Re: Response to RMS Cross Street Planning Proposal€¦ · RMS advises that the proponent must...

traffic impact studies | expert witness | local govt. liaison | traffic calming | development advice | parking studies pedestrian studies | traffic control plans | traffic management studies | intersection design | transport studies

1

Reference: 13.160 17th April 2015 Urbis Level 23 Darling Park Tower 2 201 Sussex Street Sydney NSW 2000 Attention: Ryan Macindoe Re: Response to RMS Cross Street Planning Proposal Dear Ryan, We refer to the subject development and in particular RMS’s request for additional information (provided in Attachment 1). In this regard we have examined all the traffic related items and now advise as follows in respect of these items. We do note however that the RMS request relates to matters that are properly within the ambit of Council to respond and are of a strategic nature, beyond the responsibility of any individual applicant. In that context, we anticipate that the below responses will form the basis of a broader Council response to the RMS.

Traffic Count Data

RMS has requested the original traffic count data information collected for the subject Cross Street planning proposal. The existing traffic count data for the following intersections is provided in Attachment 2 for reference.

Progress Street & Remembrance Drive.

Thirlmere Way & Remembrance Drive.

Struan Street & Remembrance Drive.

Myrtle Creek Avenue & Remembrance Drive

River Road & Remembrance Drive.

Proposed Traffic Volumes

RMS advises that the proponent must provide the total volume of traffic generated by the Picton, Tahmoor, Thirlmere (PTT), East Tahmoor planning proposal, the Cross Street (and subject) planning proposal and the JR Stud planning proposal (which is located directly to the east of the subject site). To summarise, the following traffic volumes are estimated, taking into consideration the Cardno Local Environmental Study dated 21st September 2011 on behalf of Council and the


2

Arup Traffic Impact Assessment undertaken for the JR Stud site (dated 18th July 2012). The estimated traffic volumes are therefore as follows:

Cross Street (subject site): 204 veh/hr during the AM and PM weekday peak periods

JR Stud: 100 veh/hr during the AM and PM weekday peak periods

PTT East Tahmoor: 128 veh/hr during the AM and PM weekday peak periods

It is noted that the traffic volume data for the PTT East Tahmoor precinct has been extracted from the Cardno TIA which adopted 151 dwellings as provided in 2036 within the East Tahmoor precinct. The Cardno TIA does not specifically state the traffic generation for this precinct in itself however the RMS rate of 0.85 trips per dwelling has been utilised in the absence of the traffic volume data and in order to provide RMS with the requested information.

Trip Distribution

RMS has noted that peak turning count data has been provided for the existing traffic volumes and has requested the adopted trip distributions assumptions adopted for the Cross Street planning proposal. This traffic flow diagram is provided in Attachment 3. The following trip distribution assumptions were adopted in the original TIA for the Cross Street planning proposal:

70% of all traffic departing the site during AM and PM weekday peak periods will traverse northbound towards the Hume Highway with the remaining 30% to traverse southbound. (Reference: Wollondilly Shire Council Growth Management Strategy).

Directional Splits of 20%in and 80% out in the AM peak and reverse in the PM peak (Reference RMS Guide) and

Overall Development Traffic Generation Split from the site based on the premise that at least 70% of traffic requires access to the Hume Highway with Myrtle Creek Avenue and River Road representing the most direct and shortest route to the proposed destination.

60% via River Road

25% via Myrtle Creek Avenue

10% via Struan Street

5% via Progress Street

The above assumptions form the basis of the traffic flow diagrams provided in Attachment 3.

Weekend SIDRA Modelling

RMS has requested that the proponent must consider trip distributions from the PTT East Tahmoor planning proposal on weekends. While this may be a worthwhile pursuit, the implications of this assessment should not be borne by the proponent of the Cross Street site and rather, is a strategic issue that requires coordination by Council. The Wollondilly Local Environmental Study undertaken by Cardno (which is a strategic study that included the traffic implications of the PTT East Tahmoor planning proposal) did not itself assess the weekend trip distribution of the proposal, nor did it undertake traffic survey counts on weekends. The suggestion that the applicant for the Cross Street Planning Proposal takes responsibility for such an assessment is considered unreasonable.


3

In addition, the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments provides trip rates for weekday AM and PM peak periods only and does not require weekend assessment for residential developments, which generate peak traffic volumes during weekday periods where road network volumes reflect journey to work trips. The intersections upgrades that are recommended as part of the Cardno TIA are appropriately based on weekday peaks. To the extent that weekend conditions may be of interest to RMS for other reasons, this is considered a matter for Council and RMS.

SIDRA Intersection Analysis

Existing Plus Development Intersection Analysis

RMS advises that the impact on each individual intersection must be investigated via a SIDRA intersection analysis and consider “Existing traffic volumes with and without the proposed subject Cross Street development.” These modelling results were in fact provided within the original submitted TIA. However, they have now been updated into the latest SIDRA 6 modelling suite and the electronic models accompany this letter. A summary of the ‘existing’ intersection performances is provided in Table 1 and the ‘existing plus subject developments’ is provided in Table 2 with the detailed outputs provided in Attachment 4 (existing) and Attachment 5 (existing plus development)

Table 1: Intersection Performance – Existing Development

Intersection Description Control

Type Period

Degree of Saturation

Critical Movement

Delay

Level of Service


Priority

‘Give Way’

AM 0.095 11.3 A

PM 0.052 12.4 A

Myrtle Creek Avenue & York Street & Remembrance Drive

Priority

‘Give Way’

AM 0.070 19.6 B

PM 0.103 29.7 C


Priority

‘Give Way’

AM 0.129 27.8 A

PM 0.049 20.9 B


Roundabout AM 0.353 6.0 A

PM 0.484 6.6 A


Priority

‘Give Way’

AM 0.205 29.1 C

PM 0.179 36.0 C


4

Table 2: Intersection Performance – Existing plus Development


Type Period


Critical Movement

Delay

Level of Service


Priority

‘Give Way’

AM 0.337 14.8 B

PM 0.054 13.6 A


Priority

‘Give Way’

AM 0.230 22.0 B

PM 0.175 32.9 C


Priority

‘Give Way’

AM 0.236 32.9 C

PM 0.072 24.2 B


Roundabout AM 0.395 6.1 A

PM 0.495 6.6 A


Priority

‘Give Way’

AM 0.284 35.2 C

PM 0.209 40.7 C

It is evident that the development of the Cross Street site (with 240 dwellings) does not create any unacceptable traffic impacts on the assessed intersections with all intersections operating with Los A to C. The RMS has also requested that SIDRA modelling be undertaken for “Existing traffic volumes with the proposed PTT East Tahmoor planning proposal, Cross Street , JR Stud and revised precinct planning proposals” which is discussed in further detail below.

Cumulative Assessment – Cross Street, JR Stud & PTT East Tahmoor

The cumulative assessment undertaken in the TRAFFIX report included the Cross Street site, the JR Stud site and the PTT East Tahmoor. RMS commentary makes reference to revised precinct planning proposals however it is unclear as to what scenario the reference relates.

To provide some context, the submitted Cross Street planning proposal TIA undertook a review of the Wollondilly Local Environmental Study prepared by Cardno on behalf of Council. This study as discussed above, included the East Tahmoor Precinct (151 dwellings) but also looked at additional residential uplift for east, west and south Tahmoor which resulted in 1330 dwellings as documented in the Cardno report. In this regard, the updated modelling not only provides an assessment of the East Tahmoor precinct but also the other Tahmoor related precincts that were investigated in the Cardno TIA.

With the above in mind, it was assumed as part of the Cross Street planning proposal assessment that the recommended infrastructure improvements identified by Cardno were supported and adopted by Wollondilly Shire Council, and it is emphasised that these upgrades are also supported by TRAFFIX for the purpose of this cumulative impact assessment. These included the following infrastructure upgrades:


5

Remembrance Drive/Progress Street to be converted to a one lane circulating roundabout (2021)

Remembrance Drive / Struan Street to be converted from the current give-way priority controlled intersection to a two lane roundabout. (2031)

Remembrance Drive/Myrtle Creek Avenue to be converted from the current give-way priority controlled intersection to a two lane roundabout (2036)

Remembrance Drive/Thirlmere Way to provide additional approach for the northern leg (2026)

Further to the above, the electronic SIDRA files relating to the above mentioned improvements were provided to TRAFFIX so that a cumulative assessment could be undertaken. It is our understanding that the models provided by Cardno included the adopted improvements and assessed background growth as well as development traffic generated under the overall Wollondilly Local Environmental Study. In response to receipt of these SIDRA files, TRAFFIX has now superimposed the traffic associated for the Cross Street and JR Stud development sites (based on the traffic flows provided in Attachment 3). It is however highlighted that the SIDRA models provided to TRAFFIX required updating as certain circulation lanes in the Cardno assessment were omitted from the models and required correction. A summary of the overall recommended improvements is provided below in Table 3 and detailed outputs are provided in Attachment 6.

Table 3: Intersection Performance –

Existing + Growth + Cross Street + JR Stud + Tahmoor

Intersection Description

Control Type Period Degree of Saturation

Critical Movement

Delay

Level of Service

Myrtle Creek Avenue & York Street &

Remembrance Drive Roundabout 2036

AM 0.454 5.9 A

PM 0.483 6.0 A


Roundabout 2031 AM 0.456 5.7 A

PM 0.477 5.5 A


Roundabout

2026

AM 0.655 6.7 A

PM 0.635 6.6 A


Roundabout 2021 AM 0.617 6.2 A

PM 0.771 6.6 A

It is evident from the above that the recommended intersection improvements will result in the above mentioned intersections operating at LoS A with combined effects of the Cross Street, JR Stud and all Tahmoor related development traffic as assessed in the Cardno report.

As highlighted in the Cross Street TIA., the Cardno Study identified that the intersection of River Road and Remembrance would operate at LoS F during the year 2036. TRAFFIX previously reviewed potential upgrade options for Remembrance Drive/River Road as it will form a key intersection that will accommodate a high proportion of entry and exit movements to the subject site (and also the JR Stud site). The concept modelling results for the provision of an assumed two lane roundabout intersection are reiterated in Table 4 below.


6

Table 4: Intersection Performance – Roundabout Option

Existing + Growth + Cross Street + JR Stud


Type Period


Critical Movement

Delay

Level of Service

Option 1:

Potential Intersection Upgrade: River Road &

Remembrance Drive.

2036

Roundabout

AM 0.200 13.0 A

PM 0.090 16.0 B

The River Road/Remembrance Drive intersection that has been modelled as a 2 lane roundabout with 2 lanes on the eastern and western approach significantly improves performance to LoS A during the AM peak and LoS B during the PM peak (from LoS F 2036). The provision of a two lane roundabout as previously noted will require potential road widening and land allocation. However, it is clear that there are alternative options available to improve the 2036 intersection operation. These alternative options include the signalisation of this intersection as a feasible concept solution and would not require significant (if any) land acquisition. An overview of the modelling results for the signalisation of River Road & Remembrance Drive is provided in Table 5.

Table 5: Intersection Performance –

Existing plus Development plus 2036 Cardno Development


Type Period


Critical Movement

Delay

Level of Service

Option 2:

Potential Intersection Upgrade: River Road &

Remembrance Drive.

2036

Signals

AM 0.897 18.9 B

PM 0.913 15.2 B

Table 5 indicates that the intersection would operate at LoS B if the intersection is upgraded to provide traffic signals, noting that the recommended preferred option would be to provide a roundabout controlled intersection. It is evident that the tested scenarios in Table 4 and Table 5 assumes full development identified within the Tahmoor precinct (1330 dwellings as documented in the Cardno report for east, west and south Tahmoor) and also includes the subject site (circa 240 dwellings) and the JR Stud (100 dwellings). The delivery timeframe for these residential developments is unknown and as such the above provides a worst case assessment which would be monitored at future DA stages by Council and the RMS. Nonetheless, the identified intersection upgrade solutions would significantly improve the operation for the period 2036 compared to if the intersection remained as a priority controlled t-intersection.


7

Section 94 Plan

The RMS letter advised that Council should ensure that appropriate planning mechanisms are in place to fund any road network upgrades that may be required by way of S94 contributions. The costs associated with these improvement would be apportioned according to the relative generation increase in response to existing intersection volumes at the time of DA submission and associated with relevant approved developments. As highlighted in the original TIA, the percentage increase in traffic generated at each intersection would be identified in order to apportion the S94 contributions. Table 6 below is an extract from the TRAFFIX TIA for the Cross Street planning proposal and demonstrates the increase in traffic relative to the assumed 2036 traffic volumes.

Table 5: Inghams Tahmoor: 2036 Traffic Increase (%)

Intersection Description Period Subject

Development Traffic (Veh/hr)

2036 Cardno Intersection

Volume

% Increase


AM 122

1826 6.4

PM 1953 6.2


AM 51

1920 2.6

PM 2072 2.4


AM 20

1860 1.1

PM 2031 1


AM 10

2298 0.43

PM 2772 0.35

It is considered that the above percentages provides an appropriate basis for a proportional assessment of relative responsibilities for costs and reflects a standard methodology for Section 94 contributions.

Infrastructure Upgrades

RMS advises that the applicant needs to identify suitable infrastructure required to ameliorate any traffic impacts associated with the development. As identified in Table 2, the proposed development in isolation does not trigger the need for the ultimate infrastructure upgrades and it is the cumulative impact of the significant residential uplift and growth in the region which creates the need (and nexus) for the necessary intersection improvements. That is to say, the conceptual upgrades that have been identified are a strategic issue that needs to be addressed by Council and the RMS respectively and is beyond the scope of any individual proponent. Nevertheless, to assist the process, the SIDRA intersection concept layouts are provided in PDF format in Attachment 4 and Attachment 5. As a general comment, Remembrance Drive generally has a road reserve of 20 metres such that the widening Remembrance Drive to permit 4 lanes (2 in each direction) will be able to be accommodated, subject to a more detailed assessment.


8

Ultimately, the delivery of the required infrastructure will need to be staged to respond to the speed of development and this will be assessed progressively by Council and RMS in response to subsequent development applications. That is, the residential uplift in the LGA would need to be managed be Council through the various development application stages, in the knowledge that the ultimate intersection geometry is appropriate ‘in principle’ based on the studies undertaken to date.

Summary

In summary, it is considered that all traffic matters raised which are the responsibility of the proponent have been satisfactorily addressed. There are some matters which the RMS has raised requiring co-ordination with and by Council and these mainly relate to the Section 94 contributions and the development of conceptual intersection upgrades required to ensure appropriate traffic planning for the region’s future needs. In this context, the Cross Street planning proposal does not significantly impact the existing road network which has been demonstrated to continue to operate at an appropriate Level of Service.

That is, there is no traffic related impediment which would prevent the subject land being rezoned for residential land use noting that the ongoing DA process will be an appropriate mechanism to deliver the staged and ultimate intersection layouts.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any queries or require any further information regarding the above.

Yours faithfully,

t ra f f ix

John Mulhaire Senior Engineer


9

Attachment 1 –RMS Response Letter

Dear Sir/Madam,

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) refers to your letter dated 28 July 2014 regarding the subject planning

proposal.

RMS has reviewed the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) document provided by TRAFFIX (Ref:13.027r01v03) and

cannot make an informed comment on the subject planning proposal. To assess the subject development the

following information is required:

• RMS requires the proponent to provide all original traffic count information collected for the Cross

Street planning proposal.

• The proponent must provide the total volume of traffic generated by the proposed Picton, Tahmoor,

Thirlmere (PTT) East Tahmoor planning proposal in accordance with the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating

Developments. This includes the Cross Street, 'J.R. Stud' and revised precinct planning proposals. See

attached plan for PTT East Tahmoor Planning area.

• RMS notes the proponent has only provided existing AM and PM peak turning counts (TIA, Figures

14&15). Trip distributions to/from the subject site have not been provided or clearly justified. RMS

requires the proponent to determine and clearly justify trip distributions to/from the subject site at all five

(5) intersections connecting from the subject site to Remembrance Drive during the AM and PM peak

hours.

• RMS notes the TIA states, '60% of trips from the site will occur via River Road'. This was assumed

due to research carried out in the Wollondilly Shire Council Growth Management Strategy 2011 stating

70% of trips will be directed northbound toward the Hume Highway. RMS also notes the 'directional splits

of 20% in, 80% out during the morning peak and reversed for the evening peak'. RMS concurs with both

statements.

• The proponent must consider trip distributions from the PTT East Tahmoor planning proposal on

weekends. The distributions must be modelled in SIDRA to determine any road upgrades required to

accommodate the generated traffic by the proposal.

• The traffic generation impact on each individual intersection must be investigated via a SIDRA

intersection analysis. The proponent must forward all electronic SIDRA files to RMS for review. The

SIDRA analysis must consider the following:

• Existing traffic volumes with and without the proposed subject development (Cross Street).

• Existing traffic volumes with the proposed PTT East Tahmoor planning proposal (Cross

Street, 'J.R. Stud' and revised precinct planning proposals).

• RMS notes the proposed subject development accompanied with the 'JR Stud' and revised precinct

planning proposals will collaboratively generate a substantial number of vehicle trips. Current SIDRA

modelling has shown that four (4) of the five (5) subject intersections on Remembrance Drive will operate

at a Level of Service F in the year 2036. This will require future intersection upgrades on Remembrance

Drive to ameliorate traffic congestion. Council should consider how any possible future road network

upgrades are funded. This is particularly important for any proposed rezoning which facilitates a series of

incremental developments which contribute to the need for the road network upgrades, but do not on their

own warrant the upgrade. In this regard, Council should ensure that appropriate planning mechanisms are

in place to fund any road network upgrades that may be required (i.e a Section 94 plan).

• The applicant needs to identify suitable infrastructure required to ameliorate any traffic impacts and

safety impacts associated with the development. Concept plans need to be provided for any works proposed

within the road reserve prior to determination to demonstrate that they can be constructed within the road

reserve. If the works can not be constructed within the road reserve, RMS would not support the proposal

unless appropriate legally binding arrangements were in place to ensure that the appropriate land required

to construct the works could be obtained.

RMS will commence its detailed assessment once the aforementioned information is provided to its satisfaction. To

streamline future referrals, please send them to the following address:

[email protected] Should you require any clarification on this matter please contact me on the number below.

Regards,

Daniel Talevski Development Assessment Officer Network & Safety Southern | Network Management T 02 4221 2771 F 02 4221 2777


10

Attachment 2 – Existing Traffic Counts


11

Attachment 3 – Traffic Flow Diagrams

11

31

46

7

125

29

34

7

24

9

29

36 PERIOD:

Morning Peak

SCENARIO:

Cross Street + JR Stud TOTAL Cars

67 3

11

5 Cross Street Development

22 1

Traffic Generation = 204 veh/hr

Period In Out

7 63 AM 41 163

2 PM 163 41

0

Road % In Out Total

River Road 60% 24 98 122

Myrtle Creek Avenue 25% 10 41 51

Struan Street 10% 4 16 20

0 22 Progress Street 5% 2 8 10

41 163 204

62 1

JR Stud Development (From ARUP Report)


6

2 Period In Out

16 1 AM 20 80

PM 70 30

Road % In Out Total

River Road 70% 14 56 70


20 80 100

AM Peak

TOTAL

SITE

PM Peak

TOTAL

Myrtle Creek Avenue

River Road

Struan Street

Thirlmere Way

Progress Street

Remembrance Drive

Remembrance Drive

46

118

11

29

38

7

24

29

34

33

7

12 PERIOD:

Evening Peak

SCENARIO:

Cross Street + JR Stud TOTAL Cars

25 11

3

1 Cross Street Development

64 5


Period In Out

2 19 AM 41 163

7 PM 163 41

0

Road % In Out Total

River Road 60% 98 24 122


Struan Street 10% 16 4 20

0 62 Progress Street 5% 8 2 10

163 41 204

13 6

JR Stud Development (From ARUP Report)


1

1 Period In Out

61 2 AM 20 80

PM 70 30

Road % In Out Total

River Road 70% 49 21 70


70 30 100

PM Peak

TOTAL

SITE

PM Peak

TOTAL

Myrtle Creek Avenue

River Road

Struan Street

Thirlmere Way

Progress Street

Remembrance Drive

Remembrance Drive


12

Attachment 4 –Existing SIDRA

SITE LAYOUTSite: J01 - Progress St & Remem Dr AM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Progress StreetPeriod: AMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)

SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: TRAFFIX | Created: Thursday, 16 April 2015 5:10:31 PMProject:

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J01 - Progress St & Remem Dr AM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Progress StreetPeriod: AMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)

Movement Performance - VehiclesDemand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov

ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

AverageSpeed Total HV Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Progress Street

1 L2 19 5.0 0.205 7.4 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.75 0.86 34.6

3 R2 27 5.0 0.205 29.1 LOS C 0.7 5.1 0.75 0.86 33.3

Approach 46 5.0 0.205 20.2 LOS B 0.7 5.1 0.75 0.86 33.9

East: Remembrance Drive (East)

4 L2 11 5.0 0.006 4.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.53 44.4

5 T1 379 5.0 0.201 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 50.0

Approach 389 5.0 0.201 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 49.6

West: Remembrance Drive (West)

11 T1 560 5.0 0.158 0.1 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.04 0.02 49.1

12 R2 17 5.0 0.158 6.9 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.08 0.04 47.8

Approach 577 5.0 0.158 0.3 NA 0.2 1.5 0.04 0.02 49.0

All Vehicles 1013 5.0 0.205 1.2 NA 0.7 5.1 0.06 0.05 47.0

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (RTA NSW). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not agood LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: TRAFFIX | Processed: Thursday, 16 April 2015 5:07:18 PMProject:

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J01 - Progress St & Remem Dr PM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Progress StreetPeriod: PMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 23 5.0 0.179 8.1 LOS A 0.6 4.2 0.76 0.87 34.8

3 R2 17 5.0 0.179 36.0 LOS C 0.6 4.2 0.76 0.87 33.5

Approach 40 5.0 0.179 19.8 LOS B 0.6 4.2 0.76 0.87 34.3


4 L2 15 5.0 0.008 4.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.53 44.4

5 T1 480 5.0 0.254 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 50.0

Approach 495 5.0 0.254 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 49.5


11 T1 547 5.0 0.160 0.2 LOS A 0.3 2.5 0.06 0.02 48.5

12 R2 23 5.0 0.160 7.8 LOS A 0.3 2.5 0.13 0.05 47.3

Approach 571 5.0 0.160 0.6 NA 0.3 2.5 0.06 0.03 48.4

All Vehicles 1105 5.0 0.254 1.1 NA 0.6 4.2 0.06 0.05 47.2



SITE LAYOUTSite: J02 - Thirlmere Way & Remem Dr AM Ex

Intersection: Thirlmere Way & Remembrance DrivePeriod: AMScenario: ExistingRoundabout


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J02 - Thirlmere Way & Remem Dr AM Ex

Intersection: Thirlmere Way & Remembrance DrivePeriod: AMScenario: ExistingRoundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hEast: Remembrance Drive

5 T1 246 3.0 0.353 5.3 LOS A 2.0 14.5 0.37 0.58 42.4

6 R2 132 3.0 0.353 9.2 LOS A 2.0 14.5 0.37 0.58 52.6

Approach 378 3.0 0.353 6.7 LOS A 2.0 14.5 0.37 0.58 46.5

North: Thirlmere Drive

7 L2 139 3.0 0.143 6.3 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.47 0.64 52.3

9 R2 143 3.0 0.144 9.9 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.47 0.70 33.4

Approach 282 3.0 0.144 8.1 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.47 0.67 43.2

West: Remembrance Drive

10 L2 215 3.0 0.188 4.9 LOS A 1.1 7.6 0.34 0.55 48.5

11 T1 373 3.0 0.267 4.5 LOS A 1.7 12.1 0.34 0.48 51.6

Approach 587 3.0 0.267 4.7 LOS A 1.7 12.1 0.34 0.50 50.6

All Vehicles 1247 3.0 0.353 6.0 LOS A 2.0 14.5 0.38 0.56 47.1

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (RTA NSW). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J02 - Thirlmere Way & Remem Dr PM Ex

Intersection: Thirlmere Way & Remembrance DrivePeriod: PMScenario: ExistingRoundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



5 T1 292 3.0 0.484 5.9 LOS A 3.1 22.2 0.50 0.64 41.8

6 R2 200 3.0 0.484 9.8 LOS A 3.1 22.2 0.50 0.64 52.0

Approach 492 3.0 0.484 7.5 LOS A 3.1 22.2 0.50 0.64 46.5


7 L2 136 3.0 0.136 5.6 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.37 0.59 52.6

9 R2 203 3.0 0.184 9.2 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.38 0.66 33.6

Approach 339 3.0 0.184 7.8 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.37 0.63 41.7


10 L2 297 3.0 0.232 5.0 LOS A 1.4 10.3 0.42 0.57 48.2

11 T1 216 3.0 0.195 5.0 LOS A 1.1 8.2 0.43 0.52 51.1

Approach 513 3.0 0.232 5.0 LOS A 1.4 10.3 0.42 0.55 49.5




SITE LAYOUTSite: J03 - Struan St & Remem Dr AM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Struan StreetPeriod: AMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J03 - Struan St & Remem Dr AM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Struan StreetPeriod: AMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Struan Street

1 L2 31 3.0 0.129 7.1 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.62 0.77 44.3

3 R2 14 3.0 0.129 27.8 LOS B 0.4 3.1 0.62 0.77 44.0

Approach 44 3.0 0.129 13.5 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.62 0.77 44.2


4 L2 11 3.0 0.213 7.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.32 70.2

5 T1 396 3.0 0.213 2.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.32 76.0

Approach 406 3.0 0.213 2.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.32 75.9


11 T1 484 3.0 0.273 0.2 LOS A 0.3 1.8 0.06 0.02 67.6

12 R2 18 3.0 0.273 8.3 LOS A 0.3 1.8 0.06 0.02 53.0

Approach 502 3.0 0.273 0.5 NA 0.3 1.8 0.06 0.02 67.0

All Vehicles 953 3.0 0.273 1.8 NA 0.4 3.1 0.06 0.18 68.8



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J03 - Struan St & Remem Dr PM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Struan StreetPeriod: PMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 19 3.0 0.049 7.5 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.56 0.72 46.3

3 R2 4 3.0 0.049 20.9 LOS B 0.2 1.2 0.56 0.72 45.9

Approach 23 3.0 0.049 9.9 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.56 0.72 46.3


4 L2 4 3.0 0.240 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 58.1

5 T1 454 3.0 0.240 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9

Approach 458 3.0 0.240 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.9


11 T1 304 3.0 0.192 0.5 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.12 0.05 58.9

12 R2 27 3.0 0.192 8.4 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.12 0.05 52.5

Approach 332 3.0 0.192 1.1 NA 0.4 2.7 0.12 0.05 58.3

All Vehicles 813 3.0 0.240 0.8 NA 0.4 2.7 0.07 0.05 58.7



SITE LAYOUTSite: J04 - Myrtle Creek & Remem Dr AM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Myrtle Creek AvenuePeriod: AMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J04 - Myrtle Creek & Remem Dr AM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Myrtle Creek AvenuePeriod: AMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Myrtle Creek Avenue

1 L2 13 3.0 0.070 6.1 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.57 0.72 44.8

2 T1 1 3.0 0.070 12.7 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.57 0.72 38.7

3 R2 12 3.0 0.070 19.6 LOS B 0.2 1.7 0.57 0.72 44.5

Approach 25 3.0 0.070 12.6 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.57 0.72 44.4


4 L2 3 3.0 0.165 7.5 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.08 0.04 47.8

5 T1 278 3.0 0.165 0.2 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.08 0.04 59.3

6 R2 17 3.0 0.165 7.5 LOS A 0.2 1.5 0.08 0.04 47.3

Approach 298 3.0 0.165 0.7 NA 0.2 1.5 0.08 0.04 58.3

North: York Street

7 L2 127 3.0 0.187 5.8 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.48 0.66 43.2

8 T1 1 3.0 0.187 13.0 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.48 0.66 40.9

9 R2 5 3.0 0.187 16.8 LOS B 0.7 5.1 0.48 0.66 42.9

Approach 134 3.0 0.187 6.3 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.48 0.66 43.2


10 L2 5 3.0 0.198 6.7 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.02 48.1

11 T1 358 3.0 0.198 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.02 59.7

12 R2 8 3.0 0.198 7.0 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.02 53.1

Approach 372 3.0 0.198 0.3 NA 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.02 59.3

All Vehicles 828 3.0 0.198 1.8 NA 0.7 5.1 0.14 0.15 55.1

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (RTA NSW). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J04 - Myrtle Creek & Remem Dr PM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Myrtle Creek AvenuePeriod: PMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 22 3.0 0.103 8.3 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.68 0.82 43.9

2 T1 3 3.0 0.103 21.0 LOS B 0.3 2.4 0.68 0.82 38.0

3 R2 7 3.0 0.103 29.7 LOS C 0.3 2.4 0.68 0.82 43.5

Approach 33 3.0 0.103 14.4 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.68 0.82 43.1


4 L2 11 3.0 0.308 7.3 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.08 0.04 53.4

5 T1 521 3.0 0.308 0.2 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.08 0.04 59.3

6 R2 29 3.0 0.308 7.5 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.08 0.04 47.3

Approach 561 3.0 0.308 0.7 NA 0.4 3.0 0.08 0.04 58.4

North: York Street

7 L2 76 3.0 0.197 5.3 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.54 0.67 41.9

8 T1 14 3.0 0.197 21.6 LOS B 0.7 5.1 0.54 0.67 39.7

9 R2 6 3.0 0.197 27.2 LOS B 0.7 5.1 0.54 0.67 41.5

Approach 96 3.0 0.197 9.1 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.54 0.67 41.5


10 L2 7 3.0 0.182 8.6 LOS A 0.3 1.9 0.09 0.04 47.7

11 T1 303 3.0 0.182 0.3 LOS A 0.3 1.9 0.09 0.04 59.1

12 R2 15 3.0 0.182 9.2 LOS A 0.3 1.9 0.09 0.04 52.7

Approach 325 3.0 0.182 0.9 NA 0.3 1.9 0.09 0.04 58.5

All Vehicles 1015 3.0 0.308 2.0 NA 0.7 5.1 0.14 0.13 55.6



SITE LAYOUTSite: J05 - River Rd & Remem Dr AM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & River RoadPeriod: AMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J05 - River Rd & Remem Dr AM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & River RoadPeriod: AMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


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

1 L2 9 3.0 0.095 6.6 LOS A 0.3 2.3 0.59 0.79 46.1

3 R2 36 3.0 0.095 11.3 LOS A 0.3 2.3 0.59 0.79 45.7

Approach 45 3.0 0.095 10.3 LOS A 0.3 2.3 0.59 0.79 45.8


4 L2 3 3.0 0.180 7.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.31 70.4

5 T1 341 3.0 0.180 2.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.31 76.2

Approach 344 3.0 0.180 2.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.31 76.1


11 T1 441 3.0 0.234 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.01 0.00 68.1

12 R2 3 3.0 0.234 7.6 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.01 0.00 53.3

Approach 444 3.0 0.234 0.1 NA 0.0 0.3 0.01 0.00 68.0

All Vehicles 834 3.0 0.234 1.5 NA 0.3 2.3 0.04 0.17 69.2



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J05 - River Rd & Remem Dr PM Ex

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & River RoadPeriod: PMScenario: ExistingGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 8 3.0 0.052 8.8 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.64 0.82 45.7

3 R2 14 3.0 0.052 12.4 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.64 0.82 45.3

Approach 22 3.0 0.052 11.1 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.64 0.82 45.4


4 L2 34 3.0 0.314 7.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.33 70.0

5 T1 565 3.0 0.314 2.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.33 75.8

Approach 599 3.0 0.314 2.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.33 75.4


11 T1 264 3.0 0.148 0.2 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.04 0.01 67.7

12 R2 6 3.0 0.148 9.8 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.04 0.01 53.0

Approach 271 3.0 0.148 0.4 NA 0.1 0.8 0.04 0.01 67.2

All Vehicles 892 3.0 0.314 1.9 NA 0.2 1.2 0.03 0.24 71.6




13

Attachment 5– Existing SIDRA + Dev(Cross St)

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J01 - Progress St & Remem Dr AM Ex + Dev

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Progress StreetPeriod: AMScenario: Existing+DevelopmentGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 21 5.0 0.284 9.7 LOS A 1.0 7.5 0.80 0.94 32.2

3 R2 34 5.0 0.284 35.2 LOS C 1.0 7.5 0.80 0.94 30.8

Approach 55 5.0 0.284 25.4 LOS B 1.0 7.5 0.80 0.94 31.4


4 L2 12 5.0 0.006 4.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.53 44.4

5 T1 423 5.0 0.224 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 50.0

Approach 435 5.0 0.224 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 49.6


11 T1 571 5.0 0.162 0.1 LOS A 0.2 1.8 0.04 0.02 49.0

12 R2 18 5.0 0.162 7.3 LOS A 0.2 1.8 0.09 0.04 47.7

Approach 588 5.0 0.162 0.4 NA 0.2 1.8 0.04 0.02 48.9

All Vehicles 1078 5.0 0.284 1.5 NA 1.0 7.5 0.06 0.06 46.1



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J01 - Progress St & Remem Dr PM Ex + Dev

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Progress StreetPeriod: PMScenario: Existing+ DevelopmentGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 24 5.0 0.209 8.7 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.78 0.91 33.6

3 R2 18 5.0 0.209 40.7 LOS C 0.7 5.0 0.78 0.91 32.3

Approach 42 5.0 0.209 22.3 LOS B 0.7 5.0 0.78 0.91 33.0


4 L2 6 5.0 0.004 4.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.53 44.4

5 T1 491 5.0 0.260 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 50.0

Approach 497 5.0 0.260 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 49.8


11 T1 592 5.0 0.173 0.3 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.06 0.02 48.5

12 R2 25 5.0 0.173 7.9 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.14 0.05 47.2

Approach 617 5.0 0.173 0.6 NA 0.4 2.7 0.06 0.03 48.3

All Vehicles 1156 5.0 0.260 1.1 NA 0.7 5.0 0.06 0.05 47.0



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J02 - Thirlmere Way & Remem Dr AM Ex + Dev

Intersection: Thirlmere Way & Remembrance DrivePeriod: AMScenario: Existing + DevelopmentRoundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



5 T1 291 3.0 0.395 5.4 LOS A 2.4 17.1 0.39 0.58 42.4

6 R2 137 3.0 0.395 9.2 LOS A 2.4 17.1 0.39 0.58 52.6

Approach 427 3.0 0.395 6.6 LOS A 2.4 17.1 0.39 0.58 46.2


7 L2 140 3.0 0.146 6.3 LOS A 0.7 5.0 0.48 0.65 52.2

9 R2 143 3.0 0.146 10.0 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.48 0.71 33.4

Approach 283 3.0 0.146 8.2 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.48 0.68 43.2


10 L2 215 3.0 0.191 4.9 LOS A 1.1 7.8 0.35 0.55 48.5

11 T1 389 3.0 0.280 4.6 LOS A 1.8 12.9 0.35 0.48 51.6

Approach 604 3.0 0.280 4.7 LOS A 1.8 12.9 0.35 0.50 50.5




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J02 - Thirlmere Way & Remem Dr PM Ex + Dev

Intersection: Thirlmere Way & Remembrance DrivePeriod: PMScenario: Existing+DevelopmentRoundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



5 T1 302 3.0 0.495 6.0 LOS A 3.2 23.3 0.51 0.64 41.8

6 R2 201 3.0 0.495 9.8 LOS A 3.2 23.3 0.51 0.64 52.0

Approach 503 3.0 0.495 7.5 LOS A 3.2 23.3 0.51 0.64 46.4


7 L2 141 3.0 0.145 5.9 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.41 0.61 52.5

9 R2 203 3.0 0.190 9.4 LOS A 0.9 6.7 0.41 0.68 33.5

Approach 344 3.0 0.190 8.0 LOS A 0.9 6.7 0.41 0.65 41.8


10 L2 297 3.0 0.232 5.0 LOS A 1.4 10.4 0.42 0.57 48.2

11 T1 261 3.0 0.228 5.0 LOS A 1.4 9.9 0.44 0.53 51.1

Approach 558 3.0 0.232 5.0 LOS A 1.4 10.4 0.43 0.55 49.6




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J03 - Struan St & Remem Dr AM Ex + Dev

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Struan StreetPeriod: AMScenario: Existing+DevelopmentGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 36 3.0 0.236 8.3 LOS A 0.8 5.9 0.72 0.88 41.8

3 R2 25 3.0 0.236 32.9 LOS C 0.8 5.9 0.72 0.88 41.5

Approach 61 3.0 0.236 18.5 LOS B 0.8 5.9 0.72 0.88 41.7


4 L2 14 3.0 0.237 7.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.32 70.2

5 T1 439 3.0 0.237 2.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.32 76.0

Approach 453 3.0 0.237 2.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.32 75.8


11 T1 495 3.0 0.281 0.2 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.06 0.02 67.5

12 R2 19 3.0 0.281 8.8 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.06 0.02 52.9

Approach 514 3.0 0.281 0.6 NA 0.3 2.2 0.06 0.02 66.8

All Vehicles 1027 3.0 0.281 2.3 NA 0.8 5.9 0.07 0.20 67.9



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J03 - Struan St & Remem Dr PM Ex + Dev

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Struan StreetPeriod: PMScenario: Existing+DevelopmentGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 20 3.0 0.072 7.7 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.61 0.76 45.1

3 R2 7 3.0 0.072 24.2 LOS B 0.2 1.7 0.61 0.76 44.7

Approach 27 3.0 0.072 12.1 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.61 0.76 45.0


4 L2 16 3.0 0.251 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 58.0

5 T1 464 3.0 0.251 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8

Approach 480 3.0 0.251 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.7


11 T1 349 3.0 0.223 0.5 LOS A 0.5 3.5 0.14 0.06 58.8

12 R2 33 3.0 0.223 8.8 LOS A 0.5 3.5 0.14 0.06 52.4

Approach 382 3.0 0.223 1.2 NA 0.5 3.5 0.14 0.06 58.2

All Vehicles 889 3.0 0.251 1.0 NA 0.5 3.5 0.08 0.06 58.5



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J04 - Myrtle Creek & Remem Dr AM Ex + Dev

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Myrtle Creek AvenuePeriod: AMScenario: Existing + DevelopmentGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 25 3.0 0.230 6.7 LOS A 0.8 6.1 0.66 0.81 42.9

2 T1 1 3.0 0.230 14.4 LOS A 0.8 6.1 0.66 0.81 37.2

3 R2 42 3.0 0.230 22.0 LOS B 0.8 6.1 0.66 0.81 42.5

Approach 68 3.0 0.230 16.2 LOS B 0.8 6.1 0.66 0.81 42.6


4 L2 11 3.0 0.171 7.2 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.08 0.05 47.8

5 T1 282 3.0 0.171 0.2 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.08 0.05 59.2

6 R2 17 3.0 0.171 7.6 LOS A 0.2 1.7 0.08 0.05 47.3

Approach 309 3.0 0.171 0.9 NA 0.2 1.7 0.08 0.05 57.9

North: York Street

7 L2 127 3.0 0.190 5.9 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.49 0.66 43.2

8 T1 1 3.0 0.190 13.7 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.49 0.66 40.9

9 R2 5 3.0 0.190 17.8 LOS B 0.7 5.1 0.49 0.66 42.8

Approach 134 3.0 0.190 6.4 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.49 0.66 43.1


10 L2 5 3.0 0.205 6.9 LOS A 0.1 1.1 0.04 0.03 48.0

11 T1 365 3.0 0.205 0.1 LOS A 0.1 1.1 0.04 0.03 59.6

12 R2 12 3.0 0.205 7.1 LOS A 0.1 1.1 0.04 0.03 53.0

Approach 382 3.0 0.205 0.4 NA 0.1 1.1 0.04 0.03 59.2

All Vehicles 894 3.0 0.230 2.7 NA 0.8 6.1 0.17 0.19 54.1



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J04 - Myrtle Creek & Remem Dr PM Ex + Dev

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & Myrtle Creek AvenuePeriod: PMScenario: Existing + DevelopmentGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 25 3.0 0.175 8.7 LOS A 0.6 4.1 0.75 0.89 42.0

2 T1 3 3.0 0.175 24.9 LOS B 0.6 4.1 0.75 0.89 36.5

3 R2 15 3.0 0.175 32.9 LOS C 0.6 4.1 0.75 0.89 41.6

Approach 43 3.0 0.175 18.2 LOS B 0.6 4.1 0.75 0.89 41.4


4 L2 41 3.0 0.335 6.9 LOS A 0.5 3.9 0.09 0.07 53.1

5 T1 539 3.0 0.335 0.2 LOS A 0.5 3.9 0.09 0.07 59.0

6 R2 29 3.0 0.335 7.9 LOS A 0.5 3.9 0.09 0.07 47.1

Approach 609 3.0 0.335 1.1 NA 0.5 3.9 0.09 0.07 57.8

North: York Street

7 L2 76 3.0 0.215 5.4 LOS A 0.8 5.5 0.57 0.69 41.5

8 T1 14 3.0 0.215 25.7 LOS B 0.8 5.5 0.57 0.69 39.3

9 R2 6 3.0 0.215 29.7 LOS C 0.8 5.5 0.57 0.69 41.2

Approach 96 3.0 0.215 9.9 LOS A 0.8 5.5 0.57 0.69 41.1


10 L2 38 3.0 0.204 7.6 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.12 0.09 47.3

11 T1 303 3.0 0.204 0.5 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.12 0.09 58.4

12 R2 17 3.0 0.204 9.8 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.12 0.09 52.1

Approach 358 3.0 0.204 1.7 NA 0.4 2.9 0.12 0.09 56.7

All Vehicles 1106 3.0 0.335 2.7 NA 0.8 5.5 0.17 0.16 54.7



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J05 - River Rd & Remem Dr AM Ex + Dev

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & River RoadPeriod: AMScenario: Existing + DevelopmentGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 40 3.0 0.337 8.1 LOS A 1.4 10.2 0.67 0.90 44.6

3 R2 108 3.0 0.337 14.8 LOS B 1.4 10.2 0.67 0.90 44.2

Approach 148 3.0 0.337 13.0 LOS A 1.4 10.2 0.67 0.90 44.3


4 L2 21 3.0 0.196 7.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.33 70.0

5 T1 353 3.0 0.196 2.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.33 75.8

Approach 374 3.0 0.196 2.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.33 75.4


11 T1 489 3.0 0.267 0.1 LOS A 0.1 1.0 0.03 0.01 67.9

12 R2 11 3.0 0.267 8.0 LOS A 0.1 1.0 0.03 0.01 53.2

Approach 500 3.0 0.267 0.3 NA 0.1 1.0 0.03 0.01 67.5

All Vehicles 1022 3.0 0.337 2.9 NA 1.4 10.2 0.11 0.26 65.1



MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J05 - River Rd & Remem Dr PM Ex + Dev

Intersection: Remembrance Drive & River RoadPeriod: PMScenario: Existing+DevelopmentGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 8 3.0 0.054 9.4 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.68 0.84 45.1

3 R2 13 0.0 0.054 13.6 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.68 0.84 44.9

Approach 21 1.1 0.054 12.0 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.68 0.84 45.0


4 L2 101 0.0 0.359 6.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 70.6

5 T1 583 3.0 0.359 2.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 75.0

Approach 684 2.6 0.359 2.8 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.36 74.3


11 T1 262 3.0 0.195 1.4 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.24 0.08 65.1

12 R2 35 0.0 0.195 10.8 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.24 0.08 51.5

Approach 297 2.6 0.195 2.5 NA 0.7 4.9 0.24 0.08 63.1

All Vehicles 1002 2.6 0.359 2.9 NA 0.7 4.9 0.09 0.29 69.7




14

Attachment 6–

Cumulative Assessment – Cross Street, JR Stud & Tahmoor

SITE LAYOUTSite: J01 - Remembrance Dr x Progress St_AM Peak - 2021 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Progress StreetPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future 2021 (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): One Lane Roundabout}Roundabout

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J01 - Remembrance Dr x Progress St_AM Peak - 2021 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Progress StreetPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future 2021 (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): One Lane Roundabout}Roundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouth: Remembrance Drive (S)

2 T1 695 4.9 0.617 6.1 LOS A 6.8 49.5 0.65 0.56 36.6

3 R2 79 5.1 0.617 10.0 LOS A 6.8 49.5 0.65 0.56 35.9

Approach 774 4.9 0.617 6.5 LOS A 6.8 49.5 0.65 0.56 36.5

East: Progress Street

4 L2 80 5.0 0.265 6.4 LOS A 1.7 12.5 0.65 0.73 35.6

6 R2 147 4.8 0.265 10.3 LOS A 1.7 12.5 0.65 0.73 25.0

Approach 227 4.8 0.265 8.9 LOS A 1.7 12.5 0.65 0.73 28.7

North: Remembrance Drive (N)

7 L2 78 5.1 0.366 4.3 LOS A 3.1 22.4 0.37 0.46 37.0

8 T1 398 4.3 0.366 4.4 LOS A 3.1 22.4 0.37 0.46 43.9

Approach 476 4.4 0.366 4.4 LOS A 3.1 22.4 0.37 0.46 42.9




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J01 - Remembrance Dr x Progress St_PM Peak - 2021 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Progress StreetPeriod: PM PeakScenario: Future 2021 (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): One Lane Roundabout}Roundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



2 T1 550 4.4 0.485 5.3 LOS A 5.1 36.8 0.46 0.49 37.7

3 R2 108 4.6 0.485 9.2 LOS A 5.1 36.8 0.46 0.49 37.0

Approach 658 4.4 0.485 5.9 LOS A 5.1 36.8 0.46 0.49 37.6


4 L2 106 4.7 0.417 12.8 LOS A 3.3 23.8 0.96 1.01 29.7

6 R2 88 4.5 0.417 16.8 LOS B 3.3 23.8 0.96 1.01 20.7

Approach 194 4.6 0.417 14.6 LOS B 3.3 23.8 0.96 1.01 25.6


7 L2 155 4.5 0.771 5.4 LOS A 11.6 84.4 0.75 0.54 34.1

8 T1 844 5.0 0.771 5.6 LOS A 11.6 84.4 0.75 0.54 40.6

Approach 999 4.9 0.771 5.5 LOS A 11.6 84.4 0.75 0.54 39.7




SITE LAYOUTSite: J01 - Remembrance Dr x Progress St_AM Peak - 2036 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Progress StreetPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future 2036 (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Two Lane Roundabout} [TRAFFIX Improvement(s): Additional Ciculating Lane - North & East]Roundabout

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J01 - Remembrance Dr x Progress St_AM Peak - 2036 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Progress StreetPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future 2036 (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Two Lane Roundabout} [TRAFFIX Improvement(s): Additional Ciculating Lane - North & East]Roundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



2 T1 807 5.0 0.558 9.0 LOS A 5.0 36.6 0.81 0.85 34.9

3 R2 162 4.9 0.558 13.3 LOS A 4.9 35.9 0.82 0.88 33.5

Approach 969 5.0 0.558 9.7 LOS A 5.0 36.6 0.81 0.85 34.7


4 L2 195 4.6 0.313 7.6 LOS A 1.6 11.4 0.66 0.81 36.3

6 R2 454 5.1 0.533 11.5 LOS A 3.8 27.9 0.74 0.92 23.7

Approach 649 4.9 0.533 10.3 LOS A 3.8 27.9 0.71 0.89 27.0


7 L2 230 4.8 0.338 4.9 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.46 0.55 35.8

8 T1 538 4.5 0.338 4.9 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.46 0.53 42.9

Approach 768 4.6 0.338 4.9 LOS A 2.4 17.3 0.46 0.54 41.0




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J01 - Remembrance Dr x Progress St_PM Peak - 2036 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Progress StreetPeriod: PM PeakScenario: Future 2036 (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Two Lane Roundabout}Roundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



2 T1 696 4.6 0.440 6.1 LOS A 3.4 24.6 0.59 0.62 36.7

3 R2 261 5.0 0.440 10.3 LOS A 3.3 24.1 0.60 0.67 35.1

Approach 957 4.7 0.440 7.3 LOS A 3.4 24.6 0.60 0.63 36.2


4 L2 230 4.8 0.412 9.4 LOS A 2.5 18.0 0.82 0.94 34.7

6 R2 241 5.0 0.367 11.7 LOS A 2.2 16.0 0.81 0.94 23.9

Approach 471 4.9 0.412 10.6 LOS A 2.5 18.0 0.82 0.94 28.8


7 L2 454 4.8 0.654 6.7 LOS A 6.7 48.8 0.74 0.70 34.4

8 T1 974 4.9 0.654 7.1 LOS A 6.7 49.0 0.75 0.71 41.1

Approach 1428 4.9 0.654 7.0 LOS A 6.7 49.0 0.74 0.71 39.2




SITE LAYOUTSite: J02 - Remembrance Dr x Thirlmere Way x Antil St_AM Peak - 2026 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Thirlmere Way/Antil StreetPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future 2026 (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Line-Marking and Extended Approaches}Roundabout


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J02 - Remembrance Dr x Thirlmere Way x Antil St_AM Peak - 2026 + DEV



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 31 6.5 0.488 5.4 LOS A 3.1 22.7 0.46 0.53 45.6

2 T1 1133 4.9 0.488 5.4 LOS A 3.1 22.7 0.46 0.54 48.5

3 R2 20 5.0 0.488 10.1 LOS A 3.1 22.4 0.47 0.55 48.3

Approach 1184 5.0 0.488 5.5 LOS A 3.1 22.7 0.46 0.54 48.5

East: Antill Street

4 L2 18 5.6 0.081 6.4 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.52 0.74 43.9

5 T1 11 9.1 0.081 6.7 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.52 0.74 45.0

6 R2 34 5.9 0.081 11.2 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.52 0.74 45.6

Approach 63 6.3 0.081 9.1 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.52 0.74 45.0


7 L2 16 6.3 0.260 4.5 LOS A 1.4 10.3 0.22 0.41 47.9

8 T1 528 4.4 0.260 4.4 LOS A 1.4 10.3 0.22 0.45 49.9

9 R2 170 4.7 0.260 9.1 LOS A 1.4 10.2 0.22 0.54 47.6

Approach 714 4.5 0.260 5.5 LOS A 1.4 10.3 0.22 0.47 49.3

West: Thirlmere Way (W)

10 L2 502 5.0 0.655 10.4 LOS A 4.6 33.5 0.82 1.02 41.1

11 T1 12 8.3 0.108 9.5 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.66 0.87 41.1

12 R2 36 5.6 0.108 13.9 LOS A 0.4 3.0 0.66 0.87 41.2

Approach 550 5.1 0.655 10.6 LOS A 4.6 33.5 0.81 1.01 41.1




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J02 - Remembrance Dr x Thirlmere Way x Antil St_PM Peak - 2026 + DEV



ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 46 4.3 0.372 7.1 LOS A 2.3 16.5 0.66 0.70 44.5

2 T1 599 4.5 0.372 7.2 LOS A 2.3 16.5 0.67 0.72 46.9

3 R2 22 4.5 0.372 12.0 LOS A 2.2 15.9 0.67 0.74 46.6

Approach 667 4.5 0.372 7.4 LOS A 2.3 16.5 0.67 0.72 46.7

East: Antill Street

4 L2 27 3.7 0.131 9.8 LOS A 0.5 4.0 0.74 0.88 41.5

5 T1 16 6.3 0.131 10.2 LOS A 0.5 4.0 0.74 0.88 42.5

6 R2 19 5.3 0.131 14.8 LOS B 0.5 4.0 0.74 0.88 42.9

Approach 62 4.8 0.131 11.5 LOS A 0.5 4.0 0.74 0.88 42.2


7 L2 38 5.3 0.635 4.7 LOS A 5.8 42.3 0.37 0.44 46.9

8 T1 1225 4.9 0.635 4.7 LOS A 5.8 42.3 0.37 0.47 48.6

9 R2 517 5.0 0.635 9.4 LOS A 5.8 42.1 0.39 0.56 46.0

Approach 1780 4.9 0.635 6.1 LOS A 5.8 42.3 0.38 0.49 47.8

West: Thirlmere Way (W)

10 L2 170 4.7 0.181 6.0 LOS A 0.8 5.9 0.56 0.71 45.8

11 T1 13 7.7 0.091 7.2 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.56 0.79 43.4

12 R2 43 4.7 0.091 11.7 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.56 0.79 43.6

Approach 226 4.9 0.181 7.1 LOS A 0.8 5.9 0.56 0.73 45.1




SITE LAYOUTSite: J02 - Remembrance Dr x Thirlmere Way_AM Peak - 2026 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Thirlmere WayPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future 2026 (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Additional Approach - Northern Leg}Roundabout

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J02 - Remembrance Dr x Thirlmere Way_AM Peak - 2026 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Thirlmere WayPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future 2026 (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Additional Approach - Northern Leg}Roundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 378 5.0 0.377 5.5 LOS A 2.2 15.9 0.46 0.62 37.4

2 T1 603 4.8 0.513 5.2 LOS A 3.6 26.1 0.51 0.57 47.4

Approach 981 4.9 0.513 5.3 LOS A 3.6 26.1 0.49 0.59 44.5


8 T1 316 4.1 0.254 5.5 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.48 0.54 42.5

9 R2 208 4.8 0.199 9.6 LOS A 1.2 8.9 0.48 0.67 39.7

Approach 524 4.4 0.254 7.2 LOS A 1.7 12.3 0.48 0.59 41.3

West: Thirlmere Way

10 L2 368 4.9 0.401 8.3 LOS A 2.9 21.5 0.79 0.80 43.6

12 R2 228 4.8 0.313 12.6 LOS A 2.0 14.7 0.75 0.84 27.3

Approach 596 4.9 0.401 9.9 LOS A 2.9 21.5 0.77 0.82 38.0




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J02 - Remembrance Dr x Thirlmere Way_PM Peak - 2026 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Thirlmere WayPeriod: PM PeakScenario: Future 2026 (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Additional Approach - Northern Leg}Roundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 335 5.1 0.381 6.5 LOS A 2.4 17.4 0.65 0.74 36.0

2 T1 368 4.1 0.396 6.2 LOS A 2.6 18.5 0.65 0.70 46.4

Approach 703 4.6 0.396 6.3 LOS A 2.6 18.5 0.65 0.72 42.6


8 T1 640 4.8 0.657 10.4 LOS A 7.5 54.6 0.90 0.93 38.9

9 R2 406 4.9 0.517 13.3 LOS A 4.3 31.3 0.82 0.90 37.1

Approach 1046 4.9 0.657 11.5 LOS A 7.5 54.6 0.87 0.92 38.1

West: Thirlmere Way

10 L2 251 4.8 0.291 7.2 LOS A 1.8 13.3 0.63 0.71 44.9

12 R2 507 4.9 0.456 10.5 LOS A 3.5 25.7 0.68 0.75 28.8

Approach 758 4.9 0.456 9.4 LOS A 3.5 25.7 0.66 0.73 34.8




SITE LAYOUTSite: J03 - Remembrance Dr x Struan St_AM Peak - 2036 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Straun StreetPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future 2036 + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Two Lane Roundabout}Roundabout

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J03 - Remembrance Dr x Struan St_AM Peak - 2036 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Straun StreetPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future 2036 + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Two Lane Roundabout}Roundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



2 T1 1129 5.0 0.456 5.4 LOS A 3.7 26.8 0.39 0.50 52.5

3 R2 48 4.2 0.456 9.0 LOS A 3.6 26.5 0.40 0.51 46.5

Approach 1177 4.9 0.456 5.6 LOS A 3.7 26.8 0.39 0.50 52.3

East: Struan Street

4 L2 56 5.4 0.211 6.8 LOS A 0.9 6.8 0.59 0.79 41.8

6 R2 99 4.0 0.211 10.3 LOS A 0.9 6.8 0.59 0.79 46.3

Approach 155 4.5 0.211 9.0 LOS A 0.9 6.8 0.59 0.79 44.9


7 L2 39 5.1 0.228 5.1 LOS A 1.4 10.0 0.20 0.46 49.3

8 T1 588 4.4 0.228 5.0 LOS A 1.4 10.0 0.20 0.45 53.5

Approach 627 4.5 0.228 5.0 LOS A 1.4 10.0 0.20 0.45 53.3




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J03 - Remembrance Dr x Struan St_PM Peak - 2036 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Straun StreetPeriod: PM PeakScenario: Future 2036 + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Two Lane Roundabout}Roundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



2 T1 661 4.5 0.260 4.9 LOS A 1.8 13.0 0.20 0.46 53.3

3 R2 66 4.5 0.260 8.5 LOS A 1.8 12.9 0.21 0.49 47.4

Approach 727 4.5 0.260 5.3 LOS A 1.8 13.0 0.20 0.47 52.9

East: Struan Street

4 L2 60 5.0 0.195 9.3 LOS A 0.8 6.1 0.71 0.87 40.1

6 R2 40 5.0 0.195 12.8 LOS A 0.8 6.1 0.71 0.87 44.8

Approach 100 5.0 0.195 10.7 LOS A 0.8 6.1 0.71 0.87 42.2


7 L2 112 4.5 0.477 5.3 LOS A 3.7 26.7 0.29 0.47 48.9

8 T1 1201 4.9 0.477 5.2 LOS A 3.7 26.7 0.30 0.47 53.0

Approach 1313 4.9 0.477 5.2 LOS A 3.7 26.7 0.30 0.47 52.7




SITE LAYOUTSite: J04 - Remembrance Dr x Myrtle Creek Ave_AM Peak - 2036 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Myrtle Creek Avenue/York StreetPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Two Lane Roundabout}Roundabout


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J04 - Remembrance Dr x Myrtle Creek Ave_AM Peak - 2036 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Myrtle Creek Avenue/York StreetPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Two Lane Roundabout}Roundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouthEast: Myrtle Creek Avenue

21 L2 117 3.4 0.312 6.1 LOS A 1.5 11.1 0.61 0.78 47.5

22 T1 1 0.0 0.312 6.1 LOS A 1.5 11.1 0.61 0.78 45.3

23 R2 129 3.9 0.312 10.2 LOS A 1.5 11.1 0.61 0.78 48.3

Approach 247 3.6 0.312 8.2 LOS A 1.5 11.1 0.61 0.78 47.9

NorthEast: Remembrance Drive (NE)

24 L2 50 4.0 0.199 4.9 LOS A 1.4 10.1 0.31 0.45 49.9

25 T1 510 4.7 0.199 5.1 LOS A 1.4 10.1 0.32 0.45 54.7

26 R2 1 0.0 0.199 9.1 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.33 0.45 51.1

Approach 561 4.6 0.199 5.0 LOS A 1.4 10.1 0.32 0.45 54.3

NorthWest: York Street (NW)

27 L2 9 0.0 0.025 8.3 LOS A 0.1 0.7 0.72 0.76 47.6

28 T1 2 0.0 0.025 8.4 LOS A 0.1 0.7 0.72 0.76 45.0

29 R2 1 0.0 0.025 12.4 LOS A 0.1 0.7 0.72 0.76 48.4

Approach 12 0.0 0.025 8.7 LOS A 0.1 0.7 0.72 0.76 47.2

SouthWest: Remembrance Drive (SW)

30 L2 1 0.0 0.454 5.2 LOS A 4.2 30.4 0.47 0.49 49.3

31 T1 1145 4.9 0.454 5.5 LOS A 4.2 30.4 0.49 0.51 53.8

32 R2 93 4.3 0.454 9.7 LOS A 4.1 29.5 0.50 0.53 50.1

Approach 1239 4.8 0.454 5.8 LOS A 4.2 30.4 0.49 0.51 53.5




MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J04 - Remembrance Dr x Myrtle Creek Ave_PM Peak - 2036 + DEV

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/Myrtle Creek Avenue/York StreetPeriod: PM PeakScenario: Future (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Two Lane Roundabout}Roundabout


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouthEast: Myrtle Creek Avenue

21 L2 120 4.2 0.347 9.3 LOS A 1.7 12.4 0.77 0.91 45.8

22 T1 1 0.0 0.347 9.2 LOS A 1.7 12.4 0.77 0.91 43.8

23 R2 56 3.6 0.347 13.4 LOS A 1.7 12.4 0.77 0.91 46.7

Approach 177 4.0 0.347 10.6 LOS A 1.7 12.4 0.77 0.91 46.1


24 L2 136 3.7 0.483 5.4 LOS A 4.2 30.9 0.46 0.50 49.2

25 T1 1192 4.9 0.483 5.6 LOS A 4.2 30.9 0.48 0.51 54.0

26 R2 1 0.0 0.483 9.7 LOS A 4.2 30.4 0.49 0.51 50.4

Approach 1329 4.7 0.483 5.6 LOS A 4.2 30.9 0.48 0.51 53.6

NorthWest: York Street (NW)

27 L2 1 0.0 0.004 6.0 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.57 0.59 48.3

28 T1 1 0.0 0.004 6.1 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.57 0.59 45.8

29 R2 1 0.0 0.004 10.1 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.57 0.59 49.1

Approach 3 0.0 0.004 7.4 LOS A 0.0 0.1 0.57 0.59 47.8


30 L2 1 0.0 0.237 4.7 LOS A 1.9 13.6 0.26 0.42 50.1

31 T1 567 4.8 0.237 4.8 LOS A 1.9 13.6 0.27 0.45 54.6

32 R2 134 3.7 0.237 8.9 LOS A 1.8 13.2 0.28 0.51 50.3

Approach 702 4.6 0.237 5.6 LOS A 1.9 13.6 0.27 0.47 53.8





15

Attachment 7–

Cumulative Assessment – Cross Street, JR Stud & Tahmoor

Intersection of River Road /Remembrance Drive (Only)

SITE LAYOUTSite: J05 - Remembrance Dr x River Rd_AM Peak - 2036 + DEV - Conversion

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/River RoadPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Signalised}Signals - Fixed Time Isolated


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J05 - Remembrance Dr x River Rd_AM Peak - 2036 + DEV - Conversion

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/River RoadPeriod: AM PeakScenario: Future (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Signalised}Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 120 seconds (Practical Cycle Time)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouthEast: River Road (SE)

21 L2 30 0.0 0.853 68.3 LOS E 13.4 95.3 1.00 0.95 22.9

23 R2 179 1.7 0.853 68.3 LOS E 13.4 95.3 1.00 0.95 23.9

Approach 209 1.4 0.853 68.3 LOS E 13.4 95.3 1.00 0.95 23.8


24 L2 51 2.0 0.402 11.9 LOS A 11.2 81.6 0.36 0.54 55.8

25 T1 530 4.9 0.402 7.0 LOS A 11.2 81.6 0.36 0.54 60.2

Approach 581 4.6 0.402 7.4 LOS A 11.2 81.6 0.36 0.54 59.9


31 T1 1277 4.9 0.897 16.1 LOS B 60.9 443.8 0.82 0.81 52.4

32 R2 8 0.0 0.897 21.5 LOS B 60.9 443.8 0.82 0.81 41.3

Approach 1285 4.8 0.897 16.1 LOS B 60.9 443.8 0.82 0.81 52.3

All Vehicles 2075 4.4 0.897 18.9 LOS B 60.9 443.8 0.71 0.75 49.5

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (RTA NSW). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of QueueMov

ID DescriptionDemand

Flow Average

Delay Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance

ped/h sec ped m per ped

P5 SouthEast Full Crossing 20 54.2 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95

P8 SouthWest Full Crossing 20 54.2 LOS E 0.1 0.1 0.95 0.95

All Pedestrians 40 54.2 LOS E 0.95 0.95

Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.


MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: J05 - Remembrance Dr x River Rd_PM Peak - 2036 + DEV - Conversion

Intersection: Remembrance Drive/River RoadPeriod: PM PeakScenario: Future (Cardno) + Cross Street + JR Stud {Improvement(s): Signalised}Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 150 seconds (Practical Cycle Time)


ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hSouthEast: River Road (SE)

21 L2 8 0.0 0.898 96.4 LOS F 5.5 39.2 1.00 1.00 18.5

23 R2 58 1.7 0.898 96.4 LOS F 5.5 39.2 1.00 1.00 19.2

Approach 66 1.5 0.898 96.4 LOS F 5.5 39.2 1.00 1.00 19.1


24 L2 191 2.1 0.913 12.7 LOS A 65.6 477.1 0.67 0.76 54.7

25 T1 1321 4.8 0.913 7.8 LOS A 65.6 477.1 0.67 0.76 59.3

Approach 1512 4.5 0.913 8.4 LOS A 65.6 477.1 0.67 0.76 58.8


31 T1 594 4.9 0.778 22.8 LOS B 33.4 243.2 0.80 0.75 47.6

32 R2 30 0.0 0.778 28.3 LOS B 33.4 243.2 0.80 0.75 37.3

Approach 624 4.6 0.778 23.1 LOS B 33.4 243.2 0.80 0.75 47.1

All Vehicles 2202 4.5 0.913 15.2 LOS B 65.6 477.1 0.72 0.77 52.5

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (RTA NSW). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementIntersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Movement Performance - PedestriansAverage Back of QueueMov

ID DescriptionDemand

Flow Average

Delay Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance

ped/h sec ped m per ped

P5 SouthEast Full Crossing 20 69.2 LOS F 0.1 0.1 0.96 0.96

P8 SouthWest Full Crossing 20 69.2 LOS F 0.1 0.1 0.96 0.96

All Pedestrians 40 69.2 LOS F 0.96 0.96

Level of Service (LOS) Method: SIDRA Pedestrian LOS Method (Based on Average Delay)Pedestrian movement LOS values are based on average delay per pedestrian movement.Intersection LOS value for Pedestrians is based on average delay for all pedestrian movements.


Date post:	19-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Re: Response to RMS Cross Street Planning Proposal€¦ · RMS advises that the proponent must...

Documents