Project: Transport Assessment. Beaconsfield Structure Plan ... ·...

CONSULTING CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERS, RISK MANAGERS.

Project: Transport Assessment. Beaconsfield Structure Plan –

V3.

Client: Landcorp.

Author: Tony Shaw. B Sc. Dip. Eng. Surv. Grad. Dip. Bus. MIPWEA

RABQSA.

Signature:

Date: 18/08/11

1 ST. FLOOR, 908 ALBANY HIGHWAY, EAST VICTORIA PARK WA 6101. PHONE +61 8 9355 1300 FACSIMILE +61 8 9355 1922

EMAIL admin@ shawmac.com.au

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers, Risk Managers.

\\Server\shawmac\Jobs Active 2010\Traffic & Transportation\Traffic & Parking Studies\Landcorp_Beaconsfield\Report\Transport Assessment_Beaconsfield_V3_2011.doc

Document Status.

Ver No. Author Reviewed

by

Date Issued for Signature Date

2 T Shaw. T Green. 25/08/10 Review

25/08/10

3 T Shaw. T Green. 18/08/11 Review

18/08/11

SHAWMAC PTY LTD

ABN 51 828 614 001

PO BOX 937 SOUTH PERTH

WA 6951

T: + 61 8 9355 1300 F: +61 8 9355 1922 E: [email protected]

© Shawmac Pty. Ltd. 2011



CONTENTS. 1. Summary. ............................................................................................................. 5

2. Introduction and Background. .............................................................................. 6

2.1. Proponent. ................................................................................................................. 6

2.2. Site Location and Land Use. ...................................................................................... 6

3. Development proposal ......................................................................................... 7

3.1. Regional Context. ...................................................................................................... 7

3.2. Proposed Land Uses. ................................................................................................ 7

3.3. Major Attractors and Generators of traffic. ................................................................. 9

4. Existing Situation................................................................................................ 10

4.1. Current Landuse. ..................................................................................................... 10

4.2. Existing Network Configuration. ............................................................................... 10

4.3. Existing pedestrian/cyclist networks. ....................................................................... 11

4.4. Public Transport. ...................................................................................................... 12

5. Proposed Transport Networks. .......................................................................... 13

5.1. Proposed Infrastructure. .......................................................................................... 13

6. Changes to external transport networks ............................................................. 16

7. Integration with surrounding area ....................................................................... 17

8. Analysis of Transport Networks – General. ........................................................ 19

8.1. Assessment Year. .................................................................................................... 19

8.2. Time Periods for Assessment. ................................................................................. 19

9. Analysis of Internal Transport Networks. ............................................................ 20

9.1. Subdivision Generated Traffic. ................................................................................. 20

9.2. Non Subdivision Traffic. ........................................................................................... 25



9.3. Roads and intersections. ......................................................................................... 26

9.3.1. Road Cross Sections ........................................................................................ 26

9.3.2. Intersections. .................................................................................................... 28

9.3.3. Mather Road – Road 2 intersection. ................................................................. 28

9.3.4. Analysis Warrants. ............................................................................................ 29

9.3.5. Clontarf Road - Mather Road Performance. ..................................................... 30

9.4. Pedestrian / Cycle networks. ................................................................................... 32

9.5. Access to public transport. ....................................................................................... 34

10. Analysis of External Transport Networks. ....................................................... 37

10.1. Extent of Analysis. ................................................................................................ 37

10.2. Impact on external intersections. .......................................................................... 37

11. Safety Issues. ................................................................................................. 38



1. Summary. Shawmac Pty Ltd was commissioned by Landcorp to undertake an assessment of the

transportation impacts associated with the development of a residential subdivision of a

portion of land located to the south of Lefroy Road and to the west of the South Fremantle

Senior High School, Beaconsfield.

Key transport issues focus on the following matters:

• The capacity of the local road network to accommodate the additional traffic generated

by the proposal;

• The extent to which the additional traffic generated can be safety managed on the

adjacent current and future road network;

• The provision of safe access to the proposed subdivision from the adjacent road

network;

• The safety and efficiency of the site’s internal road network and in particular the extent

that the site is able to safety and efficiently accommodate alternative and sustainable

transport modes including pedestrians and cyclists.

Analysis shows that traffic will be distributed to Clontarf Road via Mather Road. With the

exception of the main north-south link, all streets within the subdivision are predicted to carry

relatively low traffic volumes generally less than 1,000 vehicles per day, with most predicted

to carry less than 500 vehicles per day.

It is concluded that the proposed street network will provide an acceptable range of choices

for travel and ensure that traffic volumes on individual streets can be kept below threshold

levels to ensure the amenity of the area is preserved and safe movement options exist for

pedestrians, cyclists and local traffic.



2. Introduction and Background.

2.1. Proponent.

Shawmac Pty Ltd has been commissioned by Landcorp to undertake an assessment of the

transportation impacts associated with the development of a residential subdivision on land

south of Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield and as detailed below.

2.2. Site Location and Land Use.

The site is located as shown on Figure 1 and is within the City of Fremantle.

The site is located approximately 3 kilometres south east of the City of Fremantle CBD. The

transport assessment has been undertaken in order to assess the potential effect that

development of the site from its current vacant land use to residential land use would have in

terms of the interaction with the existing and proposed road network. The assessment is

based on the structure plan prepared by Roberts Day.

Figure 1. Site Location.

Study Site



3. Development proposal

3.1. Regional Context.

The site is currently undeveloped and is bounded by Lefroy Road to the north, the South

Fremantle SHS to the west and existing residential and community developments to the

south and west.

The land is vacant and comprises a former limestone quarry and inert landfill site.

3.2. Proposed Land Uses.

Proposed land use allocation within the structure plan area is shown on Figure 2.

The proposed plan will enable the development of a residential subdivision with yields of

ranging from 15 to 100 residential dwelling lots per hectare .



Figure 2. Proposed Layout1

1 Source – Roberts Day



3.3. Major Attractors and Generators of traffic.

The site’s location to the south east of the Fremantle CBD and southwest of the Perth CBD

generally defines the primary attractors and generators external to the site. The major

generator / attractors are likely to be the city CBD’s which are expected to provide the origins

/ destinations for the majority of the Internal – External trips from the subdivision.



4. Existing Situation.

4.1. Current Landuse.

Figure 3 below indicates the existing land uses adjacent to, and within the proposed

subdivisional boundaries, together with existing road network details.

Enquiries as to the availability of existing traffic counts have been made to Main Roads WA

and the Local Authority and reference has been made to previous reports. Where

information has been available it is shown in later sections of the report.

Figure 3. Existing Land Use.

4.2. Existing Network Configuration.

Lefroy Road is an east – west Local Distributor Road that provides connection between

Carrington Street and Hampton Road. A steep embankment at the northern boundary of the

site precludes connection between the proposed subdivision and Lefroy Road.

Connection to the road network from the subdivision will be via Mather Road and Clontarf

Road to the south. Mather Road is a north – south local street comprising a 7.4 metre wide

pavement.



At its northern end, Mather Road connects with Annie Street, an east – west local access

street. At its southern end, Mather Road connects with Clontarf Road approximately 300

metres south of the site at an unsignalised “T” junction. Clontarf Road runs east – west and

provides connection between Carrington Street to the east and Hampton Road to the west.

West of Mather Road, Clontarf Road is classified as a District Distributor B road under the

Metropolitan Functional Road Hierarchy and to the east of Mather Road a Local Distributor

road.

Traffic counts sourced from Main Roads WA and the City of Fremantle for network roads

likely to be affected by additional traffic are shown on Table.

Location Count Date ADT2 AM Peak

PM Peak

Mather Road – between Clontarf Road and Duffield Avenue. Aug ‘09 815 85 86 Annie Street - between York Street and Pass Crescent. Oct ’08. 829 154 107 York Street – between Michael Street and O’Hara Street. May ’08. 1407 325 250 York Street – between Jeffery Street and Warren Street. Oct ’08. 2010 145 210 Lefroy Road – between Cadd Street and Smith Street. Sept ’08. 7342 824 740 Lefroy Road – between Caesar Street and Porter Street. July ’08. 5851 675 570 Lefroy Road – between Longford Road and Badham Close Apr ’08. 6255 753 667 Lefroy Road – between Longford Road and Sea View Street. Apr ’08. 6862 842 690 Clontarf Road – between Hampton Road and Mather Road; EB. Oct ‘06 2647 256 233 Clontarf Road – between Hampton Road and Mather Road; EB. Oct ‘06 3176 317 226

Table 1. Existing Counts.

4.3. Existing pedestrian/cyclist networks.

A shared path between 1.8 metres and 2.4 metres wide is constructed along the western

boundary of the South Fremantle SHS site and provides connection between Lefroy Road

and Annie Street. This path together with a shared path and marked cycle lanes on Lefroy

Road east of the site are shown on the Perth Bicycle Network. Lefroy Street is designated

cycle route on the PBN (SW8). Annie Street and Mather Road are shown as good cycling

environments on the PBN maps with Clontarf Road shown as having a medium riding

environment. There is a shared path along Clontarf Road and a 1.5 metre wide pedestrian

path along Mather Road and Annie Street. The existing facilities provide good pedestrian

and cyclist connectivity.

2 ADT = 5 day average daily traffic



4.4. Public Transport.

Public transport operates bus services along both Lefroy Road and Clontarf Road as shown

on Figure 4 below. Services are generally within a 400 metre radius of the development site.

Figure 4. Adjacent Bus Routes.

The 532 route runs between Fremantle CBD and Cockburn Central and provides 35 services

on weekdays, 17 on Saturday and 14 on Sundays and Public Holidays.

The 522 and 513 routes run between Fremantle CBD and Murdoch Station and collectively

provide 65 services on weekdays, 31 on Saturday and 27 on Sundays and Public Holidays.

Bus and train connections to Perth are available from Fremantle, Cockburn Central and

Murdoch.

SITE

400M



5. Proposed Transport Networks.

5.1. Proposed Infrastructure.

Figure 5 indicates the proposed layout of the internal transport network by classification of

road type.

For each road type, the road reservation widths and cross section details are as indicated in

Table 8 and in Figures 6 and 7 over. These are indicative and are subject to detailed design.

Also indicated on Figure 5 are recommended intersection controls.

All proposed infrastructure has been designed in line with the Liveable Neighbourhoods

Guidelines.



Figure 5. Proposed Network Infrastructure.



Figure 6. Access Road A.

For Access Roads A, reserve width will be set at 20.0 metres. Consideration of whether or

not embayed parking is to be provided will form part of the detailed design process and will

be dependent on identification of need and further discussions with the City of Fremantle.

Figure 7. Access Road D.

For Access Roads D, reserve width will be set at 16.0 metres above the 14.2 (minimum)

recommended by Liveable Neighbourhoods. Carriageway widths shall be set at 6.0 metres.



6. Changes to external transport networks There are no known changes to the adjacent external road network that will impact on the

proposed development.



7. Integration with surrounding area The interaction with the surrounding area can be impacted by the presence of major traffic

attractors and generators nearby or possible changes to existing land uses. Table 2

summarises major traffic attractors and generators located external to the subdivision’s

boundaries. There are no identified changes to land use that can impact on the transport

network immediately adjacent to the subject site.

Attractor / Generator.

Location. Impact of Attractor / Generator.

Deficiencies. Proposed Modifications.

Perth CBD. North east of subject site.

Study Site residents will contribute to flows along Mather Road and Clontarf Road east of the site and the regional road network daily and during the AM and PM peak periods. Flows are expected to reflect a strong southerly and easterly demand between the site and the CBD in the morning and equivalent northerly and westerly flows in the evening.

Current pavement widths along Mather Road and Clontarf Road are adequate.

Perth CBD. North east of subject site.

Study Site residents may contribute to flows along Annie Street and York Street east of the site and the regional road network daily and during the AM and PM peak periods. Flows are expected to reflect a strong easterly demand between the site and the CBD in the morning and equivalent westerly flows in the evening.

Current pavement widths along Annie Street and York Street are adequate.

Fremantle CBD. North west of subject site.

Study Site residents will contribute to flows along Mather Road and Clontarf Road west of the site and the regional road network daily and during the AM and PM peak periods. Flows are expected to reflect a strong northerly and westerly demand between the site and the CBD in the morning and equivalent southerly and easterly flows in the evening.




Attractor / Generator.

Location. Impact of Attractor / Generator.

Deficiencies. Proposed Modifications.

Kwinana Industrial strip.

South of subject site.

Study Site residents will contribute to flows along Mather Road and Clontarf Road west of the site and the regional road network daily and during the AM and PM peak periods. Flows are expected to reflect a strong southerly demand between the site and Kwinana in the morning and equivalent northerly flows in the evening.


Table 2. Adjacent Attractors and Generators.



8. Analysis of Transport Networks – General.

8.1. Assessment Year.

The assessment has been taken to the year at which the subdivision is programmed for

completion. In respect to considerations of the impact on external networks, traffic from

adjacent catchments has been determined based on the assumption of full development of

adjoining land.

8.2. Time Periods for Assessment.

As it is expected that morning and evening peaks shall be similar in terms of the total volume

entering intersections. Where significant differences in AM or PM peak have been identified,

either in total volumes entering intersections or where turning movements are significantly

different enough to impact on operational characteristics, both AM and PM peaks are used

for assessment.

For midblock assessments, the daily traffic volume has been used for assessment purposes.



9. Analysis of Internal Transport Networks.

9.1. Subdivision Generated Traffic.

The Structure Plan for the site as prepared by Roberts Day was used to determine the yield

under two possible development densities which predominantly indicated R40 development

as the lower density and R100 as a higher density that may be realised should there be

specific town planning triggers.

The site was divided into traffic assessment zones (TAZ) as shown on Figure 8 and

generation was calculated based on trip production and generation rates recommended by

the Road Traffic Authority of New South Wales.

The values adopted are summarised below.

Work trip productions = 3.3 trips per household.

Non work trip productions = 4.5 trips per household.

Other trip productions = 1.2 trips per household.

Total 9 trips per dwelling

Table 3. Generation Rates.



Figure 8. Traffic Analysis Zones.

Applying the adopted generation values gave the estimated trips from the site for two

densities as shown Tables 4 and 5.

Given the nature of the site which is largely residential, it is estimated that the total number of

trips with origin or destination external to the site would be high and on that basis internal-

external trips were assumed to represent 90 % of all trips generated by the site.



ZONE LOTS TRIPS Int - Ext

Int - Int

HBW HBNW NHB TOTAL HBW HBNW NHB TOTAL

90% 10% 37% 50% 13% 100% 37% 50% 13% 100% TAZ1 7 63 57 6 21 28 7 57 2 3 1 6 TAZ 2 24 216 194 22 72 97 25 194 8 11 3 22

TAZ3 10 90 81 9 30 41 11 81 3 5 1 9 TAZ4 12 108 97 11 36 49 13 97 4 5 1 11 TAZ5 24 216 194 22 72 97 25 194 8 11 3 22 TAZ6 12 108 97 11 36 49 13 97 4 5 1 11 TAZ7 8 72 65 7 24 32 8 65 3 4 1 7 TAZ8 5 45 41 5 15 20 5 41 2 2 1 5 TAZ9 11 99 89 10 33 45 12 89 4 5 1 10

113 1017 915 102 339 458 119 915 38 51 13 102

Table 4. Trip Generation – Lower Density.

ZONE LOTS TRIPS Int - Ext

Int - Int

HBW HBNW NHB TOTAL HBW HBNW NHB TOTAL

90% 10% 37% 50% 13% 100% 37% 50% 13% 100%

TAZ1 7

63 57 6 21 28 7 57 2 3 1 6 TAZ 2 61 549 494 55 183 247 64 494 20 27 7 55 TAZ3 10 90 81 9 30 41 11 81 3 5 1 9 TAZ4 12 108 97 11 36 49 13 97 4 5 1 11 TAZ5 61 549 494 55 183 247 64 494 20 27 7 55 TAZ6 12 108 97 11 36 49 13 97 4 5 1 11 TAZ7 8 72 65 7 24 32 8 65 3 4 1 7 TAZ8 5 45 41 5 15 20 5 41 2 2 1 5 TAZ9 11 99 89 10 33 45 12 89 4 5 1 10

187 1683 1515 168 560 757 197 1515 62 84 22 168

Table 5. Trip Generation – Higher Density.

With regard to external trips, most movements from the site are predicted to be towards

Perth and Fremantle CBD’s. An arbitrary split of 65% attraction to the Perth CBD, a 25%

attraction to the Fremantle CBD and a 10% attraction to the Kwinana region was assumed

for modelling. As the majority of traffic will use the Mather Road – Clontarf Road route, the

split between attractors is not considered to be critical and will largely affect the east west

split at the intersection of Clontarf Road – Mather Road rather than the magnitude of flows

entering the intersection.

Based on assumed desire lines traffic was split generally as shown on Table 6.



External Station Split (%) Attraction – Lower Density Attraction – Higher Density

Perth CBD 65.00% 448 1119 Fremantle CBD 25.00% 172 430 Kwinana Region 10.00% 69 172

Table 6. Traffic External Stations.

Trips were assigned to the road network using the QRS II software and are shown on

Figures 9 and 10.



Figure 9. Predicted Subdivision Traffic – Lower Development Density.



Figure 10. Predicted Subdivision Traffic - Higher Development Density.

9.2. Non Subdivision Traffic.

The impact of existing or future traffic generated from areas other than the proposed

subdivision is likely to be limited to Mather Road, Clontarf Road and to a lesser degree, York



Street. Table 7 summarises the order of impact associated with the additional flows

expected from both a lower and higher density development.

Road Section Existing flow. With lower density flows

With higher density flows

Mather Road. North of Duffield Avenue.

815 1,460 1,815

Mather Road. South of Duffield Avenue.

815 1,475 1,945

Clontarf Road. West of Mather Road.

5,8203 6,080 6,200

Clontarf Road. East of Mather Road.

5,820 6,320 6,555

Annie Street East of Mather Road.

830 980 1,070

York Street North of Annie Street.

1,410 1,510 1,810

Table 7. External Traffic Impact.

9.3. Roads and intersections.

9.3.1. Road Cross Sections

Requirements for road cross sections have been based on recommendations contained

within Liveable Neighborhoods and the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice

which requires the following:

Indicative volume. Route type / name. Indicative Reserve Width.

Indicative Carriageway Width.

50,000. Primary Distributor. 6 X 3.5 metre lanes. 35,000. Primary Distributor. 4 X 3.5 metre lanes. 15,000 to 35,000. Integrator Arterial A

(District Distributor A). 50.6 – 52.6 metres. 2 X 8.2 metre carriageways including

bike lane and 2 X 5.5 metre service roads containing parking.

<25,000 Integrator Arterial A (District Distributor A).

35.6 metres. 2 X 10.7 metre carriageways including combined on street parking and bike lane.

7,000 to 15,000. Integrator Arterial B (District Distributor B).

29.2 metres. 2 X 7.5 metre carriageways with on street parking and bike lane.

3 From MRWA data



Indicative volume. Route type / name. Indicative Reserve Width.

Indicative Carriageway Width.

15,000. Integrator Arterial B (District Distributor B).

25.2 metres. 2 X 7.5 metre carriageways with on street parking.

7,000. Neighborhood Connector A.

24.4 metres 2 X 7.1 metres including parking, on street bike lane, median plus shared path on one verge.

3,000. Neighborhood Connector B.

19.4 metres 11.2 metres including parking plus shared path on one verge.

3,000. Access Street A (Avenue).

20 - 24 metres. 2 x 3.5 metre lanes plus indented parking.

3,000. Access Street B (Wider street).

16.5 - 18 metres. 9.7 metre lane.

3,000. Access Street C (Yield or give way street).

15.4 - 16 metres. 7.2 (7.8 – 7.5) metre lane.

1,000. Access Street D (Narrow yield or give way street).

14.2 metres. 5.5 – 6.0 metre lane.

150 Access Street D (Narrow yield or give way street).

14.2 metres. 3.5 metre lane plus parking indents.

3,000. Access Street D (Wider street).

16.5 - 18 metres. 9.7 metre lane.

Table 8. Road Hierarchy Criteria.

Based on these criteria, road requirements are as shown on Table 9.

Road4 Predicted Volume (vpd).

Reserve Requirement. Carriageway Requirement.

Road 1 Up to 1,180 Access Street D. 16.0 metres.

6.0 metre lane.

Road 2 Up to 1,240 Access Street A. 20.0 metres.

2 x 3.5 metre lanes.

Road 3 Up to 220 Lane 6.0 metres.

6.0 metre lane.

Road 4 Up to 80 Access Street D. 16.0 metres.

6.0 metre lane.

Road 5 Up to 115 Access Street D. 16.0 metres.

6.0 metre lane.

Mather Road Up to 1,945 Access Street A / Neighbourhood Connector B5 20.0 metres.

7.4 metre lane (Existing).

Table 9. Recommended Road Cross Sections.

4 Road designations as shown on Figure 5.

5 Subject to considerations by the City of Fremantle – dependant on future adjacent development



9.3.2. Intersections.

The subdivision design generally provides for adequate sight distance to be provided at each

intersection; however the detailed consideration of sight distance should be undertaken at

the engineering design stage and is dependent on factors such as vertical design, ultimate

alignments and adjacent development envelopes. Particular care should be taken at the

intersections along Road 3 which has a designated reserve width of 6.0 metres and a

carriageway width of 6.0 metres and where buildings and fencing have the potential to

impact on sight distances. Sight distances may also be adversely affected at intersections

that occur on road bends and at these locations the introduction of traffic management

devices to control speeds to equate to available sight distance may be required.

The layout proposed on the Roberts Day plan indicates a slight staggered junction at the

intersection of Road 5, Mather Road and Duffield Avenue. Liveable Neighbourhoods

recommends that the stagger distance should be no less than 40 metres for both “left-right”

and “right-left” staggers and this distance should be provided where possible. To avoid the

stagger, Road 5 should be designed to be collinear with Duffield Avenue as part of the

detailed design process.

9.3.3. Mather Road – Road 2 intersection.

Road 2 intersects with Mather Road at the northern end on the bend between Mather Road

and Annie Street. While volumes of traffic entering the intersection do not warrant auxiliary

lane, the potential for rear end crashes and off road crashes may be higher than at a

standard “T” intersection. In order to address the increased crash potential, it is

recommended that the bend be widened and a central raised median be installed around the

bend to regulate traffic movements generally in accordance with Figure 11.



Figure 11. Recommended Intersection Concept

9.3.4. Analysis Warrants.

Warrants as shown in Table 8.1 of Austroads Guide to Engineering Practice Part 2,

Roadway Capacity were applied to determine which intersections required capacity analysis.

Assuming peak hour volumes are approximately 10% of predicted daily traffic it was

identified that the following intersections required analysis. As flows within the subdivision

are low and fall outside of the warrant levels, only external intersections warranted review.

Intersection Hourly volume major road

VPH (two way)

Hourly volume minor road

VPH (two way)

Comment.

Warrants as per Table 8.1 of Austroads Guide to Engineering Practice Part 2, Roadway Capacity - Two Lane Major Road Cross Road

400 vph

500 vph

650 vph

250 vph

200 vph

100 vph

Table details flows that initiate intersection analysis. As major flows increase, there is reduced capacity to accept minor flows.

Road 2 – Mather Road. 135 65 Tee intersection – Analysis not required.

Mather Road – Clontarf Road.

640 125 Tee intersection – Analysis required.

Table 10. Analysis Warrants



Internal peak hour traffic volumes within the subdivision are generally small and as such

negligible impacts are predicted. However as analysis warrants are met at the intersection of

Mather Road and Clontarf Road, this was modelled using the SIDRA software. Turning

movements were predicted from peak hour flows sourced from on site surveys, MRWA and

City of Fremantle 24 hour traffic flows and predicted flows (predicted peak hour flows are

assumed to be 10% of predicted daily flows).

Practical absorption capacity for the intersection was calculated from major flow and

compared to predicted minor flow. Where capacity was adequate the intersection was

modelled as an unsignalised, channelised intersection.

9.3.5. Clontarf Road - Mather Road Performance.

Turning movements shown on Figure 12 were determined and used as a basis for analysis

using Sidra Intersection (V5).

Figure 12. Mather Road – Clontarf Road – Peak Turning Movements.

AM 40 76PM 28 50

NORTH

AM 30PM 50

AM 250PM 372

AM 62

PM 93

AM 200PM 300

CLONTARF ROAD

MATH

ER ROAD



Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID Turn Demand

Flow HV Deg. Satn Average

Delay Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Average Speed Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hEast: Clontarf Road

5 T 316 3.0 0.232 2.2 LOS A 1.8 13.0 0.54 0.00 50.36 R 65 3.0 0.232 10.7 LOS B 1.8 13.0 0.54 0.94 48.5

Approach 381 3.0 0.232 3.7 NA 1.8 13.0 0.54 0.16 50.0North: Mather Road

7 L 80 3.0 0.265 15.1 LOS C 1.1 7.6 0.59 0.81 42.49 R 42 3.0 0.265 15.3 LOS C 1.1 7.6 0.59 0.89 42.3

Approach 122 3.0 0.265 15.2 LOS C 1.1 7.6 0.59 0.84 42.4West: Clontarf Road

10 L 32 3.0 0.192 8.3 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.04 49.011 T 335 3.0 0.192 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 366 3.0 0.192 0.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.09 58.9All Vehicles 869 3.0 0.265 4.0 NA 1.8 13.0 0.32 0.23 52.0

Figure 13. Mather Road – Clontarf Road – AM Peak.

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID Turn Demand

Flow HV Deg. Satn Average


95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Average Speed Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hEast: Clontarf Road

5 T 316 3.0 0.268 2.6 LOS A 2.1 15.1 0.57 0.00 49.66 R 98 3.0 0.268 11.1 LOS B 2.1 15.1 0.57 0.93 48.1

Approach 414 3.0 0.268 4.6 NA 2.1 15.1 0.57 0.22 49.2North: Mather Road

7 L 53 3.0 0.195 15.3 LOS C 0.7 5.0 0.59 0.78 42.29 R 29 3.0 0.195 15.5 LOS C 0.7 5.0 0.59 0.88 42.1

Approach 82 3.0 0.195 15.4 LOS C 0.7 5.0 0.59 0.82 42.2West: Clontarf Road

10 L 53 3.0 0.206 8.3 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.01 49.011 T 339 3.0 0.206 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0

Approach 392 3.0 0.206 1.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.14 58.2All Vehicles 887 3.0 0.268 4.0 NA 2.1 15.1 0.32 0.24 52.0

Figure 14. Mather Road – Clontarf Road – PM Peak.

Based on the modelling, the existing intersection can accommodate predicted flows from the

Study Site development at the higher density during the AM and PM peaks without

modification.



In order to test the sensitivity of the modelling, a variable flow rate was modelled and the

result as shown below on Figure 15 suggests that the intersection has capacity to tolerate a

significant increase in traffic flow.

Figure 15. Sensitivity Analysis.

9.4. Pedestrian / Cycle networks.

A review of pedestrian and cyclist access was undertaken and consideration given to:

Identifying which roads could potentially be difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to

cross;

Identifying where safe crossing facilities should be provided;

Indicating where safe crossing facilities are proposed;

Identifying which roads within the subdivision are likely to have traffic volumes that

would adversely impact on the efficiency and safety of pedestrians trying to cross.

The analysis included consideration of road cross-sections and volume ceilings at which

traffic volume is expected to affect the ability of pedestrians to cross roads. This assessment

was based on recommended values prescribed by the WAPC document, Transport



Assessment Guidelines for Developments, Volume 3 – Subdivisions which is reproduced in

Table 11 below.

Road Cross Section Traffic volume 2 lane undivided 1100 vph 2 lane divided (or with pedestrian refuge islands) 2800 vph 4 lane undivided (without pedestrian refuge islands) 700 vph 4 lane divided (or with pedestrian refuge islands) 1600 vph

Table 11. Pedestrian Crossing Assessment Criteria.

Based on the assessment, the pedestrian and cyclist facilities as shown on Figure 16 were

identified as being required. Detailed design will incorporate pedestrian crossing points in

line with those shown and may range from a minimum requirement for pram ramps to be

provided at each intersection, through to median islands installed at key intersections so as

to provide safe refuge.



Figure 16. Pedestrian and Cycle Facilities.

9.5. Access to public transport.

The PTA in its Design and Planning Guidelines for Public Transport Infrastructure – Bus

Route Planning and Transit Streets gives an indication of the desired level of access. The

Guidelines state that:

The Transperth Ten-Year Plan service coverage goal is that there will be a bus stop

within 500 metres of where 95 percent of Perth’s population lives.



At the subdivision stage, bus routes, existing and proposed are likely to be known

but new bus stop locations may not. The assessment should therefore be based on

a 400 metre walk distance to bus routes if bus stop locations are unknown, or 500

metres walk to bus stops, if their locations are known.

Transperth currently provides bus services along Lefroy Road and Clontarf Road which can

be accessed from the proposed subdivision using existing and proposed paths. Initial

assessment indicates that bus stops are generally within a 400 metre radius of most of the

site.



Figure 17. Existing Bus Facilities



10. Analysis of External Transport Networks.

10.1. Extent of Analysis.

Design traffic flows on the external road network were determined as previously detailed.

External design volumes have been incorporated into the design traffic shown previously and

road cross sections requirements have been analysed and are reported in section 9

10.2. Impact on external intersections.

The impact on external intersections has been assessed and the analysis is included in

Section 9.



11. Safety Issues. A review of the overall transport proposals for the subdivision did not identify any specific

issues that present unacceptable risks to the road user or that cannot be managed through

appropriate design protocols.

Road hazards are typically present at intersections and may be manifest through inadequate

sight distance, inappropriate geometry or substandard capacity that promotes undesirable

and potentially hazardous movements.

For new roads, the allocation of adequate road reservation widths and truncations of corners

will allow sight distance requirements to be accommodated in the detailed design phase of

the project. Geometric standards prescribed by Austroads and Main Roads WA guidelines

will ensure that no unacceptable risk is introduced into the road environment. Assessment of

the operational performance of intersections undertaken in this study prescribes appropriate

geometry and lane allocations to minimise delays and optimise performance.

Pedestrian and cyclist movements are provided for by on road and off road facilities, thereby

addressing potential safety issues.

Consulting Traffic & Civil Engineers, Risk Managers.

1st. Floor, 908 Albany Highway, East Victoria Park, WA 6101. P +61 8 9355 1300, F +61 8 9 355 1922, E [email protected]

/Volumes/Perth/PROJECT/BIR POR/Received/Shawmac/TN_Broad_191217(3).doc

Technical Note

Subject: Potential Development Traffic Impacts – Portuguese Club, 2 Strang Street Beaconsfield

Date: 19/12/17

Author: T Shaw

Attention: Dan Pearce

1 Background

The following considers the potential traffic impact associated with the development of the Portuguese Club site located at Lot 5 Strang Street in Beaconsfield. It is to be read in conjunction with the earlier Transport

Assessment titled ‘Transport Assessment. Beaconsfield Structure Plan – V3’ prepared by Shawmac for Landcorp

and dated August 2011. That Transport Assessment considered the potential development of land south of

Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield as shown on Figure 1 and was prepared in support of a Structure Plan. The 2011

report concluded that transportation impacts associated with the development of a residential subdivision of the

portion of land located to the south of Lefroy Road and to the west of the South Fremantle Senior High School

were acceptable and that the additional traffic could be accommodated on the existing road network. Analysis

showed that traffic would largely be distributed to Clontarf Road via Mather Road. With the exception of the main

north-south link, all streets within the subdivision were predicted to carry relatively low traffic volumes generally less than 1,000 vehicles per day, with most predicted to carry less than 500 vehicles per day.

It was concluded that the proposed street network both within the site and external to the site would provide an

acceptable range of choices for travel and that traffic volumes on individual streets would be below threshold

levels and that the amenity of the area would be preserved and safe movement options would exist for

pedestrians, cyclists and local traffic.

The intent of this Technical Note is to review the additional impact that the development of the Portuguese Club

site as residential units would have on the adjacent network when considered in conjunction with the possible

future development of the land immediately to the north.

2 | P a g e

Figure 1 - Site Location

2 Development Detail

A notional development comprising one hundred and twenty six (126) independent living units and eighty (80) aged care beds both with normally associated services and staff parking has been used to assess traffic impacts.

The assessment focusses on the traffic impacts associated with the residential component of the site and

provides comment on the likely impact of the aged care unit in general terms.

The proposed allocation of area is summarised below:

2 Bedroom Apartments: 62 units

3 Bedroom Apartments: 64 units

Existing club: 350 Square metres

Parking: 123 bays

3 | P a g e

Additional future use is indicated as including the following:

Aged care facility: 20 Beds per floor over 4 floors (80 beds)

Parking: 36 bays.

3 Traffic Generation and Distribution

3.1 Generation

The existing Portuguese club is being refurbished as a tenant lounge with the current occupants moving to other

premises.

The traffic generation associated with the 126 apartments is estimated in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1 – Predicted Daily Traffic Generation

Land use Generation rate

Unit Quantum Estimated Generation

Source ADT AM

Peak PM

Peak ADT AM Peak

PM Peak

Residential dwelling - Medium density residential flat building (1-2BR).

4.50 0.45 0.45 Units 62 279 28 28 RTA Guide.

Residential dwelling - Medium density flat building (>2BR).

6.00 0.60 0.60 Units 64 384 38 38 RTA Guide.

Total 663 66 66

Table 2 - Predicted Peak Hour Traffic Generation

Peak Distribution

AM Peak in AM Peak out PM Peak in PM Peak out Residential dwelling - Medium density residential flat building (1-2BR).

11 17 17 11

Residential dwelling - Medium density flat building (>2BR).

15 24 23 15

Total 25 41 40 26

While not included in the proposed development of Lot 5 Strang Street, the addition of an 80 bed nursing home is

likely to increase traffic generation by 190 vehicle movements per day with 16 of these occurring in peak hour periods.

3.2 Distribution

Distribution has been determined by consideration of the most likely origin and destination desire lines between

the site and the surrounding areas and consideration of the constraints imposed by controlled versus uncontrolled

intersections and the effect this is likely to have on route selection. Impact on the road network immediately

surrounding the site is summarised on Table 3 and shown on Figure 2.

4 | P a g e

Table 3 - Impact of Traffic

Street Section AM peak hour flow impact PM peak hour flow impact

Strang Street eastbound East of Naylor Street Plus 25 vph Plus 40 vph

Strang Street westbound East of Naylor Street Plus 41 vph Plus 26 vph

Naylor Street northbound South of Strang Street Plus 25 vph Plus 40 vph

Naylor Street southbound South of Strang Street Plus 41 vph Plus 26 vph

Naylor Street northbound North of Clontarf Road Plus 4 vph Plus 6 vph

Naylor Street southbound North of Clontarf Road Plus 21 vph Plus 14 vph

Clontarf Road westbound East of Hampton Road Plus 19 vph Plus 12 vph

Clontarf Road eastbound East of Hampton Road Plus 3 vph Plus 4 vph

Hampton Road southbound South of Clontarf Road Plus 4 vph Plus 3 vph

Hampton Road northbound South of Clontarf Road Plus 3 vph Plus 4 vph

Hampton Road southbound North of Clontarf Road Plus 4 vph Plus 3 vph

Hampton Road northbound North of Clontarf Road Plus 15 vph Plus 9 vph

Hampton Road southbound North of Culver Street Plus 13 vph Plus 20 vph

Hampton Road northbound North of Culver Street Plus 16 vph Plus 9 vph

Traffic counts are not available for Strang Street, Culver Street or Naylor Street; however turning path surveys of

both the Naylor Street – Clontarf Road intersection and the Culver Street – Hampton Road intersection taken

over a representative midday period were used to predict the likely magnitude of daily flows in both streets. This suggested that Naylor Street would carry about 1,500 vpd and Culver Street, 1,000 vpd.

Additional flows attributable to the development on lot 5 Strang Street is envisaged to increase flows on Culver

Street by 430 vpd bringing the total daily flow to about 1,430 vpd and on Naylor Street by 225 vpd bringing the

total daily flow to about 1,725 vpd. The predicted flows are within the practical capacity of each road.

A recent SCATS count for the signalised intersection of Hampton Road and Clontarf Road indicates that volumes

on these roads are:

Hampton Road: Daily flows 32,600 vpd; AM Peak hour 2,690 vph; PM Peak hour 2,860 vph.

Clontarf Road: Daily flows 6,100 vpd; AM Peak hour 600 vph; PM Peak hour 540 vph.

The maximum increase in daily traffic on Clontarf Road is expected to be in the order of 200 vpd which can be

accommodated within the current geometry. The maximum increase in traffic on Hampton Road is expected to

be in the order of 300 vpd which similarly can be accommodated within the current geometry of the road.

5 | P a g e

Figure 2 - Predicted Traffic Increases

3.3 Impact of the Land the Subject of the Approved Structure Plan (Landcorp Site)

The Landcorp site comprises that portion of land to the north and east of the subject site and was the subject of a

traffic assessment undertaken in 2011. The Transport Assessment considered two development densities, the

highest of which predicted an increase in traffic on Clontarf Road between Mather Road and Hampton Road of

approximately 380 vehicles a day. The Assessment also found that the development would not impact on any of

the other roads likely to be impacted by the proposed development on Lot 5 Strang Street. Current turning

volumes for the AM and PM peak hours at the intersection of Clontarf Road and Hampton Road were ascertained

form recent SCATS counts and are summarised in Figure 3. Predicted flows including the increases associated

with the Landcorp site and Lot 5 Strang Street are shown in Figure 4.

6 | P a g e

1134 1608

1554 926 208 1248 1416 192

AM PM

285 602 259 544

214 317 189 285104 96

1341 77 1030 1059 67 1512

1418 1127Hampton Road

Clontarf Road

Hampton Road

Clontarf Road

Figure 3 - Existing Peak Hour Flows

1149 1623

1584 926 223 1373 1416 207

AM PM

308 664 283 701

243 356 314 418113 104

1341 85 1039 1059 76 1520

1426 1135Hampton Road

Clontarf Road

Hampton Road

Clontarf Road

Figure 4 - Predicted Peak Hour Flows

Sidra Intersection analysis of the existing and predicted turning volumes was undertaken using the current signal

phases and the resulting outputs are shown in Appendix A. This indicates that under the existing and predicted

flows the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service with nominal queuing and short delays.

4 Conclusion

This assessment has been carried out to determine the traffic impact associated with the possible development of

Lot 5 Strang Street in Beaconsfield in context of the previously assessed Landcorp Site to the north and what, if

any, cumulative impacts are likely. The assessment concluded that:

• Traffic generated by the development of Lot 5 Strang Street is most likely to use Naylor Street to access Clontarf Road and Culver Street and Clontarf Road to access Hampton Road.

7 | P a g e

• All streets affected by the proposed development are capable of carrying the predicted increase in traffic without compromising the operational performance of those streets;

• In terms of cumulative impacts associated with the development of Lot 5 Strang Street and the Landcorp development site, only Clontarf Road will be affected by increased flows from both sites; and

• Assessment of the Clontarf Road – Hampton Road intersection confirms that under combined flow increases, the intersection will continue to operate at a high level of service.

As such, it is concluded that the inclusion of the Lot 5 Strang Street development in the Structure Plan previously prepared for the Landcorp site will not introduce nay major impacts and is acceptable.

8 | P a g e

5 Appendix A – SIDRA Outputs

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo

v Deg. Satn Average


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Average Speed

Figure 5 - Existing AM Flows


v Deg. Satn Average


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Average Speed

Figure 6 - Existing PM Flows


v Deg. Satn Average


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Average Speed

Figure 7 - Predicted AM Flows

9 | P a g e


v Deg. Satn Average


Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Average Speed

Figure 8 - Predicted PM Flows

Project: Transport Assessment. Beaconsfield Structure Plan ... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Project: Transport Assessment. Beaconsfield Structure Plan ... ·...