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

- To enable other land uses that provides facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area.

- To enable non-industrial land uses that are compatible with and do not detract from the surrounding industrial and warehouse land uses.

Zone SP2 Infrastructure

Objectives of zone:

- To provide for infrastructure and related uses.

- To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure.

Zone E2 Environmental Conservation

Objectives of zone:

- To protect, manage and restore areas with special ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

- To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.

- To provide for land uses compatible with the high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values of this zone.

The proposed development in the Precinct is proposed to comprise the following mix of uses (with indicative percentage of total land use by area in brackets):

- Industrial uses (41%)

- Intermodal facilities (34%)

- Warehouses (associated with intermodal terminal operation) (21%)

- Bulk terminal (3%)

- Concrete batch plant (1%).

Large areas of the site are not developable due to the presence of the creek and associated floodplains, steepness of ground and the batters from the rail line.

- To foster the protection, enhancement and creation of natural systems corridors.

AECOM



28

Figure 16 Proposed zoning plan


AECOM



29

Figure 17 Indicative Layout Plan


AECOM



30

5.2 Access strategy It is expected that staged access will be available to the Precinct from Liz Kernohan Drive and Spring Farm Parkway, as it is progressively implemented.

The proposed Spring Farm Parkway between Liz Kernohan Drive and Menangle Road with a connection to the M31 Hume Motorway is shown in Figure 18. Figure 18 Staging for Liz Kernohan Drive and Spring Farm Parkway

Source: AECOM, 2014

The access options during the various timeframes of the proposed Glenlee redevelopment are discussed below. It should be noted that Richardson Road (north of Liz Kernohan Drive) is only identified as an access route for light vehicles and all heavy vehicles will either use Liz Kernohan Drive, Springs Road, Richardson Road (south of Liz Kernohan Drive) and Camden Bypass to access the external road network.

5.2.1 Short to medium term (2016-2021)

In the short to medium term, the existing private haul road to Glenlee and the private access road to the SFARRP will be closed due to future Spring Farm development to the east and the extension of Springs Road, which was approved by Council in November 2013. The developers of Spring Farm are required to extend Liz Kernohan Drive to provide access to the Glenlee Precinct (along the eastern boundary of the SFARRP) before both private access roads can be closed and the construction of Springs Road extension can be started. It is anticipated that this section of Liz Kernohan Drive will be completed before the Glenlee Precinct would be developed.

Access to the northern precincts of Glenlee will be provided via the Liz Kernohan Drive extension. A public transport (bus only) corridor between Spring Farm and South Mount Annan is also proposed via the intersection

AECOM



31

at the western end of the proposed Liz Kernohan Drive extension. Any light and heavy vehicle trips between Spring Farm and Mount Annan will not be able to ‘rat-run’ through this intersection.

It is expected that the majority of the heavy vehicle trips will be heading towards the Hume Motorway (via Liz Kernohan Drive, Camden Bypass and Narellan Road) for any local and regional destinations. Some local car trips will use Camden Bypass or Camden Valley Way. The access route is shown in Figure 19. Figure 19 Short to medium term access route (after Liz Kernohan Drive constructed)

Source: AECOM 2014

5.2.2 Long term (2031)

The long-term access strategy of Glenlee assumes the construction of Spring Farm Parkway to the M31 Hume Motorway and Menangle Road.

Traffic to/from Glenlee would access the M31 Hume Motorway via Spring Farm Parkway and the new interchange with the freeway. This would reduce the amount of traffic on Narellan Road, which is already congested. Small amounts of heavy vehicle traffic heading towards Camden Valley Way would continue using Liz Kernohan Drive.

With Spring Farm Parkway completed, an additional access would be provided to the eastern side of Glenlee, as shown in Figure 20.

If the section of Spring Farm Parkway between Liz Kernohan Drive and the M31 Hume Motorway does not proceed, the access strategy for Glenlee will be the same as the medium term access strategy.

AECOM



32

Figure 20 Long term access route (after Spring Farm Parkway constructed)

Source: AECOM 2014

AECOM



33

6.0 Traffic impact assessment

6.1 Introduction The objectives of the traffic impact assessment (TIA) are to:

- Assess the transport impacts of the development scheme.

- Recommend infrastructure upgrades and other measures to address these impacts.

The TIA was conducted in two stages:

- The first stage considered the impacts of the Precinct with the assistance of SMEC’s TransCAD model in 2021 and 2031 (February 2014 and October 2014 versions). This strategic modelling was developed for UrbanGrowth NSW and Campbelltown City Council for the Menangle Park Urban Release Area (MPURA) project. Trips generated by the proposed Precinct development were added to the 2021 and 2031 base model (without the Precinct) with assumptions of proposed regional land use, including the Spring Farm precinct, and network improvements. This modelling approach was agreed with both Camden and Campbelltown Councils as the model has been approved ‘in principle’ by Roads and Maritime.

- The second stage assessed the traffic impacts at key intersections in the vicinity of Glenlee, including accesses to the Precinct, using SIDRA and the traffic flows extracted from the TransCAD model.

6.2 Trip generation For the purposes of this study, traffic generation rates for different land uses were employed based on the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (Roads and Maritime, 2002/2013) and those derived from first principles were estimated using employment numbers and the amount of freight to be transported. The trip generation from first principles were also verified against similar projects / land uses in Sydney.

6.2.1 Employment

The indicative Concept Plan suggests that most of the employment land within the Precinct will be a mix of warehouse / logistics and industrial use, with an intermodal facility.

Daily and hourly light vehicles generated by the employment lands are derived based on potential employment numbers and their shift hours which were provided by Sada. As the majority of staff would be day shift workers, employment-related light vehicle trips are assumed to be 90 per cent inbound and 10 per cent outbound of the Precinct in the AM peak and 10 per cent inbound and 90 per cent outbound of the Precinct in the PM peak.

The bulk material, warehouses and intermodal facility of the proposed concept plan are forecast to generate significant heavy vehicle volumes. The Roads and Maritime guide does not provide specific heavy vehicle generation rates for most of the proposed heavy industrial uses in the Precinct. Therefore, heavy vehicle generation rates for these specific uses have been estimated according to the amount of goods/materials expected to be transported to and from the proposed development. This method provides a more realistic approach as these uses have a specific profile of heavy vehicle generation pattern. Such a methodology was also adopted in the approved Enfield intermodal terminal and Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance (SIMTA)’s intermodal terminal in Moorebank. As the truck movements are related to the transportation of goods/materials, it is expected the trucks will not remain in the Precinct for an extended period, i.e. they will arrive to load/unload their goods and exit the Precinct shortly after. Hence, the distribution of heavy vehicles was assumed to be 50 per cent in and 50 per cent out for all time periods.

Train movements will also be generated by the intermodal and bulk material uses of the Precinct. Sada has estimated the number of train movements that will be operating to and from Glenlee based on the amount of goods/materials throughput expected to be delivered to the Precinct. Re-opening the rail terminal will assist in the transfer of freight traffic from road to rail, thereby reducing the volume of heavy vehicles on the road network.

AECOM



34

6.2.2 Mode Split Targets

Performance targets may include an indicator of service delivery, local accessibility, mode shifts and competitiveness of public transport. The most commonly used performance measures are mode split targets for journeys to work trips because these targets can be monitored through census data.

As suggested by the Campbelltown and Camden Integrated Transport Strategy, one of the proposed performance targets is to achieve a 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to non-car modes for journey to work travel (from Census data) over a 10 year period.

Existing mode split proportions are a fair indication of the likely travel characteristics if a community were developed with no additional transport infrastructure. At the time of the 2011 Census, Camden had a mode split of approximately 94 per cent car travel and 6 per cent public transport and other modes for journey to work trips, based on place of work in Camden.

While it may not be possible to achieve a modal split characteristic of the middle and some outer precincts of Sydney, because of the characteristics of the locality, it should be possible to achieve a mode shift of between 5 per cent and 10 per cent away from private car use in the locality of the South West Growth Centre.

It is therefore recommended that a target mode shift of between 5 per cent and 10 per cent be pursued for journey to work trips (during peak hours) to provide similar levels of accessibility in Glenlee as proposed in the planning of other suburbs in South Campbelltown/Camden.

To encourage mode shifts away from private vehicle trips, performance targets in the following areas will need to be identified and implemented during the planning and development of Glenlee to achieve the target mode shift:

- Road network

- Public transport

- Shuttle bus services

- Walking and cycling.

The development of the Precinct close to residential areas will provide employment and investment in the local economy. The provision of jobs close to where people live supports the reduction of longer-distance journey to work trips, thereby increasing productivity and reducing environmental impacts.

6.2.3 Summary

The total daily trip generation for the Precinct, including a potential 10 per cent reduction of private vehicle car use, is summarised in Table 7. The rationale and calculations used to determine the trips generated by the Precinct development are provided in Appendix B. Table 7 Summary of daily trip generation

Land use Daily Vehicle Trip Generations Daily Train

Movements Light Vehicles

Heavy Vehicles Total

Intermodal with related warehouse / logistics 1,229 970 2,200 6

Industrial 1,302 109 1,411 0

Concrete plant 32 104 136 0

Bulk materials 115 313 428 4

Total 2,678 1,496 4,174 10 Source: AECOM 2014

Based on the trip generation methodology described in the above sections and in Appendix B, the proposed activities in the Precinct will generate approximately 2,700 light vehicle trips, 1,500 heavy vehicle trips and 10 train movements per day.

AECOM



35

The profile of light and heavy vehicle generation throughout each hour of the day was estimated for all land uses within the Precinct. The individual profile for each land use and the total profile are summarised in Appendix B. The light and heavy vehicle generation during the AM and PM peak hours are provided in Table 8.

Table 8 Summary of peak hour trip generation

Land use

AM Peak Vehicle Trip Generation

PM Peak Vehicle Trip Generation

Light Vehicles

Heavy Vehicles Total Light

Vehicles Heavy

Vehicles Total

Intermodal with related warehouse / logistics 170 79 249 121 35 156

Industrial 143 7 150 102 5 107

Concrete plant 0 14 14 5 2 7

Bulk materials 0 29 29 19 12 31

Total 313 129 442 247 54 301 Source: AECOM 2014

Note: The factor applied for TransCAD 7-9am to one AM peak hour is 0.52. The factor applied for TransCAD 3-6pm to one PM peak hour is 0.33.

Table 8 shows that the Precinct generates approximately 300 to 450 vehicles per peak hour. However, there is a lower proportion of heavy vehicles during the afternoon peak due to the operating hours of the truck industry.

6.3 Strategic modelling SMEC was commissioned by Sada, with UrbanGrowth NSW’s permission, to prepare an update of the MPURA model to incorporate the latest trip generation for Glenlee as described in Section 6.2. The models incorporating committed development in Camden and the South West Sector were used to assist in this assessment.

The existing TransCAD base model was calibrated against the 2012 land use, road network and traffic demands present in February / March 2012.

6.3.1 Modelling scenarios

The 2021 and 2031 TransCAD models were provided and traffic flows were extracted from these models to assess the impacts of the additional Precinct traffic generated. Traffic for the morning and evening peak period models (for the base case and development case scenarios) is reported in hourly traffic volumes and these are presented in Appendix C for reference.

The TransCAD model comprises two discrete models covering the following peak periods:

- Morning Peak: 0700-0900

- Evening Peak: 1500-1800

The 2021 TransCAD model assumes the completion of the eastern section of Liz Kernohan Drive between Richardson Road and the western boundary of Glenlee.

Two scenarios have been run in the 2031 TransCAD model, with and without the extension of Spring Farm Parkway connecting with Hume Motorway and Menangle Road.

AECOM



36

6.4 Traffic distribution and assignment The distribution of the Precinct trips to the network in the TransCAD model was based on the original light and commercial vehicle trip patterns developed for the travel zone TZ1303A (MPURA industrial precinct) in the original MPURA model. The existing 2011 Journey to Work patterns observed in adjacent Camden employment zones have also been considered.

There would be two access points to the Precinct via Liz Kernohan Drive and Spring Farm Parkway in 2031. The development traffic turning volumes extracted from the strategic model have been redistributed based on the proposed internal road network for intersection analysis.

The development traffic from the western section of Spring Farm Parkway is assumed to be 50 per cent via the northern access and 50 per cent via the eastern access. For the 2031 scenario with Spring Farm Parkway, the distribution of traffic to access via the northern access and eastern access from Hume Motorway is assumed to be 10 per cent and 90 per cent respectively. Figure 21 Trip Assignment for Northern and Eastern Accesses

Source: AECOM 2014

AECOM



37

6.5 Traffic forecasts 6.5.1 Forecast 2021 and 2031 base case without development traffic

A summary of base case (without the Precinct) mid-block total traffic flows in the vicinity of the Precinct is provided in Table 9. Table 9 Forecast base case (no development) peak hour traffic flows (two-way)

Location

Without Spring Farm Parkway Eastern

Section

Without Spring Farm Parkway Eastern

Section

With Spring Farm Parkway Eastern

Section 2021 AM 2021 PM 2031 AM 2031 PM 2031 AM 2031 PM

Richardson Road north of Welling Drive 300 300 340 290 340 290

Narellan Road west of Hartley Road 4,860 4,590 7,070 6,610 5,890 5,430

Camden Bypass south of Narellan Road 3,020 2,790 3,290 3,080 2,320 1,950

Camden Bypass south of Liz Kernohan Drive 2,590 2,510 2,840 2,650 2,580 2,340

Liz Kernohan Drive east of Camden Bypass 1,070 800 1,080 960 1,590 1,400

Liz Kernohan Drive east of Richardson Road 550 510 610 590 1,460 1,440

Spring Farm Parkway west of Hume Motorway - - - - 2,960 2,960

Source: SMEC TransCAD model outputs, 2014

Based on the TransCAD forecasts, it is evident that traffic flows at Narellan Road and Camden Bypass (south of Narellan Road) will be reduced due to the connection of Liz Kernohan Drive and Spring Farm Parkway to Hume Motorway in 2031. Background through traffic and some of the traffic generated from the residential lots in Spring Farm will access the M31 Hume Motorway via the new Spring Farm Parkway connection.

6.5.2 Forecast 2021 case with development traffic

The 2021 (with development) peak hour traffic flows are shown in Table 10. Once development traffic is added to the TransCAD model, traffic travel patterns change slightly as both base and development vehicles seek out the shortest travel times from their origins to their destinations. Therefore, the difference between ‘with development’ traffic flows and the ‘base’ traffic flows will not be exactly equal to the development traffic generated. Table 10 Forecast 2021 (with development) peak hour traffic flows (two-way)

Location 2021 AM 2021 PM

Base With Development

% increase Base With

Development %

increase Richardson Road north of Welling Drive 300 300 0% 300 290 -3%

Narellan Road west of Hartley Road 4,860 5,120 5% 4,590 4,740 3%

Camden Bypass south of Narellan Road 3,020 3,320 10% 2,790 2,950 6%

Camden Bypass south of Liz Kernohan Drive 2,590 2,730 5% 2,510 2,590 3%

Liz Kernohan Drive east of Camden Bypass 1,070 1,460 36% 800 1,050 31%

AECOM



38




Development %

increase Liz Kernohan Drive east of Richardson Road 550 970 76% 510 790 55%

Spring Farm Parkway west of Hume Motorway - - - - - -


According to the 2021 TransCAD modelling results, the additional trips generated by the proposed Glenlee development will generally use Liz Kernohan Drive, Camden Bypass and Narellan Road to access Hume Motorway and other local roads prior to the connection of Spring Farm Parkway to the M31 Hume Motorway. As the access to Glenlee from Springs Road is to be closed, it is expected that there will be minimal impacts on the local streets in Spring Farm precinct such as Richardson Road, Springs Road and Macarthur Road. There is little change to traffic on local roads as the majority of development traffic is expected to use the strategic and regional road network.

The four-lane Camden Bypass and the four-lane Liz Kernohan Drive, between Camden Bypass and Richardson Road, will have enough capacity to cater for the additional trips generated by the proposed Glenlee Precinct development during peak hours.

Traffic flows on Liz Kernohan Drive, between Richardson Road and the Glenlee northern access, will increase to 500 vehicles per hour in the peak traffic direction during the AM peak hour. This indicates that, even without the Spring Farm Parkway extension to the Hume Motorway, Liz Kernohan Drive still operates with some reserve capacity in 2021 as a two-lane road with the full Glenlee Precinct development.

6.5.3 Forecast 2031 case with development traffic (without Spring Farm Parkway extension)

The 2031 (with development) peak hour traffic flows for the scenario without Spring Farm Parkway extension are shown in Table 11. Again, once development traffic is added to the TransCAD model, traffic travel patterns change slightly as both base and development vehicles seek out the shortest travel times from their origins to their destinations. Therefore, the difference between ‘with development’ traffic flows and the ‘base’ traffic flows will not be exactly equal to the development traffic generated. Table 11 Forecast 2031 (with development) peak hour traffic flows (two-ways) – without Spring Farm Parkway extension




Development %

increase Richardson Road north of Welling Drive 340 340 0% 290 300 3%




Liz Kernohan Drive east of Camden Bypass 1,080 1,480 37% 960 1,230 28%

Liz Kernohan Drive east of Richardson Road 610 1,010 66% 590 870 47%

Spring Farm Parkway west of Hume Motorway - - - - - -


AECOM



39

Without the extension of Spring Farm Parkway to Hume Motorway, the access strategy remains the same as in 2021. Based on the forecast traffic volumes, Camden Bypass and Richardson Road will still operate satisfactorily with the increase in background traffic in 2031.

With the full Glenlee development in 2031, Camden Bypass and Liz Kernohan Drive will still operate with some reserve capacity, even without the Spring Farm Parkway extension to the Hume Motorway. As the access to the Glenlee Precinct from Springs Road is to be closed, minimal impacts on the local streets in the Spring Farm precinct, such as Richardson Road, Springs Road and Macarthur Road, are forecast. Most of the development traffic is expected to use Liz Kernohan Drive and Camden Bypass.

6.5.4 Forecast 2031 case with development traffic (with Spring Farm Parkway extension)

The 2031 (with development) peak hour traffic flows for the scenario with Spring Farm Parkway extension are shown in Table 12. The traffic travel patterns change as a result of the new road network link and the addition of the development traffic, as vehicles seek out the shortest travel times from their origins to their destinations. Therefore, the difference between ‘with development’ traffic flows and the ‘base’ traffic flows will not be exactly equal to the development traffic generated, as background traffic is redistributed. Table 12 Forecast 2031 (with development) peak hour traffic flows (two-ways) – with Spring Farm Parkway extension




Development %

increase Richardson Road north of Welling Drive 340 340 0% 290 290 0%




Liz Kernohan Drive east of Camden Bypass 1,590 1,670 5% 1,400 1,460 4%

Liz Kernohan Drive east of Richardson Road 1,460 1,540 5% 1,440 1,500 4%

Spring Farm Parkway west of Hume Motorway 2,960 3,030 2% 2,960 3,070 4%


With Spring Farm Parkway providing a direct connection to the M31 Hume Motorway, the development-related traffic will have a negligible impact on Narellan Road and Camden Bypass (north of Liz Kernohan Drive).

The impacts on Richardson Road will be similar to that in 2031 without Spring Farm Parkway extension, which is expected to be minimal. It is anticipated that approximately 70 per cent of the additional Glenlee Precinct traffic would also be directed towards the M31 Hume Motorway. The forecast traffic on Spring Farm Parkway suggests that the road west of Menangle Park would still be able to operate satisfactorily as a two-lane road. The section of Spring Farm Parkway in Menangle Park linking to the Hume Motorway is planned to be a four-lane road which will operate satisfactorily.

In summary, the proposed Precinct development should have minimal impact on Richardson Road, Springs Road and Macarthur Road. The four-lane Camden Bypass will have spare capacity to cater for the development traffic under all scenarios. Its impact on Narellan Road will be minimised with the extension of the Spring Farm Parkway to the M31 Hume Motorway.

AECOM



40

6.6 Intersection assessment Intersection performances have been evaluated using SIDRA Intersection 6, a computer based modelling package designed for calculating isolated intersection performance.

The main performance indicators for SIDRA 6 include:

- Degree of Saturation (DoS) – a measure of the ratio between traffic volumes and capacity of the intersection is used to measure the performance of isolated intersections. As DoS approaches 1.0, both queue length and delays increase. Satisfactory operation usually occurs with a DoS of less than 0.9.

- Average Delay – duration, in seconds, of the average vehicle waiting at an intersection which corresponds to the Level of Service (LoS) – a measure of the overall performance of the intersection (this is explained further in Table 13.

Table 13 Level of Service criteria for intersections

Level of Service

Average Delay (sec/veh) Traffic Signals and Roundabouts Give Way and Stop Signs

A Less than 14 Good operation Good Operation

B 15 to 28 Good with acceptable delays and spare capacity

Acceptable delays and spare capacity

C 29 to 42 Satisfactory Satisfactory, but accident study required

D 43 to 56 Operating near capacity Near capacity and accident study required

E 57 to 70 At capacity; at signals incidents will cause excessive delays

At capacity; requires other control mode

F >70 Roundabouts require other control mode At capacity; requires other control mode

Source: Roads and Maritime Services, 2002

The key intersections have been modelled in SIDRA during AM and PM peak periods in 2021 and 2031 (see Figure 22).

In consultation with Camden and Campbelltown Councils, it was agreed that analysis was not required for the intersections on Spring Farm Parkway between the Menangle Park collector road and Menangle Road, including the on ramp and off ramp to and from Hume Motorway. This was due to the revised trip generation from the Precinct having fewer trips travelling to the Spring Farm Parkway when compared to the previous models completed by SMEC in 2013.

The estimated overall traffic volumes on this section of Spring Farm Parkway in these two models are very similar. A separate study including preparation of a micro-simulation model has been undertaken to quantify the requirements of these eastern intersections to the satisfaction of Roads and Maritime, UrbanGrowth NSW and Camden and Campbelltown Councils.

The key intersections (with their intersection control) modelled to assess the traffic impacts are listed in Table 14. Table 14 Intersections and their control types

Key Intersection Intersection Control Type

Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass Signals

Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road Roundabout

Spring Farm Parkway / Glenlee Precinct northern access Signals (also modelled as roundabout)

Spring Farm Parkway / Glenlee Precinct eastern access Signals (also modelled as roundabout)

AECOM



41

Figure 22 Key intersections modelled

The modelled traffic volumes at both Glenlee northern and eastern access have been checked against the ‘warrants’ for traffic signals defined in the Roads and Maritime Traffic Signal Design Guide, Section 2 – Warrants. It indicates that signals are not warranted at these two intersections in both development scenarios (2021 and 2031). However, Campbelltown City Council has indicated that the access intersections should be modelled as signals. This is to minimise any future cost and disruption to the community if the intersections needed to be upgraded to signals, as Spring Farm Parkway is planned to be a major arterial route. Therefore, these two intersections were modelled as signal controlled intersections.

The detailed SIDRA results of these intersections are contained in Appendix D.

Table 15 summarises the performance of all intersection assessed for the following scenarios:

- 2021 AM and PM with development traffic

- 2031 AM and PM with development traffic

- 2031 AM and PM with development traffic (with Spring Farm Parkway extension)

AECOM



42

Table 15 Intersection performance - 2021 / 2031 (with Glenlee development scenario)

Intersection Int Type Scenario Demand Flow (veh/h)

DoS 95th Queue (m)

Avg Delay (sec)*

LoS*

Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass++

Signals 2021 AM 3,992 0.87 320 44.6 C

2021 PM 3,484 0.81 242 29.5 C

2031 AM without SFP extension 4,241 0.89 327 39.1 C

2031 PM without SFP extension 3,825 0.93 373 41.3 C

2031 AM with SFP extension 3,588 0.81 204 31.7 C

2031 PM with SFP extension 3,115 0.80 161 31.3 C

Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road

Roundabout 2021 AM 1,769 0.62 30 13.6 A

2021 PM 1,351 0.27 8 10.9 A

2031 AM without SFP extension 1,802 0.58 26 13.3 A

2031 PM without SFP extension 1,544 0.33 10 11.2 A

2031 AM with SFP extension 2,235 0.66 35 14.1 A

2031 PM with SFP extension 1,985 0.37 14 11.7 A

Spring Farm Parkway/ Glenlee northern access

Signals 2021 AM 445 0.32 57 19.1 B

2021 PM 306 0.21 31 16.4 B

2031 AM without SFP extension 445 0.32 57 19.1 B

2031 PM without SFP extension 306 0.21 31 16.4 B


2031 PM with SFP extension 1,774 0.40 102 13.7 A

Spring Farm Parkway/ Glenlee eastern access

Signals 2021 AM - - - - -

2021 PM - - - - -

2031 AM without SFP extension - - - - -

2031 PM without SFP extension - - - - -


2031 PM with SFP extension 1,910 0.43 104 14.8 B

*For roundabout and priority control intersection, the critical movement for level of service assessment should be that with the worst movement delay. ** SFP: Spring Farm Parkway ++ The results for Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection represent the performance of the intersection after modification of the intersection layout.

AECOM



43

6.6.1 Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass

The current layout of the intersection of Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass is shown in Figure 23. This intersection was completed in August 2014. Although SIDRA analysis indicates that the current layout is capable of accommodating the additional Precinct development traffic, the vehicle queues for the right turning movements on the southern and eastern approaches have exceeded the length of the right turn storage lanes and long queues are observed for these movements.

Hence, the right turn storage lanes could be extended as follows to avoid overspill of the vehicle queue to the adjacent lanes and to improve the Level of Service (LoS) for the movement:

Eastern approach: from 100m to 160m for all scenarios

Southern approach: from 90m to 240m – extension of right turn lane will be required for 2031 scenarios with Spring Farm Parkway extension. Therefore, it can be inferred that the demand is driven by traffic travelling past the Precinct on Spring Farm Parkway to the M31 Hume Motorway.

With the proposed modification to the intersection layout shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25, the intersection will operate satisfactorily at LoS C during the AM and PM peak hours in 2021 and 2031 as shown in Table 15, with DoS of 0.80 to 0.93. Although the overall performance of the intersection is still satisfactory, the intersection will be close to its capacity in the 2031 AM and PM peak without SFP case with DoS of 0.89 and 0.93 respectively, due to the higher right turning traffic flow from Camden Bypass (South). Figure 23 Current intersection layout for Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass

Source: Camden Council 2014

AECOM



44

Figure 24 Intersection layout for Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass – right turn lane on eastern approach extended from 100m to 160m

Figure 25 Intersection layout for Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass – right turn lane on southern approach extended from 90m to 240m

AECOM



45

6.6.2 Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road

The layout of the intersection of Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road is shown in Figure 26. This intersection was completed in August 2014. With the current layout, the intersection will continue to perform satisfactorily at LoS A in 2021 and 2031 as shown in Table 15, without any modifications to the intersection. The intersection will operate with DoS of 0.27 to 0.67 in 2021 and 2031.

Figure 26 Intersection layout for Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road

Source: Camden Council 2014

AECOM



46

6.6.3 Spring Farm Parkway / Glenlee Precinct northern access

The northern access to the Glenlee Precinct is modelled as a T-intersection in the 2021 scenario. Before the extension of Spring Farm Parkway beyond this access point, this intersection is the only access for the southern part of Glenlee after the private haul road is closed.

Analysis for 2021 and 2031 without Spring Farm Parkway has shown that the intersection will operate at LoS A/B, with less than 60m of queuing on all approaches during both AM and PM peak hours. For the 2031 scenario with Spring Farm Parkway, the intersection will continue to operate satisfactorily at LoS B. The longest queue length for the intersection during the AM and PM peak hour is 147m for Liz Kernohan Drive (West) and 102m for Spring Farm Parkway (East) respectively. The overall performance of the intersection is shown in Table 15.

The proposed layouts of the intersection without and with the connection of Spring Farm Parkway to the M31 Hume Motorway are shown in Figure 27 and Figure 28 respectively. The northern leg connecting to Mount Annan is a bus only link. With the connection of Spring Farm Parkway as shown in Figure 28, and the increase in east-west traffic flow along Liz Kernohan Drive and Spring Farm Parkway, the eastern and western approaches of the intersection are proposed to be widened to increase the stop-line capacity and reduce the queue length on these two approaches.

Figure 27 Indicative layout for Spring Farm Parkway / Glenlee northern access before the extension of Spring Farm Parkway

Figure 28 Indicative layout for Spring Farm Parkway / Glenlee northern access with the extension of Spring Farm Parkway

The intersection was also modelled as a single-lane roundabout. Analysis for 2021 showed that the roundabout would operate at LoS A, with less than 10m of queuing on all approaches during both AM and PM peak hours. For the 2031 scenario, the intersection would operate satisfactorily at LoS C or better.

AECOM



47

6.6.4 Spring Farm Parkway /Glenlee Precinct eastern access

The proposed eastern access to Glenlee at Spring Farm Parkway will operate satisfactorily in 2031 during peak periods. The intersection will perform with LoS A/B as a T-intersection. Modelling indicates that the longest vehicle queue during the AM and PM peak hour will be 103m (north approach) and 104m (south approach) respectively. The proposed layout of the intersection is shown in Figure 29. Similar to the proposed northern access, intersection flaring is proposed to increase the stop-line capacity and reduce the vehicle queue along Spring Farm Parkway. Figure 29 Indicative layout for Spring Farm Parkway / Glenlee eastern access

The intersection was also modelled as a single-lane roundabout. Analysis indicated that the intersection would operate satisfactorily in 2031 during peak periods. The intersection would perform with LoS B as a single lane roundabout.

6.6.5 Intersection Summary

In summary, the SIDRA intersection analysis indicates that:

- The Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road intersection would cater for the additional traffic generated by the proposed Precinct development in 2021 and 2031, without the need for any intersection modifications. The intersection will perform at an acceptable Level of Service A during both peak hours in 2021 and 2031.

- At the Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection, the right turn storage lanes on the southern and eastern approaches require extension to avoid overspill of the vehicle queue into the adjacent lanes.

- The northern and eastern accesses to the Precinct will operate satisfactorily as signal controlled intersections with the indicative layouts proposed in Section 6.6.3 and Section 6.6.4 or as single-lane roundabouts.

AECOM



48

6.7 Sensitivity testing 6.7.1 Overview

This section was prepared in response to Councils’, TfNSW and RMS’ comments relating to the trip generation methodology and land use assumptions provided in March/April 2015 and November 2015. Details of the original trip generation methodology and a comparison for each land use are presented in Appendix B.

The purpose of the sensitivity testing was to carry out a comparison of various trip generation methodologies to compare to that adopted in Section 6.2. Analysis of the four intersections was then undertaken to assess the impact of any potentially additional traffic on the intersections.

6.7.2 Trip generation scenarios

Based on feedback received, the following trip generation scenarios were tested and are summarised below:

1) Councils’ initial sensitivity test – increased employee density with RMS warehousing trip rate

In this test, the trip rates for each land use were compared to other publically available information, with the result that a first principles trip generation approach based on employment density assumed at 25 employees per hectare of site area for industrial uses and the average RMS trip rate of approximately 0.5 trips per 100sqm GFA for warehousing was adopted. The potential 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to other modes was disregarded.

The SIDRA analysis results shows that the intersections are able to cope with the traffic generated in this sensitivity test in 2021 and 2031, with and without Spring Farm Parkway. While the Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection operates at a satisfactory LOS, SIDRA analysis indicates that the right turn storage lanes on the southern and eastern approaches require extension to avoid overspill of the vehicle queue into the adjacent lanes in 2031 without Spring Farm Parkway.

More details can be found in Appendix E.

2a) RMS / TfNSW / Councils’ initial worst case sensitivity test – increased employee density with industrial land use only

The Transport agencies raised a view that the land use mix of the subject can be subject to change and therefore it was agreed that a ‘worst case’ scenario trip generation should be determined based on the permitted industrial land use zoning. In this test, the land use breakdown was adjusted to include only industrial with no other development.

The first principles trip generation approach based on employment density assumed at 25 employees per hectare of site area for industrial uses was retained and the potential 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to other modes was disregarded.

The brief from the Transport agencies was to maintain acceptable intersection performance. The SIDRA analysis results shows that the intersections are able to cope with the traffic generated in this sensitivity test in 2021 and 2031, with and without Spring Farm Parkway extension. More details can be found in Appendix F.

2b) RMS / TfNSW / Councils’ initial worst case sensitivity test – warehousing land use only

As a second part to the land use mix sensitivity test, the land use breakdown was adjusted to include only warehousing with no other development.

The average RMS trip rate of approximately 0.5 trips per 100sqm GFA for warehousing was adopted and the potential 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to other modes was disregarded.

The brief from the Transport agencies was to maintain acceptable intersection performance. Based on this, the scenario intersection modelling suggested a trip volume equivalent to a warehousing GFA cap of 166,000sqm could be accommodated. More details can be found in Appendix G.

AECOM



49

3) RMS / TfNSW / Councils’ revised worst case sensitivity test – warehousing land use only with 85th percentile RMS trip rate

In this sensitivity test, the land use breakdown was again adjusted to include only warehousing with no other development. But the trip rate used was the 85th percentile RMS ‘Industrial and Business Park’ trip rate of approximately 0.9 trips per 100sqm GFA. It is noted that these rates are more reflective of multi-storey, office-style developments with relatively high employee densities. Due to the Glenlee site filling, it is considered that the site is unsuitable for that type of development.

The potential 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to other modes was disregarded.

The brief from the Transport agencies was to maintain acceptable intersection performance. Based on this, the scenario intersection modelling suggested a trip volume equivalent to a warehousing GFA cap of 90,000sqm could be accommodated. More details can be found in Appendix H.

6.7.3 Intersection analysis

SIDRA intersection modelling was undertaken for the various trip generation scenarios for 2021 and 2031, with and without the Spring Farm Parkway (2031 only). A summary of the scenario outcomes is:

- There is no requirement for intersection upgrades at the Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road intersection, which performs at an acceptable LoS A to LoS C in all scenarios.

- The proposed northern and eastern access intersections to the Precinct operate satisfactorily as either single lane roundabouts or signal controlled intersections in all scenarios.

- At the Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection, the right turn storage lanes on the southern and eastern approaches need extension to avoid overspill of the vehicle queue into the adjacent lanes in 2021 and 2031 with and without Spring Farm Parkway. Under sensitivity scenarios 2b and 3, in 2021 and 2031 without Spring Farm Parkway, the intersection would require an additional short through lane on the northern approach and southern departure. This layout is shown in Figure 30. Compared to Figure 25, the right turn storage lane on the eastern approach needs a small extension from 160m to 170m to accommodate the forecast queue, while a short through lane of 200m on the northern approach and 200m on the southern departure leg is required.

It is noted that the development of Spring Farm Parkway causes significant changes in the traffic patterns in the surrounding road network and therefore the volume and direction of traffic travelling through the intersections.

AECOM



50

Figure 30 Intersection layout for Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass – right turn lane on eastern approach extended from 160m to 170m and additional short through lane of 200m on the northern approach and 200m on the southern departure

6.8 Summary The SIDRA analysis results show that the intersections, with some upgrades to the Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection, are able to cope with the traffic generated by the fully developed Precinct development in 2021 and 2031, with and without Spring Farm Parkway extension. The sensitivity tests also indicate the intersections would continue to perform satisfactorily when higher traffic generation from the development is adopted, with some additional upgrades to the Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection.

The proposed access to the Precinct from Spring Farm Parkway (via the new perimeter road along the western boundary of SFARRP) would be able to cater (as a two lane road) for the ultimate development forecast traffic (2021 and 2031) without its extension to the M31 Hume Motorway. Similarly, the traffic generated by the development could be accommodated on the Spring Farm Parkway in the 2031 scenario.

Upgrading the rail terminal will assist in the transfer of freight traffic from road to rail, therefore reducing the volume of heavy vehicles on the regional road network.

A range of policy and service measures will also be required to meet the sustainable objectives of this Transport Assessment. The comprehensive package of measures is discussed in detail in Section 7.0.

AECOM



51

7.0 Package of measures

7.1 Introduction This section discusses the package of measures recommended for implementation. The package includes a range of initiatives, addressing:

- Infrastructure needs – including measures to improve walking, cycling and public transport opportunities, while maintaining private vehicle access.

- Service needs – providing sufficient service frequency and quality to promote a high public transport mode split.

- Policy needs – opportunities to establish local policies that reduce reliance on the private car, while making public transport travel viable.

It is recommended that the initiatives discussed in this section be implemented as an integrated package. A number of the measures identified are related and the achievement of maximum benefits will be dependent on the full range of measures being implemented. For example, while timetable improvements and marketing will not have a significant effect on mode choice, together with infrastructure and service improvements they will have an effect.

7.2 Infrastructure This section discusses the infrastructure that is required to underpin the service and policy initiatives. The infrastructure package has been tailored to improving public transport operations, while maintaining satisfactory levels of private car performance.

7.2.1 Walking and cycling infrastructure

The existing rural conditions in the Precinct are not conducive to walking trips, including a lack of footpaths and a lack of permeability.

Cycling mode splits are likely to remain fairly low as a proportion of total journey to work trips to and from the Precinct, although the provision/upgrade of improved pedestrian and cycling facilities would increase the opportunity to cycle to local work destinations. It is likely that a mode split of between 1-2 per cent could be achieved for journey to work trips given the potential for mode shift for short trips from neighbouring urban areas. On average, this would see approximately 25 cyclists travelling through the Precinct during peak periods.

A shared path (3m width) should be provided on all major local and collector roads within the development to encourage cycling and walking. The pedestrian network within the Precinct should also be designed to minimise walking distances to public transport services along Liz Kernohan Drive and Spring Farm Parkway, thus helping to achieve public transport targets. Cyclists can mix with general traffic on local streets where traffic volumes are lower. Local streets should be managed and maintained to ensure that cycling on these routes is safe and convenient. This would include maintaining the road surface to an acceptable standard, ensuring that drainage covers are designed with cyclists in mind, managing on-street parking to ensure cycle safety and enforcing speeding and parking regulations.

Encouraging cycling trips will also require cycle parking provision to be made at major trip attractors within the Precinct. It is recommended that lockers be provided, together with standard parking racks, and a reservation for additional cycle parking over time, should it be required. Cycle parking stands could be incorporated into a shared parking facility for all employment land uses within the Precinct.

Connectivity to Camden and Narellan will also be important for local journey to work trips. The local cycle network in Glenlee should therefore be connected with the proposed cycle network in Spring Farm, Mount Annan Urban Areas, Menangle Park Urban Release Area (MPURA) and the Macarthur Regional Recreation Trail to provide a high quality corridor for cycling trips into the neighbouring town centres.

Figure 31 shows the likely future walking / cycling desire lines within the Glenlee area.

AECOM



52

Figure 31 Future walking / cycling desire lines

Source: AECOM 2014

7.2.2 Bus infrastructure

A bus route along Liz Kernohan Drive and Spring Farm Parkway will serve the majority of the employment area in Glenlee. This bus route could be established by extending route 891 from the Mount Annan Area or extending any services from Spring Farm Urban Release Area via the northern access to Glenlee, when Spring Farm Parkway and the proposed public transport corridor between Spring Farm and South Mount Annan are completed.

It is recommended that peak period frequencies be provided between 6.30am and 8.30am in the morning and between 4.30pm and 6.30pm in the evening. Services should be scheduled to coordinate with rail services from Campbelltown / Macarthur to reduce interchange times.

The kerbside lane of the bus routes should be a minimum of 3.5 metres wide. The provision of bus shelters will provide additional comfort to bus passengers.

If the connection of Spring Farm Parkway with the M31 Hume Motorway proceeds, there is an opportunity to provide a bus service from Campbelltown town centre / train station to Camden town centre via Glenlee.

AECOM



53

7.2.3 Rail infrastructure

Although the Precinct is not within direct catchment of passenger rail services, the provision of high quality rail infrastructure in Macarthur/Campbelltown is going to assist in achieving the sustainable mode split targets by providing appropriate connecting bus services between Glenlee and Macarthur/Campbelltown.

A new intermodal terminal has also been planned in the Precinct. The existing rail siding has been used as a marshalling yard since 2009. Preliminary investigations indicate that there are no spatial constraints and sidings of approximately 700m are achievable. Further investigation of the terminal and siding layout will be undertaken at the detailed design stage of the intermodal facility precinct. These facilities at Glenlee will reduce the amount of heavy vehicles and long distance trips on the regional road network including the M31 Hume Motorway by maximising the use of the freight line to transport goods into the Camden region and redistributing goods in the surrounding areas.

7.2.4 Road network infrastructure

There is a need for additional road network capacity in the South West Sydney area to cater for projected traffic demands. Much of this capacity enhancement is required to the state and federal road network (including upgrading east-west connections such as Narellan Road, Badgally Road, Liz Kernohan Drive, Spring Farm Parkway and the M31 Hume Motorway corridor) and is therefore beyond the influence of the proposed development at Glenlee.

If Spring Farm Parkway is extended to connect with the M31 Hume Motorway, there will be a need to provide additional road network infrastructure in the form of a new eastern Glenlee Precinct access intersection with the proposed Spring Farm Parkway.

7.3 Service responses 7.3.1 Bus services

At full development of the Precinct, a fifteen minute frequency, local bus service should service Glenlee from Macarthur Interchange/Campbelltown Interchange during peak periods (between 6.30am and 8.30am in the morning and 4.30pm and 6.30pm in the evening). Outside of the peak periods, a 30 minute frequency service should be provided. These services could be provided by extending any services from the Spring Farm Urban Release Area via the northern access to Glenlee.

All services should be scheduled with rail services at Macarthur/Campbelltown to reduce interchange times. In the short to medium term, bus services can be provided at a less frequent timetable with the aim to increase the frequency and number of bus services as the employment number grows.

7.3.2 Rail services

There is an additional platform planned at Macarthur Station which will allow an increase in the frequency of services. This will assist in meeting the sustainable transport objectives of the proposed development for journey-to-work trips that start/finish at major rail destinations, in particular from the Liverpool and wider Campbelltown areas.

7.4 Policy responses As noted in the introduction to this chapter, policy responses are an important element of any integrated land use and transport planning approach. In many cases, they provide strong support for the community’s investment in major infrastructure or transport services, and reinforce the viability and benefits arising from those investments.

7.4.1 Pedestrian and cyclist policy issues

A comprehensive network of pedestrian and cycle paths would be a sustainable element of a package of transport measures for Glenlee.

The deficiencies within the existing pedestrian and cycling networks at Glenlee as well as surrounding areas in Camden need to be addressed to assist in encouraging travel by these modes. To improve the overall pedestrian and cycling environments, there are a number of more general principles that should be considered and applied when planning and designing facilities. These include:

AECOM



54

- Permeability – pedestrians and cyclists should be able to move conveniently through the Precinct by ensuring that all key origins and destinations are well connected. Large sites, developments and buildings should not present unacceptable barriers to movement.

- Priority – high priority should be given to pedestrian and cycle movements on key routes, through measures such as short wait times at signalised crossing points.

- Continuous – pedestrian and cycle routes should be continuous, with connected foot/cycle paths, crossing facilities and entry points to developments.

- High quality – pedestrian and cycle facilities should at least meet design standards. Footpaths should include provision for people with disabilities. Designs should at least meet the standards expressed in Austroads Guide to Road Design, Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths.

- Integration – walking and cycling should be integrated with other modes (particularly bus and train services) through the provision of obvious, safe and convenient pedestrian/cycle access paths to interchange areas, as well as secure cycle storage facilities.

- Legibility – the local environment should be easy for pedestrians and cyclists to ‘read’ so that they can easily find their way – street names should be clearly visible and clear signage should be provided including key destinations and distances.

- Capacity – pedestrian and cycle paths should be designed to provide ample space for both travelling and waiting pedestrians and cyclists.

- Pleasant – streetscapes should be designed to high urban design standards that provide interesting pedestrian and cycle routes, free of litter and fear of crime. Appropriate lighting should be provided on all routes. Greater levels of pedestrian and cyclist activity will assist in these regards.

7.4.2 Car parking policy

Given the nature and variety of employment in Glenlee, a portion of the employees will be working in shifts and outside peak hours and would find it difficult to catch public transport to/from work. Provision of parking in these employment zones will need to be made to avoid overflow parking occurring in local roads and other development areas.

7.4.3 Bushfire management / emergency management plan

A bushfire management / emergency management plan should be in place to provide a strategy for access in emergency situations. The emergency access can be provided via the proposed bus only link between the Glenlee access road (along the eastern boundary of the Spring Farm Advanced Resource Recovery Park) and Spring Farm residential area when Liz Kernohan Drive and Spring Farm Parkway has to be closed due to the bushfire or other emergency situations.

AECOM



55

7.5 Package of measures summary The package has been designed as an integrated package, requiring implementation of all measures if the objective of increasing public transport use, walking and cycling is to be achieved. The strategic analysis undertaken suggests that a mode shift of between five and 10 per cent could be achieved through the implementation of this integrated package of measures. The implementation of the package will clearly need to occur over a number of years, and will therefore require a sustained commitment from key stakeholders, as well as funding and contributions mechanisms which can stand the test of time. Table 16 provides a summary of the recommended measures developed. Table 16 Summary of package of measures

Area Measure Details Funded by

Infrastructure Pedestrian / Cyclist Facilities

Create a cohesive pedestrian network within the Glenlee Precinct that provides excellent accessibility to public transport services and surrounding land uses.

Proponents

Provide shared paths of at least 3.0m width on all major local and collector roads.

Proponents

Provide connections from the Precinct to Liz Kernohan Drive and Camden Bypass

Proponents

Bus Provide bus stops on bus routes (6 stops)

Proponents

Rail Proposed intermodal facility at Glenlee Proponents

Road Network Provide a new intersection at eastern access with Spring Farm Parkway (only if Spring Farm Parkway is extended to connect with the Hume Motorway)

Proponents

Transport Service

Bus Services Provide bus services between Glenlee and Macarthur Interchange and/or Campbelltown Interchange.

TfNSW

Rail Services Increase frequency of services from Macarthur Interchange

TfNSW

Maximise freight rail services to Glenlee TfNSW

Policy Parking Provide location responsive parking provision rates Proponents

Pedestrian and Cyclist

Make pedestrian and cycle planning issues fundamental priorities

Proponents

Bushfire Management / Emergency Management

Provide a Bushfire management / emergency management plan

Proponents

AECOM



56

8.0 Conclusion This report has been prepared to assess the traffic and transport impacts associated with the industrial rezoning of the Glenlee Precinct for employment and related purposes.

The Precinct is proposed to be rezoned to general industrial zoning. The potential development is expected to generate a total of about 440 trips in the AM peak hour and about 300 trips in the PM peak hour.

Intersection performance analysis has been undertaken at key intersections in the vicinity of the site with and without development traffic present on the road network to understand the impact of the development on the local road network. The traffic modelling, including the sensitivity test of using higher trip generation, suggests that there is no requirement for intersection upgrades at the Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road intersection to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed Precinct development. At the Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection, the right turn storage lanes on the southern and eastern approaches require extension to avoid overspill of the vehicle queue into the adjacent lanes as well as the addition of a short through lane on the northern approach. The northern and eastern accesses to the Precinct would operate satisfactorily as either single lane roundabouts or signal controlled intersections.

As the access to the Precinct from Springs Road is to be closed, minimal impacts on the local roads in the Spring Farm precinct, such as Richardson Road, Springs Road and Macarthur Road, are forecast. There is little change to traffic on local roads as the majority of development traffic is expected to use the strategic and regional road network.

From a roadway capacity perspective, Liz Kernohan Drive and the proposed Spring Farm Parkway would adequately cater for both short to medium term (2021) and long-term (2031) traffic.

The recommendations of this study are reflected in the package of measures developed for the site discussed in Section 7. Key measures include:

- A comprehensive accessibility policy to be prepared with a view to increasing levels of pedestrian and cycle movement and a reduction in vehicle usage.

- Transport service improvements, including potential new or extended bus services that are responsive to the development of the Precinct.

- Infrastructure improvements to provide easy pedestrian and cyclist access to Camden, Narellan and possibly Campbelltown, and improved vehicular connectivity, with the connection of Spring Farm Parkway to the M31 Hume Motorway, together with cycle parking and comprehensive directional signage.

AECOM



A

Appendix A

Compliance Checklist

AECOM



a-1

Appendix A Compliance Checklist

Compliance Checklist for Traffic/Transport/Access Strategy

Objectives

Assess the transport impacts of the development scheme. Chapter 6.0

Recommend infrastructure upgrades and other measures to address the impacts Chapter 7.0

Develop a package of transport measures to facilitate transport outcomes Chapter 7.0

Prepare principles of a multi-stakeholder package of transport measures Chapter 7.0

Ensure rail access is optimised Chapter 4.1

Chapters 7.2.3 and 7.3.2

Explore regional transport infrastructure levy contribution Chapter 7.0

Assess potential impacts on adjoining/adjacent land and develop strategies to manage that conflict

Chapter 6.0

Chapter 7.0

Ensure that bushfire management/emergency management outcomes are integrated with the traffic/transport/access strategy

Chapter 7.4.3

To identify “need” issues that s94 developer contributions plans must address. Chapter 7.0

Task

In conjunction with investigating the full range of industrial/employment uses, the transport requirements of each use should be determined, along with the practicality of meeting those requirements.

Chapter 6.0

Document the strategic planning context for the site. Chapter 2.0

Define a range of transport performance targets. Chapter 6.2.2

Document nature of rail infrastructure and enhancement opportunities. Chapter 3.3 Chapter 4.1 Chapters 7.2.3 and 7.3.2

Assess potential transport impacts (at concept scale). Chapter 6.0

Recommend infrastructure upgrades and other measures to address impacts. Chapter 6.8 Chapter 7.0

Develop a package of transport measures to facilitate sustainable transport outcomes.

Chapter 7.0

Prepare principles of a multi-stakeholder package of transport measures. Chapter 7.0

Explore regional transport contributions. Chapter 7.0

AECOM



B

Appendix B

Trip Generation Profile and Summary

AECOM



b-1

Appendix B Trip Generation Profile and Summary

Summary of employment and daily traffic generation

AECOM



b-2

Industrial Employment and Traffic Generation

The proposed site area for industrial area is approximately 27 hectares. The calculation of vehicle movements from the industrial area is as follows:

1. The employment density is assumed to be 15 employees per hectare (13 day shift employees and 2 night shift employees per hectare), therefore, the number of employee is calculated as:

(27 hectares site area x 13 day shift employee + 27 hectares site area x 2 night shift employee = 357 day shift employee and 55 night shift employee)

2. As it is expected that the future arrival pattern will be similar to the current arrival pattern at the site, it is assumed that day shift workers arrive at the site over 3 hours (2 different shifts, 6-9am) and leave the site over 3 hours (4-7pm). Night shift workers arrive at the site over 4 hours (4-8pm) and leave the site after midnight (12-6am). The total number of light vehicle movements for workers during the peak periods are:

TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 357 workers ÷ 3 hours x 2 hours = 238 light vehicle movements

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): (357 workers ÷ 3 hours x 2 hours) + (55 workers ÷ 4 hours x 2 hours) = 266 light vehicle movements

3. Assuming 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to non-car modes for journey to work travel, the total number of light vehicle movements for workers during the peak hours after the mode shift are:

TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 238 x 90% = 214 light vehicle movements

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 266 x 90% = 240 light vehicle movements

4. It is assumed that other light vehicles are visiting the site during the day. The trip rates are assumed to be 2 light vehicle movements per hectare per hour (8am to 4pm) and 0.25 light vehicle movements per hectare per hour (4pm to 8am). The total number of other light vehicle movements is calculated as:

TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 27 hectares x 0.25 (from 7am to 8am) + 27 hectares x 2 (from 8am to 9am) = 61 light vehicle movements

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 27 hectares x 2 (from 3pm to 4pm) + 27 hectares x 0.25 (for 2 hours from 4pm to 6pm) = 68 light vehicle movements

5. Therefore, the total light vehicle movements for workers and visitors are:

TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 214 + 61 = 275 light vehicle movements in the two-hour period or 143 light vehicle movements per hour (using a factor of 0.52 to convert from two hours to one AM peak hour)

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 240 + 68 = 308 light vehicle movements in the three-hour period or 102 light vehicle movements per hour (using a factor of 0.33 to convert from three hours to one PM peak hour)

6. It is assumed that there are trucks visiting the site during the day. The trip rates are assumed to be 0.028 truck movements per employee (8am to 4pm) and 0.00256 truck movements per employee (4pm to 8am). These trip rates are based on Roads and Maritime trip generation rate for industrial estates per 1,000 employees8. The total number of truck movements based on total number of employees (day shift workers + night shift workers) is calculated as:

TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 412 employees x 0.028 x 1 hour + 412 employees x 0.00256 x 1 hour = 13 truck movements in the two-hour period or 7 truck movements per hour (using a factor of 0.52 to convert from two hours to one AM peak hour)

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 412 employees x 0.028 x 1 hour + 412 employees x 0.00256 x 2 hours = 14 truck movements in the three-hour period or 5 truck movements per hour (using a factor of 0.33 to convert from three hours to one PM peak hour)

8 The trip rates are calculated from Table 3.4 of RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Version 2.2 October 2002 (Page 3-16)

AECOM



b-3

The trip generation rates for industrial use are determined from first principle assumptions as demonstrated in the steps above. Sada Services Pty Ltd (the operator) has provided an assumption of the employment density as 15 employees per hectares. The light vehicle traffic generated by the development is then estimated using the number of employee arriving and leaving the site, while the heavy vehicle traffic used Roads and Maritime trip rates based on employee numbers. The table below summarises the traffic generated for industrial use:

Industrial Use Light Vehicle (veh/hr)

Heavy Vehicle (veh/hr)

Total Vehicles (veh/hr)

AM Peak 143 7 150

PM Peak 102 5 107 Intermodal Terminal Employment and Traffic Generation

The concept of intermodal operation has only started to gain popularity in Australia in the last ten years. Therefore, the trip rates in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments for road transport terminals, based on surveys in 1979, are not appropriate for use in estimating intermodal trip generation. The 1979 surveys were of air freight terminals and interstate truck depots which would have different characteristics to a new intermodal terminal. Hence, the trip generation rates for the proposed intermodal facilities were determined from first principles based on the TEU capacity. This estimation methodology is similar to the approved Enfield Intermodal Terminal, Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance (SIMTA) Intermodal Terminal in Moorebank and Moorebank Intermodal Terminal (IMT).

The operator has estimated that the Glenlee Precinct would have a capacity of approximately 150,000 TEUs (two-way total) per annum. The calculation of trucks from 150,000 TEUs is as follows:

1. The facility will operate 50 weeks of the year, therefore, the number of TEUs each week is calculated as:

(150,000 TEUs per year ÷ 50 weeks = 3,000 TEUs per week)

2. TEUs will arrive Monday to Friday (all day) and Saturday (half day) in a typical week. Therefore the number of TEUs generated each weekday is:

(3,000 TEUs ÷ 5.5 weekdays = 545 TEUs per day)

3. Semi-trailers will carry one 40ft container (equivalent to 2 TEU) and B-doubles will carry a 20ft container and 40ft container (equivalent to 3 TEU). Each truck is assumed to carry 1.2 containers on average. It should be noted that each shipping container on average is equivalent to 1.6 TEUs from other studies. To simulate the worst case scenario, it is assumed one container is equivalent to 1 TEU. The number of truckloads per day is calculated as:

(545 TEUs per day ÷ 1.2 containers per truck = 455 truckloads per day)

4. The majority of trucks will carry a load in one direction only, either to or from the terminal. Therefore each container movement will result in 2 truck trips. The total number of truck movements per day is calculated as:

(455 truckloads x 2 directions = 909 truck movements per day)

5. It is assumed that most of the activities (80%) will be carried out between 6am and 4pm and the rest (20%) will be carried out from 4pm to 6am. The total number of truck movements during the peak hours are:

TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 909 truck movements x 80% ÷ 10 hours x 2 hours = 145 truck movements

AM Peak one hour: 76 truck movements (using a factor of 0.52 to convert from two hours to one AM peak hour)

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): (909 truck movements x 80% ÷ 10 hours x 1 hours) + (909 truck movements x 20% ÷ 14 hours x 2 hours) = 99 truck movements

AECOM



b-4

PM Peak one hour: 33 truck movements (using a factor of 0.33 to convert from three hours to one PM peak hour).

For a capacity of 150,000 TEUs per annum intermodal terminal, the number of staff assumed for each facility is provided in the table below:

Staff type

Day shift Night shift

Number of staff

Car movements

(7-9am)

Car movements

(3-6pm)

Number of staff

Car movements

(7-9am)

Car movements

(3-6pm) Operation 125 125 125 4 0 4

Admin support 40 40 40 6 0 6

Total 165 165 165 10 0 10 Source: Sada

TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 165 light vehicle movements or 86 light vehicles movements per hour (using a factor of 0.52 to convert from two hours to one AM peak hour)

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 175 light vehicle movements or 58 light vehicles movements per hour (using a factor of 0.33 to convert from three hours to one PM peak hour)

The table below summarises the traffic generated for intermodal terminal:

Intermodal Terminal

Light Vehicle (veh/hr)



AM Peak 86 76 161

PM Peak 58 33 90 From a rail perspective, it is anticipated that the intermodal terminal will generate 6 rail movements daily for 150,000 TEUs; this is comparable to the study for Enfield Intermodal which estimated train movements of 10-20 per day for 300,000 TEUs. Currently, 3 trains per day (6 movements) use the Glenlee sidings five days per week (two interstate trains of approximately 1.2km length and a Glenlee/Yennora shuttle with 40 x 40ft container wagons). No containers are off/on loaded from these trains with the sidings operating as a marshalling yard. There is thus capacity in the rail system for at least three trains a day to access the development. With the introduction of the South Sydney Freight Line (SSFL) in January 2013, there is significant additional capacity between Sydney and Glenlee. The SSFL allows freight trains to avoid the curfew on the Metropolitan Passenger Network and has capacity for 24 trains (48 train movements) per day. Current usage is only about 16 trains (32 train movements) per day, although demand is likely to increase from other users, such as Moorebank Intermodal. Paths for trains going west over the Blue Mountains are limited, but some are available. Paths north out of Sydney are also limited, but ARTC has commenced Stage 1 of the North Sydney Freight Corridor (NSFC), which is expected to be completed by Sept 2016. Warehouse (associated with intermodal terminal operation) Employment and Traffic Generation

As the warehouses are mostly likely to be associated with intermodal terminal operation, the trip rates in RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments for road transport terminals or industrial estates will not be appropriate as they have different characteristics to an intermodal terminal. Hence, the trip generation rates for warehouse use are determined from first principle assumptions. Sada Services Pty Ltd (the operator) has provided an assumption of the employment density as 10 employees per hectare. The traffic generated by the development was then estimated by the number of employee arriving and leaving the site.

The proposed site area for the warehouse is 14.4 hectares but 23 hectares (the site area for intermodal terminal) has been used to estimate the hourly traffic generated.

AECOM



b-5

The calculation of vehicle movements from the warehouse land use is as follows:

1. The employment density is assumed to be 10 employees per hectare (8 day shift employees and 2 night shift employees per hectare), therefore, the number of employee is calculated as:

(23 hectares site area x 8 day shift employee + 23 hectares site area x 2 night shift employee = 183 day shift employee and 46 night shift employee)

2. It is assumed that day shift workers arrive at the site over 3 hours (3 different shifts, 6-9am) and leave the site over 3 hours (4-7pm). Night shift workers arrive at the site over 4 hours (4-8pm) and leave the site after midnight (12-6am). The total number of light vehicle movements for workers during the peak hours are:



3. Assuming 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to non-car modes for journey to work travel, the total number of light vehicle movements for workers during the peak hours after the mode shift are:

TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 122 x 90% = 110 light vehicle movements

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 145 x 90% = 132 light vehicle movements


TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 23 hectares x 0.25 (from 7am to 8am) + 23 hectares x 2 (from 8am to 9am) = 52 light vehicle movements

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 23 hectares x 2 (from 3pm to 4pm) + 23 hectares x 0.25 (for 2 hours from 4pm to 6pm) = 58 light vehicle movements




6. It is assumed that there are trucks visiting the site during the day. The trip rates are assumed to be 0.028 truck movements per employee (8am to 4pm) and 0.00256 truck movements per employee (4pm to 8am). These trip rates are based on Roads and Maritime trip generation rate for industrial estates per 1,000 employees9. The total number of truck movements based on total number of employees (day shift workers + night shift workers) is calculated as:



As the warehouse is likely to be associated with the intermodal terminal, a portion of the truck movements would potentially be confined within Glenlee development, mainly transporting / transferring goods between the intermodal terminal and the warehouse. The number of trucks transporting goods externally to and from the intermodal terminal was estimated based on the TEU capacity of the terminal. Additionally, as truck movements are typically restricted during peak hours to minimise impact on general traffic, the number of trucks estimated for the warehouse during peak hours is low. 9 The trip rates are calculated from Table 3.4 of RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Version 2.2 October 2002 (Page 3-16)

AECOM



b-6

The table below summarises the traffic generated for the warehouse component:

Warehouse Light Vehicle (veh/hr)



AM Peak 84 4 88

PM Peak 63 3 65

Intermodal Terminal (including associated warehouse) Employment and Traffic Generation


TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 145 + 7 = 152 truck movements in the two-hour period or 79 truck movements per hour (using a factor of 0.52 to convert from two hours to one AM peak hour)


TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 99 + 8 = 107 truck movements in the three-hour period or 35 truck movements per hour (using a factor of 0.33 to convert from three hours to one PM peak hour)

The table below summarises the traffic generated for the Intermodal Terminal (including associated warehouse):

Intermodal Terminal (including associated

warehouse)

Light Vehicle (veh/hr)



AM Peak 170 79 249

PM Peak 121 35 156 Bulk Terminal Employment and Traffic Generation

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments does not provide a trip generation rate for bulk terminals. Therefore, the truck traffic from the bulk terminal was estimated from first principles from the bulk material to be transported by trucks.

It is estimated that Glenlee would have a capacity of approximately 1,500,000 tonnes per annum. With 210,000 tonnes used in the concrete batch plant on site, there are 1,290,000 tonnes bulk material to be transported by trucks. The calculation of trucks is as follows:

1. The facility will operate 50 weeks of the year, therefore, the loads of bulk material each week is calculated as:

(1,290,000 tonnes per year ÷ 50 weeks = 25,800 tonnes per week)

2. Bulk materials will arrive Monday to Friday (all day) and Saturday (half day) in a typical week. Therefore the load of bulk material generated each weekday is:

(25,800 tonnes ÷ 5.5 weekdays = 4690 tonnes per day)

3. Each truck is assumed to carry 30 tonnes on average. Number of truckloads per day is calculated as:

(4690 tonnes per day ÷ 30 tonnes per truck = 156 truckloads per day)

4. The majority of trucks will carry a load in one direction only, either to or from the terminal. Therefore, each tonne of bulk material movement will result in 2 truck trips. The total number of truck movements per day is calculated as:


AECOM



b-7

5. It is assumed that most of the activities (80%) will be carried out between 7am and 4pm and the rest (20%) will be carried out from 4pm to 7am. Total number of truck movements during the peak hours are:



TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): (313 truck movements x 80% ÷ 9 hours x 1 hours) + (313 truck movements x 20% ÷ 15 hours x 2 hours) = 36 truck movements


For a capacity of 1,500,000 tonnes per annum bulk material terminal, the number of staff assumed for each facility is provided in the table below:

Staff type

Day shift Night shift

Number of staff Car

movements (7-9am)

Car movements

(3-6pm) Number of staff

Car movements

(7-9am)

Car movements

(3-6pm) Truck drivers

42 (3 loads/truck/ day) 0^ 42 8

(4 loads/truck / night) 0^^ 8

Loader drivers 3 0^ 3 1 0^^ 1

Admin support 3 0^ 3 1 0^^ 1

Total 48 0 48 10 0 10 Notes: ^ = arrive before 7am; ^^ = leave before 7am

Source: Sada

TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): Zero light vehicle movements

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 58 light vehicle movements or 19 light vehicles movements per hour (using a factor of 0.33 to convert from three hours to one PM peak hour).

The table below summarises the traffic generated for Bulk Terminal

Bulk Terminal Light Vehicle (veh/hr)



AM Peak 0 29 29

PM Peak 19 12 31

AECOM



b-8

Concrete Batch Plant Employment and Traffic Generation

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments does not provide a trip generation rate for concrete batch plants. Therefore, the truck traffic from the plant was estimated from first principles from the loads of concrete to be transported by trucks.

It is estimated that Glenlee would have a capacity of approximately 100,000 tonnes per annum for the concrete batch plant. The calculation of trucks is as follows:

1. The facility will operate 50 weeks of the year, therefore, the loads of concrete each week is calculated as:

(100,000 tonnes per year ÷ 50 weeks = 2,000 tonnes per week)

2. Concrete will be transported Monday to Friday (all day) and Saturday (half day) in a typical week. Therefore the loads of concrete generated each weekday is:

(2,000 tonnes ÷ 5.5 weekdays = 364 tonnes per day)

3. Each truck is assumed to carry 7 tonnes on average. The number of truckloads per day is calculated as:

(364 tonnes per day ÷ 7 tonnes per truck = 52 truckloads per day)

4. The trucks will carry a load from the plant in one direction only. Therefore each tonne of concrete movement will result in 2 truck trips. The total number of truck movements per day is calculated as:


5. It is assumed that most of the activities (80%) will be carried out between 7am and 1pm and the rest (20%) will be carried out from 1pm to 4pm. The total number of truck movements during the peak hours are:



TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 104 truck movements x 20% ÷ 3 hours x 1 hour = 7 truck movements


For a capacity of 100,000 tonnes per annum concrete batch plant, the number of staff assumed for each facility is provided in the table below:

Staff type Number of staff Car movements (7-9am) Car movements (3-6pm)

Truck drivers

13 (4 loads / truck / day) 0^ 13

Plant staff 3 0^ 3

Total 16 0 16 Notes: ^ = arrive before 7am

Source: Sada

TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): Zero light vehicle movements as the operating hours for the batch plant are 7am to 4pm. Therefore, staffs are expected to arrive prior to the AM peak period of 7am to 9am.TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 16 light vehicle movements or 5 light vehicles movements per hour (using a factor of 0.33 to convert from three hours to one PM peak hour).

AECOM



b-9

The table below summarises the traffic generated for Concrete Batch Plant

Concrete Batch Plant Light Vehicle (veh/hr)



AM Peak 0 14 14

PM Peak 5 2 8

AECOM



C

Appendix C

TransCAD Turning Flows

ATTACHMENT ‘A’GLENLEE PRECINCT REZONING

2021 ROAD NETWORK SCENARIO

N

GLENLEE INDUSTRIAL

ATTACHMENT ‘B’GLENLEE PRECINCT REZONING

2031 ROAD NETWORK SCENARIO

N

GLENLEE INDUSTRIAL

ATTACHMENT ‘C1’GLENLEE PRECINCT REZONING2021 AM PEAK, DO NOTHING

N

GLENLEE INDUSTRIAL


N

GLENLEE INDUSTRIAL


N

ATTACHMENT ‘C4’GLENLEE PRECINCT REZONING2021 PM PEAK, DO NOTHING

N


N

ATTACHMENT ‘D1’GLENLEE PRECINCT REZONING

2021 AM PEAK, DEVELOPMENT CASE

N

GLENLEE INDUSTRIAL

lesliea

Callout

290462.34, 6227699.52

lesliea

Callout

292830.50, 6224913.04

lesliea

Callout

295815.48, 6226841.05



N

GLENLEE INDUSTRIAL



N


2021 PM PEAK, DEVELOPMENT CASE

N

GLENLEE INDUSTRIAL



N

GLENLEE INDUSTRIAL



N



N

GLENLEE INDUSTRIAL



N



N

GLENLEE INDUSTRIAL



N

AECOM



D

Appendix D

SIDRA Results for future development scenarios

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021 AM Dev - Extend

Camden Bypass / Liz Kernohan DrSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 120 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)

Movement Performance - VehiclesDemand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov

IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate

AverageSpeedTotal HV Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 34 0.0 0.022 8.2 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.17 0.64 58.711 T1 1405 3.2 0.873 39.2 LOS C 44.6 320.9 0.94 0.93 43.212 R2 211 3.8 0.554 53.7 LOS D 11.2 81.0 0.95 0.82 34.0Approach 1650 3.2 0.873 40.4 LOS C 44.6 320.9 0.92 0.91 42.0

East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 358 2.8 0.307 10.3 LOS A 6.7 48.3 0.40 0.68 54.32 T1 10 0.0 0.025 41.1 LOS C 0.5 3.3 0.83 0.57 36.03 R2 599 9.2 0.850 64.2 LOS E 19.0 143.5 1.00 0.95 29.9Approach 967 6.7 0.850 44.0 LOS D 19.0 143.5 0.78 0.85 35.9

North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 292 19.5 0.217 9.6 LOS A 3.1 25.4 0.26 0.67 56.95 T1 674 9.2 0.544 35.0 LOS C 16.0 121.1 0.87 0.75 45.56 R2 119 1.7 0.700 68.0 LOS E 7.2 51.2 1.00 0.83 29.9Approach 1085 11.2 0.700 31.8 LOS C 16.0 121.1 0.72 0.74 45.4

West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 232 0.9 0.325 29.4 LOS C 8.8 61.8 0.75 0.77 42.78 T1 10 0.0 0.087 59.9 LOS E 0.6 4.0 0.97 0.66 30.49 R2 48 0.0 0.439 68.1 LOS E 2.9 20.2 1.00 0.74 29.6Approach 290 0.7 0.439 36.9 LOS C 8.8 61.8 0.80 0.76 39.2

All Vehicles 3992 6.0 0.873 38.7 LOS C 44.6 320.9 0.82 0.84 40.9

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (RTA NSW).Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of QueueMov

ID DescriptionDemand

FlowAverage

DelayLevel ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop RatePedestrian Distance

ped/h sec ped m per pedP41 South Stage 1 50 44.3 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.86 0.86P42 South Stage 2 50 41.8 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.84 0.84P1 East Full Crossing 50 40.1 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.82 0.82P3 West Full Crossing 50 40.1 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.82 0.82

All Pedestrians 200 41.6 LOS E 0.83 0.83

Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.

Processed: Thursday, 14 May 2015 5:29:00 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877

Copyright © 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com

Project: \\ausyd1fp001\Projects\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Camden BypassLiz Kernohan Dr - sensitivity test.sip68000907, 6016882, AECOM, NETWORK / Enterprise

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021 PM Dev - Extend

Camden Bypass / Liz Kernohan DrSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 113 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)Variable Sequence Analysis applied. The results are given for the selected output sequence.


IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 49 0.0 0.033 8.6 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.20 0.65 58.411 T1 602 3.7 0.402 26.7 LOS B 11.9 86.1 0.77 0.66 50.712 R2 159 2.5 0.812 67.2 LOS E 9.5 67.7 1.00 0.90 30.2Approach 810 3.2 0.812 33.5 LOS C 11.9 86.1 0.78 0.71 45.1

East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 276 1.1 0.359 19.2 LOS B 8.8 62.2 0.66 0.76 48.32 T1 10 0.0 0.044 48.4 LOS D 0.5 3.5 0.92 0.62 33.63 R2 317 7.6 0.774 63.2 LOS E 9.2 68.8 1.00 0.90 30.2Approach 603 4.5 0.774 42.8 LOS D 9.2 68.8 0.84 0.83 36.6

North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 293 7.8 0.191 8.9 LOS A 2.6 19.1 0.24 0.67 57.95 T1 1466 2.9 0.802 24.1 LOS B 33.8 242.4 0.85 0.78 52.66 R2 177 0.0 0.410 47.3 LOS D 8.4 58.6 0.90 0.80 36.0Approach 1936 3.4 0.802 23.9 LOS B 33.8 242.4 0.76 0.77 51.1

West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 90 1.1 0.071 9.6 LOS A 1.3 9.2 0.33 0.62 55.48 T1 10 0.0 0.071 43.6 LOS D 1.3 9.2 0.81 0.64 34.69 R2 35 0.0 0.351 65.1 LOS E 2.0 13.9 1.00 0.72 30.3Approach 135 0.7 0.351 26.5 LOS B 2.0 13.9 0.54 0.65 44.0





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued


ped/h sec ped m per pedP41 South Stage 1 50 50.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95P42 South Stage 2 50 48.0 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.92 0.92P1 East Full Crossing 50 33.6 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.77 0.77P3 West Full Crossing 50 33.6 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.77 0.77






MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 AM Dev no SFP - Extend



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 41 0.0 0.025 8.1 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.16 0.64 58.911 T1 1441 3.4 0.871 37.5 LOS C 45.4 327.0 0.93 0.92 44.112 R2 235 3.0 0.667 56.7 LOS E 13.0 93.4 0.98 0.83 33.1Approach 1717 3.3 0.871 39.4 LOS C 45.4 327.0 0.92 0.90 42.4








FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 PM Dev no SFP - Extend



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate




North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 409 5.6 0.267 9.5 LOS A 4.6 33.9 0.27 0.68 57.45 T1 1577 3.2 0.926 49.1 LOS D 51.9 373.2 0.92 1.01 38.76 R2 195 0.5 0.432 48.8 LOS D 9.7 68.3 0.90 0.81 35.5Approach 2181 3.4 0.926 41.7 LOS C 51.9 373.2 0.79 0.93 40.9

West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 99 1.0 0.112 15.3 LOS B 1.7 12.1 0.58 0.69 51.08 T1 10 0.0 0.102 61.5 LOS E 0.6 4.1 0.98 0.66 30.09 R2 38 0.0 0.405 69.3 LOS E 2.3 16.2 1.00 0.73 29.3Approach 147 0.7 0.405 32.4 LOS C 2.3 16.2 0.72 0.70 41.1





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 AM Dev - Extend



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 39 0.0 0.024 8.1 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.16 0.64 58.911 T1 956 1.8 0.491 19.4 LOS B 16.8 119.4 0.71 0.63 56.312 R2 563 1.2 0.812 44.1 LOS D 28.9 204.3 0.97 0.91 37.3Approach 1558 1.5 0.812 28.0 LOS B 28.9 204.3 0.79 0.73 47.6

East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 444 1.1 0.342 10.0 LOS A 7.7 54.3 0.41 0.68 54.92 T1 10 0.0 0.037 44.6 LOS D 0.5 3.3 0.89 0.61 34.83 R2 395 2.8 0.787 60.3 LOS E 11.1 79.9 1.00 0.90 31.3Approach 849 1.9 0.787 33.8 LOS C 11.1 79.9 0.69 0.78 40.5

North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 202 5.4 0.176 15.8 LOS B 4.3 31.2 0.48 0.72 52.35 T1 584 3.3 0.694 43.7 LOS D 14.8 106.3 0.98 0.84 41.16 R2 87 2.3 0.518 61.1 LOS E 4.7 33.4 1.00 0.77 31.7Approach 873 3.7 0.694 39.0 LOS C 14.8 106.3 0.87 0.80 41.9

West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 191 1.0 0.198 12.6 LOS A 4.4 31.3 0.45 0.63 53.88 T1 62 0.0 0.198 24.0 LOS B 4.4 31.3 0.64 0.65 41.69 R2 55 0.0 0.537 64.4 LOS E 3.1 21.7 1.00 0.75 30.5Approach 308 0.6 0.537 24.1 LOS B 4.4 31.3 0.59 0.66 45.0





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 PM Dev - Extend



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate



East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 562 0.4 0.505 14.4 LOS A 14.1 99.3 0.62 0.76 51.82 T1 52 0.0 0.203 42.9 LOS D 2.3 16.3 0.93 0.70 35.33 R2 174 2.9 0.364 49.9 LOS D 4.0 28.8 0.96 0.77 34.4Approach 788 0.9 0.505 24.1 LOS B 14.1 99.3 0.71 0.76 45.3

North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 258 1.9 0.207 11.9 LOS A 3.9 27.6 0.40 0.71 55.55 T1 963 1.0 0.794 37.1 LOS C 22.9 161.6 0.98 0.91 44.36 R2 156 0.6 0.309 38.6 LOS C 6.1 43.0 0.84 0.79 39.3Approach 1377 1.2 0.794 32.6 LOS C 22.9 161.6 0.85 0.85 45.4






FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021 AM Dev

Liz Kernohan Dr / Richardson RdRoundabout


IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Richardson Rd (S)1 L2 440 0.0 0.620 8.3 LOS A 4.3 30.0 0.72 0.91 52.52 T1 87 0.0 0.620 8.5 LOS A 4.3 30.0 0.72 0.91 54.03 R2 5 0.0 0.620 13.6 LOS A 4.3 30.0 0.72 0.91 54.2Approach 532 0.0 0.620 8.3 LOS A 4.3 30.0 0.72 0.91 52.8

East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)4 L2 5 0.0 0.202 4.6 LOS A 1.1 9.1 0.38 0.45 54.25 T1 400 16.0 0.202 4.8 LOS A 1.1 9.1 0.38 0.49 55.06 R2 97 0.0 0.202 9.9 LOS A 1.1 8.4 0.39 0.55 54.5Approach 502 12.7 0.202 5.8 LOS A 1.1 9.1 0.38 0.50 54.9

North: Richardson Rd (N)7 L2 72 0.0 0.243 5.4 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.50 0.71 52.58 T1 37 0.0 0.243 5.6 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.50 0.71 53.99 R2 117 0.0 0.243 10.8 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.50 0.71 54.0Approach 226 0.0 0.243 8.2 LOS A 1.0 7.3 0.50 0.71 53.5

West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)10 L2 74 0.0 0.205 4.6 LOS A 1.2 8.9 0.37 0.46 54.311 T1 402 15.9 0.205 4.8 LOS A 1.2 8.9 0.38 0.48 55.312 R2 33 0.0 0.205 10.0 LOS A 1.1 8.7 0.39 0.50 55.4Approach 509 12.6 0.205 5.1 LOS A 1.2 8.9 0.38 0.48 55.1

All Vehicles 1769 7.2 0.620 6.7 LOS A 4.3 30.0 0.50 0.64 54.1

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (RTA NSW).Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Processed: Monday, 11 May 2015 10:49:53 AMSIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877


Project: E:\ANZ\New folder (2)\Modelling\SIDRA\Liz Kernohan Dr Richardson Rd - sensitivity test.sip68000907, 6016882, AECOM, NETWORK / Enterprise

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021 PM Dev



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate














IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate











MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 AM Dev no SFP



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate











MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 PM Dev no SFP



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate











MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021/2031 AM Dev no SFP

Spring Farm Parkway / Glenlee Northern AccessSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 90 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 95 67.4 0.317 38.1 LOS C 3.6 39.9 0.87 0.77 35.32 T1 1 100.0 0.317 31.8 LOS C 3.6 39.9 0.87 0.77 37.3Approach 96 67.7 0.317 37.9 LOS C 3.6 39.9 0.87 0.77 35.4

North: Bus only link (N)8 T1 1 100.0 0.009 30.7 LOS C 0.1 0.9 0.81 0.58 38.79 R2 1 100.0 0.009 36.8 LOS C 0.1 0.9 0.81 0.58 36.8Approach 2 100.0 0.009 33.7 LOS C 0.1 0.9 0.81 0.58 37.7

West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.323 14.2 LOS A 7.0 56.5 0.49 0.73 46.312 R2 346 18.5 0.323 13.8 LOS A 7.0 56.5 0.49 0.73 47.0Approach 347 18.7 0.323 13.8 LOS A 7.0 56.5 0.49 0.73 47.0

All Vehicles 445 29.7 0.323 19.1 LOS B 7.0 56.5 0.58 0.74 43.9




FlowAverage


Prop.Queued


ped/h sec ped m per pedP1 South Full Crossing 50 8.9 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.45 0.45P3 North Full Crossing 50 8.9 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.45 0.45P4 West Full Crossing 50 32.2 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.85 0.85

All Pedestrians 150 16.7 LOS B 0.58 0.58


Processed: Friday, 15 May 2015 11:00:19 AMSIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877


Project: \\ausyd1fp001\Projects\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Spring FarmParkway Glenlee Northern Access.sip68000907, 6016882, AECOM, NETWORK / Enterprise

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021/2031 PM Dev no SFP



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 250 10.8 0.208 11.4 LOS A 4.1 31.2 0.40 0.68 49.12 T1 1 100.0 0.208 5.8 LOS A 4.1 31.2 0.40 0.68 50.6Approach 251 11.2 0.208 11.4 LOS A 4.1 31.2 0.40 0.68 49.1

North: Bus only link (N)8 T1 1 100.0 0.004 5.7 LOS A 0.0 0.4 0.35 0.43 52.79 R2 1 100.0 0.004 11.7 LOS A 0.0 0.4 0.35 0.43 49.2Approach 2 100.0 0.004 8.7 LOS A 0.0 0.4 0.35 0.43 50.9

West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.201 40.3 LOS C 2.0 20.6 0.88 0.75 34.712 R2 52 51.9 0.201 40.3 LOS C 2.0 20.6 0.88 0.75 34.5Approach 53 52.8 0.201 40.3 LOS C 2.0 20.6 0.88 0.75 34.5





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued


ped/h sec ped m per pedP1 South Full Crossing 50 35.6 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.89 0.89P3 North Full Crossing 50 35.6 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.89 0.89P4 West Full Crossing 50 7.2 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.40 0.40

All Pedestrians 150 26.2 LOS C 0.73 0.73





MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 AM Dev SFP



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 13 53.8 0.087 49.8 LOS D 1.0 11.0 0.85 0.70 32.12 T1 1 100.0 0.087 43.6 LOS D 1.0 11.0 0.85 0.70 33.43 R2 7 71.4 0.087 50.0 LOS D 1.0 11.0 0.85 0.70 32.0Approach 21 61.9 0.087 49.3 LOS D 1.0 11.0 0.85 0.70 32.1

East: Spring Farm Parkway (E)4 L2 24 20.8 0.196 16.8 LOS B 6.0 43.0 0.47 0.44 48.65 T1 449 1.6 0.196 11.0 LOS A 6.1 43.1 0.47 0.42 50.66 R2 1 100.0 0.007 21.3 LOS B 0.0 0.4 0.53 0.62 42.5Approach 474 2.7 0.196 11.3 LOS A 6.1 43.1 0.47 0.42 50.5

North: Bus only link (N)7 L2 1 100.0 0.014 48.7 LOS D 0.1 1.9 0.83 0.61 32.88 T1 1 100.0 0.014 42.6 LOS D 0.1 1.9 0.83 0.61 34.19 R2 1 100.0 0.014 48.8 LOS D 0.1 1.9 0.83 0.61 33.0Approach 3 100.0 0.014 46.7 LOS D 0.1 1.9 0.83 0.61 33.3

West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.743 20.3 LOS B 20.7 146.5 0.62 0.56 45.911 T1 1263 1.0 0.743 14.2 LOS A 20.8 146.5 0.62 0.55 48.612 R2 56 14.3 0.100 14.0 LOS A 1.2 9.4 0.44 0.67 47.3Approach 1320 1.6 0.743 14.2 LOS A 20.8 146.5 0.61 0.56 48.6





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued


ped/h sec ped m per pedP1 South Full Crossing 50 12.2 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.45 0.45P2 East Full Crossing 50 54.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95P3 North Full Crossing 50 12.2 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.45 0.45P4 West Full Crossing 50 54.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95

All Pedestrians 200 33.2 LOS D 0.70 0.70





MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 PM Dev SFP



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate





West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.298 18.0 LOS B 10.0 70.3 0.51 0.45 47.311 T1 728 0.5 0.298 11.8 LOS A 10.0 70.3 0.51 0.45 50.212 R2 8 37.5 0.029 17.9 LOS B 0.2 1.9 0.49 0.65 44.5Approach 737 1.1 0.298 11.9 LOS A 10.0 70.3 0.51 0.45 50.1





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued









Spring Farm Parkway / Glenlee Eastern AccessSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 120 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)


IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Spring Farm Parkway (S)1 L2 212 21.2 0.336 16.3 LOS B 7.8 61.4 0.55 0.65 47.52 T1 460 1.1 0.336 14.7 LOS B 11.8 83.1 0.58 0.54 47.9Approach 672 7.4 0.336 15.2 LOS B 11.8 83.1 0.57 0.58 47.8

North: Spring Farm Parkway (N)8 T1 1214 0.7 0.426 7.7 LOS A 14.5 102.2 0.45 0.41 53.39 R2 56 14.3 0.097 16.6 LOS B 1.4 10.9 0.49 0.68 46.0Approach 1270 1.3 0.426 8.1 LOS A 14.5 102.2 0.45 0.42 52.9

West: Glenlee Eastern Access10 L2 13 53.8 0.049 49.1 LOS D 0.6 6.4 0.84 0.69 32.112 R2 62 72.6 0.255 51.9 LOS D 3.2 35.9 0.89 0.76 31.1Approach 75 69.3 0.255 51.4 LOS D 3.2 35.9 0.88 0.75 31.3





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued


ped/h sec ped m per pedP1 South Full Crossing 50 54.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95P3 North Full Crossing 50 54.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95P4 West Full Crossing 50 17.6 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.54 0.54





Project: \\ausyd1fp001\Projects\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Spring FarmParkway Glenlee Eastern Access.sip68000907, 6016882, AECOM, NETWORK / Enterprise




IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Spring Farm Parkway (S)1 L2 33 57.6 0.429 20.2 LOS B 14.0 101.8 0.61 0.56 46.42 T1 937 0.2 0.429 14.0 LOS A 14.8 103.9 0.61 0.55 48.7Approach 970 2.2 0.429 14.3 LOS A 14.8 103.9 0.61 0.55 48.6







FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








AECOM



E

Appendix E

Sensitivity test – increased employee density with RMS warehousing trip rate

AECOM



e-1

Appendix E Sensitivity test - increased employee density with RMS warehousing trip rate

Comparison of trip generation

The key findings from this trip generation comparison exercise are listed below:

- Industrial uses: Comparison of employment density was carried out, comparing the assumption of 15 jobs per hectare, provided by Sada Services Pty Ltd (the operator) with the employment density listed in RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Updated Traffic Surveys published on August 2013 and The Employment Lands Development Program (ELDP) 2010 Report 10 – South West Subregion published by NSW Department of Planning. The comparison shows that the employment density assumption provided by the operator is within the range of the RMS survey data but it is lower than the employment density of approximately 25 jobs per hectare, reported in the ELDP report. Hence, the employment density of 25 jobs per hectare was used in the sensitivity test. In addition to the higher employment density adopted, the potential 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to other modes was not adopted, to represent the worst case condition.

- Intermodal facilities: The comparison has shown that the trip generation methodology adopted in Section 6.2 could be considered a conservative approach as it has higher trip estimation than other methodologies / benchmarks. Therefore, no increase has been tested.

- Warehouse (associated with intermodal terminal operation): As the warehouses are mostly likely to be associated with intermodal terminal operation, the trip rates in RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments for road transport terminals or industrial estates are not appropriate to be used as they have different characteristics to an intermodal terminal. The trip generation rates were determined from first principle assumptions with Sada Services Pty Ltd providing the assumption for employment density as 10 employees per hectare. Despite the potential inappropriateness of the RMS’s general trip rates for warehouses, it was adopted in this sensitivity test to represent the worst case condition as higher trips were estimated using RMS’s general trip rates.

- Bulk terminals and concrete batch plant: RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments does not provide a trip generation rate for bulk terminals and concrete batch plan, hence first principles is considered appropriate to estimate the trips from these land uses. Therefore, no increase has been tested.

Industrial area trip generation

The trip generation rates for industrial use were determined from first principles with the employment density assumption of 15 employees per hectares as given by Sada Services Pty Ltd. The light vehicle traffic generated by the development is then estimated using the number of employee arriving and leaving the site, while the heavy vehicle traffic used Roads and Maritime trip rates based on employee numbers.

Several trip generation methodologies are explored to assess the soundness of estimates from the first principles calculation:

Trip generation rates for factories / business parks in RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments published in 2002: The trip generation rates for factories / business parks in RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments published in 2002 are based on the surveys undertaken in 1979 (factories) and in 1994 (business parks). As the surveys were carried out over 20 to 30 years ago, it does not reflect current traffic patterns. Therefore, these trip rates were not used to estimate the trip generation for Glenlee site or for benchmark comparisons.

Trip generation rates in RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Updated traffic surveys published in August 2013 (TDT 2013/04a): The estimated trip generation for the Glenlee Precinct industrial component was compared against the 2012 RMS surveys. Of the four Sydney area surveys, the Wonderland Business Park in Eastern Creek was the closest in size to the Glenlee site – the other three business parks and industrial estates were either much smaller (0.6 ha and 4.7 ha) or much bigger (326.9 ha). Applying the same trip rate for the Glenlee Precinct produced the peak hourly volumes in the table below. The table shows that the trip generation using first principles is lower than the trip generated using Eastern Creek trip rate. In the AM peak, the traffic volume forecast from first

AECOM



e-2

principles is 87 per cent of the comparative volume from the Eastern Creek survey, while in the PM peak, it is 63 per cent.

Survey of Wonderland

Business Park, Eastern Creek

Glenlee Precinct using Eastern Creek

trip rate

Glenlee Precinct using first principles

Industrial (site area) 114.6 ha - 27.5 ha

Car – AM Peak - - 143

Truck – AM Peak - - 7

Vehicles – AM Peak 724 173 150 (87%)

Car – PM Peak - - 102

Truck – PM Peak - - 5

Vehicles – PM Peak 714 171 107 (63%) Source: AECOM 2015

The assumption of 15 employees per hectares provided by Sada Services Pty Ltd is also compared against the employment density listed in:

RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Updated traffic surveys published in August 2013 (TDT 2013/04a): In 2012, RMS undertook a survey of business parks and industrial estates to update its trip generation rate. Only two surveyed sites provided the employee numbers and the employment density varied from 10 to 49 employees per hectare. This indicates the employee density assumption provided by the operator is within the range of the RMS survey data.

The Employment Lands Development Program (ELDP) 2010 Report 10 – South West Subregion published by NSW Department of Planning: The report indicates that the job density for the developed land in the South West Employment Lands was approximately 25 jobs per hectare.

The comparison shows that the employment density assumption provided by the operator is within the range of the RMS survey data but it is lower than the employment density of approximately 25 jobs per hectare, reported in ELDP report. Hence, a sensitivity test was carried out to assess the impact on the intersections due to the higher employment density of 25 jobs per hectare. In addition to the higher employment density adopted, the potential 10% mode shift from private car use to other modes was not adopted, so as to represent the worst case condition. The calculation of the net increase in vehicle movements from the industrial use due to the increase in employment density (25 jobs per hectare) is:

1. The proposed site area for industrial area is approximately 27.5 hectares. The employment density is assumed to be 25 employees per hectare (22 day shift employees and 3 night shift employees per hectare), therefore, the number of employee is calculated as:

(27.5 hectares site area x 22 day shift employee + 27.5 hectares site area x 3 night shift employee = 604 day shift employee and 82 night shift employee)

2. As it is expected that the future arrival pattern will be similar to the current arrival pattern at the site, it is assumed that day shift workers arrive at the site over 3 hours (2 different shifts, 6-9am) and leave the site over 3 hours (4-7pm). Night shift workers arrive at the site over 4 hours (4-8pm) and leave the site after midnight (12-6am). The total number of light vehicle movements for workers during the peak periods are:




TransCAD AM Peak (7am to 9am): 27.5 hectares x 0.25 (from 7am to 8am) + 27.5 hectares x 2 (from 8am to 9am) = 62 light vehicle movements

TransCAD PM Peak (3pm to 6pm): 27.5 hectares x 2 (from 3pm to 4pm) + 27.5 hectares x 0.25 (for 2 hours from 4pm to 6pm) = 69 light vehicle movements

AECOM



e-3




5. It is assumed that there are trucks visiting the site during the day. The trip rates are assumed to be 0.028 truck movements per employee (8am to 4pm) and 0.00256 truck movements per employee (4pm to 8am). These trip rates are based on RMS trip generation rate for industrial estates per 1,000 employees10. The truck movements are based on total employee numbers, not day / night shift employee numbers. The total number of truck movements is calculated as:



The following table summarises the change of vehicle movements for the sensitivity test of industrial land.

Industrial Light Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Total

Modelled Sensitivity

test Net

change Modelled

Sensitivity test

Net change


test Net

change

AM Peak 143 242 +99 7 11 +4 150 252 +102

PM Peak 102 171 +69 5 8 +3 107 178 +71

Daily 1,302 1,922 +620 109 182 +73 1,411 2,104 +693 Source: AECOM 2015

10 The trip rates are calculated from Table 3.4 of RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Version 2.2 October 2002 (Page 3-16)

AECOM



e-4

Intermodal terminal trip generation (including associated warehouse)

The trip generation rates for industrial use were determined from first principles based on TEU capacity and several trip generation methodologies are explored to assess the soundness of the estimates from the first principles calculation:

RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments for road transport terminals: As mentioned in the earlier section for intermodal terminal trip generation, RMS survey data is not used, as it is based on surveys in 1979 for air freight terminals and interstate truck depots which would have different characteristics to a new intermodal terminal

Trip estimation base on site area of other intermodal terminals in Sydney: The table below presents the TEU capacity to site area ratio for the major intermodal terminals in Sydney. From the table, it is evident the TEU capacity per hectare for other approved sites ranges from 4,800 TEU per hectare to 12,050 TEU per hectare. This suggests that the size of site area does not have a constant ratio to the TEU capacity in other intermodal terminals in Sydney. As a result, the traffic generated from the development is more appropriate to be estimated by TEU capacity rather than the site area.

Intermodal sites TEU capacity per annum Site area (hectare) TEU capacity /

hectare

Enfield Intermodal Terminal 300,000 60 5,000

SIMTA 1,000,000 83 12,050

IMT 1,050,000 220 4,800

Glenlee Precinct 150,000 37.3 (intermodal + associated warehouses) 4,020

Source: AECOM 2015

Trip estimation base on trip rates of other intermodal terminals in Sydney: The estimated trip generation at Glenlee intermodal terminal with associated warehouse has been compared against other similar developments in Sydney and the comparison is shown in the following table.

Proposed Glenlee

using first principles

Enfield Glenlee with Enfield trip

rate SIMTA

Glenlee with SIMTA trip

rate IMT

Glenlee with IMT trip rate

TEU capacity per annum 150,000 300,000

50% of Enfield

capacity 1,000,000

15% of SIMTA

capacity 1,050,000

14% of IMT

capacity

Car – AM Peak

170 142 71 692 104 84* 12

Truck – AM Peak

79 88 44 204 31 342 49

Car – PM Peak

121 142 71 630 95 84* 12

Truck – PM Peak

35 53 27 245 37 342 49

Notes: Enfield: Enfield Intermodal Terminal SIMTA: Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance (SIMTA)’s intermodal terminal in Moorebank IMT: Moorebank Intermodal Terminal * IMT assumes shift workers arrive and leave the site outside the network AM and PM peak hours

The range of AM peak car and truck trips for the Glenlee development estimated using other intermodal trip rates based upon the TEU capacity are 12 to 104 car trips and 31 to 49 truck trips respectively. For the PM peak, the estimated car trips range from 12 to 95 trips and the truck trips from 37 to 49 trips. The trip generation for Glenlee is generally similar or higher than other intermodal developments. Therefore, the estimated trip generations for Glenlee using first principles assumption appear appropriate, possibly even on the conservative side for use in the traffic modelling.

AECOM



e-5

Warehouse trip generation (associated with intermodal terminal)

The trip generation rates for warehouse use were determined from first principle assumptions based on the employment density of 10 employees per hectare as provided by Sada Services Pty Ltd (the operator) and several trip generation methodologies are explored to assess the soundness of the estimates from the first principles calculation:

RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments for road transport terminals or industrial estates: As the warehouses are mostly likely to be associated with intermodal terminal operation, similar to the Intermodal terminal trip generation, the trip rates in RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments for road transport terminals or industrial estates are not appropriate to be used as they have different characteristics to an intermodal terminal.

Comparison of trip generation methodology adopted by other similar sites: Other intermodal terminal studies mentioned in the earlier section also used first principles to estimate the traffic for warehouses instead of using general RMS trip generation rates for warehouses. This is because warehouse employees associated with intermodal terminal operations are expected to work in shifts which would be different to traditional warehouse operations. The warehouse trip generation for Glenlee (combined with intermodal operation) has been compared with other intermodal terminal studies in the earlier section of this appendix.

RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments for warehouse11: A general trip rate of 0.5 per 100m2 Gross Floor Area (GFA) is provided for warehouses. As it is a general trip rate, it is unclear if the surveyed warehouses which resulted in the trip rate will be comparable with the likely use of the proposed warehouse in Glenlee which is potentially associated with the intermodal terminal operation

Despite the uncertainty with the RMS’s generic trip rate, it will be used to assess the traffic impacts on the intersections through the sensitivity test as it provides a higher trip generation by the warehouse. The calculation of the net increase in vehicle movements from the warehouses using the RMS’s generic trip rate is as follows:

1. As the RMS general trip generation rate for warehouse is based on Gross Floor Area (GFA) and the GFA information for the proposed warehouse is not available at this stage of the study, benchmarking using Appendix E of RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Updated traffic surveys published in August 2013 (TDT 2013/04a) is carried out to determine the potential GFA for the proposed warehouse. The table below represents all the business parks and industrial estates listed in the RMS survey data.

Of the four Sydney area surveys, the Wonderland Business Park in Eastern Creek was the closest in size to the Glenlee site – the other three business parks and industrial estates were either much smaller (0.6 ha and 4.7 ha) or much bigger (326.9 ha), hence the ratio of 35% is adopted for the proposed warehouse in Glenlee development. This is comparable to the average of 37% for the sites in Sydney areas and higher than the average of 25% for sites in non-Sydney areas and the overall average of 29% for the eleven (11) sites.

11 RMS’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments Version 2.2 October 2002 (Section 3.10.2)

AECOM



e-6

Sydney Areas

Site

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

Average Erskine Park Industrial Estate,

Erskine

Helensburgh Business Park, Helensburgh

Wonderland Business Park, Eastern Creek

Riverwood Business Park, Riverwood

Site Area (ha) 326.9 0.6 114.6 4.7 111.7

GFA (m2) 693,605 1,605 406,600 29,983 282,948

GFA/ Site Area 21% 27% 35% 64% 37%

Non-Sydney Areas

Site

Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11

Average Tuggerah Business

Park

Central Business

Park, Albion Park Rail

Anmbah Business

Park, Rutherford

Freeway Business

Park, Beresfield

Shearwater Business

Park, Taylors Beach

Stephens industrial

estate, Taylors

Johnson Street

Business Park,

Dubbo Site Area

(ha) 52.2 14.6 17.5 32.5 10.3 5.9 6.3 19.9

GFA (m2) 136,737 42,899 29,766 89,291 16,022 19,881 14,419 49,859

GFA / Site Area 26% 29% 17% 27% 16% 34% 23% 25%

Overall Average 29%

2. The proposed site area for warehouse is 14.4 hectares. At a development ratio of 35 per cent12, this equates to approximately 50,400 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA).

3. The RMS general trip generation rate for warehouse is 0.5 trips per hour per 100 sqm GFA for peak period. Therefore, the total vehicle movements are:

AM Peak: 50,400 x 0.5 ÷ 100 = 252 vehicle movements per hour

PM Peak: 50,400 x 0.5 ÷ 100 = 252 vehicle movements per hour

4. The total light vehicle movements for workers and visitors for warehouse estimated in the TIA are:

AM Peak: 84 light vehicle movements per hour

PM Peak: 63 light vehicle movements per hour

To simulate the worst case scenario, the truck movements estimated in the TIA were maintained.

The net increase in light vehicle movements is:

AM Peak: 252 – 84 = 168 vehicle movements per hour

PM Peak: 252 – 63 = 189 vehicle movements per hour

5. For the daily volume, the RMS general trip generation rate for warehouses is 4 trips per day per 100 sqm GFA. Therefore, the total vehicle movements are:

Daily: 50,400 x 4 ÷ 100 = 2,016 vehicle movements per day

12 This ratio has been used in other development applications and is the same ratio as the surveyed Eastern Creek industrial estate.

AECOM



e-7

The following table summarises the change of vehicle movements for the sensitivity test of the warehouses.

Warehouse

Light Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Total


test Net

change Modelled

Sensitivity test

Net change


test Net

change

AM Peak 84 252 +168 4 4 0 88 256 +168

PM Peak 63 252 +189 3 3 0 66 255 +189

Daily 879 2,016 +1,137 61 61 0 940 2,077 +1,137 Source: AECOM 2015

In summary, the overall change of traffic in the sensitivity test for both industrial land and warehouse are presented in the following table:

Industrial & Warehouse

Light Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Total


test Net

change Modelled

Sensitivity test

Net change


test Net

change

AM Peak 227 494 +267 11 15 +4 238 508 +270

PM Peak 165 423 +258 8 10 +2 173 433 +260

Daily 2,181 3,938 +1,757 170 243 +73 2,351 4,181 +1,830 Source: AECOM 2015

Intersection analysis

Overall, there is a net increase of 270 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 260 vehicles in the PM peak hour. The turning volumes in the intersection SIDRA model were then updated with the net increase in traffic. No background traffic redistribution has been assumed in this sensitivity test to simulate the worst case scenario.

In general, the distribution extracted from TransCAD strategic traffic model indicates:

- More than 90% of the development traffic will come from Camden Bypass with a minimal percentage of traffic from Richardson Road. To represent the worst case scenario at the most critical intersection (Camden Bypass / Liz Kernohan Drive), it was assumed that all development traffic uses Camden Bypass. The distribution at Camden Bypass extracted from TransCAD model is 60% from the north and 40% from the south

- With the extension of Spring Farm Parkway, 35% of development traffic will use Camden Bypass and 65% of development traffic will use M31 Hume Motorway.

The comparison of SIDRA results shown in Section 6.6 and the sensitivity test is summarised in . Table 17 Intersection performance comparison from sensitivity testing

Intersection Intersection Type Scenario Model

Demand Flow

(veh/h) DoS

95th % Queue

(m)

Avg Delay (sec)*

LoS*

Liz Kernohan

Drive / Camden Bypass++

Signals

2021 AM Results in

Section 6.6 3,992 0.87 320 44.6 C

Sensitivity test 4,263 0.85 288 37.8 C

2021 PM Results in

Section 6.6 3,484 0.81 242 29.5 C


2031 AM without SFP

extension

Results in Section 6.6 4,241 0.89 327 39.1 C


AECOM



e-8


Demand Flow

(veh/h) DoS

95th % Queue

(m)

Avg Delay (sec)*

LoS*

2031 PM without SFP

extension


Sensitivity test 4,130 0.96 450 52.6 D

2031 AM with SFP extension



2031 PM with SFP extension



Liz Kernohan

Drive / Richardson

Road

Roundabout

2021 AM Results in

Section 6.6 1,769 0.62 30 13.6 A

Sensitivity test 2,040 0.63 31 13.9 A

2021 PM Results in

Section 6.6 1,351 0.27 8 10.9 A


2031 AM without SFP

extension

Results in Section 6.6 1,802 0.58 26 13.3 A


2031 PM without SFP

extension









Spring Farm Parkway/ Glenlee northern access

Signals

2021 AM Results in

Section 6.6 445 0.32 57 19.1 B

Sensitivity test 716 0.49 95 18.3 B

2021 PM Results in

Section 6.6 306 0.21 31 16.4 B


2031 AM without SFP

extension

Results in Section 6.6 445 0.32 57 19.1 B


2031 PM without SFP

extension

Results in Section 6.6 306 0.21 31 16.4 B




Sensitivity test 1,937 0.80 163 15.6 B

AECOM



e-9


Demand Flow

(veh/h) DoS

95th % Queue

(m)

Avg Delay (sec)*

LoS*



Sensitivity test 1,880 0.44 108 14.9 B

Spring Farm Parkway/ Glenlee eastern access

Signals

2021 AM - - - - -

2021 PM - - - - -

2031 AM without SFP

extension - - - - -

2031 PM without SFP

extension - - - - -





Results in Section 6.6 1,910 0.43 104 14.8 B

Sensitivity test 2,123 0.61 109 18.5 B Source: AECOM 2015

*For roundabout and priority control intersection, the critical movement for level of service assessment should be that with the worst movement delay. ++ The results for Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass intersection represent the performance of the intersection after modification of the intersection layout. The sensitivity test indicates that, when higher trip generation from industrial use and warehouses are used, the four intersections would be able to cope with the additional traffic generated and still operate at a satisfactory LoS D and better for 2021 and 2031 AM and PM peak hours. The performance of the intersections is summarised below:

- Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass: Although the intersection is still performing satisfactorily at LoS C/D, the increase in traffic generation would increase the traffic loading on the intersection and increase its DoS from 0.93 to 0.96 for its worst condition (2031 PM without SFP extension). The scenarios without Spring Farm Parkway extension would represent the worst condition for the intersection as all development traffic will be loaded onto the intersection. The key findings for the intersection are as follows:

Scenarios without Spring Farm Parkway: The right turn lane of Camden Bypass (South) could be extended from 90m to 130m to avoid overspill of the vehicle queue into the adjacent lanes

2031 PM without Spring Farm Parkway: Although the average delay for the right turns from Camden Bypass (South) and Liz Kernohan (East) has worsened to 86.1 sec and 79.5 sec respectively, the estimated vehicle queue for these movements is still within the length of the storage lane.

- Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road: The intersection is still performing satisfactorily at LoS A with the current layout as shown in Figure 26.

- Spring Farm Parkway/ Glenlee northern access and eastern access: The intersections are still performing satisfactorily at LoS A/B with the proposed layouts as shown in Figure 27 and Figure 28 for the northern access and Figure 29 for the eastern access.

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021 AM Dev - Extend - Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate







Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (RTA NSW).Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.The results of iterative calculations indicate a somewhat unstable solution. See the Diagnostics section in the Detailed Output report.



FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








LuoPQ

Typewriter

Sensitivity Test Results

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021 PM Dev - Extend - Sensitivity Test

Camden Bypass / Liz Kernohan DrSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 120 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)Variable Sequence Analysis applied. The results are given for the selected output sequence.


IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate




North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 309 7.8 0.202 9.0 LOS A 2.9 21.7 0.23 0.67 57.85 T1 1466 2.9 0.866 34.9 LOS C 41.0 293.9 0.90 0.89 45.56 R2 177 0.0 0.419 50.3 LOS D 8.9 62.5 0.90 0.80 35.0Approach 1952 3.4 0.866 32.2 LOS C 41.0 293.9 0.80 0.85 45.8

West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 90 1.1 0.075 11.1 LOS A 1.6 11.1 0.37 0.63 54.28 T1 10 0.0 0.075 46.5 LOS D 1.6 11.1 0.82 0.64 33.79 R2 35 0.0 0.373 69.2 LOS E 2.1 14.9 1.00 0.73 29.3Approach 135 0.7 0.373 28.8 LOS C 2.1 14.9 0.57 0.66 42.9





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 AM Dev no SFP - Extend - Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 41 0.0 0.026 8.1 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.16 0.64 58.911 T1 1441 3.4 0.884 41.3 LOS C 46.5 334.6 0.95 0.96 42.212 R2 332 2.4 0.771 56.5 LOS E 19.1 136.3 1.00 0.88 33.1Approach 1814 3.1 0.884 43.4 LOS D 46.5 334.6 0.94 0.94 40.4


North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 468 12.6 0.362 11.9 LOS A 8.2 63.3 0.39 0.72 55.15 T1 866 11.2 0.786 44.0 LOS D 24.3 186.1 0.98 0.89 40.96 R2 89 2.2 0.578 67.2 LOS E 5.3 37.7 1.00 0.78 30.1Approach 1423 11.1 0.786 34.9 LOS C 24.3 186.1 0.79 0.83 43.6






FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 PM Dev no SFP - Extend - Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 51 0.0 0.035 8.8 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.21 0.65 58.211 T1 612 9.2 0.449 30.8 LOS C 13.5 101.9 0.81 0.70 47.912 R2 202 2.0 0.936 86.1 LOS F 14.7 104.8 1.00 1.05 26.2Approach 865 6.9 0.936 42.4 LOS C 14.7 104.8 0.82 0.77 40.5

East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 412 0.7 0.511 27.2 LOS B 16.1 113.6 0.78 0.86 43.92 T1 10 0.0 0.034 46.8 LOS D 0.5 3.5 0.88 0.60 34.13 R2 499 5.6 0.922 79.5 LOS F 17.8 130.6 1.00 1.07 26.8Approach 921 3.4 0.922 55.7 LOS D 17.8 130.6 0.90 0.97 32.5

North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 425 5.6 0.278 9.5 LOS A 4.9 35.6 0.28 0.68 57.45 T1 1577 3.2 0.962 70.2 LOS E 62.6 450.1 0.95 1.17 31.76 R2 195 0.5 0.447 49.8 LOS D 9.8 69.2 0.91 0.81 35.1Approach 2197 3.5 0.962 56.6 LOS E 62.6 450.1 0.81 1.04 35.0

West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 99 1.0 0.108 14.9 LOS B 1.9 13.1 0.56 0.69 51.38 T1 10 0.0 0.102 61.5 LOS E 0.6 4.1 0.98 0.66 30.09 R2 38 0.0 0.405 69.3 LOS E 2.3 16.2 1.00 0.73 29.3Approach 147 0.7 0.405 32.2 LOS C 2.3 16.2 0.70 0.70 41.3

All Vehicles 4130 4.1 0.962 52.6 LOS D 62.6 450.1 0.83 0.96 35.6




FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 AM Dev - Extend - Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 39 0.0 0.024 8.1 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.16 0.64 58.911 T1 956 1.8 0.491 19.4 LOS B 16.8 119.4 0.71 0.63 56.312 R2 597 1.2 0.861 49.4 LOS D 33.4 236.5 0.99 0.94 35.4Approach 1592 1.5 0.861 30.4 LOS C 33.4 236.5 0.80 0.75 46.2

East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 448 1.1 0.345 10.0 LOS A 7.8 55.0 0.41 0.68 54.92 T1 10 0.0 0.037 44.6 LOS D 0.5 3.3 0.89 0.61 34.83 R2 401 2.7 0.799 60.9 LOS E 11.4 81.7 1.00 0.91 31.2Approach 859 1.9 0.799 34.2 LOS C 11.4 81.7 0.69 0.79 40.3

North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 242 4.5 0.216 16.9 LOS B 5.5 40.0 0.52 0.73 51.55 T1 584 3.3 0.694 43.7 LOS D 14.8 106.3 0.98 0.84 41.16 R2 87 2.3 0.518 61.1 LOS E 4.7 33.4 1.00 0.77 31.7Approach 913 3.5 0.694 38.3 LOS C 14.8 106.3 0.86 0.80 42.1






FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 PM Dev - Extend - Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate



East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 594 0.3 0.533 14.9 LOS B 15.0 105.0 0.64 0.78 51.42 T1 52 0.0 0.203 42.9 LOS D 2.3 16.3 0.93 0.70 35.33 R2 223 2.2 0.464 50.6 LOS D 5.2 37.3 0.97 0.78 34.2Approach 869 0.8 0.533 25.8 LOS B 15.0 105.0 0.74 0.78 44.4

North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 263 1.9 0.211 11.9 LOS A 4.0 28.2 0.40 0.71 55.45 T1 963 1.0 0.794 37.1 LOS C 22.9 161.6 0.98 0.91 44.36 R2 156 0.6 0.309 38.6 LOS C 6.1 43.0 0.84 0.79 39.3Approach 1382 1.2 0.794 32.5 LOS C 22.9 161.6 0.85 0.85 45.4






FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021 AM Dev - Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate











MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021 PM Dev - Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate














IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate











MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 AM Dev no SFP - Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate











MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 PM Dev no SFP - Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate











MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021/2031 AM Dev no SFP Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 124 53.2 0.475 42.7 LOS D 5.1 52.1 0.94 0.79 34.02 T1 1 100.0 0.475 36.5 LOS C 5.1 52.1 0.94 0.79 35.5Approach 125 53.6 0.475 42.6 LOS D 5.1 52.1 0.94 0.79 34.0

North: Bus only link (N)8 T1 1 100.0 0.013 36.6 LOS C 0.1 1.0 0.88 0.59 36.49 R2 1 100.0 0.013 42.7 LOS D 0.1 1.0 0.88 0.59 34.7Approach 2 100.0 0.013 39.6 LOS C 0.1 1.0 0.88 0.59 35.5

West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.488 13.6 LOS A 12.3 94.7 0.52 0.75 46.712 R2 588 11.2 0.488 13.1 LOS A 12.3 94.7 0.52 0.75 47.7Approach 589 11.4 0.488 13.1 LOS A 12.3 94.7 0.52 0.75 47.7





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued


ped/h sec ped m per pedP1 South Full Crossing 50 7.2 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.40 0.40P3 North Full Crossing 50 7.2 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.40 0.40P4 West Full Crossing 50 35.6 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.89 0.89

All Pedestrians 150 16.7 LOS B 0.56 0.56





MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2021/2031 PM Dev no SFP Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 483 5.8 0.363 10.6 LOS A 7.9 58.0 0.41 0.70 49.82 T1 1 100.0 0.363 5.0 LOS A 7.9 58.0 0.41 0.70 51.2Approach 484 6.0 0.363 10.6 LOS A 7.9 58.0 0.41 0.70 49.8

North: Bus only link (N)8 T1 1 100.0 0.004 5.3 LOS A 0.0 0.4 0.34 0.42 52.99 R2 1 100.0 0.004 11.4 LOS A 0.0 0.4 0.34 0.42 49.4Approach 2 100.0 0.004 8.4 LOS A 0.0 0.4 0.34 0.42 51.1

West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.362 45.3 LOS D 3.3 30.5 0.94 0.77 33.212 R2 79 35.4 0.362 45.1 LOS D 3.3 30.5 0.94 0.77 33.3Approach 80 36.3 0.362 45.1 LOS D 3.3 30.5 0.94 0.77 33.3





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued


ped/h sec ped m per pedP1 South Full Crossing 50 39.3 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.94 0.94P3 North Full Crossing 50 39.3 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.94 0.94P4 West Full Crossing 50 5.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.36 0.36






MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 AM Dev SFP Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate





West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.802 22.5 LOS B 23.1 163.3 0.63 0.58 44.711 T1 1309 1.2 0.802 16.4 LOS B 23.1 163.2 0.63 0.58 47.312 R2 102 11.8 0.184 14.5 LOS B 2.3 18.0 0.47 0.69 47.1Approach 1412 2.1 0.802 16.2 LOS B 23.1 163.3 0.62 0.59 47.2





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued








MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: 2031 PM Dev SFP Sensitivity Test



IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate





West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.300 18.0 LOS B 10.1 70.9 0.51 0.45 47.311 T1 733 0.5 0.300 11.9 LOS A 10.1 70.9 0.51 0.45 50.212 R2 13 23.1 0.045 17.9 LOS B 0.3 2.8 0.50 0.66 44.9Approach 747 1.1 0.300 12.0 LOS A 10.1 70.9 0.51 0.45 50.1





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued











IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate









FlowAverage


Prop.Queued











IDODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate




West: Glenlee Eastern Access10 L2 79 3.8 0.147 28.6 LOS C 2.3 16.7 0.78 0.74 40.012 R2 292 6.8 0.553 32.1 LOS C 9.8 73.0 0.90 0.82 38.5Approach 371 6.2 0.553 31.4 LOS C 9.8 73.0 0.87 0.80 38.8





FlowAverage


Prop.Queued


ped/h sec ped m per pedP1 South Full Crossing 50 34.3 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.93 0.93P3 North Full Crossing 50 34.3 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.93 0.93P4 West Full Crossing 50 21.1 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.73 0.73






AECOM



F

Appendix F

Sensitivity test – increased employee density with industrial land use only

AECOM



f-1

Appendix F Sensitivity test – increased employee density with industrial land use only

The Transport agencies raised a view that the land use mix of the subject can be subject to change and therefore it was agreed that a ‘worst case’ scenario trip generation should be determined based on the permitted industrial land use zoning. In this test, the land use breakdown was adjusted to include only industrial with no other development.

The first principles trip generation approach based on employment density assumed at 25 employees per hectare of site area for industrial uses was retained.

1. The proposed site area for industrial use is 67.8 hectares. At a development ratio of 35 per cent13, this equates to approximately 237,300 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA).

2. Using the same ratio as the calculated industrial trips in Appendix E, the total light vehicle movements for workers and visitors for the industrial land use are:

AM Peak: 597 light vehicle movements per hour

PM Peak: 422 light vehicle movements per hour

2. Using the same ratio as the calculated industrial trips in Appendix E, the total heavy vehicle movements for workers and visitors for the industrial land use are:

AM Peak: 27 heavy vehicle movements per hour

PM Peak: 19 heavy vehicle movements per hour

The following table summarises the change of vehicle movements for the sensitivity test of all industrial land use.

Warehouse Light Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Total


test Net

change Modelled

Sensitivity test

Net change


test Net

change

AM Peak 313 597 +284 130 27 -103 443 624 +181

PM Peak 247 422 +175 55 19 -36 302 440 +138

The sensitivity test indicates that, when higher trip generation from industrial use are used, the four intersections would be able to cope with the additional traffic generated and still operate at a satisfactory LoS D and better for 2021 and 2031 AM and PM peak hours. The performance of the intersections is summarised below:

- Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass: The intersection is still performing satisfactorily at LoS C/D, the traffic loading on the intersection would result in a DoS of 0.89 for its worst condition (2031 AM without SFP extension). The scenarios without Spring Farm Parkway extension would represent the worst condition for the intersection as all development traffic will be loaded onto the intersection. The key findings for the intersection are as follows:


2031 AM without Spring Farm Parkway: Although the average delay for the right turns from Camden Bypass (South) and Liz Kernohan (East) has worsened to 59.5 sec and 63.2 sec respectively, the estimated vehicle queue for these movements is still within the length of the storage lane.

Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road: The intersection is still performing satisfactorily at LoS A with the current layout as shown in Figure 26.

13 This ratio has been used in other development applications and is the same ratio as the surveyed Eastern Creek industrial estate.

AECOM



f-2

Spring Farm Parkway/ Glenlee northern access and eastern access: The intersections are still performing satisfactorily at LoS A/B with the proposed layouts as shown in Figure 27 and Figure 28 for the northern access and Figure 29 for the eastern access.

Appendix F

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021 AM Dev no SFP - Extend - Sensitivity Test - I 100%

Camden Bypass / Liz Kernohan DrSignals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 120 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)

Movement Performance - VehiclesMov ID ODMo

vDemand Flows Deg. Satn Average


95% Back of Queue Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 34 0.0 0.022 8.2 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.17 0.64 58.711 T1 1405 3.2 0.812 32.0 LOS C 36.5 262.3 0.93 0.86 47.212 R2 347 3.2 0.688 49.4 LOS D 18.3 131.4 0.95 0.85 35.4Approach 1786 3.1 0.812 34.9 LOS C 36.5 262.3 0.92 0.86 44.5East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 376 3.5 0.306 10.9 LOS A 7.4 53.1 0.41 0.68 53.72 T1 1 0.0 0.002 39.5 LOS C 0.0 0.3 0.81 0.49 36.53 R2 626 9.6 0.855 64.1 LOS E 19.9 151.1 1.00 0.96 29.9Approach 1003 7.3 0.855 44.1 LOS D 19.9 151.1 0.78 0.85 35.9North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 497 12.5 0.396 12.1 LOS A 9.0 69.7 0.41 0.72 55.05 T1 674 9.2 0.702 43.8 LOS D 18.0 136.2 0.97 0.83 41.06 R2 119 1.7 0.770 70.9 LOS F 7.4 52.7 1.00 0.86 29.2Approach 1290 9.8 0.770 34.1 LOS C 18.0 136.2 0.75 0.79 43.7West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 232 0.9 0.325 29.4 LOS C 8.8 61.8 0.75 0.77 42.78 T1 1 0.0 0.009 58.3 LOS E 0.1 0.4 0.96 0.56 30.89 R2 48 0.0 0.439 68.1 LOS E 2.9 20.2 1.00 0.74 29.6Approach 281 0.7 0.439 36.1 LOS C 8.8 61.8 0.79 0.76 39.6All Vehicles 4360 5.9 0.855 36.9 LOS C 36.5 262.3 0.83 0.83 41.6

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (RTA NSW).Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.The results of iterative calculations indicate a somewhat unstable solution. See the Diagnostics section in the Detailed Outputreport.

Movement Performance - PedestriansMovID Description

DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Average Back ofQueue

Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate

Pedestrian Distanceped/h sec ped m per ped

P41 South Stage 1 50 43.4 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.85 0.85P42 South Stage 2 50 40.9 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.83 0.83P1 East Full Crossing 50 47.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.89 0.89P3 West Full Crossing 50 47.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.89 0.89All Pedestrians 200 45.0 LOS E 0.87 0.87


SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Tuesday, 26 April 2016 5:19:27 PMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Camden Bypass Liz Kernohan Dr - sensitivity testupdated.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021 PM Dev no SFP - Extend - Sensitivity Test - I 100%






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 49 0.0 0.033 8.6 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.20 0.65 58.411 T1 602 3.7 0.428 29.4 LOS C 12.6 91.2 0.80 0.69 48.912 R2 171 3.5 0.767 71.1 LOS F 5.2 37.6 1.00 0.85 29.3Approach 822 3.4 0.767 36.8 LOS C 12.6 91.2 0.81 0.72 43.3East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 371 1.3 0.489 22.0 LOS B 14.5 102.8 0.78 0.82 46.62 T1 1 0.0 0.003 43.4 LOS D 0.0 0.3 0.86 0.51 35.23 R2 459 5.9 0.814 62.4 LOS E 13.7 100.5 1.00 0.92 30.6Approach 831 3.9 0.814 44.3 LOS D 14.5 102.8 0.90 0.88 36.1North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 311 8.4 0.193 8.3 LOS A 2.0 15.0 0.19 0.66 58.45 T1 1466 2.9 0.792 22.8 LOS B 33.2 238.2 0.83 0.76 53.56 R2 177 0.0 0.434 49.4 LOS D 8.7 60.7 0.91 0.80 35.3Approach 1954 3.5 0.792 22.9 LOS B 33.2 238.2 0.74 0.75 51.8West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 90 1.1 0.073 11.0 LOS A 1.5 10.5 0.38 0.64 54.28 T1 1 0.0 0.010 57.0 LOS E 0.1 0.4 0.96 0.56 31.29 R2 35 0.0 0.357 66.2 LOS E 2.0 14.2 1.00 0.73 30.1Approach 126 0.8 0.357 26.7 LOS B 2.0 14.2 0.55 0.67 44.1All Vehicles 3733 3.5 0.814 30.9 LOS C 33.2 238.2 0.78 0.77 45.2



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P41 South Stage 1 50 49.9 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.93 0.93P42 South Stage 2 50 44.4 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.88 0.88P1 East Full Crossing 50 36.1 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.79 0.79P3 West Full Crossing 50 36.1 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.79 0.79All Pedestrians 200 41.6 LOS E 0.85 0.85



MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 AM Dev no SFP - Extend - Sensitivity Test - I 100%






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 41 0.0 0.025 8.1 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.16 0.64 58.911 T1 1441 3.4 0.892 43.2 LOS D 48.0 346.0 0.95 0.98 41.312 R2 369 2.2 0.826 59.5 LOS E 22.3 159.0 1.00 0.91 32.3Approach 1851 3.1 0.892 45.6 LOS D 48.0 346.0 0.95 0.96 39.4East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 338 3.0 0.291 13.2 LOS A 7.7 55.5 0.46 0.69 52.12 T1 10 0.0 0.024 40.2 LOS C 0.5 3.2 0.82 0.57 36.33 R2 622 9.2 0.848 63.2 LOS E 19.6 148.1 1.00 0.95 30.1Approach 970 6.9 0.848 45.6 LOS D 19.6 148.1 0.81 0.86 35.4North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 524 11.3 0.413 12.8 LOS A 10.3 79.2 0.44 0.73 54.45 T1 866 11.2 0.827 47.9 LOS D 26.2 201.3 0.99 0.94 39.26 R2 89 2.2 0.578 67.2 LOS E 5.3 37.7 1.00 0.78 30.1Approach 1479 10.7 0.827 36.6 LOS C 26.2 201.3 0.80 0.86 42.7West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 245 0.8 0.469 32.5 LOS C 10.3 72.6 0.81 0.80 41.28 T1 10 0.0 0.087 59.9 LOS E 0.6 4.0 0.97 0.66 30.49 R2 60 0.0 0.548 68.8 LOS E 3.7 25.6 1.00 0.76 29.4Approach 315 0.6 0.548 40.3 LOS C 10.3 72.6 0.85 0.79 37.9All Vehicles 4615 6.2 0.892 42.4 LOS C 48.0 346.0 0.86 0.89 39.3



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate




SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Thursday, 17 December 2015 9:08:57 AMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Camden Bypass Liz Kernohan Dr - sensitivity testupdated.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 PM Dev no SFP - Extend - Sensitivity Test - I 100%






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 51 0.0 0.034 8.7 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.19 0.65 58.311 T1 612 9.2 0.439 31.9 LOS C 14.2 107.0 0.80 0.69 47.312 R2 202 2.0 0.873 82.7 LOS F 7.1 50.7 1.00 0.94 26.8Approach 865 6.9 0.873 42.4 LOS C 14.2 107.0 0.81 0.74 40.5East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 365 0.8 0.449 21.8 LOS B 13.8 97.5 0.69 0.78 46.82 T1 10 0.0 0.032 49.1 LOS D 0.5 3.7 0.87 0.60 33.43 R2 499 5.6 0.885 75.3 LOS F 17.6 129.5 1.00 0.99 27.6Approach 874 3.5 0.885 52.7 LOS D 17.6 129.5 0.87 0.90 33.4North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 425 5.6 0.259 8.5 LOS A 3.5 25.4 0.20 0.66 58.35 T1 1577 3.2 0.862 29.4 LOS C 41.6 299.3 0.83 0.81 48.86 R2 195 0.5 0.445 52.4 LOS D 10.5 73.5 0.90 0.81 34.3Approach 2197 3.5 0.862 27.4 LOS B 41.6 299.3 0.72 0.78 48.5West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 99 1.0 0.108 12.5 LOS A 2.0 14.0 0.40 0.65 53.08 T1 10 0.0 0.108 66.0 LOS E 0.6 4.4 0.98 0.66 29.09 R2 38 0.0 0.432 74.0 LOS F 2.5 17.3 1.00 0.73 28.3Approach 147 0.7 0.432 32.1 LOS C 2.5 17.3 0.59 0.67 41.3All Vehicles 4083 4.1 0.885 36.2 LOS C 41.6 299.3 0.76 0.80 42.4



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P41 South Stage 1 50 54.5 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.92 0.92P42 South Stage 2 50 49.1 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.88 0.88P1 East Full Crossing 50 37.6 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.77 0.77P3 West Full Crossing 50 37.6 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.77 0.77All Pedestrians 200 44.7 LOS E 0.83 0.83


SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Tuesday, 15 December 2015 4:12:29 PMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Camden Bypass Liz Kernohan Dr - sensitivity testupdated.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 AM Dev - Extend - Sensitivity Test - I 100%






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 39 0.0 0.024 8.0 LOS A 0.2 1.6 0.14 0.63 59.011 T1 956 1.8 0.487 24.0 LOS B 20.9 148.8 0.71 0.63 52.612 R2 611 1.3 0.868 52.3 LOS D 39.5 279.5 0.92 0.92 34.5Approach 1606 1.6 0.868 34.4 LOS C 39.5 279.5 0.78 0.74 44.0East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 450 1.3 0.329 10.8 LOS A 9.4 66.3 0.37 0.66 54.32 T1 1 0.0 0.003 49.1 LOS D 0.1 0.4 0.84 0.50 33.43 R2 405 3.2 0.614 62.9 LOS E 12.8 92.2 0.98 0.82 30.6Approach 856 2.2 0.614 35.5 LOS C 12.8 92.2 0.66 0.74 39.7North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 274 4.7 0.232 18.2 LOS B 7.5 54.5 0.49 0.73 50.65 T1 584 3.3 0.876 71.2 LOS F 21.8 156.5 1.00 0.98 31.46 R2 87 2.3 0.504 73.9 LOS F 5.8 41.5 1.00 0.78 28.5Approach 945 3.6 0.876 56.1 LOS D 21.8 156.5 0.85 0.89 35.0West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 191 1.0 0.192 13.4 LOS A 5.3 37.7 0.42 0.62 53.18 T1 62 0.0 0.192 27.3 LOS B 5.3 37.7 0.60 0.64 40.19 R2 55 0.0 0.582 79.9 LOS F 3.9 27.3 1.00 0.77 27.0Approach 308 0.6 0.582 28.1 LOS B 5.3 37.7 0.56 0.65 42.9All Vehicles 3715 2.2 0.876 39.6 LOS C 39.5 279.5 0.75 0.77 40.3



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P41 South Stage 1 50 52.8 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.87 0.87P42 South Stage 2 50 50.2 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.85 0.85P1 East Full Crossing 50 63.8 LOS F 0.2 0.2 0.96 0.96P3 West Full Crossing 50 63.8 LOS F 0.2 0.2 0.96 0.96All Pedestrians 200 57.6 LOS E 0.91 0.91



MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 PM Dev - Extend - Sensitivity Test - I 100%






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 49 0.0 0.036 8.7 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.23 0.65 58.311 T1 369 3.3 0.382 31.2 LOS C 7.0 50.0 0.88 0.72 47.712 R2 396 0.8 0.751 52.1 LOS D 9.3 65.2 1.00 0.87 34.5Approach 814 1.8 0.751 40.0 LOS C 9.3 65.2 0.90 0.79 40.6East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 595 0.5 0.558 14.1 LOS A 14.9 105.0 0.68 0.78 51.92 T1 52 0.0 0.135 33.3 LOS C 2.0 13.7 0.86 0.65 39.03 R2 224 2.7 0.311 40.5 LOS C 4.4 31.5 0.90 0.77 37.7Approach 871 1.0 0.558 22.0 LOS B 14.9 105.0 0.74 0.77 46.5North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 264 2.3 0.180 9.1 LOS A 2.2 16.1 0.28 0.68 57.85 T1 963 1.0 0.730 29.7 LOS C 19.4 137.2 0.94 0.84 48.76 R2 156 0.6 0.366 39.9 LOS C 6.0 42.2 0.89 0.79 38.8Approach 1383 1.2 0.730 26.9 LOS B 19.4 137.2 0.81 0.80 48.7West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 81 1.2 0.081 7.8 LOS A 0.9 6.0 0.29 0.58 57.48 T1 22 0.0 0.081 22.9 LOS B 0.9 6.0 0.61 0.61 42.49 R2 38 0.0 0.311 52.9 LOS D 1.7 12.2 0.99 0.73 33.8Approach 141 0.7 0.311 22.3 LOS B 1.7 12.2 0.53 0.62 46.2All Vehicles 3209 1.3 0.751 28.7 LOS C 19.4 137.2 0.80 0.78 45.7



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P41 South Stage 1 50 38.4 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91P42 South Stage 2 50 33.1 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.85 0.85P1 East Full Crossing 50 40.3 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.94 0.94P3 West Full Crossing 50 40.3 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.94 0.94All Pedestrians 200 38.0 LOS D 0.91 0.91



MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021 AM Dev - ST 100% I






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Richardson Rd (S)1 L2 440 0.0 0.631 8.6 LOS A 4.4 30.7 0.74 0.93 52.32 T1 87 0.0 0.631 8.8 LOS A 4.4 30.7 0.74 0.93 53.83 R2 1 0.0 0.631 14.0 LOS A 4.4 30.7 0.74 0.93 53.9Approach 528 0.0 0.631 8.6 LOS A 4.4 30.7 0.74 0.93 52.5East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)4 L2 1 0.0 0.220 4.5 LOS A 1.3 10.3 0.39 0.45 54.15 T1 445 16.2 0.220 4.8 LOS A 1.3 10.3 0.40 0.49 54.96 R2 97 0.0 0.220 9.9 LOS A 1.3 9.6 0.41 0.55 54.5Approach 543 13.3 0.220 5.7 LOS A 1.3 10.3 0.40 0.50 54.8North: Richardson Rd (N)7 L2 72 0.0 0.288 6.4 LOS A 1.2 8.6 0.61 0.81 51.98 T1 37 0.0 0.288 6.6 LOS A 1.2 8.6 0.61 0.81 53.39 R2 117 0.0 0.288 11.8 LOS A 1.2 8.6 0.61 0.81 53.5Approach 226 0.0 0.288 9.2 LOS A 1.2 8.6 0.61 0.81 52.9West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)10 L2 74 0.0 0.331 4.6 LOS A 2.1 15.6 0.40 0.46 54.111 T1 743 9.7 0.331 4.8 LOS A 2.1 15.6 0.42 0.48 55.312 R2 33 0.0 0.331 10.0 LOS A 2.0 15.2 0.43 0.50 55.4Approach 850 8.5 0.331 5.0 LOS A 2.1 15.6 0.42 0.48 55.2All Vehicles 2147 6.7 0.631 6.5 LOS A 4.4 30.7 0.51 0.63 54.2


SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Tuesday, 3 May 2016 4:18:07 PMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Liz Kernohan Dr Richardson Rd - sensitivity test.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021 PM Dev - ST 100% I






EffectiveStop Rate





MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 AM Dev - ST no SFP 100% I






EffectiveStop Rate





MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 PM Dev - ST no SFP 100% I






EffectiveStop Rate





MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 AM Dev - ST 100% I






EffectiveStop Rate





MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 PM Dev - ST 100% I






EffectiveStop Rate





MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021/2031 AM Dev no SFP Sensitivity Test 100% I

Spring Farm Parkway / Glenlee Northern AccessSignals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 90 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)





EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 140 51.4 0.564 44.2 LOS D 5.9 59.9 0.96 0.80 33.52 T1 1 100.0 0.564 38.1 LOS C 5.9 59.9 0.96 0.80 35.0Approach 141 51.8 0.564 44.2 LOS D 5.9 59.9 0.96 0.80 33.5North: Bus only link (N)8 T1 1 100.0 0.015 38.8 LOS C 0.1 1.0 0.90 0.60 35.69 R2 1 100.0 0.015 44.9 LOS D 0.1 1.0 0.90 0.60 34.0Approach 2 100.0 0.015 41.8 LOS C 0.1 1.0 0.90 0.60 34.8West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.558 13.7 LOS A 15.1 115.4 0.55 0.76 46.612 R2 687 10.5 0.558 13.2 LOS A 15.1 115.4 0.55 0.76 47.7Approach 688 10.6 0.558 13.2 LOS A 15.1 115.4 0.55 0.76 47.7All Vehicles 831 17.8 0.564 18.5 LOS B 15.1 115.4 0.62 0.77 44.4



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P1 South Full Crossing 50 6.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.39 0.39P3 North Full Crossing 50 6.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.39 0.39P4 West Full Crossing 50 36.5 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.90 0.90All Pedestrians 150 16.7 LOS B 0.56 0.56


SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Tuesday, 3 May 2016 5:02:19 PMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Spring Farm Parkway Glenlee Northern Access.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021/2031 PM Dev no SFP Sensitivity Test 100% I






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 487 6.8 0.374 11.1 LOS A 8.3 61.7 0.42 0.71 49.42 T1 1 100.0 0.374 5.4 LOS A 8.3 61.7 0.42 0.71 50.9Approach 488 7.0 0.374 11.0 LOS A 8.3 61.7 0.42 0.71 49.4North: Bus only link (N)8 T1 1 100.0 0.005 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.4 0.37 0.43 52.49 R2 1 100.0 0.005 12.2 LOS A 0.0 0.4 0.37 0.43 48.9Approach 2 100.0 0.005 9.1 LOS A 0.0 0.4 0.37 0.43 50.6West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.365 44.4 LOS D 3.5 32.8 0.94 0.77 33.512 R2 84 39.3 0.365 44.2 LOS D 3.5 32.8 0.94 0.77 33.5Approach 85 40.0 0.365 44.2 LOS D 3.5 32.8 0.94 0.77 33.5All Vehicles 575 12.2 0.374 15.9 LOS B 8.3 61.7 0.50 0.72 46.2



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P1 South Full Crossing 50 38.4 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.92 0.92P3 North Full Crossing 50 38.4 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.92 0.92P4 West Full Crossing 50 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.37 0.37All Pedestrians 150 27.6 LOS C 0.74 0.74



MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 AM Dev SFP Sensitivity Test 100% I






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 42 40.5 0.204 55.2 LOS D 2.3 21.4 0.92 0.74 30.62 T1 1 0.0 0.204 49.2 LOS D 2.3 21.4 0.92 0.74 31.73 R2 1 0.0 0.204 54.8 LOS D 2.3 21.4 0.92 0.74 31.3Approach 44 38.6 0.204 55.1 LOS D 2.3 21.4 0.92 0.74 30.7East: Spring Farm Parkway (E)4 L2 1 0.0 0.166 13.9 LOS A 4.8 33.4 0.42 0.35 51.45 T1 436 0.0 0.166 8.4 LOS A 4.8 33.4 0.42 0.35 52.76 R2 1 0.0 0.003 15.4 LOS B 0.0 0.2 0.45 0.61 46.8Approach 438 0.0 0.166 8.4 LOS A 4.8 33.4 0.42 0.35 52.7North: Bus only link (N)7 L2 1 0.0 0.013 52.2 LOS D 0.1 1.0 0.88 0.61 32.48 T1 1 0.0 0.013 46.6 LOS D 0.1 1.0 0.88 0.61 32.99 R2 1 0.0 0.013 52.2 LOS D 0.1 1.0 0.88 0.61 32.6Approach 3 0.0 0.013 50.3 LOS D 0.1 1.0 0.88 0.61 32.6West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.555 16.8 LOS B 16.9 118.7 0.54 0.48 48.011 T1 1207 0.3 0.555 10.7 LOS A 16.9 118.7 0.54 0.48 51.012 R2 241 11.6 0.378 12.8 LOS A 5.4 41.3 0.47 0.72 48.2Approach 1449 2.3 0.555 11.1 LOS A 16.9 118.7 0.53 0.52 50.5All Vehicles 1934 2.6 0.555 11.5 LOS A 16.9 118.7 0.51 0.49 50.2



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P1 South Full Crossing 50 9.8 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.41 0.41P2 East Full Crossing 50 53.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95P3 North Full Crossing 50 9.8 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.41 0.41P4 West Full Crossing 50 53.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95All Pedestrians 200 31.5 LOS D 0.68 0.68



MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 PM Dev SFP Sensitivity Test 100% I






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 160 5.0 0.441 41.0 LOS C 6.5 47.3 0.93 0.80 35.22 T1 1 0.0 0.441 35.4 LOS C 6.5 47.3 0.93 0.80 35.93 R2 1 0.0 0.441 41.0 LOS C 6.5 47.3 0.93 0.80 35.5Approach 162 4.9 0.441 40.9 LOS C 6.5 47.3 0.93 0.80 35.2East: Spring Farm Parkway (E)4 L2 1 0.0 0.429 19.0 LOS B 12.3 86.3 0.64 0.57 48.05 T1 933 0.0 0.429 13.4 LOS A 12.3 86.3 0.64 0.57 49.16 R2 1 0.0 0.002 14.7 LOS B 0.0 0.1 0.51 0.60 47.3Approach 935 0.0 0.429 13.4 LOS A 12.3 86.3 0.64 0.57 49.1North: Bus only link (N)7 L2 1 0.0 0.011 39.9 LOS C 0.1 0.8 0.86 0.60 36.48 T1 1 0.0 0.011 34.4 LOS C 0.1 0.8 0.86 0.60 37.09 R2 1 0.0 0.011 39.9 LOS C 0.1 0.8 0.86 0.60 36.5Approach 3 0.0 0.011 38.1 LOS C 0.1 0.8 0.86 0.60 36.6West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.332 18.7 LOS B 8.9 62.4 0.60 0.52 46.911 T1 720 0.1 0.332 12.6 LOS A 8.9 62.4 0.60 0.52 49.712 R2 27 29.6 0.086 17.7 LOS B 0.6 5.4 0.58 0.69 44.8Approach 748 1.3 0.332 12.8 LOS A 8.9 62.4 0.60 0.53 49.5All Vehicles 1848 1.0 0.441 15.6 LOS B 12.3 86.3 0.65 0.57 47.6



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P1 South Full Crossing 50 13.2 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.54 0.54P2 East Full Crossing 50 39.8 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.94 0.94P3 North Full Crossing 50 13.2 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.54 0.54P4 West Full Crossing 50 39.8 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.94 0.94All Pedestrians 200 26.5 LOS C 0.74 0.74



AECOM



G

Appendix G

Sensitivity test – warehouse land use only

AECOM



g-1

Appendix G Sensitivity test – Warehouse land use only As a second part to the land use mix sensitivity test, the land use breakdown was adjusted to include only warehousing with no other development.

The average RMS trip rate of approximately 0.5 trips per 100sqm GFA for warehousing was adopted and the potential 10 per cent mode shift from private car use to other modes was disregarded.

The brief from the Transport agencies was to maintain acceptable intersection performance.

1. The proposed site area for warehouse is 67.8 hectares. At a development ratio of 35 per cent14, this equates to approximately 237,300 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA).

2. The RMS general trip generation rate for warehouse is 0.5 trips per hour per 100 sqm GFA for peak period. Therefore, the total vehicle movements are:

AM Peak: 237,300 x 0.5 ÷ 100 = 1,187 vehicle movements per hour

PM Peak: 237,300 x 0.5 ÷ 100 = 1,187 vehicle movements per hour

3. Using the same ratio as the calculated warehouse trips in Appendix E, the total heavy vehicle movements for workers and visitors for the warehouse land use are:

AM Peak: 21 heavy vehicle movements per hour

PM Peak: 22 heavy vehicle movements per hour

The following table summarises the change of vehicle movements for the sensitivity test of all warehouse land use only.

Warehouse Light Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Total


test Net

change Modelled

Sensitivity test

Net change


test Net

change

AM Peak 313 1,187 +874 130 21 -109 443 1207 +764

PM Peak 247 1,187 +940 55 22 -33 302 1209 +907

The sensitivity test indicated that the intersection was not able to accommodate the full 100% warehouse land use trip generation. Therefore, an exercise was undertaken to test various warehouse land use amounts until the trips could be accommodated s. Based on this, the scenario intersection modelling suggested a trip volume equivalent to a warehousing GFA cap of 166,000sqm could be accommodated. The four intersections would be able to cope with the additional traffic generated and still operate at a satisfactory LoS D and better for 2021 and 2031 AM and PM peak hours. The performance of the intersection is summarised below:

- Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass15: The intersection is still performing satisfactorily at LoS C/D, the increase in traffic generation would increase the traffic loading on the intersection and its DoS remains 0.91 for its worst condition (2031 PM without SFP extension). The scenarios without Spring Farm Parkway extension would represent the worst condition for the intersection as all development traffic will be loaded onto the intersection. The key findings for the intersection are as follows:


Scenarios without Spring Farm Parkway: the right turn lane of Liz Kernohan (East) could be extended from 160m to 170m to avoid overspill of the vehicle queue into the adjacent lanes.

Scenarios without Spring Farm Parkway: an additional short through lane (200m) on the Camden Bypass northern approach and southern departure

14 This ratio has been used in other development applications and is the same ratio as the surveyed Eastern Creek industrial estate. 15 It should be noted that the SIDRA modelling for this intersection has been specifically reviewed by the RMS (May 2016) and has since been updated to reflect a number of changes in signal timing assumptions.

AECOM



g-2

2031 PM without Spring Farm Parkway: Although the average delay for the right turns from Camden Bypass (South) and Liz Kernohan (East) has worsened to 86.0 sec and 65.6 sec respectively, the estimated vehicle queue for these movements is still within the length of the storage lane.

- Liz Kernohan Drive / Richardson Road: The intersection is still performing satisfactorily at LoS A with the current layout as shown in Figure 26.

- Spring Farm Parkway/ Glenlee northern access and eastern access: The intersections are still performing satisfactorily at LoS B with the proposed layouts as shown in Figure 27 and Figure 28 for the northern access and Figure 29 for the eastern access.

Appendix G

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021 AM Dev - Extend - Sensitivity Test - W 100%






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 34 0.0 0.022 8.2 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.16 0.64 58.811 T1 1405 3.2 0.829 35.2 LOS C 38.6 277.7 0.95 0.89 45.312 R2 559 1.8 0.807 47.0 LOS D 31.3 222.2 0.96 0.90 36.4Approach 1998 2.8 0.829 38.1 LOS C 38.6 277.7 0.94 0.89 42.6East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 398 3.0 0.288 9.0 LOS A 6.2 44.3 0.33 0.65 55.32 T1 1 0.0 0.002 39.3 LOS C 0.0 0.3 0.80 0.48 36.73 R2 660 8.8 0.851 63.9 LOS E 21.3 160.4 1.00 0.96 30.1Approach 1059 6.6 0.851 43.3 LOS D 21.3 160.4 0.75 0.84 36.3North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 813 7.4 0.802 21.0 LOS B 31.0 230.7 0.78 0.85 48.65 T1 674 9.2 0.782 58.4 LOS E 13.9 104.8 1.00 0.90 35.36 R2 119 1.7 0.718 70.1 LOS E 7.4 52.7 1.00 0.83 29.4Approach 1606 7.7 0.802 40.3 LOS C 31.0 230.7 0.89 0.87 40.3West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 232 0.9 0.306 28.1 LOS B 8.6 60.7 0.72 0.76 43.38 T1 1 0.0 0.009 60.0 LOS E 0.1 0.4 0.96 0.56 30.49 R2 48 0.0 0.449 69.9 LOS E 3.0 20.8 1.00 0.74 29.1Approach 281 0.7 0.449 35.3 LOS C 8.6 60.7 0.77 0.76 40.0All Vehicles 4944 5.1 0.851 39.8 LOS C 38.6 277.7 0.87 0.86 40.2



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate




SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Thursday, 21 April 2016 11:31:00 AMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Camden Bypass Liz Kernohan Dr - sensitivity testupdated.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021 PM Dev - Extend - Sensitivity Test - W 100%






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 49 0.0 0.035 8.7 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.21 0.65 58.311 T1 602 3.7 0.572 35.9 LOS C 13.5 97.5 0.92 0.78 44.912 R2 201 2.5 0.825 62.7 LOS E 11.3 80.7 1.00 0.92 31.5Approach 852 3.2 0.825 40.7 LOS C 13.5 97.5 0.90 0.80 41.3East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 643 0.3 0.575 16.9 LOS B 16.6 116.7 0.66 0.83 50.02 T1 1 0.0 0.002 28.5 LOS C 0.0 0.3 0.73 0.44 41.03 R2 871 3.0 0.837 50.7 LOS D 23.6 169.3 1.00 0.95 34.2Approach 1515 1.8 0.837 36.4 LOS C 23.6 169.3 0.86 0.90 39.5North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 356 7.0 0.241 9.4 LOS A 3.6 26.8 0.29 0.68 57.45 T1 1466 2.9 0.837 43.1 LOS D 26.1 186.9 1.00 0.96 41.36 R2 177 0.0 0.588 52.8 LOS D 8.7 61.1 0.98 0.81 34.2Approach 1999 3.4 0.837 38.0 LOS C 26.1 186.9 0.87 0.90 42.7West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 90 1.1 0.090 15.5 LOS B 1.9 13.8 0.51 0.68 50.88 T1 1 0.0 0.009 52.1 LOS D 0.1 0.4 0.96 0.56 32.69 R2 35 0.0 0.330 61.0 LOS E 1.9 13.0 1.00 0.72 31.4Approach 126 0.8 0.330 28.4 LOS B 1.9 13.8 0.65 0.69 43.2All Vehicles 4492 2.7 0.837 37.7 LOS C 26.1 186.9 0.86 0.87 41.3



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P41 South Stage 1 50 32.6 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.78 0.78P42 South Stage 2 50 32.6 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.78 0.78P1 East Full Crossing 50 42.7 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.90 0.90P3 West Full Crossing 50 42.7 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.90 0.90All Pedestrians 200 37.6 LOS D 0.84 0.84


SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Thursday, 21 April 2016 11:33:02 AMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Camden Bypass Liz Kernohan Dr - sensitivity testupdated.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 AM Dev no SFP - Extend - Sensitivity Test - W 100% - LAYOUT TEST






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 41 0.0 0.025 8.2 LOS A 0.3 1.9 0.16 0.64 58.811 T1 1441 3.4 0.796 31.5 LOS C 38.8 279.7 0.92 0.83 47.512 R2 582 1.4 0.899 64.9 LOS E 41.7 295.3 1.00 0.97 30.9Approach 2064 2.8 0.899 40.5 LOS C 41.7 295.3 0.92 0.87 41.4East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 361 2.8 0.282 11.1 LOS A 7.3 52.0 0.39 0.67 53.82 T1 10 0.0 0.032 50.2 LOS D 0.5 3.8 0.87 0.60 33.13 R2 658 8.7 0.878 71.7 LOS F 23.5 176.8 1.00 0.98 28.3Approach 1029 6.5 0.878 50.2 LOS D 23.5 176.8 0.79 0.87 34.0North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 842 7.0 0.731 25.6 LOS B 28.0 208.0 0.77 0.90 45.95 T1 866 11.2 0.864 66.3 LOS E 20.3 155.7 1.00 0.98 32.86 R2 89 2.2 0.795 80.4 LOS F 6.2 44.4 1.00 0.87 27.2Approach 1797 8.8 0.864 47.9 LOS D 28.0 208.0 0.89 0.93 37.4West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 245 0.8 0.505 38.6 LOS C 13.1 92.5 0.91 0.85 38.68 T1 10 0.0 0.112 68.3 LOS E 0.6 4.5 0.99 0.66 28.59 R2 60 0.0 0.325 67.1 LOS E 3.7 26.0 0.97 0.75 29.8Approach 315 0.6 0.505 44.9 LOS D 13.1 92.5 0.92 0.82 36.2All Vehicles 5205 5.5 0.899 45.2 LOS D 41.7 295.3 0.89 0.89 38.0



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate




SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Wednesday, 18 May 2016 11:25:25 AMProject: C:\Users\WUE4\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\D39VL2V4\Camden Bypass LizKernohan Dr - sensitivity test updated - RMS version only 4 scenarios.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 PM Dev no SFP - Extend - Sensitivity Test - W 100% - LAYOUT TEST






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 51 0.0 0.036 8.9 LOS A 0.5 3.4 0.21 0.65 58.111 T1 612 9.2 0.751 55.7 LOS D 19.7 148.6 0.99 0.88 36.212 R2 233 1.7 0.906 86.0 LOS F 18.0 128.2 1.00 0.98 26.3Approach 896 6.7 0.906 61.0 LOS E 19.7 148.6 0.95 0.89 33.6East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 825 0.4 0.808 27.5 LOS B 34.1 239.7 0.88 0.94 43.82 T1 10 0.0 0.033 52.8 LOS D 0.6 4.0 0.88 0.60 32.33 R2 912 3.1 0.872 65.6 LOS E 32.6 233.9 1.00 0.96 30.1Approach 1747 1.8 0.872 47.5 LOS D 34.1 239.7 0.94 0.95 35.3North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 471 5.1 0.309 10.5 LOS A 7.2 52.9 0.31 0.69 56.65 T1 1577 3.2 0.829 49.4 LOS D 34.1 245.3 0.99 0.93 38.66 R2 195 0.5 0.420 53.6 LOS D 10.9 76.9 0.89 0.81 33.9Approach 2243 3.4 0.829 41.6 LOS C 34.1 245.3 0.84 0.87 40.8West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 99 1.0 0.120 22.0 LOS B 3.3 23.4 0.56 0.70 46.78 T1 10 0.0 0.116 71.1 LOS F 0.7 4.7 0.99 0.66 27.99 R2 38 0.0 0.116 56.8 LOS E 2.1 15.0 0.88 0.72 32.5Approach 147 0.7 0.120 34.3 LOS C 3.3 23.4 0.67 0.70 40.3All Vehicles 5033 3.3 0.906 46.9 LOS D 34.1 245.3 0.89 0.89 37.4



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate





MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 AM Dev - Extend - Sensitivity Test - W 100%






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 39 0.0 0.024 8.2 LOS A 0.3 1.8 0.16 0.64 58.811 T1 956 1.8 0.502 24.4 LOS B 20.7 146.9 0.73 0.65 52.312 R2 684 1.0 0.888 56.4 LOS D 46.7 329.7 1.00 0.95 33.2Approach 1679 1.4 0.888 37.0 LOS C 46.7 329.7 0.83 0.77 42.5East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 457 1.1 0.342 11.0 LOS A 9.5 67.0 0.40 0.67 54.22 T1 10 0.0 0.032 50.7 LOS D 0.5 3.8 0.87 0.60 32.93 R2 415 2.7 0.714 65.1 LOS E 13.2 94.8 1.00 0.85 30.1Approach 882 1.8 0.714 36.9 LOS C 13.2 94.8 0.69 0.76 39.2North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 383 2.9 0.334 19.8 LOS B 11.5 82.4 0.56 0.75 49.65 T1 584 3.3 0.875 68.4 LOS E 20.9 150.2 1.00 0.98 32.26 R2 87 2.3 0.482 70.5 LOS E 5.5 39.5 0.99 0.78 29.3Approach 1054 3.0 0.875 50.9 LOS D 20.9 150.2 0.84 0.88 36.6West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 191 1.0 0.485 25.2 LOS B 7.7 54.6 0.84 0.80 45.28 T1 62 0.0 0.485 55.5 LOS D 7.7 54.6 0.95 0.75 31.19 R2 55 0.0 0.650 78.7 LOS F 3.8 26.7 1.00 0.79 27.2Approach 308 0.6 0.650 40.8 LOS C 7.7 54.6 0.89 0.79 37.4All Vehicles 3923 1.9 0.888 41.0 LOS C 46.7 329.7 0.80 0.80 39.6



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate




SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Wednesday, 18 May 2016 4:29:16 PMProject: C:\Users\WUE4\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\D39VL2V4\Camden Bypass LizKernohan Dr - sensitivity test updated - RMS version only 4 scenarios.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 PM Dev - Extend - Sensitivity Test - W 100%






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Camden Bypass (S)10 L2 49 0.0 0.037 8.8 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.20 0.65 58.311 T1 369 3.3 0.506 50.3 LOS D 10.4 74.6 0.95 0.78 38.312 R2 405 0.5 0.834 61.0 LOS E 25.7 180.8 1.00 0.91 31.9Approach 823 1.7 0.834 53.0 LOS D 25.7 180.8 0.93 0.84 35.5East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)1 L2 691 0.3 0.613 19.8 LOS B 20.9 146.8 0.68 0.85 48.12 T1 52 0.0 0.160 49.2 LOS D 2.8 19.4 0.89 0.68 33.43 R2 367 1.4 0.597 59.4 LOS E 10.7 76.0 0.98 0.82 31.7Approach 1110 0.6 0.613 34.3 LOS C 20.9 146.8 0.79 0.83 40.4North: Camden Bypass (N)4 L2 279 1.8 0.179 9.7 LOS A 3.3 23.7 0.27 0.68 57.35 T1 963 1.0 0.813 46.9 LOS D 29.4 207.4 0.99 0.91 39.76 R2 156 0.6 0.221 35.6 LOS C 6.5 45.6 0.72 0.77 40.6Approach 1398 1.1 0.813 38.2 LOS C 29.4 207.4 0.81 0.85 42.4West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)7 L2 81 1.2 0.149 25.1 LOS B 3.0 21.2 0.70 0.71 45.28 T1 22 0.0 0.149 48.7 LOS D 3.0 21.2 0.88 0.69 32.99 R2 38 0.0 0.429 73.5 LOS F 2.5 17.2 1.00 0.73 28.3Approach 141 0.7 0.429 41.8 LOS C 3.0 21.2 0.81 0.71 37.1All Vehicles 3472 1.1 0.834 40.6 LOS C 29.4 207.4 0.83 0.84 39.7



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate





MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021 AM Dev - Sensitivity Test 100% W






EffectiveStop Rate




SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Tuesday, 19 April 2016 4:48:48 PMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Liz Kernohan Dr Richardson Rd - sensitivity test.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021 PM Dev - Sensitivity Test 100% W






EffectiveStop Rate




SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Tuesday, 19 April 2016 4:49:32 PMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Liz Kernohan Dr Richardson Rd - sensitivity test.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 AM Dev no SFP - Sensitivity Test 100% W






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Richardson Rd (S)1 L2 371 0.0 0.606 8.6 LOS A 4.0 28.1 0.74 0.93 52.22 T1 105 0.0 0.606 8.8 LOS A 4.0 28.1 0.74 0.93 53.73 R2 10 0.0 0.606 14.0 LOS A 4.0 28.1 0.74 0.93 53.8Approach 486 0.0 0.606 8.8 LOS A 4.0 28.1 0.74 0.93 52.6East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)4 L2 10 0.0 0.251 4.7 LOS A 1.6 12.2 0.44 0.47 53.85 T1 512 12.9 0.251 4.9 LOS A 1.6 12.2 0.45 0.50 54.86 R2 83 0.0 0.251 10.1 LOS A 1.5 11.4 0.46 0.55 54.6Approach 605 10.9 0.251 5.6 LOS A 1.6 12.2 0.45 0.51 54.8North: Richardson Rd (N)7 L2 69 0.0 0.433 9.2 LOS A 2.3 15.8 0.78 0.95 50.08 T1 43 0.0 0.433 9.4 LOS A 2.3 15.8 0.78 0.95 51.39 R2 136 0.7 0.433 14.6 LOS B 2.3 15.8 0.78 0.95 51.4Approach 248 0.4 0.433 12.2 LOS A 2.3 15.8 0.78 0.95 51.0West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)10 L2 78 0.0 0.549 4.9 LOS A 4.4 32.2 0.52 0.49 53.511 T1 1309 5.1 0.549 5.1 LOS A 4.4 32.2 0.54 0.51 54.812 R2 40 0.0 0.549 10.4 LOS A 4.3 31.1 0.56 0.53 54.9Approach 1427 4.7 0.549 5.3 LOS A 4.4 32.2 0.54 0.51 54.8All Vehicles 2766 4.8 0.606 6.6 LOS A 4.4 32.2 0.58 0.62 54.0


SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Monday, 7 December 2015 2:57:10 PMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Liz Kernohan Dr Richardson Rd - sensitivity test.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 PM Dev no SFP - Sensitivity Test 100% W






EffectiveStop Rate





MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 AM Dev - Sensitivity Test 100% W






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Richardson Rd (S)1 L2 345 0.0 0.674 9.0 LOS A 5.1 35.9 0.76 0.97 51.22 T1 105 0.0 0.674 9.2 LOS A 5.1 35.9 0.76 0.97 52.63 R2 121 0.0 0.674 14.4 LOS A 5.1 35.9 0.76 0.97 52.8Approach 571 0.0 0.674 10.2 LOS A 5.1 35.9 0.76 0.97 51.8East: Liz Kernohan Dr (E)4 L2 26 0.0 0.219 4.5 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.40 0.45 54.15 T1 419 3.3 0.219 4.6 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.40 0.49 55.16 R2 125 0.0 0.219 9.9 LOS A 1.3 9.3 0.41 0.56 54.3Approach 570 2.5 0.219 5.8 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.40 0.50 54.9North: Richardson Rd (N)7 L2 154 5.8 0.515 9.5 LOS A 2.9 21.1 0.79 0.96 50.38 T1 43 0.0 0.515 9.5 LOS A 2.9 21.1 0.79 0.96 51.89 R2 112 0.9 0.515 14.7 LOS B 2.9 21.1 0.79 0.96 51.9Approach 309 3.2 0.515 11.4 LOS A 2.9 21.1 0.79 0.96 51.1West: Liz Kernohan Dr (W)10 L2 66 1.5 0.485 5.6 LOS A 3.7 26.1 0.63 0.56 52.911 T1 1037 1.8 0.485 5.8 LOS A 3.7 26.1 0.65 0.58 54.412 R2 28 0.0 0.485 11.2 LOS A 3.5 24.6 0.66 0.61 54.4Approach 1131 1.8 0.485 6.0 LOS A 3.7 26.1 0.64 0.58 54.3All Vehicles 2581 1.7 0.674 7.5 LOS A 5.1 35.9 0.63 0.70 53.5



MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 PM Dev - Sensitivity Test 100% W






EffectiveStop Rate





MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021/2031 AM Dev no SFP Sensitivity Test 100% W






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 196 35.2 0.855 70.1 LOS E 12.9 117.6 1.00 0.96 27.22 T1 1 100.0 0.855 64.1 LOS E 12.9 117.6 1.00 0.96 28.0Approach 197 35.5 0.855 70.0 LOS E 12.9 117.6 1.00 0.96 27.2North: Bus only link (N)8 T1 1 100.0 0.029 60.7 LOS E 0.1 1.5 0.96 0.61 29.39 R2 1 100.0 0.029 66.8 LOS E 0.1 1.5 0.96 0.61 28.2Approach 2 100.0 0.029 63.7 LOS E 0.1 1.5 0.96 0.61 28.8West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.877 19.8 LOS B 53.4 392.2 0.80 0.88 43.212 R2 1215 5.7 0.877 19.3 LOS B 53.4 392.2 0.80 0.88 44.3Approach 1216 5.8 0.877 19.3 LOS B 53.4 392.2 0.80 0.88 44.3All Vehicles 1415 10.0 0.877 26.4 LOS B 53.4 392.2 0.83 0.89 40.7



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P1 South Full Crossing 50 5.7 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.31 0.31P3 North Full Crossing 50 5.7 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.31 0.31P4 West Full Crossing 50 49.6 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.91 0.91All Pedestrians 150 20.3 LOS C 0.51 0.51


SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Tuesday, 19 April 2016 4:51:22 PMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Spring Farm Parkway Glenlee Northern Access.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2021/2031 PM Dev no SFP Sensitivity Test 100% W






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 1173 2.6 0.820 13.4 LOS A 34.3 245.8 0.70 0.83 48.02 T1 1 100.0 0.820 7.8 LOS A 34.3 245.8 0.70 0.83 49.2Approach 1174 2.6 0.820 13.4 LOS A 34.3 245.8 0.70 0.83 48.0North: Bus only link (N)8 T1 1 100.0 0.013 19.2 LOS B 0.1 0.8 0.62 0.53 44.09 R2 1 100.0 0.013 25.3 LOS B 0.1 0.8 0.62 0.53 41.6Approach 2 100.0 0.013 22.3 LOS B 0.1 0.8 0.62 0.53 42.8West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.808 57.0 LOS E 8.0 65.7 1.00 0.92 30.012 R2 157 19.1 0.808 56.6 LOS E 8.0 65.7 1.00 0.92 30.3Approach 158 19.6 0.808 56.6 LOS E 8.0 65.7 1.00 0.92 30.3All Vehicles 1334 4.8 0.820 18.5 LOS B 34.3 245.8 0.73 0.84 44.9



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P1 South Full Crossing 50 41.8 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.94 0.94P3 North Full Crossing 50 41.8 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.94 0.94P4 West Full Crossing 50 4.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.32 0.32All Pedestrians 150 29.4 LOS C 0.73 0.73


SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: AECOM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Processed: Tuesday, 19 April 2016 4:51:49 PMProject: P:\603X\60301834\4. Tech work area\4.3 Traffic\Modelling\SIDRA\Spring Farm Parkway Glenlee Northern Access.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 AM Dev SFP Sensitivity Test 100% W






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 62 25.8 0.261 49.9 LOS D 3.0 25.6 0.92 0.76 32.22 T1 1 0.0 0.261 44.1 LOS D 3.0 25.6 0.92 0.76 33.13 R2 1 0.0 0.261 49.6 LOS D 3.0 25.6 0.92 0.76 32.8Approach 64 25.0 0.261 49.8 LOS D 3.0 25.6 0.92 0.76 32.2East: Spring Farm Parkway (E)4 L2 1 0.0 0.179 15.4 LOS B 4.9 34.4 0.47 0.40 50.45 T1 436 0.0 0.179 9.8 LOS A 4.9 34.4 0.47 0.40 51.66 R2 1 0.0 0.003 16.6 LOS B 0.0 0.2 0.50 0.61 46.1Approach 438 0.0 0.179 9.9 LOS A 4.9 34.4 0.47 0.40 51.6North: Bus only link (N)7 L2 1 0.0 0.012 47.8 LOS D 0.1 0.9 0.88 0.61 33.78 T1 1 0.0 0.012 42.2 LOS C 0.1 0.9 0.88 0.61 34.39 R2 1 0.0 0.012 47.8 LOS D 0.1 0.9 0.88 0.61 33.9Approach 3 0.0 0.012 46.0 LOS D 0.1 0.9 0.88 0.61 34.0West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.620 18.8 LOS B 17.7 124.5 0.61 0.55 46.811 T1 1210 0.3 0.620 12.6 LOS A 17.7 124.5 0.61 0.55 49.712 R2 447 11.0 0.700 17.0 LOS B 14.3 109.8 0.74 0.82 45.7Approach 1658 3.3 0.700 13.8 LOS A 17.7 124.5 0.65 0.62 48.5All Vehicles 2163 3.2 0.700 14.1 LOS A 17.7 124.5 0.62 0.58 48.4



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P1 South Full Crossing 50 11.3 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.46 0.46P2 East Full Crossing 50 47.3 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95P3 North Full Crossing 50 11.3 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.46 0.46P4 West Full Crossing 50 47.3 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95All Pedestrians 200 29.3 LOS C 0.70 0.70



MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2031 PM Dev SFP Sensitivity Test 100% W






EffectiveStop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Glenlee Northern Access1 L2 400 1.8 0.635 33.1 LOS C 15.1 107.0 0.90 0.84 38.22 T1 1 0.0 0.635 27.5 LOS B 15.1 107.0 0.90 0.84 38.93 R2 1 0.0 0.635 33.1 LOS C 15.1 107.0 0.90 0.84 38.4Approach 402 1.7 0.635 33.1 LOS C 15.1 107.0 0.90 0.84 38.2East: Spring Farm Parkway (E)4 L2 1 0.0 0.625 28.2 LOS B 16.0 112.1 0.84 0.73 42.85 T1 933 0.0 0.625 22.7 LOS B 16.0 112.1 0.84 0.73 43.76 R2 1 0.0 0.003 22.7 LOS B 0.0 0.2 0.67 0.60 42.8Approach 935 0.0 0.625 22.7 LOS B 16.0 112.1 0.84 0.73 43.7North: Bus only link (N)7 L2 1 0.0 0.009 36.6 LOS C 0.1 0.7 0.82 0.60 37.68 T1 1 0.0 0.009 31.0 LOS C 0.1 0.7 0.82 0.60 38.39 R2 1 0.0 0.009 36.6 LOS C 0.1 0.7 0.82 0.60 37.8Approach 3 0.0 0.009 34.8 LOS C 0.1 0.7 0.82 0.60 37.9West: Liz Kernohan Drive (W)10 L2 1 100.0 0.447 27.3 LOS B 11.5 81.1 0.78 0.67 42.211 T1 720 0.1 0.447 21.2 LOS B 11.6 81.0 0.78 0.67 44.512 R2 53 13.2 0.190 29.2 LOS C 1.7 13.5 0.80 0.74 39.6Approach 774 1.2 0.447 21.8 LOS B 11.6 81.1 0.78 0.68 44.1All Vehicles 2114 0.8 0.635 24.3 LOS B 16.0 112.1 0.83 0.73 42.6



DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService


Prop.Queued

EffectiveStop Rate


P1 South Full Crossing 50 20.7 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.68 0.68P2 East Full Crossing 50 33.0 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.86 0.86P3 North Full Crossing 50 20.7 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.68 0.68P4 West Full Crossing 50 33.0 LOS D 0.1 0.1 0.86 0.86All Pedestrians 200 26.9 LOS C 0.77 0.77



AECOM



H

Appendix H

Sensitivity test – RMS 85th percentile trip rate with warehouse land use only

AECOM



h-1

Appendix H Sensitivity test – RMS 85th percentile trip rate with warehouse land use only

The Transport agencies raised a view that the trip generation for warehousing should be tested using the 85th percentile trip rate of 0.9 vehicle trips per 100sqm GFA rather than 0.5 vehicle trips per hour per 100 sqm GFA.

Using the Appendix G scenario intersection modelling, that suggested a trip volume equivalent to a warehousing GFA cap of 166,000sqm could be accommodated, the ratio of the higher trip rate to the lower trip rates was applied to determine the equivalent warehousing GFA cap.

Based on this, a trip volume equivalent to a warehousing GFA cap of 90,000sqm could be accommodated.

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd

Level 21, 420 George Street

Sydney NSW 2000

PO Box Q410

QVB Post Office NSW 1230

Australia

www.aecom.com

+61 2 8934 0000 tel

+61 2 8934 0001 fax

ABN 20 093 846 925

p:\603x\60301834\4. tech work area\4.3 traffic\reports\trigger summary of proposed upgrades - 20160913.docx

The proponents have requested further analysis of previous modelling completed as part of the Glenlee Precinct

Rezoning Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to refine the definition of the levels of development which may trigger

the requirement to upgrade the intersection of Camden Bypass | Liz Kernohan Drive. This modelling was reported

in the AECOM Traffic Report (May, 2016). Note that no additional intersection modelling has been undertaken as

part of this exercise.

The previous modelling for the intersection of Camden Bypass | Liz Kernohan Drive was undertaken for a number

of different development scenarios. The proponents have now requested that AECOM refine only the scenario

that reflects the highest potential traffic generation possible for the proposed zoning IN1 which was Scenario 2b

(All warehousing). The May 2016 report indicated that under this scenario development of the precinct should be

capped at 166,000 sqm (GFA) for the intersection to perform at an acceptable level of service (LoS).

This cap would only be reached after the intersection had been progressively improved with the upgrades

described in Figure 24, then those in Figure 25 and finally those in Figure 30 if the Spring Farm Parkway is not

constructed by 2031. Development caps are needed to be determined for each of these progressive upgrades.

These upgrades are described below and diagrammatically represented in Annexure 1 to this memo along with the

current intersection configuration at Figure 23.

Figure 24 – Stage 1 upgrade:

- Extension of right turn storage lanes on the eastern approach from 100m to 160m

Figure 25 – Stage 2 upgrade (in additional to Stage 1 upgrade):

- Extension of right turn storage lanes on the southern approach from 90m to 240m

Figure 30 – Stage 3 upgrade (in additional to Stage 2 upgrade):

- Extension of right turn storage lanes on the eastern approach from 160m to 170m

- Additional short through lane 200m long on each of the northern approach and southern departure

It should be noted the 166,000 sqm (GFA) cap applies to agreed trip rates under this sensitivity test scenario –

Scenario 2b. Further development could be allowed subject to a review of trip generation rates and further traffic

analyses of the actual development in the future.

Memorandum

To Mark Brackenbury (SADA) Page 1

CC Michael Brown

Subject Glenlee Employment Lands Traffic Assessment - Trigger of Proposed Upgrades at Liz

Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass under Scenario 2b (All Warehousing)

From Andy Yung

File/Ref No. 60301834 Date 13-Sep-2016


2 of 7

In preparation of this document the development trips generated under Scenario 2b are progressively increased

to determine trigger points (level of development) for each of the individual components of the proposed

intersection upgrades in Figure 24, Figure 25 and Figure 30.

1. Stage 1 upgrade: (Figure 24)

a. Figure 24 - Extension of right turn storage lanes on the eastern approach (first stage of the full

upgrade) is required prior to any additional development at Glenlee as the intersection performance

under the no development scenario is already at capacity in 2031 peak hours (after all Spring Farm

residential and commercial development is completed) .

b. This first stage of the full upgrade - extension of right turn storage lanes on the eastern approach is no

longer expected to be performing at an acceptable LoS when the peak hour traffic generation exceeds

approximately 300 trips per hour. This would be equivalent to approximately 59,000 sqm of GFA of

warehousing development (Scenario 2b).


a. Therefore, the extension of right turn storage lanes on the southern approach (second stage of the full

upgrade - Figure 25) will be required when the development exceeds 59,000 sqm of GFA of

warehousing development.

b. This second stage of the full upgrade - extension of right turn storage lanes on the southern approach

is no longer expected to be performing at an acceptable LoS when the peak hour traffic generation

exceeds approximately 560 trips per hour. This would be equivalent to approximately 110,000 sqm of

GFA of warehousing development (Scenario 2b).


a. Therefore, the additional short through lane on the northern approach and southern departure (third

stage of the full upgrade Figure 30) will be required when the development exceeds 110,000 sqm of

GFA of warehousing development.

b. Full upgrade (Figure 30) is no longer expected to be performing at an acceptable LoS when the peak

hour traffic generation exceeds 846 trips per hour. This would be equivalent to 166,000 sqm of GFA of

warehousing development (Scenario 2b) as previously agreed with the RMS.

It should be highlighted that the above points 1 – 3 reflect the assumption that the SFP has not been completed

by 2031.

This memo also only focussed on the 2031 analysis as the previous modelling confirmed that the same intersection

upgrade treatments are required under scenario 2b for both 2021 and 2031 peak hours. Therefore, the

development caps identified below for the staged intersection upgrades are conservative as the staged

development would occur before 2031 with slightly less background traffic growth – hence more capacity for

development traffic.

The previous traffic analysis also assessed the intersections performance with the Spring Farm Parkway (SFP)

being completed to connect the Camden Bypass to the Hume Motorway and Menangle Road along Liz Kernohan

Drive. It was determined that the intersection is required to be upgraded to Figure 25 (both Stage 1 and 2

upgrades included) if the Spring Farm Parkway is constructed. No further upgrades are required under all the trip

generation scenarios considered. Therefore, the 166,000 sqm (GFA) cap does not apply to the development if

Spring Farm Parkway is constructed before 2031 as additional development can be justified with the Stage 3

upgrade works if the Spring Farm Parkway is completed.


3 of 7

A summary of the amount of development which triggers the staged upgrades proposed is summarised in Table

1.

Table 1 Intersection Upgrade Trigger summary

Upgrade 2031 without SFP 2031 with SFP

Stage 1 - Extension of right

turn storage lanes on the

eastern approach

(Figure 24)

Prior to any development^

At the time the SFP is completed in the

future Stage 2 - Extension of right

turn storage lanes on the

southern approach

(Figure 25)

~59,000sqm GFA

Stage 3 - Additional short

through lane on the northern

approach and southern

departure (Figure 30)

~110,000sqm GFA Not required*

Development cap overall

with above upgrades

~166,000sqm GFA ~166,000sqm GFA

^- the upgrade of the intersection with the extension of the westbound right turn bay is required prior to any additional

development at Glenlee as the intersection performance under the no development scenario is already at capacity once all the

residential development in Spring Farm is completed by 2031.

*- The third stage of the full intersection upgrade is not expected to be required under the 2031 scenario with Spring Farm

Parkway as less development trips to / from Glenlee would be using this intersection to access the regional network. This

implies that there is reserved capacity for the regional traffic using this intersection.


4 of 7

Annexure 1

Figures extracted from AECOM Traffic Report (20 May 2016 reference 60301834 rev G).

Current Intersection Layout (Figure 23)

Figure 23 Current intersection layout for Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass


5 of 7

Staged Intersection Upgrade Options (Figures 24, 25 and 30)

Figure 24 Intersection layout for Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass – right turn lane on eastern approach extended

from 100m to 160m


6 of 7

Figure 25 Intersection layout for Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass – right turn lane on southern approach

extended from 90m to 240m


7 of 7

Figure 30 Intersection layout for Liz Kernohan Drive / Camden Bypass – right turn lane on eastern approach extended

from 160m to 170m and additional short through lane of 200m on the northern approach and 200m on the southern

departure

glenlee precinct rezoning€¦ · 6.4 traffic distribution and assignment 36 6.5 traffic forecasts...

Documents