GOOGONG AND TRALEE TRAFFIC STUDY (2031) · 8.6 Shortlisted Options with Monaro Highway Upgrade 60...
Transcript of GOOGONG AND TRALEE TRAFFIC STUDY (2031) · 8.6 Shortlisted Options with Monaro Highway Upgrade 60...
GOOGONG AND TRALEE TRAFFIC STUDY
(2031)
GABITES PORTER
Prepared by
April 2010
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Prepared by David Hunter Gabites Porter (NZ) Ltd Senior Transportation Engineer 138 Victoria St P O BOX 25 103
Reviewed by David Smith Christchurch Senior Transport Planner New Zealand
Approved by David Hunter Senior Transportation Engineer Telephone: +64 3 366 9871 Facsimile: +64 3 366 9870
Date: 23 April 2010 Reference: 4268 Status: FINAL
T r a f f i c & T r a n s p o r t a t i o nE n g i n e e r i n g & P l a n n i n g
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 7 3. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 7
4. BACKGROUND 8 4.1 Summary of the Model 8 4.2 The Road Network 9
4.2.1 Base 2006 Road Network 9 4.2.2 Base 2031 Road Network 9
4.3 Land Use 10 4.3.1 Households and Employment Changes 10
5. EXISTING 2009 NETWORK DEFICIENCIES 14 5.1 2009 Land Use 14 5.2 2009 Network Operation 16
6. 2031 NATURAL GROWTH ANALYSIS 20 6.1 2031 Natural Growth Network Operation 20
7. 2031 DEVELOPMENT GROWTH ANALYSIS 21 7.1 2031 Full Development Land Use 21 7.2 Vehicles per household 25 7.3 2031 Full Development Network Operation 27
8. REQUIRED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS 29 8.1 2031 Network Improvements 29 8.2 2031 Network Improvement Options 30 8.3 Option Elimination 44 8.4 Initial Shortlisted Options 45 8.5 Intermediate Shortlisted Options 53 8.6 Shortlisted Options with Monaro Highway Upgrade 60 8.7 Elimination of Shortlisted Options 61 8.8 Selection of 2031 Network 62
9. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS 66
10. INITIAL IMPROVEMENT TIMING 69
LIST OF TABLES 1. Summary of the Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Model 8 2. 2009 Model Land Use 14 3. 2009 Model Traffic Indicators 16 4. Level of Service Indicators 17 5. Proposed 2031 Housing Development 21 6. Queanbeyan Land Use Change 2006-2031 22 7. ACT/Queanbeyan Model Land Use Change 2006-2031 22 8. ACT/Queanbeyan Projections of Vehicle/People Ratios 25 9. 2031 Base Queanbeyan Traffic Activity Indicators 27 10. 2031 Major Network Improvements 29 11. Initial Project Options 30 12. Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 – Part 1 43 13. Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 – Part 2 44 14. Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 60 15. 2031 Improvement Link Flows (AMP+PMP) 67 16. 2031 Improvement Intersection Flows (AMP+PMP) 68 17. Link Improvement Timing 69 18. Intersection Improvement Timing 69
LIST OF FIGURES 1. Road Network 11 2. 2031 Queanbeyan Road Base Network with Development 12 3. Reporting Areas and Zones 13 4. HCM Link LOS Criteria (Vehicles per Lane per Hour) 18 5. Changes In Queanbeyan Household Composition 2006-2031 23 6. Changes In Queanbeyan Employment Composition 2006-2031 23 7. Changes In All ACT/Queanbeyan Household Composition 2006-2031 24 8. Changes In All ACT/Queanbeyan Employment Composition 2006-2031 24 9. Change in Vehicle Availability 26 10. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 001 31 11. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 002 32 12. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 003 33 13. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 004 34 14. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 005 35 15. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 1A 36 16. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 1B 37 17. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 2 38 18. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 3 39 19. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 4 40 20. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement VBC 5 41 21. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement VBC 6 42 22. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 01A 47 23. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03A 48 24. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 05A 49 25. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBA 50 26. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBB 51 27. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement C2A 52 28. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03B 55 29. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03C 56 30. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 05B 57 31. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBC 58 32. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement C2B 59 33. 2031 Proposed Improvement Project 64 34. 2021 Proposed Improvement Project 70
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Technical Working Group proposed a number of road and intersection improvements to offset the possible network deficiencies as a result of the developments. Many of these improvements were proposed to directly improve a road or intersection suffering from a poor level of service. However, several new routes were also proposed as a means of creating additional capacity thereby relieving areas of congestion.
The major Queanbeyan improvements proposed for analysis are shown below.
2031 Major Network Improvements
4L Old Cooma (Googong – Edwin Land Parkway) 4L Old Cooma (Edwin Land Parkway – Southbar) 4L Monaro St (Atkinson – Queens Bridge) 2L Edwin Land Parkway Extension (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 2L Ellerton Extension (Ellerton – Edwin Land Parkway) 2L Dunns Creek (Old Cooma – Monaro)
Links
2L Northern Bypass (Bungendore - Yass - Canberra)
Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Tompsitt / Edwin Land Parkway / Jerrabomberra Tompsitt / Jerrabomberra New Link Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe Cooma / Fergus Cooma / Thornton / Barracks Flat Lanyon / Southbar Lanyon / Canberra Bungendore / Yass Bungendore / Atkinson Yass / Aurora Farrer / Cameron
Intersections
Lanyon / Tompsitt
Numerous additional small changes to minor intersections were also looked at to reduce delay.
Inherent in this analysis is the policy of not having any part of the Queanbeyan network operating at worse than LOS D in 2031. This level of service allows for some general degradation of the overall network without significant localised increases in delay. It also allows some movements at intersections to operate at a worse level of service so long as the overall level of service was maintained at LOS D or better.
The above major link improvements were grouped into 12 project options which included any combination of the above improvements in order to assess the relative benefits of the works. The following shows the link improvements included in each of the 12 options.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 2
Initial Project Options
Option 4 Lane
Old Cooma Road
2 Lane ELP
Extension
4 Lane ELP
Extension
2 Lane Ellerton
Extension
2 Lane Dunns Creek
4 Lane Dunns Creek
2 Lane Northern Bypass
001
002
003
004
005
CIC 1A
CIC 1B
CIC 2
CIC 3
CIC 4
VBC 5
VBC 6
Each of these 12 project options were analysed using the transportation model developed for Queanbeyan. After examining the results of the computer analysis, it became clear that a number of these options either did not fulfil the role intended, did not improve the future network deficiencies or were too expensive.
Options that included the Northern Bypass were not proceeded with. The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) advised that alignment issues made the bypass too expensive at this time. The benefits gained by the traffic diversion were currently insufficient to warrant any project including the Northern Bypass.
The four laning of the Edwin Land Parkway Extension from Jerrabomberra to Old Cooma Rd produced no difference in traffic flow when compared to the two lane version. This therefore produced no real benefit to the network for the additional expense and was not proceeded with.
Options that did not include the four laning of Old Cooma Rd were also eliminated. The level of congestion along Old Cooma Rd as a result of the Googong development required four laning in order to maintain a suitable level of service during peak periods. No alternative roading project reduced flow along the two lane Old Cooma Rd alignment sufficiently to maintain the suitable level of service.
Options involving the construction of the Dunns Creek link were also eliminated. The Dunns Creek link between the Tralee and Googong developments was seen as being a useful inclusion in the future Queanbeyan network but would not likely be required in the current 2031 planning horizon. The ability of the Dunns Creek link to reduce traffic flow along Old Cooma Rd and the Edwin Land Parkway Extension was seen by the Technical Working Group as being valuable in the future but could not be justified at this time.
This process eliminated all but Project Option 005. It was also concluded that a variation of Project Option CIC 1B should also be included in further analysis. Project Option CIC 1B was to include the four laning of Old Cooma Rd and the two lane extension of the Edwin Land Parkway.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 3
These two remaining Options 05B and CIC 1B were analysed in depth using the Queanbeyan model. In both options all intersections that were found to be operating at LOS E or F were modified until they maintained an LOS D level.
Additional testing was undertaken for each of the options with the Monaro Hwy, south of Lanyon Dr, increased to six lanes and Pialligo Ave increased to four lanes. These tests showed that increasing the capacity of these roads made little difference to the flow of traffic within Queanbeyan.
The Option CIC 1B variation was included in the final analysis to determine if it was possible to produce a future network option that did not require the Ellerton Rd Extension. One of the main reasons for the Ellerton Extension was to reduce the traffic flow along both Cooma St corridor and improve its projected level of service back to LOS D.
A number of additional improvements were proposed for Cooma St so that the Ellerton Rd Extension was not needed. These improvements involved modified intersection lay-outs for intersection along Cooma St and the installation of clearways during peak periods. Clearways would enable the introduction of four lanes of traffic along Cooma St between Rutledge St and Southbar Rd. Whilst the Option CIC 1B variations produced the desired result of LOS D along Cooma St it was expected to come at a cost to local residential amenity.
Option 05B was preferred as being the final 2031 improvement works project option.
The costs associated with these improvement works are attributable to the developments that take place up to 2031. This study concluded that the flow to and from each development would be tracked in the model which allowed the Technical Working Group to see how much traffic from each development went along or through each improvement in the preferred Project Option.
The relativity of each development’s flow through an improvement creates the relative contribution that each development should make to the cost of the improvement.
To simplify this process and help identify contributions, the developments were grouped as follows:
• Googong Development (GOG) • South Jerrabomberra - Tralee, SE Jerrabomberra and Tralee Station
Developments (SJ) • HQJOC (HQJ) • All other development (DEV) • Other Queanbeyan Users (QUE)
Flows from each of the five groups (DEV, GOG, SJ, HQJ, QUE) were modelled separately for both the 2031 AM and PM Peaks. The period volumes were combined so that the total peak period volume was used in the apportionment calculations. The percentage relativity of each group’s flows was used in apportioning the cost of each improvement work. It should be noted that the following volumes do not include ACT traffic using the links and intersections.
Only the Edwin Land Parkway Extension and the Ellerton Extension projects had costs apportioned to existing Queanbeyan residents as these two projects offered additional
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 4
benefits to residents. All other link and intersection works were apportioned to GOG, SJ, HQJ and DEV only, as they were being constructed to repair disbenefits to existing Queanbeyan users produced by these developments.
The following table details the volumes and relative proportion of the combined flows from each development along each of the improvement links.
2031 Improvement Link Flows (AMP+PMP)
Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total 4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP) 4404 297 51 365 5117 4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar) 2514 169 16 260 2959 4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge) 144 258 303 296 1001 2L ELP Ext (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 1004 513 53 127 701 2398 2L Ellerton Extension 868 41 97 91 249 1346
Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total 4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP) 86% 6% 1% 7% 100% 4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar) 85% 6% 1% 9% 100% 4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge) 14% 26% 30% 30% 100% 2L ELP Ext (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 42% 21% 2% 5% 29% 100% 2L Ellerton Extension 64% 3% 7% 7% 18% 100%
As indicated earlier, both the 2L Ellerton Extension and the Edwin Land Parkway Extension improvements have been apportioned to include a contribution from existing Queanbeyan residents. These new improvements are being implemented as a result of congestion and Level of Service issues elsewhere in the network. As these proposed roads have also been included in Council planning maps for many years, the apportionment of costs is therefore being calculated differently. These links will provide a potential benefit to the existing Queanbeyan residents and QCC considers it reasonable to include the flow from existing residents in calculating the apportionment of cost.
The following table details the volumes and relative proportion of the combined flows from each development through each of the improvement intersections.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 5
2031 Improvement Intersection Flows (AMP+PMP)
Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total Cooma/ELP 4386 513 111 423 5433 Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra 823 1879 13 103 2818 Tompsitt/New Link 738 2564 40 91 3433 Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe 798 32 42 186 1058 Cooma/Fergus 1243 24 37 236 1540 Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat 2484 128 21 391 3024 Lanyon/Southbar 624 1095 160 249 2128 Lanyon/Canberra 861 847 200 429 2337 Monaro/Atkinson 157 259 407 715 1538 Monaro/Yass/Bungendore 880 228 911 839 2858 Yass/Aurora 594 39 390 575 1598 Farrer / Cameron 2611 2611 Lanyon / Tompsitt 3834 3834
Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total Cooma/ELP 81% 9% 2% 8% 100% Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra 29% 67% 0% 4% 100% Tompsitt/New Link 21% 75% 1% 3% 100% Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe 75% 3% 4% 18% 100% Cooma/Fergus 81% 2% 2% 15% 100% Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat 82% 4% 1% 13% 100% Lanyon/Southbar 29% 51% 8% 12% 100% Lanyon/Canberra 37% 36% 9% 18% 100% Monaro/Atkinson 10% 17% 26% 46% 100% Monaro/Yass/Bungendore 31% 8% 32% 29% 100% Yass/Aurora 37% 2% 24% 36% 100% Farrer / Cameron 100% 100% Lanyon / Tompsitt 100% 100%
An initial analysis was undertaken to determine a simple timing of the improvements. This analysis involved creating the expected 2021 land use for Queanbeyan and ACT based on available details of development construction rates. The 2006-2021 increase in households, jobs, cars and population was estimated from data provided and used to create AM and PM Peak models of traffic in Queanbeyan in 2021.
The poor levels of service shown in some areas indicate where improvements need to be implemented by 2021 and therefore cannot wait until 2031. The following tables indicate the likely construction timing of each of the proposed improvement works.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 6
Link Improvement Timing
Location By 2021 By 2031 4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP)
4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar)
4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge)
2L ELP Extension (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma)
2L Ellerton Extension
Intersection Improvement Timing
Location By 2021 By 2031 Cooma/ELP
Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra
Tompsitt/New Link
Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe
Cooma/Fergus
Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat
Lanyon/Southbar
Lanyon/Canberra
Monaro/Atkinson
Monaro/Yass/Bungendore
Yass/Aurora
Farrer / Cameron
Lanyon / Tompsitt
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 7
2. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to identify and measure the improvements needed to the 2031 network to return it to a similar Level of Service to that currently provided in the 2009 network.
One of the objectives of the Queanbeyan Transportation Plan study was to identify when and where transport network improvements should occur in the Queanbeyan transport network between 2006 and 2031. An earlier reports detailed the current 2009 transport deficiencies and the future 2031 deficiencies. These will be briefly summarised in this report but for a full and detailed view of both current and projected deficiencies please refer to the “Queanbeyan Current Situation Transport Report – June 2008” and the “Queanbeyan Future Transport Report Stage 1 – June 2008”.
3. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
In 2008 Queanbeyan Council commissioned Gabites Porter to create a transportation model of the Queanbeyan LGA based on the 2006 Census Land Use and traffic flows. This model has been used to analyse the current transport situation in Queanbeyan as well as analyse, test and optimise a number of 2031 future land use and infrastructure scenarios.
A Technical Working Group comprising representatives from Queanbeyan City Council, Roads and Traffic Authority, Gabites Porter, Village Building Company and Canberra Investment Corporation was formed to identify network improvement works needed to address deficiencies in both the existing and future Queanbeyan road network. In addition, this group attempted to address the equitable division of developer contributions needed to address those deficiencies.
The maintenance of a suitable level of road network performance is vital to ensure the continued safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout Queanbeyan. Degraded intersection and road operation results in bottle-necks to traffic movement. The flow-on effects of this is reduced road safety, significant travel delay, traffic diversion onto residential roads and the loss of local amenity. To maintain the prosperity of the local community, it is important to keep the Queanbeyan transportation network operating at a good level of efficiency.
This report highlights the methods used in this study and the results of the analysis on the Queanbeyan road network.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 8
4. BACKGROUND
4.1 Summary of the Model
Table 1 provides a brief overview of the Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) model.
Summary of the Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Model Table 1
Element Comment Geographic Coverage
The study area covered the entire Queanbeyan LGA area.
Model Coverage
The model extends past the ACT / NSW boundary into ACT and includes all of Canberra. This extension was created so as to more properly model the interaction between the two cities.
Periods Traffic for each of the peak period models is reported in hourly traffic volumes. The generation models have been calibrated separately for each time period. The Queanbeyan model comprises two discrete models covering an average weekday: • Morning Peak: 0700 to 0900 (Hour reported: 0800-0900) • Evening Peak: 1600 to 1800 (Hour reported: 1700-1800)
Network Detail
The road network used is derived from a GIS representation of the road centrelines. There are around 5500 links and 2600 nodes in the Queanbeyan portion of the network and 16000 links and 7600 nodes in total within the model area.
External Traffic
The model has been validated using available local and RTA counts at external points as close as possible to the study area boundary.
Vehicle Types
Vehicle types used in the model include private cars, vans, as well as heavy (HCV) and light (LCV) commercial vehicles.
Software Platform
The model has been developed using TRACKS, which is the proprietary land use and transport planning software developed, maintained and marketed by Transportation and Traffic Systems Ltd.
Modelling Techniques
This is a standard three-step model comprising vehicle driver trip generation, distribution and assignment. The current three steps are outlined below:
1. Private/internal Trip generation. Private Trip productions are calculated from 20 Household Categories of 0, 1, 2+ employees by 0, 1, 2, 3+ cars calibrated directly from the Sydney HIS survey carried out in 1991/92 by the Transport Study Group (TSG). Trip Attractions and commercial vehicle generations are calculated from regression derived equations using the Australian and NZ Standard Classification major industry groups and again using HIS data. Existing land use data was obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census. 2. Trip distribution. Trip ends are formed into origin/destination matrices using a standard gravity model. A function of travel time is used for spatial separation.
3. Assignment. Assignment of trips to the network uses an incremental time slice process. This does not have the convergence issues associated with an equilibrium assignment, and permits intersection delays to be directly calculated during the assignment process. Intersection delays are calculated by movement using algorithms in ARR123 (SIDRA) and Tanner’s queuing theory extended by Fisk and Tan, and later by Gabites Porter.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 9
4.2 The Road Network
4.2.1 Base 2006 Road Network
The road network used in the study was obtained from QCC and ACT GIS systems and includes all roads within the Queanbeyan study area and all roads of Collector or higher status in the ACT. The road network for the entire model area is shown in Figure 1.
The network is a true representation of a road and distances are calculated directly from the co-ordinate data. All other components of network coding were prepared from visual inspection or from the Council’s set of aerial photos, for example:
• Link lanes
• Link free flow speeds
• Approach controls
• Approach lanes
All roundabouts and priority intersections were coded into the network.
4.2.2 Base 2031 Road Network
The base future network was based upon the validation 2006 network but also included all works expected completed to the end of the year 2010. Additional changes and improvements were also made to the network based upon probable local road networks identified in Masterplans for major areas under development.
Under these criteria the following works were included in the 2031 Base network:
1. Major local network infrastructure for the Googong development area.
2. Major local network infrastructure for the South Tralee development area.
3. Simple major local network infrastructure for the North Tralee development area.
4. Four lane upgrade of Lanyon Dr from Tompsitt Dr to Monaro Hwy.
5. Construction of a roundabout at the Captains Flat / Kings Hwy intersection.
6. Construction of a flyover on Pialligo Ave at the Airport main entrance.
The Base 2031 road network for the Queanbeyan Study area is shown in Figure 2.
A number of Major Works Projects were included in the ACT part of the model to correctly reflect the changes expected to accommodate the increased ACT population. These upgrades included:
1. Four lane upgrade to the remaining two lane elements of the Monaro Hwy and Lanyon Dr.
2. Stage 2 of the GDE.
3. Widening of Parkes Way and Clunies Ross St with associated upgrade to the Barry Dr / Clunies Ross St intersection.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 10
4. Four lane upgrade of Majura and Airport Rds with associated extension of Monaro Hwy over Pialligo Ave.
5. Upgrades of William Slim and Gundaroo Drives.
6. Four land upgrade of Tharwa Drive from Johnson Drive south.
7. Widening of Monaro Hwy to three lanes in each direction for 2031.
8. Major capacity increases at the Melrose and Yamba intersections with Tuggeranong Parkway.
9. Numerous improvements to numerous signalised intersections.
4.3 Land Use
4.3.1 Households and Employment Changes
The 2006 Census land use information was used for the creation of the base 2006 network.
Household data was based on CCD ex 2006 ABS census data:
• Households (number occupied on census night) • Average vehicles available/household • Average number of employees/household
At the workplace location jobs have been identified and located using 2006 ABS census data placed according to the Transport Data Centre Zone system and using the Australian New Zealand Standard Industry Classifications (ANZSIC) Major Divisions for all full time + part time jobs (i.e. number of people employed):
• Division C - Manufacturing • Division F – Wholesale Trade • Division G - Retail Trade • Division K – Finance and Insurance • Division O – (Health and) Community Services • Total Jobs
Education school roll data was obtained from the rolls of private and public schools.
For household data the procedure followed was to extract the data at CCD level from the Census Community Profile, and then allocate each CCD to either a single model zone or multiple zones based on CCD size.
Understanding how land use activity changes over time is crucial to understanding how traffic will change. The CCD land use projections were based on the ACT and Queanbeyan City Council supplied data for changes in household construction and employment distribution from 2006-2031 and available details of the proposed housing release areas throughout the area.
The 2031 future land use data was grouped into reporting areas for ease of distribution and understanding. These areas are shown in Figure 3.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 11
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants Road Network Figure 1
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 12
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Queanbeyan Road Base Network with Development Figure 2
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 13
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants Reporting Areas and Zones Figure 3
Key
Reporting Area
Model Zone
Jumping Creek
Tralee Station Area
KEY
Reporting Area
Model Zone
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 14
5. EXISTING 2009 NETWORK DEFICIENCIES
The level of traffic used in the 2009 modelling is calculated from land use data which focuses on Queanbeyan and includes the number of dwellings, vehicles, school rolls, employment and job distribution. All of this data has been extracted from the 2006 census data. A computer model of Queanbeyan has been created and tested against traffic counts and it replicates the economic and environmental conditions that exist in 2009.
The 2009 land use covers both the Queanbeyan and Canberra LGAs so that the interaction between the two areas can be correctly taken into account. The Queanbeyan study area however is bordered on the west and south by the ACT-NSW border and in the east as far as the Wanna Wanna Nature Reserve. The Queanbeyan study area of the model is divided into sub areas to form a zone system. The Queanbeyan study area consists of 255 zones but the total model consists of 999 zones representing Queanbeyan and the ACT.
5.1 2009 Land Use
The details of the 2009 model and the following existing network results are included in the “Queanbeyan Current Situation Transport Report – June 2008”.
A summary of the 2009 deficiency results follows.
The road network used in the study was obtained from QCC and ACT GIS systems and includes all roads within Queanbeyan and all roads of Collector or higher status in the ACT. The modelled road network can be seen in Figure 1.
Table 2 summarises the land use used in the study areas.
2009 Model Land Use Table 2
Land use Queanbeyan Only Total Queanbeyan and ACT
Households 14,131 134,652
Employees 19,072 192,318
Employees per HH 1.350 1.428
Vehicles 22,365 211,049
Vehicles per HH 1.583 1.567
Primary School Roll 2,645 29,034
Secondary School Roll 1,415 35,036
Tertiary Roll 300 38,350
Retail Jobs 2,120 22,401
Finance Jobs 1,848 22,378
Community Jobs 1,658 20,083
Manufacturing Jobs 2,532 22,765
Other Jobs 1,422 95,822
Total Jobs 9,610 183,255
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 15
The 2009 environment, upon which the model is based, shows that the population of the ACT-Queanbeyan area is increasing along with car ownership. However, the rate of increase in car ownership appears to be decreasing while bus patronage, in the ACT for people with activity there, appears to be increasing from a low in 2001.
The following charts give an indication of the 2006 environment upon which the Queanbeyan model is based and how it relates to the decade preceding it.
Est. ACT-Queanbeyan Population
310000
320000
330000
340000
350000
360000
370000
380000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Annual ACT Bus Patronage ('000)
14500
15000
15500
16000
16500
17000
17500
18000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Private Cars/ 1000 Population
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 16
The 2006 Census indicates that 6.4% of people with employment in the ACT use some form of public transport. However, the same data indicates that only 1.0% of people with employment in Queanbeyan use public transport. Public transport services in Queanbeyan are therefore underutilised.
The operational efficiency of public transport during Morning Peak period has been analysed and whilst service coverage and travel time are generally very good the service frequency and hours of operation are lagging behind.
5.2 2009 Network Operation The modelled traffic results shown in Table 3 show how the network performs in the AM and PM peak periods.
2009 Model Traffic Indicators Table 3
Traffic Activity Indicator Queanbeyan Study Area
ACT-Queanbeyan Model Area
2006 - Morning Peak Vehicle Kilometres (km) 66,616 981,940 Link Vehicle Minutes (min) 68,800 988,010 Link Mean Running Speed (kph) 58.1 59.6 Vehicles subject to Intersection Delay 151,119 1,321,127 Total Vehicle Intersection Delay (min) 16,628 374,548 Intersection Delay per Vehicle (sec) 6.6 17.0 Total Vehicle Trips 13,956 124,549 Network Total Vehicle Minutes (min) 85,428 1,362,558 Network Mean Network Speed (kph) 46.8 43.2 Average Trip Distance (km) 7.92 7.92 Average Trip Time (min) 10.54 10.54
2006 - Evening Peak Vehicle Kilometres (km) 72,993 1,010,122 Link Vehicle Minutes (min) 76,348 994,741 Link Mean Running Speed (kph) 57.4 60.9 Vehicles subject to Intersection Delay 174,178 1,372,531 Total Vehicle Intersection Delay (min) 18,809 347,822 Intersection Delay per Vehicle (sec) 6.5 15.2 Total Vehicle Trips 15,649 130,843 Network Total Vehicle Minutes (min) 95,157 1,342,563 Network Mean Network Speed (kph) 46.0 45.1 Average Trip Distance (km) 7.73 7.73 Average Trip Time (min) 10.05 10.05
Modelling of the Queanbeyan road network revealed relatively few significant deficiencies in 2009. The majority of problem intersections and roads occur outside Queanbeyan in the ACT. These deficiencies are generally reported as reductions in Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is a subjective measure of the way in which a network is operating. It is a concept developed by US engineers and has been generally adopted internationally. It is being used in this study to measure the performance of both roads and intersections. LOS is reported as the average over the entire peak hour
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 17
and may therefore be better than the absolute worst LOS that occurs for small periods during the hour.
This study focuses on LOS F, E and D with particular attention paid to the two worst conditions of LOS F and E. Table 4 describes the conditions that can occur for each level of service.
Level of Service Indicators Table 4
HCM LOS criteria
Intersection (average delay/veh)
LOS AustRoads Description Link (vehicles per hour) Priority Signal/Rotary
LOS F
Forced flow. The amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds that which can pass it. Flow break-downs occur, and queuing and delays occur.
In excess of 900-1700
depending on link type
50 sec 80 sec
LOS E
Traffic volumes are at or close to capacity and there is virtually no freedom to select desired speed and to manoeuvre within the traffic stream. Flow is unstable and minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause break-downs in operation.
Between 720-1360
depending on link type
35 sec 55 sec
LOS D
Approaching unstable flow where all drivers are severely restricted in their freedom to select desired speed and to manoeuvre within the traffic stream. The general level of comfort and convenience is poor and small increases in traffic flow will cause operational problems.
Between 585-1105
depending on link type
25 sec 35 sec
Figure 4 shows how Link LOS varies depending on link type. It shows that the higher the vehicle volume and the lower the free speed the worse the LOS becomes. Link types are defined as follows:
• Link type 1 equates to road speeds of 10km/hr • Link type 2 and 12 equate to road speeds of 20km/hr and 25km/hr • Link type 3 and 13 equate to road speeds of 30km/hr and 35km/hr • Link type 4 and 14 equate to road speeds of 40km/hr and 45km/hr • Link type 5 and 15 equate to road speeds of 50km/hr and 55km/hr • Link type 6 and 16 equate to road speeds of 60km/hr and 65km/hr • Link type 7 and 17 equate to road speeds of 70km/hr and 75km/hr • Link type 8 and 18 equate to road speeds of 80km/hr and 85km/hr • Link type 9 and 19 equate to road speeds of 90km/hr and 95km/hr • Link type 10 and 11 equate to road speeds of 100km/hr and 110km/hr • Link type 20 equates to road speeds of 105km/hr
This present day Level of Service provides a measure by which future network performance and deficiencies can be assessed given knowledge and experience of current conditions.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 18
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 110
LINK TYPE LOS BAND
(Veh/Lane/Hour 2 12 3 13 4 14 5 15 6 16 7 17 8 18 9 19 10 11
LOS C 450 500 550 600 650 700 734 760 782 760 814 825 835 841 846 849 850 850
LOS D 585 650 715 780 845 910 954 988 1016 988 1058 1073 1085 1093 1100 1104 1105 1105
LOS E 720 800 880 960 1040 1120 1175 1216 1250 1216 1302 1320 1335 1346 1354 1358 1360 1360
LOS F 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1467 1520 1563 1520 1627 1650 1669 1682 1692 1698 1700 1700
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
HCM Link LOS Criteria (Vehicles per Lane per Hour) Figure 4
Link Type
LOS F
LOS E
LOS D
LOS C
LOS A-C
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Link Type
Veh
icle
s/ho
ur/la
ne
12 13 1514 16 17 18 19 11
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 19
The figures in Appendix 1 – 2009 Base Scenario show the existing 2009 AM and PM peak period modelled traffic volumes and the operational LOS. The parts of Queanbeyan under most stress are centred on the Tompsitt Dr / Lanyon Dr roundabout, Tompsitt Dr / Jerrabomberra Dr Roundabout and the Canberra Ave / Lanyon Dr roundabout with some approaches suffering LOS D. Queens Bridge also drops to LOS D in the PM Peak.
It must be remembered that these results are the average results for each peak hour and that short periods within each hour may operate at levels of service worse than the average.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 20
6. 2031 NATURAL GROWTH ANALYSIS
To determine how the 2031 network will be operating in the future and therefore what improvement works are needed to maintain the current network efficiency, the study had to firstly determine what growth will naturally occur and secondly what additional growth will occur as a result of developments.
The expected growth in Queanbeyan traffic between 2006 and 2031 comes from a number of sources, namely:
• Growth in Queanbeyan households
• Growth in Queanbeyan car ownership
• Growth in ACT households
• Growth in ACT car ownership
• Development outside the immediate area
Natural growth (things beyond the scope of Section 94 contributions) comes from a combination of growth in ACT households/car ownership, Queanbeyan car ownership and the construction of additional households that do not require contributions to be made. No other housing development is included in this part of the analysis.
For the purposes of this study, QCC staff have indicated that 30 Queanbeyan infill housing sites form part of the natural growth as they can be built on as of right.
The Queanbeyan analysis of natural growth included the expected 2031 ACT housing and employment, the 2031 expected change in Queanbeyan car ownership and the additional 30 infill households. This use was modelled on the 2031 base network that included planned Queanbeyan and ACT infrastructure changes.
At this stage no large scale housing developments are included in the analysis. This therefore creates a 2031 future base condition to which later development impacts can be compared. Additional future network deficiencies as a result of developments can be readily highlighted and developer contributions apportioned.
6.1 2031 Natural Growth Network Operation
The figures in Appendix 2 – 2031 Do Minimum – Natural Growth show the 2031 Future AMP and PMP modelled traffic volumes and levels of service as a result of this natural growth.
Clearly, the only area of the network that is expected to need attention is the Lanyon/Tompsitt intersection (LOS E). This intersection improvement is required as a result of expected natural growth in Queanbeyan and therefore is the responsibility of the QCC.
The Monaro/Cameron intersection may need attention with respect to right turning vehicles from Cameron.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 21
7. 2031 DEVELOPMENT GROWTH ANALYSIS
7.1 2031 Full Development Land Use
Having determined how the Queanbeyan network will be operating in 2031 after natural growth, the study also needed to take into account the additional residential developments that will occur in various areas. These developments are known as “green field” developments as they will be constructed in areas where little or no existing infrastructure exists. In addition to these green field developments, additional infill housing throughout the existing Queanbeyan urban area has been included.
The Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC) establishment has also been included in the analysis as the daily employment related flows to and from HQJOC are substantial and have an impact on the central Queanbeyan network.
The additional housing developments and their sizes used in the full 2031 analysis are shown in Table 5.
Proposed 2031 Housing Development Table 5
Reporting Area Households Additional Queanbeyan Infill 785 The Ridgeway 3 Rural Tralee 131 Carwoola 89 Greenleigh 3 Tralee Development 1924 Googong Development 5550 Rural Googong 93 Tralee Station Area 941 Jerrabomberra SE 1820 Jumping Creek 300 Total 11639
Table 6 and Table 7 are summaries of the 2006 and 2031 land use data used in the model.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 22
Queanbeyan Land Use Change 2006-2031 Table 6
Land Use Categories
Description of Land Use Categories Code 2006 2031
Total Households (HH) 14,131 25,956 Employees per HH 1.35 1.36 Residential Total Population 35,972 68,970 Retail Trade RET 2,120 3,526 Finance FIN 1,848 2,412 Community COM 1,658 2,449 Manufacturing MAN 2,532 4,576 Other OTH 1,422 3,305
Employment
Total Jobs TOT 9,610 16,268 Primary rolls PRI 2,645 5,451 Secondary School rolls SCH 1,415 4,344 Education Tertiary rolls TER 300 300 Total Vehicles 22,365 46,880
Vehicles Vehicles per Household 1.583 1.808
ACT/Queanbeyan Model Land Use Change 2006-2031 Table 7
Land Use Categories
Description of Land Use Categories Code 2006 2031
Total Households (HH) 134,652 186,468 Employees per HH 1.428 1.435 Residential Total Population 356,632 498,740 Retail Trade RET 22,401 41,139 Finance FIN 22,378 37,075 Community COM 20,083 28,999 Manufacturing MAN 22,765 22,288 Other OTH 95,822 128,637
Employment
Total Jobs TOT 183,255 257,051 Primary rolls PRI 29,034 33,506 Secondary School rolls SCH 35,036 33,734 Education Tertiary rolls TER 38,350 55,570 Total Vehicles 211,049 328,124
Vehicles Vehicles per Household 1.567 1.760
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show graphically the changes in Queanbeyan land use used in the model between 2006 and 2031 as a result of natural growth and additional housing development. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show graphically the changes in land use for the entire ACT/Queanbeyan area used in the model for 2006 and 2031.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 23
Figure 5 Changes In Queanbeyan Household Composition 2006-2031
Figure 6 Changes In Queanbeyan Employment Composition 2006-2031
The number of households and their size will increase approximately 85% over the next 25 years. Vehicle ownership will however increase by approximately 110% as a result of more vehicles being available to new households.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Other 1422 3305
Manufacturing 2532 4576
Community 1658 2449
Finance 1848 2412
Retail 2120 3526
2006 Employment Type 2031 Employment Type
Jobs
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
2006 Household Data 14131 35972 19072 22365
2031 Household Data 25956 68970 35306 46880
Households Population Employees Vehicles
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 24
Figure 7 Changes In All ACT/Queanbeyan Household Composition 2006-2031
Figure 8 Changes In All ACT/Queanbeyan Employment Composition 2006-2031
0
25000
50000
75000
100000
125000
150000
175000
200000
225000
250000
275000
300000
325000
350000
375000
400000
425000
450000
475000
500000
2006 Household Data 134652 356632 192283 211049
2031 Household Data 186468 498740 267667 328124
Households Population Employees Vehicles
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
220000
240000
260000
Other 95822 128637
Manufacturing 22765 22288
Community 20083 28999
Finance 22378 37075
Retail 22401 41139
2006 Employment Type 2031 Employment Type
Jobs
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 25
7.2 Vehicles per household
The standard projection model assumes there would be an increase in global vehicles/1000 population for the foreseeable future. The 2006 Census rate was recorded for the ACT/Queanbeyan area at 584 vehicles per 1000 population.
However, the determination of the level of future household car availability is dependent on many factors:
• Price of vehicles
• Price of fuel
• Use of hybrid vehicles
• Use of alternative fuels
• More fuel efficiency
• The change in ownership from large fuel inefficient vehicles to smaller fuel efficient vehicles.
• Availability of alternative means of transport
Rather than assume a simple linear growth in car availability an analysis was undertaken of the historic change in car availability in the ACT/Queanbeyan area. Figure 9 shows the historic change in vehicle availability of the ACT/Queanbeyan area and the projected future change in vehicle availability based on a reducing rate of increasing car ownership. The plot expresses availability in the form of vehicles per 1000 population and is asymptotic to 680 vehicles per 1000 population.
The corresponding number of vehicles per household has been calculated based on household and population projections for 2016 and 2026 and are shown in Table 8.
ACT/Queanbeyan Projections of Vehicle/People Ratios Table 8
2006 2031 Vehicles 211,049 328,124
Vehs/1000 Pop 584 658 Vehs/HH 1.567 1.760
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 26
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants Change in Vehicle Availability Figure 9
388
419
449
477
527534
541548
555561
567573
578584
594603
611619
631637 642 646 650 653 656658
625
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Year
Veh
icle
s pe
r 100
0 HH
's
TrendVehs/1000 pop
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 27
7.3 2031 Full Development Network Operation
Adding the additional development to the natural growth results in a significant increase in vehicle flow throughout Queanbeyan. This increased flow results in an increase in travel throughout the network and a corresponding increase in delay along roads and through intersections.
The modelled traffic results shown in Table 9 show how the 2031 future network is expected to perform in the AM and PM peak periods without any improvements.
2031 Base Queanbeyan Traffic Activity Indicators Table 9
Traffic Activity Indicator Morning Peak
2006 2031 Base % Difference Vehicle Kilometres (km) 73,692 152,010 +106% Link Vehicle Minutes (min) 74,726 171,850 +130% Link Mean Running Speed (kph) 59.2 53.1 -10% Vehicles subject to Intersection Delay 156,608 263,945 +69% Total Vehicle Intersection Delay (min) 17,086 48,782 +186% Intersection Delay per Delayed Vehicle (sec) 6.5 11.1 +71% Total Vehicle Trips 13,956 28,538 +104% Network Total Vehicle Minutes (min) 91,811 220,632 +140% Network Mean Network Speed (kph) 48.2 41.3 -14% Average Trip Distance (km) 7.92 7.93 +0% Average Trip Time (min) 10.54 13.21 +25%
Evening Peak
2006 2031 Base % Difference Vehicle Kilometres (km) 80,001 160,570 +101% Link Vehicle Minutes (min) 81,724 182,773 +124% Link Mean Running Speed (kph) 58.7 52.7 -10% Vehicles subject to Intersection Delay 176,835 300,836 +70% Total Vehicle Intersection Delay (min) 19,028 60,952 +220% Intersection Delay per Delayed Vehicle (sec) 6.5 12.2 +88% Total Vehicle Trips 15,649 29,251 +87% Network Total Vehicle Minutes (min) 100,752 243,726 +142% Network Mean Network Speed (kph) 47.6 39.5 -17% Average Trip Distance (km) 7.73 7.49 -3% Average Trip Time (min) 10.05 11.80 +17%
These results indicate that Queanbeyan will experience significant increases in vehicle kilometres travelled and total trips. The increase in travel causes increases in delay at intersections and slowing travel along routes. A significant 220% increase in total intersection delay will occur during the PMP as more vehicles are being delayed with PMP average delay is expected to be nearly than 12 seconds.
The mean link speed is still expected to be over 53kph in the AMP and PMP. The incidence of intersection delay only drops the mean operating speed from 48kph down to 41kph in the AMP and 39kph in the PMP.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 28
Modelling of the 2031 future road network with this additional traffic shows that there will be a significant degradation in the level of service of a number of intersections and roads throughout Queanbeyan. The figures in Appendix 3 – 2031 Base Network show the traffic volumes expected and the operational level of service for the future 2031 AM and PM peak periods.
Clearly, the parts of Queanbeyan under most stress are as follows:
• Old Cooma Rd from the Googong development to Southbar Rd
• Cooma St from Southbar to Rutledge
• Queens Bridge
• Parts of Yass Rd
• Numerous intersections along Lanyon Dr, Canberra Ave, Bungendore Rd, Cooma St and Southbar Rd are all expected to experience a significant degrading in level of service (E and F) during both peak traffic periods.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 29
8. REQUIRED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
8.1 2031 Network Improvements
The Technical Working Group proposed a number of road and intersection improvements to offset the possible network deficiencies as a result of the developments. Many of these improvements were proposed to directly improve a specific road or intersection, Appendix 3, suffering from a poor level of service. However, several new routes were also proposed as a means of creating additional capacity in certain areas and thereby relieving areas of congestion.
Inherent in this analysis is the policy of not having any part of the Queanbeyan network operating at worse than LOS D in 2031. This policy comes from the Technical Working Group’s belief that since the current network is operating at LOS D or better, so should the future network after additional development.
This level of service allows for some general degradation of the overall network without significant localised increases in delay. It also allows some movements at intersections to operate at a worse level of service so long as the overall level of service was maintained at LOS D or better.
A number of intersection and link improvements were proposed to remove the areas of the 2031 future network that were operating at LOS E or F so that LOS D was maintained throughout the Queanbeyan network.
The major Queanbeyan improvements proposed for analysis are shown in Table 10.
2031 Major Network Improvements Table 10
4L Old Cooma (Googong – Edwin Land Parkway) 4L Old Cooma (Edwin Land Parkway – Southbar) 4L Monaro St (Atkinson – Queens Bridge) 2L Edwin Land Parkway Extension (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 2L Ellerton Extension (Ellerton – Edwin Land Parkway) 2L Dunns Creek (Old Cooma – Monaro)
Links
2L Northern Bypass (Bungendore - Yass - Canberra)
Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Tompsitt / Edwin Land Parkway / Jerrabomberra Tompsitt / Jerrabomberra New Link Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe Cooma / Fergus Cooma / Thornton / Barracks Flat Lanyon / Southbar Lanyon / Canberra Bungendore / Yass Bungendore / Atkinson
Intersections
Yass / Aurora
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 30
Numerous additional small changes to minor intersections were also looked at to reduce delay on some low volume movements.
8.2 2031 Network Improvement Options Initially the above major link improvements were combined into 12 project options which included any combination of the above improvements in order to assess the relative benefits of the works. Table 11 shows the link improvements included in each of the 12 options.
Initial Project Options Table 11
Option
4 Lane Old
Cooma Road
2 Lane ELP
Extension
4 Lane ELP
Extension 2 Lane Ellerton
Extension
2 Lane Dunns Creek
4 Lane Dunns Creek
2 Lane Northern Bypass
001
002
003
004
005
CIC 1A
CIC 1B
CIC 2
CIC 3
CIC 4
VBC 5
VBC 6
These project options are shown in Figure 10 to Figure 21.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 31
4 LaneNew Link
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 001 Figure 10
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 32
4 LaneNew Link
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 002 Figure 11
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 33
4 LaneNew Link
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 003 Figure 12
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 34
4 LaneNew Link
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 004 Figure 13
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 35
4 LaneNew Link
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 005 Figure 14
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 36
4 Lane2 Lane
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 1A Figure 15
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 37
4 Lane2 Lane
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 1B Figure 16
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 38
4 Lane2 Lane
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 2 Figure 17
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 39
4 Lane2 Lane
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 3 Figure 18
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 40
4 Lane2 Lane
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 4 Figure 19
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 41
4 Lane2 Lane
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement VBC 5 Figure 20
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 42
4 Lane2 Lane
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement VBC 6 Figure 21
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 43
Each of these 12 project options were analysed using the transportation model developed for Queanbeyan. The projected 2031 traffic volumes and level of service results are shown in Appendix 4 – 2031 Full Development Options AM Peak and Appendix 5 – 2031 Full Development Options PM Peak.
Travel summary statistics, shown in Table 12 and Table 13, were obtained for each Option so that a direct comparison of the overall impacts could be compared. This comparison would help in determining the relative merits of each option.
Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 – Part 1 Table 12
Variable BASE 001 002 003 004 005
Total Vehicle Kilometres 152010 146399 145956 147077 149283 150354
Total Vehicle Minutes 220632 200542 205729 204193 211198 207534
Vehicles subject to I/S Delay 263945 245647 250831 262613 248552 264992
Total Vehicle I/S Delay (mins) 48782 39517 43099 40514 43889 40461 20
31 A
M P
EAK
I/S Delay per delayed veh (secs) 11.1 9.7 10.3 9.3 10.6 9.2
Total Vehicle Kilometres 160570 155403 154741 155700 159167 160108
Total Vehicle Minutes 243726 215708 220082 220556 222397 223534
Vehicles subject to I/S Delay 300836 279419 285442 290978 285890 295117
Total Vehicle I/S Delay (mins) 60952 43034 45595 45255 46453 46056 20
31 P
M P
EAK
I/S Delay per delayed veh (secs) 12.2 9.2 9.6 9.3 9.7 9.4
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 44
Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 – Part 2 Table 13
Variable BASE C1A C1B C02 C03 C04 V05 V06
Total Vehicle Kilometres 152010 149584 149787 146407 150123 146959 146399 147055
Total Vehicle Minutes 220632 239646 211998 214069 234080 207558 200542 203002
Vehicles subject to I/S Delay 263945 268539 264007 264676 268151 263535 245647 262361
Total Vehicle I/S Delay (mins) 48782 52146 42914 44865 51497 42914 39517 40020 20
31 A
M P
EAK
I/S Delay per delayed veh (secs)
11.1 11.7 9.8 10.2 11.5 9.8 9.7 9.2
Total Vehicle Kilometres 160570 159637 159469 154889 159726 155597 155468 155685
Total Vehicle Minutes 243726 254830 227766 230377 251840 223973 220254 217922
Vehicles subject to I/S Delay 300836 300776 300847 298963 296579 293103 292685 292163
Total Vehicle I/S Delay (mins) 60952 61482 48277 51336 58743 48257 46542 44664 20
31 P
M P
EAK
I/S Delay per delayed veh (secs)
12.2 12.3 9.6 10.3 11.9 9.9 9.5 9.2
8.3 Option Elimination
After examining the results of the analysis, it became clear that a number of these options either did not fulfil the role intended, did not improve the future network deficiencies or were too expensive.
Options 001, 002 and 004 which included the Northern Bypass were not proceeded with. The Northern Bypass successfully diverted traffic around the busy Queanbeyan CBD and therefore reduced congestion issues along Monaro St. However, the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) advised that alignment issues made the bypass too expensive at this time. The benefits gained by the traffic diversion were currently insufficient to warrant any project including the Northern Bypass.
A comparison of the volumes along the Edwin Land Parkway Extension between Option C1A and other options indicated that the four laning of the Edwin Land Parkway Extension from Jerrabomberra to Old Cooma Rd produced no difference in traffic flow when compared to a two lane version. This therefore produced no real benefit to the network for the additional expense and was not proceeded with.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 45
Options CIC 1A, CIC 2, CIC 3, CIC 4 and VBC 5 which did not include the four laning of Old Cooma Rd were also eliminated. The level of congestion along Old Cooma Rd as a result of the Googong development requires four laning in order to maintain a suitable level of service during peak periods. No alternative roading project reduced flow along the two lane Old Cooma Rd alignment sufficiently to maintain the suitable level of service. Whilst options that included Dunns Creek reduced the flow along Old Cooma Rd they did not do so sufficiently to reduce volumes to LOS D level.
Options 001, 002, 003, CIC 4, VBC 5 and VBC 6 which involving the construction of the Dunns Creek link were also eliminated. The Dunns Creek link between the Tralee and Googong developments was seen by the Technical Working Group as being a useful inclusion in the future Queanbeyan network but would not likely be required within the current 2031 planning horizon. The ability of the Dunns Creek link to reduce traffic flow along Old Cooma Rd and the Edwin Land Parkway Extension was seen as being valuable in the future but could not be justified at this time.
The four laning of the Dunns Creek link as shown in Options VBC 5 and VBC 6 made no difference to the volume of traffic expected to use the link and was therefore believed to be required some years after the construction of the two lane link.
This process eliminated all but Project Option 005. Discussion within the Technical Working Group concluded that variations in a number of the other Project Options should also be included in further analysis for both comparison purposes and because a number of options contained elements that showed promise.
8.4 Initial Shortlisted Options
Six shortlisted options were carried forward into a more detailed analysis where intersection improvements were included with the link improvements so that an attempt was made to eliminate all link and intersection deficiencies.
The modified options analysed were as follows:
• Option 01A – Option 001 with improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area.
• Option 03A – Option 003 with improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area. Queanbeyan intersection improvements included:
o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon Canberra o Bungendore / Atkinson o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 46
• Option 05A – Option 005 with improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area. Queanbeyan intersection improvements included:
o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon Canberra o Bungendore / Atkinson o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension
• Option CBA – Option CIC 1A with Southbar Rd four laned from Cooma St to Lanyon Rd. It also included improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area. Queanbeyan intersection improvements included:
o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon Canberra o Bungendore / Atkinson o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension
• Option CBB – Option CIC 1B with Southbar Rd four laned from Cooma St to Lanyon Rd. It also included improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area. Queanbeyan intersection improvements included:
o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon Canberra o Bungendore / Atkinson o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension
• Option C2A – Option CIC 2 with improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area. Queanbeyan intersection improvements included:
o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon Canberra o Bungendore / Atkinson o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension
These initial shortlisted options are shown in Figure 22 to Figure 27.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 47
4 LaneNew Link
TS
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 01A Figure 22
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 48
4 LaneNew Link
TS
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03A Figure 23
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 49
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 05A Figure 24
4 LaneNew Link
TS
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 50
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBA Figure 25
4 LaneNew Link
TS
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 51
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBB Figure 26
4 LaneNew Link
TS
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 52
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement C2A Figure 27
4 LaneNew Link
TS
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 53
Each of these Shortlisted Project Options were analysed using the transportation model with intersection configurations altered to provide the best result for deficient intersections. This was an iterative process that involved progressively making changes to intersections until intersection operation resulted in an overall LOS of D or better.
The projected 2031 traffic volumes and level of service results are shown in Appendix 6 – 2031 Full Development Initial Shortlisted Options AM Peak and Appendix 7 – 2031 Full Development Initial Shortlisted Options PM Peak.
AT this point in the process it became evident that several of these remaining options were not suitable. Option 01A, which included the Northern Bypass, was not proceeded with as the benefit gained by diverting traffic from the CBD was not thought to be sufficient within the planning period to warrant the cost.
Option CBA was not proceeded with as the four laning of both Edwin Land Parkway extension and Southbar Rd did not improve the LOS conditions along Cooma St sufficiently to maintain an LOS D. The four laning of Edwin Land Parkway extension also appeared to make little difference to the projected flow along the link compared to designing it as a two lane road.
Option CBB was also eliminated but was adjusted to remove the four laning along Southbar Rd and progressed to the next stage of analysis.
8.5 Intermediate Shortlisted Options
Five intermediate shortlisted options were carried forward into a more detailed analysis where intersection improvements were included with the link improvements so that every attempt was made to eliminate all link and intersection deficiencies.
The modified options analysed were as follows:
• Option 03B – Option 003/03A with east-west flyover at Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway, traffic signals installed at:
o Bungendore / Yass o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon / Southbar o Lanyon Canberra o Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension
• Option 03C – Option 003/03A with north-south flyover at Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway, traffic signals installed at:
o Bungendore / Yass o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon / Southbar o Lanyon Canberra o Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 54
• Option 05B – Option 005/05B with traffic signals installed at:
o Bungendore / Yass o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon / Southbar o Lanyon Canberra o Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe o Cooma / Fergus o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension
• Option CBC – Option CIC 1B / CBC with a 2 lane Edwin Land Parkway Extension, traffic signals installed at:
o Bungendore / Yass o Bungendore / Atkinson o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon / Southbar o Lanyon Canberra o Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe o Cooma / Fergus o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension
• Option C2B – Option CIC 2 / C2A with 4 lane old Cooma Rd and 2 lane Dunns Creek, traffic signals installed at:
o Bungendore / Yass o Bungendore / Atkinson o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon / Southbar o Lanyon Canberra o Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe o Cooma / Fergus o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension
These shortlisted options are shown in Figure 28 to Figure 32.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 55
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03B Figure 28
2.5km
Traffic SignalsNew Link4 Lanes
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 56
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03C Figure 29
2.5km
Traffic SignalsNew Link4 Lanes
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 57
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 05B Figure 30
2.5km
Traffic SignalsNew Link4 Lanes
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 58
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBC Figure 31
2.5km
Traffic SignalsNew Link4 Lanes
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 59
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement C2B Figure 32
2.5km
Traffic SignalsNew Link4 Lanes
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 60
Each of these five Shortlisted Project Options were analysed using the transportation model developed for Queanbeyan. The projected 2031 traffic volumes and level of service results are shown in Appendix 8 – 2031 Full Development Shortlisted Options AM Peak and Appendix 9 – 2031 Full Development Shortlisted Options PM Peak.
Again, travel summary statistics, shown in Table 14 were obtained for each Shortlisted Option so that a direct comparison of the overall impacts could be compared. This comparison would help in determining the relative merits of each option.
Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 Table 14
Variable 03B O3C 05B CBC C2B
Total Vehicle Kilometres (km) 146432 146493 149751 149206 145986
Total Vehicle Minutes (mins) 197450 197070 199790 201570 199701
Mean Network Speed (kph) 44.5 44.6 45.0 44.4 43.9
Total vehicles Subject to Intersection Delay 255698 255831 254754 260591 259803
2031
AM
PEA
K
Delay per Vehicle Delayed (secs) 7.9 7.7 8.1 8.2 7.9
Total Vehicle Kilometres (km) 156562 156642 160387 159667 155769
Total Vehicle Minutes (mins) 220476 219984 224720 230291 225444
Mean Network Speed (kph) 42.6 42.7 42.8 41.6 41.5
Total vehicles Subject to Intersection Delay 293663 294526 295717 302554 301438
2031
PM
PEA
K
Delay per Vehicle Delayed (secs) 7.3 7.2 7.9 8.5 7.9
8.6 Shortlisted Options with Monaro Highway Upgrade
The Technical Working Group felt that the significant reduction in LOS along the Monaro Highway between Isabella Drive and Lanyon Drive by 2031 may result in a reduction in the use of the Monaro-Lanyon route. This reduction could result in a change of overall travel pattern to and from the future developments and therefore “skew” the level of service results.
To test whether this potential skewing was actually taking place in the model, the five shortlisted options were all analysed again with the Monaro Highway upgraded to a 6 lane highway with significantly more capacity. The results of this analysis are shown in Appendix 10 – 2031 Full Development Shortlisted Options AM Peak – Monaro Highway Upgrade and Appendix 11 – 2031 Full Development Shortlisted Options PM Peak – Monaro Highway Upgrade.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 61
This analysis showed that the six laning of the Monaro Highway significantly reduced the congestion along the highway and thereby improved the projected 2031 LOS substantially. The six laning did not however make any appreciable difference to the level of traffic flow along Lanyon Drive. This indicates that whilst the existing capacity of the highway is a hindrance to the smooth and rapid movement of traffic, it is not deflecting large numbers of vehicles away from the area. This could be due to the fact that this segment of highway forms part of only a few routes between areas that have quite distinct catchments. This means that speeding up that part of the route does not provide enough “time benefit” to other vehicles to attract them onto the route.
The Technical Working Group also wanted to ensure that congestion along Pialligo Ave did not make an appreciable difference to the operation of the shortlisted Options. Additional testing was undertaken with Pialligo Ave increased to four lanes. These tests showed that increasing the capacity of these roads made little difference to the flow of traffic within Queanbeyan.
8.7 Elimination of Shortlisted Options
Analysis of the shortlist Project Options showed that Options 03B, 03C and C2B, which involved the construction of Dunns Creek, were not significantly different to those without Dunns Creek and its associated cost. As indicated earlier, the Dunns Creek link between the Tralee and Googong developments was seen as being a useful inclusion in the future Queanbeyan network but would not likely be required within the current 2031 planning horizon.
The ability of the Dunns Creek link to reduce traffic flow along Old Cooma Rd and the Edwin Land Parkway Extension however the flow reduction along Old Cooma Rd was not sufficient by 2031 to preclude the need for four lanes. This route was seen by the Technical Working Group as being valuable in the future but could not be justified at this time.
Options 03B, 03C and C2B were therefore eliminated from further analysis. See Appendix 8 and 9 for LOS results.
In addition, Options C2B and CBC resulted in a LOS E condition applying along Cooma St from Southbar Rd to Rutledge St. The lack of the Ellerton Rd Extension caused additional traffic to travel along Cooma St to access north and east Queanbeyan.
This process eliminated all but Option 05B. Discussion within the Technical Working Group concluded that a further variation of Option CBC should also be included in further analysis. Option CBC was to include the four laning of Old Cooma Rd and the two lane extension of the Edwin Land Parkway along with a number of intersection improvements along Cooma St so as to minimize as many of the intersection issues as possible along the route.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 62
8.8 Selection of 2031 Network
The two remaining Options 05B and CBC were again analysed in depth using the Queanbeyan model. In both options all remaining intersections that were found to be operating at LOS E or F were modified until they maintained an LOS D level. This involved all of the intersections shown in Table 10.
The inclusion of the Option CBC variation in the final analysis was to determine if it was possible to produce a future network option that did not require the Ellerton Rd Extension yet maintain a suitable LOS along Cooma St. One of the main reasons for the Ellerton Extension was to reduce the traffic flow along both Cooma St corridor and improve its projected level of service back to LOS D.
A number of additional improvements were proposed for Cooma St so that the Ellerton Rd Extension was not needed. These improvements involved modified intersection lay-outs for intersection along Cooma St and the installation of clearways during peak periods. Clearways would enable the introduction of four lanes of traffic along Cooma St between Rutledge St and Southbar Rd.
A series of additional analyses were undertaken for Option CBC which involved the following variations:
• Intersection modifications without clearways
• Intersection modifications with clearways
• Intersection modifications with clearways and Ellerton Dr extension
• Intersection modifications and Dunns Creek Link
The detailed local projected traffic volumes and LOS results for these analyses are included in Appendix 12 – 05B/CBC Final Analysis – AM Peak and Appendix 13 – 05B/CBC Final Analysis – PM Peak .
The level of service plots clearly show the following:
1. Implementing Cooma St intersection improvements without both clearways and the Ellerton Extension results in LOS E conditions along Cooma St and on Queens Bridge during the peak periods.
2. Implementing Cooma St intersection improvements with clearways but no Ellerton Extension results in better than LOS D conditions along Cooma St but Queens Bridge would remain LOS E during the peak periods. A number of additional side street approaches along Cooma St will be subjected to LOS E or F conditions during the PM Peak.
3. Implementing Cooma St intersection improvements with both clearways and the Ellerton Extension results in LOS D or better conditions along Cooma St and on Queens Bridge during the peak periods. No additional side street approaches along Cooma St will be subjected to worse than LOS D conditions during the PM Peak. A further improvement to the proposed intersection design for the Old Cooma / Ellerton Extension / Edwin Land Parkway intersection would be required.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 63
4. Implementing Cooma St intersection improvements with the Dunns Creek Link results in LOS E conditions along Cooma St and Queens Bridge during the peak periods. A number of additional side street approaches along Cooma St will be subjected to LOS D or E conditions during the PM Peak. In addition, parts of Lowe St between Rutledge and Monaro would also drop to LOS E during the PM Peak.
Whilst the Option CBC variations with clearways produced the desired result of LOS D or better along Cooma St, the Technical Working Group believed it was expected to come at a cost to local residential amenity. The increased flow associated with the four lane clearways would result in greater noise and a decreased ability to access properties. Right turning from driveways into clearway conditions would be difficult at best and banned in some instances.
Option 05B was eventually preferred by the Technical Working Group as being the final 2031 improvement works project. Option 05B with its associated works is shown in Figure 33.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 64
2.5km
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants 2031 Proposed Improvement Project Figure 33
Intersection Improvement
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 65
The result of the introduction of the Option 05B improvements on the 2031 AM Peak and PM Peak networks are shown in Appendix 12 – 05B/CBC Final Analysis – AM Peak and Appendix 13 – 05B/CBC Final Analysis – PM Peak. These figures show the Levels of Service for the Queanbeyan network after the proposed intersection and link improvements have been included.
Clearly, implementing Option 05B with its associated link and intersection improvements results in LOS D or better conditions along Cooma St and on Queens Bridge during the peak periods.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 66
9. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
As detailed in the previous sections of this report, the increases in traffic volumes and delays, over and above those caused by natural growth, are due to the additional 2031 developments detailed in Table 5. The works included in the preferred Proposed Improvement Project are as a direct result of those increases. Without those developments the existing network is expected to continue to operate well in 2031, as shown in Appendix 2.
Therefore the costs associated with these improvement works are attributable to the developments that take place up to 2031. This study investigated also how to apportion the project costs to each development so that developer contributions could be levied by the QCC. Discussion took place within the Technical Working Group as what method should be used to calculate the apportionment. It was concluded that the flow to and from each development would be tracked in the model. This tracking allowed the Technical Working Group to see how much traffic from each development went along or through each improvement in the preferred Project Option.
The relativity of each development’s flow through an improvement creates the relative contribution that each development should make to the cost of the improvement.
It was also felt that as the existing community will use these new facilities they should also contribute to some degree to the cost of each improvement.
To simplify this process and help identify contributions, the developments were grouped as follows:
• Googong Development (GOG) • South Jerrabomberra - Tralee, SE Jerrabomberra and Tralee Station
Developments (SJ) • HQJOC (HQJ) • All other development (DEV) • Other Queanbeyan Users (QUE)
Flows from each of the five groups (DEV, GOG, TRA, HQJ, QUE) were modelled separately for both the 2031 AM and PM Peaks. The period volumes were combined so that the total peak period volume was used in the apportionment calculations. The percentage relativity of each group’s flows was used in apportioning the cost of each improvement work. It should be noted that the following volumes do not include ACT traffic using the links and intersections.
Only the Edwin Land Parkway Extension and the Ellerton Extension projects had costs apportioned to existing Queanbeyan residents as these two projects offered additional benefits to residents. All other link and intersection works were apportioned to GOG, SJ, HQJ and DEV only, as they were being constructed to repair disbenefits to existing Queanbeyan users produced by these developments.
Table 15 details the volumes and relative proportion of the combined flows from each development along each of the improvement links detailed in Table 2.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 67
2031 Improvement Link Flows (AMP+PMP) Table 15
Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total
4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP) 4404 297 51 365 5117 4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar) 2514 169 16 260 2959 4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge) 144 258 303 296 1001 2L ELP Ext (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 1004 513 53 127 701 2398 2L Ellerton Extension 868 41 97 91 249 1346 GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total
4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP) 86% 6% 1% 7% 100% 4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar) 85% 6% 1% 9% 100% 4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge) 14% 26% 30% 30% 100% 2L ELP Ext (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 42% 21% 2% 5% 29% 100% 2L Ellerton Extension 64% 3% 7% 7% 18% 100%
As indicated earlier, both the 2L Ellerton Extension and the Edwin Land Parkway Extension improvements have been apportioned to include a contribution from existing Queanbeyan residents. These new improvements are being implemented as a result of congestion and Level of Service issues elsewhere in the network. As these proposed roads have also been included in Council planning maps for many years, the apportionment of costs is therefore being calculated differently. These links will provide a potential benefit to the existing Queanbeyan residents and QCC considers it reasonable to include the flow from existing residents in calculating the apportionment of cost.
Table 16 details the volumes and relative proportion of the combined flows from each development through each of the improvement intersections.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 68
2031 Improvement Intersection Flows (AMP+PMP) Table 16
Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total
Cooma/ELP 4386 513 111 423 5433 Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra 823 1879 13 103 2818 Tompsitt/New Link 738 2564 40 91 3433 Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe 798 32 42 186 1058 Cooma/Fergus 1243 24 37 236 1540 Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat 2484 128 21 391 3024 Lanyon/Southbar 624 1095 160 249 2128 Lanyon/Canberra 861 847 200 429 2337 Monaro/Atkinson 157 259 407 715 1538 Monaro/Yass/Bungendore 880 228 911 839 2858 Yass/Aurora 594 39 390 575 1598 Farrer / Cameron 2611 2611 Lanyon / Tompsitt 3834 3834
Table 16 Continued
Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total
Cooma/ELP 81% 9% 2% 8% 100% Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra 29% 67% 0% 4% 100% Tompsitt/New Link 21% 75% 1% 3% 100% Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe 75% 3% 4% 18% 100% Cooma/Fergus 81% 2% 2% 15% 100% Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat 82% 4% 1% 13% 100% Lanyon/Southbar 29% 51% 8% 12% 100% Lanyon/Canberra 37% 36% 9% 18% 100% Monaro/Atkinson 10% 17% 26% 46% 100% Monaro/Yass/Bungendore 31% 8% 32% 29% 100% Yass/Aurora 37% 2% 24% 36% 100% Farrer / Cameron 100% 100% Lanyon / Tompsitt 100% 100%
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 69
10. INITIAL IMPROVEMENT TIMING
An initial analysis was undertaken to determine a simple timing of the improvements detailed in Section 9. This analysis involved creating the expected 2021 land use for Queanbeyan and ACT based on available details of development construction rates. The 2006-2021 increase in households, jobs, cars and population was estimated from data provided by QCC and ACT and used to create AM and PM Peak models of traffic in Queanbeyan in 2021.
These models show the deficiencies in the existing network that would result if the expected 2021 development was put in place without any improvements. Appendix 14 – 2021 Base network shows the level of service expected in Queanbeyan as a result of the 2021 developments.
The poor levels of service shown in Appendix 14 show where improvements need to be implemented by 2021 and therefore cannot wait until 2031. Table 17 and Table 18 indicate the likely construction timing of each of the proposed improvement works. Figure 34 shows the locations of the improvement works needed by 2021.
Link Improvement Timing Table 17
Location By 2021 By 2031
4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP)
4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar)
4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge)
2L ELP Extension (Jerra – Old Cooma)
2L Ellerton Extension
Intersection Improvement Timing Table 18
Location By 2021 By 2031
Cooma/ELP
Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra
Tompsitt/New Link
Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe
Cooma/Fergus
Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat
Lanyon/Southbar
Lanyon/Canberra
Monaro/Atkinson
Monaro/Yass/Bungendore
Yass/Aurora
Farrer / Cameron
Lanyon / Tompsitt
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 70
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants 2021 Proposed Improvement Project Figure 34
2.5km
Road Improvement
Intersection Improvement
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 71
This 2021 analysis is only a preliminary indication of timing. A more detailed analysis including confirmed development rates from all of the major developments needs to be obtained and included in the analysis. In addition, an iterative process needs to be undertaken where the proposed 2021 works are implemented and additional improvements included should problems elsewhere in the network arise.
To obtain a more detailed timeline of improvement installation, additional future years need to be analysed so that implementation can be highlighted in 5 year intervals.
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
APPENDIX 1 – 2009 Base Scenario 1. 2009 AM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Scenario 2. 2009 AM Peak Level of Service for Base Scenario 3. 2009 PM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Scenario 4. 2009 PM Peak Level of Service for Base Scenario
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2009 AM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Scenario App 1 - 1
70
133
8165
248
248
119
119
119
119
119
75
424
47
40
102
552871
34
212
80
33
1018
1019
442
356
23
143143
60
106
18781123
92
94
167
91
76
48
64
86
1011280
134156
281
96
4966
109
58
131
552
269
254
123
339
135
236
67
420
182
82
82
82
26
27126
142
108111
26
72
155155
29333
111
229
67
96
136
267
43
388167
22
160
143
303
4269
58
95
46
79
20
30
143
127
29
17354
28
27
428
379
428
181
331
370
44
185
88
222
41305
97269
137
37
119
1576
1576
180
269
185
449170
18577
157
92
373 9292
92
71
83
21
32
26
37
793
362
109
7421
75
105910
59
1619
95
82
628
2356
59
701141
165
910
874
80
31
5058
212
496
385
161
4160
185
35
1005
54
134
67
331
331
249
1157
1148
32
262
255
143
189
223
80
225
891
45
85
1018 7
94
92418
80
1456
1271
947
927
792
128
51
128
59
59
805
80
35
192
216
659
1027
299 121
159
197
252
202405
171
1167
1067
184
184
141
182
182
81
184 201
58
134
285
454
22
370
22
156
34
38
415235
253
119
1338
4771459 498
1327
626
639
39
320
640
1093
326
717
814
248
248
248
248
248
248
1619
380321
127
331
331
391
292
2693
2559
804
804
906
379
536755
306
379712
19112070
1252
1007
187
187
662
797
2695
2547
807
996
563
3293
2279
1014
2356
2560
1399
511
906
244
244562
243
607
2546
1493
540
2006
610
1004
3107
1800
395
212395
889
968
262 31
433
19130
172
739
6166
716
756
1145
1692
1975
2565
710
756630
25221213
891
1969
1265
1457
2639
804
816
1969
12111252
1592 1012
621
2062
1404
24412
9
441559
455
30
278
1522
62999
110
612
99
1195
1218
1032
1032
49
7 145
926
38
662
56
479377
1946
331
823
604
526
1334728
1824
1026
780
652
2239
365
1145
225
417
834
282191
8
1422
1610 7
30
336
926
618
596
2544
1936
503
253
956
3031
364
366
1145
455
361
832
51836 891
9287713
94
1608
1236703
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2009 AM Peak Level of Service for Base Scenario App 1 - 2
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2009 PM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Scenario App 1 - 3
116
204
125
107
318
318
138
138
138
138
138
19
6
116
498
77
18
168
6
610791
41
6
187211
3
19
556
554
354
299
25
195195
1136
125
236110132
140
42
77
16112
16
4
12 140
137
4
75
2
53
122
1961279
5
6
6
32
141151
42532
145
77173
231
139
33
192
610
277
243
85
326
214
8
130
39
1
1430
144
11
5
5
114
114
114
40
33740
181
149155
48
98
110110
13269
299
7
204
113
56
280
329
57
543165
2
28
214
195
6
386
12
6155
27
33
134
35
3068
104
20
29
4
7
195
31
72
42
222
62
18
26
515
475
515
93
431
486
70
44
213
7
98
206
82185
134209
57
26
972
8
28
184
1911
1911
254
445
273
70991
252
11
113
111
139
564
2
142139
144
1231163
14
51
24
93
15
402
815
142
6
9
1642
2
50
98598
4
861
9719
21
114
854
2430
43
103958
121
416
6
6
922
113
772
110
239
324
916
106
3467
228
41
8965
5
33
17
33
103
431
431
317
1213
963
10
51
264
308
195
295
4
970
1255
5
273
981
18
60
107
556 4
17
142
1234
113
784
715
1588
980
402
19
19
181
76
181
43
43
915
125
66
49
28313
903
331
590
285 150
11
79
281
323
234290
510
672
18
994
157
157
187
9090
229
8
157 176
23
118
240
432
7
328
7
125
51
51
88
202
7
678295
280
142
730
1558786 1535
810
853
872
27
709
1196
601
779
339
1265
318
318
318
318
318
318
861
424355
169
280
280
224
212
1034
977
2310
2310
2261
1163
1157727
197
1237464
15481579
1404
1286
161
161
478
581
1033
850
3119
1287
1713
1216
954
262
2430
840
709
681
2261
1406
14061713
285
2412
850
419
284
566
2408
2692
1149
797
1580
8321580
549
663
393 65
39541
29159
237
553
958
767
790
1206
64911
63
1765
576
561509
12952462
1572
510
1497
715
996
2310
465
510
24401404
720 1202
458
1172
1620
71051
0
26 724
496
61
2
291
1294
35
3
29
89535
149
443
93
1119
1141
358
358
3
82
7 97
457
42
709
173
365665
1843
280
579
320
217
801371
713
488
1209
629
1190
816
1206
205
695
444
193157
3
2 7
297
756 2286
1087
451
1619
843
1312
1663
194
449
1537
1053
5891698
1206
16496
813
444
43323 1572
12811491
199
893
7071088
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2009 PM Peak Level of Service for Base Scenario App 1 - 4
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
APPENDIX 2 – 2031 Do Minimum – Natural Growth 1. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for Do Minimum Option 2. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for Do Minimum Option 3. 2031 PM Peak Two Way Volumes for Do Minimum Option 4. 2031 PM Peak Level of Service for Do Minimum Option
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for Do Minimum Natural Growth App 2 - 1
82
170
109
76
277
120
120
120
120
120
6
48
5
597912
208
2
1042
144144
1
15694
15
15 2
16
3
92
1448
1
59
597
353
332308
489
223
4
2
82
82
82
2676
242
321
11
265
23
161
144
5
16
6
22
32
1
14430
171
414
414
400
44
182
5
872
105148
25
25
1836
181
185
79
96
41
23
1667
82
810
822729
167
85
484
218
185 1164
360
360
278
1315
11
33
144
12
437
80
1494
1227
974
6
6
157
51
157
1099
82
9
1106
280
177
231
209
209
84
153
322
24
437
109
1384
572
869
40
1439
768
1170
956
277
277
277
277
277
1667
581521
127
962
2734
2683
12251021
859
841
805790
2243
1404
39
154
875
82
82
664
624
624
1170437
1481
262
262
2681
2714
958
1438
3489
2491
998
2729
2721
1670
594
1021
294
664
294
421
922
2714
614
2100
925
1204
3564
1944
430
883
1091 212 46
196
454
183
941
1056
1990
1372
793
999
25831468
1278
2490
2303
2766
1225
980
3116
14691404
2980 1433
495
3467
1538
39423
0
2371
452
46
1
442
1707
4
1
74
132
491
117
1548
1560
704
115
254
145
1094
45
890
54
510
449
3503
487
634
502
870
20051462
3427
1667
986
1014
463
7
1990
271
442
1011
252256
16
1
808
1013
957
718
750
2280
561
471
1949
3767
482
531
4
453
1007
59640 1387
81212534
68
1412
9681478
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2031 AM Peak Level of Service for Do Minimum Natural Growth App 2 - 2
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 PM Peak Two Way Volumes for Do Minimum Natural Growth App 2 - 3
132
261
165
123
358
137
137
137
137
137
18
6
79
6
633865
2162
701
192192
6
164116
17
14 1
4
4
103
1304
1
33
633
462
427167
1755
176
11
5
112
112
112
39101
168
293
10
227
29
209
192
7
33
35
20
27
4
7
19241
260
489
489
525
68
33
197
9
1021
14354
41
41
2328
252
269
114
2
144
23
45
954
112
999
462703
120
6
6
116
335
141
222 904
469
469
357
967
10
51
192
316
1326
111
850
771
1890
18
18
221
75
221
1178
12649
756
362
522
250
114
114
101
123
271
6
362
99
807
1840
1051
27
1491
1204
640
1333
358
358
358
358
358
954
510441
167
899
1054
860
26762051
1003
1315
1185989
1696
2261
190
76
722
46
46
1498
636
636
6401326
1582
222
222
1098
899
2975
1574
1199
892
307
2703
894
973
673
2051
1477
1498
1477
477
2269
901
225676
2266
2960
1218
762
940
613
807
293 60
293
565
141
870
883
1700
1332
1081
1389
15042640
2945
1122
1192
881
2676
927
1077
25622261
972 2099
377
1532
2430
80665
4
1205
582
58
2
405
1419
28
1
25
102
173
371
157
1232
1211
843
221
1
24
106
521
38
891
205
437
800
2741
625
606
539
497
925607
993
907
2078
1064
955
3
1700
288
705
524
178160
1
2
320
2705
569
1791
850
2520
553
6071603
1583
12451460
6
954
524
50021 2530
3679611
227
1630
1164996
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2031 PM Peak Level of Service for Do Minimum Natural Growth App 2 - 4
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
APPENDIX 3 – 2031 Base Network – Full Development 1. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for Base Network with Full Development 2. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for Base Network with Full Development 3. 2031 PM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Network with Full Development 4. 2031 PM Peak Level of Service for Base Network with Full Development
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for Base Network with Full Development App 3 - 1
297
170
313
7272487
175
175
175
175
175
3
1655
88
145
100
3
6
18
17
19321279
18
65
405
233
7
21
91
233
2211
354255
33
182
91
79
41
2105
65
1309
3
90
2540
2536
4
2471
11 14
5
620
102
1929
1232
1018
13
369
61
4
126
1053 12
41
12
1310
2489
90
417
438
108677
1369
52
2090
856
1315
2487
755
252105
766
1589
1347
3193
983
906
2164
1477
25
25
327
180 160
81 89210
223 25
1
1052
44
526
1261
859
140
40476
117796 214
761
252
297
118
118
297
297
335
271
186
237338
1680
62
803
10
225
57
35
154
1382
1753 1736
1911
1139
1038
756
789
797
559
1004
1349489
1784
267
267
3139
3476
795
1766
3247
2283
1414
2632
3484
911
254
424
1132
3476
7532723
1135
2033
901
1101
45
199
44
947
1023
1922
1468
1051
30221520
2490
2135
3119
1208
3125
15011477
2760
540
3212
1535
437
2208
423
44
1
478
1743
7
75
133
532
142
1888
1890
771
239
143
1113
43
896
55
468458
4131
489
556
482
904
1396
1761
933
1205
5
1922211
13
955
1190
978
754
2331
575
6382024
4484
698
8
51 1374
1288587
1635
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2031 AM Peak Level of Service for Base Network with Full Development App 3 - 2
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 PM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Network with Full Development App 3 - 3
391
261
398
379
9632772
228
228
228
228
228
34
15
80
6
15771735
2933
1132
303
114
190
14
189133
11
4
21
17 1
7
4
299
1378
1
70
1577
458
403170
1668
292
12
87
139
139
85
40109
171
379
13
424
34
316
303
11
34
106
19
18
42
8
10
30360
348
721
721
2618
76
261155
238
10
1681
154106
52
52
2050
254
276
125
11
114
4
314
24
57
917
139
1212
2441
94
15
15
111
404
140
263 1741
2828
2824
4
2686
1540
10
51
190
212
1584
139
857
875
1781
34
34
478
94
150
714
4
98
789 69
6
1750
14364
1189
2773
613
273
119
119
107
123
310
5
377
102
812
1730
1266
35
2162
1352
745
1457
2772
889
889
889
8
792
917
883811
169
1294
1226
1123
810
27622641
1218
1359
14061041
1685
2354
8167
270
23181
26
26
181
452 493
174 212
98
104 14
8236
71
235314218 32
0
992
51
87
734
49 2
371 371
493
220784
242
171
60
1
657311
995 533
669
6751054
129
195
369
385150
220
31
31
220
220
231
153558
285
355
346
582923
47 4721131
88
1151
294
4347
494
163
459 725
1063
237
74
1246
1246 1239
1301
1410
1337
1991
666
559
476
418
9311557
1892
228
228
1169
1173
2979
1895
1276
1072
378
2441
1168
838
584
2641
1351
485
3295
1174
268
906
3292
2919
1347
873
1289
634
823
293 60
29857
6133
890
906
1702
1346
1127
1405
15942853
2892
1191
1281
1239
2762
980
1079
27612354
908 1920
423
1530
2307
1025809
1290
641
59
2
375
1751
43
1
40
105
172
399
125
1837
1794
844
229
1
27
117
540
34
921
219
450
831
3299
482
611
553
536
956574
920
740
1908
1301
976
8
1702
294
752
534
183159
16
2
410
3392
708
1811
1043
2478
634
726
1753
1646
1125
2267
24
960
534
49325 2531
39111551
329
1661
1216
1027
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2031 PM Peak Level of Service for Base Network with Full Development App 3 - 4
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
APPENDIX 4 – 2031 Full Development Options AM Peak 1. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 001 2. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 001 3. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 002 4. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 002 5. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 003 6. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 003 7. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 004 8. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 004 9. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 005 10. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 005 11. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 1A 12. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 1A 13. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 1B 14. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 1B 15. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 2 16. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 2 17. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 3 18. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 3 19. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 4 20. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 4 21. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for VBC 5 22. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for VBC 5 23. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for VBC 6 24. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for VBC 6
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 001 App 4 - 1
96
170
233
95
1015
1799
183
183
183
183
183
5
3
52
5
664886
3002
935
270
89
182
1
188101
28
3
16
26 2
16
3
215
1567
1
62
664
338
329311
491
207
4
22
64
64
64
2761
244
367
14
773
30
286
270
8
18
12
22
32
3
1
27045
280
296
296
1708
65
66
179
5
2542
89204
32
32
1447
217
275
92
4
86
208
44
23
1844
64
874
377
2313
169
3
3
85
526
218
195 812
1842
1842
1778
811
11
42
182
818
340
94
1688
1245
873
5
5
292
61
54
531
590
988 46
6
792
88
122
113
1000
1799
177
252
185
185
94
184
380
21
439
122
1575
574
948
530
829
799
1145
757
1799
863
581
863
863
8
660
1844
737675
129
571
1246
3090
2425
11571217
789
835
819813
2298
1349
8116
255
6116
5
5
116
324 379
173 155
21
80 85284
75
310379202 22
7
1293
51
83
450
43 1
264 265
379
463863
120
80
39
863337
831 462
368
4721645
72
249
278
29598
236
103
103
236
236
337
366652
187
237
323
55210
12 121575
54
1179
226
10
11225
600
30
303 427
585
129
209
431
152
484
1347
996
996
1440 1287
847 66
3
1088
1863
246
246
1063
3035
3877
888
1847
795
3509
2618
720
2313
3885
2025
708
1217
261
888
450
1040
3876
246
261
8773000
1042
1327
3549
1917
463
908
1098 212 45
200
431
193
970
1062
1940
1461
782
1070
28791085
1223
2530
2146
2726
1142
1100
3162
14561349
2538 1078
531
3011
1428
38621
8
2218
479
45
1
477
950
7
5
74
134
523
206
1736
1299
766
268
074
145
1153
41
918
56
491
500
4147
257
566
509
878
16491363
2739
1680
877
944
507
8
1940
274
462
1053
261239
17
1
1083
1127
543
678
407
2386
569
5981941
4679
471656
8
495
1048
58346 1358
82611805
75
1652
1171
1343
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 001 App 4 - 2
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 002 App 4 - 3
96
170
233
95
1023
1788
183
183
183
183
183
5
3
52
5
737976
2232
966
271
90
182
1
194102
27
4
16
15 2
16
3
156
1493
1
62
737
351
343311
490
235
4
22
64
64
64
2762
244
336
13
307
30
287
271
8
18
11
22
26
1
2
2714
5
209
317
317
2204
65
44
174
5
3162
90203
32
32
1877
217
272
9 3
4
86
207
44
23
1836
64
880
381
2327
164
3
3
86
530
218
194 848
1831
1831
1767
814
11
42
182
817
344
94
1682
1336
893
5
5
292
61
54
531
597
994 46
4
791
88
11
1031
1788
177
254
185
185
94
1 85
392
20
450
1 20
1569
573
952
47
829
801
1177
758
1788
863
581
863
863
8
658
1836
841779
129
568
1245
3089
2420
11521214
788
839
819821
2299
1340
8116
255
6 116
5
5
116
324 379
173 155
21
80 85
284
75
310379202 22
7
1293
51
83
450
43 1
264 265
379
463863
120
80
39
863339
835 465
368
4721656
72
249
278
29598
237
103
103
237
237
338
367656
187
237
323
55510
12 121575
54
1180
226
10
11225
600
30
303 427
589
90
210
372
149
1348
995
995
14511293
845 65
6
1091
1863
246
246
1063
3034
3890
887
1846
795
3507
2612
721
2327
3897
2040
708
1214
260
887
450
1040
3889
246
260
876
3013
1043
1323
3543
1911
466
895
1113
212 45
20044
0193
968
1061
194
0
1461
790
1065
28671085
1222
2531
2160
2719
1137
1108
3164
14551340
2539107
5
531
3010
1424
38821
8
2232
476
45
1
465
945
7
5
74
134
523
207
1620
1178
766
268
0 76
145
1154
41
916
56
490
499
4135
271
565
5 09
875
16641346
2741
1655
873
1061
507
8
1940
274
461
1041
261239
17
1
1081
1122
537
677
408
2392
575
611
1937
4668
467
655
7
494
1036
58246 1356
83111745
73
1658
1177
1326
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 002 App 4 - 4
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 003 App 4 - 5
96
170
234
1011
1805
183
183
183
183
183
3
870
87
182
101
28
3
16
15
1741644
22
64
324
268
8
18
12
3
268
171277
32
21790
86
43
2030
64
900
377
3
85
1847
1847
1783
11 18
2
341
95
1823
1227
929
5
293
61
612
997 46
3
126
117
1035
1804
94
426
464
108640
960
541
2176
820
1156
1805
864
581
82030
717
578
1245
3090
849
866
2251
1307
8
5
324
173 155
80 85310
202 22
7
1293
51
450
1265
863
120
39
900339
838 470
1640
249
236
101
101
236
236
351 373
187
237545
1576
52
1154
10
225
30
134
208
438
153
495
1423 1246
850 68
0
1044
1884
246
246
1075
3035
3818
894
1868
799
3490
2609
714
2280
3825
1230
261
894
450
1028
3817
8422975
1031190
0
895
1115
44
201
43
974
1067
1939
1461
1052
28801466
2553
2079
2727
1105
3191
14461307
2485
523
2972
1401
378
2152
484
44
1
472
1652
7
75
132
516
143
1957
1982
748
262
146
1155
41
922
56
513
480
4161
463
558
483
871
1352
1699
850
1129
8
1939263
17
1093
1157
914
727
2360
584
6241959
4674
653
7
47 1352
1221577
1676
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 003 App 4 - 6
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 004 App 4 - 7
275
170
310
269
2502
177
177
177
177
177
11
3
52
5
7911048
3092
959
272
90
182
2
191100
28
5
16
15 2
16
3
178
1632
1
62
791
355
348311
537
236
4
18
68
68
68
2762
244
331
14
310
30
288
272
8
18
11
22
21
1
3
2724
5
276
333
333
2443
65
44
176
5
3632
90202
33
33
1894
217
274
9 4
4
86
206
44
23
1997
68
893
333
2678
163
3
3
86
524
218
198 860
2554
2553
1
2485
821
11
42
182
817
402
94
1843
1364
936
11
11
367
61
97
573
1
465
862 49
6
791
88
11
1024
2503
177
245
191
191
94
181
384
18
449
130
1720
614
975
47
828
802
1428
759
2502
765
614
765
765
8
652
1997
849787
129
583
1200
3182
2432
12241300
843
959
879929
2209
1440
8113
230
6 133
22
22
133
322 379
181 160
21
81 89
282
75
308371219 25
3
1174
46
83
443
43 1
260 260
379
455854
142
101
40
38090
567 200
402
471763
76
250
274
292
96
214
129
129
214
214
268
301595
187
237
391
3108
14 141579
56
849
229
10
11225
602
51
324 405
384
228
563
519
519
1348
989
989
1064999
893 83
2
823
1822
251
251
1038
3127
3737
906
1805
703
3474
2513
799
2678
3744
1925
761
1300
243
906
445
1020
3736
183
243
784
2952
1023
1357
3505
1888
413
911
1104
210 47
20246
1195
968
1060
195
2
1449
920
1010
30351118
1231
2499
2144
2683
1204
1216
3143
14901440
2555114
2
535
3024
1439
39522
1
2214
465
47
1
489
962
7
5
73
133
527
205
1667
1205
806
258
0 46
143
1157
43
915
58
480
501
4128
272
533
4 86
829
17111314
2826
1641
871
1070
514
0
1952
278
447
1062
261226
19
1
1001
1065
553
710
409
2305
570
603
1929
4593
437
627
8
500
1057
57645 1355
81412375
29
1680
1198
1325
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 004 App 4 - 8
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 005 App 4 - 9
275
170
310
269
2503
177
177
177
177
177
10
3
52
5
724972
3432
937
268
86
182
1
17698
31
2
16
27 2
18
3
222
1881
1
62
724
350
337311
599
281
4
18
68
68
68
2761
244
327
15
838
30
284
268
8
18
12
22
25
2
2
2684
5
326
307
307
1934
65
66
199
5
3162
88204
33
33
1576
217
278
90
4
86
210
43
23
2186
68
910
335
2586
156
3
3
8 4
526
215
203 1375
2555
2554
1
2486
1296
11
42
182
818
390
95
1979
1236
950
10
10
367
61
97
573
1
466
860 493
1902
88
137
128
1002
2504
177
256
190
190
94
186
429
15
453
119
1897
672
981
600
2176
825
1342
919
2503
766
613
766
766
8
653
2186
698635
129
584
1180
3168
2455
12271302
821
973
840958
2244
1401
8113
230
6 133
22
22
133
322 379
181 160
21
81 89
282
75
308371219 25
2
1173
46
83
443
43 1
260 260
379
455854
142
101
40
3 8895
564 200
402
471763
76
250
2 74
292
96
211
129
129
211
211
264
297597
187
237
377
3158
15 151579
56
878
229
10
11225
586
51
324 405
379
280
514
594
481
555
10741010
890 84
3
844
1820
251
251
1035
3113
3686
909
1804
705
3481
2522
803
2586
3694
1 873
761
1302
243
909
445
997
3686
185
243
819
2867
1000
1357
3529
1894
388
911
1105
211 46
20145
1193
972
1061
1962
1438
933
996
30581501
1235
2511
2121
2707
1207
1230
3141
14811401
2533114
8
540
3017
1445
38020
9
2192
477
46
1
468
1678
8
5
74
132
531
143
2023
2049
798
267
055
142
1154
42
918
57
479
512
4100
457
582
509
889
16531364
2812
1692
869
1104
515
0
1962
281
456
1050
260219
19
1
1023
1088
937
761
741
2361
578
600
1910
4559
469
619
9
501
1045
57146 1371
78512035
25
1677
1196
1310
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 005 App 4 - 10
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 1A App 4 - 11
298
170
300
290
2471
176
176
176
176
176
12
3
52
5
7731079
3332
1024
273
91
182
2
19098
22
4
16
16 2
18
3
156
1724
1
62
773
376
365311
605
283
4
42
90
90
65
2765
244
399
15
377
30
288
273
8
18
6
10
22
25
1
2
2734
2
319
404
404
2151
65
1361
31
189
5
3332
94195
33
33
1932
217
264
9 4
4
86
205
43
23
2066
90
916
335
2679
162
3
3
85
534
215
204 1528
2523
2519
4
2430
1370
11
42
182
816
387
95
1845
1304
995
12
12
357
61
98
559
4
477
874 49
6
1892
88
11
1088
2472
180
259
192
192
94
184
459
15
482
116
1767
674
984
47
2176
827
1484
842
2471
739
611
739
739
8
636
2066
799734
129
574
1197
3194
2443
12111285
839
960
877926
2182
1361
8113
226
5 132
25
25
132
325 379
182 161
21
81 90
282
75
308371220 25
7
1172
46
83
443
43 1
259 260
379
454856
142
102
41
37789
568 198
401
471763
75
249
273
290
98
217
129
129
217
217
270
301603
187
237
392
3148
12 121577
55
844
229
10
11225
600
56
325 405
383
192
607
412
55710781004
894 82
0
816
1820
251
251
1036
3139
3765
903
1805
700
3475
2509
808
2679
3772
1957
748
1285
243
903
445
990
3764
185
243
828
2936
993
1342
3521
1880
386
909
1104
211 47
20145
1193
962
1052
193
4
1467
918
1000
29751508
1243
2542
2147
2696
1191
1213
3179
14881361
2541112
2
533
3010
1417
38821
9
2217
472
47
1
487
1718
7
5
73
134
525
141
1881
1888
817
218
0 59
143
1147
44
908
57
490
501
4145
476
581
5 09
853
16871323
2804
1650
858
1222
515
0
1934
278
454
1055
260233
19
1
1004
1075
974
765
744
2310
577
602
1934
4586
470
605
8
501
1050
58444 1373
81812365
11
1684
1204
1332
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porters Consultants
2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 1A App 4 - 12
KEY
Road LOS D
LOS F
LOS E
2.5km
Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)
Gabites Porter Consultants
2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 1B App 4 - 13
275
170
310
2503
177
177
177
177
177
3
1055
90
182
98
28
6
16
18
1768782
18
68
335
271
8
18
11
1
271
247344
33
21793
86
43
2134
68
913
339
3
84
2555
2554
1
2486
11 18
2
400
95
1927
1310
957
10
367
61
1
467
866 49
9
11
1031
2504
94
436
474
120663
985
47
2176
827
1399
2503
766
614
82134
797
592
1195
3188
966
837
2255
1388
8
22
323
181 160
81 89308
219 25
2
1174
46
443
1260
854
142
40
38292
564 198
763
250
215
129
129
215
215
268 302
187
237312
1579
56
853
10
225
51
243
555
538
5121060 1001
896 83
6
822
1823
251
251
1038
3133
3716
908
1807
705
3475
2514
802
2626
3724
1296
243
908
445
1000
3716
8322884
1003
1887
909
1104
47
201
45
973
1064
1948
1453
1045
30431502
2502
2127
2705
1239
3130
14821388
2521
535
3012
1436
380
2198
484
46
1
475
1718
7
73
134
528
141
1886
1904
760
258
143
1155
43
920
58
493
507
4145
464
588
508
893
1365
1691
866
1209
0
1948235
19
997
1092
973
758
2363
577
6021925
4575
623
8
47 1372
1188526
1676
2.5km