GOOGONG AND TRALEE TRAFFIC STUDY (2031) · 8.6 Shortlisted Options with Monaro Highway Upgrade 60...

GOOGONG AND TRALEE TRAFFIC STUDY

(2031)

GABITES PORTER

Prepared by

April 2010

Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)

Prepared by David Hunter Gabites Porter (NZ) Ltd Senior Transportation Engineer 138 Victoria St P O BOX 25 103

Reviewed by David Smith Christchurch Senior Transport Planner New Zealand

Approved by David Hunter Senior Transportation Engineer Telephone: +64 3 366 9871 Facsimile: +64 3 366 9870

Date: 23 April 2010 Reference: 4268 Status: FINAL

T r a f f i c & T r a n s p o r t a t i o nE n g i n e e r i n g & P l a n n i n g


CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2. INTRODUCTION 7 3. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 7

4. BACKGROUND 8 4.1 Summary of the Model 8 4.2 The Road Network 9

4.2.1 Base 2006 Road Network 9 4.2.2 Base 2031 Road Network 9

4.3 Land Use 10 4.3.1 Households and Employment Changes 10

5. EXISTING 2009 NETWORK DEFICIENCIES 14 5.1 2009 Land Use 14 5.2 2009 Network Operation 16

6. 2031 NATURAL GROWTH ANALYSIS 20 6.1 2031 Natural Growth Network Operation 20

7. 2031 DEVELOPMENT GROWTH ANALYSIS 21 7.1 2031 Full Development Land Use 21 7.2 Vehicles per household 25 7.3 2031 Full Development Network Operation 27

8. REQUIRED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS 29 8.1 2031 Network Improvements 29 8.2 2031 Network Improvement Options 30 8.3 Option Elimination 44 8.4 Initial Shortlisted Options 45 8.5 Intermediate Shortlisted Options 53 8.6 Shortlisted Options with Monaro Highway Upgrade 60 8.7 Elimination of Shortlisted Options 61 8.8 Selection of 2031 Network 62

9. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS 66

10. INITIAL IMPROVEMENT TIMING 69

LIST OF TABLES 1. Summary of the Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Model 8 2. 2009 Model Land Use 14 3. 2009 Model Traffic Indicators 16 4. Level of Service Indicators 17 5. Proposed 2031 Housing Development 21 6. Queanbeyan Land Use Change 2006-2031 22 7. ACT/Queanbeyan Model Land Use Change 2006-2031 22 8. ACT/Queanbeyan Projections of Vehicle/People Ratios 25 9. 2031 Base Queanbeyan Traffic Activity Indicators 27 10. 2031 Major Network Improvements 29 11. Initial Project Options 30 12. Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 – Part 1 43 13. Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 – Part 2 44 14. Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 60 15. 2031 Improvement Link Flows (AMP+PMP) 67 16. 2031 Improvement Intersection Flows (AMP+PMP) 68 17. Link Improvement Timing 69 18. Intersection Improvement Timing 69

LIST OF FIGURES 1. Road Network 11 2. 2031 Queanbeyan Road Base Network with Development 12 3. Reporting Areas and Zones 13 4. HCM Link LOS Criteria (Vehicles per Lane per Hour) 18 5. Changes In Queanbeyan Household Composition 2006-2031 23 6. Changes In Queanbeyan Employment Composition 2006-2031 23 7. Changes In All ACT/Queanbeyan Household Composition 2006-2031 24 8. Changes In All ACT/Queanbeyan Employment Composition 2006-2031 24 9. Change in Vehicle Availability 26 10. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 001 31 11. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 002 32 12. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 003 33 13. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 004 34 14. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 005 35 15. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 1A 36 16. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 1B 37 17. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 2 38 18. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 3 39 19. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 4 40 20. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement VBC 5 41 21. 2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement VBC 6 42 22. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 01A 47 23. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03A 48 24. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 05A 49 25. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBA 50 26. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBB 51 27. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement C2A 52 28. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03B 55 29. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03C 56 30. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 05B 57 31. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBC 58 32. 2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement C2B 59 33. 2031 Proposed Improvement Project 64 34. 2021 Proposed Improvement Project 70

Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Page 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Technical Working Group proposed a number of road and intersection improvements to offset the possible network deficiencies as a result of the developments. Many of these improvements were proposed to directly improve a road or intersection suffering from a poor level of service. However, several new routes were also proposed as a means of creating additional capacity thereby relieving areas of congestion.

The major Queanbeyan improvements proposed for analysis are shown below.

2031 Major Network Improvements

4L Old Cooma (Googong – Edwin Land Parkway) 4L Old Cooma (Edwin Land Parkway – Southbar) 4L Monaro St (Atkinson – Queens Bridge) 2L Edwin Land Parkway Extension (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 2L Ellerton Extension (Ellerton – Edwin Land Parkway) 2L Dunns Creek (Old Cooma – Monaro)

Links

2L Northern Bypass (Bungendore - Yass - Canberra)

Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Tompsitt / Edwin Land Parkway / Jerrabomberra Tompsitt / Jerrabomberra New Link Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe Cooma / Fergus Cooma / Thornton / Barracks Flat Lanyon / Southbar Lanyon / Canberra Bungendore / Yass Bungendore / Atkinson Yass / Aurora Farrer / Cameron

Intersections

Lanyon / Tompsitt

Numerous additional small changes to minor intersections were also looked at to reduce delay.

Inherent in this analysis is the policy of not having any part of the Queanbeyan network operating at worse than LOS D in 2031. This level of service allows for some general degradation of the overall network without significant localised increases in delay. It also allows some movements at intersections to operate at a worse level of service so long as the overall level of service was maintained at LOS D or better.

The above major link improvements were grouped into 12 project options which included any combination of the above improvements in order to assess the relative benefits of the works. The following shows the link improvements included in each of the 12 options.


Initial Project Options

Option 4 Lane

Old Cooma Road

2 Lane ELP

Extension

4 Lane ELP

Extension

2 Lane Ellerton

Extension

2 Lane Dunns Creek

4 Lane Dunns Creek

2 Lane Northern Bypass

001

002

003

004

005

CIC 1A

CIC 1B

CIC 2

CIC 3

CIC 4

VBC 5

VBC 6

Each of these 12 project options were analysed using the transportation model developed for Queanbeyan. After examining the results of the computer analysis, it became clear that a number of these options either did not fulfil the role intended, did not improve the future network deficiencies or were too expensive.

Options that included the Northern Bypass were not proceeded with. The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) advised that alignment issues made the bypass too expensive at this time. The benefits gained by the traffic diversion were currently insufficient to warrant any project including the Northern Bypass.

The four laning of the Edwin Land Parkway Extension from Jerrabomberra to Old Cooma Rd produced no difference in traffic flow when compared to the two lane version. This therefore produced no real benefit to the network for the additional expense and was not proceeded with.

Options that did not include the four laning of Old Cooma Rd were also eliminated. The level of congestion along Old Cooma Rd as a result of the Googong development required four laning in order to maintain a suitable level of service during peak periods. No alternative roading project reduced flow along the two lane Old Cooma Rd alignment sufficiently to maintain the suitable level of service.

Options involving the construction of the Dunns Creek link were also eliminated. The Dunns Creek link between the Tralee and Googong developments was seen as being a useful inclusion in the future Queanbeyan network but would not likely be required in the current 2031 planning horizon. The ability of the Dunns Creek link to reduce traffic flow along Old Cooma Rd and the Edwin Land Parkway Extension was seen by the Technical Working Group as being valuable in the future but could not be justified at this time.

This process eliminated all but Project Option 005. It was also concluded that a variation of Project Option CIC 1B should also be included in further analysis. Project Option CIC 1B was to include the four laning of Old Cooma Rd and the two lane extension of the Edwin Land Parkway.


These two remaining Options 05B and CIC 1B were analysed in depth using the Queanbeyan model. In both options all intersections that were found to be operating at LOS E or F were modified until they maintained an LOS D level.

Additional testing was undertaken for each of the options with the Monaro Hwy, south of Lanyon Dr, increased to six lanes and Pialligo Ave increased to four lanes. These tests showed that increasing the capacity of these roads made little difference to the flow of traffic within Queanbeyan.

The Option CIC 1B variation was included in the final analysis to determine if it was possible to produce a future network option that did not require the Ellerton Rd Extension. One of the main reasons for the Ellerton Extension was to reduce the traffic flow along both Cooma St corridor and improve its projected level of service back to LOS D.

A number of additional improvements were proposed for Cooma St so that the Ellerton Rd Extension was not needed. These improvements involved modified intersection lay-outs for intersection along Cooma St and the installation of clearways during peak periods. Clearways would enable the introduction of four lanes of traffic along Cooma St between Rutledge St and Southbar Rd. Whilst the Option CIC 1B variations produced the desired result of LOS D along Cooma St it was expected to come at a cost to local residential amenity.

Option 05B was preferred as being the final 2031 improvement works project option.

The costs associated with these improvement works are attributable to the developments that take place up to 2031. This study concluded that the flow to and from each development would be tracked in the model which allowed the Technical Working Group to see how much traffic from each development went along or through each improvement in the preferred Project Option.

The relativity of each development’s flow through an improvement creates the relative contribution that each development should make to the cost of the improvement.

To simplify this process and help identify contributions, the developments were grouped as follows:

• Googong Development (GOG) • South Jerrabomberra - Tralee, SE Jerrabomberra and Tralee Station

Developments (SJ) • HQJOC (HQJ) • All other development (DEV) • Other Queanbeyan Users (QUE)

Flows from each of the five groups (DEV, GOG, SJ, HQJ, QUE) were modelled separately for both the 2031 AM and PM Peaks. The period volumes were combined so that the total peak period volume was used in the apportionment calculations. The percentage relativity of each group’s flows was used in apportioning the cost of each improvement work. It should be noted that the following volumes do not include ACT traffic using the links and intersections.

Only the Edwin Land Parkway Extension and the Ellerton Extension projects had costs apportioned to existing Queanbeyan residents as these two projects offered additional


benefits to residents. All other link and intersection works were apportioned to GOG, SJ, HQJ and DEV only, as they were being constructed to repair disbenefits to existing Queanbeyan users produced by these developments.

The following table details the volumes and relative proportion of the combined flows from each development along each of the improvement links.

2031 Improvement Link Flows (AMP+PMP)

Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total 4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP) 4404 297 51 365 5117 4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar) 2514 169 16 260 2959 4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge) 144 258 303 296 1001 2L ELP Ext (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 1004 513 53 127 701 2398 2L Ellerton Extension 868 41 97 91 249 1346

Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total 4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP) 86% 6% 1% 7% 100% 4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar) 85% 6% 1% 9% 100% 4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge) 14% 26% 30% 30% 100% 2L ELP Ext (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 42% 21% 2% 5% 29% 100% 2L Ellerton Extension 64% 3% 7% 7% 18% 100%

As indicated earlier, both the 2L Ellerton Extension and the Edwin Land Parkway Extension improvements have been apportioned to include a contribution from existing Queanbeyan residents. These new improvements are being implemented as a result of congestion and Level of Service issues elsewhere in the network. As these proposed roads have also been included in Council planning maps for many years, the apportionment of costs is therefore being calculated differently. These links will provide a potential benefit to the existing Queanbeyan residents and QCC considers it reasonable to include the flow from existing residents in calculating the apportionment of cost.

The following table details the volumes and relative proportion of the combined flows from each development through each of the improvement intersections.


2031 Improvement Intersection Flows (AMP+PMP)

Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total Cooma/ELP 4386 513 111 423 5433 Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra 823 1879 13 103 2818 Tompsitt/New Link 738 2564 40 91 3433 Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe 798 32 42 186 1058 Cooma/Fergus 1243 24 37 236 1540 Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat 2484 128 21 391 3024 Lanyon/Southbar 624 1095 160 249 2128 Lanyon/Canberra 861 847 200 429 2337 Monaro/Atkinson 157 259 407 715 1538 Monaro/Yass/Bungendore 880 228 911 839 2858 Yass/Aurora 594 39 390 575 1598 Farrer / Cameron 2611 2611 Lanyon / Tompsitt 3834 3834

Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total Cooma/ELP 81% 9% 2% 8% 100% Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra 29% 67% 0% 4% 100% Tompsitt/New Link 21% 75% 1% 3% 100% Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe 75% 3% 4% 18% 100% Cooma/Fergus 81% 2% 2% 15% 100% Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat 82% 4% 1% 13% 100% Lanyon/Southbar 29% 51% 8% 12% 100% Lanyon/Canberra 37% 36% 9% 18% 100% Monaro/Atkinson 10% 17% 26% 46% 100% Monaro/Yass/Bungendore 31% 8% 32% 29% 100% Yass/Aurora 37% 2% 24% 36% 100% Farrer / Cameron 100% 100% Lanyon / Tompsitt 100% 100%

An initial analysis was undertaken to determine a simple timing of the improvements. This analysis involved creating the expected 2021 land use for Queanbeyan and ACT based on available details of development construction rates. The 2006-2021 increase in households, jobs, cars and population was estimated from data provided and used to create AM and PM Peak models of traffic in Queanbeyan in 2021.

The poor levels of service shown in some areas indicate where improvements need to be implemented by 2021 and therefore cannot wait until 2031. The following tables indicate the likely construction timing of each of the proposed improvement works.


Link Improvement Timing

Location By 2021 By 2031 4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP)

4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar)

4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge)

2L ELP Extension (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma)

2L Ellerton Extension

Intersection Improvement Timing

Location By 2021 By 2031 Cooma/ELP

Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra

Tompsitt/New Link

Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe

Cooma/Fergus

Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat

Lanyon/Southbar

Lanyon/Canberra

Monaro/Atkinson

Monaro/Yass/Bungendore

Yass/Aurora

Farrer / Cameron

Lanyon / Tompsitt


2. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to identify and measure the improvements needed to the 2031 network to return it to a similar Level of Service to that currently provided in the 2009 network.

One of the objectives of the Queanbeyan Transportation Plan study was to identify when and where transport network improvements should occur in the Queanbeyan transport network between 2006 and 2031. An earlier reports detailed the current 2009 transport deficiencies and the future 2031 deficiencies. These will be briefly summarised in this report but for a full and detailed view of both current and projected deficiencies please refer to the “Queanbeyan Current Situation Transport Report – June 2008” and the “Queanbeyan Future Transport Report Stage 1 – June 2008”.

3. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

In 2008 Queanbeyan Council commissioned Gabites Porter to create a transportation model of the Queanbeyan LGA based on the 2006 Census Land Use and traffic flows. This model has been used to analyse the current transport situation in Queanbeyan as well as analyse, test and optimise a number of 2031 future land use and infrastructure scenarios.

A Technical Working Group comprising representatives from Queanbeyan City Council, Roads and Traffic Authority, Gabites Porter, Village Building Company and Canberra Investment Corporation was formed to identify network improvement works needed to address deficiencies in both the existing and future Queanbeyan road network. In addition, this group attempted to address the equitable division of developer contributions needed to address those deficiencies.

The maintenance of a suitable level of road network performance is vital to ensure the continued safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout Queanbeyan. Degraded intersection and road operation results in bottle-necks to traffic movement. The flow-on effects of this is reduced road safety, significant travel delay, traffic diversion onto residential roads and the loss of local amenity. To maintain the prosperity of the local community, it is important to keep the Queanbeyan transportation network operating at a good level of efficiency.

This report highlights the methods used in this study and the results of the analysis on the Queanbeyan road network.


4. BACKGROUND

4.1 Summary of the Model

Table 1 provides a brief overview of the Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) model.

Summary of the Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031) Model Table 1

Element Comment Geographic Coverage

The study area covered the entire Queanbeyan LGA area.

Model Coverage

The model extends past the ACT / NSW boundary into ACT and includes all of Canberra. This extension was created so as to more properly model the interaction between the two cities.

Periods Traffic for each of the peak period models is reported in hourly traffic volumes. The generation models have been calibrated separately for each time period. The Queanbeyan model comprises two discrete models covering an average weekday: • Morning Peak: 0700 to 0900 (Hour reported: 0800-0900) • Evening Peak: 1600 to 1800 (Hour reported: 1700-1800)

Network Detail

The road network used is derived from a GIS representation of the road centrelines. There are around 5500 links and 2600 nodes in the Queanbeyan portion of the network and 16000 links and 7600 nodes in total within the model area.

External Traffic

The model has been validated using available local and RTA counts at external points as close as possible to the study area boundary.

Vehicle Types

Vehicle types used in the model include private cars, vans, as well as heavy (HCV) and light (LCV) commercial vehicles.

Software Platform

The model has been developed using TRACKS, which is the proprietary land use and transport planning software developed, maintained and marketed by Transportation and Traffic Systems Ltd.

Modelling Techniques

This is a standard three-step model comprising vehicle driver trip generation, distribution and assignment. The current three steps are outlined below:

1. Private/internal Trip generation. Private Trip productions are calculated from 20 Household Categories of 0, 1, 2+ employees by 0, 1, 2, 3+ cars calibrated directly from the Sydney HIS survey carried out in 1991/92 by the Transport Study Group (TSG). Trip Attractions and commercial vehicle generations are calculated from regression derived equations using the Australian and NZ Standard Classification major industry groups and again using HIS data. Existing land use data was obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census. 2. Trip distribution. Trip ends are formed into origin/destination matrices using a standard gravity model. A function of travel time is used for spatial separation.

3. Assignment. Assignment of trips to the network uses an incremental time slice process. This does not have the convergence issues associated with an equilibrium assignment, and permits intersection delays to be directly calculated during the assignment process. Intersection delays are calculated by movement using algorithms in ARR123 (SIDRA) and Tanner’s queuing theory extended by Fisk and Tan, and later by Gabites Porter.


4.2 The Road Network

4.2.1 Base 2006 Road Network

The road network used in the study was obtained from QCC and ACT GIS systems and includes all roads within the Queanbeyan study area and all roads of Collector or higher status in the ACT. The road network for the entire model area is shown in Figure 1.

The network is a true representation of a road and distances are calculated directly from the co-ordinate data. All other components of network coding were prepared from visual inspection or from the Council’s set of aerial photos, for example:

• Link lanes

• Link free flow speeds

• Approach controls

• Approach lanes

All roundabouts and priority intersections were coded into the network.

4.2.2 Base 2031 Road Network

The base future network was based upon the validation 2006 network but also included all works expected completed to the end of the year 2010. Additional changes and improvements were also made to the network based upon probable local road networks identified in Masterplans for major areas under development.

Under these criteria the following works were included in the 2031 Base network:

1. Major local network infrastructure for the Googong development area.

2. Major local network infrastructure for the South Tralee development area.

3. Simple major local network infrastructure for the North Tralee development area.

4. Four lane upgrade of Lanyon Dr from Tompsitt Dr to Monaro Hwy.

5. Construction of a roundabout at the Captains Flat / Kings Hwy intersection.

6. Construction of a flyover on Pialligo Ave at the Airport main entrance.

The Base 2031 road network for the Queanbeyan Study area is shown in Figure 2.

A number of Major Works Projects were included in the ACT part of the model to correctly reflect the changes expected to accommodate the increased ACT population. These upgrades included:

1. Four lane upgrade to the remaining two lane elements of the Monaro Hwy and Lanyon Dr.

2. Stage 2 of the GDE.

3. Widening of Parkes Way and Clunies Ross St with associated upgrade to the Barry Dr / Clunies Ross St intersection.


4. Four lane upgrade of Majura and Airport Rds with associated extension of Monaro Hwy over Pialligo Ave.

5. Upgrades of William Slim and Gundaroo Drives.

6. Four land upgrade of Tharwa Drive from Johnson Drive south.

7. Widening of Monaro Hwy to three lanes in each direction for 2031.

8. Major capacity increases at the Melrose and Yamba intersections with Tuggeranong Parkway.

9. Numerous improvements to numerous signalised intersections.

4.3 Land Use

4.3.1 Households and Employment Changes

The 2006 Census land use information was used for the creation of the base 2006 network.

Household data was based on CCD ex 2006 ABS census data:

• Households (number occupied on census night) • Average vehicles available/household • Average number of employees/household

At the workplace location jobs have been identified and located using 2006 ABS census data placed according to the Transport Data Centre Zone system and using the Australian New Zealand Standard Industry Classifications (ANZSIC) Major Divisions for all full time + part time jobs (i.e. number of people employed):

• Division C - Manufacturing • Division F – Wholesale Trade • Division G - Retail Trade • Division K – Finance and Insurance • Division O – (Health and) Community Services • Total Jobs

Education school roll data was obtained from the rolls of private and public schools.

For household data the procedure followed was to extract the data at CCD level from the Census Community Profile, and then allocate each CCD to either a single model zone or multiple zones based on CCD size.

Understanding how land use activity changes over time is crucial to understanding how traffic will change. The CCD land use projections were based on the ACT and Queanbeyan City Council supplied data for changes in household construction and employment distribution from 2006-2031 and available details of the proposed housing release areas throughout the area.

The 2031 future land use data was grouped into reporting areas for ease of distribution and understanding. These areas are shown in Figure 3.



Gabites Porter Consultants Road Network Figure 1



Gabites Porter Consultants

2031 Queanbeyan Road Base Network with Development Figure 2

2.5km



Gabites Porter Consultants Reporting Areas and Zones Figure 3

Key

Reporting Area

Model Zone

Jumping Creek

Tralee Station Area

KEY

Reporting Area

Model Zone


5. EXISTING 2009 NETWORK DEFICIENCIES

The level of traffic used in the 2009 modelling is calculated from land use data which focuses on Queanbeyan and includes the number of dwellings, vehicles, school rolls, employment and job distribution. All of this data has been extracted from the 2006 census data. A computer model of Queanbeyan has been created and tested against traffic counts and it replicates the economic and environmental conditions that exist in 2009.

The 2009 land use covers both the Queanbeyan and Canberra LGAs so that the interaction between the two areas can be correctly taken into account. The Queanbeyan study area however is bordered on the west and south by the ACT-NSW border and in the east as far as the Wanna Wanna Nature Reserve. The Queanbeyan study area of the model is divided into sub areas to form a zone system. The Queanbeyan study area consists of 255 zones but the total model consists of 999 zones representing Queanbeyan and the ACT.

5.1 2009 Land Use

The details of the 2009 model and the following existing network results are included in the “Queanbeyan Current Situation Transport Report – June 2008”.

A summary of the 2009 deficiency results follows.

The road network used in the study was obtained from QCC and ACT GIS systems and includes all roads within Queanbeyan and all roads of Collector or higher status in the ACT. The modelled road network can be seen in Figure 1.

Table 2 summarises the land use used in the study areas.

2009 Model Land Use Table 2

Land use Queanbeyan Only Total Queanbeyan and ACT

Households 14,131 134,652

Employees 19,072 192,318

Employees per HH 1.350 1.428

Vehicles 22,365 211,049

Vehicles per HH 1.583 1.567

Primary School Roll 2,645 29,034

Secondary School Roll 1,415 35,036

Tertiary Roll 300 38,350

Retail Jobs 2,120 22,401

Finance Jobs 1,848 22,378

Community Jobs 1,658 20,083

Manufacturing Jobs 2,532 22,765

Other Jobs 1,422 95,822

Total Jobs 9,610 183,255


The 2009 environment, upon which the model is based, shows that the population of the ACT-Queanbeyan area is increasing along with car ownership. However, the rate of increase in car ownership appears to be decreasing while bus patronage, in the ACT for people with activity there, appears to be increasing from a low in 2001.

The following charts give an indication of the 2006 environment upon which the Queanbeyan model is based and how it relates to the decade preceding it.

Est. ACT-Queanbeyan Population

310000

320000

330000

340000

350000

360000

370000

380000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Annual ACT Bus Patronage ('000)

14500

15000

15500

16000

16500

17000

17500

18000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Private Cars/ 1000 Population

520

530

540

550

560

570

580

590

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


The 2006 Census indicates that 6.4% of people with employment in the ACT use some form of public transport. However, the same data indicates that only 1.0% of people with employment in Queanbeyan use public transport. Public transport services in Queanbeyan are therefore underutilised.

The operational efficiency of public transport during Morning Peak period has been analysed and whilst service coverage and travel time are generally very good the service frequency and hours of operation are lagging behind.

5.2 2009 Network Operation The modelled traffic results shown in Table 3 show how the network performs in the AM and PM peak periods.

2009 Model Traffic Indicators Table 3

Traffic Activity Indicator Queanbeyan Study Area

ACT-Queanbeyan Model Area

2006 - Morning Peak Vehicle Kilometres (km) 66,616 981,940 Link Vehicle Minutes (min) 68,800 988,010 Link Mean Running Speed (kph) 58.1 59.6 Vehicles subject to Intersection Delay 151,119 1,321,127 Total Vehicle Intersection Delay (min) 16,628 374,548 Intersection Delay per Vehicle (sec) 6.6 17.0 Total Vehicle Trips 13,956 124,549 Network Total Vehicle Minutes (min) 85,428 1,362,558 Network Mean Network Speed (kph) 46.8 43.2 Average Trip Distance (km) 7.92 7.92 Average Trip Time (min) 10.54 10.54

2006 - Evening Peak Vehicle Kilometres (km) 72,993 1,010,122 Link Vehicle Minutes (min) 76,348 994,741 Link Mean Running Speed (kph) 57.4 60.9 Vehicles subject to Intersection Delay 174,178 1,372,531 Total Vehicle Intersection Delay (min) 18,809 347,822 Intersection Delay per Vehicle (sec) 6.5 15.2 Total Vehicle Trips 15,649 130,843 Network Total Vehicle Minutes (min) 95,157 1,342,563 Network Mean Network Speed (kph) 46.0 45.1 Average Trip Distance (km) 7.73 7.73 Average Trip Time (min) 10.05 10.05

Modelling of the Queanbeyan road network revealed relatively few significant deficiencies in 2009. The majority of problem intersections and roads occur outside Queanbeyan in the ACT. These deficiencies are generally reported as reductions in Level of Service

Level of Service (LOS) is a subjective measure of the way in which a network is operating. It is a concept developed by US engineers and has been generally adopted internationally. It is being used in this study to measure the performance of both roads and intersections. LOS is reported as the average over the entire peak hour


and may therefore be better than the absolute worst LOS that occurs for small periods during the hour.

This study focuses on LOS F, E and D with particular attention paid to the two worst conditions of LOS F and E. Table 4 describes the conditions that can occur for each level of service.

Level of Service Indicators Table 4

HCM LOS criteria

Intersection (average delay/veh)

LOS AustRoads Description Link (vehicles per hour) Priority Signal/Rotary

LOS F

Forced flow. The amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds that which can pass it. Flow break-downs occur, and queuing and delays occur.

In excess of 900-1700

depending on link type

50 sec 80 sec

LOS E

Traffic volumes are at or close to capacity and there is virtually no freedom to select desired speed and to manoeuvre within the traffic stream. Flow is unstable and minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause break-downs in operation.

Between 720-1360


35 sec 55 sec

LOS D

Approaching unstable flow where all drivers are severely restricted in their freedom to select desired speed and to manoeuvre within the traffic stream. The general level of comfort and convenience is poor and small increases in traffic flow will cause operational problems.

Between 585-1105


25 sec 35 sec

Figure 4 shows how Link LOS varies depending on link type. It shows that the higher the vehicle volume and the lower the free speed the worse the LOS becomes. Link types are defined as follows:

• Link type 1 equates to road speeds of 10km/hr • Link type 2 and 12 equate to road speeds of 20km/hr and 25km/hr • Link type 3 and 13 equate to road speeds of 30km/hr and 35km/hr • Link type 4 and 14 equate to road speeds of 40km/hr and 45km/hr • Link type 5 and 15 equate to road speeds of 50km/hr and 55km/hr • Link type 6 and 16 equate to road speeds of 60km/hr and 65km/hr • Link type 7 and 17 equate to road speeds of 70km/hr and 75km/hr • Link type 8 and 18 equate to road speeds of 80km/hr and 85km/hr • Link type 9 and 19 equate to road speeds of 90km/hr and 95km/hr • Link type 10 and 11 equate to road speeds of 100km/hr and 110km/hr • Link type 20 equates to road speeds of 105km/hr

This present day Level of Service provides a measure by which future network performance and deficiencies can be assessed given knowledge and experience of current conditions.


20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 110

LINK TYPE LOS BAND

(Veh/Lane/Hour 2 12 3 13 4 14 5 15 6 16 7 17 8 18 9 19 10 11

LOS C 450 500 550 600 650 700 734 760 782 760 814 825 835 841 846 849 850 850

LOS D 585 650 715 780 845 910 954 988 1016 988 1058 1073 1085 1093 1100 1104 1105 1105

LOS E 720 800 880 960 1040 1120 1175 1216 1250 1216 1302 1320 1335 1346 1354 1358 1360 1360

LOS F 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1467 1520 1563 1520 1627 1650 1669 1682 1692 1698 1700 1700



HCM Link LOS Criteria (Vehicles per Lane per Hour) Figure 4

Link Type

LOS F

LOS E

LOS D

LOS C

LOS A-C

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Link Type

Veh

icle

s/ho

ur/la

ne

12 13 1514 16 17 18 19 11


The figures in Appendix 1 – 2009 Base Scenario show the existing 2009 AM and PM peak period modelled traffic volumes and the operational LOS. The parts of Queanbeyan under most stress are centred on the Tompsitt Dr / Lanyon Dr roundabout, Tompsitt Dr / Jerrabomberra Dr Roundabout and the Canberra Ave / Lanyon Dr roundabout with some approaches suffering LOS D. Queens Bridge also drops to LOS D in the PM Peak.

It must be remembered that these results are the average results for each peak hour and that short periods within each hour may operate at levels of service worse than the average.


6. 2031 NATURAL GROWTH ANALYSIS

To determine how the 2031 network will be operating in the future and therefore what improvement works are needed to maintain the current network efficiency, the study had to firstly determine what growth will naturally occur and secondly what additional growth will occur as a result of developments.

The expected growth in Queanbeyan traffic between 2006 and 2031 comes from a number of sources, namely:

• Growth in Queanbeyan households

• Growth in Queanbeyan car ownership

• Growth in ACT households

• Growth in ACT car ownership

• Development outside the immediate area

Natural growth (things beyond the scope of Section 94 contributions) comes from a combination of growth in ACT households/car ownership, Queanbeyan car ownership and the construction of additional households that do not require contributions to be made. No other housing development is included in this part of the analysis.

For the purposes of this study, QCC staff have indicated that 30 Queanbeyan infill housing sites form part of the natural growth as they can be built on as of right.

The Queanbeyan analysis of natural growth included the expected 2031 ACT housing and employment, the 2031 expected change in Queanbeyan car ownership and the additional 30 infill households. This use was modelled on the 2031 base network that included planned Queanbeyan and ACT infrastructure changes.

At this stage no large scale housing developments are included in the analysis. This therefore creates a 2031 future base condition to which later development impacts can be compared. Additional future network deficiencies as a result of developments can be readily highlighted and developer contributions apportioned.

6.1 2031 Natural Growth Network Operation

The figures in Appendix 2 – 2031 Do Minimum – Natural Growth show the 2031 Future AMP and PMP modelled traffic volumes and levels of service as a result of this natural growth.

Clearly, the only area of the network that is expected to need attention is the Lanyon/Tompsitt intersection (LOS E). This intersection improvement is required as a result of expected natural growth in Queanbeyan and therefore is the responsibility of the QCC.

The Monaro/Cameron intersection may need attention with respect to right turning vehicles from Cameron.


7. 2031 DEVELOPMENT GROWTH ANALYSIS

7.1 2031 Full Development Land Use

Having determined how the Queanbeyan network will be operating in 2031 after natural growth, the study also needed to take into account the additional residential developments that will occur in various areas. These developments are known as “green field” developments as they will be constructed in areas where little or no existing infrastructure exists. In addition to these green field developments, additional infill housing throughout the existing Queanbeyan urban area has been included.

The Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC) establishment has also been included in the analysis as the daily employment related flows to and from HQJOC are substantial and have an impact on the central Queanbeyan network.

The additional housing developments and their sizes used in the full 2031 analysis are shown in Table 5.

Proposed 2031 Housing Development Table 5

Reporting Area Households Additional Queanbeyan Infill 785 The Ridgeway 3 Rural Tralee 131 Carwoola 89 Greenleigh 3 Tralee Development 1924 Googong Development 5550 Rural Googong 93 Tralee Station Area 941 Jerrabomberra SE 1820 Jumping Creek 300 Total 11639

Table 6 and Table 7 are summaries of the 2006 and 2031 land use data used in the model.


Queanbeyan Land Use Change 2006-2031 Table 6

Land Use Categories

Description of Land Use Categories Code 2006 2031

Total Households (HH) 14,131 25,956 Employees per HH 1.35 1.36 Residential Total Population 35,972 68,970 Retail Trade RET 2,120 3,526 Finance FIN 1,848 2,412 Community COM 1,658 2,449 Manufacturing MAN 2,532 4,576 Other OTH 1,422 3,305

Employment

Total Jobs TOT 9,610 16,268 Primary rolls PRI 2,645 5,451 Secondary School rolls SCH 1,415 4,344 Education Tertiary rolls TER 300 300 Total Vehicles 22,365 46,880

Vehicles Vehicles per Household 1.583 1.808

ACT/Queanbeyan Model Land Use Change 2006-2031 Table 7

Land Use Categories

Description of Land Use Categories Code 2006 2031

Total Households (HH) 134,652 186,468 Employees per HH 1.428 1.435 Residential Total Population 356,632 498,740 Retail Trade RET 22,401 41,139 Finance FIN 22,378 37,075 Community COM 20,083 28,999 Manufacturing MAN 22,765 22,288 Other OTH 95,822 128,637

Employment

Total Jobs TOT 183,255 257,051 Primary rolls PRI 29,034 33,506 Secondary School rolls SCH 35,036 33,734 Education Tertiary rolls TER 38,350 55,570 Total Vehicles 211,049 328,124

Vehicles Vehicles per Household 1.567 1.760

Figure 5 and Figure 6 show graphically the changes in Queanbeyan land use used in the model between 2006 and 2031 as a result of natural growth and additional housing development. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show graphically the changes in land use for the entire ACT/Queanbeyan area used in the model for 2006 and 2031.


Figure 5 Changes In Queanbeyan Household Composition 2006-2031

Figure 6 Changes In Queanbeyan Employment Composition 2006-2031

The number of households and their size will increase approximately 85% over the next 25 years. Vehicle ownership will however increase by approximately 110% as a result of more vehicles being available to new households.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Other 1422 3305

Manufacturing 2532 4576

Community 1658 2449

Finance 1848 2412

Retail 2120 3526

2006 Employment Type 2031 Employment Type

Jobs

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

65000

70000

2006 Household Data 14131 35972 19072 22365

2031 Household Data 25956 68970 35306 46880

Households Population Employees Vehicles


Figure 7 Changes In All ACT/Queanbeyan Household Composition 2006-2031

Figure 8 Changes In All ACT/Queanbeyan Employment Composition 2006-2031

0

25000

50000

75000

100000

125000

150000

175000

200000

225000

250000

275000

300000

325000

350000

375000

400000

425000

450000

475000

500000

2006 Household Data 134652 356632 192283 211049

2031 Household Data 186468 498740 267667 328124

Households Population Employees Vehicles

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

220000

240000

260000

Other 95822 128637

Manufacturing 22765 22288

Community 20083 28999

Finance 22378 37075

Retail 22401 41139

2006 Employment Type 2031 Employment Type

Jobs


7.2 Vehicles per household

The standard projection model assumes there would be an increase in global vehicles/1000 population for the foreseeable future. The 2006 Census rate was recorded for the ACT/Queanbeyan area at 584 vehicles per 1000 population.

However, the determination of the level of future household car availability is dependent on many factors:

• Price of vehicles

• Price of fuel

• Use of hybrid vehicles

• Use of alternative fuels

• More fuel efficiency

• The change in ownership from large fuel inefficient vehicles to smaller fuel efficient vehicles.

• Availability of alternative means of transport

Rather than assume a simple linear growth in car availability an analysis was undertaken of the historic change in car availability in the ACT/Queanbeyan area. Figure 9 shows the historic change in vehicle availability of the ACT/Queanbeyan area and the projected future change in vehicle availability based on a reducing rate of increasing car ownership. The plot expresses availability in the form of vehicles per 1000 population and is asymptotic to 680 vehicles per 1000 population.

The corresponding number of vehicles per household has been calculated based on household and population projections for 2016 and 2026 and are shown in Table 8.

ACT/Queanbeyan Projections of Vehicle/People Ratios Table 8

2006 2031 Vehicles 211,049 328,124

Vehs/1000 Pop 584 658 Vehs/HH 1.567 1.760



Gabites Porter Consultants Change in Vehicle Availability Figure 9

388

419

449

477

527534

541548

555561

567573

578584

594603

611619

631637 642 646 650 653 656658

625

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Year

Veh

icle

s pe

r 100

0 HH

's

TrendVehs/1000 pop


7.3 2031 Full Development Network Operation

Adding the additional development to the natural growth results in a significant increase in vehicle flow throughout Queanbeyan. This increased flow results in an increase in travel throughout the network and a corresponding increase in delay along roads and through intersections.

The modelled traffic results shown in Table 9 show how the 2031 future network is expected to perform in the AM and PM peak periods without any improvements.

2031 Base Queanbeyan Traffic Activity Indicators Table 9

Traffic Activity Indicator Morning Peak

2006 2031 Base % Difference Vehicle Kilometres (km) 73,692 152,010 +106% Link Vehicle Minutes (min) 74,726 171,850 +130% Link Mean Running Speed (kph) 59.2 53.1 -10% Vehicles subject to Intersection Delay 156,608 263,945 +69% Total Vehicle Intersection Delay (min) 17,086 48,782 +186% Intersection Delay per Delayed Vehicle (sec) 6.5 11.1 +71% Total Vehicle Trips 13,956 28,538 +104% Network Total Vehicle Minutes (min) 91,811 220,632 +140% Network Mean Network Speed (kph) 48.2 41.3 -14% Average Trip Distance (km) 7.92 7.93 +0% Average Trip Time (min) 10.54 13.21 +25%

Evening Peak

2006 2031 Base % Difference Vehicle Kilometres (km) 80,001 160,570 +101% Link Vehicle Minutes (min) 81,724 182,773 +124% Link Mean Running Speed (kph) 58.7 52.7 -10% Vehicles subject to Intersection Delay 176,835 300,836 +70% Total Vehicle Intersection Delay (min) 19,028 60,952 +220% Intersection Delay per Delayed Vehicle (sec) 6.5 12.2 +88% Total Vehicle Trips 15,649 29,251 +87% Network Total Vehicle Minutes (min) 100,752 243,726 +142% Network Mean Network Speed (kph) 47.6 39.5 -17% Average Trip Distance (km) 7.73 7.49 -3% Average Trip Time (min) 10.05 11.80 +17%

These results indicate that Queanbeyan will experience significant increases in vehicle kilometres travelled and total trips. The increase in travel causes increases in delay at intersections and slowing travel along routes. A significant 220% increase in total intersection delay will occur during the PMP as more vehicles are being delayed with PMP average delay is expected to be nearly than 12 seconds.

The mean link speed is still expected to be over 53kph in the AMP and PMP. The incidence of intersection delay only drops the mean operating speed from 48kph down to 41kph in the AMP and 39kph in the PMP.


Modelling of the 2031 future road network with this additional traffic shows that there will be a significant degradation in the level of service of a number of intersections and roads throughout Queanbeyan. The figures in Appendix 3 – 2031 Base Network show the traffic volumes expected and the operational level of service for the future 2031 AM and PM peak periods.

Clearly, the parts of Queanbeyan under most stress are as follows:

• Old Cooma Rd from the Googong development to Southbar Rd

• Cooma St from Southbar to Rutledge

• Queens Bridge

• Parts of Yass Rd

• Numerous intersections along Lanyon Dr, Canberra Ave, Bungendore Rd, Cooma St and Southbar Rd are all expected to experience a significant degrading in level of service (E and F) during both peak traffic periods.


8. REQUIRED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS

8.1 2031 Network Improvements

The Technical Working Group proposed a number of road and intersection improvements to offset the possible network deficiencies as a result of the developments. Many of these improvements were proposed to directly improve a specific road or intersection, Appendix 3, suffering from a poor level of service. However, several new routes were also proposed as a means of creating additional capacity in certain areas and thereby relieving areas of congestion.

Inherent in this analysis is the policy of not having any part of the Queanbeyan network operating at worse than LOS D in 2031. This policy comes from the Technical Working Group’s belief that since the current network is operating at LOS D or better, so should the future network after additional development.

This level of service allows for some general degradation of the overall network without significant localised increases in delay. It also allows some movements at intersections to operate at a worse level of service so long as the overall level of service was maintained at LOS D or better.

A number of intersection and link improvements were proposed to remove the areas of the 2031 future network that were operating at LOS E or F so that LOS D was maintained throughout the Queanbeyan network.

The major Queanbeyan improvements proposed for analysis are shown in Table 10.

2031 Major Network Improvements Table 10

4L Old Cooma (Googong – Edwin Land Parkway) 4L Old Cooma (Edwin Land Parkway – Southbar) 4L Monaro St (Atkinson – Queens Bridge) 2L Edwin Land Parkway Extension (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 2L Ellerton Extension (Ellerton – Edwin Land Parkway) 2L Dunns Creek (Old Cooma – Monaro)

Links

2L Northern Bypass (Bungendore - Yass - Canberra)

Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Tompsitt / Edwin Land Parkway / Jerrabomberra Tompsitt / Jerrabomberra New Link Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe Cooma / Fergus Cooma / Thornton / Barracks Flat Lanyon / Southbar Lanyon / Canberra Bungendore / Yass Bungendore / Atkinson

Intersections

Yass / Aurora


Numerous additional small changes to minor intersections were also looked at to reduce delay on some low volume movements.

8.2 2031 Network Improvement Options Initially the above major link improvements were combined into 12 project options which included any combination of the above improvements in order to assess the relative benefits of the works. Table 11 shows the link improvements included in each of the 12 options.

Initial Project Options Table 11

Option

4 Lane Old

Cooma Road

2 Lane ELP

Extension

4 Lane ELP

Extension 2 Lane Ellerton

Extension

2 Lane Dunns Creek

4 Lane Dunns Creek

2 Lane Northern Bypass

001

002

003

004

005

CIC 1A

CIC 1B

CIC 2

CIC 3

CIC 4

VBC 5

VBC 6

These project options are shown in Figure 10 to Figure 21.


4 LaneNew Link



2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement 001 Figure 10


4 LaneNew Link





4 LaneNew Link





4 LaneNew Link





4 LaneNew Link





4 Lane2 Lane



2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 1A Figure 15


4 Lane2 Lane



2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 1B Figure 16


4 Lane2 Lane



2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement CIC 2 Figure 17


4 Lane2 Lane





4 Lane2 Lane





4 Lane2 Lane



2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement VBC 5 Figure 20


4 Lane2 Lane



2031 Proposed Project Option Improvement VBC 6 Figure 21


Each of these 12 project options were analysed using the transportation model developed for Queanbeyan. The projected 2031 traffic volumes and level of service results are shown in Appendix 4 – 2031 Full Development Options AM Peak and Appendix 5 – 2031 Full Development Options PM Peak.

Travel summary statistics, shown in Table 12 and Table 13, were obtained for each Option so that a direct comparison of the overall impacts could be compared. This comparison would help in determining the relative merits of each option.

Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 – Part 1 Table 12

Variable BASE 001 002 003 004 005

Total Vehicle Kilometres 152010 146399 145956 147077 149283 150354

Total Vehicle Minutes 220632 200542 205729 204193 211198 207534

Vehicles subject to I/S Delay 263945 245647 250831 262613 248552 264992

Total Vehicle I/S Delay (mins) 48782 39517 43099 40514 43889 40461 20

31 A

M P

EAK

I/S Delay per delayed veh (secs) 11.1 9.7 10.3 9.3 10.6 9.2

Total Vehicle Kilometres 160570 155403 154741 155700 159167 160108

Total Vehicle Minutes 243726 215708 220082 220556 222397 223534

Vehicles subject to I/S Delay 300836 279419 285442 290978 285890 295117

Total Vehicle I/S Delay (mins) 60952 43034 45595 45255 46453 46056 20

31 P

M P

EAK

I/S Delay per delayed veh (secs) 12.2 9.2 9.6 9.3 9.7 9.4


Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 – Part 2 Table 13

Variable BASE C1A C1B C02 C03 C04 V05 V06

Total Vehicle Kilometres 152010 149584 149787 146407 150123 146959 146399 147055

Total Vehicle Minutes 220632 239646 211998 214069 234080 207558 200542 203002

Vehicles subject to I/S Delay 263945 268539 264007 264676 268151 263535 245647 262361

Total Vehicle I/S Delay (mins) 48782 52146 42914 44865 51497 42914 39517 40020 20

31 A

M P

EAK

I/S Delay per delayed veh (secs)

11.1 11.7 9.8 10.2 11.5 9.8 9.7 9.2

Total Vehicle Kilometres 160570 159637 159469 154889 159726 155597 155468 155685

Total Vehicle Minutes 243726 254830 227766 230377 251840 223973 220254 217922

Vehicles subject to I/S Delay 300836 300776 300847 298963 296579 293103 292685 292163

Total Vehicle I/S Delay (mins) 60952 61482 48277 51336 58743 48257 46542 44664 20

31 P

M P

EAK

I/S Delay per delayed veh (secs)

12.2 12.3 9.6 10.3 11.9 9.9 9.5 9.2

8.3 Option Elimination

After examining the results of the analysis, it became clear that a number of these options either did not fulfil the role intended, did not improve the future network deficiencies or were too expensive.

Options 001, 002 and 004 which included the Northern Bypass were not proceeded with. The Northern Bypass successfully diverted traffic around the busy Queanbeyan CBD and therefore reduced congestion issues along Monaro St. However, the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) advised that alignment issues made the bypass too expensive at this time. The benefits gained by the traffic diversion were currently insufficient to warrant any project including the Northern Bypass.

A comparison of the volumes along the Edwin Land Parkway Extension between Option C1A and other options indicated that the four laning of the Edwin Land Parkway Extension from Jerrabomberra to Old Cooma Rd produced no difference in traffic flow when compared to a two lane version. This therefore produced no real benefit to the network for the additional expense and was not proceeded with.


Options CIC 1A, CIC 2, CIC 3, CIC 4 and VBC 5 which did not include the four laning of Old Cooma Rd were also eliminated. The level of congestion along Old Cooma Rd as a result of the Googong development requires four laning in order to maintain a suitable level of service during peak periods. No alternative roading project reduced flow along the two lane Old Cooma Rd alignment sufficiently to maintain the suitable level of service. Whilst options that included Dunns Creek reduced the flow along Old Cooma Rd they did not do so sufficiently to reduce volumes to LOS D level.

Options 001, 002, 003, CIC 4, VBC 5 and VBC 6 which involving the construction of the Dunns Creek link were also eliminated. The Dunns Creek link between the Tralee and Googong developments was seen by the Technical Working Group as being a useful inclusion in the future Queanbeyan network but would not likely be required within the current 2031 planning horizon. The ability of the Dunns Creek link to reduce traffic flow along Old Cooma Rd and the Edwin Land Parkway Extension was seen as being valuable in the future but could not be justified at this time.

The four laning of the Dunns Creek link as shown in Options VBC 5 and VBC 6 made no difference to the volume of traffic expected to use the link and was therefore believed to be required some years after the construction of the two lane link.

This process eliminated all but Project Option 005. Discussion within the Technical Working Group concluded that variations in a number of the other Project Options should also be included in further analysis for both comparison purposes and because a number of options contained elements that showed promise.

8.4 Initial Shortlisted Options

Six shortlisted options were carried forward into a more detailed analysis where intersection improvements were included with the link improvements so that an attempt was made to eliminate all link and intersection deficiencies.

The modified options analysed were as follows:

• Option 01A – Option 001 with improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area.

• Option 03A – Option 003 with improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area. Queanbeyan intersection improvements included:

o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon Canberra o Bungendore / Atkinson o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension


• Option 05A – Option 005 with improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area. Queanbeyan intersection improvements included:


• Option CBA – Option CIC 1A with Southbar Rd four laned from Cooma St to Lanyon Rd. It also included improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area. Queanbeyan intersection improvements included:


• Option CBB – Option CIC 1B with Southbar Rd four laned from Cooma St to Lanyon Rd. It also included improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area. Queanbeyan intersection improvements included:


• Option C2A – Option CIC 2 with improvements installed at Isabella / Monaro and Shepherd / Lanyon in the ACT to reduce possible capacity constraints in the area. Queanbeyan intersection improvements included:


These initial shortlisted options are shown in Figure 22 to Figure 27.


4 LaneNew Link

TS



2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 01A Figure 22


4 LaneNew Link

TS








4 LaneNew Link

TS




2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBA Figure 25

4 LaneNew Link

TS




2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBB Figure 26

4 LaneNew Link

TS




2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement C2A Figure 27

4 LaneNew Link

TS


Each of these Shortlisted Project Options were analysed using the transportation model with intersection configurations altered to provide the best result for deficient intersections. This was an iterative process that involved progressively making changes to intersections until intersection operation resulted in an overall LOS of D or better.

The projected 2031 traffic volumes and level of service results are shown in Appendix 6 – 2031 Full Development Initial Shortlisted Options AM Peak and Appendix 7 – 2031 Full Development Initial Shortlisted Options PM Peak.

AT this point in the process it became evident that several of these remaining options were not suitable. Option 01A, which included the Northern Bypass, was not proceeded with as the benefit gained by diverting traffic from the CBD was not thought to be sufficient within the planning period to warrant the cost.

Option CBA was not proceeded with as the four laning of both Edwin Land Parkway extension and Southbar Rd did not improve the LOS conditions along Cooma St sufficiently to maintain an LOS D. The four laning of Edwin Land Parkway extension also appeared to make little difference to the projected flow along the link compared to designing it as a two lane road.

Option CBB was also eliminated but was adjusted to remove the four laning along Southbar Rd and progressed to the next stage of analysis.

8.5 Intermediate Shortlisted Options

Five intermediate shortlisted options were carried forward into a more detailed analysis where intersection improvements were included with the link improvements so that every attempt was made to eliminate all link and intersection deficiencies.

The modified options analysed were as follows:

• Option 03B – Option 003/03A with east-west flyover at Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway, traffic signals installed at:

o Bungendore / Yass o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon / Southbar o Lanyon Canberra o Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension

• Option 03C – Option 003/03A with north-south flyover at Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway, traffic signals installed at:

o Bungendore / Yass o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon / Southbar o Lanyon Canberra o Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension


• Option 05B – Option 005/05B with traffic signals installed at:

o Bungendore / Yass o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon / Southbar o Lanyon Canberra o Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe o Cooma / Fergus o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension

• Option CBC – Option CIC 1B / CBC with a 2 lane Edwin Land Parkway Extension, traffic signals installed at:

o Bungendore / Yass o Bungendore / Atkinson o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon / Southbar o Lanyon Canberra o Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe o Cooma / Fergus o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension

• Option C2B – Option CIC 2 / C2A with 4 lane old Cooma Rd and 2 lane Dunns Creek, traffic signals installed at:

o Bungendore / Yass o Bungendore / Atkinson o Lanyon / Tompsitt o Lanyon / Southbar o Lanyon Canberra o Cooma / Rutledge / Lowe o Cooma / Fergus o Old Cooma / Edwin Land Parkway Extension

These shortlisted options are shown in Figure 28 to Figure 32.




2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03B Figure 28

2.5km

Traffic SignalsNew Link4 Lanes




2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 03C Figure 29

2.5km





2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement 05B Figure 30

2.5km





2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement CBC Figure 31

2.5km





2031 Shortlisted Project Option Improvement C2B Figure 32

2.5km



Each of these five Shortlisted Project Options were analysed using the transportation model developed for Queanbeyan. The projected 2031 traffic volumes and level of service results are shown in Appendix 8 – 2031 Full Development Shortlisted Options AM Peak and Appendix 9 – 2031 Full Development Shortlisted Options PM Peak.

Again, travel summary statistics, shown in Table 14 were obtained for each Shortlisted Option so that a direct comparison of the overall impacts could be compared. This comparison would help in determining the relative merits of each option.

Travel Summaries of the Modelled Queanbeyan Option for 2031 Table 14

Variable 03B O3C 05B CBC C2B

Total Vehicle Kilometres (km) 146432 146493 149751 149206 145986

Total Vehicle Minutes (mins) 197450 197070 199790 201570 199701

Mean Network Speed (kph) 44.5 44.6 45.0 44.4 43.9

Total vehicles Subject to Intersection Delay 255698 255831 254754 260591 259803

2031

AM

PEA

K

Delay per Vehicle Delayed (secs) 7.9 7.7 8.1 8.2 7.9

Total Vehicle Kilometres (km) 156562 156642 160387 159667 155769

Total Vehicle Minutes (mins) 220476 219984 224720 230291 225444

Mean Network Speed (kph) 42.6 42.7 42.8 41.6 41.5

Total vehicles Subject to Intersection Delay 293663 294526 295717 302554 301438

2031

PM

PEA

K

Delay per Vehicle Delayed (secs) 7.3 7.2 7.9 8.5 7.9

8.6 Shortlisted Options with Monaro Highway Upgrade

The Technical Working Group felt that the significant reduction in LOS along the Monaro Highway between Isabella Drive and Lanyon Drive by 2031 may result in a reduction in the use of the Monaro-Lanyon route. This reduction could result in a change of overall travel pattern to and from the future developments and therefore “skew” the level of service results.

To test whether this potential skewing was actually taking place in the model, the five shortlisted options were all analysed again with the Monaro Highway upgraded to a 6 lane highway with significantly more capacity. The results of this analysis are shown in Appendix 10 – 2031 Full Development Shortlisted Options AM Peak – Monaro Highway Upgrade and Appendix 11 – 2031 Full Development Shortlisted Options PM Peak – Monaro Highway Upgrade.


This analysis showed that the six laning of the Monaro Highway significantly reduced the congestion along the highway and thereby improved the projected 2031 LOS substantially. The six laning did not however make any appreciable difference to the level of traffic flow along Lanyon Drive. This indicates that whilst the existing capacity of the highway is a hindrance to the smooth and rapid movement of traffic, it is not deflecting large numbers of vehicles away from the area. This could be due to the fact that this segment of highway forms part of only a few routes between areas that have quite distinct catchments. This means that speeding up that part of the route does not provide enough “time benefit” to other vehicles to attract them onto the route.

The Technical Working Group also wanted to ensure that congestion along Pialligo Ave did not make an appreciable difference to the operation of the shortlisted Options. Additional testing was undertaken with Pialligo Ave increased to four lanes. These tests showed that increasing the capacity of these roads made little difference to the flow of traffic within Queanbeyan.

8.7 Elimination of Shortlisted Options

Analysis of the shortlist Project Options showed that Options 03B, 03C and C2B, which involved the construction of Dunns Creek, were not significantly different to those without Dunns Creek and its associated cost. As indicated earlier, the Dunns Creek link between the Tralee and Googong developments was seen as being a useful inclusion in the future Queanbeyan network but would not likely be required within the current 2031 planning horizon.

The ability of the Dunns Creek link to reduce traffic flow along Old Cooma Rd and the Edwin Land Parkway Extension however the flow reduction along Old Cooma Rd was not sufficient by 2031 to preclude the need for four lanes. This route was seen by the Technical Working Group as being valuable in the future but could not be justified at this time.

Options 03B, 03C and C2B were therefore eliminated from further analysis. See Appendix 8 and 9 for LOS results.

In addition, Options C2B and CBC resulted in a LOS E condition applying along Cooma St from Southbar Rd to Rutledge St. The lack of the Ellerton Rd Extension caused additional traffic to travel along Cooma St to access north and east Queanbeyan.

This process eliminated all but Option 05B. Discussion within the Technical Working Group concluded that a further variation of Option CBC should also be included in further analysis. Option CBC was to include the four laning of Old Cooma Rd and the two lane extension of the Edwin Land Parkway along with a number of intersection improvements along Cooma St so as to minimize as many of the intersection issues as possible along the route.


8.8 Selection of 2031 Network

The two remaining Options 05B and CBC were again analysed in depth using the Queanbeyan model. In both options all remaining intersections that were found to be operating at LOS E or F were modified until they maintained an LOS D level. This involved all of the intersections shown in Table 10.

The inclusion of the Option CBC variation in the final analysis was to determine if it was possible to produce a future network option that did not require the Ellerton Rd Extension yet maintain a suitable LOS along Cooma St. One of the main reasons for the Ellerton Extension was to reduce the traffic flow along both Cooma St corridor and improve its projected level of service back to LOS D.

A number of additional improvements were proposed for Cooma St so that the Ellerton Rd Extension was not needed. These improvements involved modified intersection lay-outs for intersection along Cooma St and the installation of clearways during peak periods. Clearways would enable the introduction of four lanes of traffic along Cooma St between Rutledge St and Southbar Rd.

A series of additional analyses were undertaken for Option CBC which involved the following variations:

• Intersection modifications without clearways

• Intersection modifications with clearways

• Intersection modifications with clearways and Ellerton Dr extension

• Intersection modifications and Dunns Creek Link

The detailed local projected traffic volumes and LOS results for these analyses are included in Appendix 12 – 05B/CBC Final Analysis – AM Peak and Appendix 13 – 05B/CBC Final Analysis – PM Peak .

The level of service plots clearly show the following:

1. Implementing Cooma St intersection improvements without both clearways and the Ellerton Extension results in LOS E conditions along Cooma St and on Queens Bridge during the peak periods.

2. Implementing Cooma St intersection improvements with clearways but no Ellerton Extension results in better than LOS D conditions along Cooma St but Queens Bridge would remain LOS E during the peak periods. A number of additional side street approaches along Cooma St will be subjected to LOS E or F conditions during the PM Peak.

3. Implementing Cooma St intersection improvements with both clearways and the Ellerton Extension results in LOS D or better conditions along Cooma St and on Queens Bridge during the peak periods. No additional side street approaches along Cooma St will be subjected to worse than LOS D conditions during the PM Peak. A further improvement to the proposed intersection design for the Old Cooma / Ellerton Extension / Edwin Land Parkway intersection would be required.


4. Implementing Cooma St intersection improvements with the Dunns Creek Link results in LOS E conditions along Cooma St and Queens Bridge during the peak periods. A number of additional side street approaches along Cooma St will be subjected to LOS D or E conditions during the PM Peak. In addition, parts of Lowe St between Rutledge and Monaro would also drop to LOS E during the PM Peak.

Whilst the Option CBC variations with clearways produced the desired result of LOS D or better along Cooma St, the Technical Working Group believed it was expected to come at a cost to local residential amenity. The increased flow associated with the four lane clearways would result in greater noise and a decreased ability to access properties. Right turning from driveways into clearway conditions would be difficult at best and banned in some instances.

Option 05B was eventually preferred by the Technical Working Group as being the final 2031 improvement works project. Option 05B with its associated works is shown in Figure 33.


2.5km


Gabites Porter Consultants 2031 Proposed Improvement Project Figure 33

Intersection Improvement


The result of the introduction of the Option 05B improvements on the 2031 AM Peak and PM Peak networks are shown in Appendix 12 – 05B/CBC Final Analysis – AM Peak and Appendix 13 – 05B/CBC Final Analysis – PM Peak. These figures show the Levels of Service for the Queanbeyan network after the proposed intersection and link improvements have been included.

Clearly, implementing Option 05B with its associated link and intersection improvements results in LOS D or better conditions along Cooma St and on Queens Bridge during the peak periods.


9. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

As detailed in the previous sections of this report, the increases in traffic volumes and delays, over and above those caused by natural growth, are due to the additional 2031 developments detailed in Table 5. The works included in the preferred Proposed Improvement Project are as a direct result of those increases. Without those developments the existing network is expected to continue to operate well in 2031, as shown in Appendix 2.

Therefore the costs associated with these improvement works are attributable to the developments that take place up to 2031. This study investigated also how to apportion the project costs to each development so that developer contributions could be levied by the QCC. Discussion took place within the Technical Working Group as what method should be used to calculate the apportionment. It was concluded that the flow to and from each development would be tracked in the model. This tracking allowed the Technical Working Group to see how much traffic from each development went along or through each improvement in the preferred Project Option.

The relativity of each development’s flow through an improvement creates the relative contribution that each development should make to the cost of the improvement.

It was also felt that as the existing community will use these new facilities they should also contribute to some degree to the cost of each improvement.

To simplify this process and help identify contributions, the developments were grouped as follows:

• Googong Development (GOG) • South Jerrabomberra - Tralee, SE Jerrabomberra and Tralee Station

Developments (SJ) • HQJOC (HQJ) • All other development (DEV) • Other Queanbeyan Users (QUE)

Flows from each of the five groups (DEV, GOG, TRA, HQJ, QUE) were modelled separately for both the 2031 AM and PM Peaks. The period volumes were combined so that the total peak period volume was used in the apportionment calculations. The percentage relativity of each group’s flows was used in apportioning the cost of each improvement work. It should be noted that the following volumes do not include ACT traffic using the links and intersections.

Only the Edwin Land Parkway Extension and the Ellerton Extension projects had costs apportioned to existing Queanbeyan residents as these two projects offered additional benefits to residents. All other link and intersection works were apportioned to GOG, SJ, HQJ and DEV only, as they were being constructed to repair disbenefits to existing Queanbeyan users produced by these developments.

Table 15 details the volumes and relative proportion of the combined flows from each development along each of the improvement links detailed in Table 2.


2031 Improvement Link Flows (AMP+PMP) Table 15

Location GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total

4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP) 4404 297 51 365 5117 4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar) 2514 169 16 260 2959 4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge) 144 258 303 296 1001 2L ELP Ext (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 1004 513 53 127 701 2398 2L Ellerton Extension 868 41 97 91 249 1346 GOG SJ HQJ DEV QUE Total

4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP) 86% 6% 1% 7% 100% 4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar) 85% 6% 1% 9% 100% 4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge) 14% 26% 30% 30% 100% 2L ELP Ext (Jerrabomberra – Old Cooma) 42% 21% 2% 5% 29% 100% 2L Ellerton Extension 64% 3% 7% 7% 18% 100%

As indicated earlier, both the 2L Ellerton Extension and the Edwin Land Parkway Extension improvements have been apportioned to include a contribution from existing Queanbeyan residents. These new improvements are being implemented as a result of congestion and Level of Service issues elsewhere in the network. As these proposed roads have also been included in Council planning maps for many years, the apportionment of costs is therefore being calculated differently. These links will provide a potential benefit to the existing Queanbeyan residents and QCC considers it reasonable to include the flow from existing residents in calculating the apportionment of cost.

Table 16 details the volumes and relative proportion of the combined flows from each development through each of the improvement intersections.


2031 Improvement Intersection Flows (AMP+PMP) Table 16


Cooma/ELP 4386 513 111 423 5433 Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra 823 1879 13 103 2818 Tompsitt/New Link 738 2564 40 91 3433 Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe 798 32 42 186 1058 Cooma/Fergus 1243 24 37 236 1540 Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat 2484 128 21 391 3024 Lanyon/Southbar 624 1095 160 249 2128 Lanyon/Canberra 861 847 200 429 2337 Monaro/Atkinson 157 259 407 715 1538 Monaro/Yass/Bungendore 880 228 911 839 2858 Yass/Aurora 594 39 390 575 1598 Farrer / Cameron 2611 2611 Lanyon / Tompsitt 3834 3834

Table 16 Continued


Cooma/ELP 81% 9% 2% 8% 100% Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra 29% 67% 0% 4% 100% Tompsitt/New Link 21% 75% 1% 3% 100% Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe 75% 3% 4% 18% 100% Cooma/Fergus 81% 2% 2% 15% 100% Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat 82% 4% 1% 13% 100% Lanyon/Southbar 29% 51% 8% 12% 100% Lanyon/Canberra 37% 36% 9% 18% 100% Monaro/Atkinson 10% 17% 26% 46% 100% Monaro/Yass/Bungendore 31% 8% 32% 29% 100% Yass/Aurora 37% 2% 24% 36% 100% Farrer / Cameron 100% 100% Lanyon / Tompsitt 100% 100%


10. INITIAL IMPROVEMENT TIMING

An initial analysis was undertaken to determine a simple timing of the improvements detailed in Section 9. This analysis involved creating the expected 2021 land use for Queanbeyan and ACT based on available details of development construction rates. The 2006-2021 increase in households, jobs, cars and population was estimated from data provided by QCC and ACT and used to create AM and PM Peak models of traffic in Queanbeyan in 2021.

These models show the deficiencies in the existing network that would result if the expected 2021 development was put in place without any improvements. Appendix 14 – 2021 Base network shows the level of service expected in Queanbeyan as a result of the 2021 developments.

The poor levels of service shown in Appendix 14 show where improvements need to be implemented by 2021 and therefore cannot wait until 2031. Table 17 and Table 18 indicate the likely construction timing of each of the proposed improvement works. Figure 34 shows the locations of the improvement works needed by 2021.

Link Improvement Timing Table 17

Location By 2021 By 2031

4L Old Cooma (Googong to ELP)

4L Old Cooma (ELP to Southbar)

4L Monaro (Alkinson to Bridge)

2L ELP Extension (Jerra – Old Cooma)

2L Ellerton Extension

Intersection Improvement Timing Table 18

Location By 2021 By 2031

Cooma/ELP

Tompsitt/ELP/Jerrabomberra

Tompsitt/New Link

Cooma/Rutledge/Lowe

Cooma/Fergus

Cooma/Thornton/Barracks Flat

Lanyon/Southbar

Lanyon/Canberra

Monaro/Atkinson

Monaro/Yass/Bungendore

Yass/Aurora

Farrer / Cameron

Lanyon / Tompsitt



Gabites Porter Consultants 2021 Proposed Improvement Project Figure 34

2.5km

Road Improvement

Intersection Improvement


This 2021 analysis is only a preliminary indication of timing. A more detailed analysis including confirmed development rates from all of the major developments needs to be obtained and included in the analysis. In addition, an iterative process needs to be undertaken where the proposed 2021 works are implemented and additional improvements included should problems elsewhere in the network arise.

To obtain a more detailed timeline of improvement installation, additional future years need to be analysed so that implementation can be highlighted in 5 year intervals.

Gabites Porter – Googong and Tralee Traffic Study (2031)

APPENDIX 1 – 2009 Base Scenario 1. 2009 AM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Scenario 2. 2009 AM Peak Level of Service for Base Scenario 3. 2009 PM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Scenario 4. 2009 PM Peak Level of Service for Base Scenario




2009 AM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Scenario App 1 - 1

70

133

8165

248

248

119

119

119

119

119

75

424

47

40

102

552871

34

212

80

33

1018

1019

442

356

23

143143

60

106

18781123

92

94

167

91

76

48

64

86

1011280

134156

281

96

4966

109

58

131

552

269

254

123

339

135

236

67

420

182

82

82

82

26

27126

142

108111

26

72

155155

29333

111

229

67

96

136

267

43

388167

22

160

143

303

4269

58

95

46

79

20

30

143

127

29

17354

28

27

428

379

428

181

331

370

44

185

88

222

41305

97269

137

37

119

1576

1576

180

269

185

449170

18577

157

92

373 9292

92

71

83

21

32

26

37

793

362

109

7421

75

105910

59

1619

95

82

628

2356

59

701141

165

910

874

80

31

5058

212

496

385

161

4160

185

35

1005

54

134

67

331

331

249

1157

1148

32

262

255

143

189

223

80

225

891

45

85

1018 7

94

92418

80

1456

1271

947

927

792

128

51

128

59

59

805

80

35

192

216

659

1027

299 121

159

197

252

202405

171

1167

1067

184

184

141

182

182

81

184 201

58

134

285

454

22

370

22

156

34

38

415235

253

119

1338

4771459 498

1327

626

639

39

320

640

1093

326

717

814

248

248

248

248

248

248

1619

380321

127

331

331

391

292

2693

2559

804

804

906

379

536755

306

379712

19112070

1252

1007

187

187

662

797

2695

2547

807

996

563

3293

2279

1014

2356

2560

1399

511

906

244

244562

243

607

2546

1493

540

2006

610

1004

3107

1800

395

212395

889

968

262 31

433

19130

172

739

6166

716

756

1145

1692

1975

2565

710

756630

25221213

891

1969

1265

1457

2639

804

816

1969

12111252

1592 1012

621

2062

1404

24412

9

441559

455

30

278

1522

62999

110

612

99

1195

1218

1032

1032

49

7 145

926

38

662

56

479377

1946

331

823

604

526

1334728

1824

1026

780

652

2239

365

1145

225

417

834

282191

8

1422

1610 7

30

336

926

618

596

2544

1936

503

253

956

3031

364

366

1145

455

361

832

51836 891

9287713

94

1608

1236703

2.5km



Gabites Porters Consultants

2009 AM Peak Level of Service for Base Scenario App 1 - 2

KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km




2009 PM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Scenario App 1 - 3

116

204

125

107

318

318

138

138

138

138

138

19

6

116

498

77

18

168

6

610791

41

6

187211

3

19

556

554

354

299

25

195195

1136

125

236110132

140

42

77

16112

16

4

12 140

137

4

75

2

53

122

1961279

5

6

6

32

141151

42532

145

77173

231

139

33

192

610

277

243

85

326

214

8

130

39

1

1430

144

11

5

5

114

114

114

40

33740

181

149155

48

98

110110

13269

299

7

204

113

56

280

329

57

543165

2

28

214

195

6

386

12

6155

27

33

134

35

3068

104

20

29

4

7

195

31

72

42

222

62

18

26

515

475

515

93

431

486

70

44

213

7

98

206

82185

134209

57

26

972

8

28

184

1911

1911

254

445

273

70991

252

11

113

111

139

564

2

142139

144

1231163

14

51

24

93

15

402

815

142

6

9

1642

2

50

98598

4

861

9719

21

114

854

2430

43

103958

121

416

6

6

922

113

772

110

239

324

916

106

3467

228

41

8965

5

33

17

33

103

431

431

317

1213

963

10

51

264

308

195

295

4

970

1255

5

273

981

18

60

107

556 4

17

142

1234

113

784

715

1588

980

402

19

19

181

76

181

43

43

915

125

66

49

28313

903

331

590

285 150

11

79

281

323

234290

510

672

18

994

157

157

187

9090

229

8

157 176

23

118

240

432

7

328

7

125

51

51

88

202

7

678295

280

142

730

1558786 1535

810

853

872

27

709

1196

601

779

339

1265

318

318

318

318

318

318

861

424355

169

280

280

224

212

1034

977

2310

2310

2261

1163

1157727

197

1237464

15481579

1404

1286

161

161

478

581

1033

850

3119

1287

1713

1216

954

262

2430

840

709

681

2261

1406

14061713

285

2412

850

419

284

566

2408

2692

1149

797

1580

8321580

549

663

393 65

39541

29159

237

553

958

767

790

1206

64911

63

1765

576

561509

12952462

1572

510

1497

715

996

2310

465

510

24401404

720 1202

458

1172

1620

71051

0

26 724

496

61

2

291

1294

35

3

29

89535

149

443

93

1119

1141

358

358

3

82

7 97

457

42

709

173

365665

1843

280

579

320

217

801371

713

488

1209

629

1190

816

1206

205

695

444

193157

3

2 7

297

756 2286

1087

451

1619

843

1312

1663

194

449

1537

1053

5891698

1206

16496

813

444

43323 1572

12811491

199

893

7071088

2.5km




2009 PM Peak Level of Service for Base Scenario App 1 - 4

KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km


APPENDIX 2 – 2031 Do Minimum – Natural Growth 1. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for Do Minimum Option 2. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for Do Minimum Option 3. 2031 PM Peak Two Way Volumes for Do Minimum Option 4. 2031 PM Peak Level of Service for Do Minimum Option




2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for Do Minimum Natural Growth App 2 - 1

82

170

109

76

277

120

120

120

120

120

6

48

5

597912

208

2

1042

144144

1

15694

15

15 2

16

3

92

1448

1

59

597

353

332308

489

223

4

2

82

82

82

2676

242

321

11

265

23

161

144

5

16

6

22

32

1

14430

171

414

414

400

44

182

5

872

105148

25

25

1836

181

185

79

96

41

23

1667

82

810

822729

167

85

484

218

185 1164

360

360

278

1315

11

33

144

12

437

80

1494

1227

974

6

6

157

51

157

1099

82

9

1106

280

177

231

209

209

84

153

322

24

437

109

1384

572

869

40

1439

768

1170

956

277

277

277

277

277

1667

581521

127

962

2734

2683

12251021

859

841

805790

2243

1404

39

154

875

82

82

664

624

624

1170437

1481

262

262

2681

2714

958

1438

3489

2491

998

2729

2721

1670

594

1021

294

664

294

421

922

2714

614

2100

925

1204

3564

1944

430

883

1091 212 46

196

454

183

941

1056

1990

1372

793

999

25831468

1278

2490

2303

2766

1225

980

3116

14691404

2980 1433

495

3467

1538

39423

0

2371

452

46

1

442

1707

4

1

74

132

491

117

1548

1560

704

115

254

145

1094

45

890

54

510

449

3503

487

634

502

870

20051462

3427

1667

986

1014

463

7

1990

271

442

1011

252256

16

1

808

1013

957

718

750

2280

561

471

1949

3767

482

531

4

453

1007

59640 1387

81212534

68

1412

9681478

2.5km




2031 AM Peak Level of Service for Do Minimum Natural Growth App 2 - 2

KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km




2031 PM Peak Two Way Volumes for Do Minimum Natural Growth App 2 - 3

132

261

165

123

358

137

137

137

137

137

18

6

79

6

633865

2162

701

192192

6

164116

17

14 1

4

4

103

1304

1

33

633

462

427167

1755

176

11

5

112

112

112

39101

168

293

10

227

29

209

192

7

33

35

20

27

4

7

19241

260

489

489

525

68

33

197

9

1021

14354

41

41

2328

252

269

114

2

144

23

45

954

112

999

462703

120

6

6

116

335

141

222 904

469

469

357

967

10

51

192

316

1326

111

850

771

1890

18

18

221

75

221

1178

12649

756

362

522

250

114

114

101

123

271

6

362

99

807

1840

1051

27

1491

1204

640

1333

358

358

358

358

358

954

510441

167

899

1054

860

26762051

1003

1315

1185989

1696

2261

190

76

722

46

46

1498

636

636

6401326

1582

222

222

1098

899

2975

1574

1199

892

307

2703

894

973

673

2051

1477

1498

1477

477

2269

901

225676

2266

2960

1218

762

940

613

807

293 60

293

565

141

870

883

1700

1332

1081

1389

15042640

2945

1122

1192

881

2676

927

1077

25622261

972 2099

377

1532

2430

80665

4

1205

582

58

2

405

1419

28

1

25

102

173

371

157

1232

1211

843

221

1

24

106

521

38

891

205

437

800

2741

625

606

539

497

925607

993

907

2078

1064

955

3

1700

288

705

524

178160

1

2

320

2705

569

1791

850

2520

553

6071603

1583

12451460

6

954

524

50021 2530

3679611

227

1630

1164996

2.5km




2031 PM Peak Level of Service for Do Minimum Natural Growth App 2 - 4

KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km


APPENDIX 3 – 2031 Base Network – Full Development 1. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for Base Network with Full Development 2. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for Base Network with Full Development 3. 2031 PM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Network with Full Development 4. 2031 PM Peak Level of Service for Base Network with Full Development




2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for Base Network with Full Development App 3 - 1

297

170

313

7272487

175

175

175

175

175

3

1655

88

145

100

3

6

18

17

19321279

18

65

405

233

7

21

91

233

2211

354255

33

182

91

79

41

2105

65

1309

3

90

2540

2536

4

2471

11 14

5

620

102

1929

1232

1018

13

369

61

4

126

1053 12

41

12

1310

2489

90

417

438

108677

1369

52

2090

856

1315

2487

755

252105

766

1589

1347

3193

983

906

2164

1477

25

25

327

180 160

81 89210

223 25

1

1052

44

526

1261

859

140

40476

117796 214

761

252

297

118

118

297

297

335

271

186

237338

1680

62

803

10

225

57

35

154

1382

1753 1736

1911

1139

1038

756

789

797

559

1004

1349489

1784

267

267

3139

3476

795

1766

3247

2283

1414

2632

3484

911

254

424

1132

3476

7532723

1135

2033

901

1101

45

199

44

947

1023

1922

1468

1051

30221520

2490

2135

3119

1208

3125

15011477

2760

540

3212

1535

437

2208

423

44

1

478

1743

7

75

133

532

142

1888

1890

771

239

143

1113

43

896

55

468458

4131

489

556

482

904

1396

1761

933

1205

5

1922211

13

955

1190

978

754

2331

575

6382024

4484

698

8

51 1374

1288587

1635

2.5km




2031 AM Peak Level of Service for Base Network with Full Development App 3 - 2

KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km




2031 PM Peak Two-Way Volumes for Base Network with Full Development App 3 - 3

391

261

398

379

9632772

228

228

228

228

228

34

15

80

6

15771735

2933

1132

303

114

190

14

189133

11

4

21

17 1

7

4

299

1378

1

70

1577

458

403170

1668

292

12

87

139

139

85

40109

171

379

13

424

34

316

303

11

34

106

19

18

42

8

10

30360

348

721

721

2618

76

261155

238

10

1681

154106

52

52

2050

254

276

125

11

114

4

314

24

57

917

139

1212

2441

94

15

15

111

404

140

263 1741

2828

2824

4

2686

1540

10

51

190

212

1584

139

857

875

1781

34

34

478

94

150

714

4

98

789 69

6

1750

14364

1189

2773

613

273

119

119

107

123

310

5

377

102

812

1730

1266

35

2162

1352

745

1457

2772

889

889

889

8

792

917

883811

169

1294

1226

1123

810

27622641

1218

1359

14061041

1685

2354

8167

270

23181

26

26

181

452 493

174 212

98

104 14

8236

71

235314218 32

0

992

51

87

734

49 2

371 371

493

220784

242

171

60

1

657311

995 533

669

6751054

129

195

369

385150

220

31

31

220

220

231

153558

285

355

346

582923

47 4721131

88

1151

294

4347

494

163

459 725

1063

237

74

1246

1246 1239

1301

1410

1337

1991

666

559

476

418

9311557

1892

228

228

1169

1173

2979

1895

1276

1072

378

2441

1168

838

584

2641

1351

485

3295

1174

268

906

3292

2919

1347

873

1289

634

823

293 60

29857

6133

890

906

1702

1346

1127

1405

15942853

2892

1191

1281

1239

2762

980

1079

27612354

908 1920

423

1530

2307

1025809

1290

641

59

2

375

1751

43

1

40

105

172

399

125

1837

1794

844

229

1

27

117

540

34

921

219

450

831

3299

482

611

553

536

956574

920

740

1908

1301

976

8

1702

294

752

534

183159

16

2

410

3392

708

1811

1043

2478

634

726

1753

1646

1125

2267

24

960

534

49325 2531

39111551

329

1661

1216

1027

2.5km




2031 PM Peak Level of Service for Base Network with Full Development App 3 - 4

KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km


APPENDIX 4 – 2031 Full Development Options AM Peak 1. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 001 2. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 001 3. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 002 4. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 002 5. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 003 6. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 003 7. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 004 8. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 004 9. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 005 10. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 005 11. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 1A 12. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 1A 13. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 1B 14. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 1B 15. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 2 16. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 2 17. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 3 18. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 3 19. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 4 20. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 4 21. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for VBC 5 22. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for VBC 5 23. 2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for VBC 6 24. 2031 AM Peak Level of Service for VBC 6




2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for 001 App 4 - 1

96

170

233

95

1015

1799

183

183

183

183

183

5

3

52

5

664886

3002

935

270

89

182

1

188101

28

3

16

26 2

16

3

215

1567

1

62

664

338

329311

491

207

4

22

64

64

64

2761

244

367

14

773

30

286

270

8

18

12

22

32

3

1

27045

280

296

296

1708

65

66

179

5

2542

89204

32

32

1447

217

275

92

4

86

208

44

23

1844

64

874

377

2313

169

3

3

85

526

218

195 812

1842

1842

1778

811

11

42

182

818

340

94

1688

1245

873

5

5

292

61

54

531

590

988 46

6

792

88

122

113

1000

1799

177

252

185

185

94

184

380

21

439

122

1575

574

948

530

829

799

1145

757

1799

863

581

863

863

8

660

1844

737675

129

571

1246

3090

2425

11571217

789

835

819813

2298

1349

8116

255

6116

5

5

116

324 379

173 155

21

80 85284

75

310379202 22

7

1293

51

83

450

43 1

264 265

379

463863

120

80

39

863337

831 462

368

4721645

72

249

278

29598

236

103

103

236

236

337

366652

187

237

323

55210

12 121575

54

1179

226

10

11225

600

30

303 427

585

129

209

431

152

484

1347

996

996

1440 1287

847 66

3

1088

1863

246

246

1063

3035

3877

888

1847

795

3509

2618

720

2313

3885

2025

708

1217

261

888

450

1040

3876

246

261

8773000

1042

1327

3549

1917

463

908

1098 212 45

200

431

193

970

1062

1940

1461

782

1070

28791085

1223

2530

2146

2726

1142

1100

3162

14561349

2538 1078

531

3011

1428

38621

8

2218

479

45

1

477

950

7

5

74

134

523

206

1736

1299

766

268

074

145

1153

41

918

56

491

500

4147

257

566

509

878

16491363

2739

1680

877

944

507

8

1940

274

462

1053

261239

17

1

1083

1127

543

678

407

2386

569

5981941

4679

471656

8

495

1048

58346 1358

82611805

75

1652

1171

1343

2.5km




2031 AM Peak Level of Service for 001 App 4 - 2

KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km





96

170

233

95

1023

1788

183

183

183

183

183

5

3

52

5

737976

2232

966

271

90

182

1

194102

27

4

16

15 2

16

3

156

1493

1

62

737

351

343311

490

235

4

22

64

64

64

2762

244

336

13

307

30

287

271

8

18

11

22

26

1

2

2714

5

209

317

317

2204

65

44

174

5

3162

90203

32

32

1877

217

272

9 3

4

86

207

44

23

1836

64

880

381

2327

164

3

3

86

530

218

194 848

1831

1831

1767

814

11

42

182

817

344

94

1682

1336

893

5

5

292

61

54

531

597

994 46

4

791

88

11

1031

1788

177

254

185

185

94

1 85

392

20

450

1 20

1569

573

952

47

829

801

1177

758

1788

863

581

863

863

8

658

1836

841779

129

568

1245

3089

2420

11521214

788

839

819821

2299

1340

8116

255

6 116

5

5

116

324 379

173 155

21

80 85

284

75

310379202 22

7

1293

51

83

450

43 1

264 265

379

463863

120

80

39

863339

835 465

368

4721656

72

249

278

29598

237

103

103

237

237

338

367656

187

237

323

55510

12 121575

54

1180

226

10

11225

600

30

303 427

589

90

210

372

149

1348

995

995

14511293

845 65

6

1091

1863

246

246

1063

3034

3890

887

1846

795

3507

2612

721

2327

3897

2040

708

1214

260

887

450

1040

3889

246

260

876

3013

1043

1323

3543

1911

466

895

1113

212 45

20044

0193

968

1061

194

0

1461

790

1065

28671085

1222

2531

2160

2719

1137

1108

3164

14551340

2539107

5

531

3010

1424

38821

8

2232

476

45

1

465

945

7

5

74

134

523

207

1620

1178

766

268

0 76

145

1154

41

916

56

490

499

4135

271

565

5 09

875

16641346

2741

1655

873

1061

507

8

1940

274

461

1041

261239

17

1

1081

1122

537

677

408

2392

575

611

1937

4668

467

655

7

494

1036

58246 1356

83111745

73

1658

1177

1326

2.5km





KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km





96

170

234

1011

1805

183

183

183

183

183

3

870

87

182

101

28

3

16

15

1741644

22

64

324

268

8

18

12

3

268

171277

32

21790

86

43

2030

64

900

377

3

85

1847

1847

1783

11 18

2

341

95

1823

1227

929

5

293

61

612

997 46

3

126

117

1035

1804

94

426

464

108640

960

541

2176

820

1156

1805

864

581

82030

717

578

1245

3090

849

866

2251

1307

8

5

324

173 155

80 85310

202 22

7

1293

51

450

1265

863

120

39

900339

838 470

1640

249

236

101

101

236

236

351 373

187

237545

1576

52

1154

10

225

30

134

208

438

153

495

1423 1246

850 68

0

1044

1884

246

246

1075

3035

3818

894

1868

799

3490

2609

714

2280

3825

1230

261

894

450

1028

3817

8422975

1031190

0

895

1115

44

201

43

974

1067

1939

1461

1052

28801466

2553

2079

2727

1105

3191

14461307

2485

523

2972

1401

378

2152

484

44

1

472

1652

7

75

132

516

143

1957

1982

748

262

146

1155

41

922

56

513

480

4161

463

558

483

871

1352

1699

850

1129

8

1939263

17

1093

1157

914

727

2360

584

6241959

4674

653

7

47 1352

1221577

1676

2.5km





KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km





275

170

310

269

2502

177

177

177

177

177

11

3

52

5

7911048

3092

959

272

90

182

2

191100

28

5

16

15 2

16

3

178

1632

1

62

791

355

348311

537

236

4

18

68

68

68

2762

244

331

14

310

30

288

272

8

18

11

22

21

1

3

2724

5

276

333

333

2443

65

44

176

5

3632

90202

33

33

1894

217

274

9 4

4

86

206

44

23

1997

68

893

333

2678

163

3

3

86

524

218

198 860

2554

2553

1

2485

821

11

42

182

817

402

94

1843

1364

936

11

11

367

61

97

573

1

465

862 49

6

791

88

11

1024

2503

177

245

191

191

94

181

384

18

449

130

1720

614

975

47

828

802

1428

759

2502

765

614

765

765

8

652

1997

849787

129

583

1200

3182

2432

12241300

843

959

879929

2209

1440

8113

230

6 133

22

22

133

322 379

181 160

21

81 89

282

75

308371219 25

3

1174

46

83

443

43 1

260 260

379

455854

142

101

40

38090

567 200

402

471763

76

250

274

292

96

214

129

129

214

214

268

301595

187

237

391

3108

14 141579

56

849

229

10

11225

602

51

324 405

384

228

563

519

519

1348

989

989

1064999

893 83

2

823

1822

251

251

1038

3127

3737

906

1805

703

3474

2513

799

2678

3744

1925

761

1300

243

906

445

1020

3736

183

243

784

2952

1023

1357

3505

1888

413

911

1104

210 47

20246

1195

968

1060

195

2

1449

920

1010

30351118

1231

2499

2144

2683

1204

1216

3143

14901440

2555114

2

535

3024

1439

39522

1

2214

465

47

1

489

962

7

5

73

133

527

205

1667

1205

806

258

0 46

143

1157

43

915

58

480

501

4128

272

533

4 86

829

17111314

2826

1641

871

1070

514

0

1952

278

447

1062

261226

19

1

1001

1065

553

710

409

2305

570

603

1929

4593

437

627

8

500

1057

57645 1355

81412375

29

1680

1198

1325

2.5km





KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km





275

170

310

269

2503

177

177

177

177

177

10

3

52

5

724972

3432

937

268

86

182

1

17698

31

2

16

27 2

18

3

222

1881

1

62

724

350

337311

599

281

4

18

68

68

68

2761

244

327

15

838

30

284

268

8

18

12

22

25

2

2

2684

5

326

307

307

1934

65

66

199

5

3162

88204

33

33

1576

217

278

90

4

86

210

43

23

2186

68

910

335

2586

156

3

3

8 4

526

215

203 1375

2555

2554

1

2486

1296

11

42

182

818

390

95

1979

1236

950

10

10

367

61

97

573

1

466

860 493

1902

88

137

128

1002

2504

177

256

190

190

94

186

429

15

453

119

1897

672

981

600

2176

825

1342

919

2503

766

613

766

766

8

653

2186

698635

129

584

1180

3168

2455

12271302

821

973

840958

2244

1401

8113

230

6 133

22

22

133

322 379

181 160

21

81 89

282

75

308371219 25

2

1173

46

83

443

43 1

260 260

379

455854

142

101

40

3 8895

564 200

402

471763

76

250

2 74

292

96

211

129

129

211

211

264

297597

187

237

377

3158

15 151579

56

878

229

10

11225

586

51

324 405

379

280

514

594

481

555

10741010

890 84

3

844

1820

251

251

1035

3113

3686

909

1804

705

3481

2522

803

2586

3694

1 873

761

1302

243

909

445

997

3686

185

243

819

2867

1000

1357

3529

1894

388

911

1105

211 46

20145

1193

972

1061

1962

1438

933

996

30581501

1235

2511

2121

2707

1207

1230

3141

14811401

2533114

8

540

3017

1445

38020

9

2192

477

46

1

468

1678

8

5

74

132

531

143

2023

2049

798

267

055

142

1154

42

918

57

479

512

4100

457

582

509

889

16531364

2812

1692

869

1104

515

0

1962

281

456

1050

260219

19

1

1023

1088

937

761

741

2361

578

600

1910

4559

469

619

9

501

1045

57146 1371

78512035

25

1677

1196

1310

2.5km





KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km




2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 1A App 4 - 11

298

170

300

290

2471

176

176

176

176

176

12

3

52

5

7731079

3332

1024

273

91

182

2

19098

22

4

16

16 2

18

3

156

1724

1

62

773

376

365311

605

283

4

42

90

90

65

2765

244

399

15

377

30

288

273

8

18

6

10

22

25

1

2

2734

2

319

404

404

2151

65

1361

31

189

5

3332

94195

33

33

1932

217

264

9 4

4

86

205

43

23

2066

90

916

335

2679

162

3

3

85

534

215

204 1528

2523

2519

4

2430

1370

11

42

182

816

387

95

1845

1304

995

12

12

357

61

98

559

4

477

874 49

6

1892

88

11

1088

2472

180

259

192

192

94

184

459

15

482

116

1767

674

984

47

2176

827

1484

842

2471

739

611

739

739

8

636

2066

799734

129

574

1197

3194

2443

12111285

839

960

877926

2182

1361

8113

226

5 132

25

25

132

325 379

182 161

21

81 90

282

75

308371220 25

7

1172

46

83

443

43 1

259 260

379

454856

142

102

41

37789

568 198

401

471763

75

249

273

290

98

217

129

129

217

217

270

301603

187

237

392

3148

12 121577

55

844

229

10

11225

600

56

325 405

383

192

607

412

55710781004

894 82

0

816

1820

251

251

1036

3139

3765

903

1805

700

3475

2509

808

2679

3772

1957

748

1285

243

903

445

990

3764

185

243

828

2936

993

1342

3521

1880

386

909

1104

211 47

20145

1193

962

1052

193

4

1467

918

1000

29751508

1243

2542

2147

2696

1191

1213

3179

14881361

2541112

2

533

3010

1417

38821

9

2217

472

47

1

487

1718

7

5

73

134

525

141

1881

1888

817

218

0 59

143

1147

44

908

57

490

501

4145

476

581

5 09

853

16871323

2804

1650

858

1222

515

0

1934

278

454

1055

260233

19

1

1004

1075

974

765

744

2310

577

602

1934

4586

470

605

8

501

1050

58444 1373

81812365

11

1684

1204

1332

2.5km




2031 AM Peak Level of Service for CIC 1A App 4 - 12

KEY

Road LOS D

LOS F

LOS E

2.5km




2031 AM Peak Two Way Volumes for CIC 1B App 4 - 13

275

170

310

2503

177

177

177

177

177

3

1055

90

182

98

28

6

16

18

1768782

18

68

335

271

8

18

11

1

271

247344

33

21793

86

43

2134

68

913

339

3

84

2555

2554

1

2486

11 18

2

400

95

1927

1310

957

10

367

61

1

467

866 49

9

11

1031

2504

94

436

474

120663

985

47

2176

827

1399

2503

766

614

82134

797

592

1195

3188

966

837

2255

1388

8

22

323

181 160

81 89308

219 25

2

1174

46

443

1260

854

142

40

38292

564 198

763

250

215

129

129

215

215

268 302

187

237312

1579

56

853

10

225

51

243

555

538

5121060 1001

896 83

6

822

1823

251

251

1038

3133

3716

908

1807

705

3475

2514

802

2626

3724

1296

243

908

445

1000

3716

8322884

1003

1887

909

1104

47

201

45

973

1064

1948

1453

1045

30431502

2502

2127

2705

1239

3130

14821388

2521

535

3012

1436

380

2198

484

46

1

475

1718

7

73

134

528

141

1886

1904

760

258

143

1155

43

920

58

493

507

4145

464

588

508

893

1365

1691

866

1209

0

1948235

19

997

1092

973

758

2363

577

6021925

4575

623

8

47 1372

1188526

1676

2.5km

Date post:	24-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

GOOGONG AND TRALEE TRAFFIC STUDY (2031) · 8.6 Shortlisted Options with Monaro Highway Upgrade 60...

Documents