West Melbourne Waterfront Development Plan Integrated ... fileWest Melbourne Waterfront Development...

West Melbourne Waterfront

Development Plan

Integrated Transport and Access Plan

Client // WMW Developments Pty Ltd

Office // VIC

Reference // 14M2307000

Date // 21/08/15

© GTA Consultants (GTA Consultants (VIC) Pty Ltd) 2014

The information contained in this document is confidential and

intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it has

been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as

being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in

whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants

constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property

contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants.

Bla

nk R

ep

ort

(140829 v

1.6

)


Development Plan

Integrated Transport and Access Plan

Issue: Final 21/08/15

Client: WMW Developments Pty Ltd

Reference: 14M2307000

GTA Consultants Office: VIC

Quality Record

Issue Date Description Prepared By Checked By Approved By Signed

A-Dr 21/11/14 Preliminary Draft

for discussion Rory Rathborne Tom Courtice

Reece

Humphreys

A-Dr2 25/11/14 Draft Final Rory Rathborne Tom Courtice Reece

Humphreys

A 3/12/14 Final Rory Rathborne Tom Courtice Reece

Humphreys

B 21/08/15 Final Rory Rathborne Tom Courtice Reece

Humphreys

14M2307000 // 21/08/15

Integrated Transport and Access Plan // Issue: Final

West Melbourne Waterfront, Development Plan

Executive Summary

A Planning Scheme Amendment and development plan is currently being sought for land at 156

– 250 Kensington Road, known as the West Melbourne Waterfront development. The proposal

includes a mix of residential, commercial and retail uses on the 2.8ha site.

This Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) has been prepared to address the needs of all

transport network users and modes of transport for the proposed developments. It incorporates

the key findings and recommendations of a separate Transport Impact Assessment Report (TIAR)

which is provided as an Annex to this report.

A key objective of the site response and associated mitigating treatments documented within

this ITAP is the intent to increase the ability and likelihood of residents and visitors to use active

travel or public transport modes.

The review of the existing situation for neighbouring suburbs indicates a downwards trend in car

ownership, with a shift towards public transport and active travel. This development provides a

clear opportunity to build on this trend in an urban environment which will require an increasingly

efficient movement network amid increasing density, which is consistent with the broader intent

of the ‘expanded central city’ concept as part of Plan Melbourne, as well as providing an

important ‘bookend’ to the future development of the Dynon Precinct.

The analysis undertaken as part of the TIAR indicates that the sites access points on Kensington

Road will be able to accommodate the expected traffic generation. It also suggests that the

Kensington Road/Dynon Road and Epsom Road/Kensington Road/Macauley Road intersections

are currently at capacity. Options to improve these intersections do exist however any

improvements will require consultation with stakeholders and will also require input on the

broader requirements of the precinct. Notwithstanding, these issues are not considered reasons

as to why approval of this development plan should not proceed.

In this regard, a range of works and measures, and the stakeholders considered responsible for

their implementation, have been identified in association with the development based on the

principles of ‘need’, ‘nexus’, ‘equity’ and ‘accountability’. These works and measures are

outlined in detail in this ITAP, with the approach generally including:

A ‘wide lens’ to transport and access solutions, including discussion of issues outside the

control or responsibility of the developer, but which can be addressed or improved by

the development and its proposed projects to assist with wider integration with the

transport network

Creation of an environment that supports the use of sustainable and active transport,

through a range of on-site infrastructure, links to external networks and provision of high

amenity, pedestrian and bicycle priority public realm within the development.

A focus on user needs to inform the design, placement and execution of key

sustainable transport elements, to ensure they are well-considered from a user point of

view.

Creation of a safe and vibrant public realm, where walking and cycling will be the

modes of choice. Our approach within the site is informed by the ‘naked streets’

philosophy (outlined in the summary of key policy directions), where low speeds and

negotiation between modes is encouraged.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Mitigation of transport network impacts caused by the development under an ‘all

modes’ approach, that seeks to balance network priorities and needs at key

surrounding intersections, rather than just traffic flow.

The works and measures recommended in the ITAP are consistent with an overall transport

approach for the proposed development that seeks to improve the accessibility, safety and

amenity of the site for public and active travel modes ahead of the private motor vehicle. This is

supported by improvements to bicycle and pedestrian paths, bus priority measures and related

works.

A summary of the works and measures proposed for the development are included in the table

below.

Summary of Transport and Access Recommendations

# Project P

ed

est

ria

n

Cy

clin

g

LATM

[1

]

Sta

tuto

ry

Pu

blic

Tra

nsp

ort

Ro

ad

Ne

two

rk

Ap

pro

va

l

Au

tho

rity

Tim

ing

Walking

P.1 Construct pedestrian footpaths on both sides

of all internal roads

Applicant

At construction

of adjacent

Stages

P.2 Implement pedestrian priority crossings

adjacent the internal T-intersection for the

supermarket access as shown in Figure 6.2

Applicant At construction

of adjacent

Stages

P.3

Implement raised threshold pedestrian

crossing points at the intersection of site

access roads with Kensington Road as shown

in Figure 6.2

Applicant

At time of

access road

construction

P.4 Provide signalised pedestrian crossings on the

north and east approaches of the primary

site access intersection as shown in Figure 6.2.

Applicant Stage 2

P.5

Widen the pedestrian footpath on the north

west side of Kensington Road, under the rail

underpass

Applicant Stage 1

Cycling

C.1

Construct an interim cycling link (shared

path) between Kensington Road and the

Maribyrnong River Trail

Applicant Stage 1

C.2

Construct the ‘main street’ including provision

for bicycles in carriageway between

Kensington Road and the Maribyrnong River

Trail, as shown in Figure 6.2

Applicant Stage 2

C.3

Provide resident and employee bicycle

parking in secure locations throughout the

development in accordance with

requirements under Clause 52.34 of the

Planning Scheme

Applicant

At permit

application

stage

C.4 Provide visitor bicycle parking in accordance

with Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme

Applicant

At permit

application

stage

C.5

Investigate the provision of share bicycles

which may be utilised by future residents and

visitors (as part of wider bicycle share

scheme)

Applicant Upon

Construction

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



# Project

Pe

de

stria

n

Cy

clin

g

LATM

[1

]

Sta

tuto

ry

Pu

blic

Tra

nsp

ort

Ro

ad

Ne

two

rk

Ap

pro

va

l

Au

tho

rity

Tim

ing

Public Transport

PT.1 Relocate the existing bus stops as shown in

Figure 6.2, as to integrate with land uses

provided within the development site

Applicant/

PTV

Upon

construction of

development

PT.2

Review compliance of the retained existing

bus stops directly adjacent to the site

regarding their compliance with disability

access requirements and upgrade as

required.

Applicant

Upon

construction of

development

PT.3 Provide weather protection for the new or

relocated bus stop on Kensington Road

along the subject site frontage.

Applicant/

PTV

Upon

construction of

development

Road Network

RN.

1

Construct an unsignalised left-in/left-out

access point to Kensington Road for the

Stage 1 office/commercial development car

park, generally in accordance with the

concept design shown as ‘Proposed Site

Access 1’ in GTA drawing 14M2307000-03P1.

Applicant Stage 1

RN.

2

Construct an unsignalised access intersection

for access to Stage 1.2 connecting to the

proposed car parking and loading areas.

Applicant Stage 1

RN.

3

Signalise the existing unsignalised access

intersection for Stages 1 and 2, generally in

accordance with the concept design shown

as ‘Proposed Site Access 2’ in GTA drawing

14M2307000-03P1 and including a pedestrian

operated signals on the north and eastern

intersection legs and provision for bicycle

storage

Applicant Stage 2

RN.

4


for Stage 3 generally in accordance with the


Access 3’ in GTA drawing 14M2307000-03P1

including pedestrian priority treatment

Applicant Stage 3

RN.

5





including a pedestrian priority treatment on

the side road

Applicant Stage 4

RN.

6

Design and implement the internal road

network as a de facto ‘shared space’ to

encourage low vehicle speeds and safe

interaction between vehicles, pedestrians

and cyclists

Applicant/ Stage 1

[1] Local Area Traffic Management (or ‘Traffic Calming’]

The recommended treatments identified consider a holistic approach to the transport task and

have been selected on the principles of ‘need’, ‘nexus’ ‘equity’ and ‘accountability’ listed

above.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Purpose of this Report 2

1.3 Scope of this Report 2

1.4 References 3

2. Urban Context 4

2.1 Site Location 4

3. Policy Context 5

3.1 Overview of Key Policy Directions 5

3.2 State Policy 7

3.3 Local Policy 11

4. Existing Conditions 14

4.1 Overview 14

4.2 Travel Behaviour Characteristics 14

4.3 Public Transport Network 19

4.4 Bicycle Infrastructure 21

4.5 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure 22

4.6 Road Network 23

5. Strategic Response 26

5.1 Principles 26

5.2 Modal Hierarchy 27

6. Development Proposal 28

6.1 Development Schedule 28

6.2 Transport Network 29

6.3 Statutory Considerations 34

7. Summary of Recommendations 37

8. Implementation, Monitoring and Review 39

Appendices

A: Transport Impact Assessment

Figures

Figure 1.1: Subject Site and its Environs 1

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 1.2: Land Zoning Map 2

Figure 2.1: Transport Context 4

Figure 3.1: Plan Melbourne – Expanded Central City 7

Figure 3.2: Plan Melbourne – Transport Projects 8

Figure 3.3: SmartRoads Network Operating Plan 9

Figure 3.4: VicRoads Principal Bicycle Network 10

Figure 3.5: City of Melbourne Transport Strategy – Proposed Tram Network 2030 12

Figure 3.6: City of Melbourne Transport Strategy – Proposed Public Transport and

Pedestrian Priority 12

Figure 3.7: City of Melbourne Current and Proposed Bicycle Network 13

Figure 4.1: Transport Network Overview 14

Figure 4.2: Geographical Area - Kensington 15

Figure 4.3: Mode Share Data for Kensington Residents – ABS 2011 Method of Travel to

Work 16

Figure 4.4: Mode Share Data for Employees of Kensington – ABS 2011 Method of Travel to

Work 17

Figure 4.5: Maribyrnong Statistical Local Area 18

Figure 4.6: VISTA 09-10 – Resident Mode Splits for all trip types 18

Figure 4.7: Number of Vehicles Owned 19

Figure 4.8: Nearby Public Transport Services 20

Figure 4.9: Existing Bus Stop on Kensington Road 20

Figure 4.10: Kensington Road On-Road Bicycle Lanes 21

Figure 4.11: Childers Street Off-Road Shared Path 21

Figure 4.12: Pedestrian Conditions at the Rail Underpass 22

Figure 4.13: Proposed Underpass Treatment for Pedestrians 23

Figure 4.14: Example of Merging Shared and Pedestrian Paths 23

Figure 4.15: Kensington Road Looking Southwest 23

Figure 4.16: Kensington Road Looking Northeast 23

Figure 4.17: Casualty Accident Locations 24

Figure 6.1: Indicative Land Use and Staging Plan 28

Figure 6.2: Proposed Transport Network 29

Tables

Table 6.1: Indicative Development Schedule 28

Table 6.2: Pedestrian Network Improvements Summary 30

Table 6.3: Cycling Network Improvements Summary 31

Table 6.4: Public Transport Improvements Summary 31

Table 6.5: Road Network Improvements Summary 32

Table 6.6: Bicycle Facility Provision Schedule 35

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table 6.7: Table of Potential Green Travel Plan Initiatives 36

Table 7.1: Summary of Recommendations 37

14M2307000 // 21/08/15


West Melbourne Waterfront, Development Plan 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

A rezoning and Development Plan is currently being prepared for land located at 156-250

Kensington Road, West Melbourne. The proposal includes a mix of residential, retail (including

supermarket) and commercial land uses.

The subject site of approximately 2.8ha has a frontage of approximately 270m to Kensington

Road and is located within a Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z). The site is currently occupied by industrial

land uses, with surrounding properties including a mix of residential (Kensington Banks) and open

space (JJ Holland Park) north of the Rail line.

The location of the subject site and the surrounding environs is shown in Figure 1.1 and the land

zoning is shown in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.1: Subject Site and its Environs

Base from Nearmap

1

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 1.2: Land Zoning Map

1.2 Purpose of this Report

This ITAP has been prepared to address all transport network users and modes of transport for the

proposed developments and to pre-empt the requirements of the forthcoming planning permit

applications to be sought.

In this regard, it is noted that the ITAP incorporates the key findings and recommendations of a

separate Transport Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) prepared by GTA, including associated

transport modelling. This separate report informs the content of the ITAP and is included as an

annexure to this report.

While the ITAP focuses predominantly on those recommendations that could reasonably be

expected to be completed by the applicant (having regard to factors including need, nexus,

equity and accountability), it also considers a range of broader issues and recommendations

relating to the wider transport and access network which may be completed by other parties in

time.

1.3 Scope of this Report

The ITAP has been prepared generally in accordance with the Integrated Transport Plan Advisory

Note (Department of Transport 2008), and considers the following matters:

i details of the existing and proposed movement network, and pedestrian, cycle and

vehicle connections to this network

ii details of the existing and future public transport network

iii details of the development proposals and how they will:

iv support public transport use and development

v respond to transport attractors such as activity centres or major employment hubs

vi respond to the transport demand generated by the developments

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



vii create efficient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle linkages internally, and connections to

surrounding urban development and public transport infrastructure

viii avoid detriment to the public transport network and be consistent with future public

transport investments

ix measures to improve sustainable transport behaviour for residents and visitors to the

sites

x high level assessment of the proposals’ ability to accommodate event day demands

xi mechanisms to maintain relevance of the Integrated Transport and Access Plan.

1.4 References

This ITAP has been prepared with reference to the following policy, strategies, legislation and

reports:

Plan Melbourne

Transport Integration Act 2010

VicRoads SmartRoads Network Operating Plan

VicRoads Principal Bicycle Network

Melbourne Planning Scheme

City of Melbourne Transport Strategy 2012

City of Melbourne Bicycle Plan 2012-16

other documents and reports as referenced.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



2. Urban Context

2.1 Site Location

The site is identified within Plan Melbourne as being within the ‘Dynon Corridor’, an urban renewal

opportunity as part of an expanded central city.

At present, the area has a typically industrial character, however is likely to transform into an inner

city mixed use precinct in the medium to long term, with the transport and movement network

changing accordingly.

The transport context of the subject site against its surrounds is shown below in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Transport Context

2

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



3. Policy Context

3.1 Overview of Key Policy Directions

3.1.1 Preamble

The following key policy directions have been identified and have informed the preparation of

the ITAP. These are broad based directions that underpin the transport planning approach of this

report. A more detailed review of the most relevant State and Local policy is included in Sections

3.2 and 3.3.

3.1.2 Road Space Allocation

A systematic and strategic approach is critical to respond to observed issues with the transport

network, and to ensure that the fine detail of the transport system responds to the defined

strategic intent.

In Victoria, the overall road network plan is articulated as a ‘Network Operating Plan’ and ‘Road

User Hierarchy’ that provide the planning basis for decision making with respect to the road

network. The Network Operating Plan is intended to be a ‘live’ document that can be updated

to reflect changed circumstances.

Generally, the Network Operating Plan and Road User Hierarchy will articulate where the

following modes have priority on the road network:

general traffic and freight movement

pedestrians (through the Principal Pedestrian Network)

bicycles (through the Principal Bicycle Network and Municipal Bicycle Network)

road based public transport routes.

3.1.3 Liveable Streets

In urban areas and town centres, there is a strong emerging theme of creating streets for people,

rather than roads for cars. This does not necessarily mean banishing cars entirely, but rather it

involves reorganising space and designing to create a place for people to interact, rather than

an efficient space designed for the movement of vehicles and services.

The key influences on this movement are the “Naked Streets” (negotiated space) and “Shared

Streets” which were pioneered in the Netherlands by Hans Monderman. The underlying

psychology seeks to change behaviour and culture “from priority to equality”, and links with the

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) philosophy.

Shared space relies on removing almost all delineation from the road space, and leaving only

subtle cues as to the priority of the various modes. A key premise is that increasing uncertainty

(creating ambiguity) for car drivers increases certainty and safety for pedestrians. Traffic will move

slowly enough for pedestrians and drivers to make eye contact, whereas the traditional highly

delineated street does not allow for any negotiation over priority.

There are many examples of highly successful shared spaces in Victoria, including the Melbourne

CBD, Bendigo CBD, and other major centres such as Footscray, Clayton, Dandenong and

others. An important feature of these spaces is that they generally have many other positive

3

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



economic and social benefits apart from the transport and safety benefits created by giving

equal priority to pedestrians.

3.1.4 Healthy Cities Promote Safe Walking and Cycling

There is a common and growing understanding of the causal link between good urban and

transport system design that promotes safe walking and cycling, and a healthy community in

terms of both physical and mental health.

The Australian Heart Foundation has encapsulated this body of knowledge in Healthy by Design –

a planner’s guide to environments for active living (Heart Foundation 2004). The guide suggests

design approaches to encourage active living in the following areas:

walking and cycling routes

streets

local destinations

open space

public transport

seating, signage, lighting, fencing and walls

fostering community spirit.

The guide includes a number of case studies from Victoria that illustrate the outcomes in these

areas. In particular, it is worth noting that the application of these principles can add significantly

to the health benefits of any business case, and open up avenues for different funding

opportunities.

The promotion of safe, active transport is usually achieved through the implementation of multi

component strategies that include speed reduction. High levels of safe walking and cycling for

transport are incompatible with high vehicle speed as, for many trips or parts of trips, pedestrians

and cyclists are required to share the road space with motor vehicles. International experience

suggests that speed reduction is not the only change needed to increase safe active transport,

but it is a key component.

The following key findings of the report are presented below:

Reducing motor vehicle speeds in areas with high pedestrian movement (existing or

desired) is critical to creating a safe and attractive transport network. In particular, it is

noted that the likelihood of a fatality increases rapidly at speeds over 30km/h.

Low speed limits in neighbourhoods and town centres are becoming increasingly

common around the world. Generally, speeds of 20-30 kph are associated with safer

streets and higher rates of walking and cycling.

3.1.5 Summary

The review of existing relevant policy clearly illustrates a number of themes that should inform the

approach to future transport projects. These themes include:

All investment decisions should be informed by a road user hierarchy. In Victoria, the

SmartRoads Network Operating Plan / Road User Hierarchy tool developed by

VicRoads is the appropriate planning tool to determine the road user hierarchy across

the road network.

Promoting sustainable transport (walking, cycling and public transport) is important for

a wide range of reasons:

o Socially connected, liveable communities – places where people walk, cycle and

use public transport are likely to perform better on a range of social indicators.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



o Healthy, active communities – there is a strong link between active transport and

health.

o Transport efficiency – increased use of sustainable transport has environmental

and economic benefits through reduced greenhouse emissions and reduced

space required for vehicle movement and storage.

o Access for all members of the community – a large number of people in the

community don’t or can’t drive, and the provision of attractive and viable

alternative means of transport is a key factor in whether a community is affected

by transport disadvantage.

o Safety – Increased sustainable and active transport improves safety and

perceptions of safety.

Planning for new development must consider providing for and promoting sustainable

and active transport modes in accordance with the road user hierarchy.

The City of Melbourne has a number of specific policies and strategies to improve walking,

cycling and public transport, in order to create a healthy, liveable, vibrant and inclusive

municipality. A summary of the relevant State and Local Policy documents is detailed below.

3.2 State Policy

3.2.1 Plan Melbourne

The subject site falls within the Dynon precinct of the Expanded Central City in Plan Melbourne. The

location of the site in the context of the proposition of an Expanded Central City and the relevant

transport projects envisaged by Plan Melbourne are shown below in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.1: Plan Melbourne – Expanded Central City

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 3.2: Plan Melbourne – Transport Projects

The development of the site aligns with Plan Melbourne’s direction to “plan for the expanded

central city to become Australia’s largest commercial and residential centre by 2040”.

Areas within the expanded central city are expected to see significant development of

residential, office, tourism and retail land uses in high-density, mixed-use neighbourhoods. The site

provides an important bookend to the development of the Dynon Precinct, being located at the

western most end of the area.

The subject land is specifically nominated as a precinct for urban renewal, designated for transit-

oriented development, with co-location of employment and population with public transport

anticipated to achieve environmental, social and economic benefits.

Key transport initiatives in Plan Melbourne relevant to the subject site include:

East West Link (particularly the Western Section). This will provide an alternative for east-

west movement on Dynon Road as well as remove freight traffic.

Melbourne Rail Link (which would provide access to Melbourne Airport and the

Fishermans Bend urban renewal area).

Investigation of extensions to tram lines (or other high capacity public transport links) to

service new development sites, particularly in the western end of the central city.

Progressive development of strategic cycling corridors to provide access to and around

the central city.

3.2.2 State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 18 of the Planning Scheme, within the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), is designed

to reflect the intent of State Government guidance. It should be noted, however, that the SPPF is

currently undergoing review to better integrate it with the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

and to implement the directions of Plan Melbourne. Clause 18 contains objectives and strategies

in relation to Transport which are relevant to this development, including, but not limited to:

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Creating a safe and sustainable transport system by integrating land-use and transport.

Planning new uses or development of land near an existing or proposed transport route

to avoid detriment to, and where possible enhance the service, safety and amenity

desirable for that transport route in the short and long terms.

Encourage higher land use densities and mixed use developments near railway stations,

major bus terminals, transport interchanges, tramways and principal bus routes.

Facilitating and safeguarding pedestrian and cyclist access to public transport.

Achieve greater use of public transport by increasing densities, maximising the use of

existing infrastructure and improving the viability of the public transport operation.

3.2.3 VicRoads SmartRoads

SmartRoads is an approach, developed by VicRoads in partnership with key stakeholders, which

manages competing interests for limited road space by giving priority use of the road to different

transport modes at particular times of the day. The SmartRoads Operating Plan in the vicinity of

the subject site is shown below in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: SmartRoads Network Operating Plan

Figure 3.3 indicates that Kensington Road is nominated as a Bus and Bicycle Priority Route. A

number of roads in the area, such as Dynon Road and Macaulay Road are also Bus Priority

Routes, while there are a number of roads and off-road paths that are Bicycle Priority Routes. The

main Preferred Traffic Routes in the area are Citylink and Docklands Highway/Footscray Road.

It is apparent from the above that there will be an expectation for the site access strategy to

preserve or improve on the existing bicycle infrastructure along Kensington Road. Traffic priority

measures would not be supported under the existing operating plan, and it could be expected

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



that the design of site access intersections may require preferential treatment to bus and bicycle

modes.

3.2.4 VicRoads Principal Bicycle Network

The Principal Bicycle Network (PBN) is a network of on and off-road cycling corridors that have

been identified to support cycling for transport and access major destinations in metropolitan

Melbourne. The PBN was reviewed and updated in 2012 by VicRoads and all local Councils.

The PBN is also a ‘bicycle infrastructure planning tool’ to guide State investment in the planning

and development of the future metropolitan Melbourne bicycle network. In this regard, a subset

of the PBN has been identified and elevated to a higher level of priority, mainly on the basis of

potential for separation from motorised traffic, making these routes more attractive to less

experienced bike riders. These cycling corridors are referred to as Bicycle Priority Routes (BPRs)

and form part of the modal priorities for the road network set out in the VicRoads SmartRoads

framework. Strategic Cycle Corridors (SCC) form another subset of the PBN, and represent an

initiative outlined in Plan Melbourne to support walking and cycling in Central Melbourne. SCCs

are intended to be corridors designed to provide high quality bicycle infrastructure to, and

around, major activity areas in metropolitan Melbourne. Plan Melbourne outlines a subset of the

SCCs for the proposed expanded central city area.

It is noted that the type of bicycle facility (i.e. on or off-road and separated or shared) has not

been indicated as part of the PBN and BPRs. Rather, the PBN and BPRs show the proposed

cycling network. The associated facilities should be delivered in accordance with the relevant

standards and guidelines, such as the Australian Standards, Austroads Guides and VicRoads’

Cycle Notes.

The PBN and BPRs in the vicinity of the study area are illustrated in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: VicRoads Principal Bicycle Network

Subject Site

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



The VicRoads PBN includes a proposed cycling route along the alignment of the Railway line

adjacent the northern boundary of the site, as well as along the Maribyrnong River. There is an

opportunity within the site to accommodate an east-west connection to the Maribyrnong River

Trail.

Kensington Road is designated as a Bicycle Priority Route on the Network Operating Plan, and

the existing on-road lanes will be upgraded with green pavement and rumble strip separators as

a City of Melbourne bicycle Plan project. This will ensure that Kensington Road is well connected

to the Dynon Road shared path (also being upgraded) and ultimately will connect to Footscray,

assuming that the PBN is completed on Hopkins Street when the Joseph Road precinct is

developed.

3.3 Local Policy

3.3.1 Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 21.09 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme sets out the City of Melbourne’s local transport

policy. It states that public transport is the most economic and efficient mode for mass travel to

and from the City, while walking accounts for the greatest proportion of trips within the

municipality. Objectives and strategic therein which are relevant to this development include:

Integrate urban renewal areas with planned major transport infrastructure initiatives.

Encourage development in locations which can maximise the potential use of public

transport.

Ensure development patterns in urban renewal areas is permeable, fine-grained and

legible.

Support the provision of adequate, safe public transport, pedestrian and bicycle

facilities.

Support the extension of the existing pedestrian network throughout the municipality.

Support the extension of principal cycling routes into and through the City from

surrounding municipalities.

Ensure that new development provides bicycle access and high quality, safe and

secure end of trip cycle facilities.

Consolidate development with a mix of uses along tram and bus corridors and at and

around railway stations.

Support the reduction or waiving of car parking for new uses and developments which

have good access to public transport.

Recognise that cars are complementary to other modes of transport and their use

should be managed to minimise adverse impacts on other transport modes.

3.3.2 City of Melbourne Transport Strategy

The Melbourne Transport Strategy was approved by Council in May 2012 and aligns the City of

Melbourne’s transport policy with its review of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Its key directions

and objectives are generally in supporting of public transport, walking and cycling as the

dominant modes of transport in inner Melbourne, while aiming to reducing the proportion of trips

taken by car. Actions from the Strategy relevant to the proposed development include

commitments to:

Plan and construct a complete safe cycling network throughout the city’s Urban

Renewal Areas

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Work with the Department of Transport to provide excellent quality pedestrian access

to all public transport stops, stations and interchanges

Work with the Department of Transport and VicRoads to ensure that the municipality’s

Road Network Operating Plan provides a high level of priority to pedestrian trips

Install and improve bicycle facilities as part of all traffic works in the municipality

Work with the Department of Transport, VicRoads and Yarra Trams to design and build

safe cycling along the high-mobility streets

Extend bus stops where necessary by removing on-street parking or other measures and

improve bus stop amenity

Work with the Department of Transport, VicRoads and the Bus Association to improve

bus frequency

Work with DoT, Yarra Trams and VicRoads to implement long-term tram network

reconfigurations and extensions

The proposed tram, public transport and pedestrian networks are illustrated below in Figure 3.5

and Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.5: City of Melbourne Transport Strategy

– Proposed Tram Network 2030

Figure 3.6: City of Melbourne Transport

Strategy – Proposed Public Transport

and Pedestrian Priority

It is clear that planning for a tram line along Dynon Road is within the future thinking for the

Transport Strategy of the City of Melbourne. It is noted that this documents predates Plan

Melbourne.

3.3.3 City of Melbourne Bicycle Plan 2012-2016

The Bicycle Plan 2012-16 ‘is the City of Melbourne’s plan for bicycle infrastructure and programs

to make Melbourne safer and more attractive for current and future cyclists’. Part of this plan

includes the acknowledgement that ‘the bicycle network is likely to be required to provide

transport options for a projected population increase particularly in the west of metropolitan

Melbourne.’

Figure 3.7 shows current and proposed bicycle routes included in the City of Melbourne Bicycle

Plan 2012-2016.

Subject Site Subject Site

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 3.7: City of Melbourne Current and Proposed Bicycle Network

As illustrated in Figure 3.7, the bicycle plan proposes that Kensington Road along the site frontage

as well as Childers Street will be upgraded with green pavement, profiled edge-line and

intersection treatments.

Subject Site

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



4. Existing Conditions

4.1 Overview

The site is well served by road transport, having convenient access to the arterial road network,

as well as nearby public transport, with South Kensington train station approximately 700m

walking distance, as well as bus route 402 accessible from the sites frontage to Kensington Road.

It is also well served by the existing pedestrian and cycling networks, including routes along the

Maribyrnong River and towards the CBD.

The context of the sites location in relation to the wider existing network, public transport, and

active travel facilities is most clearly set out in the Melbourne Travel Smart map, reproduced

below in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Transport Network Overview

4.2 Travel Behaviour Characteristics

4.2.1 Overview

An understanding of the likely travel behaviour of future residents and visitors can provide

valuable insight for planning for land use, transport infrastructure, and the allocation of road

space for various modes. Analysis of current travel patterns can be used as a base line for

comparison, against which future needs and opportunities can be identified.

A range of data sources have been used to understand current transport demand and mode

share, including ABS Census data, and the Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity

(VISTA), which was last updated in 2009-10.

Subject Site

4

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



4.2.2 Mode Split

Mode split data has been obtained from the following sources:

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011 Census Method of Travel to Work, which

demonstrates the mode used for work based trips based on both location of residence

and location of workplace.

The Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA) 2009-2010, to understand

mode split for travel across all trip purposes (i.e. including work and non-work trips).

Australian Bureau of Statistics Method of Travel to Work Data

Residents

Guidance on the existing travel behaviour most relevant to future residents of the site has been

taken from the suburb of Kensington. While the subject site is located immediately southwest and

outside of this geographical boundary, it is considered to have a equivalent degree of

accessibility to rail services and employment opportunities. It is noted that the area of West

Melbourne is unsuitable for use due to its small amount of residential land and hence limited

sample size. This area is utilised as it has an equivalent average proximity to rail services and may

be used. The geographical area of Kensington is shown below in Figure 4.2, with the mode split

data illustrated in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.2: Geographical Area - Kensington

Subject Site

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 4.3: Mode Share Data for Kensington Residents – ABS 2011 Method of Travel to Work

Based on a review of the ABS data, the following is noted regarding travel behaviour:

Kensington has mode split of 31% to public transport, which includes approximately 23%

train only, 2% bus only, 2% tram only, and approximately 4% mixed public transport. The

site has an equivalent level of access to rail and bus services comparable to the

average Kensington household, and as such the site represents an prime opportunity to

provide housing in a location viable for a large uptake of public transport for work trips.

Approximately 6% of residents in the study area cycle to work. While the site is

marginally further from the Macauley Road and Flemington activity centres than the

average Kensington household, it is viable for access to CBD jobs, and has the potential

for a similar uptake of cycling.

Similar to the above, 5% of Kensington residents walked to work. Whilst access from the

subject site is marginally further from existing employment destinations, this will change

in future as the Dynon Precinct is developed.

Employees

Guidance on the existing travel behaviour relevant to future employees within the precinct has

similarly been taken from Kensington. This area is utilised as it has an equivalent average proximity

to rail services and is considered representative of the likely future uses on the site.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 4.4: Mode Share Data for Employees of Kensington – ABS 2011 Method of Travel to Work

Based on a review of the ABS data, the following is noted:

There is a higher dependency on car travel for those who work in Kensington compared

to those who live in the area.

There is an opportunity to improve mode share through green travel planning for the

site. This will complement the other travel demand measures such as car parking rates,

provision for cyclists, and integration with surrounding sustainable transport

infrastructure.

Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity 2009-10

The Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity 2009-10 (VISTA09/10) provides an indication

of the travel mode split for all trip types, regardless of their purpose (i.e. includes trips for

education, shopping, leisure, and recreation etc.).

VISTA data is available down to a Statistical Local Area level. In this instance, the site falls within

the ‘Melbourne (C) – Remainder’ area which is a geographical region around the perimeter of

the inner Melbourne CBD, stretching to Richmond and Fitzroy and is likely to cover a range of

demographics with varying travel characteristics. As such, to provide some guidance on travel

trends, VISTA data has been sourced for the neighbouring region of Maribyrnong, as shown

below.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 4.5: Maribyrnong Statistical Local Area

Figure 4.6: VISTA 09-10 – Resident Mode Splits for all trip types

It is noted that the sample area may include suburbs with different travel profiles comparative to

the location of the subject site. Nevertheless, VISTA data provides a useful indication of overall

travel patterns and shows that walking, cycling, and public transport accounts for approximately

22% of all trips. It is considered likely that there is potential for a higher walking and public

transport mode share for this site, given the provision of on-site supermarket and retail land uses

as well as the proximity to South Kensington rail station.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



4.2.3 Car Ownership

Car ownership data has been sourced from the ABS 2011 Census data for flats, units, and

apartments in Kensington, Maribyrnong, and Footscray. Together, this geographical area

provides a data set which is considered to be suitably similar to the likely level of car ownership

for future residents of the proposed development. The number of vehicles owned is shown

proportionally in Figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7: Number of Vehicles Owned

Figure 4.7 indicates the following:

Approximately half (55%) of future apartment dwellings are likely to own 1 motor

vehicle, with approximately 28% of apartments do not own a motor vehicle at all.

A relatively small proportion of dwellings (approximately 17%) own more than one

motor vehicle.

Amongst other things, the number of cars owned is a product of the number of residents per

dwelling and their demographic make-up. This is intrinsically linked to the type of dwelling (i.e.

standalone house vs. high density apartments) and the number of bedrooms in a dwelling. On

this basis, the average car ownership within apartment buildings aggregated by the number of

bedrooms per apartment is noted as follows:

One-bedroom apartment: 0.80 vehicles per dwelling

Two-bedroom apartment: 0.95 vehicles per dwelling

Three-bedroom apartment: 1.23 vehicles per dwelling

On the above basis, it is clear that on average, one and two bedroom dwellings are likely to

generate car parking at less than the statutory rate of 1 space per dwelling.

4.3 Public Transport Network

Overview

The location of the site in relation to nearby public transport services is illustrated below in Figure 4.8.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 4.8: Nearby Public Transport Services

Source: Public Transport Victoria website

Rail

South Kensington rail station is accessible by foot, being located approximately 700m northeast

of the site. The station is served by the Williamstown, Sunbury, and Werribee lines and provides

good access to the CBD.

Services run to the city at frequencies of approximately 10-15 minutes during the peak periods,

with a travel time of approximately 10-13 minutes to Flinders Street Station.

Bus

The 402 bus (Footscray-East Melbourne) offers good service

frequencies along the sites frontage (approx. 12-15 minutes

weekdays, 20-30mins weekday evenings) and with a service span

generally between 6am to 9pm on weekdays. It provides

connections to a number of key destinations, including the Footscray

Activity Centre, Kensington shopping area, Melbourne University and

a number of hospitals, as well as a number of rail lines via

interchange to Footscray, Kensington and Macaulay stations.

A key consideration relating to bus service accessibility in the vicinity

of the subject site is pedestrian access and amenity. While there is

good access to bus stops servicing the 402 bus route along the sites

Kensington Road frontage, pedestrians accessing bus stop on the

opposite (southeast) side of Kensington Road may face minor delays

for crossing opportunities (which are generally available due to

traffic platooning) or challenges for those with mobility difficulties.

Accessibility, comfort and safety (i.e. by way of seating, shelter, and

Subject Site

Figure 4.9: Existing Bus Stop on

Kensington Road

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



lighting) at bus stops near the site are currently limited.

Conclusion:

The site benefits from good access to rail and bus services and its development

generally promotes the objectives of various state and local planning policies.

A more amenable pedestrian environment and enhanced integration with the station

and JJ Holland Park could promote the usability of public transport and enhance

‘liveability’ for future occupants, as well as ability for multi-purpose or linked trips to the

potential retail (supermarket) development as part of the wider precinct.

4.4 Bicycle Infrastructure

The existing cycling facilities within the vicinity of the site are

most clearly illustrated in the TravelSmart map reproduced in

Figure 4.1. These include on-road bicycle lanes along

Kensington road extending north from Dynon Road, as well as

high quality off road shared paths which run along the

Maribyrnong River as well Dynon Road.

The site is well served by safe and appealing bicycle routes

external to the site allowing convenient access to key

destinations such as the CBD, Footscray, Flemington and North

Melbourne.

There a two main east-west cycling routes connecting to the

site with the CBD via a continuous and practical cycling

environment, these include:

Childers Street – Tennyson Street – Arden Street link: This

route utilises the off-road shared path along Childers Street

(refer Figure inset) before continuing as an informal cycling

route through the local street network in residential

Kensington where shared vehicular and cycling traffic

conditions are appropriate, and complemented by

‘sharrow’ line marking and wayfinding signage. Further

toward the city, the Arden Street informal route crosses a

rail overpass footbridge before continuing as an on-road

bicycle lane.

The Dynon Road Shared Path – Capital City Trail: This route

utilises the Dynon Road off-road shared path which runs

along the north side between Kensington road and Lloyd Street before a continuing on

both sides east of Lloyd Street. The north-south capital city trail then links the alignment

along the Citylink to the southeast end of the city via Footscray Road and Wurundjeri Way

off road shared paths. It is understood that the Dynon Road shared path will be upgraded

by Council in the near future.

The key bicycle route connecting the site to the Footscray activity centre is via the Maribyrnong

River shared path, heading north along the river before cutting back to the southwest via Newells

Paddock Wetlands Park and Railway Place. Alternatively, a route is available continuing south

along the Maribyrnong River Trail, before heading west along Bunbury Road. No dedicated

cycling facilities are currently available on Dynon road to the west of Kensington Road, however

this route is currently used by a number of cyclists as an alternative means of access to Footscray.

Figure 4.11: Childers Street Off-Road

Shared Path

Figure 4.10: Kensington Road On-Road

Bicycle Lanes

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



It is anticipated that this route may be formalised with development of the Joseph Road precinct,

notwithstanding the difficulty in providing suitable bicycle facilities on the Hopkins Street bridge.

Conclusion

The site is located amongst an attractive external cycling network. There is an

opportunity to integrate the development with existing facilities along the Maribyrnong

River as well as routes to the CBD to provide an attractive and safe cycling

environment for future occupants and visitors.

4.5 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure

Existing Situation:

Footpaths are provided on both sides of Kensington Road

and an off-road shared path on the south side of Childers

Road connects the site to South Kensington Station.

Notwithstanding, there are some existing barriers to

pedestrian movement, which relate to the industrial

character of the area involving poor permeability from

nearby industrial lots, poor perceived safety due to low

activation and poor lighting at night. The existing footpath

on the north side of Kensington Road at the rail underpass is

also narrow with poor pedestrian amenity and potential

safety concerns (refer inset Figure – proposed to be

upgraded in Stage 1 of the development). The eastern side

of Kensington Road provides wide footpaths an ease of

access for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Walking distances to key external destinations are as follows:

Footscray Central Activities Area: Approx. 1.5km

Macaulay Road Activity Centre: Approx. 1.4km

South Kensington Rail Station Approx. 0.7km

Anticipated Pedestrian Demand:

As the area transitions into a mixed-use urban renewal area, it is expected that many of these

latent conditions will improve. Initial analysis of trip purpose for the site indicate that it has the

potential to generate up to 2,000 new pedestrian movements per day on Kensington Road, the

majority of which would travel to and from the South Kensington Station as well as neighbouring

suburbs of Kensington Banks and Kensington.

Post Development Pedestrian Network:

A new signalised intersection is to be constructed prior to Stage 2 of the proposed development

which will include pedestrian operated signals on both the north and east intersection legs. These

facilities will help to reduce the barrier to movement across Kensington Road and provide a

relatively direct pedestrian link between the majority of the site and South Kensington Station.

A shared path (subject to detailed design) is proposed to be constructed on the north west side

of Kensington Road under the rail overpass, to improve pedestrian connectivity between the site

and surrounding areas, and to also address the existing safety and amenity. An example of the

proposed Treatment is provided in the following Figures.

The treatment will result in a level of service of “A” for pedestrians on Kensington Road.

Figure 4.12: Pedestrian Conditions at the Rail

Underpass

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 4.13: Proposed Underpass Treatment for

Pedestrians

Figure 4.14: Example of Merging Shared and

Pedestrian Paths

Conclusion:

The proposed site access points aim to balance pedestrian priority and traffic movements

to/from the site (i.e. through threshold treatments and signal design), to enhance the streetscape

and the ability for future occupants to access Kensington Rail station as well as providing

integration and usability of the nearby JJ Holland Reserve. Additionally, this will improve

connectivity for local shopping trips for residents from neighbouring residential areas.

4.6 Road Network

4.6.1 Existing Road Network

Kensington Road

Kensington Road is a local road (controlled by Council) and is aligned in a northeast-southwest

direction. It is a two lane road, with on-road bicycle lanes and car parking lanes on both sides.

Figure 4.15: Kensington Road Looking Southwest Figure 4.16: Kensington Road Looking Northeast

Signalised intersections exist at its intersection with Childers Road and Dynon Road both north and

south of the site respectively.

Kensington Road carries approximately 9,000 vehicles per day to the southwest of Hobsons

Road1.

1 Based on AM peak hour traffic movement counts undertaken at the Kensington Road/Hobsons Road/Chidlers Street intersection

on Tuesday 11 November 2014 and assuming a peak to daily factor of 10%.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Dynon Road

Dynon Road is a primary arterial road (Road Zone 1) aligned in an east-west orientation

connecting Footscray and the Melbourne CBD (Spencer Street), and running past the Port of

Melbourne servicing port and freight traffic. It is generally a four lane road with two traffic lanes in

each direction plus turning lanes. It provides access to Citylink and from this to the Tullamarine,

Westgate and Monash Freeways.

Dynon Road is identified in Plan Melbourne as a future high frequency public transport corridor

The intersection of Dynon Road/Kensington Road has road space available to increase its

capacity in terms of the number of turn lanes and the like.

Dynon Road carries approximately 40,000 vehicles per day to the east of Kensington Road2.

4.6.2 Road Safety

A review of the reported casualty accident history for the roads and intersections adjoining the

subject site has been sourced from VicRoads CrashStats accident database. This database

records all accidents causing injury that have occurred in Victoria since 1987. Not all crashes are

accounted for, as accidents without injury are not reported.

Figure 4.17: Casualty Accident Locations

2 Based on AM peak hour traffic movement counts undertaken at the Kensington Road/Dynon Road intersection on Tuesday 11

November 2014 and assuming a peak to daily factor of 8%.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 4.17 indicates that a total of 9 accidents have been recorded at the Dynon

Road/Kensington Road signalised intersection, including four of these accidents involving motor

vehicles colliding with cyclists.

Following a review of the available accident details, it is clear that there is an issue with cyclist

and motor vehicle interaction at the Dynon Road/Kensington Road intersection; however no

information within the casualty accident details were able to resolve the specific root cause of

these accidents. Two of the motor vehicle accidents at this intersection involved a rear-end

accident for westbound vehicles, whilst the other two involved vehicles leaving the carriageway

and striking a traffic signal (from different directions).

4.6.3 Existing Intersection Performance

A comprehensive assessment of individual intersection performance has been undertaken by

GTA and is fully documented in the Transport Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) provided as

Appendix A. The existing conditions modelling assessment indicates the following:

Kensington Road/Dynon Road: This intersection currently operates at a ‘very poor’ level

of service in the AM peak period, with both Kensington Road and Dynon Road

exceeding their theoretical capacities. There are existing physical constraints which limit

the opportunity to improve capacity at this intersection particularly on the Kensington

Road approach.

Kensington Road/Childers Street/Hobsons Road: This intersection operates at a ‘good’

and ‘excellent’ levels of service in the AM and PM peak periods respectively.

Kensington Road/Mercantile Parade: This intersection operates at ‘good’ and

‘excellent’ levels of service in the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

Kensington Road/Epsom Road/Macauley Road: This intersection currently exceeds its

theoretical capacity during peak times and operates at a ‘poor’ level of service in the

AM peak and a ‘very poor’ level of service in the PM peak. It is noted that the capacity

of this intersection may be affected by the operation of the Macaulay Road rail

crossing at times.

The analysis undertaken as part of the TIAR indicates that Kensington Road/Dynon Road and

Epsom Road/Kensington Road/Macauley Road intersections are currently at capacity. Options to

improve these intersections do exist however any improvements will require consultation with

stakeholders and will also require input on the broader requirements of the precinct.

Notwithstanding, these issues are not considered reasons as to why approval of this development

plan should not proceed.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



5. Strategic Response

5.1 Principles

Three high level principles have been developed to inform the transport network and public

realm within and surrounding the development:

Creating a safe, attractive and accessible public realm.

Supporting sustainable travel behaviour for residents, employees and visitors to the site.

Improving linkages between the site and surrounding areas (including key land use

attractors such as South Kensington Railway Station).

These principles are each elaborated categorically below. In addition, a modal hierarchy has

been adopted within the site to support the above principles. This is detailed at Section 5.2.

Public Realm

The creation of a safe, attractive and accessible public realm relies on a range of measures:

Providing an attractive environment for walking within the site, including shade, shelter,

seating, adequate lighting, and other supporting infrastructure such as water fountains

at key locations.

Ensuring design speeds for vehicles are low, so that pedestrians are able to move freely

about the site including across roads.

Ensuring the urban design of spaces encourages passive surveillance and supports

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.

Concentration of vehicular access at the periphery of the site.

Supporting Sustainable Travel Behaviour

Ranges of supporting measures are proposed to increase sustainable mode share (walking,

cycling and public transport). Many of these issues will be resolved during the detailed design

(planning permit) stage, and may include:

Providing bicycle end of trip facilities.

Providing car parking at sustainable rates.

Green travel planning to support individual developments (upon development).

Adopting lower speed limits and design speeds within the development to support

walking and cycling as a mode of choice.

Improved Linkages

Improved external linkages are critical to the success of the site as its integration with surrounding

residential areas and other services. In particular, the following key connections are critical to the

success of the scheme:

Providing links to and from the site to allow direct, safe access to key nodes such as

South Kensington Railway Station and the Childers Street shared path.

Supporting integration with adjacent public transport infrastructure (bus stops) which

abut the frontage of the site.

Providing direct, safe and amenable access to adjacent parklands and recreation

opportunities.

Providing bicycle infrastructure within the site and its immediate vicinity, in order to

better link with key bicycle routes on the Principal Bicycle Network.

5

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



5.2 Modal Hierarchy

A ‘road user hierarchy’ is a ranking system by which priority is allocated to each transport mode

for the purpose of informing funding decisions, planning, and design of transport infrastructure.

The road user hierarchy should be used as a reference to balance outcomes for road users and

to ensure safe and sustainable transport outcomes are achieved.

The internal road user hierarchy to be adopted is shown below, in order of preferred priority

modes (more sustainable) to less preferred modes.

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Public Transport

Freight(local)

Private Vehicle Local Traffic

Through Traffic

This hierarchy has informed the development of the internal street network, which can generally

be characterised as a low speed, low traffic volume environment (with some higher volumes

adjacent access points to Kensington Road).

The only external road network abutting the subject site is Kensington Road which is a local road

for which Melbourne City Council is the responsible Authority. Modal hierarchies for this road are

provided by the SmartRoads Network Operating Plans (managed by VicRoads) as shown in

Section 3.2.3, and includes the designation of Kensington Road as a Bicycle Priority Route and Bus

Priority Route Notwithstanding the above, appropriate pedestrian facilities and crossings will be

required providing connectivity between the site and key destinations including South Kensington

Station.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



6. Development Proposal

6.1 Development Schedule

The proposed land uses envisaged by the development plan are shown below in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Indicative Development Schedule

Land Use Size

Dwelling 750 dwellings

Retail 7,450sqm NFA

Commercial 14,050sqm NFA

The clustering of various land uses and proposed staging of the development is illustrated in

Figure 6.1

Figure 6.1: Indicative Land Use and Staging Plan

Indicative only and subject to further planning permit applications

6

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



6.2 Transport Network

6.2.1 Overview

The proposed transport network is summarised in Figure 6.2 and shows the infrastructure required

to support the various transport modes both internally and externally to the site.

Figure 6.2: Proposed Transport Network

6.2.2 Walking Network

Internal Network

Sealed pedestrian footpaths will be provided on both sides of all internal streets within the site.

Additional key pedestrian links will be provided through open space between Stages 3 and 4 to

retain permeability of the site between the two southernmost site access intersections.

The key features of the internal pedestrian network are those adjacent the main signalised

access point at the entry to the supermarket precinct. There pedestrian priority treatments or

crossings will be designed and implemented during the detailed design phase and will strike the

appropriate balance between vehicular access needs and pedestrian amenity. Further, crossing

treatments will be provided across the site access points on Kensington to provide continuity and

a safe pedestrian environment.

External Network

A new signalised intersection is to be constructed prior to Stage 2 of the proposed development

which will include pedestrian operated signals on both the north and east intersection legs. These

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



facilities will help to reduce the barrier to movement across Kensington Road and provide a

relatively direct pedestrian link between the majority of the site and South Kensington Station.

A shared path (subject to detailed design) is proposed to be constructed on the north west side

of Kensington Road under the rail overpass, to improve pedestrian connectivity between the site

and surrounding areas, and to also address the existing safety and amenity.

Summary

The internal and external pedestrian network improvements proposed for the development are

illustrated in Figure 6.2, and are summarised in Table 6.2

Table 6.2: Pedestrian Network Improvements Summary

# Action Responsibility Timing

P.1 Construct pedestrian footpaths on both sides of all internal

roads Applicant

At construction of

adjacent Stages

P.2 Implement pedestrian priority crossings adjacent the internal T-

intersection for the supermarket access as shown in Figure 6.2 Applicant

At construction of

adjacent Stages

P.3

Implement raised threshold pedestrian crossing points at the

intersection of site access roads with Kensington Road as

shown in Figure 6.2

Applicant At time of access

road construction

P.4

Provide signalised pedestrian crossings on the north and east

approaches of the primary site access intersection as shown in

Figure 6.2.

Applicant Stage 2

P.5 Widen the pedestrian footpath on the north west side of

Kensington Road, under the rail underpass Applicant Stage 1

6.2.3 Cycling Network

Internal Bicycle Network

Cycling traffic on all internal roads will be shared with motor vehicle traffic. This is suitable when

having regard to the low traffic movements estimated on the majority of roads as well as the

proposed 40km/hr local traffic area speed zone (to be confirmed).

This shared traffic environment is considered to be a more efficient use of road space and is

consistent with the Austroads Guidelines which suggest that a mixed traffic approach is

appropriate when traffic volumes are up to 5,000 vehicles/day and at operating speeds of

40km/hr or less.

In the interim (prior to construction of the loop road), provision is made for basic connectivity

between Kensington Road and the Maribyrnong River off-road shared path. Once fully

constructed, east-west connectivity for cyclists will be provided within the carriageway in a mixed

traffic environment.

External Bicycle Network

External to the site, it is proposed that an off-road shared path facility be provided along the

north west side of Kensington Road underneath the rail crossing, to improve the existing

arrangement which provides a very narrow footpath and discontinuous on-road bicycle lane on

the intersection approach to the Kensington Road/Childers Road/Hobsons Road intersection.

Summary

The internal and external bicycle network improvements proposed for the development are

illustrated in Figure 6.2, and are summarised below in table 6.3.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table 6.3: Cycling Network Improvements Summary


C.1 Construct an interim cycling link (shared path) between

Kensington Road and the Maribyrnong River Trail Applicant Stage 1

C.2 Construct the ‘main street’ including provision for bicycles in

carriageway and shared path section between Kensington

Road and the Maribyrnong River Trail, as shown in Figure 6.2

Applicant Stage 2

C.3 Provide resident and employee bicycle parking in secure

locations throughout the development in accordance with

requirements under Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme

Applicant At permit application

stage

C.4 Provide visitor bicycle parking in accordance with Clause

52.34 of the Planning Scheme Applicant

At permit application

stage

C.5 Investigate the provision of share bicycles which may be

utilised by future residents and visitors (as part of wider

bicycle share scheme)

Applicant Upon Construction

6.2.4 Public Transport Integration

The site is located within walking distance of both South Kensington Station as well as Bus route

402 along Kensington Road. This represents an opportunity to make use of more sustainable

transport modes, consistent with the key transport policy objectives of both Melbourne City

Council and the Victorian State Government.

In addition to the pedestrian connectivity considerations referenced earlier in this report, the

proposed public transport improvements are summarised below in Table 6.4.

It is noted that the specific siting of new or relocated bus stops is subject to further design

considerations and will be undertaken in consultation with Public Transport Victoria.

Table 6.4: Public Transport Improvements Summary


PT.1

Relocate the existing bus stops as shown in Figure 6.2, as to

integrate with land uses provided within the development

site

Applicant/

PTV

Upon construction of

development

PT.2

Review compliance of the retained existing bus stops

directly adjacent to the site regarding their compliance with

disability access requirements and upgrade as required.

Applicant Upon construction of

development

PT.3 Provide weather protection for the new or relocated bus

stop on Kensington Road along the subject site frontage.

Applicant/

PTV

Upon construction of

development

6.2.5 Road Network

The internal road network is proposed to be a local traffic area with a 40km/hr speed limit. Design

speeds however are expected to be lower than this, and will be moderated through

implementation of local area traffic management measures and other urban form characteristics

such as the pedestrian priority treatments zone, kerbside parking, road reserve cross sections and

the horizontal road alignment.

Vehicle access to the site following development will be provided via four staged access

intersections, including the following:

Stage 1

Unsignalised direct left-in/left-out access point to Kensington Road (shown as ‘Proposed

Site Access 1’ in Figure 6.2) for the office commercial development car park.

Unsignalised Kensington Road/Internal Road Northeast (shown as ‘Proposed Site Access

2’ in Figure 6.2) connecting to the proposed car parking and loading areas, to include

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



dedicated left and right turn deceleration lanes on entry as well as left and right turn

stand-up lanes for exiting traffic.

Stage 2

Intersection upgrade of ‘Proposed Site Access 2’ to a signalised intersection, and full

construction of the northeast section of the internal loop road toward the Maribyrnong

River Trail.

Stage 3

Unsignalised Kensington Road/Internal Road Southwest intersection, including

dedicated left and right turn deceleration lanes and left and right exit stand-up lanes.

Stage 4

Unsignalised access direct from Kensington Road to the southernmost development

site, via a new crossover.

The internal link road between site access points 2 and 3 plays an important role for access within

the site. It is intended to function as an Access place with low speeds and a place where

pedestrians would cross and walk on comfortably.

In addition to the above, the traffic impacts of the Development Plan at external intersections

has been assessed utilising SIDRA Intersection software, the results of which are discussed in

greater detail in the Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) prepared by GTA Consultants

provided in Appendix A.

The road network improvements proposed for the development are illustrated in Figure 6.2, and

are summarised below in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5: Road Network Improvements Summary


RN.1

Construct an unsignalised left-in/left-out access point to Kensington

Road for the Stage 1 office/commercial development car park,

generally in accordance with the concept design shown as

‘Proposed Site Access 1’ in GTA drawing 14M2307000-03P1.

Applicant Stage 1

RN.2 Construct an unsignalised access intersection for access to Stage

1.2 connecting to the proposed car parking and loading areas. Applicant Stage 1

RN.3

Signalise the existing unsignalised access intersection for Stages 1

and 2, generally in accordance with the concept design shown as

‘Proposed Site Access 2’ in GTA drawing 14M2307000-03P1 and

including a pedestrian operated signals on the north and eastern

intersection legs an provision for bicycle storage

Applicant Stage 2

RN.4

Construct an unsignalised access intersection for Stage 3 generally

in accordance with the concept design shown as ‘Proposed Site

Access 3’ in GTA drawing 14M2307000-03P1 including pedestrian

priority treatment

Applicant Stage 3

RN.5

Construct an unsignalised access intersection for Stage 4 generally

in accordance with the concept design shown as ‘Proposed Site

Access 4’ in GTA drawing 14M2307000-03P1 including a pedestrian

priority treatment on the side road

Applicant Stage 4

RN.6 Design and implement the internal road network as a de facto

‘shared space’ to encourage low vehicle speeds and safe

interaction between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists

Applicant/ Stage 1

6.2.6 Discussion

In summary, key elements and outcomes of the traffic analysis are listed as follows:

Site Access Intersections

The analysis undertaken as part of the TIAR indicates that the sites access points on

Kensington Road will be able to accommodate the expected traffic generation.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



External Intersections

The capacity of the Dynon Road / Kensington Road intersection is constrained.

Improving the intersection should not be viewed to be an outcome of this proposal for

a number of reasons including:

o Limited road space exists on Kensington Road to provide substantial capacity

increases. One such improvement investigated would result in a loss in car

parking.

o The right turn lane from Dynon Road into Kensington Road cannot be increased

without affecting the existing transfer station site on the south side of Dynon Road.

o Any works to increase east west capacity on Dynon Road would have an

insignificant nexus with this development. While detailed studies are not yet

available, the East West link western section is likely to reduce traffic volumes on

this link. It is recognised that uncertainty for the project exists, however its need is

not undisputed. It is recognised that there is uncertainty over the timing and design

of this project.

o The impact of the Melbourne Metro Rail Project will provide increased rail capacity

between Parkville, the CBD and the western suburbs. Detailed modelling and

outputs are not available however this project is expected to result in a major

increase in rail mode share and reduce the vehicle demand for Dynon Road.

o The role of the Dynon precinct as depicted in Plan Melbourne, and its potential

treatment as a Boulevard.

o Further dialogue and consultation will be required with the relevant authorities to

understand the future transport conditions for the precinct, and its impact on the

Dynon Road / Kensington Road intersection, and to determine the appropriate

quantum (if any) that this development should contribute.

The Epsom Road / Kensington Road / Macaulay Road intersection is anticipated to

slightly reduce in the level of service. There is, however, a limited need or nexus for this

development to resolve an existing capacity issue. Further, limited ability exists to

meaningfully improve its capacity. The role of Kensington Road as a collector road,

rather than a through route, supports the approach that it should be maintained in its

current format.

Traffic Distribution through neighbouring residential areas

The existing issue of ‘rat running’ through Kensington Banks and past the site has been

discussed with the City of Melbourne.

This issue is considered partly a result of relatively free flowing traffic conditions. The

development is expected to reinforce the role of Kensington Road as a local

destination and as such may affect its desirability as part of the rat running route

through the area.

The site will generate a small number of trips to/from the north, of which some may

choose to access through Kensington Banks. It is noted that this is an existing issue, and

given the possible displacement of non-local traffic discussed above, is unlikely to

worsen noticeably as a result of the development. If required, further traffic calming

measures or signage could be considered to further reduce rat running through

Kensington Banks, however the nexus with this development is considered to be minor.

In addition, the mix of uses on the site (including a supermarket and significant

employment uses) is likely to benefit local residents, who will form the main catchment

for the supermarket.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



6.3 Statutory Considerations

6.3.1 Car Parking (Clause 52.06)

Statutory car parking requirements for new development are outlined in Clause 52.06 of the

Victoria Planning Provisions. Further, Clause 52.06 provides a number of decision guidelines for

determining instances of where a dispensation from the statutory rate is considered appropriate

or acceptable.

Having regard to the strategic location of the site and its access to public transport and active

travel modes, in line with sustainable transport objectives, the provision of parking at rates lower

than the statutory rates is considered to be suitable. Further, based on the likely demands of

future residents (as briefly discussed in in Section 4.2.3)) it is evident that a reduction from the

statutory rates may be appropriate for the residential component.

An assessment of empirical car parking demands expected to be generated by the site are

documented in the Transport Impact Assessment included as an Annex to this report.

6.3.2 On-Street Car Parking

Approximately 53 on-street car parking spaces on both sides of Kensington Road are anticipated

to be lost due to the proposed site access arrangements as well as the reconfiguration of

Kensington Road. This loss of on-street parking spaces could possibly be offset by the availability

of spaces in the public parking areas of the proposed development, noting that consultation

would be required with adjoining businesses and land owners. It is anticipated the impact to on-

street car parking will be investigated in consultation with the City of Melbourne and relevant

stakeholders as part of a permit condition.

In addition, an existing bus stop located on the southern side of Kensington Road opposite

proposed Site Access 2, is proposed to be relocated approximately 200m south-east of the

existing bus stop. It is noted that this is subject to further investigation and consultation with Public

Transport Victoria and would be undertaken at later stage of the project. The location of the on-

street spaces lost as well as site access arrangements have been shown conceptually in a plan

prepared by GTA included as Appendix C to the TIAR.

6.3.3 Bicycle Parking (Clause 52.34)

Provision

Clause 52.34 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme presents the statutory bicycle parking rates for

new development applications. The statutory bicycle parking requirements using these rates are

presented in Table 6.6.

At a minimum, statutory provisions for bicycle parking will be met. In instances where a waiver of

car parking is being sought, it is recommended that an increased provision of bicycle facilities be

provided, in the order of one space per dwelling.

An assessment of the minimum statutory requirements for bicycle parking based on the

preliminary yields is set out below in Table 6.6.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table 6.6: Bicycle Facility Provision Schedule

Use Size

Statutory Rate Statutory Requirement

Employee/ Resident Visitor/Shopper/

Student

Employee/

Resident Visitor/Shopper

Residential

Apartments

750

dwellings

[1]

In developments of

four or more storeys, 1

to each 5 dwellings

In developments of

four or more storeys, 1

to each 10 dwellings

150 spaces 75 spaces

Retail (shop) 4,650m2

LFA [2]

1 space to each

600m2 of leasable

floor area if the

leasable floor area

exceeds 1,000m2

1 space to each

500m2 of leasable

floor area if the

leasable floor area

exceeds 1,000m2

8 spaces 9 spaces

Retail

(Supermarket)[3]

2,800m2

LFA [4]

1 space to each

300m2 of leasable

floor area

1 space to each

500m2 of leasable

floor area

9 spaces 6 spaces

Office 14,050m2

NLA

1 space to each

300m2 of net floor

area if the net floor

area exceeds

1,000m2

1 space to each

1,000m2 of net floor


area exceeds

1,000m2

47 spaces [4] 14 spaces [4]

Total Up to 214 spaces Up to 104 spaces

[1] Assumption – all dwellings are within buildings of four or more storeys.

[2] Based on Gross Floor Area (GFA) adopting a 97% efficiency conversion rate for Retail uses (from GFA to LFA).

[3] There is no bicycle parking rate specified for a supermarket use, as such the rate for ‘other’ retail premises was adopted.

[4] Based on Net Leasable Area (NLA) as Net Floor area (NFA) has not been provided.

Reference to Table 6.6 indicates that in the order of up to 320 bicycle parking spaces would be

required to meet the statutory bicycle requirements for the proposed uses outlined within the

development plan, including approximately 105 visitor, shopper, or student spaces which are

required to be publicly accessible.

Location

Bicycle parking for residents is expected to be provided within car parking levels of mixed used

developments, with access provided via car park entry ramps or internal passenger lifts. Provision

of staff parking for commercial uses is recommended to be provided within each building.

Visitor and customer bicycle parking should be located within close proximity to the retail and

commercial trip generators, with sufficient public lighting/passive surveillance. The exact location

and detail of these will be determined as part of the specific planning permit application.

6.3.4 Green Travel Initiatives

Green travel plans are an important measure to influence the sustainable travel behaviour of

residents, and are typically planned during the construction phase of a development (prior to

occupation). This enables the specific measures to be tailored to the future residents, staff and visitors

of the precinct and is normally undertaken as a condition of permit. In this regard it is recommended

that green travel plans are further investigated as part of the Planning Permit process.

Potential initiatives to be included in the preparation of a Green Travel Plan for major land uses

could include those listed below in

Table 6.7, and included as part of a travel education and awareness program. It is noted that

Green Travel Plans should be tailored for individual uses, to increase their usefulness and increase

the likelihood of ‘buy-in’ from future occupants.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table 6.7: Table of Potential Green Travel Plan Initiatives

Transport

Mode Initiatives

Walking

Produce a map showing safe walking routes to and from your site with times, not distances, to local

facilities, such as shops and public transport stops

Provide lockers for keeping a change of clothes

Provide showers and changing room facilities

Ensure a fine-grained street network is retained during the detailed design stage for pedestrian access

across the site

Upgrade or provide new footpaths to meet needs in line with construction staging

Negotiate with local council to improve external footpaths as required

Take part in ‘National Walk to Work Day’

Have some TravelSmart Get to Work days encouraging staff to come by alternative modes of transport

Cycling

Establish an internal Bicycle Users Group (BUG). BUGs are formed by people who want to work together

to improve facilities for cyclists and encourage cycling

Ensure sufficient bicycle parking is provided for sites at the permit application stage.

Have good, secure bicycle parking in an easily accessible location

Ensure that proposed bicycle parking is provided for visitors, and meets the observed demands

following construction.

Ensure bicycle parking is clearly visible or provide signage to direct people to cycle bays

Encourage occupants to provide secure bicycle lockers

Encourage occupants to provide changing rooms

Supply a workplace toolkit consisting of puncture repair equipment, a bike pump, a spare lock and

lights

Provide a bicycle share scheme to encourage local trips.

Come to an arrangement with a local bicycle retailer for cheap servicing of staff bikes and other

incentives

Produce a map showing more leisurely bicycle routes to work

Participate in annual events such as ‘Ride to Work Day’

Public

Transport

Develop a map showing public transport routes to work

Put up a notice board with leaflets and maps showing the main public transport routes to and from

work

Place information on the work intranet with links to appropriate external websites e.g. Public Transport

Victoria

Provide leaflets or timetables with staff or resident induction documents (or similar)

Provide a company bus that links with public transport services to transport workers to and from work

Encourage public transport use for business travel

Ensure tickets are available at the workplace for work travel during the day

Car

Pooling

Set up a carpooling database

Allocate priority parking spaces for car poolers

Provide a guaranteed ride home for car poolers

Liaise with car share operators to provide sufficient number of car share pods

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



7. Summary of Recommendations

A summary of the projects and recommendations contained within this ITP are summarised below

in Table 7.1, along with the transport mode which benefits from each specific project. It is noted

each project will benefit a number of transport modes.

Table 7.1: Summary of Recommendations

# Project

Pe

de

stria

n

Cy

clin

g

LATM

[1

]

Sta

tuto

ry

Pu

blic

Tra

nsp

ort

Ro

ad

Ne

two

rk

Ap

pro

va

l

Au

tho

rity

Tim

ing

Walking

P.1 Construct pedestrian footpaths on both sides

of all internal roads

Applicant

At construction

of adjacent

Stages

P.2

Implement pedestrian priority crossings

adjacent the internal T-intersection for the

supermarket access as shown in Figure 6.2

Applicant

At construction

of adjacent

Stages

P.3

Implement raised threshold pedestrian

crossing points at the intersection of site

access roads with Kensington Road as shown

in Figure 6.2

Applicant At time of

access road

construction

P.4

Provide signalised pedestrian crossings on the

north and east approaches of the primary

site access intersection as shown in Figure 6.2.

Applicant Stage 2

P.5 Widen the pedestrian footpath on the north

west side of Kensington Road, under the rail

underpass

Applicant Stage 1

Cycling

C.1

Construct an interim cycling link (shared

path) between Kensington Road and the

Maribyrnong River Trail

Applicant Stage 1

C.2

Construct the ‘main street’ including provision

for bicycles in carriageway between

Kensington Road and the Maribyrnong River

Trail, as shown in Figure 6.2

Applicant Stage 2

C.3

Provide resident and employee bicycle

parking in secure locations throughout the

development in accordance with

requirements under Clause 52.34 of the

Planning Scheme

Applicant

At permit

application

stage

C.4 Provide visitor bicycle parking in accordance

with Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme

Applicant At permit

application

stage

C.5

Investigate the provision of share bicycles

which may be utilised by future residents and

visitors (as part of wider bicycle share

scheme)

Applicant Upon

Construction

Public Transport

PT.1 Relocate the existing bus stops as shown in

Figure 6.2, as to integrate with land uses

provided within the development site

Applicant/

PTV

Upon

construction of

development

7

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



# Project

Pe

de

stria

n

Cy

clin

g

LATM

[1

]

Sta

tuto

ry

Pu

blic

Tra

nsp

ort

Ro

ad

Ne

two

rk

Ap

pro

va

l

Au

tho

rity

Tim

ing

PT.2

Review compliance of the retained existing

bus stops directly adjacent to the site

regarding their compliance with disability

access requirements and upgrade as

required.

Applicant

Upon

construction of

development

PT.3

Provide weather protection for the new or

relocated bus stop on Kensington Road

along the subject site frontage.

Applicant/

PTV

Upon

construction of

development

Road Network

RN.

1

Construct an unsignalised left-in/left-out

access point to Kensington Road for the

Stage 1 office/commercial development car

park, generally in accordance with the


Access 1’ in GTA drawing 14M2307000-03P1.

Applicant Stage 1

RN.

2


for access to Stage 1.2 connecting to the

proposed car parking and loading areas.

Applicant Stage 1

RN.

3

Signalise the existing unsignalised access

intersection for Stages 1 and 2, generally in

accordance with the concept design shown

as ‘Proposed Site Access 2’ in GTA drawing

14M2307000-03P1 and including a pedestrian

operated signals on the north and eastern

intersection legs and provision for bicycle

storage

Applicant Stage 2

RN.

4





including pedestrian priority treatment

Applicant Stage 3

RN.

5





including a pedestrian priority treatment on

the side road

Applicant Stage 4

RN.

6

Design and implement the internal road

network as a de facto ‘shared space’ to

encourage low vehicle speeds and safe

interaction between vehicles, pedestrians

and cyclists

Applicant/ Stage 1

[1] Local Area Traffic Management (or ‘Traffic Calming’]

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



8. Implementation, Monitoring and Review

Further detailed planning and coordination with state and local authorities will be required

through the Planning Permit application process to achieve the integrated and sustainable

outcome for the site as identified within this ITAP. The coordination should focus on assets to be

handed over to end users (e.g. footpaths and internal road ways) as well as effective integration

with future public transport facilities. In addition, liaison will be required with car share operators,

as opportunities exist to expand the offer of these facilities in the vicinity of the site.

It is also important that future planning for each site includes Green Travel Plans with robust

mechanisms (including funding and ongoing governance mechanisms) to implement a range of

travel and behaviour change programs, as applicable.

In order for green travel planning to be effective, it must be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure

that the objectives set out in section five of this report are being met. Post occupancy, it is

recommended that resident travel surveys are conducted every 1-2 years, and the results of the

surveys are used to inform a review of actions, such as targeting modes or user groups that are

not improving.

8

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Appendix A

Transport Impact Assessment

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Development Plan

Transport Impact Assessment Report

Client // WMW Developments Pty Ltd

Office // VIC

Reference // 14M2307000

Date // 21/08/15

© GTA Consultants (GTA Consultants (VIC) Pty Ltd) 2014

The information contained in this document is confidential and

intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it has

been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as

being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in

whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants

constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property

contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants.

TIA

/RSA

MA

- V

IC (

140918 v

7.1

0)


Development Plan

Transport Impact Assessment Report

Issue: Final 21/08/15

Client: WMW Developments Pty Ltd

Reference: 14M2307000

GTA Consultants Office: VIC

Quality Record

Issue Date Description Prepared By Checked By Approved By Signed

A 03/12/14 Final Mark Stephens

Emma Akiyama Reeves

Reece

Humphreys

Reece

Humphreys

F 21/08/15 Final Alex Connell Reece

Humphreys

Reece

Humphreys

14M2307000 // 21/08/15

Transport Impact Assessment // Issue: Final


Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background & Proposal 1

1.2 Purpose of this Report 1

2. Assessment Overview 2

2.1 Introduction 2

2.2 Key Assumptions 2

2.3 Data Collection 2

2.4 SIDRA Analysis 3

3. Traffic Generation & Distribution 5

3.1 Traffic Generation 5

3.2 Traffic Distribution and Assignment 6

4. Existing Network Performance 10

4.1 Overview 10


5. Car Parking 15

5.1 Statutory Car Parking Requirements 15

5.2 Car Parking Demand Assessment 16

5.3 On-Street Parking 20

5.4 Car Parking Layout 20

6. Bicycle Parking 22

6.1 Statutory Requirements 22

7. Proposed Mitigating Works 24

7.1 Introduction 24


8. Conclusion 29

Appendices

A: Traffic Generation Rates and Distribution

B: Input Volumes

C: Concept Plan – Site Access Arrangements

D: SIDRA Movement Summaries

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figures

Figure 2.1: Location of Intersection Counts 3

Figure 3.1: Adopted Traffic Distribution 8

Tables

Table 2.1: Percentage Increase Summary 4

Table 3.1: In/Out Traffic Splits 6

Table 3.2: Development Generated Traffic Volumes 6

Table 4.1: SIDRA Level of Service 10

Table 4.2: Existing Operating Conditions 11

Table 4.3: ‘Base Case’ Operating Conditions 12

Table 5.1: Statutory Car Parking Requirements 15

Table 5.2: BCA Car Parking Requirements for People with Disabilities 15

Table 5.3: Anticipated Resident Car Parking Demand (ABS Assessment) 17

Table 5.4: Variation in Residential Visitor Car Parking Demand 17

Table 5.5: Variation in Supermarket/Retail Car Parking Demand 19

Table 5.6: Anticipated Overall Car Parking Demand 19

Table 6.1: Statutory Requirement for Bicycle Facilities 22

Table 7.1: Post Development ‘Do Nothing’ Operating Conditions 24

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



1. Introduction

1.1 Background & Proposal

GTA Consultants (GTA) has been engaged by WMW Developments Pty Ltd to prepare an

Transport Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) for proposed ‘West Melbourne Waterfront’

Development at 232 Kensington Road in West Melbourne.

It is understood that the developments will occur in four stages as follows:

Stage 1: 330 apartments, 5,650sqm of commercial floor area and 4,350sqm of retail

floor area (including mixed use retail and a supermarket).

Stage 2: 224 apartments, 1,800sqm of commercial floor area and 1,600sqm of retail

floor area

Stage 3: 123 apartments, 5,700sqm of commercial floor area and 900sqm of retail floor

area.

Stage 4: 73 apartments, 900sqm of commercial floor area and 600sqm of retail floor

area.

To inform the preparation of the Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP), GTA has

undertaken an assessment of the transport impacts of the proposed development on the

surrounding road network. This report summarises the outcomes of this assessment.

1.2 Purpose of this Report

The report sets out an assessment of the anticipated traffic and transport implications of the

proposed development on key intersections surrounding the development sites, including:

i an assessment of the existing operating conditions

ii an assessment of a ‘base case’ operating conditions

iii an assessment of the post development operating conditions with mitigating road

works

This report forms part of an overall ITAP and should be read in conjunction with this report.

1

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



2. Assessment Overview

2.1 Introduction

The following section provides an overview of the methodology undertaken for the assessment of

the anticipated traffic and transport implications of the proposed development. It does not

intend to be detailed by design as the outcomes of this assessment respond to the draft DPO

schedule. Final detailed design matters will occur once the development outcome is known and

will be resolved with the stakeholder working group.

2.2 Key Assumptions

The analysis presented within this report has been based on four key assumptions outlined below.

i Peak Hours

Following a detailed review of the traffic volumes collected the appropriate peak hours for the

purpose of the assessment were selected. These are discussed in more detail in Section 2.3.

ii Residential Traffic Generation Rate

The traffic generation rates adopted for the traffic assessment are outlined within Section 3.1 of

this report and at Appendix A.

iii Traffic Distribution

The distribution of traffic from the two development sites through the road network is based on

journey to work information and is outlined within Section 3 of this report.

2.3 Data Collection

Turning movement counts were undertaken at key intersections surrounding the site as follows:

1. Kensington Road / Site Access 1 (#180 Kensington Road)

2. Kensington Road / Site Access 2(#178 Kensington Road)

3. Kensington Road / Site Access 3(#176A Kensington Road)

4. Kensington Road / Site Access 4 (#176 Kensington Road)

5. Kensington Road / Site Access 5 (#156-158 Kensington Road)

6. Kensington Road / Hobsons Road / Childers Street intersection

7. Kensington Road / Dynon Road intersection

8. Dynon Road / Dock Link Road intersection

9. Kensington Road / Mercantile Parade intersection

10. Kensington Road / Epsom Road/ Macaulay Road

The surveys were undertaken on the following days and times:

Tuesday 11 November 2014: 6am-10am & 3pm-7pm

Saturday 15 November 2014: 10:30am-2:30pm

The locations of the turning movement counts are shown in Figure 2.1.

2

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 2.1: Location of Intersection Counts

2.4 SIDRA Analysis

SIDRA assessments of the operation of key intersections identified in the study area was

undertaken. The selection of intersections assessed has been based on the proximity of the

surrounding intersections. The following scenarios have been assessed for each of the

intersections:

Existing Conditions

Base Conditions: existing conditions minus current site generated traffic, plus the

anticipated traffic generated from the approved development at 71-89 Hobsons Road.

Post-Development Conditions: base case plus site generated traffic.

Results of the SIDRA analysis are reported as part of this assessment for review and consideration

(this report).

With respect to the percentage increase volumes, the VicRoads Guidelines for Transport Impact

Assessment Reports – For Major Land Use and Development Proposals (May 2006) states the

following:

“The extent of the road network to be analysed should not necessarily be confined to that in the

immediate vicinity of the proposed development site. It should generally include all intersections

and all mid-block locations where any traffic movement is increased by an amount of 10% or

greater as a result of traffic generated by the proposed development/land use and/or resultant

changes in travel patterns brought about by the proposal, and/or at any other location identified

as necessary by the relevant road authority.”

A summary of the intersections which have percentage increase traffic volumes (on one or more

movements) greater than 10% when compared with the base case volumes is provided in Table

2.1, and are shown graphically in Appendix B.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table 2.1: Percentage Increase Summary

Intersection

Weekday AM

Peak Hour

(Y/N)

Weekday PM

Peak Hour

(Y/N)

Saturday MID

Peak Hour

(Y/N)

Dynon Road / Dock Link Road Y Y N

Dynon Road / Kensington Road Y Y Y

Kensington Road / Hobsons Road /

Childers Street N Y Y

Kensington Road / Mercantile

Parade Y Y Y

Epsom Road / Kensington Road /

Macaulay Road Y N N

Note: Yes represents an increase in post development volumes of more than 10%.

Based on traffic generation and distribution outlined in Section 3.

Table 2.1 indicates that the anticipated traffic generation and distribution (outlined in section 3)

represents varying levels of increases of more than 10% at each of the nearby intersections. With

regard to the intersection of Kensington Road / Mercantile Parade, the increase in traffic is largely

due to the proposed retail component of the site, which estimates that a proportion of its

customers will be generated from within Kensington Banks, thus increasing the proportion of

turning traffic.

It should be noted that these trips are not likely to be “new” trips to the network, rather these are

likely to be redistributed shopping trips that would already exist on the network that travel to

neighbouring centres. As such, the likelihood of the development resulting in additional ‘through’

traffic in Kensington Banks is considered to be low.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



3. Traffic Generation & Distribution

3.1 Traffic Generation

3.1.1 Rates Summary

The traffic generation rates adopted for the proposed developments are as follows:

Residential Use

Weekday AM Peak Hour – 0.30 movements per dwelling

Weekday PM Peak Hour – 0.25 movements per dwelling

Saturday MID Peak Hour – 0.275 movements per dwelling.

Retail Use (including Specialty Retail)

Weekday AM Peak Hour – 1.12 movements per 100sqm

Weekday PM Peak Hour – 5.60* movements per 100sqm

Saturday MID Peak Hour – 10.70* movements per 100sqm.

Supermarket Use


Weekday PM Peak Hour – 7.22* movements per 100sqm

Saturday MID Peak Hour – 8.15* movements per 100sqm.

*Note: A 20% reduction factor was applied to the retail and supermarket rates for the weekday

PM and Saturday periods. This is to account for the portion of demand which is generated from

within the site.

Commercial Use1


Weekday PM Peak Hour – 2.00 movements per 100sqm

Saturday MID Peak Hour – 0.00 movements per 100sqm.

It is noted that the commercial sites are not expected to generate any traffic on a Saturday. The

traffic generation rates adopted in this report reflect those of comparable developments within

Melbourne, as discussed in Appendix A.

3.1.2 Resultant Traffic Movements

Table 3.2 provides an estimate of the expected overall development generated peak hour traffic

volumes, assuming industry adopted traffic splits (in and out) for the proposed residential, retail

and commercial land uses.

The in/out traffic splits adopted for each use has been summarised in Table 3.1.

1 These commercial rates were not confirmed by the Transport Working Group but are considered to be appropriate

3

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table 3.1: In/Out Traffic Splits

Use

Weekday Traffic Split

AM Peak

Weekday Traffic Split

PM Peak

Saturday Traffic Split

Midday Peak

IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT

Residential 20% 80% 60% 40% 50% 50%

Specialty Retail 90% 10% 10% 90% 50% 50%

Supermarket 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Commercial 90% 10% 10% 90% 50% 50%

Table 3.2: Development Generated Traffic Volumes

Stages Use Size/No. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Saturday Peak

Hour

IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT

1.1

Residential 156 dwellings 9 37 23 16 21 21

Retail 600sqm 6 1 3 24 26 26

Commercial 5,650sqm 102 11 11 102 0 0

1.2


Retail 950sqm 10 1 4 38 41 41

Supermarket 2800sqm 20 20 81 81 91 91

2


Retail 1,600sqm 16 2 7 65 68 68

Commercial 1,800sqm 32 4 4 32 0 0

3


Retail 900sqm 9 1 4 36 39 39

Commercial 5,700sqm 103 11 11 103 0 0

4


Retail 600sqm 6 1 3 24 26 26

Commercial 900sqm 16 2 2 16 0 0

TOTAL


Retail 4,650sqm 47 5 21 187 199 199

Supermarket 2,800sqm 20 20 81 81 91 91

Commercial 14,050sqm 253 28 28 253 0 0

Total 365 233 243 596 393 393

The network peak hours were identified based on the existing condition surveys. The network

peaks (i.e. AM, PM and Saturday) have been used for the traffic assessment to ensure

consistency across intersections.

3.2 Traffic Distribution and Assignment

The distribution and assignment of traffic through the road network surrounding the development

sites has been estimated based on a range of factors including the existing conditions traffic

data, the availability of the site to the broader arterial road network, a review of key trip

attractors surrounding the site, and regard for the proposed future West Melbourne Waterfront

developments land uses. Furthermore Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA)2

2 Information from VISTA is for the municipality of Maribyrnong given the characteristics of the site better reflect this rather than

Kensington which is for the entire Melbourne statistical division.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



has been sourced to estimate the likely traffic distribution/direction between home and work and

vice versa.

With regard to the above the distribution of traffic was separated by use with each of the

proposed uses having a slightly different directional distribution. The adopted broad distribution is

shown in Figure 3.1, with full details of the data summary is provided in Appendix A.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Figure 3.1: Adopted Traffic Distribution

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Some key points to note regarding the anticipated traffic distributions are:

There is a proportion of trips travelling to (7% residents) the northern municipalities of

Moreland, Hume and Whittlesea. Due to direct and convenient access, the majority of

these trips have been assumed to travel to the site via Citylink and Dynon Road.

All of the commercial trips from Moreland, Hume and Whittlesea have been assumed

to travel via Epsom Road and McCauley Road. It is more likely that a proportion of

these would use Dynon Road given its more direct access, however this approach

adopted is considered conservative.

The proposed retail supermarket component assumes that a high proportion of its users

will be from the Kensington Banks and Kensington areas. As previously discussed, these

trips generated will not be new trips in the network, rather these will be redistributed

from existing shopping trips of these neighbourhoods. Any redistribution of existing trips

in the network to this site has not been included in this analysis.

The traffic distribution does not consider any “passer-by” or “linked” trips on Kensington

Road from the network.

The distribution does not consider a displacement of existing traffic movements. Indeed,

the flexibility of the wider network is such that it would be able to respond to changes in

travel behaviour as new development comes on line. In particular the changing

landscape of the Dynon Precinct.

Internally, the site access points have assumed that vehicles will travel to and from their

nearest access point onto Kensington Road. Some minor redistribution in the analysis

has been undertaken for the PM peak for right turning traffic exiting Stages 2 and 3 to

access via the signalised Access Point 2.

Overall, the distribution and assignment, as well as the traffic generation and volumes, is

considered a conservative approach to assessing the performance of the network, likely

representing an over estimate of the likely traffic impact. Further discussion on the post

development operation of the network is provided in Section 7.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



4. Existing Network Performance

4.1 Overview

Analysis of the key intersections identified in Section 2 has been completed using SIDRA

INTERSECTION 5.13.

SIDRA is a computer based modelling package which calculates intersection performance. The

commonly used measure of intersection performance is referred to as the Degree of Saturation

(DOS). The DOS represents the flow-to-capacity ratio for the most critical movement on each leg

of the intersection. A DOS of around 0.90 for unsignalised intersections and 0.95 for signalised

intersections has been typically considered the ‘ideal’ limit, beyond which queues and delays

increase disproportionately.

Table 4.1 shows level of service assessment which is adopted by SIDRA INTERSECTION.

Table 4.1: SIDRA Level of Service

Level of Service Intersection Degree of Saturation (DOS)

Unsignalised Intersection Signalised Intersection Roundabout

A Excellent <=0.60 <=0.60 <=0.60

B Very Good 0.60-0.70 0.60-0.70 0.60-0.70

C Good 0.70-0.80 0.70-0.90 0.70-0.85

D Acceptable 0.80-0.90 0.90-0.95 0.85-0.95

E Poor 0.90-1.00 0.95-1.00 0.95-1.00

F Very Poor >=1.0 >=1.0 >=1.0

4.2 SIDRA Analysis

4.2.1 Assumptions & Limitations

A number of assumptions and limitations should be noted in the analysis as follows:

Each of the intersections have been assessed as isolated intersections. That is, the

upstream and downstream impacts of adjacent intersections have not been factored

into the analysis. The impact of this means that the analysis does not fully capture the

operation of the corridor as a ‘whole’ rather it assesses each intersection independently.

Public transport services have been included in the intersection analysis in the form of

heavy vehicle percentage on all movements, as identified during the data collection.

Cycle and phase timing has been calibrated using observational data collected at the

site during inspections undertaken during the AM and PM weekday period. In addition,

video survey data was also used to calibrate the models.

The existing parking provisions restrictions and clearways have been maintained as part

of the existing and ‘base case’ assessment.

For unsignalised intersections, gap acceptance parameters have been adopted from

the Austroads Design Guidelines.

Peak Flow Factors have been determined based on the peak hour traffic volumes at

each intersection.

3 Program used under license from Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd.

4

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



4.2.2 Existing Conditions

Table 4.2 presents a summary of the existing operation of the identified key intersections.

Table 4.2: Existing Operating Conditions

Intersection Peak

Hour Approach DOS

Average Delay

(sec)

95th Percentile

Queue (m)

Dynon Road

/ Kensington

Road

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour

Dynon Road (East) 0.41 17 sec 90m

Kensington Road (North-East) 1.16 193 sec 680m

Dynon Road (West) 1.18 188 sec 991m

All Vehicles 1.18 153 sec 991m

Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour





Kensington

Road /

Hobsons

Road /

Childers

Street

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour

Childers Street (South) 0.06 22 sec 5m

Kensington Road (East) 0.70 16 sec 126m

Hobsons Road (North) 0.69 28 sec 70m

Kensington Road (West) 0.62 26 sec 50m


Weekday

PM Peak

Hour






Saturday

MID Peak

Hour






Kensington

Road /

Mercantile

Parade

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour


Mercantile Parade (North) 0.63 19 sec 28m



Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour





14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Intersection Peak

Hour Approach DOS

Average Delay

(sec)

95th Percentile

Queue (m)

Epsom Road

/ Kensington

Road /

Macaulay

Road

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour

Macauley Road (East) 0.94 66 sec 146m

Epsom Road (North) 0.60 20 sec 91m



Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour





DOS – Degree of Saturation, # - Intersection DOS

The analysis presented in Table 4.2 indicates that the key intersections currently appear to

operate with a ‘good’ to ‘acceptable’ level of service, with the exception being the intersections

of Dynon Road/Kensington Road and Kensington Road/Epsom Road/Macaulay Road.

The Kensington Road/Dynon Road operates at its theoretical peak during the AM peak, with both

the Kensington Road and Dynon Road west approaches exceeding their capacity. The analysis

shows that the turn slots on Dynon Road (east) and Kensington Road over spill into the through

lanes impacting on their operation. Site observations indicate that whilst the intersection is

congested, the queue lengths reported in the SIDRA analysis are overstated and do not extend

to the lengths indicated.

The Kensington Road/Hobsons Road/Childers Street intersection operates with low levels of DOS

as well as minimal queues and delays.

Similarly, the Kensington Road/Mercantile Road operates well with queue length of less than 6

vehicles (28m) in the AM peak.

As with the Dynon Road / Kensington Road intersection in the AM peak, the Epsom

Road/Kensington Road/Macaulay Road intersection operates above its capacity in both the PM

and Saturday peak periods. Site observations indicate that queuing often forms from the

Macaulay Road boom gates impacting on capacity.

4.2.3 ‘Base Case’ Conditions

Table 4.3 presents a summary of the ‘base case’ operation of the identified key intersections. The

‘base case’ conditions are the existing road network configuration minus existing site generated

traffic plus the anticipated traffic generated from the future development at 71-89 Hobsons

Road. This scenario represents the operating conditions prior to completion of the development

and is the baseline for which impacts should be assessed against.

Table 4.3: ‘Base Case’ Operating Conditions

Intersection Peak

Hour Approach DOS

Average Delay

(sec)

95th Percentile

Queue (m)

Dynon Road

/ Kensington

Road

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour



Dynon Road (West) 1.22 224 sec 1,076m


14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Intersection Peak

Hour Approach DOS

Average Delay

(sec)

95th Percentile

Queue (m)

Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour





Kensington

Road /

Hobsons

Road /

Childers

Street

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour






Weekday

PM Peak

Hour






Saturday

MID Peak

Hour






Kensington

Road /

Mercantile

Parade

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour





Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour





Epsom Road

/ Kensington

Road /

Macaulay

Road

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour





Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour






14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table 4.3 indicates that the performance of the key intersections decreases slightly when

compared with the existing conditions performances. Of note is the Dynon Road / Kensington

Road intersection, which increased its DOS by four percent in the AM peak, with queue lengths

anticipated to be in the order of one kilometre. As discussed in the previous section, site

observations indicate that queue lengths are significantly less than those predicted in SIDRA,

nevertheless, these are relevant in understanding the ‘relative’ impact of the proposal.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



5. Car Parking

5.1 Statutory Car Parking Requirements

Statutory requirements for the provision of car parking are set out in Clause 52.06 of the Melbourne

Planning Scheme, with parking rates specified in Table 1 to Clause 52.06-5. An assessment of the

statutory parking requirements for the development proposal is set out in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Statutory Car Parking Requirements

Description Use Size [1] Statutory Parking Rate Statutory Parking

Requirement

Residential

Apartments

Dwelling

(Residents)

750 dwellings

(375 x one-bedroom

+ 375 x two-bedroom)

1 space per one or two

bedroom dwelling 750 spaces

Dwelling

(Visitors) 750 dwellings 1 space per five dwellings 150 spaces

Specialty Retail Shop

4,650m2 NLA

(includes 950sqm of mixed

use??)

4 spaces to each 100m2 of

leasable floor area 186 spaces

Supermarket Supermarket 2,800m2 NLA 5 spaces to each 100m2 of

leasable floor area 140 spaces

Commercial Office 14,050m2 NLA 3.5 spaces to each 100m2 of

net floor area 491 spaces

Total 1,717 spaces

[1] Based on Net Leasable Area (NLA) as Net Floor area (NFA) or Leasable Floor Area (LFA).

The above assessment anticipates the development proposal has statutory requirement of

1,717 spaces, including 750 spaces for residential use, 150 spaces for residential visitor use, 186

spaces to retail uses, 140 spaces to the supermarket use and 491 spaces for commercial uses.

In this instance, the proposed on-site parking provision of 1,397 car spaces does not meet the

statutory requirement and a permit will be required to reduce this requirement.

In addition to the statutory car parking requirements in the Planning Scheme, the Building Code

of Australia (BCA) outlines requirements for the provision of car parking for people with disabilities.

An assessment of the BCA disabled car parking requirements for the development proposal is set

out in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: BCA Car Parking Requirements for People with Disabilities

Description BCA Class BCA Disabled Parking Requirement

Residential (Apartments) Class 2 None

Commercial (Office) Class 5 1 space for every 100 car parking spaces or part thereof

Retail (Shop) Class 6

1 Space for every 50 car parking spaces or part thereof for up to 1000

car spaces and then 1 space for each additional 100 car parking

spaces of part thereof in excess of 1000 car parking spaces

Supermarket [1] Class 6

1 Space for every 50 car parking spaces or part thereof for up to 1000

car spaces and then 1 space for each additional 100 car parking

spaces of part thereof in excess of 1000 car parking spaces

[1] Supermarket is assumed to have the same rate as a retail use

Parking spaces for people with disabilities can be included in the total number of spaces required

by the Planning Scheme.

5

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



5.2 Car Parking Demand Assessment

5.2.1 Preamble

The proposed development presents an excellent opportunity to promote the vision of state and

local policy objectives of encouraging the use of public transport, cycling, and walking and not

encouraging an abundance of car parking within this area, and in turn over use of motor

vehicles.

All on-site car parking spaces are to be allocated to residents and staff (i.e. long term parking),

noting that the vast majority of on-street car parking in the vicinity of the site is subject to time

restrictions.

Accordingly, long-term car parking demands associated with the site (i.e. staff and residents) will

be generally limited to on-site provisions. In addition, the subject site is generally in close proximity

to the Capital City Zone and Parking Overlay – Precinct 10 (P010) and Precinct 12 (P012) with

statutory parking guidelines within these areas stipulating a maximum number of car parking

spaces, as opposed to the ‘standard’ minimum requirement, in order to discourage the use of

motor vehicles and promote the utilisation of alternative and sustainable transport modes.

5.2.2 Decision Guidelines

With regard to not providing the statutory parking requirement on-site, the Planning Scheme

indicates that a Car Parking Demand Assessment must assess the car parking demand likely to

be generated by the proposal. The assessment must consider the following:

“The likelihood of multi-purpose trips within the locality which are likely to be combined

with a trip to the land in connection with the proposed use.

The variation of car parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed use over

time.

The short-stay and long-stay car parking demand likely to be generated by the

proposed use.

The availability of public transport in the locality of the land.

The convenience of pedestrian and cyclist access to the land.

The provision of bicycle parking and end of trip facilities for cyclists in the locality of the

land.

The anticipated car ownership rates of likely or proposed visitors to or occupants

(residents or employees) of the land.

Any empirical assessment or case study”

The combination of these factors often results in car parking demand being generated at rates

different to the statutory rates. An assessment of the likely car parking demand for each of the

proposed land uses is presented below.

5.2.3 Residential Car Parking Demand

The 2011 Census by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) provides an indicator of typical resident

car parking demands within the suburb of Kensington, Footscray and West Melbourne. This ABS

data reports the following car ownership levels for apartments4 (excluding social housing):

4 Note that in order to ensure that individuals aren’t able to be identified using census data, the ABS deliberately introduces random

errors into some data sets. (see http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2901.0Chapter38202011) To minimise the

potential impact of random errors the data used in this analysis has been rounded up and only quoted to one decimal place.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2901.0Chapter38202011

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



One-bedroom dwelling: 0.80 vehicles per dwelling

Two-bedroom dwelling: 0.95 vehicles per dwelling

Table 5.3 applies these rates to the proposed development.

Table 5.3: Anticipated Resident Car Parking Demand (ABS Assessment)

Description No. ABS 2011 Car Parking Rate Anticipated Car

Parking Requirement

One-bedroom apartment 375 0.80 spaces per apartment 300 resident spaces

Two-bedroom apartment 375 0.95 spaces per apartment 356 resident spaces

Total 656 resident spaces

Application of existing car ownership rates for apartments in Footscray, Kensington and West

Melbourne suggests a parking demand of 656 resident spaces for the proposed development 5.

5.2.4 Residential Visitor Car Parking Demand

The residential visitor statutory parking requirement of 1 car space per 5 dwellings applies across

the entirety of Victoria.

In this instance, having regard to the site’s high level of accessibility to nearby/proposed

commercial land uses (which can be expected to lead to ‘multi-purpose’ trips), public transport

services and pedestrian and cycling pathways, it is considered likely that residential visitor car

parking demands will be lower, on a rate basis, than the statutory rate.

Research in the inner metropolitan areas of Melbourne indicates rate of 0.12 car spaces per

dwelling for high and medium density developments. Further consideration has been given to

the residential visitor rate adopted for areas within the Parking Overlay which is zero spaces per

dwelling.

Given the above, as residential visitor parking of 0.06 car spaces per dwelling is considered to be

appropriate for the proposal.

Application of this rate to the proposal indicates that a peak residential visitor parking demand of

45 car spaces can be expected, noting that such demand is typically short in its duration (e.g. 2

hours) and variable throughout the week and time of day. The likely variation of this visitor

parking demand on a typical Friday and Saturday is shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Variation in Residential Visitor Car Parking Demand

Day Time Parking Duration

Proportion of Peak Car

Parking Demand

(approx.)

Car Parking

Demand

Typical Friday 12:00pm

Short-term

0 – 25% 0 – 11 spaces

8:00pm 100% 45 spaces

Typical Saturday 12:00pm 50% 23 spaces

8:00pm 100% 45 spaces

5 It is noted that this assessment is conservative on the high side given that it assumes that the proposal has an equivalent level of

access to public transport services and bicycle parking to the remainder of the suburb of Kensington, Footscray and West

Melbourne. In reality, it is considered that the proposal has a higher level of access to surrounding public transport services than

the suburb average and that the proposed bicycle parking provision may lead to lower car parking rates than have been

recorded by the ABS in the past.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



5.2.5 Office Car Parking Demand

To this end, the results of 70 surveys of office developments across metropolitan Melbourne have

been compiled from a variety of sources. The results suggest an average peak parking demand of

3.3 spaces per 100sqm NFA.

It should be noted that this rate is an average of all data across metropolitan Melbourne, and may

not be representative of a site with excellent access to public transport such as the subject site.

On this basis, it is considered that an office car parking rate in the order of 3.0 spaces per 100sqm is

appropriate for the subject site. This provision is considered satisfactory, as it reflects the availability

of public transport and other active transport modes and is considered to provide ample parking

for the office component. It does not strictly apply to the subject site, however the rate of 3.0

spaces per 100sqm is consistent with the rate adopted for comparable areas within the Parking

Overlay in the City of Melbourne.

The office component of the development is therefore anticipated to generate in the order of 422

staff car parking spaces.

5.2.6 Speciality Retail Car Parking Demand

Given the nature of the proposed development, it is envisaged that the smaller ‘speciality retail’

components of the site will predominantly operate as subsidiary uses to the remainder of the

retail development (i.e. supermarket) – that is, not generate significant activity in their own right.

Furthermore, the centre will be convenience based, with shorter shopping trips leading to a

higher turnover of spaces not unlike traditional strip shopping precincts.

Survey of traditional strip shopping precincts indicates demands of approximately 2.3 parking

spaces per 100sqm of leasable floor area6.

Application of this rate to the proposal indicates that a peak retail parking demand of 107 car

spaces can be expected, noting that 25% of this demand (27 car spaces) is typically associated

with staff car parking and having long durations of stay with the remaining 75% (80 car spaces)

typically associated with customer car parking and having shorter durations of stay. This demand

also often varies across the day, as summarised in subsequent section of this report (Section 5.2.7).

5.2.7 Supermarket Car Parking Demand

The supermarket statutory parking requirement of 5 spaces per 100sqm applies across the entirety

of Victoria.

In this instance, having regard to the site’s high level of accessibility to nearby/on-site commercial

land uses (which can be expected to lead to ‘multi-purpose’ trips), public transport services and

pedestrian and cycling pathways, it is considered likely that supermarket car parking demands

will be lower, on a rate basis, than the statutory rate.

Based on empirical research collected at similar uses7, a supermarket parking rate of 3.7 spaces

per 100sqm is considered to be appropriate for the proposal.

Application of this rate to the proposal indicates that a peak retail parking demand of 104 car

spaces can be expected, noting that 25% of this demand (26 car spaces) is typically associated

with staff car parking and having long durations of stay with the remaining 75% (78 car spaces)

typically associated with customer car parking and having shorter durations of stay. This demand

6 This includes surveys undertaken in the City of Port Phillip and Sturt Street, Southbank.

7 This data includes 30 surveys undertaken at similar supermarket throughout metropolitan Melbourne

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



also often varies across the day, as similar to retail uses, a total of speciality retail and

supermarket parking demands has been summarised in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5: Variation in Supermarket/Retail Car Parking Demand

Day Time Parking Duration Proportion of Peak Car

Parking Demand (approx.)

Car Parking

Demand (Retail +

Supermarket)

Typical Friday

12:00pm

Long-term (staff) 100% 53 spaces

Short-term (customer) 100% 158 spaces

Sub-total 211 spaces

8:00pm




Typical Saturday

12:00pm




8:00pm [1]

Long-term (staff) 0% -

Short-term (customer) 0% -

Sub-total -

[1] Assuming both retail and supermarket will be closed before 8:00pm

5.2.8 Car Parking Demand Summary

Table 5.6 presents a summary of the car parking demand likely to be generated by all land uses

within the proposal.

Table 5.6: Anticipated Overall Car Parking Demand

Day Time Uses Parking Duration Car Parking Demand

Typical

Friday

12:00pm

Residents, Staff for office, retail and

supermarket Long-term 656+422+53 = 1,131 spaces

Residential visitor and customers for

retails and supermarket Short-term 11+158= 169 spaces


8:00pm


supermarket Long-term [1] 656+27 = 683 spaces


retails and supermarket Short-term 45+79= 124 spaces


Typical

Saturday

[1]

12:00pm


supermarket Long-term 656+53 = 709 spaces


retails and supermarket Short-term 23+158 =181 spaces


8:00pm


supermarket Long-term 656 spaces


retails and supermarket Short-term 45 spaces


[1] Assuming no parking demand will be generated by the office use outside the typical business hours (9:00am – 5:00pm)

Based on above assessment, the proposed development is anticipated to generate a peak

daytime parking demand of up to 1300 spaces. In this instance, the proposed on-site parking

provision of 1,384 car spaces exceeds this likely car parking demand by 84 spaces and is

considered sufficient.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



5.3 On-Street Parking

Approximately 53 on-street car parking spaces on both sides of Kensington Road are anticipated

to be lost due to the proposed site access arrangements as well as change in road configuration.

This loss of on-street parking spaces could possibly be offset by the availability of spaces in the

public parking areas of the proposed development, noting that consultation would be required

with adjoining businesses and land owners. It is anticipated the impact to on-street car parking

will be investigated in consultation with the City of Melbourne and relevant stakeholders as part

of a permit condition.

In addition, an existing bus stop located on the southern side of Kensington Road opposite

proposed Site Access 2, is proposed to be relocated approximately 200m south-east of the

existing bus stop. It is noted that this is subject to further investigation and consultation with Public

Transport Victoria and would be undertaken at later stage of the project. The location of the on-

street spaces loss as well as site access arrangements have been shown conceptually in a plan

prepared by GTA (Drawing No. 14M2307000-03P1 dated 20 November 2014), included in

Appendix C.

5.4 Car Parking Layout

A detailed review of the car parking layout will be undertaken with subsequent future planning

permit stage of the development. A preliminary review of the ground floor plan of the car

parking layout against the relevant Design Standards set out in Clause 52.06 of the Melbourne

Planning Scheme has been undertaken. The review notes as following:

Design Standard 1: Accessways

Dimensions and internal radius at change of direction or intersection should be

checked at later stage of the project.

Internal ramps have a minimum width of 6.6m in accordance with the Australian

Standards.

Pedestrian splays measuring 2 m wide by 2.5 m deep are required on both sides of the

access points to provide sufficient visibility to pedestrian path and to comply with Clause

3.2.4 of Australian Standards.

Design Standard 2: Car Parking Spaces

Residential car park spaces are dimensioned 2.6m wide by 5.0m long accessed from a

minimum 6.4m wide aisle, which exceeds the dimensional requirements specified in the

Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Car park spaces are a minimum 2.6m wide by 5.4m long accessed from a minimum 6.6m

wide aisle, which is in accordance with the Australian Standards for User Class 3 (A).

Parallel parking spaces are dimensioned 2.1m wide by 6.3m long. It is recommended

that spaces located with either end with obstruction should be lengthened to 6.6m.

Car spaces adjacent to walls have been provided with a minimum extra 300 mm

clearance to allow for door opening.

An extra 1.0 m extension to the dead end aisle or wider car parking aisle has been

provide in accordance with Australian Standards.

It is noted that columns have not been shown on the plans.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Design Standard 3: Gradients

Internal ramp gradients have not been shown on the plans.

Design Standard 4: Mechanical Parking

Not applicable.

Design Standard 5: Urban Design

Urban design is outside the scope of this report.

Design Standard 6: Safety

Lighting and signage is not shown but should be incorporated at the detailed design

stage.

Design Standard 7: Landscaping

Landscaping is outside the scope of this report.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



6. Bicycle Parking

Clause 52.34 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme seeks to encourage cycling as a mode of travel

through the provision of appropriate bicycle parking and associated facilities. The discussion and

analysis presented below examines these requirements.

6.1 Statutory Requirements

Bicycle Parking Provision

Statutory requirements for the provision of bicycle parking are set out in Clause 52.34 of the

Melbourne Planning Scheme. Based on this, the statutory requirements for the provision of bicycle

facilities for the development proposal are set out in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Statutory Requirement for Bicycle Facilities

Use Size

Statutory Rate Statutory Requirement

Employee/

Resident

Visitor/Shopper/

Student

Employee/

Resident Visitor/Shopper

Residential

Apartments

750 dwellings

[1]

In developments of

four or more

storeys, 1 to each 5

dwellings

In developments of

four or more storeys,

1 to each 10

dwellings

150 spaces 75 spaces

Retail (shop) 4,650m2 LFA [2]

1 space to each

600m2 of leasable

floor area if the

leasable floor area

exceeds 1,000m2

1 space to each

500m2 of leasable

floor area if the

leasable floor area

exceeds 1,000m2

8 spaces 9 spaces

Retail

(Supermarket)[3] 2,800m2 LFA [4]

1 space to each

300m2 of leasable

floor area

1 space to each

500m2 of leasable

floor area

9 spaces 6 spaces

Office 14,050m2 NLA

1 space to each

300m2 of net floor


area exceeds

1,000m2

1 space to each

1,000m2 of net floor


area exceeds

1,000m2

47 spaces [4] 14 spaces [4]

Total 214 spaces 104 spaces

[1] Assumption – all dwellings are within buildings of four or more storeys.

[2] Based on Gross Floor Area (GFA) adopting a 97% efficiency conversion rate for Retail uses (from GFA to LFA).

[3] There is no bicycle parking rate specified for a supermarket use, as such the rate for ‘other’ retail premises was adopted.

[4] Based on Net Leasable Area (NLA) as Net Floor area (NFA) has not been provided.

Table 6.1 indicates that the proposal has a statutory bicycle parking requirement of 318 bicycle

spaces, including 214 employee/resident spaces and 104 visitor/shopper spaces.

Associated Facilities

In addition to the requirement for bicycle parking, Clause 52.34-3 of the Melbourne Planning

Scheme requires 1 shower for the first 5 employee bicycle parking spaces and 1 shower for each

subsequent 10 employee bicycle parking spaces (if 5 or more employee bicycle parking spaces

are required).

Application of the above rates to the statutory employee bicycle parking requirement of 64

bicycle spaces (i.e. 8 retail shop spaces, 9 supermarket spaces and 47 office spaces) indicates

that the proposal also generates a statutory requirement of 7 change rooms/showers. This

includes 1 change room/shower for the supermarket use and 6 for the office uses.

6

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



6.1.1 Adequacy of Bicycle Parking/Facilities Provision

As this is a rezoning and development application, the specific details of the bicycle facilities

have not been shown on the plans. It is understood that the details of these provisions will be

outlined in the more detailed planning stage of the development proposal and can be provided

on a project by project basis.

The proposed provisions should aim to accommodate the above statutory requirements on site.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



7. Proposed Mitigating Works

7.1 Introduction

The proposed mitigating works for the site access points on Kensington Road are outlined in the

concept plan located in Appendix C. The concept plan includes the proposed site access

points to Kensington Road and also has regard for the existing properties on Kensington Roadd

and maintains there level of access.

It is recognised that this development would add additional movements to the Dynon Road/

Kensington Road intersection, which is currently at or above its theoretical capacity. This

intersection plays a key role not only for the residents of Kensington but the western parts of inner

Melbourne. As such, consultation with appropriate stakeholders will be required to understand

the future role of this intersection in the context of future planning and to apportion a “need” or

“nexus” for this development.

One such consideration is the planned Western Section of the East West link and the proposed

Western distributor will transform both Dynon Road and Kensington Road and its future role and

function, as part of the wider urban renewal precinct. These projects are considered to rest with

the responsibility of the state government.

Indeed, short term mitigating works could be provided in Kensington Road, which would result in

a loss of parking. As such it is recommended that discussions with VicRoads, MPA, DTPLI and the

City of Melbourne to respond to its role. Further discussion on this is provided in this section.

7.2 SIDRA Analysis

Presents a summary of the post development (with proposed mitigation) operation of the

aforementioned intersections.

Table 7.1: Post Development ‘Do Nothing’ Operating Conditions

Intersection Peak

Hour Approach DOS

Average Delay

(sec)

95th Percentile

Queue (m)

Dynon Road

/ Kensington

Road

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour


Kensington Road (North-East) 1.35 336 sec 1,245m

Dynon Road (West) 1.35 307 sec 1,297m

All Vehicles 1.35 256 sec 1,297m

Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour





Kensington

Road / Site

Access 4

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour


Site Access 4 (North) 0.26 54 sec 5m



Weekday Kensington Road (East) 0.37 8 sec 47m

7

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Intersection Peak

Hour Approach DOS

Average Delay

(sec)

95th Percentile

Queue (m)

PM Peak

Hour Site Access 4 (North) 0.33 35 sec 8m



Saturday

MID Peak

Hour





Kensington

Road / Site

Access 3

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour





Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour





Kensington

Road / Site

Access 2

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour

Existing Access (South) 0.07 42 sec 2m





Weekday

PM Peak

Hour






Saturday

MID Peak

Hour






Kensington

Road / Site

Access 1

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour





Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour





14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Intersection Peak

Hour Approach DOS

Average Delay

(sec)

95th Percentile

Queue (m)

Kensington

Road /

Hobsons

Road /

Childers

Street

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour






Weekday

PM Peak

Hour






Saturday

MID Peak

Hour






Kensington

Road /

Mercantile

Parade

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour





Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour





Epsom Road

/ Kensington

Road /

Macaulay

Road

Weekday

AM Peak

Hour





Weekday

PM Peak

Hour





Saturday

MID Peak

Hour






The results presented in indicate that the traffic generated by the proposed development is

expected to have minimal impact on the following intersections:

Kensington Road / Hobsons Road / Childers Street intersection

Kensington Road / Mercantile Parade intersection

Kensington Road / Epsom Road / Macaulay Road intersection.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



The proposed development does, however, expect a moderate impact on the intersection of

Dynon Road and Kensington Road, although noting that this intersection is currently operating at

a high capacity the overall change is considered to increase exponentially.

The performance of the intersections which were operating at a DOS in excess of 1.22 in the AM peak

period and 1.07 in the PM peak period in the base case scenario is expected to deteriorate to a DOS

of between 1.35 and 1.20 (if unchanged). Notwithstanding, mitigation works have been investigated

for these intersections in order to reduce the impact of the proposed development.

With regard to the proposed site access points, these are expected to operate well under post

development operating conditions.

7.2.1 External Intersections

In reviewing the outputs for the Dynon Road / Kensington Road intersection, it is clear that the

operation of the intersection will be constrained with the development traffic. Improving the

intersection should not be viewed in this regard for a number of reasons including:

Limited road space exists on Kensington Road to provide substantial capacity

increases. One such improvement investigated could be to increase the length of the

left turn lane on the approach to Dynon Road. This would result in a loss of up to 12 on

street parking spaces and discussions with CoM will be required to determine the

suitability of this approach.

The right turn lane from Dynon Road into Kensington Road is at the maximum length

possible and increasing its length would result in a reduced lane length for the right turn

into the existing transfer station site on the south side of Dynon Road.

Increasing east west capacity on Dynon Road (via additional lane capacity) would

improve the current situation, however any contribution needs to have regard for the

nexus between this development and any intersection works. That is, providing

improved capacity would be a longer term outcome for the road network and would

require revisiting as part of the future development of the Dynon Precinct. It should also

have regard for the upstream and downstream intersection capacities.

Additional east-west capacity on Dynon Road will have to have regard for the future

legacy of the link in the network. This includes having regard for:

o Understanding the impact of the Western Section of the East-West Link. The Linking

Melbourne Authority website indicates that “Detailed planning on the western

section is now underway, including site investigations, design work, community

engagement and a planning approvals process. Construction of the western

section is expected to start by the end of 2015.” Information on the resultant traffic

numbers on Dynon Road are not available, however it is assumed with this link

volumes would reduce. It is recognised that uncertainty for the project exists,

however its need is not undisputed.

o The impact of the Melbourne Metro Rail Project will provide increased rail capacity

between Parkville, the CBD and the western suburbs. Detailed modelling and

outputs are not available however this project is expected to result in a major

increase in rail mode share and reduce the vehicle demand for Dynon Road.

o As per the Melbourne Metro Project, the Regional Rail Link will also provide

improved and increased capacity for commuters in western Melbourne and is

expected in impact on the current mode share for commuters.

o The role of the Dynon precinct as depicted in Plan Melbourne. A solution for the

intersection is incumbent on the overall precinct.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Given the above, further dialogue and consultation will be required with the relevant authorities

to understand the future transport conditions for the precinct, and its impact on the Dynon Road

/ Kensington Road intersection, to determine the appropriate quantum (if any) that this

development should be required to contribute.

Similarly, the analysis suggests that the Epsom Road / Kensington Road / Macaulay Road

Intersection is anticipated to marginally increase its DOS and resultant queue lengths and delays.

As stated in Section 2, the anticipated increase in traffic predicted to pass through this

intersection marginally exceeds 10% on some movements. As such, any improvements should

have regard for need or nexus for this development to increase and resolve an existing capacity

issue.

Further, review of the current intersection configuration and adjacent land uses indicate that

limited ability exists to meaningfully improve its capacity. Potential or possible improvements to

the intersection capacity could include: removal of parking to increase lane lengths, or phasing

optimisation changes. Any capacity improvements at this site will likely be offset by downstream

impacts and queuing from the Macaulay Road rail crossing. Indeed, the role of Kensington Road

as a connecting road, rather than a through route, supports the approach that it should be

maintained in its current format.

In summary, it is clear that current congestion exists at the two aforementioned intersections, and

that a network wide review of their role should be undertaken. In this regard, possible solution

exist that could alter travel behaviour that would have consideration of their role in the network.

As such these intersections are not considered to be the determining factor underpinning

approval of this development plan.

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



8. Conclusion

Based on the inputs, analysis and discussions presented within this report, the following

conclusions are made:

i The proposed rezoning and development plan generates in the order of 600, 840 and

790 vehicle movements in the AM, PM and Saturday peak periods respectively.

ii Application of the distribution and assignment for each of the uses has regard for

catchment areas, access to the arterial road network and journey to work patterns and

have been applied accordingly.

iii The existing network currently operates close to its theoretical capacity at Dynon road /

Kensington Road (AM peak) and at Epsom Road / Kensington Road / Macaulay Road

in the AM, PM and Saturday peak periods.

iv The site will provide four access points on Kensington Road. Each of the access points

have varying levels of control including a signalised intersection providing full turning

movements.

v The analysis indicates that the site access points are expected to operate satisfactorily

at full development of the site.

vi The site is expected to generate a demand for some 1,300 car parking spaces.

vii The proposed supply of some 1,384 spaces is expected to accommodate the

anticipated parking demand.

viii The proposed parking layout is generally consistent with the dimensional requirements

as set out in the Melbourne Planning Scheme and where relevant the Australian/New

Zealand Standards for Off Street Car Parking (AS/NZS2890.1:2004 and

AS/NZS2890.6:2009).

ix The site will be required to provide provision 318 bicycle spaces and associated

facilities, and will be subject to further detailed planning as part of subsequent

development applications.

The analysis presented in this report is underpinned by range of inputs and assumptions that are

based on engineering best practice. The outcomes of the analysis clearly indicate that the

proposed access points on Kensington Road will be more than capable of accommodating the

site generated traffic.

Indeed, further dialogue and consultation will be required with the relevant authorities to

understand the future transport conditions for the precinct, more specifically, their impact on the

Dynon Road / Kensington Road as well as Epsom Road / Kensington Road / McCauley Road

intersections, to determine an appropriate quantum of works that this development should be

required to contribute.

Notwithstanding, approval of the development should not be reliant on the outcomes of these

works as these discussions apply more to the broader precinct. As such, based on traffic and

transport grounds, there are no fundamental reasons as to why approval of this development

application should not proceed.

8

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Appendix A

Traffic Generation Rates and Distribution

Ap

pe

nd

ix A

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Generation Rates Overview

Traffic generation estimates for the various components of the proposed development have

been arrived at by using a number of sources including the RTANSW ‘A Guide to Traffic

Generating Developments’, the ‘Inner Municipalities Parking Study’ (IMPS), GTA Consultants

survey database and our experiences on projects of a similar nature.

Indeed, the generation rates used for this development are somewhat aggressive. This is

considered appropriate having regard for the type of use for the site (i.e. mixed use), its proximity

to good public transport as well as the overall future development of the precinct as a place to

live and work.

Residential Apartments

A single house on a standard lot in an outer metropolitan area will typically generate traffic in the

order of 1 trip in the peak hour and 10 trips per day. Medium density dwellings generally exhibit a

lower traffic generation rate. In the outer metropolitan areas, where public transport accessibility

is relatively low, the rate for medium density units is typically in the order of 8 trips per day. Closer

to the Melbourne CAD the rate reduces to in the order of 3 to 6 trips per day depending on

dwelling size, parking provision and accessibility to public transport and local amenities, among

other things. Peak hour rates are typically 10 to 12% of daily rates.

A further review of the traffic generation rates indicates that the rate of 0.31 trips per dwelling has

been supported through numerous development approvals and tribunals, including VCAT and

can be supported by the following:

Traffic surveys undertaken by GTA at Chapel Street in South Yarra, Barkly Street in

Footscray, Eureka Tower and Freshwater Place provide a rate of between 0.1 and 0.3

trips per dwelling in the peak hour.

The RTANSW ‘A Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ indicates a peak hour

traffic generation rate of 0.29 movements per dwelling for high density residential

buildings in metropolitan sub-regional centres.

The VISTA 07 data indicates that for the municipalities located within 7km of Melbourne

CBD the traffic generation rate is between 0.25 and 0.36 trips in the peak hour.

Rates of 0.30 for the AM peak, 0.25 for the PM peak and 0.275 for the Saturday peak

rates have been tested for similar uses in the vicinity of the site by VicRoads, Melbourne

City Council, Moonee Valley City Council and PTV.

Taking the above into account, and that the site is adjacent to a high frequency bus line and

800m of a railway station the rates of 0.30 for the AM peak, 0.25 for the PM peak and 0.275 for the

Saturday peak are considered appropriate.

Specialty Retail Design Rates

Traffic generation estimates for the proposed specialty retail uses have been adopted from RTA

NSW, with the traffic generation estimates for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour and Saturday

midday peak hour. A further reduction of 20% has been applied to account for the fact that a

proportion of the catchment for the specialty retail is located within the development site and

will not generate a trip onto the external road network. Table A.1 provides a summary of the

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table A.1: Specialty Retail Traffic Generation Estimates

Size

Design Generation Rates Traffic Generation Estimates

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday MID

Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Saturday MID

Peak Hour

4,650sqm 1.12 vehicle

movements /

100sqm

4.48 vehicle

movements /

100sqm

8.56 vehicle

movements /

100sqm

52 vehicle

movements /

hour

208 vehicle

movements /

hour

398 vehicle

movements /

hour

TOTAL 52 veh/hr 208 veh/hr 398 veh/hr

Table A.1 indicates the proposed specialty retail uses could be expected to generate

approximately 52 vehicle movements during the AM peak hour, 208 vehicle movements during

the PM peak hour and 398 vehicle movements during the Saturday midday peak hour.

Supermarket Design Rates

Guidance on the traffic generation rates for the proposed supermarket has been sought from

traffic surveys (empirical evidence) of an existing Woolworth’s supermarket in Ivanhoe. The

surveys included traffic counts at the car park access and observational surveys at street level of

any vehicle activity not occurring at basement level on a Friday between 4:30pm and 7:00pm

and a Saturday between 11:30am and 2:00pm on Friday 9 and Saturday 10 December 2012.

The surveys delivered the rates summarised in Table A.2, noting that the Ivanhoe supermarket

forms part of a larger mixed use development with a commercial basement car park of 200 car

spaces (residents separate to this) and street level pedestrian access. Advice at the time of the

surveys by the operator indicated that the Ivanhoe supermarket was a mid-level trader.

Table A.2: Summary of Recorded Traffic Survey Results Woolworths Supermarket Ivanhoe (Dec. 2012)

Description Size

Surveyed Traffic Volumes and Associated Generation Rates

Friday PM Saturday Midday

Vehicle

Movements

Traffic

Generation Rate

Vehicle

Movements

Traffic

Generation Rate

Woolworths,

Ivanhoe 3,655sqm

220 vehicle

movements

6.02 movements

per 100sqm

248 vehicle

movements

6.79 movements

per 100sqm

All trips generated by the existing supermarket were assumed to be primary trips and therefore no

allowance had been made for diverted, link diverted or multi-purpose trips.

In addition, in an effort to complete a more conservative assessment (assuming the proposed

supermarket traded more successfully than Ivanhoe), an allowance has been made for a rate

equal to 1.2 of that recorded. A multiple of 1.2 has resulted in the adoption of the following rates:

AM Peak Hour: 1.44 vehicle trips per hour per 100sqm

(est. value at 20% of PM peak hr rate)

PM Peak Hour: 7.22 vehicle trips per hour per 100sqm

Sat MIDDAY Hour: 8.15 vehicle trips per hour per 100sqm.

The appropriateness of these rates is detailed as follows:

i In the absence of locally derived data it would not be unusual to reference the

RTANSW database which as an example would suggest a supermarket traffic

generation rate of 13.8 vehicle trips per hour per unit area for a Friday evening peak

hour. On this occasion, local data has been sourced and scaled.

ii The RTANSW document recognises at Section 3.6 (Retail) that “as with most land uses, it

is preferable to base a traffic generation estimate for a shopping centre on a similar

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



development”. On this issue, data sourced from land use with similar locational

attributes to the subject site is considered preferable compared to a rate derived from

inter-state data.

iii The RTANSW rate for supermarkets has been derived from data collected in the 1980

when modal behaviour relied more heavily on private vehicle usage. The age of the

data should be considered and appropriate weight be applied to its indiscriminate

adoption.

iv There is no available information confirming the locational attributes of those sites

surveyed and relied upon to deliver the recommended RTANSW rates. Unless any

evidence can be supplied which allows for a more direct comparison, caution should

be applied.

v There is no evidence to indicate that any of the sites surveyed back in 1980 were

subject to an adjoining road network with high levels of traffic demand as is the case in

Ivanhoe and around the subject site.

Accordingly, the proposed rates detailed above for the supermarket use are considered

appropriate for adoption.

In addition to the above, a 20% reduction factor has been applied to the PM and Saturday

generation rates to account for the fact that the supermarket will generate at least 20% of its

trade from the proposed residential and commercial uses on the site, and will not generate

additional vehicular traffic on the external road network.

As such, traffic generation estimates for the proposed supermarket use are based on empirical

data and Table A.3 sets out traffic generation estimates for AM peak hour, PM peak hour and

Saturday midday peak hour periods.

Table A.3: Supermarket Traffic Generation Estimates

Size




Saturday MID

Peak Hour

2,800sqm 1.44 vehicle

movements /

100sqm

5.78 vehicle

movements /

100sqm

6.52 vehicle

movements /

100sqm

40 vehicle

movements /

hour

162 vehicle

movements /

hour

183 vehicle

movements /

hour


Table A.3 indicates the proposed supermarket use could be expected to generate

approximately 40 vehicle movements during the AM peak hour, 162 vehicle movements during

the PM peak hour and 183 vehicle movements during the Saturday midday peak hour.

Commercial Design Rates

Traffic generation estimates for the proposed commercial uses have been adopted from RTA

NSW, with the traffic generation estimates for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour and Saturday

midday peak hour outlined in Table A.4.

Table A.4: Commercial Traffic Generation Estimates

Size




Saturday MID

Peak Hour

14,050sqm 2 vehicle

movements /

100sqm

2 vehicle

movements /

100sqm

0 vehicle

movements /

100sqm

281 vehicle

movements /

hour

281 vehicle

movements /

hour

0 vehicle

movements /

day


14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table A.4 indicates the proposed commercial uses could be expected to generate

approximately 413 vehicle movements during the AM and PM peak hours on a typical weekday.

Information provided to GTA indicates that the commercial use will be for utilised for office

purposes only and will therefore generate little or traffic during the Saturday midday peak hour.

As such, the commercial traffic generation for the Saturday midday peak hour is considered to

be acceptable and appropriate.

Traffic Distribution – VISTA Data

A discussed in Section 3.2 of the report, Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA)

2009-2010 data has been sourced to estimate the likely distribution/direction between home and

work and vice versa. Journey to work data by place of residence and employment has been

summarised in Table A.5 and Table A.6, respectively.

Table A.5: VISTA 2009-2010 Journey to Work – by Place of Residence

Direction Municipality Average Weekday No.

of Journey to Work

Percentage

North via Kensington Road Moonee Valley 1009 4%

North via Kensington Road

or Dynon Road and City

Link

Hume

Moreland

Whittlesea

1145

481

356

7%

East via Dynon Road

Banyule

Boroondara

Darebin

Knox

Manningham

Maroondah

Melbourne

Monash

Nillumbik

Stonnington

Whitehorse

Yarra

Yarra Ranges

173

218

211

499

125

0

9011

358

87

685

104

2164

0

49%

South via Dynon Road

Bayside

Casey

Cardinia

Frankston

Glen Eira

Greater Dandenong

Kingston

Port Phillip

Mornington Peninsula

0

0

0

0

134

0

140

1066

0

5%

West via Dynon Road

Brimbank

Hobsons Bay

Maribyrnong

Melton

Wyndham

1299

2204

4584

0

1499

35%

Total 27552 100%

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Table A.6: VISTA 2009-2010 Journey to Work – by Place of Employment

Direction Municipality Average Weekday No.

of Journey to Work

Percentage

North via Kensington Road Moonee Valley 998 4%

North via Kensington Road

Hume

Moreland

Whittlesea

3136

437

446

16%

East via Dynon Road

Banyule

Boroondara

Darebin

Knox

Manningham

Maroondah

Melbourne

Monash

Nillumbik

Stonnington

Whitehorse

Yarra

Yarra Ranges

266

126

592

236

534

0

149

443

359

104

0

0

269

12%

South via Dynon Road

Bayside

Casey

Cardinia

Frankston

Glen Eira

Greater Dandenong

Kingston

Port Phillip

Mornington Peninsula

0

0

0

0

381

0

332

681

0

5%

West via Dynon Road

Brimbank

Hobsons Bay

Maribyrnong

Melton

Wyndham

6403

1370

4584

1314

2806

63%

Total 25966 100%

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Appendix B

Input Volumes

Ap

pe

nd

ix B

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Weekday AM Peak Operating Conditions

Intersection Operating Conditions

Existing ‘Base Case’ Post Development

Dynon Road

/ Kensington

Road

Kensington

Road /

Hobsons

Road /

Childers

Street

Kensington

Road /

Mercantile

Parade

Epsom Road

/ Kensington

Road /

Macaulay

Road

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Weekday PM Peak Operating Conditions



Dynon Road

/ Kensington

Road

Kensington

Road /

Hobsons

Road /

Childers

Street

Kensington

Road /

Mercantile

Parade

Epsom Road

/ Kensington

Road /

Macaulay

Road

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Saturday Midday Operating Conditions



Dynon Road

/ Kensington

Road

Kensington

Road /

Hobsons

Road /

Childers

Street

Kensington

Road /

Mercantile

Parade

Epsom Road

/ Kensington

Road /

Macaulay

Road

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Site Access Operating Conditions (Post Development)

Operating

Conditions

Kensington Road / Site

Access 4


Access 3


Access 2


Access 1

Weekday AM

Peak Hour

Weekday PM

Peak Hour

Saturday MID

Peak Hour

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Appendix C

Concept Plan – Site Access Arrangements

Ap

pe

nd

ix C

24 C

ARS

ALDIMI

NI M

AJOR -

MIXED USE

RETAI

L

RETAI

L

RETAI

L

LOBBY

OFFICELO

BBYRE

S

OFFICE L

OBBY

LOBBY

RES

LOBBY

OFFICE

SHOWROOM

RETAI

L

RETAI

L

BELO

WENTR

Y TO

CARP

ARK

OFFICE

REFU

SE

ARCADE

MARKET PL

ACE

RETAI

L

1:5

1:8

1:8

1:5

1:8

1:8

RES

RES

OFFICE L

OBBY

RES

RES

RES

RES

RES

BIN ST

ORE

RES

SERVI

CES

OFFICE

AIRL

OCKMAIL

STORE

AIRL

OCK

OFFICEBM

AIRL

OCK

RETAI

LOFFICEBM

AIRL

OCK

MAIL

RETAI

L

RETAI

L

RES

LOBBY

RAMP UP

RAMP DOW

N

LOBBY

RES

ENTR

YCA

RPARK

RES

RETAI

L BOH

OFFICE

LOBBY

RES

ENTR

YCA

RPARK

RES

RETAI

L

RETAI

L

MAIL

AIRL

OCK

1:5

1:8

1:8

RETAI

L

AIRL

OCK

61 C

ARSCA

R PARK

LOBBY

RES

1:5

1:10

1:8

55 C

ARSCA

R PARK

ENTR

YCA

RPARK

RES

STORE

S

SERVI

CES

RETAI

L

LOBBY

RES

AIRL

OCK

AIR

LOCK

AIRL

OCK

MAIL

OFFICE

COMPACT

OR

SERVI

CES

LOADI

NG EN

TRY

CARP

ARK A

ND

SHARED

OFFICE

RETAI

L

RETAI

L

RETAI

L

RETAI

L

RETAI

L

ALDI E

NTRY

MINI M

AJOR -

REFU

SE

RETAI

L

OFFICEBM

MAIL

RES

RES

RES

RES

RES

BIN ST

ORE

STORE

RES

RES

RES

RES

RES

CARP

ARK

BASEMEN

T

ACCES

S TO

WC

AMENITIES

CLEA

REANCE

- 6.2

HEAD

LOADI

NG DOCK

RETAI

L

RETAI

L

SERVI

CE Z

ONE

EXISTI

NG

BIN ST

ORE

RETAI

L

1:5

1:10

1:8

RAMP UP

BOH

1:8

PL

OTTE

D B

Y :

Phu.P

ha

mO

N21/

08/2015

AT

1:19:51

PM

GTA onsultantsc

www.gta.com.au

DRAWING NO.

SCALEDATE

DESIGNER

PRELIMINARY PLAN

WITHOUT NOTIFICATION

ONLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES MELWAY REF

42/H41:1000 @ A3

15M2150000-03P4

ULTIMATE CONCEPT DESIGN

149 KENSINGTON ROAD, WEST MELBOURNE

WEST MELBOURNE WATERFRONT

3.1

3.0

3.0

1.5

1.2

2.3

4.0

4.0

5.2

3.5

3.5

KEN

SIN

GTO

N

RO

AD

LOCATION AS SHOWN

RELOCATED TO NEW

EXISTING BUS STOP TO BE

MATCH TO EXISTING

MATCH TO EXISTING

MATCH TO EXISTING

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

INDUSTRIAL

MA

RIB

YR

NO

NG RIV

ER

PARKING TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING ON STREET


EXISTING ON STREET


EXISTING ON STREET

SITE ACCESS 1

PROPOSED

SIT

E A

CCESS 2

PR

OPOSED

AC

CESS 3

PR

OP

OSE

D SIT

E

PR

OP

OSE

D SIT

E A

CC

ESS 4

NOTE:KENSINGTON ROAD SPEED ZONE: 50KM/H

EXISTING BUS STOP

CONFIRMED WITH PTV

BE RELOCATED. TO BE

EXISTING BUS STOP TO

EXISTING BUS STOP

LEGEND

RAISED PEDESTRIAN THRESHOLD

ON ST

REET P

ARKING

ON ST

REET P

ARKING

ON ST

REET P

ARKING

ON ST

REET P

ARKING

ON ST

REET P

ARKING

ON ST

REET P

ARKING

100m

80m

105m

145.0m

SHARED AREA

5.0

6.3

5.4

2.75

2.75 2.8

2.8

0.6

21 AUGUST '15

P.PHAM

LOCATION

BOOM-GATE

PROPOSED

5.5

3.05.03.53.53.0

PART OF FUTURE PLANNING PERMIT

SUBJECT TO FURTHER DESIGN AS

ACCESS TO BE MAINTAINED AND







EXISTING ACCESS

SIGNALISATION OF

PROPOSED

3.0

3.5

ONLY. SUBJECT TO DETAILS DESIGN

RIGHT TURN FOR LOADING VEHICLES

SIGHT LINE

SPLAY FOR VEHICLE

2.3

2.3

2.3

14M2307000 // 21/08/15



Appendix D

SIDRA Movement Summaries

Ap

pe

nd

ix D

LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions - AM Peak

Dynon Road / Dock Link Road IntersectionSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 50 seconds (Practical Cycle Time)

Lane Use and Performance

Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueHV Cap.

Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.

Prob. Block.L T R Total Vehicles Distance

veh/h veh/h veh/h veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec veh m m % %South: Dynon Road

Lane 1 39 0 0 39 70.0 4811

0.081 100 20.0 LOS B 0.6 6.3 75 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 376 0 376 9.0 811 0.464 100 10.9 LOS B 6.6 49.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 376 0 376 9.0 811 0.464 100 10.9 LOS B 6.6 49.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 39 753 0 792 12.0 0.464 11.3 LOS B 6.6 49.9

North: Dynon Road

Lane 1 0 603 0 603 9.0 811 0.744 100 14.7 LOS B 13.5 102.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 603 0 603 9.0 811 0.744 100 14.7 LOS B 13.5 102.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1206 0 1206 9.0 0.744 14.7 LOS B 13.5 102.1

West: Dock Link Road

Lane 1 20 0 1 21 70.0 396 0.052 100 23.3 LOS C 0.4 4.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 21 21 70.0 396 0.052 100 23.2 LOS C 0.4 4.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 20 0 22 41 70.0 0.052 23.2 LOS C 0.4 4.0

Intersection 2039 11.4 0.744 13.6 LOS B 13.5 102.1

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

Lane LOS values are based on average delay per lane.

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.

SIDRA Standard Delay Model used.

1 Reduced capacity due to a short lane effect

Processed: Monday, 24 November 2014 3:02:59 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093

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

Project: P:\14M2300-2399\14M2307000 West Melbourne Waterfront Presentation\Modelling\Dynon Road & Dock Link Road.sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE

LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions - PM Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 20 0 0 20 70.0 4901

0.040 100 17.1 LOS B 0.3 3.1 75 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 935 0 935 2.0 1155 0.810 100 14.6 LOS B 27.3 194.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 935 0 935 2.0 1155 0.810 100 14.6 LOS B 27.3 194.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 20 1871 0 1891 2.7 0.810 14.7 LOS B 27.3 194.3

North: Dynon Road

Lane 1 0 674 0 674 2.0 1155 0.583 100 9.3 LOS A 14.2 100.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 674 0 674 2.0 1155 0.583 100 9.3 LOS A 14.2 100.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1348 0 1348 2.0 0.583 9.3 LOS A 14.2 100.8


Lane 1 47 0 0 47 70.0 283 0.164 100 34.5 LOS C 1.3 14.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 27 27 70.0 283 0.095 575

33.9 LOS C 0.7 8.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 47 0 27 73 70.0 0.164 34.2 LOS C 1.3 14.9







5 Lane underutilisation determined by program




LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions - Midday Saturday Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 14 0 0 14 70.0 4831

0.030 100 19.7 LOS B 0.2 2.2 75 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 508 0 508 3.0 842 0.604 100 11.8 LOS B 9.7 69.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 508 0 508 3.0 842 0.604 100 11.8 LOS B 9.7 69.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 14 1016 0 1031 3.9 0.604 11.9 LOS B 9.7 69.5

North: Dynon Road

Lane 1 0 508 0 508 3.0 842 0.603 100 11.8 LOS B 9.7 69.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 508 0 508 3.0 842 0.603 100 11.8 LOS B 9.7 69.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1015 0 1015 3.0 0.603 11.8 LOS B 9.7 69.4


Lane 1 23 0 0 23 70.0 396 0.059 100 23.3 LOS C 0.4 4.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 7 7 70.0 396 0.018 305

22.9 LOS C 0.1 1.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 23 0 7 31 70.0 0.059 23.2 LOS C 0.4 4.6











LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions AM Peak

Dynon Road/Kensington Road IntersectionSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 120 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)



Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.


veh/h veh/h veh/h veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec veh m m % %East: Dynon Road

Lane 1 0 376 0 376 9.0 1029 0.365 100 15.6 LOS B 12.0 90.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 376 0 376 9.0 1029 0.365 100 15.6 LOS B 12.0 90.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 0 61 61 9.9 150 0.409 100 40.0 LOS D 2.0 14.9 37 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 751 61 812 9.1 0.409 17.4 LOS B 12.0 90.4

North East: Kensington Road

Lane 1 135 0 0 135 5.0 1351

1.0003

865

41.88

LOS D8

4.78

34.38

21 Parking 0.0 50.0

Lane 2 2640

0 447 711 5.0 613 1.161 100 221.3 LOS F 93.1 680.0 500 – 0.0 33.0

Approach 399 0 447 846 5.0 1.161 192.7 LOS F 93.1 680.0

West: Dynon Road

Lane 1 254 0 0 254 10.0 7881

0.323 275

25.6 LOS C 7.1 54.0 160 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 992 0 992 9.0 844 1.175 100 208.8 LOS F 131.4 990.6 500 – 0.0 68.4

Lane 3 0 992 0 992 9.0 844 1.175 100 208.8 LOS F 131.4 990.6 500 – 0.0 68.4

Lane 4 0 0 5 5 9.0 2481

0.021 100 26.7 LOS C 0.1 0.9 40 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 254 1984 5 2243 9.1 1.175 187.6 LOS F 131.4 990.6

Intersection 3901 8.2 1.175 153.2 LOS F 131.4 990.6





0 Excess flow from back of an adjacent short lane


3 x = 1.00 due to short lane.


8 Delay, queue length and stops for the short lane have been cut down to fit in the queuing space. You may wish to change the short lane to a full lane to investigate the effect on the adjacent lane performance.



Project: P:\14M2300-2399\14M2307000 West Melbourne Waterfront Presentation\Modelling\Dynon Road & Kensington Road.sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE

LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions PM Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 978 0 978 2.0 1412 0.693 100 9.1 LOS A 30.4 216.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 978 0 978 2.0 1412 0.693 100 9.1 LOS A 30.4 216.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 0 219 219 2.0 3121

0.703 100 24.1 LOS C 6.5 46.0 37 Turn Bay 0.0 24.7

Approach 0 1957 219 2176 2.0 0.703 10.7 LOS B 30.4 216.7


Lane 1 86 0 24 110 2.0 1641

0.672 100 31.0 LOS C 3.6 25.8 21 Parking 0.0 23.6

Lane 2 0 0 205 205 2.0 305 0.672 100 57.9 LOS E 11.6 82.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 86 0 229 315 2.0 0.672 48.5 LOS D 11.6 82.6

West: Dynon Road

Lane 1 407 0 0 407 2.0 671 0.606 865

40.4 LOS D 19.3 137.7 160 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 496 0 496 2.0 706 0.703 100 34.8 LOS C 24.7 175.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 496 0 496 2.0 706 0.703 100 34.8 LOS C 24.7 175.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 4 0 0 36 36 2.0 119 0.306 100 33.9 LOS C 1.5 10.3 40 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 407 993 36 1436 2.0 0.703 36.3 LOS D 24.7 175.9

Intersection 3927 2.0 0.703 23.1 LOS C 30.4 216.7










LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions Midday Saturday Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 478 0 478 3.0 1164 0.411 100 13.0 LOS B 14.3 103.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 478 0 478 3.0 1164 0.411 100 13.0 LOS B 14.3 103.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 0 99 99 3.0 2681

0.369 100 24.4 LOS C 2.4 17.5 37 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 957 99 1056 3.0 0.411 14.0 LOS B 14.3 103.0


Lane 1 107 0 0 107 3.0 1601

0.669 100 31.7 LOS C 3.6 25.6 21 Parking 0.0 22.9

Lane 2 0 0 217 217 3.0 530 0.410 615

42.7 LOS D 10.2 73.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 107 0 217 324 3.0 0.669 39.0 LOS D 10.2 73.5

West: Dynon Road

Lane 1 191 0 0 191 3.0 6471

0.295 445

35.2 LOS D 7.7 55.6 160 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 477 0 477 3.0 717 0.665 100 33.5 LOS C 23.2 166.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 477 0 477 3.0 717 0.665 100 33.5 LOS C 23.2 166.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 4 0 0 10 10 3.0 2071

0.049 100 27.7 LOS C 0.3 2.2 40 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 191 955 10 1156 3.0 0.665 33.7 LOS C 23.2 166.3












Kensington Road / Epsom Road / Macaulay RoadSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 100 seconds (User-Given Cycle Time)



Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.


veh/h veh/h veh/h veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec veh m m % %South East: Macaulay Road

Lane 1 60 0 0 60 10.0 1011

0.600 100 43.8 LOS D 2.6 19.6 20 Parking 0.0 3.4

Lane 2 950

0 213 308 10.0 329 0.936 100 69.7 LOS E 19.2 146.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 155 0 213 369 10.0 0.936 65.5 LOS E 19.2 146.2

North: Epsom Road

Lane 1 254 0 1770

431 5.0 976 0.442 100 18.6 LOS B 12.4 90.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 111 111 5.0 1851

0.600 100 24.0 LOS C 2.8 20.1 21 Turn Bay 0.0 1.2

Approach 254 0 288 542 5.0 0.600 19.8 LOS B 12.4 90.5

West: Kensington Road

Lane 1 59 0 0 59 5.0 981

0.600 100 49.1 LOS D 2.7 19.5 20 Parking 0.0 2.8

Lane 2 810

0 81 162 5.0 251 0.644 100 51.2 LOS D 7.8 57.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 140 0 81 220 5.0 0.644 50.7 LOS D 7.8 57.1

Intersection 1131 6.6 0.936 40.7 LOS D 19.2 146.2









Project: P:\14M2300-2399\14M2307000 West Melbourne Waterfront Presentation\Modelling\Kensington Road & Epsom Road & Macaulay Road.sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE





Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 66 0 0 66 5.0 1091

0.600 100 40.9 LOS D 2.7 19.7 20 Parking 0.0 3.5

Lane 2 410

0 374 414 5.0 394 1.051 100 126.0 LOS F 36.4 265.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 106 0 374 480 5.0 1.051 114.4 LOS F 36.4 265.4

North: Epsom Road

Lane 1 235 0 460

280 1.0 836 0.336 100 22.7 LOS C 8.7 61.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 93 93 1.0 1551

0.600 100 31.0 LOS C 2.8 20.1 21 Turn Bay 0.0 1.1

Approach 235 0 139 374 1.0 0.600 24.8 LOS C 8.7 61.3


Lane 1 68 0 0 68 2.0 1141

0.600 100 40.4 LOS D 2.8 19.7 20 Parking 0.0 3.5

Lane 2 2870

0 168 455 2.0 421 1.080 100 148.1 LOS F 43.7 310.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 355 0 168 523 2.0 1.080 134.1 LOS F 43.7 310.8











LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions - Midday SAT Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 74 0 0 74 2.0 1231

0.600 100 34.9 LOS C 2.8 19.8 20 Parking 0.0 4.0

Lane 2 900

0 334 424 2.0 531 0.798 100 44.1 LOS D 20.6 146.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 164 0 334 498 2.0 0.798 42.7 LOS D 20.6 146.8

North: Epsom Road

Lane 1 383 0 0 383 1.0 960 0.399 100 19.2 LOS B 11.0 77.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 141 141 1.0 1761

0.800 100 34.6 LOS C 4.3 30.1 21 Turn Bay 0.0 38.0

Approach 383 0 141 524 1.0 0.800 23.4 LOS C 11.0 77.9


Lane 1 61 0 0 61 3.0 1021

0.600 100 47.0 LOS D 2.7 19.5 20 Parking 0.0 2.9

Lane 2 1250

0 179 304 3.0 291 1.044 100 122.6 LOS F 25.6 184.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 186 0 179 365 3.0 1.044 109.8 LOS F 25.6 184.1











LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions AM Peak

Childers Street/Kensington Road/Hobsons Road IntersectionSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Delay)



Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.


veh/h veh/h veh/h veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec veh m m % %South: Childers Road

Lane 1 14 6 10 30 2.0 483 0.063 100 22.0 LOS C 0.7 5.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 14 6 10 30 2.0 0.063 22.0 LOS C 0.7 5.0

East: Kensington Road

Lane 1 130 0 0 130 2.0 2871

0.454 100 17.2 LOS B 2.5 17.5 26 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 632 9 642 5.0 912 0.703 100 15.4 LOS B 17.3 126.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 130 632 9 772 4.5 0.703 15.7 LOS B 17.3 126.0

North: Hobsons Road

Lane 1 10 0 0 10 5.0 1221

0.086 100 22.8 LOS C 0.2 1.7 13 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 92 213 304 5.0 441 0.690 100 28.1 LOS C 9.6 70.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 10 92 213 315 5.0 0.690 27.9 LOS C 9.6 70.4


Lane 1 19 25 0 44 7.9 3541

0.124 206

12.9 LOS B 0.8 5.8 35 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 122 92 213 6.6 344 0.620 100 28.5 LOS C 6.8 50.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 19 147 92 257 6.8 0.620 25.9 LOS C 6.8 50.1







6 Lane underutilisation due to downstream effects

Processed: Tuesday, 25 November 2014 10:19:15 AMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.13.2093


Project: P:\14M2300-2399\14M2307000 West Melbourne Waterfront Presentation\Modelling\Childers Street & Kensington Road & Hobsons Road.sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE

LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions PM Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 53 94 72 219 2.0 413 0.531 100 28.0 LOS C 6.6 47.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 53 94 72 219 2.0 0.531 28.0 LOS C 6.6 47.1


Lane 1 18 0 0 18 2.0 3291

0.056 100 13.8 LOS B 0.3 2.0 26 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 191 9 200 2.0 990 0.202 100 9.1 LOS A 3.5 24.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 18 191 9 218 2.0 0.202 9.5 LOS A 3.5 24.9

North: Hobsons Road

Lane 1 10 0 0 10 5.0 1101

0.093 100 26.7 LOS C 0.3 1.9 13 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 7 30 37 5.0 260 0.141 100 30.5 LOS C 1.1 7.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 10 7 30 47 5.0 0.141 29.7 LOS C 1.1 7.8


Lane 1 103 0 0 103 2.0 4141

0.249 485

14.2 LOS B 1.6 11.7 35 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 537 12 549 2.0 1056 0.520 100 10.6 LOS B 11.7 83.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 103 537 12 652 2.0 0.520 11.1 LOS B 11.7 83.4











LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions Midday Saturday Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 10 2 9 22 2.0 328 0.067 100 29.3 LOS C 0.6 4.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 10 2 9 22 2.0 0.067 29.3 LOS C 0.6 4.3


Lane 1 34 0 0 34 2.0 3571

0.096 100 12.5 LOS B 0.5 3.4 26 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 274 6 280 2.0 1142 0.245 100 7.2 LOS A 4.5 31.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 34 274 6 315 2.0 0.245 7.8 LOS A 4.5 31.8

North: Hobsons Road

Lane 1 24 0 0 24 5.0 1031

0.234 100 29.6 LOS C 0.6 4.7 13 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 1 42 43 5.0 295 0.145 100 30.6 LOS C 1.2 8.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 24 1 42 67 5.0 0.234 30.3 LOS C 1.2 8.8


Lane 1 32 0 0 32 2.0 4501

0.072 305

12.5 LOS B 0.4 3.1 35 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 252 14 266 2.0 1105 0.240 100 7.4 LOS A 4.2 30.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 32 252 14 298 2.0 0.240 7.9 LOS A 4.2 30.0












Kensington Road / Mercantile Parade IntersectionStop (Two-Way)



Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.


veh/h veh/h veh/h veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec veh m m % %East: Kensington Road

Lane 1 0 453 20 473 4.8 1871 0.253 100 1.0 LOS A 1.7 12.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 453 20 473 4.8 0.253 1.0 NA 1.7 12.4

North: Mercantile Parade

Lane 1 66 0 0 66 0.0 7601

0.087 100 9.9 LOS A 0.2 1.5 14 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 289 289 0.0 457 0.632 100 20.7 LOS C 4.0 27.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 66 0 289 355 0.0 0.632 18.7 LOS C 4.0 27.9


Lane 1 16 154 0 170 9.1 1833 0.093 100 0.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 16 154 0 170 9.1 0.093 0.6 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 998 3.8 0.632 7.2 NA 4.0 27.9



Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes.

NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road lanes.





Project: P:\14M2300-2399\14M2307000 West Melbourne Waterfront Presentation\Modelling\Kensington Road & Mercantile Parade.sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE





Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 199 79 278 1.4 1478 0.188 100 5.1 LOS A 1.4 9.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 199 79 278 1.4 0.188 5.1 NA 1.4 9.8


Lane 1 40 0 0 40 0.0 6111

0.065 100 12.3 LOS B 0.2 1.3 14 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 20 20 0.0 334 0.061 100 17.8 LOS C 0.2 1.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 40 0 20 60 0.0 0.065 14.2 LOS B 0.2 1.3


Lane 1 105 508 0 613 1.7 1913 0.321 100 1.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 105 508 0 613 1.7 0.321 1.1 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 951 1.5 0.321 3.1 NA 1.4 9.8










LANE SUMMARY Site: Existing Conditions - Midday Saturday Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 272 52 324 2.5 1798 0.180 100 2.2 LOS A 1.2 8.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 272 52 324 2.5 0.180 2.2 NA 1.2 8.4


Lane 1 52 0 0 52 0.0 7221

0.071 100 10.5 LOS B 0.2 1.3 14 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 40 40 0.0 483 0.082 100 14.3 LOS B 0.3 1.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 52 0 40 91 0.0 0.082 12.1 LOS B 0.3 1.9


Lane 1 25 270 0 295 2.7 1908 0.154 100 0.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 25 270 0 295 2.7 0.154 0.5 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 710 2.3 0.180 2.8 NA 1.2 8.4










LANE SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions - AM Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 39 0 0 39 70.0 4811

0.081 100 20.0 LOS B 0.6 6.3 75 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 376 0 376 9.0 811 0.464 100 10.9 LOS B 6.6 49.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 376 0 376 9.0 811 0.464 100 10.9 LOS B 6.6 49.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 39 752 0 791 12.0 0.464 11.3 LOS B 6.6 49.8

North: Dynon Road

Lane 1 0 618 0 618 9.0 811 0.762 100 15.4 LOS B 14.3 107.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 618 0 618 9.0 811 0.762 100 15.4 LOS B 14.3 107.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1235 0 1235 9.0 0.762 15.4 LOS B 14.3 107.7


Lane 1 20 0 1 21 70.0 396 0.052 100 23.3 LOS C 0.4 4.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 21 21 70.0 396 0.052 100 23.2 LOS C 0.4 4.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 20 0 22 41 70.0 0.052 23.2 LOS C 0.4 4.0










LANE SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions - PM Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 20 0 0 20 70.0 4901

0.040 100 17.1 LOS B 0.3 3.1 75 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 942 0 942 2.0 1155 0.816 100 15.1 LOS B 28.0 199.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 942 0 942 2.0 1155 0.816 100 15.1 LOS B 28.0 199.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 20 1885 0 1905 2.7 0.816 15.1 LOS B 28.0 199.2

North: Dynon Road

Lane 1 0 676 0 676 2.0 1155 0.585 100 9.3 LOS A 14.2 101.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 676 0 676 2.0 1155 0.585 100 9.3 LOS A 14.2 101.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1351 0 1351 2.0 0.585 9.3 LOS A 14.2 101.2


Lane 1 47 0 0 47 70.0 283 0.164 100 34.5 LOS C 1.3 14.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 27 27 70.0 283 0.095 575

33.9 LOS C 0.7 8.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 47 0 27 73 70.0 0.164 34.2 LOS C 1.3 14.9











LANE SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions - Midday Saturday Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 14 0 0 14 70.0 4831

0.030 100 19.7 LOS B 0.2 2.2 75 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 515 0 515 3.0 842 0.612 100 11.8 LOS B 9.9 70.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 515 0 515 3.0 842 0.612 100 11.8 LOS B 9.9 70.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 14 1031 0 1045 3.9 0.612 11.9 LOS B 9.9 70.9

North: Dynon Road

Lane 1 0 513 0 513 3.0 842 0.610 100 11.8 LOS B 9.8 70.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 513 0 513 3.0 842 0.610 100 11.8 LOS B 9.8 70.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1027 0 1027 3.0 0.610 11.8 LOS B 9.8 70.5


Lane 1 23 0 0 23 70.0 396 0.059 100 23.3 LOS C 0.4 4.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 7 7 70.0 396 0.018 305

22.9 LOS C 0.1 1.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 23 0 7 31 70.0 0.059 23.2 LOS C 0.4 4.6











LANE SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions AM Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 376 0 376 9.0 998 0.376 100 16.8 LOS B 12.5 93.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 376 0 376 9.0 998 0.376 100 16.8 LOS B 12.5 93.9 500 – 0.0 0.0


Approach 0 751 60 811 9.1 0.402 18.5 LOS B 12.5 93.9


Lane 1 139 0 0 139 5.0 1391

1.0003

845

40.88

LOS D8

4.78

34.38

21 Parking 0.0 50.0

Lane 2 2890

0 478 766 5.0 643 1.193 100 248.1 LOS F 107.0 781.4 500 – 0.0 45.9

Approach 428 0 478 905 5.0 1.193 216.3 LOS F 107.0 781.4

West: Dynon Road

Lane 1 252 0 0 252 10.0 7641

0.330 275

27.2 LOS C 7.5 56.6 160 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 992 0 992 9.0 814 1.219 100 248.9 LOS F 142.8 1076.4 500 – 0.0 76.5

Lane 3 0 992 0 992 9.0 814 1.219 100 248.9 LOS F 142.8 1076.4 500 – 0.0 76.5

Lane 4 0 0 5 5 9.0 2361

0.022 100 28.9 LOS C 0.1 1.0 40 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 252 1984 5 2241 9.1 1.219 223.5 LOS F 142.8 1076.4














LANE SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions PM Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 978 0 978 2.0 1428 0.685 100 8.6 LOS A 29.5 209.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 978 0 978 2.0 1428 0.685 100 8.6 LOS A 29.5 209.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 0 231 231 2.0 3181

0.728 100 25.8 LOS C 7.0 49.9 37 Turn Bay 0.0 32.3

Approach 0 1957 231 2188 2.0 0.728 10.4 LOS B 29.5 209.8


Lane 1 89 0 30 118 2.0 1671

0.710 100 34.6 LOS C 4.1 29.2 21 Parking 0.0 35.2

Lane 2 0 0 206 206 2.0 290 0.710 100 59.8 LOS E 11.9 84.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 89 0 235 324 2.0 0.710 50.6 LOS D 11.9 84.9

West: Dynon Road

Lane 1 428 0 0 428 2.0 656 0.653 915

41.9 LOS D 21.0 149.2 160 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 496 0 496 2.0 690 0.720 100 35.7 LOS D 25.1 178.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 496 0 496 2.0 690 0.720 100 35.7 LOS D 25.1 178.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 4 0 0 36 36 2.0 122 0.297 100 32.4 LOS C 1.4 10.0 40 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 428 993 36 1458 2.0 0.720 37.4 LOS D 25.1 178.4











LANE SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions Midday Saturday Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 478 0 478 3.0 1132 0.423 100 14.1 LOS B 15.0 107.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 478 0 478 3.0 1132 0.423 100 14.1 LOS B 15.0 107.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 0 113 113 3.0 2611

0.433 100 25.9 LOS C 2.9 21.0 37 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 957 113 1070 3.0 0.433 15.3 LOS B 15.0 107.5


Lane 1 118 0 0 118 3.0 1681

0.703 100 34.1 LOS C 4.0 28.7 21 Parking 0.0 33.4

Lane 2 0 0 239 239 3.0 561 0.427 615

41.4 LOS D 11.2 80.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 118 0 239 358 3.0 0.703 39.0 LOS D 11.2 80.1

West: Dynon Road

Lane 1 218 0 0 218 3.0 636 0.343 485

38.1 LOS D 9.4 67.4 160 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 477 0 477 3.0 669 0.713 100 36.3 LOS D 24.1 173.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 477 0 477 3.0 669 0.713 100 36.3 LOS D 24.1 173.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 4 0 0 10 10 3.0 2011

0.050 100 29.4 LOS C 0.3 2.3 40 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 218 955 10 1183 3.0 0.713 36.5 LOS D 24.1 173.4











LANE SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions AM Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 14 10 10 34 2.0 547 0.063 100 19.2 LOS B 0.7 5.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 14 10 10 34 2.0 0.063 19.2 LOS B 0.7 5.3


Lane 1 130 0 0 130 2.0 2671

0.487 100 19.1 LOS B 2.7 19.0 26 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 614 16 629 5.0 827 0.761 100 19.7 LOS B 19.2 140.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 130 614 16 759 4.5 0.761 19.6 LOS B 19.2 140.5

North: Hobsons Road

Lane 1 14 0 0 14 5.0 1301

0.104 100 20.7 LOS C 0.3 2.1 13 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 118 274 392 5.0 488 0.802 100 31.8 LOS C 14.1 103.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 14 118 274 405 5.0 0.802 31.4 LOS C 14.1 103.0


Lane 1 31 18 0 49 6.8 3321

0.149 206

16.1 LOS B 1.0 7.1 35 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 126 92 217 6.6 292 0.744 100 34.9 LOS C 7.8 57.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 31 144 92 267 6.7 0.744 31.4 LOS C 7.8 57.8











LANE SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions PM Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 53 124 72 250 2.0 459 0.545 100 26.1 LOS C 7.4 52.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 53 124 72 250 2.0 0.545 26.1 LOS C 7.4 52.5


Lane 1 18 0 0 18 2.0 3121

0.059 100 14.8 LOS B 0.3 2.1 26 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 191 12 203 2.0 912 0.223 100 11.0 LOS B 3.9 27.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 18 191 12 221 2.0 0.223 11.3 LOS B 3.9 27.8

North: Hobsons Road

Lane 1 19 0 0 19 5.0 1141

0.171 100 25.2 LOS C 0.5 3.4 13 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 14 58 72 5.0 269 0.269 100 30.5 LOS C 2.1 15.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 19 14 58 92 5.0 0.269 29.4 LOS C 2.1 15.6


Lane 1 137 0 0 137 2.0 3931

0.348 655

15.5 LOS B 2.4 16.9 35 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 524 12 537 2.0 1001 0.536 100 11.9 LOS B 12.1 86.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 137 524 12 673 2.0 0.536 12.6 LOS B 12.1 86.2











LANE SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions Midday Saturday Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 10 9 9 29 2.0 577 0.051 100 19.0 LOS B 0.6 4.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 10 9 9 29 2.0 0.051 19.0 LOS B 0.6 4.5


Lane 1 34 0 0 34 2.0 2691

0.128 100 18.3 LOS B 0.7 4.7 26 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 273 10 283 2.0 830 0.341 100 14.1 LOS B 6.4 45.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 34 273 10 318 2.0 0.341 14.5 LOS B 6.4 45.5

North: Hobsons Road

Lane 1 44 0 0 44 5.0 1291

0.340 100 21.1 LOS C 0.9 6.9 13 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 2 77 79 5.0 452 0.175 100 22.2 LOS C 1.8 13.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 44 2 77 123 5.0 0.340 21.8 LOS C 1.8 13.3


Lane 1 77 0 0 77 2.0 3431

0.224 695

18.6 LOS B 1.5 10.9 35 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 250 14 264 2.0 808 0.326 100 14.1 LOS B 5.9 42.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 77 250 14 341 2.0 0.326 15.1 LOS B 5.9 42.0















Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 441 20 461 4.8 1870 0.247 100 1.0 LOS A 1.6 12.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 441 20 461 4.8 0.247 1.0 NA 1.6 12.0


Lane 1 66 0 0 66 0.0 7601

0.087 100 9.9 LOS A 0.2 1.5 14 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 289 289 0.0 466 0.620 100 20.2 LOS C 3.9 27.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 66 0 289 355 0.0 0.620 18.3 LOS C 3.9 27.2


Lane 1 16 154 0 170 9.1 1833 0.093 100 0.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 16 154 0 170 9.1 0.093 0.6 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 986 3.8 0.620 7.2 NA 3.9 27.2














Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 202 79 281 1.4 1485 0.189 100 5.0 LOS A 1.4 9.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 202 79 281 1.4 0.189 5.0 NA 1.4 9.9


Lane 1 40 0 0 40 0.0 6121

0.065 100 12.3 LOS B 0.2 1.3 14 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 20 20 0.0 334 0.061 100 17.8 LOS C 0.2 1.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 40 0 20 60 0.0 0.065 14.2 LOS B 0.2 1.3


Lane 1 105 505 0 610 1.7 1913 0.319 100 1.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 105 505 0 610 1.7 0.319 1.1 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 951 1.5 0.319 3.1 NA 1.4 9.9










MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions - Midday Saturday Peak


Movement Performance - Vehicles

95% Back of QueueMov ID Turn

DemandFlow HV

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

AverageSpeed Vehicles Distance

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

5 T 275 3.0 0.182 1.3 LOS A 1.2 8.7 0.45 0.00 44.6

6 R 52 0.0 0.182 7.5 LOS A 1.2 8.7 0.45 0.76 42.9

Approach 327 2.5 0.182 2.3 NA 1.2 8.7 0.45 0.12 44.3


7 L 52 0.0 0.072 10.6 LOS B 0.2 1.3 0.38 0.87 40.5

9 R 40 0.0 0.085 14.6 LOS B 0.3 1.9 0.57 0.99 37.8

Approach 91 0.0 0.085 12.3 LOS B 0.3 1.9 0.46 0.92 39.3


10 L 25 0.0 0.164 6.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.88 43.3

11 T 288 3.0 0.164 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 50.0

Approach 313 2.8 0.164 0.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07 49.4

All Vehicles 731 2.3 0.182 2.8 NA 1.2 8.7 0.26 0.20 45.6


Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement

Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.









Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 61 0 0 61 10.0 1021

0.600 100 42.9 LOS D 2.6 19.7 20 Parking 0.0 3.5

Lane 2 870

0 213 300 10.0 347 0.866 100 56.8 LOS E 16.5 125.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 148 0 213 361 10.0 0.866 54.4 LOS D 16.5 125.5

North: Epsom Road

Lane 1 254 0 1650

419 5.0 1011 0.415 100 17.3 LOS B 11.4 83.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 116 116 5.0 1931

0.600 100 23.3 LOS C 2.8 20.1 21 Turn Bay 0.0 1.0

Approach 254 0 281 535 5.0 0.600 18.6 LOS B 11.4 83.2


Lane 1 57 0 0 57 5.0 951

0.600 100 51.3 LOS D 2.7 19.5 20 Parking 0.0 2.6

Lane 2 830

0 81 163 5.0 215 0.759 100 55.8 LOS E 8.4 61.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 140 0 81 220 5.0 0.759 54.6 LOS D 8.4 61.4















Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 66 0 0 66 5.0 1091

0.600 100 40.9 LOS D 2.7 19.7 20 Parking 0.0 3.5

Lane 2 420

0 374 415 5.0 394 1.053 100 128.0 LOS F 36.7 268.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 107 0 374 481 5.0 1.053 116.1 LOS F 36.7 268.2

North: Epsom Road

Lane 1 235 0 480

283 1.0 836 0.338 100 22.8 LOS C 8.8 61.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 93 93 1.0 1551

0.600 100 31.0 LOS C 2.8 20.1 21 Turn Bay 0.0 1.1

Approach 235 0 141 376 1.0 0.600 24.8 LOS C 8.8 61.8


Lane 1 68 0 0 68 2.0 1141

0.600 100 40.4 LOS D 2.8 19.7 20 Parking 0.0 3.5

Lane 2 2840

0 167 452 2.0 421 1.073 100 142.4 LOS F 42.4 302.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 353 0 167 520 2.0 1.073 129.0 LOS F 42.4 302.0











LANE SUMMARY Site: Base Conditions - Midday SAT Peak




Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 73 0 0 73 2.0 1221

0.600 100 35.7 LOS D 2.8 19.8 20 Parking 0.0 3.9

Lane 2 930

0 334 427 2.0 513 0.833 100 47.5 LOS D 21.8 155.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 166 0 334 500 2.0 0.833 45.8 LOS D 21.8 155.3

North: Epsom Road

Lane 1 383 0 0 383 1.0 942 0.407 100 19.9 LOS B 11.3 79.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 142 142 1.0 1731

0.822 100 35.8 LOS D 4.5 31.6 21 Turn Bay 0.0 42.5

Approach 383 0 142 525 1.0 0.822 24.2 LOS C 11.3 79.6


Lane 1 62 0 0 62 3.0 1041

0.600 100 46.0 LOS D 2.7 19.6 20 Parking 0.0 3.0

Lane 2 1340

0 187 321 3.0 309 1.038 100 118.2 LOS F 26.6 191.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 196 0 187 383 3.0 1.038 106.4 LOS F 26.6 191.2











LANE SUMMARY Site: Post Development - Midday Saturday Peak


Lane Use and PerformanceDemand Flows 95% Back of Queue

HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 14 0 0 14 70.0 4831

P 100 19.7 LOS B 0.2 2.2 75 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 574 0 574 3.0 842 P 100 12.8 LOS B 11.7 84.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 574 0 574 3.0 842 P 100 12.8 LOS B 11.7 84.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 14 1148 0 1162 3.8 0.682 12.8 LOS B 11.7 84.0

North: Dynon Road

Lane 1 0 572 0 572 3.0 842 P 100 12.7 LOS B 11.6 83.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 572 0 572 3.0 842 P 100 12.7 LOS B 11.6 83.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1144 0 1144 3.0 0.680 12.7 LOS B 11.6 83.5


Lane 1 23 0 0 23 70.0 396 P 100 23.3 LOS C 0.4 4.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 7 7 70.0 396 P 305

22.9 LOS C 0.1 1.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 23 0 7 31 70.0 0.059 23.2 LOS C 0.4 4.6


P: You need to Process this Site (F9) for this variable to be computed.







Processed: Wednesday, 19 August 2015 12:42:37 PMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.5.2006


Project: P:\15M2100-2199\15M2150000 - West Melbourne Waterfront - Further Work\Modelling\Dynon Road & Dock Link Road.sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE

LANE SUMMARY Site: Post Development - AM Peak



HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 39 0 0 39 70.0 4811

P 100 20.0 LOS B 0.6 6.3 75 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 435 0 435 9.0 811 P 100 11.3 LOS B 8.0 60.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 435 0 435 9.0 811 P 100 11.3 LOS B 8.0 60.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 39 869 0 908 11.6 0.536 11.7 LOS B 8.0 60.0

North: Dynon Road

Lane 1 0 680 0 680 9.0 811 P 100 20.0 LOS C 18.4 138.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 680 0 680 9.0 811 P 100 20.0 LOS C 18.4 138.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1360 0 1360 9.0 0.839 20.0 LOS C 18.4 138.7


Lane 1 20 0 1 21 70.0 396 P 100 23.3 LOS C 0.4 4.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 21 21 70.0 396 P 100 23.2 LOS C 0.4 4.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 20 0 22 41 70.0 0.052 23.2 LOS C 0.4 4.0











LANE SUMMARY Site: Post Development - PM Peak



HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 20 0 0 20 70.0 4901

P 100 17.1 LOS B 0.3 3.1 75 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 997 0 997 2.0 1155 P 100 20.0 LOS B 34.4 244.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 997 0 997 2.0 1155 P 100 20.0 LOS B 34.4 244.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 20 1994 0 2014 2.7 0.863 20.0 LOS B 34.4 244.7

North: Dynon Road

Lane 1 0 774 0 774 2.0 1155 P 100 10.1 LOS B 17.7 126.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 774 0 774 2.0 1155 P 100 10.1 LOS B 17.7 126.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1548 0 1548 2.0 0.670 10.1 LOS B 17.7 126.0


Lane 1 47 0 0 47 70.0 283 P 100 34.5 LOS C 1.3 14.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 27 27 70.0 283 P 575

33.9 LOS C 0.7 8.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 47 0 27 73 70.0 0.164 34.2 LOS C 1.3 14.9












LANE SUMMARY Site: Post Development AM Peak



HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 390 0 390 9.0 921 0.423 100 20.2 LOS C 14.3 107.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 361 270

388 9.0 917 0.423 100 20.2 LOS C 14.2 107.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 0 150 150 10.0 150 1.0003

100 75.28

LOS E8

7.98

60.48

37 Turn Bay 0.0 50.0

Approach 0 751 177 928 9.2 1.000 29.1 LOS C 14.3 107.7


Lane 1 150 0 0 150 5.0 1501

1.0003

745

38.38

LOS D8

4.78

34.38

21 Parking 0.0 50.0

Lane 2 4010

0 564 966 5.0 717 1.346 100 382.2 LOS F 170.6 1245.1 500 – 0.0 90.8

Approach 551 0 564 1115 5.0 1.346 336.0 LOS F 170.6 1245.1

West: Dynon Road

Lane 1 419 0 0 419 10.0 6861

0.611 455

34.8 LOS C 16.9 128.1 160 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 992 0 992 9.0 737 1.346 100 365.1 LOS F 172.0 1296.5 500 – 0.0 94.8

Lane 3 0 992 0 992 9.0 737 1.346 100 365.1 LOS F 172.0 1296.5 500 – 0.0 94.8

Lane 4 0 0 5 5 9.0 2101

0.024 100 34.6 LOS C 0.2 1.2 40 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 419 1984 5 2408 9.2 1.346 306.9 LOS F 172.0 1296.5











Processed: Wednesday, 19 August 2015 9:28:25 AMSIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.5.2006


Project: P:\15M2100-2199\15M2150000 - West Melbourne Waterfront - Further Work\Modelling\Dynon Road & Kensington Road.sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE

LANE SUMMARY Site: Post Development PM Peak



HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 1012 0 1012 2.0 1171 0.864 100 23.7 LOS C 51.1 363.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 944 640

1009 2.0 1167 0.864 100 23.8 LOS C 51.0 362.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 0 262 262 2.0 2621

1.0003

100 32.58

LOS C8

8.58

60.58

37 Turn Bay 0.0 50.2

Approach 0 1957 326 2283 2.0 1.000 24.8 LOS C 51.1 363.6


Lane 1 196 0 0 196 2.0 1961

1.0003

995

31.28

LOS C8

4.88

34.38

21 Parking 0.0 50.0

Lane 2 640

0 476 539 2.0 534 1.010 100 107.8 LOS F 48.1 342.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 260 0 476 735 2.0 1.010 87.4 LOS F 48.1 342.5

West: Dynon Road

Lane 1 492 0 0 492 2.0 519 0.948 100 78.7 LOS E 36.7 261.1 160 Turn Bay 0.0 50.0

Lane 2 230

485 0 508 2.0 545 0.932 985

69.2 LOS E 36.2 257.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 508 0 508 2.0 545 0.932 985

65.5 LOS E 36.2 257.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 4 0 0 36 36 2.0 84 0.435 100 62.5 LOS E 2.1 14.9 40 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 515 993 36 1544 2.0 0.948 70.9 LOS E 36.7 261.1














LANE SUMMARY Site: Post Development Midday Saturday Peak



HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 478 0 478 3.0 1227 0.390 100 10.8 LOS B 13.1 94.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 478 0 478 3.0 1227 0.390 100 10.8 LOS B 13.1 94.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 0 229 229 3.0 2851

0.804 100 34.0 LOS C 7.4 52.8 37 Turn Bay 0.0 37.5

Approach 0 957 229 1186 3.0 0.804 15.3 LOS B 13.1 94.1


Lane 1 211 0 0 211 3.0 2111

1.0003

100 29.28

LOS C8

4.88

34.38

21 Parking 0.0 50.0

Lane 2 240

0 369 392 3.0 470 0.835 845

58.3 LOS E 23.8 170.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 234 0 369 603 3.0 1.000 48.2 LOS D 23.8 170.8

West: Dynon Road

Lane 1 347 0 0 347 3.0 455 0.764 775

54.6 LOS D 19.7 141.3 160 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 477 0 477 3.0 478 0.998 100 95.4 LOS F 40.7 291.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 3 0 477 0 477 3.0 478 0.998 100 95.4 LOS F 40.7 291.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 4 0 0 10 10 3.0 2151

0.047 100 24.9 LOS C 0.3 2.1 40 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 347 955 10 1312 3.0 0.998 84.1 LOS F 40.7 291.9

















HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 60 0 0 60 10.0 1011

0.600 100 43.8 LOS D 2.6 19.6 20 Parking 0.0 3.4

Lane 2 1240

0 213 337 10.0 329 1.024 100 109.1 LOS F 27.1 205.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 184 0 213 398 10.0 1.024 99.2 LOS F 27.1 205.7

North: Epsom Road

Lane 1 254 0 2030

457 5.0 994 0.460 100 18.3 LOS B 13.1 95.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 114 114 5.0 1891

0.600 100 23.5 LOS C 2.8 20.1 21 Turn Bay 0.0 1.1

Approach 254 0 317 571 5.0 0.600 19.3 LOS B 13.1 95.7


Lane 1 58 0 0 58 5.0 971

0.600 100 50.2 LOS D 2.7 19.5 20 Parking 0.0 2.7

Lane 2 930

0 92 184 5.0 233 0.790 100 56.2 LOS E 9.6 70.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 151 0 92 242 5.0 0.790 54.8 LOS D 9.6 70.1










Project: P:\15M2100-2199\15M2150000 - West Melbourne Waterfront - Further Work\Modelling\Kensington Road & Epsom Road & Macaulay Road.sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE




HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 64 0 0 64 5.0 1061

0.600 100 42.6 LOS D 2.7 19.6 20 Parking 0.0 3.4

Lane 2 550

0 374 429 5.0 359 1.196 100 244.6 LOS F 54.4 397.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 119 0 374 493 5.0 1.196 218.4 LOS F 54.4 397.4

North: Epsom Road

Lane 1 235 0 620

297 1.0 800 0.371 100 24.4 LOS C 9.7 68.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 90 90 1.0 1501

0.600 100 31.5 LOS C 2.9 20.1 21 Turn Bay 0.0 1.2

Approach 235 0 153 387 1.0 0.600 26.0 LOS C 9.7 68.2


Lane 1 70 0 0 70 2.0 1171

0.600 100 38.7 LOS D 2.8 19.7 20 Parking 0.0 3.7

Lane 2 3270

0 212 538 2.0 458 1.176 100 226.7 LOS F 66.0 470.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 397 0 212 608 2.0 1.176 205.0 LOS F 66.0 470.0











LANE SUMMARY Site: Post Development - Midday SAT Peak



HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 70 0 0 70 2.0 1171

0.600 100 38.1 LOS D 2.8 19.7 20 Parking 0.0 3.7

Lane 2 1160

0 334 450 2.0 458 0.983 100 83.9 LOS F 32.1 228.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 186 0 334 520 2.0 0.983 77.7 LOS E 32.1 228.8

North: Epsom Road

Lane 1 383 0 0 383 1.0 888 0.432 100 21.9 LOS C 12.0 84.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 162 162 1.0 1641

0.991 100 31.38

LOS C8

4.98

34.38

21 Turn Bay 0.0 50.0

Approach 383 0 162 545 1.0 0.991 24.7 LOS C 12.0 84.8


Lane 1 65 0 0 65 3.0 1081

0.600 100 43.2 LOS D 2.7 19.6 20 Parking 0.0 3.3

Lane 2 1510

0 207 358 3.0 364 0.985 100 87.0 LOS F 25.5 182.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 216 0 207 423 3.0 0.985 80.2 LOS F 25.5 182.9

Intersection 1488 1.9 0.991 59.0 LOS E 32.1 228.8














HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 14 10 10 34 2.0 506 0.068 100 20.7 LOS C 0.8 5.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 14 10 10 34 2.0 0.068 20.7 LOS C 0.8 5.6


Lane 1 130 0 0 130 2.0 2801

0.465 100 17.8 LOS B 2.5 18.0 26 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 700 16 716 5.0 880 0.813 100 21.5 LOS C 23.6 172.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 130 700 16 846 4.5 0.813 20.9 LOS C 23.6 172.6

North: Hobsons Road

Lane 1 14 0 0 14 5.0 1241

0.109 100 22.1 LOS C 0.3 2.2 13 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 118 277 395 5.0 454 0.869 100 40.2 LOS D 16.4 119.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 14 118 277 408 5.0 0.869 39.6 LOS D 16.4 119.8


Lane 1 32 26 0 58 7.2 3461

0.167 206

14.5 LOS B 1.1 8.0 35 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 145 92 237 6.9 284 0.835 100 39.8 LOS D 9.4 69.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 32 171 92 295 7.0 0.835 34.8 LOS C 9.4 69.6










Project: P:\15M2100-2199\15M2150000 - West Melbourne Waterfront - Further Work\Modelling\Childers Street & Kensington Road & Hobsons Road.sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE




HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 53 124 72 250 2.0 394 0.634 100 29.5 LOS C 8.0 56.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 53 124 72 250 2.0 0.634 29.5 LOS C 8.0 56.8


Lane 1 18 0 0 18 2.0 3381

0.054 100 13.3 LOS B 0.3 1.9 26 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 249 12 261 2.0 963 0.271 100 10.1 LOS B 4.9 35.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 18 249 12 280 2.0 0.271 10.3 LOS B 4.9 35.0

North: Hobsons Road

Lane 1 19 0 0 19 5.0 1071

0.181 100 27.7 LOS C 0.5 3.7 13 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 14 63 78 5.0 221 0.351 100 34.8 LOS C 2.5 18.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 19 14 63 97 5.0 0.351 33.4 LOS C 2.5 18.1


Lane 1 150 0 0 150 2.0 4241

0.354 545

14.0 LOS B 2.4 16.9 35 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 703 12 715 2.0 1085 0.659 100 11.2 LOS B 16.8 119.9 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 150 703 12 865 2.0 0.659 11.7 LOS B 16.8 119.9














HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 10 9 9 29 2.0 409 0.071 100 25.2 LOS C 0.8 5.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 10 9 9 29 2.0 0.071 25.2 LOS C 0.8 5.4


Lane 1 34 0 0 34 2.0 3281

0.105 100 13.9 LOS B 0.5 3.7 26 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 415 10 425 2.0 1049 0.405 100 9.7 LOS A 8.3 59.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 34 415 10 459 2.0 0.405 10.0 LOS B 8.3 59.1

North: Hobsons Road

Lane 1 44 0 0 44 5.0 1081

0.404 100 27.3 LOS C 1.1 8.2 13 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 2 93 95 5.0 334 0.284 100 29.1 LOS C 2.7 19.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 44 2 93 139 5.0 0.404 28.6 LOS C 2.7 19.4


Lane 1 16 16 0 32 2.0 4191

0.076 206

10.6 LOS B 0.5 3.4 35 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 375 14 389 2.0 1022 0.380 100 9.6 LOS A 7.5 53.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 16 392 14 421 2.0 0.380 9.7 LOS A 7.5 53.2














HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 501 20 521 4.8 1870 0.279 100 1.1 LOS A 2.0 14.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 501 20 521 4.8 0.279 1.1 NA 2.0 14.3


Lane 1 66 0 0 66 0.0 7531

0.088 100 10.0 LOS B 0.2 1.5 14 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 312 312 0.0 411 0.760 100 26.2 LOS D 5.7 40.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 66 0 312 378 0.0 0.760 23.3 LOS C 5.7 40.1


Lane 1 25 171 0 196 8.7 1834 0.107 100 0.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 25 171 0 196 8.7 0.107 0.8 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 1095 3.8 0.760 8.7 NA 5.7 40.1









Project: P:\15M2100-2199\15M2150000 - West Melbourne Waterfront - Further Work\Modelling\Kensington Road & Mercantile Parade.sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE




HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 226 79 304 1.5 1335 0.228 100 7.2 LOS A 2.1 14.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 226 79 304 1.5 0.228 7.2 NA 2.1 14.6


Lane 1 40 0 0 40 0.0 5501

0.072 100 13.7 LOS B 0.2 1.6 14 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 55 55 0.0 253 0.217 100 22.9 LOS C 0.7 5.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 40 0 55 95 0.0 0.217 19.0 LOS C 0.7 5.0


Lane 1 198 592 0 790 1.5 1908 0.414 100 1.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 198 592 0 790 1.5 0.414 1.6 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 1189 1.4 0.414 4.4 NA 2.1 14.6










LANE SUMMARY Site: Post Development - Midday Saturday Peak



HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 316 52 368 2.6 1746 0.211 100 3.1 LOS A 1.6 11.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 316 52 368 2.6 0.211 3.1 NA 1.6 11.5


Lane 1 52 0 0 52 0.0 6811

0.076 100 11.1 LOS B 0.2 1.4 14 Parking 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 145 145 0.0 379 0.383 100 19.4 LOS C 1.6 11.2 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 52 0 145 197 0.0 0.383 17.2 LOS C 1.6 11.2


Lane 1 130 329 0 459 2.1 1897 0.242 100 1.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 130 329 0 459 2.1 0.242 1.8 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 1024 1.9 0.383 5.2 NA 1.6 11.5











Kensington Road/Site Access 1 (Site 1.1) IntersectionStop (Two-Way)


HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 89 0 89 5.0 1889 0.047 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 89 0 89 5.0 0.047 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0

North: Site Access 1 (Site 1.1)

Lane 1 3 0 0 3 0.0 1069 0.003 100 10.5 LOS B 0.0 0.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 3 0 0 3 0.0 0.003 10.5 LOS B 0.0 0.1


Lane 1 20 290 0 309 9.4 1833 0.169 100 0.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 20 290 0 309 9.4 0.169 0.4 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 401 8.3 0.169 0.4 NA 0.0 0.1








Project: P:\15M2100-2199\15M2150000 - West Melbourne Waterfront - Further Work\Modelling\Kensington Road & Site Access 1 (Site 1.1).sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE




HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 63 0 63 5.0 1889 0.033 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 63 0 63 5.0 0.033 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0


Lane 1 20 0 0 20 0.0 472 0.043 100 15.9 LOS C 0.2 1.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 20 0 0 20 0.0 0.043 15.9 LOS C 0.2 1.1


Lane 1 7 846 0 853 9.9 1831 0.466 100 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 7 846 0 853 9.9 0.466 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 937 9.4 0.466 0.4 NA 0.2 1.1









LANE SUMMARY Site: Post Development Mid Saturday Peak



HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 155 0 155 3.0 1913 0.081 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 155 0 155 3.0 0.081 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0


Lane 1 8 0 0 8 0.0 875 0.009 100 11.5 LOS B 0.0 0.3 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 8 0 0 8 0.0 0.009 11.5 LOS B 0.0 0.3


Lane 1 7 484 0 491 3.0 1912 0.257 100 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 7 484 0 491 3.0 0.257 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 654 2.9 0.257 0.2 NA 0.0 0.3










Kensington Road / Site Access 2 (Site 1.2 - 1.3) IntersectionSignals - Fixed Time Cycle Time = 70 seconds (Practical Cycle Time)


HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.


veh/h veh/h veh/h veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec veh m m % %South: Existing Access

Lane 1 5 0 5 11 0.0 159 0.066 100 41.7 LOS D 0.3 2.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 5 0 5 11 0.0 0.066 41.7 LOS D 0.3 2.4


Lane 1 0 940 0 940 5.0 1118 0.841 100 18.5 LOS B 30.7 223.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 40 40 0.0 3131

0.129 100 17.9 LOS B 0.7 5.0 30 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 940 40 980 4.8 0.841 18.5 LOS B 30.7 223.8

North: Site Access 2 (Site 1.2 - 1.3)

Lane 1 14 0 0 14 0.0 941

0.153 100 41.7 LOS D 0.5 3.4 14 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 98 98 0.0 165 0.594 100 44.5 LOS D 3.5 24.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 14 0 98 112 0.0 0.594 44.2 LOS D 3.5 24.6


Lane 1 102 0 0 102 0.0 3821

0.267 100 15.4 LOS B 1.6 11.0 30 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 294 0 294 10.0 1030 0.285 100 8.3 LOS A 5.1 39.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 102 294 0 396 7.4 0.285 10.1 LOS B 5.1 39.0









Project: P:\15M2100-2199\15M2150000 - West Melbourne Waterfront - Further Work\Modelling\Signalised -Kensington Road & Site Access 2 (Sites 1.2-1.3).sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE




HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 5 0 5 11 0.0 186 0.057 100 36.0 LOS D 0.3 2.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 5 0 5 11 0.0 0.057 36.0 LOS D 0.3 2.1


Lane 1 0 315 0 315 2.0 964 0.327 100 10.3 LOS B 5.7 40.6 500 – 0.0 0.0


Approach 0 315 50 365 1.7 0.327 13.7 LOS B 5.7 40.6


Lane 1 76 0 0 76 0.0 1111

0.678 100 37.8 LOS D 2.3 15.8 14 Turn Bay 0.0 15.9

Lane 2 0 0 188 188 0.0 225 0.836 100 42.8 LOS D 6.4 44.5 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 76 0 188 263 0.0 0.836 41.3 LOS D 6.4 44.5


Lane 1 95 0 0 95 0.0 3691

0.257 100 17.3 LOS B 1.5 10.6 30 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 777 0 777 2.0 916 0.848 100 21.6 LOS C 24.4 173.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 95 777 0 871 1.8 0.848 21.1 LOS C 24.4 173.4










LANE SUMMARY Site: Post Development - Midday Saturday



HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 5 0 5 11 0.0 223 0.047 100 30.4 LOS C 0.2 1.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 5 0 5 11 0.0 0.047 30.4 LOS C 0.2 1.7


Lane 1 0 428 0 428 3.0 793 0.540 100 12.7 LOS B 8.2 58.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 84 84 0.0 2861

0.292 100 25.7 LOS C 1.7 12.2 30 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 428 84 511 2.5 0.540 14.8 LOS B 8.2 58.8


Lane 1 75 0 0 75 0.0 1311

0.573 100 32.1 LOS C 1.8 12.9 14 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 126 126 0.0 231 0.545 100 32.6 LOS C 3.2 22.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 75 0 126 201 0.0 0.573 32.4 LOS C 3.2 22.1


Lane 1 119 0 0 119 0.0 3741

0.317 100 18.7 LOS B 1.9 13.2 30 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 415 0 415 3.0 753 0.552 100 12.8 LOS B 8.0 57.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 119 415 0 534 2.3 0.552 14.1 LOS B 8.0 57.6











Kensington Road/Site Access 3 (Site 2-3) IntersectionGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 1020 0 1020 5.0 1889 0.540 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 42 42 0.0 1088 0.039 100 8.5 LOS A 0.2 1.1 30 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1020 42 1062 4.8 0.540 0.3 NA 0.2 1.1

North: Site Access 3 (Sites 2-3)

Lane 1 9 0 0 9 0.0 6401

0.014 100 8.5 LOS A 0.0 0.3 14 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 96 96 0.0 149 0.645 100 45.9 LOS E 2.6 18.4 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 9 0 96 105 0.0 0.645 42.6 LOS E 2.6 18.4



Lane 2 0 434 0 434 10.0 1831 0.237 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 144 434 0 578 7.5 0.237 1.6 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 1745 5.4 0.645 3.3 NA 2.6 18.4









Project: P:\15M2100-2199\15M2150000 - West Melbourne Waterfront - Further Work\Modelling\Kensington Road & Site Access 3 (Sites 2-3).sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE




HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 518 0 518 2.0 1925 0.269 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0


Approach 0 518 11 530 2.0 0.269 0.2 NA 0.0 0.3


Lane 1 81 0 0 81 0.0 5441

0.148 100 10.8 LOS B 0.5 3.4 14 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 195 195 0.0 213 0.915 100 62.4 LOS F 7.6 53.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 81 0 195 276 0.0 0.915 47.3 LOS E 7.6 53.1



Lane 2 0 784 0 784 2.0 1925 0.407 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 68 784 0 852 1.8 0.407 0.5 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 1657 1.6 0.915 8.2 NA 7.6 53.1













HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 504 0 504 3.0 1913 0.264 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0


Approach 0 504 58 562 2.7 0.264 0.9 NA 0.2 1.4


Lane 1 58 0 0 58 0.0 6421

0.090 100 8.6 LOS A 0.3 1.8 14 Turn Bay 0.0 0.0

Lane 2 0 0 102 102 0.0 306 0.333 100 19.2 LOS C 1.3 9.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 58 0 102 160 0.0 0.333 15.4 LOS C 1.3 9.0



Lane 2 0 473 0 473 3.0 1913 0.247 100 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 102 473 0 575 2.5 0.247 1.1 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 1297 2.3 0.333 2.8 NA 1.3 9.0











Kensington Road/Site Access 4 (Site 4) IntersectionGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 1108 6 1114 5.0 1879 0.593 100 8.3 LOS A 12.9 93.8 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 1108 6 1114 5.0 0.593 8.3 NA 12.9 93.8

North: Site Access 4 (Site 4)

Lane 1 2 0 19 21 0.0 81 0.255 100 53.9 LOS F 0.7 5.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 2 0 19 21 0.0 0.255 53.9 LOS F 0.7 5.1


Lane 1 21 576 0 597 9.7 1832 0.326 100 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 21 576 0 597 9.7 0.326 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 1732 6.5 0.593 6.1 NA 12.9 93.8








Project: P:\15M2100-2199\15M2150000 - West Melbourne Waterfront - Further Work\Modelling\Kensington Road & Site Access 4 (Site 4).sip8000056, GTA CONSULTANTS, ENTERPRISE




HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 711 2 713 2.0 1915 0.372 100 8.3 LOS A 6.6 46.7 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 711 2 713 2.0 0.372 8.3 NA 6.6 46.7


Lane 1 16 0 33 49 0.0 148 0.331 100 34.6 LOS D 1.1 7.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 16 0 33 49 0.0 0.331 34.6 LOS D 1.1 7.6


Lane 1 13 836 0 849 2.0 1924 0.441 100 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 13 836 0 849 2.0 0.441 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 1611 1.9 0.441 4.8 NA 6.6 46.7












HV Cap.Deg.Satn

LaneUtil.

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Lane Length

SL Type

Cap.Adj.



Lane 1 0 593 13 606 2.9 1876 0.323 100 4.0 LOS A 3.5 25.1 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 0 593 13 606 2.9 0.323 4.0 NA 3.5 25.1


Lane 1 13 0 23 36 0.0 307 0.117 100 16.9 LOS C 0.4 2.6 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 13 0 23 36 0.0 0.117 16.9 LOS C 0.4 2.6


Lane 1 23 562 0 585 2.9 1910 0.306 100 0.2 LOS A 0.0 0.0 500 – 0.0 0.0

Approach 23 562 0 585 2.9 0.306 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0

Intersection 1227 2.8 0.323 2.6 NA 3.5 25.1









Melbourne

A Level 25, 55 Collins Street

PO Box 24055

MELBOURNE VIC 3000

P +613 9851 9600

E [email protected]

Brisbane

A Level 4, 283 Elizabeth Street

BRISBANE QLD 4000

GPO Box 115

BRISBANE QLD 4001

P +617 3113 5000

E [email protected]

Adelaide

A Suite 4, Level 1, 136 The Parade

PO Box 3421

NORWOOD SA 5067

P +618 8334 3600

E [email protected]

Townsville

A Level 1, 25 Sturt Street

PO Box 1064

TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810

P +617 4722 2765

E [email protected]

Sydney

A Level 6, 15 Help Street

CHATSWOOD NSW 2067

PO Box 5254

WEST CHATSWOOD NSW 1515

P +612 8448 1800

E [email protected]

Canberra

A Unit 4, Level 1, Sparta Building,

55 Woolley Street

PO Box 62

DICKSON ACT 2602

P +612 6243 4826

E [email protected]

Gold Coast

A Level 9, Corporate Centre 2

Box 37, 1 Corporate Court

BUNDALL QLD 4217

P +617 5510 4800

F +617 5510 4814

E [email protected]

Perth

A Level 27, 44 St Georges Terrace

PERTH WA 6000

P +618 6361 4634

E [email protected]

www.gta.com.au www.gta.com.au

mailto:[email protected]

West Melbourne Waterfront Development Plan Integrated ... fileWest Melbourne Waterfront Development...

Documents

Transcript of West Melbourne Waterfront Development Plan Integrated ... fileWest Melbourne Waterfront Development...