traffic impact study - cape eaprac prt erf 325 east...1 1. introduction smec south africa has been...

1

TRAFFIC IMPACT

STUDY FOR

REPORT C1461- Rev00

DECEMBER 2013

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Royal Haskoning DHV SMEC South Africa

P.O. Box 434 P.O. Box 10633

GEORGE GEORGE

6530 6530

TEL: (044) 802 0600 TEL: (044) 873 5029

TRAFFIC IMPACT

STUDY Proposed Development on ERF 325,

Pacaltsdorp, George.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

2. The Proposed Development ........................................................................................................ 1

3. Traffic Counts ................................................................................................................................ 1

4. Geometrical Aspects ..................................................................................................................... 2

4.1 Access Points and Existing Road Network ................................................................................. 2

4.2 Road Classification ....................................................................................................................... 3

4.3 Sight Distance ............................................................................................................................... 3

4.4 Intersection Spacing ..................................................................................................................... 4

4.5 Turning Lanes ................................................................................................................................ 5

4.5.1 Right Turning Lanes ...................................................................................................... 5

4.5.2 Left Turning Lanes ......................................................................................................... 6

5. Trip Generation and Trip Distribution .......................................................................................... 7

5.1 Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................. 7

5.2 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 7

6. Operational Analysis ................................................................................................................... 10

6.1 2013 -Traffic with the Erf 325 Development ............................................................................. 10

6.2 2018 -Traffic with the Erf 325 Development ............................................................................. 11

6.2.1 Beach Road (MR349)/Panther Street/Eden Park Road Signalised Intersection ... 11

6.2.2 Beach Road (MR349)/ Access 1 Signalised Intersection......................................... 14

6.2.3 Eden Park Road / Access 2 Junction ......................................................................... 16

6.2.4 Eden Park Road / Access 3 Junction ......................................................................... 18

6.2.5 Eden Park Road / Access 4 Junction ........................................................................ 20

7. Secondary issues ........................................................................................................................ 21

7.1 Pedestrians and Street Lightning ............................................................................................... 21

7.2 Public Transportation Routes and Embayment’s ..................................................................... 22

8. Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 23

9. Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 25

ANNEXURE A ..................................................................................................................................... 26

FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. 26

ANNEXURE B ..................................................................................................................................... 27

TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................................................................... 27

ANNEXURE C .................................................................................................................................... 28

SIDRA RESULTS – 2013 .................................................................................................................. 28

SIDRA RESULTS – 2018 .................................................................................................................. 29

1

1. Introduction

SMEC South Africa has been appointed by Royal Haskoning DHV to conduct a Traffic Impact

Assessment (TIA) for the proposed development on Erf 325, Pacaltsdorp, George. The locality and site

plan of the proposed development on Erf 325 is shown in Figure 1, ANNEXURE A. The study will look

at the effect of the traffic generated by the development on the road network and where necessary

introduce mitigation measures. Secondary issues such as public transport and pedestrian facilities will

also be addressed. The study will be in accordance with the guideline document of the Department of

Transport titled, “Manual for Traffic Impact Studies”1.

2. The Proposed Development

The new development proposes 1973 erven which will consist out of 1952 low income residential

erven, 2 Transport Zones, 11 Public Open Spaces, 3 Mixed Used erven, 4 Crèche’s and 1 Church.

Figure 2, ANNEXURE A shows the layout of the proposed development as done by DELplan Urban

and Regional Planners.

3. Traffic Counts

Traffic counts were done for a 12-hour week day period on 20 September 2013 at Beach Road

(MR349)/Panther Street/Eden Park Road signalised intersection. The traffic counts were analysed to

extract the current 2013 traffic volumes for the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours. The peak

hour volumes obtained from the counts are shown in Tables 3.1 below.

The 2013 AM and 2013 PM traffic counts are represented graphically in Figure 3 and Figure 4,

ANNEXURE A and the recorded traffic volumes can be seen in ANNEXURE B. These peak hours will

be used as the background traffic on which the generated traffic will be superimposed for further

analysis.

1 Manual for Traffic Impact Studies

2 Table 3.1: Current 2013 AM & PM peak hour volumes for Beach/Panther/ Eden Park signalised intersection

BEACH / PANTHER / EDEN PARK PEAK HOUR VOLUME

AM PM

Beach Road (MR349) the South 918 441

Eden Park Road from the East 104 69

Beach Road (MR349) from the North 453 934

Panther Street from the West 444 61

4. Geometrical Aspects

4.1 Access Points and Existing Road Network

There are 4 proposed access points to the development. Access 1 is a T-junction entrance/exit onto

Beach Road (MR349) to the west of the development. Access 2, 3 and 4 are junctions onto Eden Park

Road serving the northern and eastern portion of the development. Eden Park Road in turn feeds into

Beach Road (MR349) via an existing signalised 4-legged junction.

Beach Road (MR349) is situated within the George municipal area, but falls under the authority of the

Western Cape Provincial Government. Therefore the “Road Access Guidelines of PAWC, 2002” 2 will

be the guideline document used to assess access points onto Beach Road (MR349). Eden Park Road

is a municipal road and will be evaluated according to “Draft UTG 5 - Geometric Design of Urban

Collector Roads” 3.

2 Road Access Guidelines of PAWC 2002

3 Draft UTG 5

3

Photo 4.1: Proposed Access point 1 from Erf 325 Development onto Beach Road (MR349)

4.2 Road Classification

The latest classification of roads by George Municipality classifies Beach Road (MR349) as a Class 2

primary arterial moving traffic between George CBD and Pacaltsdorp CBD and the surrounding

residential areas. Figure 5, ANNEXURE A shows the perceived road classification of the study area.

The current access spacing to the South, the speed limit and the current and proposed environment

suggest that Beach Road should rather be a Class 3 district distributor. Eden Park Road is seen as a

Class 4 local collector.

4.3 Sight Distance

The safety of a priority/stop controlled junction is dependent on the Shoulder Sight Distance (SSD) from

the side road onto the approaches of the main road. The “Draft UTG1, 1986, Geometric Design of

Urban Collector Roads”4 recommends a SSD of 130m for a passenger vehicle and 175m for a single

unit vehicle entering a 15m road width for a 60km/h design speed on the major road. Access 1 onto

Beach Drive has adequate shoulder sight distance in both directions. It is however foreseen that as the

area develops, that Access 1 will be upgraded to a signalised junction.

The “Draft UTG 5, 1986”, recommends a SSD of 100m for a passenger vehicle and 150m for a single

unit vehicle entering a 7.5m road width for a 60km/h design speed on the minor road. Accesses 2, 3

and 4 onto Eden Park Road all have adequate shoulder sight distance.

4 Draft UTG 1

Access 1

4 4.4 Intersection Spacing

“Road Access Guidelines of PAWC, 2002” evaluate access spacing in terms of the development

environment and the type of road. The development environment can be seen as suburban and the

type of road as a district distributor.

The guideline dictates that “all equivalent district distributor driveway locations should be based on the

traffic signalised intersection spacing.” The proposed Access 1 from the development onto Beach Road

(MR349) measures ± 365m from the Beach Road/Panther Street/Eden Park Road signalised

intersection. The recommended distance as per the guideline between signalised intersections should

be at least 540m. Due to a watercourse and wetland area to the South, this is however not possible.

The recommended position is at 385m which could in the future become a 4 – legged intersection.

Photo 4.2: Intersection spacing of Access 1 from the development onto Beach Road (MR349)

According to “Draft UTG 5, 1986”, the recommended minimum distance between 4-legged intersections

on collector roads is 80m and for intersection spacing of a t-type intersections it is 50m for staggers

without right turning lanes from the major road. Access 2 is approximately 220m from the signalised

intersection Beach Road (MR349), Panther Street and Eden Park Road. Access 3 will form a 4-legged

junction with Genesis Road and is approximately 450m from Access point 2 and 130m from the other

T-junction with Eden Park Road. Access 4 is approximately 220m from the T-junction Genesis Road

and Eden Park Road. All these junctions spacing are acceptable according to the guidelines.

385m 680m

Access 1

5

Photo 4.3: Intersection Spacing of Access 2-4 from the development onto Eden Park Road

4.5 Turning Lanes

4.5.1 Right Turning Lanes

“Road Access Guidelines of PAWC, 2002” was used as the guideline document to see if a right turn

lane is warranted for the Beach Road (MR349)/Access1 junction on a 60km/h road. The figure below

illustrates the guidelines for implementing right turn lanes for the week AM and PM peak hours. The red

dashed line indicates the future 2018 expected AM and PM peak hour volumes on the main road and

the right turning volumes as obtained from ANNEXURE A, Figure 5 and Figure 6. In the PM peak

hour, the right turning vehicles is 133 and through traffic 856. These figures plot off the graph.

220m 450m

AM Peak

Access 2

Access 3

Access 4

Genesis St

Genesis St

Note: PM Peak hour traffic volumes

plot off the graph.

6 It can be concluded that the future 2018 scenario does warrant a right turning lane for the Beach Road

(MR349) / Access1 junction. The right turning lane is warranted for safety reasons to accommodate

stagnant vehicles waiting to turn from Beach Road (MR349) into the new development at Access 1.

A minimum length of 50m right turning lane is proposed.

It is recommended that a short 30m right turning lane be constructed at Eden Park Road / Access 2

T-junction for safety reasons to accommodate stagnant vehicles waiting to turn from Eden Park Road

into the new development at Access 2.

4.5.2 Left Turning Lanes

The figure below illustrates whether the future 2018 expected AM and PM peak hour traffic warrants left

turning lanes for the proposed Access 1 from Beach Road into the new development.

In the AM peak hour, the left turning vehicles are 104 and approach vehicles are 1064. In the PM peak

hour, the left turning vehicles are 398 and the approach vehicles 511. The AM and PM volumes are too

high to plot on the graph, therefor it can be concluded that for future 2018 scenario a left turning lane is

warranted for the AM and PM Peak hour traffic. For safety reasons and to accommodate slowing down

of left turning vehicles, a left turning short lane of 60m is proposed.

PM

PE

AK

Note: AM and PM Peak hour

traffic volumes plot off the graph

AM PEAK

7

5. Trip Generation and Trip Distribution

5.1 Trip Generation

The document “South African Trip Generation Rates, 2nd Edition,”5 was used as the guideline document

to obtain the peak hour trips generated by the proposed Erf 325 Development. Trip generation values

for subsidy housing of 0.2 trips per dwelling were used. This value was derived from analysing peak

hour traffic counts from similar areas in George. Trip generation values of 0.5 trip per dwelling for low

income urban areas were used for the finance-linked individual subsidy programme (FLISP) housing

and people who typically earn between R3 500 and R15 000 per month (GAP) housing.

For the mixed use erven, the trip generation was determined as shown in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. It

can be assumed that the patrons of this development will stem mostly from Pacaltsdorp, which can be

classified as a low to medium income community. Car ownership is limited and the generation as taken

from the “South African Trip Generation Rates, 2nd Edition”5 can be seen as an over estimation of the

trips calculated to be generated by the centre. The scheduled bus service planned for the George area

will also impact on the private car trips to visit the development. The trips generated for the mixed

use - retail will therefore adjust downwards by 20% to take account of the social-economics of

the area.

Trip generation for Crèche’s will not be taken into consideration due to the fact that it will only generate

trips within the development. Churches will also not be taken into consideration because it generates

trips outside the week AM and PM peak hours.

5.2 Trip Distribution

The distribution rates at the junctions are based on the expected movements of traffic. The trip

distribution envisaged to and from the proposed development during the AM & PM peak hour will be:

5 South African Trip Generation Rates

8 Trip distribution at Access 1 from the development onto Beach Road (MR349) during the AM

and PM peak hours

• 75%% of trips will move towards the North onto Beach Road (MR349),

• 25% of trips will move towards the South onto Beach Road (MR349).

Trip distribution at Access 2 to 4 from the development onto Eden Park Road during the AM and

PM peak hours

• 100% of trips will move towards the West onto Eden Park Road,

• 0% of trips will move towards the East onto Eden Park Road.

Table 5.1 to 5.4 reflects the trip generation of the various land uses as well as the distribution to the

access positions.

Table 5.1: 2013 Trips generated in the peak hour onto Beach Road (MR349) – Access 1

PROPOSED

LAND-USE UNITS / AREA

TRIP

GENERATION

PER DWELLING

SPLIT

IN / OUT

PEAK HOUR TRIPS

WEEK DAY AM WEEK DAY PM

IN OUT IN OUT

Subsidy Housing 565 0.2* AM (35/65) PM (65/35)

40 73 73 40

FLISP Housing 178 0.5 AM (35/65) PM (65/35)

31 58 58 31

GAP Housing 148 0.5 AM (35/65) PM (65/35)

26 48 48 26

Mixed Used (75%) Total area 32 000m² x 50% covered area = 16 000m² / 3 types of use = 5333m² X 75% = 4000 m²

- Retail (discount -20% )

224,5 x GLA-0,34

(13.4 / 100m

2)

4000m² GLA AM°

PM (50/50) - - 214 214

- Office 4000m² 2.3/100m² AM (15/85) PM (85/15)

14 78 78 14

- Wholesale 4000m² 1.5/100m² AM (40/60) PM (60/40)

24 36 36 24

- Flats 12 000m²x 50%= 6000m²†

Assume 100m² = 60 units 1.1

AM (25/75) PM (75/25)

17 50 50 17

Crèche’s 2 Will only generate trips within

Church 1 Outside week peak hour

Total 152 343 557 366

NOTES: * Derived from physical counts in similar areas.

°Retail will operate outside of the AM peak hour & GLA calculated to be 70% of erf area. †Assume on only half of the covered areas flats will be built on top of shops.

9 Table 5.2: 2013 Trips generated in the peak hour onto Eden Park Road – Access 2

PROPOSED

LAND-USE UNITS / AREA

TRIP

GENERATION

PER DWELLING

SPLIT

IN / OUT

PEAK HOUR TRIPS


IN OUT IN OUT

FLISP Housing 93 0.5 AM (35/65) PM (65/35)

16 31 31 16

GAP Housing 106 0.5 AM (35/65) PM (65/35)

19 34 34 19

Mixed Used (25%) Total area 32 000m² x 50% covered area = 16 000m² / 3 types of use = 5333m² X 25% = 1333 m²

- Retail (discount -20% )

224,5 x GLA-0,34

(19.4 / 100m

2)

1333m² GLA AM°

PM (50/50) - - 104 104

- Office 1333m² 2.3/100m² AM (15/85) PM (85/15)

5 26 26 5

- Wholesale 1333m² 1.5/100m² AM (40/60) PM (60/40)

8 12 12 8

- Flats 4000m²x 50%= 2000m²†

Assume 100m² = 20 units 1.1

AM (25/75) PM (75/25)

5 17 17 5

Total 53 120 224 157


Table 5.3: 2013 Trips generated in the peak hour onto Eden Park Road – Access 3

PROPOSED

LAND-USE

UNITS / AREA

TRIP

GENERATION

PER DWELLING

SPLIT

IN / OUT

PEAK HOUR TRIPS


IN OUT IN OUT


23 44 44 23


Table 5.4: 2013 Trips generated in the peak hour onto Eden Park Road – Access 4

PROPOSED

LAND-USE

UNITS / AREA

TRIP

GENERATION

PER DWELLING

SPLIT

IN / OUT

PEAK HOUR TRIPS

WEEK DAY AM

WEEK DAY PM

IN OUT IN OUT


37 69 69 37


10 These trips generated will be superimposed on the existing 2013 AM and PM peak hour background

traffic volume and simulated to obtain the effect of the development traffic on the existing road network.

The generated trips with the current 2013 back ground traffic are graphically shown In Figure 3 and

Figure 4, ANNEXURE A.

The 2013 peak hour traffic will be growthed at 3% per annum to take account of growth elsewhere in

Pacaltsdorp and surrounding areas, to obtain the 2018 AM & PM peak hour volumes. The generated

trips with the future 2018 back ground traffic are graphically shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7,

ANNEXURE A.

6. Operational Analysis

The operational analysis is done with the “SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1”6 computer software that is

suited for traffic engineering capacity analysis. When elements of a road network such as intersections

are analysed, their operating conditions are described in terms of Level of Service (LOS). The six

letters from A to F are used to indicate different LOS. LOS A indicates very low traffic flows with

correspondingly low delays. LOS E reflects capacity conditions, with high delays and unstable flow.

LOS F reflects conditions where traffic demand exceeds capacity and traffic experiences congestion

and delays. Generally LOS A to D is considered acceptable in accordance with international standards.

LOS E and F on the other hand are considered to be unacceptable.

The Average Delay is the delay in seconds that a motorist is likely to experience on an approach to the

junction, while waiting for the junction to clear or other vehicles to manoeuvre. A further measure of the

operating conditions prevailing at any point in a road network is the volume to capacity ratio (v/c). As

the name implies it is the traffic demand volume divided by the available capacity of the road element.

Generally ratios of up to approximately 0.9 are internationally considered acceptable. Values exceeding

1.0 implies saturation of the facility. The results of the SIDRA analysis are shown in ANNEXURE C.

6.1 2013 -Traffic with the Erf 325 Development

The 2013 AM and PM peak hour traffic have been analysed with SIDRA and the results can be seen in

ANNEXURE C. From the results it is evident that the all the intersection will operate at an acceptable

level for the AM & PM peak hours in the current 2013 scenario.

6 SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1

11 6.2 2018 -Traffic with the Erf 325 Development

Table 6.1 to Table 6.10 show a summary of the operational performance analysis for the intersection

at Beach Road (MR349)/Panther Street/Eden Park Road, Access 1 onto Beach Road (MR349) and

Access 2 - 4 onto Eden Park Road for the AM and PM peak hours. The 2018 AM and PM background

traffic with the trips generated by Erf 325 Development were used in the analysis.

6.2.1 Beach Road (MR349)/Panther Street/Eden Park Road Signalised Intersection

The figure below shows a schematic layout of the current intersection geometry:

12 Table 6.1: 2018 Operational performance: Beach Road (MR349)/Panther Street/Eden Park Road

signalised intersection for the AM Peak Hour:

APPROACH MOVEMENT

AM PEAK HOUR

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

(LOS)

AVERAGE

DELAY

(seconds)

VOLUME/

CAPACITY

RATIO

Beach Road (MR349)

(From South)

Left C 21.8 0.672

Through B 13.6 0.672

Right C 20.1 0.171

Eden Park Road

(From East)

Left C 27.2 0.181


Right C 30.4 0.584

Beach Road (MR349)

(From North)

Left - 7.6 0.082


Right D 40.1 0.727

Panther Street

(From West)

Left - 7.6 0.282


Right C 26.3 0.065

13 Table 6.2: 2018 Operational performance: Beach Road (MR349)/ Panther Street / Eden Park Road

signalised intersection for the PM Peak Hour:

APPROACH MOVEMENT

PM PEAK HOUR

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

(LOS)

AVERAGE

DELAY

(seconds)

VOLUME/

CAPACITY

RATIO

Beach Road

(MR349)

(From South)

Left B 19.3 0.384


Right D 40.2 0.934

Eden Park Road

(From East)

Left C 27.9 0.285


Right C 28.0 0.313

Beach Road

(MR349)

(From North)

Left - 7.6 0.166


Right D 35.7 0.786

Panther Street

(From West)

Left - 7.6 0.036

Through C 20.6 0.038

Right C 28.6 0.038

From the results it is evident that the signalised intersection will operate at an acceptable level for the

AM & PM peak hours in the future 2018 scenario.

14 6.2.2 Beach Road (MR349)/ Access 1 Signalised Intersection

The figure below shows a schematic layout of the new intersection geometry:

Table 6.3: 2018 Operational performance: Beach Road (MR349)/ Access 1 junction for the AM

Peak Hour

APPROACH MOVEMENT

AM PEAK HOUR

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

(LOS)

AVERAGE

DELAY

(seconds)

VOLUME/

CAPACITY

RATIO

Beach Road (MR349)

(From South)


Right B 17.5 0.088

Access 1

(From East)

Left C 30.6 0.331

Right C 33.6 0.331

Beach Road (MR349)

(From North)

Left B 16.0 0.176

Through A 8.2 0.179

15 Table 6.4: 2018 Operational performance: Beach Road (MR349)/ Access 1 junction for the PM

Peak Hour

APPROACH MOVEMENT

PM PEAK HOUR

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

(LOS)

AVERAGE

DELAY

(seconds)

VOLUME/

CAPACITY

RATIO

Beach Road (MR349)

(From South)

Through A 8.5 0.248

Right C 27.2 0.604

Access 1

(From East)

Left C 30.9 0.368

Right C 30.9 0.368

Beach Road (MR349)

(From North)

Left B 18.2 0.679

Through A 9.6 0.415

From the results it is evident that the new signalised intersection will operate at an acceptable level for

the AM & PM peak hours in the current 2018 scenario.

16 6.2.3 Eden Park Road / Access 2 Junction

. The figure below shows a schematic layout of the current junction geometry:

Table 6.5: 2018 Operational performance: Eden Park Road / Access 2 junction for the AM Peak

Hour

APPROACH MOVEMENT

AM PEAK HOUR

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

(LOS)

AVERAGE

DELAY

(seconds)

VOLUME/

CAPACITY

RATIO

Access 2

(From South)

Left B 11.3 0.122

Right B 11.1 0.122

Eden Park Road

(From East)

Left A 8.2 0.066

Through A 0.0 0.066

Eden Park Road

(From West)

Through A 0.0 0.047

Right A 8.9 0.054

17 Table 6.6: 2018 Operational performance: Eden Park Road / Access 2 junction for the PM Peak

Hour

APPROACH MOVEMENT

PM PEAK HOUR

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

(LOS)

AVERAGE

DELAY

(seconds)

VOLUME/

CAPACITY

RATIO

Access 2

(From South)

Left B 11.1 0.152

Right B 10.9 0.152

Eden Park Road

(From East)

Left A 8.2 0.044

Through A 0.0 0.044

Eden Park Road

(From West)

Through A 0.0 0.058

Right A 8.8 0.226

From the results it is evident that the junction will operate at an acceptable level for the AM & PM peak

hours in the future 2018 scenario.


The figure below shows a schematic layout of the current junction geometry.


Hour

APPROACH MOVEMENT

AM PEAK HOUR

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

(LOS)

AVERAGE

DELAY

(seconds)

VOLUME/

CAPACITY

RATIO

Access 3

(From South)

Left B 11.3 0.046

Right B 11.1 0.046

Eden Park Road

(From East)

Left A 8.2 0.066

Through A 0.0 0.066

Eden Park Road

(From West)

Through A 0.5 0.066

Right A 8.9 0.066


Hour

APPROACH MOVEMENT

PM PEAK HOUR

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

(LOS)

AVERAGE

DELAY

(seconds)

VOLUME/

CAPACITY

RATIO

Access 3

(From South)

Left B 11.1 0.024

Right B 10.9 0.024

Eden Park Road

(From East)

Left A 8.2 0.044

Through A 0 0.044

Eden Park Road

(From West)

Through A 0.3 0.093

Right A 8.8 0.093




The figure below shows a schematic layout of the current junction geometry:


Hour

APPROACH MOVEMENT

AM PEAK HOUR

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

(LOS)

AVERAGE

DELAY

(seconds)

VOLUME/

CAPACITY

RATIO

Access 4

(From South)

Left B 11.3 0.071

Right B 11.1 0.071

Eden Park Road

(From East)

Left A 8.2 0.066

Through A 0.0 0.066

Eden Park Road

(From West)

Through A 0.5 0.078

Right A 9.0 0.078


Hour

APPROACH MOVEMENT

PM PEAK HOUR

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

(LOS)

AVERAGE

DELAY

(seconds)

VOLUME/

CAPACITY

RATIO

Access 4

(From South)

Left B 11.1 0.037

Right B 10.9 0.037

Eden Park Road

(From East)

Left A 8.2 0.044

Through A 0.0 0.044

Eden Park Road

(From West)

Through A 0.3 0.133

Right A 8.8 0.133



7. Secondary issues

7.1 Pedestrians and Street Lightning

The impact assessment requires evaluation of pedestrian walkways and street lighting along Beach

Road (MR349) and Eden Park Road. The Erf 325 Development can be seen as a low income

community and it can be argued that the residents of the neighbourhood will be more prone to walk or

use public transport than motor vehicles.

Beach Road (MR349) has pedestrian walkways as well as street lighting. A 1.8m wide pedestrian

walkway is recommended to the northern side of Eden Park Road for the new pedestrians that will be

generated by the proposed development. The current street lighting on this road is sufficient.

22 7.2 Public Transportation Routes and Embayment’s

Currently the George Integrated Public Transport Network is being implemented in the George

Municipal area. It is required that the planning of the future bus routes and embayment’s be shown for

planned developments in George.

The public transport routes and embayment’s can be seen in Figure 8, ANNEXURE A, with the

following recommendations:

• Where Class 5 routes are being used as bus routes, the minimum road reserve width is 13m

with the minimum road width to be 6.4m.

• The bus routes must be surfaced prior to the building of dwelling units as to allow early

occupants and construction workers to make use of the bus service.

• All bus routes should have a walkway of at least 1,5m on one side of the road.

23

8. Summary and Recommendations

• The development proposes 1973 erven.

• 4 Accesses are proposed from the Erf 325 Development.

• During the AM and PM peak hour traffic, 841 and 1477 trips respectively will be generated by

the new Erf 325 Development.

• The operational analysis for the 2018 scenario shows that all accesses to the proposed Erf 325

development will operate at acceptable levels with the proposed upgrades.

Taking into account the traffic counts, the development proposal, the traffic analysis results and

assumptions made, the following are recommended:

• that Access 1 move to 385m to the South of the existing signalised intersection;

• that the new Beach Road (MR349)/Access 1 intersection will be constructed with a 50m right

turning lane and a 60m left turning lane;

• that the new Beach Road (MR349)/Access 1 intersection will be signalised once delays on the

side streets becomes problematic;

• that a pedestrian walkway is constructed alongside Eden Park Road on the Northen side of

1.8m wide;

• that Access 2 junctions will be constructed with a 30m right turning lane in Eden Park Road

towards the new development;

• that Access 2, 3 and 4 will be provided with R1 Stop signs and RTM1 stop road markings;

24

• that the following is recommended for the public transport routes and embayment:

- Where Class 5 routes are being used as bus routes, the minimum road reserve width is

13m with the minimum road width to be 6.4m;

- The bus routes must be surfaced prior to the building of dwelling units as to allow early

occupants and construction workers to make use of the bus service;

- All bus routes should have a walkway of at least 1,5m on one side of the road.

The recommended upgrading and changes can be seen in Figure 9, ANNEXURE A.

The above infrastructure should be designed by reputable consulting engineers and design plans

submitted to the relevant road authorities for approval prior to construction.

______________________

Author: R. Stander (B Tech Eng.)

Reviewer: H. Maart (Pr Tech Eng, MEng , BSc Hons)

SMEC South Africa

25

9. Bibliography

1. Department of Transport, Manual for Traffic Impact Studies, Pretoria, 1995.

2. Provincial Administration Western Cape, Road Access Guidelines, Second Edition and

Second Print, Cape Town, September 2002.

3. Urban Transport Guidelines. Draft UTG 5 – Guidelines for the Geometric Design of Urban

Collector Roads, Pretoria, 1988.

4. Urban Transport Guidelines. Draft UTG 1 – Guidelines for the Geometric Design of Urban

Arterial Roads. Pretoria, 1986.

5. Department of Transport, South African Trip Generation Rates, 2nd Edition, Pretoria,

1995.

6. Akcelik & Associates, SIDRA 5.1, Australia, 1990.

26

ANNEXURE A

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: LOCALITY PLAN AND SITE PLAN

FIGURE 2: LAYOUT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 3: ROAD CLASSIFICATION

FIGURE 4: CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME 2013 WITH

GENERATED TRAFFIC - AM PEAK HOUR

FIGURE 5: CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME 2013 WITH

GENERATED TRAFFIC - PM PEAK HOUR

FIGURE 6: FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME 2018 WITH

GENERATED TRAFFIC - AM PEAK HOUR

FIGURE 7: FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME 2018 WITH

GENERATED TRAFFIC - PM PEAK HOUR

FIGURE 8: PROPOSED BUS ROUTES

FIGURE 9: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS

ERF 325 -- LOCALITY PLAN

N

N

TO MOSSEL BAY

TO KNYSNA

ERF 325 -- LAYOUT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

N

LEGEND :

A.M. PEAK HOURSCURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME 2013 WITH GENERATED TRAFFIC

N

LEGEND :

P.M. PEAK HOURSCURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME 2013 WITH GENERATED TRAFFIC

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

N

A.M. PEAK HOURS

LEGEND :

FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME 2018 WITH GENERATED TRAFFIC

N

P.M. PEAK HOURS

LEGEND :

FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME 2018 WITH GENERATED TRAFFIC

ERF 325 -- PROPOSED BUS ROUTES

N

N

TO MOSSEL BAY

TO KNYSNA

LEGEND :

N

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS

PROPOSED NEW PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

PROPOSED SIGNALISED INTERSECTION

R1 STOP SIGN

R1 STOP SIGN

R1 STOP SIGN

27

ANNEXURE B

TRAFFIC VOLUMES

• BEACH ROAD/ PANTHER STREET / EDEN PARK ROAD,

12 HOUR WEEKDAY COUNT

VERKEERSTELLING TE: BEACH_PANTHER_EDENPARK AANTAL VOERTUIE: 12411 LEÊR NO. C1461

STASIE : 1

DATUM : 20 September 2013 TIPE VERKEER : Ligte

KWARTIER VOLUMES

KWARTIER Beachweg Edenpark Beachweg Panther Rylaan BEW.

EINDIG NOORD OOS SUID WES TOTAAL UUR

Links Deur Regs Links Deur Regs Links Deur Regs Links Deur Regs VOLUME

06h15 6 29 4 5 1 14 1 32 6 6 1 0 105

06h30 6 23 6 12 0 9 3 87 5 14 2 0 167

06h45 8 49 6 1 4 32 2 217 15 27 2 0 363

07h00 11 42 9 4 7 25 1 342 3 155 4 0 603 1238

07h15 10 76 11 9 0 15 2 198 6 120 2 0 449 1582

07h30 23 74 39 1 1 20 0 165 4 86 3 0 416 1831

07h45 14 105 39 3 3 16 3 191 3 68 2 4 451 1919

08h00 7 67 23 2 0 18 1 107 0 42 1 1 269 1585

08h15 13 71 12 5 0 7 1 86 1 23 0 3 222 1358

08h30 5 71 9 0 0 8 0 75 3 16 0 0 187 1129

08h45 7 51 9 2 2 11 0 110 7 20 0 0 219 897

09h00 1 11 4 1 1 5 0 57 3 9 0 1 93 721

09h15 8 62 15 0 0 3 1 75 1 10 0 0 175 674

09h30 3 29 4 3 1 3 0 64 2 9 0 0 118 605

09h45 -1 41 11 3 6 7 1 73 1 7 0 1 150 536

10h00 11 50 10 0 0 9 2 109 0 23 0 1 215 658

10h15 4 101 21 5 1 2 0 99 4 28 4 0 269 752

10h30 4 32 11 2 1 6 3 65 6 18 1 0 149 783

10h45 7 81 19 4 2 10 1 94 4 26 0 1 249 882

11h00 3 56 19 1 1 0 4 68 3 48 2 1 206 873

11h15 12 91 37 2 1 9 0 84 7 17 1 2 263 867

11h30 4 48 30 0 0 0 1 72 1 15 1 0 172 890

11h45 9 98 17 2 4 4 0 114 4 20 2 1 275 916

12h00 1 43 20 1 0 0 0 97 0 6 0 0 168 878

12h15 7 66 14 6 1 4 2 88 9 21 0 1 219 834

12h30 10 106 17 7 1 7 2 101 3 23 0 1 278 940

12h45 5 41 17 0 3 9 2 50 1 7 0 3 138 803

13h00 14 135 28 9 3 19 2 98 2 13 2 1 326 961

13h15 3 54 14 3 0 10 6 50 7 16 0 1 164 906

13h30 5 77 17 1 0 2 1 66 2 14 0 1 186 814

13h45 8 45 29 1 1 4 4 79 1 10 0 0 182 858

14h00 12 97 19 2 1 5 2 83 2 23 0 1 247 779

14h15 18 168 30 6 3 15 3 118 4 31 2 0 398 1013

14h30 11 68 9 2 1 9 3 63 2 25 4 3 200 1027

14h45 11 97 21 5 0 1 3 92 1 16 0 1 248 1093

15h00 9 83 13 2 0 2 0 78 2 12 0 0 201 1047

15h15 17 101 20 7 0 7 0 50 4 13 2 0 221 870

15h30 14 85 12 3 0 6 2 58 4 8 0 0 192 862

15h45 15 166 12 7 2 5 10 123 7 17 1 1 366 980

16h00 12 61 14 3 1 6 0 62 3 8 1 0 171 950

16h15 14 150 34 6 0 14 2 100 4 29 1 1 355 1084

16h30 19 173 36 6 5 8 1 81 9 22 2 2 364 1256

16h45 11 86 25 0 4 0 0 91 3 10 1 6 237 1127

17h00 16 224 54 7 1 6 4 134 10 11 0 2 469 1425

17h15 17 192 46 6 2 9 3 101 11 23 0 2 412 1482

17h30 16 133 45 4 6 8 5 74 8 5 0 1 305 1423

17h45 12 158 21 7 1 12 7 81 3 15 0 2 319 1505

18h00 16 146 12 2 4 2 1 59 5 8 3 2 260 1296

TOTAAL 468 4113 944 170 76 403 92 4661 196 1193 47 48 12411

MIDDAGSPITS: VANAF 13h45 TOT 14h45 : DATUM: 20 September 2013

Beachweg

46 % 1042 54 % <- RIGTINGSVERDELING

481 561

/\ 79 430 52

| ( 14.08 %)( 76.6488 %)( 11.479 %)

| | |

53 % <-- v --> 57 %

95 ( 90 %) ----^

106 6 ( 5.7 %) ----> -----> 67

5 ( 4.7 %) ----v

Panther Rylaan Edenpark

117

/\----- ( 60 %) 30

95 <----- <----- ( 10 %) 5 50

v----- ( 30 %) 15

<-- /\ -->

47 % | | | | 43 %

( 2.92553191 %)( 94.6809 %)( 2.393617021 %) v

11 356 9

376 450

826

46 % Beachweg 54 %

NAMIDDAGSPITS: VANAF 16h45 TOT 17h45 : DATUM: 20 September 2013

Beachweg


479 934

/\ 166 707 61

| ( 17.77 %)( 75.6959 %)( 6.53105 %)

| | |

24 % <-- v --> 57 %

54 ( 89 %) ----^

61 0 ( 0 %) ----> -----> 93

7 ( 11 %) ----v


162

/\----- ( 51 %) 35

195 <----- <----- ( 14 %) 10 69

v----- ( 35 %) 24

<-- /\ -->

76 % | | | | 43 %

( 4.30839002 %)( 88.4354 %)( 7.256235828 %) v

19 390 32

441 738

1179

37 % Beachweg 63 %

VERKEERSTELLINGS TE: BEACH_PANTHER_EDENPARK AANTAL VOERTUIE :

STASIE : 1

DATUM : 20 September 2013

TOTAAL GETEL ( 12 URE )

TIPE VOERTUIE : Ligte Beachweg

11782

6257 5525

^ 944 4113 468

/\ ( 17.09 %)( 74.4434 %)( 8.47059 %)

! | | |

<-- v -->

1193 ( 93 %) ----^

1288 47 ( 3.6 %) ----> -----> 711

48 ( 3.7 %) ----v


1360

/\----- ( 62 %) 403

1112 <----- <----- ( 12 %) 76 649

v----- ( 26 %) 170

<---- /\ -->

| | | |

( 1.85896141 %)( 94.1806 %)( 3.96039604 %) v

92 4661 196

4949 4331

9280

Beachweg

OGGENDSPITS: VANAF 06h45 TOT 07h45 : DATUM: 20 September 2013

Beachweg


1401 453

^ 98 297 58

/\ ( 21.63 %)( 65.5629 %)( 12.8035 %)

| | | |

79 % <-- v --> 45.0 %

429 ( 97 %) ----^

444 11 ( 2.5 %) ----> -----> 85

4 ( 0.9 %) ----v


189

/\----- ( 73 %) 76

115 <----- <----- ( 11 %) 11 104

v----- ( 16 %) 17

<-- /\ -->

21 % | | | | 55.0 %

( 0.65359477 %)( 97.6035 %)( 1.74291939 %) v

6 896 16

918 318

1236

74 % Beachweg 26 %

28

ANNEXURE C

SIDRA RESULTS – 2013

• BEACH/PANTHER/EDEN - 2013 PEAK HOUR AM

• BEACH/PANTHER/EDEN - 2013 PEAK HOUR PM

• BEACH/ACCESS 1 - 2013 PEAK HOUR AM

• BEACH/ACCESS 1 - 2013 PEAK HOUR PM

• EDEN/ACCESS 2 - 2013 PEAK HOUR AM

• EDEN/ACCESS 2 - 2013 PEAK HOUR PM





MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_PANTHER_EDEN 2013 PEAK HR AM

New SiteSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)

Movement Performance - Vehicles95% Back of Queue

Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Beach Road

1 L 8 0.0 0.586 21.0 LOS C 14.0 98.0 0.75 0.94 40.3

2 T 1166 0.0 0.586 12.8 LOS B 14.0 98.0 0.75 0.66 42.1

3 R 43 0.0 0.156 19.9 LOS B 0.8 5.9 0.59 0.73 38.7

Approach 1218 0.0 0.586 13.1 LOS B 14.0 98.0 0.74 0.67 42.0

East: Eden Park Road

4 L 64 0.0 0.172 27.1 LOS C 2.6 17.9 0.76 0.79 35.0

5 T 38 0.0 0.172 18.9 LOS B 2.6 17.9 0.76 0.60 36.3

6 R 259 0.0 0.555 30.1 LOS C 7.6 53.1 0.88 0.82 32.9

Approach 361 0.0 0.555 28.4 LOS C 7.6 53.1 0.85 0.79 33.6

North: Beach Road

7 L 142 0.0 0.077 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8

8 T 415 0.0 0.207 9.9 LOS A 3.8 26.8 0.58 0.48 45.2

9 R 103 0.0 0.519 31.1 LOS C 3.1 22.0 0.86 0.81 32.4

Approach 660 0.0 0.519 12.7 LOS B 3.8 26.8 0.50 0.56 43.4

West: Panther Street

10 L 452 0.0 0.243 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8

11 T 27 0.0 0.059 18.1 LOS B 0.8 5.5 0.73 0.54 37.9

12 R 5 0.0 0.059 26.2 LOS C 0.8 5.5 0.73 0.80 36.3

Approach 484 0.0 0.243 8.4 LOS A 0.8 5.5 0.05 0.60 48.7

All Vehicles 2723 0.0 0.586 14.2 LOS B 14.0 98.0 0.57 0.65 41.9

X: Not applicable for Continuous movement.

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). 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 used.

Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of Queue

Mov ID DescriptionDemand

Flow Average

Delay Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance

ped/h sec ped m per ped

P1 Across S approach 53 26.6 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.87 0.87

P3 Across E approach 53 13.8 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.63 0.63

P5 Across N approach 53 29.3 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.91 0.91

P7 Across W approach 53 12.0 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.59 0.59

All Pedestrians 212 20.4 LOS C 0.75 0.75

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: 29 November 2013 12:38:17 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.9.2068

Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltdwww.sidrasolutions.com

Project: C:\Users\maarth\Desktop\Erf 325.sip8000113, VELA VKE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SINGLE

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_PANTHER_EDEN 2013 PEAK HR PM



Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 33 0.0 0.344 19.0 LOS B 6.9 48.5 0.63 0.92 41.2

2 T 656 0.0 0.344 10.8 LOS B 7.0 48.7 0.63 0.54 44.1

3 R 176 0.0 0.854 42.2 LOS D 7.0 49.0 1.00 0.97 27.7

Approach 864 0.0 0.854 17.5 LOS B 7.0 49.0 0.70 0.64 39.3


4 L 119 0.0 0.274 27.9 LOS C 4.2 29.5 0.79 0.80 34.4

5 T 43 0.0 0.274 19.7 LOS B 4.2 29.5 0.79 0.65 35.5

6 R 153 0.0 0.300 27.9 LOS C 4.0 28.2 0.80 0.78 34.0

Approach 315 0.0 0.300 26.8 LOS C 4.2 29.5 0.79 0.77 34.3

North: Beach Road

7 L 297 0.0 0.160 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8

8 T 1145 0.0 0.571 12.6 LOS B 13.5 94.5 0.74 0.66 42.3

9 R 175 0.0 0.652 27.0 LOS C 4.9 34.3 0.78 0.85 34.5

Approach 1617 0.0 0.652 13.3 LOS B 13.5 94.5 0.61 0.67 42.4


10 L 57 0.0 0.031 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8

11 T 1 0.0 0.034 20.5 LOS C 0.3 2.3 0.76 0.54 34.9

12 R 12 0.0 0.034 28.6 LOS C 0.3 2.3 0.76 0.70 33.7

Approach 69 0.0 0.034 11.3 LOS B 0.3 2.3 0.14 0.62 45.9






Flow Average


Prop. Queued












MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_ACCESS 1 2013 PEAK HR AM



Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: BEACH ROAD

2 T 966 0.0 0.445 9.8 LOS A 9.7 68.0 0.63 0.56 45.1

3 R 36 0.0 0.085 17.0 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.51 0.72 40.9

Approach 1002 0.0 0.445 10.1 LOS B 9.7 68.0 0.63 0.56 44.9

East: ACCESS 1

4 L 83 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5

6 R 251 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5

Approach 334 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5

North: BEACH ROAD

7 L 109 0.0 0.176 16.0 LOS B 1.7 12.2 0.50 0.73 41.7

8 T 335 0.0 0.154 8.0 LOS A 2.7 19.2 0.51 0.42 47.2

Approach 444 0.0 0.176 10.0 LOS A 2.7 19.2 0.51 0.50 45.7





Flow Average


Prop. Queued











MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_ACCESS 1 2013 PEAK HR PM



Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



2 T 464 0.0 0.214 8.3 LOS A 4.0 27.7 0.53 0.45 46.8

3 R 140 0.0 0.548 25.4 LOS C 3.8 26.8 0.79 0.81 35.3

Approach 604 0.0 0.548 12.3 LOS B 4.0 27.7 0.59 0.53 43.5

East: ACCESS 1

4 L 93 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4

6 R 278 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4

Approach 371 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4

North: BEACH ROAD

7 L 419 0.0 0.679 18.2 LOS B 8.4 58.8 0.61 0.80 39.9

8 T 777 0.0 0.358 9.2 LOS A 7.3 51.2 0.59 0.51 45.8

Approach 1196 0.0 0.679 12.4 LOS B 8.4 58.8 0.60 0.61 43.5





Flow Average


Prop. Queued











MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 2 2013 PEAK HR AM

New SiteStop (Two-Way)


Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: ACCCESS 2

1 L 126 0.0 0.119 11.2 LOS B 0.5 3.2 0.23 0.89 46.3

3 R 1 0.0 0.119 11.0 LOS B 0.5 3.2 0.23 0.98 46.5

Approach 127 0.0 0.119 11.2 LOS B 0.5 3.2 0.23 0.89 46.3

East: EDEN PARK ROAD

4 L 1 0.0 0.057 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0

5 T 109 0.0 0.057 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 111 0.0 0.057 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9

West: EDEN PARK ROAD

11 T 79 0.0 0.040 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

12 R 56 0.0 0.054 8.9 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.21 0.64 47.8

Approach 135 0.0 0.054 3.7 NA 0.2 1.2 0.09 0.27 54.3

All Vehicles 373 0.0 0.119 5.2 NA 0.5 3.2 0.11 0.40 52.6

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.




MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: EDEN_ACCESS 2 2013 PEAK HR PM



Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 165 0.0 0.150 11.1 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.19 0.90 46.3

3 R 1 0.0 0.150 10.9 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.19 1.03 46.5

Approach 166 0.0 0.150 11.1 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.19 0.90 46.4


4 L 1 0.0 0.038 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0

5 T 73 0.0 0.038 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 74 0.0 0.038 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8


11 T 98 0.0 0.050 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

12 R 236 0.0 0.226 8.8 LOS A 0.8 5.5 0.19 0.65 47.9

Approach 334 0.0 0.226 6.2 NA 0.8 5.5 0.13 0.46 50.9

All Vehicles 574 0.0 0.226 6.8 NA 0.8 5.5 0.13 0.53 50.4








Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 46 0.0 0.045 11.2 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.22 0.88 46.3

3 R 1 0.0 0.045 11.0 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.22 0.97 46.5

Approach 47 0.0 0.045 11.2 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.22 0.88 46.3


4 L 1 0.0 0.057 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0

5 T 109 0.0 0.057 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 111 0.0 0.057 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9


11 T 79 0.0 0.059 0.4 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.23 0.00 55.3

12 R 24 0.0 0.059 8.9 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.23 0.89 48.6

Approach 103 0.0 0.059 2.4 NA 0.3 2.2 0.23 0.21 53.6

All Vehicles 261 0.0 0.059 3.0 NA 0.3 2.2 0.13 0.25 54.5








Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 24 0.0 0.023 11.0 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.89 46.3

3 R 1 0.0 0.023 10.8 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.98 46.5

Approach 25 0.0 0.023 11.0 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.90 46.3


4 L 1 0.0 0.038 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0

5 T 73 0.0 0.038 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 74 0.0 0.038 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8


11 T 98 0.0 0.085 0.3 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.18 0.00 56.1

12 R 46 0.0 0.085 8.7 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.18 0.86 48.5

Approach 144 0.0 0.085 3.0 NA 0.4 3.1 0.18 0.28 53.4

All Vehicles 243 0.0 0.085 3.0 NA 0.4 3.1 0.13 0.26 54.3








Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 73 0.0 0.069 11.2 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.22 0.89 46.3

3 R 1 0.0 0.069 11.0 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.22 0.97 46.5

Approach 74 0.0 0.069 11.2 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.22 0.89 46.3


4 L 1 0.0 0.057 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0

5 T 109 0.0 0.057 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 111 0.0 0.057 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9


11 T 79 0.0 0.071 0.4 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.23 0.00 55.2

12 R 39 0.0 0.071 8.9 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.23 0.85 48.5

Approach 118 0.0 0.071 3.2 NA 0.4 2.6 0.23 0.28 52.8

All Vehicles 302 0.0 0.071 4.0 NA 0.4 2.6 0.14 0.33 53.3








Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 39 0.0 0.037 11.0 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.17 0.90 46.3

3 R 1 0.0 0.037 10.8 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.17 0.99 46.5

Approach 40 0.0 0.037 11.0 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.17 0.90 46.3


4 L 1 0.0 0.038 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0

5 T 73 0.0 0.038 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 74 0.0 0.038 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8


11 T 98 0.0 0.104 0.3 LOS A 0.5 3.8 0.18 0.00 55.9

12 R 73 0.0 0.104 8.7 LOS A 0.5 3.8 0.18 0.82 48.4

Approach 171 0.0 0.104 3.9 NA 0.5 3.8 0.18 0.35 52.5

All Vehicles 284 0.0 0.104 3.9 NA 0.5 3.8 0.13 0.34 53.2





29

SIDRA RESULTS – 2018

• BEACH/PANTHER/EDEN - 2018 PEAK HOUR AM

• BEACH/PANTHER/EDEN - 2018 PEAK HOUR PM

• BEACH/ACCESS 1 - 2018 PEAK HOUR AM

• BEACH/ACCESS 1 - 2018PEAK HOUR PM







MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_PANTHER_EDEN 2018 PEAK HR AM



Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 9 0.0 0.672 21.8 LOS C 17.2 120.1 0.80 0.93 39.8

2 T 1338 0.0 0.672 13.6 LOS B 17.2 120.2 0.80 0.72 41.3

3 R 46 0.0 0.171 20.1 LOS C 0.9 6.4 0.60 0.73 38.6

Approach 1394 0.0 0.672 13.9 LOS B 17.2 120.2 0.79 0.72 41.2


4 L 67 0.0 0.181 27.2 LOS C 2.7 18.9 0.76 0.79 34.9

5 T 40 0.0 0.181 19.0 LOS B 2.7 18.9 0.76 0.61 36.2

6 R 272 0.0 0.584 30.4 LOS C 8.1 56.4 0.89 0.83 32.7

Approach 379 0.0 0.584 28.6 LOS C 8.1 56.4 0.86 0.80 33.5

North: Beach Road

7 L 152 0.0 0.082 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8

8 T 464 0.0 0.231 10.1 LOS B 4.4 30.5 0.59 0.49 45.0

9 R 120 0.0 0.727 40.1 LOS D 4.5 31.6 0.96 0.94 28.5

Approach 736 0.0 0.727 14.5 LOS B 4.5 31.6 0.53 0.59 41.9


10 L 523 0.0 0.282 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.7

11 T 29 0.0 0.065 18.2 LOS B 0.9 6.0 0.73 0.54 37.8

12 R 6 0.0 0.065 26.3 LOS C 0.9 6.0 0.73 0.80 36.3

Approach 559 0.0 0.282 8.4 LOS A 0.9 6.0 0.05 0.60 48.7






Flow Average


Prop. Queued












MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_PANTHER_EDEN 2018 PEAK HR PM



Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 46 0.0 0.384 19.3 LOS B 7.9 55.4 0.65 0.92 41.0

2 T 721 0.0 0.384 11.1 LOS B 8.0 55.7 0.65 0.56 43.7

3 R 181 0.0 0.934 40.2 LOS D 7.0 49.0 1.00 0.90 28.4

Approach 948 0.0 0.934 17.0 LOS B 8.0 55.7 0.71 0.64 39.5


4 L 123 0.0 0.285 27.9 LOS C 4.4 30.8 0.79 0.80 34.3

5 T 45 0.0 0.285 19.8 LOS B 4.4 30.8 0.79 0.65 35.4

6 R 159 0.0 0.313 28.0 LOS C 4.2 29.6 0.80 0.78 33.9

Approach 327 0.0 0.313 26.9 LOS C 4.4 30.8 0.80 0.77 34.3

North: Beach Road

7 L 307 0.0 0.166 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8

8 T 1198 0.0 0.597 12.9 LOS B 14.4 100.8 0.75 0.67 42.0

9 R 202 0.0 0.786 35.7 LOS D 7.1 49.6 0.85 0.96 30.3

Approach 1707 0.0 0.786 14.6 LOS B 14.4 100.8 0.63 0.69 41.3


10 L 66 0.0 0.036 7.6 X X X X 0.60 49.8

11 T 1 0.0 0.038 20.6 LOS C 0.4 2.5 0.76 0.54 34.9

12 R 13 0.0 0.038 28.6 LOS C 0.4 2.5 0.76 0.70 33.7

Approach 80 0.0 0.038 11.1 LOS B 0.4 2.5 0.13 0.62 46.1






Flow Average


Prop. Queued












MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_ACCESS 1 2018 PEAK HR AM



Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



2 T 1120 0.0 0.515 10.4 LOS B 11.9 83.2 0.67 0.59 44.4

3 R 36 0.0 0.088 17.5 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.53 0.72 40.4

Approach 1156 0.0 0.515 10.6 LOS B 11.9 83.2 0.66 0.60 44.3

East: ACCESS 1

4 L 83 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5

6 R 251 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5

Approach 334 0.0 0.331 30.6 LOS C 4.7 32.6 0.84 0.79 32.5

North: BEACH ROAD

7 L 109 0.0 0.176 16.0 LOS B 1.7 12.2 0.50 0.73 41.7

8 T 388 0.0 0.179 8.2 LOS A 3.2 22.7 0.52 0.43 47.1

Approach 498 0.0 0.179 9.9 LOS A 3.2 22.7 0.52 0.50 45.8





Flow Average


Prop. Queued











MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: BEACH_ACCESS 1 2018PEAK HR PM



Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



2 T 538 0.0 0.248 8.5 LOS A 4.7 32.9 0.55 0.46 46.6

3 R 140 0.0 0.604 27.2 LOS C 4.1 28.9 0.82 0.85 34.3

Approach 678 0.0 0.604 12.4 LOS B 4.7 32.9 0.60 0.54 43.4

East: ACCESS 1

4 L 93 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4

6 R 278 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4

Approach 371 0.0 0.368 30.9 LOS C 5.2 36.7 0.85 0.80 32.4

North: BEACH ROAD

7 L 419 0.0 0.679 18.2 LOS B 8.4 58.8 0.61 0.80 39.9

8 T 901 0.0 0.415 9.6 LOS A 8.9 62.0 0.62 0.54 45.3

Approach 1320 0.0 0.679 12.3 LOS B 8.9 62.0 0.62 0.62 43.5





Flow Average


Prop. Queued














Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 126 0.0 0.122 11.3 LOS B 0.5 3.3 0.25 0.89 46.2

3 R 1 0.0 0.122 11.1 LOS B 0.5 3.3 0.25 0.99 46.4

Approach 127 0.0 0.122 11.3 LOS B 0.5 3.3 0.25 0.89 46.2


4 L 1 0.0 0.066 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.09 49.0

5 T 127 0.0 0.066 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 128 0.0 0.066 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9


11 T 92 0.0 0.047 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

12 R 56 0.0 0.054 8.9 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.23 0.64 47.7

Approach 147 0.0 0.054 3.4 NA 0.2 1.2 0.09 0.24 54.7

All Vehicles 403 0.0 0.122 4.8 NA 0.5 3.3 0.11 0.37 53.1








Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 165 0.0 0.152 11.1 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.89 46.3

3 R 1 0.0 0.152 10.9 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.20 1.03 46.5

Approach 166 0.0 0.152 11.1 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.89 46.3


4 L 1 0.0 0.044 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0

5 T 84 0.0 0.044 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 85 0.0 0.044 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8


11 T 114 0.0 0.058 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

12 R 236 0.0 0.226 8.8 LOS A 0.8 5.6 0.21 0.65 47.8

Approach 349 0.0 0.226 5.9 NA 0.8 5.6 0.14 0.44 51.2

All Vehicles 601 0.0 0.226 6.6 NA 0.8 5.6 0.14 0.50 50.8








Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 46 0.0 0.046 11.3 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.24 0.88 46.2

3 R 1 0.0 0.046 11.1 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.24 0.97 46.4

Approach 47 0.0 0.046 11.3 LOS B 0.2 1.1 0.24 0.88 46.2


4 L 1 0.0 0.066 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.09 49.0

5 T 127 0.0 0.066 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 128 0.0 0.066 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9


11 T 92 0.0 0.066 0.5 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.25 0.00 54.9

12 R 24 0.0 0.066 8.9 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.25 0.90 48.7

Approach 116 0.0 0.066 2.3 NA 0.4 2.6 0.25 0.19 53.5

All Vehicles 292 0.0 0.066 2.8 NA 0.4 2.6 0.14 0.22 54.7








Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 24 0.0 0.024 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.18 0.89 46.3

3 R 1 0.0 0.024 10.9 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.18 0.98 46.5

Approach 25 0.0 0.024 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.6 0.18 0.89 46.3


4 L 1 0.0 0.044 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0

5 T 84 0.0 0.044 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 85 0.0 0.044 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8


11 T 114 0.0 0.093 0.3 LOS A 0.5 3.5 0.20 0.00 55.7

12 R 46 0.0 0.093 8.8 LOS A 0.5 3.5 0.20 0.87 48.6

Approach 160 0.0 0.093 2.8 NA 0.5 3.5 0.20 0.25 53.5

All Vehicles 271 0.0 0.093 2.7 NA 0.5 3.5 0.14 0.24 54.5








Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 39 0.0 0.037 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.18 0.89 46.3

3 R 1 0.0 0.037 10.9 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.18 0.99 46.5

Approach 40 0.0 0.037 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.9 0.18 0.89 46.3


4 L 1 0.0 0.044 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.08 49.0

5 T 84 0.0 0.044 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 85 0.0 0.044 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8


11 T 114 0.0 0.113 0.3 LOS A 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.00 55.6

12 R 73 0.0 0.113 8.8 LOS A 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.83 48.5

Approach 186 0.0 0.113 3.6 NA 0.6 4.2 0.20 0.32 52.6

All Vehicles 312 0.0 0.113 3.6 NA 0.6 4.2 0.15 0.31 53.4








Mov ID TurnDemand

Flow HVDeg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L 73 0.0 0.071 11.3 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.24 0.88 46.2

3 R 1 0.0 0.071 11.1 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.24 0.98 46.4

Approach 74 0.0 0.071 11.3 LOS B 0.3 1.8 0.24 0.88 46.2


4 L 1 0.0 0.066 8.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.09 49.0

5 T 127 0.0 0.066 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 128 0.0 0.066 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9


11 T 92 0.0 0.078 0.5 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.25 0.00 54.8

12 R 39 0.0 0.078 9.0 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.25 0.86 48.6

Approach 131 0.0 0.078 3.0 NA 0.4 2.9 0.25 0.26 52.8

All Vehicles 333 0.0 0.078 3.7 NA 0.4 2.9 0.15 0.30 53.6





traffic impact study - cape eaprac prt erf 325 east...1 1. introduction smec south africa has been...

Documents