traffic impact assessment€¦ · 16.326r01v10 traffix 4-18 northwood road northwood - traffic...

Traffic Impact Assessment Planning Proposal 274 & 274A Longueville Road, Lane Cove 4-18 Northwood Road, Lane Cove Reference: 16.326r01v10 Date: October 2017

16.326r01v10 TRAFFIX 4-18 Northwood Road Northwood - Traffic Impact Assessment (Planning Proposal) 2

Document Verification

Job Number: 16.326

Project: 274 & 274A Longueville Road and 4-18 Northwood Road, Lane Cove

Client: Pathways Property Group Pty Ltd

Revision Date Prepared By Checked By Signed

v1 09/09/2016 Kedar Ballurkar Graham Pindar


v3 18/10/2016 Kedar Ballurkar Kedar Ballurkar









Contents

1. Executive Summary 5

2. Introduction 7

3. Planning Context 8

3.1 Prior Planning Proposal 8

3.2 Existing Planning Controls 8

3.3 Community Consultation 9

4. Location and Site 10

5. Existing Road Conditions 13

5.1 Road Network 13

5.2 Key Intersections 16

5.3 Road Network Volumes 19

5.4 Existing Intersection Performance 19

5.5 Public Transport 22

5.6 Existing Development on the Site 24

6. Permissible Development under Current Planning Controls 30

6.1 Description of Potential Development under Current Controls 30

6.2 Car Parking Demand 30

6.3 Servicing and Waste Facilities 31

6.4 Trip Generation 31

7. Development under Planning Proposal 34

7.1 Description of Development Concept 34

7.2 Parking Demand 34

7.3 Servicing 38

7.4 Trip Generation 39

7.5 Traffic Impacts 42

8. Road Safety Audit 48

8.1 Findings 48

8.2 Checklist 50


Conclusions 53

Appendix A 55

Appendix B 56

Appendix C 57

Appendix D 58

Appendix E 59

Appendix F 60


1. Executive Summary

TRAFFIX has been commissioned by Pathways Property Group Pty Ltd to undertake a Traffic

Impact Assessment in relation to a Planning Proposal (PP) submission for the site comprising 274

& 274A Longueville Road and 4-18 Northwood Road in Lane Cove. It is proposed to permit a

residential aged care facility in accordance with the parking provisions and definitions outlined in the

State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Housing). Further, the PP seeks to establish a

maximum height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR).

This site has been subject to a previous PP submission which envisaged a mixed use development

containing high density residential apartments and a supermarket. This development was assessed

to generate in the order of 52 vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak period and 188 vehicle trips

per hour during the PM peak period. This PP was not supported by Lane Cove Council due to several

reasons including concerns for traffic, parking and access.

An important scenario to assess and which provides a context for the current Planning Proposal is

the development potential under current zonings and controls. In this regard, a development

envisaged with permissible uses has been assessed to generate in the order of 34 vehicle trips per

hour during the AM peak period and 103 vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak period. This is

significantly more than would occur under the current Planning Proposal, which comprises a

predominant low traffic generating use (residential aged care facility) and this is especially of benefit

having regard to the location of the site.

Specifically, the Planning Proposal has been structured to achieve ‘traffic neutral’ outcome when

compared with existing conditions assuming full occupancy. This has arisen as the desired outcome

following community consultation (held on Tuesday 20 September 2016).

The adopted development concept comprises a residential care facility for aged persons containing

approximately 130 beds, a 760m2 gross floor area veterinary hospital and 685m2 gross floor area of

retail/café space. These uses generate 29 vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak period and 62

vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak period. This is a very positive outcome for the local

community as it provides significantly improved facilities and amenity, without creating additional

traffic demands.

The site access arrangements are optimal for the site with all access consolidated at a single entry

driveway and a single exit driveway. These access arrangements have already been given ‘in

principle’ support by the Roads and Maritime Services and rely on all entry via a new access at the


existing signalised intersection of Longueville Road, Northwood Road and Kenneth Street, with a

downstream left-out only access. This arrangement is also supported for the current PP and is

expected to be adopted for any future development of the site.

The proposed site access will significantly improve safety along the site frontage through the

removal of all existing (unsafe) driveways and consolidation of access arrangements. This will

reduce delays to through traffic movements along the site frontage and will also enhance pedestrian

safety. In this respect, a Road Safety Audit of the potential access arrangements has been

conducted by an independent consultant with the findings responded to in this report.

The parking demand as required under the DCP will be fully met on-site with 46 spaces provided

within a single basement level. This compares with 175 spaces under the previous PP and 88

spaces under the development based on the current zoning and controls. It also compares

favourably with the requirement for 44 spaces based on the existing development on the site. This

outcome underscores the low traffic generating and associated parking generation that occurs with

the uses now proposed. It is emphasised that the DCP parking rates take full account of the good

accessibility to public transport services along this arterial road corridor.

Concerns relating to the performance of the intersection of Northwood Road and River Road, as

well as the residential amenity on Arabella Street and Woodford Street, which would form part of a

route for entering and exiting northbound traffic to the site, have been considered and addressed.

While it is acknowledged these streets and local intersections are particularly sensitive to future

development of the subject site, these concerns are allayed by the adoption of a low traffic

generation (a traffic neutral) outcome.

The report has been updated to respond to condition 1(d) of the Gateway Determination dated 26

September 2017 and now includes:

analysis of signal and phase data for the combined intersection and network layout;

details on the impact of permissible development on the surrounding intersections; and

a traffic safety audit, including pedestrian desire lines.

In light of the above, it is considered that the Planning Proposal to include residential aged care

facilities as a permissible use will not intensity future development on-site and is considered

supportable on traffic planning grounds. Indeed, it is considered to be in the public interest by virtue

of the neutral traffic outcome, the provision of all parking and servicing on-site; and the provision of

substantially improved and safer site access arrangements.


2. Introduction

TRAFFIX has been commissioned by Pathways Property Group Pty Ltd to undertake a Traffic Impact

Assessment in relation to a Planning Proposal (PP) submission for the site comprising 274 & 274A

Longueville Road and 4-18 Northwood Road in Lane Cove. It is proposed to permit a residential aged

care facility in accordance with the parking provisions and definitions outlined in the State Environmental

Planning Policy (Seniors Housing). Further, the PP seeks to establish a maximum height and Floor

Space Ratio for the subject site.

The report should be read in the context of the Planning Proposal submission, prepared separately.

Future development on the site under this PP is not expected to be of a scale that would warrant referral

to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy

(Infrastructure) 2007. However, access arrangements from Northwood Road will require concurrence

from the RMS being a classified road.


3. Planning Context

3.1 Prior Planning Proposal

The site has been the subject to a prior PP for a residential flat building located above a supermarket,

with two levels of basement parking accommodating in the order of 175 spaces. That development

was estimated to generate a net increase in the order of 52 vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak

period and 188 vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak period. The PP was not supported by Council

due to several reasons including concerns for traffic, parking and access.

It is noteworthy that in correspondence with the RMS for this (far more intense) PP, ‘in principle’ support

was granted for a fourth leg for entry only into the site at the signalised intersection of Longueville Road,

Northwood Road and Kenneth Street. This matter has also been discussed with RMS officers in relation

to this current planning proposal and is considered appropriate for adoption, subject to RMS review of

modelling results. Correspondence with the RMS in relation to these access principles is included in

Appendix A.

3.2 Existing Planning Controls

Under the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 the site is split into two zones with the permissible

uses of the site being:

B1 Neighbourhood Centre: Boarding houses; Business premises; Car parks; Child care

centres; Community facilities; Medical centres; Neighbourhood

shops; Office premises; Respite day care centres; Restaurants

or cafes; Roads; Shop top housing; Signage; Take away food

and drink premises; Veterinary hospitals

R4 High Density Residential: Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boarding houses; Child care

centres; Community facilities; Exhibition homes; Group homes;

Home businesses; Home industries; Hotel or motel

accommodation; Multi dwelling housing; Neighbourhood shops;

Places of public worship; Residential flat buildings; Respite day

care centres; Roads; Shop top housing; Signage


For the purpose of assessing the parking demand and traffic impacts of permissible development under

existing site controls, the uses highlighted in bold have been adopted.

3.3 Community Consultation

As part of the PP process, a community consultation was hosted by the applicant on Tuesday 20

September 2016. TRAFFIX made a presentation outlining the traffic impacts of an assumed

development concept that included residential aged care and retail uses, which indicated a future traffic

generation that exceeded that now proposed. In relation to potential traffic issues, the following

concerns were also raised by local residents during the facilitated question and answer time:

Northbound traffic performing a local diversion to enter and exit the site via Woodford Street and

Arabella Street. It was queried whether sufficient traffic data is available to understand conditions

on these streets, which it was emphasised had limited capacity to handle additional volumes.

Clarity regarding the trip generation rates adopted for the analysis, and the impact of retail

development on this site. This includes the assumptions made for establishing the traffic

generation for the existing developments on site, particularly the service station development.

Delays and road safety for the intersection of Northwood Road and River Road. In particular, it

was asked whether a roundabout explored in the previous PP would be considered and whether

the access of the development upstream on Northwood Road could be modified to avoid local

impacts.

These are all important considerations and have been assessed and responded by the development

concept envisaged under this PP, which has been amended since the consultation session.

Fundamentally, this has been achieved by pursuing a ‘traffic neutral’ outcome, whereby there will be

negligible change in site traffic generation, but with other compensating safety benefits. These matters

are discussed further below.


4. Location and Site

The subject site comprises of 274 & 274A Longueville Road and 4-18 Northwood Road in Lane Cove.

It is situated on the eastern side of Northwood Road, approximately 20 metres south of the intersection

of Longueville Road with River Road West.

The site has an irregular configuration with a site area of 5,050m2. It has a western frontage to

Longueville Road and Northwood Road that extends for approximately 87 metres, whilst the remainder

of the site is bound by low density residential developments to the north and south, as well as by public

domain (open space) to the east.

Presently there are five vehicular crossovers from Longueville Road / Northwood Road connecting to

the site, all of which are near the existing traffic signals at Kenneth Street. Two of these driveways are

located on a Right-of-Way and connect to at-grade parking areas at the rear of the site. These driveways

provide single movement width (both for entry and exit) only.

A Location Plan is presented in Figure 1, with a Site Plan presented in Figure 2. Reference should

also be made to the Photographic Record presented in Appendix B, which provides an appreciation of

the general character of roads and other key attributes in proximity to the site.


Figure 1: Location Plan


Figure 2: Site Plan


5. Existing Road Conditions

5.1 Road Network

The road hierarchy near the site is illustrated in Figure 3 and is described below for roads that are of

interest in the context of this application:

River Road: a Roads and Maritime controlled secondary road (SR2070) that

runs in an east-west direction between Shirley Road at

Wollstonecraft to the east and Northwood Road at Northwood to

the west. It carries approximately 16,400 vehicles per day (2016

AADT) and has a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. River Road

generally accommodates one lane of traffic in each direction within

an undivided carriageway, however this increases to two lanes in

each direction within the vicinity of the site.

River Road West: a Roads and Maritime controlled secondary road (SR2070) that

runs in an east-west direction between Northwood Road at

Longueville to the east and Bridge Street at Lane Cove to the west.

It has a posted speed limit of 50 km/h and accommodates two

lanes of traffic in each direction within an undivided carriageway.

Longueville Road: a local road for the most part that runs in a north-south direction

between the Pacific Highway to the north and Kenneth Street to

the south. Between River Road West and Kenneth Street, it is

upgraded to secondary road status (SR2070) and has a posted

speed limit of 50 km/h. Within the vicinity of the site, and including

along the frontage, both kerbsides of Longueville Road are subject

to ‘No Stopping’ restrictions.

Northwood Road: a local road for the most part that runs in a north-south direction

between Kenneth Street to the north and past Point Road to the

south where it terminates just north of Northwood Ferry Wharf.

Between Kenneth Street and River Road, it is upgraded to

secondary road status (SR2070) where the local alignment of

Northwood Road is made to give way to traffic at the intersection

with Northwood Road. It has a posted speed limit of 50 km/h, and


north of River Road, accommodates two lanes of traffic in each

direction within an undivided carriageway. Within the vicinity of the

site, kerbside parking is generally permitted on Northwood Road,

with peak hour No Stopping restrictions applying on the eastern

kerbside lane.

Kenneth Street: a collector road that runs in a northeast-southwest direction

between Longueville Road to the east and Belcote Road to the

west. It generally accommodates one through lane of traffic in

each direction within an undivided carriageway and has a posted

speed limit of 50 km/h and forming a signal controlled intersection

with Northwood directly opposite the site.

Arabella Street: a local street that generally runs in a northeast-southwest

direction, starting from Northwood Road in the east and

terminating west of Mary Street. Between Northwood Road and

Woodford Street, it has a speed limit of 50 km/h and

accommodates traffic flow in both directions within an undivided

carriageway, with parking permitted on the northern kerbside only.

Woodford Street: a local road that has an irregular alignment, extending between

Kellys Esplanade in the east and Kenneth Street to the west.

Between Arabella Street and Kenneth Street, it has a speed limit

of 50 km/h and accommodates traffic flow in both directions within

an undivided carriageway. Whilst parking is permitted on both

kerbsides, a narrow road width prohibits motorists to park opposite

to another parked car in accordance with the Road Rules 2014.


Figure 3: Road Hierarchy


5.2 Key Intersections

The key intersections near the site are shown below and provide an understanding of the existing road

geometry and alignment:

Source: Near Map

Figure 4: Intersection of Longueville Road and River Road West

It can be seen from Figure 4 that the intersection of Longueville Road and River Road West forms a

signalised ‘T-Junction’. On the north leg of Longueville Road, two approach lanes are provided with a

‘No Right Turn’ restriction imposed, whilst a single exit lane is provided. Conversely on the south leg of

Longueville Road, two approach lanes are provided whereby both lanes are permitted to turn left, with

the right lane also permitted to continue straight. Two exit lanes are also provided on this leg. The west

leg of River Road West provides two approach lanes, both permitted to turn right, with a slip lane along


traffic on the left lane to bypass signals when turning onto the north leg of Longueville Road. Two exit

lanes are also provided for River Road West.

Source: Near Map

Figure 5: Intersection of Longueville Road, Northwood Road and Kenneth Street

It can be seen from Figure 5 that the intersection of Longueville Road, Northwood Road and Kenneth

Street forms a signalised ‘T-Junction’. On the north leg of Longueville Road, three approach lanes are

provided, including two through lanes and a dedicated right turn bay. Two exit lanes are provided on

this leg. Conversely, on the south leg of Longueville Road, two approach lanes and two exit lanes are

provided. Two approach and two exit lanes are also provided on the west approach of Kenneth Street,

with both approach lanes permitted to turn left.


Source: Near Map

Figure 6: Intersection of Northwood Road and River Road

It can be seen from Figure 6 that the intersection of Northwood Road and River Road forms a T-Junction

intersection. The western leg of Northwood Road and eastern leg of River Road are afforded priority

over the southern leg of Northwood Road, which is a local road that forms the stem of the ‘T’ junction

with Northwood Road. Northwood Road provides two lanes of traffic in each direction. The south leg

of Northwood Road (the local road) includes two approach lanes that are split by a median island, with

the left lane permitted to turn left only and the right lane permitted to turn right only.


5.3 Road Network Volumes

TRAFFIX has previously commissioned surveys for the above intersections in 2012 to establish typical

weekday traffic volumes during peak periods. To determine whether these counts remain representative

of present conditions, peak period surveys were undertaken on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 for the ‘test’

intersection of Longueville Road with River Road West.

Comparison of the 2016 survey with the survey undertaken for the same intersection on Thursday &

Friday, 3-4 May 2012 (for the PM peak period and AM peak period respectively) reveals that traffic

volumes on all approaches reduced, aside from the minor movements between River Road West and

Longueville Road. The largest increase in volumes recorded for a single movement is eight (8) vehicle

trips per hour and equates to an extra vehicle trip every 7.5 minutes during peak periods. On this basis,

the traffic volumes established in the 2012 surveys are considered to remain valid, noting that daily

fluctuations can occur. A summary of the 2012 and 2016 counts is presented in Appendix C.

These counts have been adopted as baseline volumes for intersection modelling undertaken and

described below for existing conditions and with the addition of development concept volumes

envisaged for the Planning Proposal, with the intent of comparatively assessing the performance of the

future site access at the intersection of Longueville Road, Northwood Road and Kenneth Street against

the existing configuration.

5.4 Existing Intersection Performance

To assess the performance of these nominated key intersections, hourly peak volumes were extracted

from the surveyed time periods of the above counts between 7:00am-9:00am during the regular network

weekday AM peak period and 4:00pm-6:00pm during the regular weekday PM peak period. These

volumes adopted as baseline volumes and analysing using the SIDRA computer program to determine

their performance characteristics under existing traffic conditions. In particular, a SIDRA network model

has been prepared to account for the coordination of the two closely spaces signalised intersections.

The SIDRA model produces a range of outputs, the most useful of which are the Degree of Saturation

(DOS) and Average Vehicle Delay per vehicle (AVD). The AVD is in turn related to a level of service

(LOS) criteria. These performance measures can be interpreted using the following explanations:

DOS - the DOS is a measure of the operational performance of individual intersections. As both queue

length and delay increase rapidly as DOS approaches 1, it is usual to attempt to keep DOS to less than


0.9. When DOS exceeds 0.9 residual queues can be anticipated, as occurs at many major intersections

throughout the metropolitan area during peak periods. In this regard, a practical limit at 1.1 can be

assumed. For intersections controlled by roundabout or give way/stop control, satisfactory intersection

operation is generally indicated by a DOS of 0.8 or less.

AVD - the AVD for individual intersections provides a measure of the operational performance of an

intersection. In general, levels of acceptability of AVD for individual intersections depend on the time of

day (motorists generally accept higher delays during peak commuter periods) and the road system being

modelled (motorists are more likely to accept longer delays on side streets than on the main road

system).

LOS - this is a comparative measure which provides an indication of the operating performance of an

intersection as shown below in Table 1:

Table 1: Intersection Performance Characteristics

Level of Service Average Delay

per Vehicle (sec/veh)

Traffic Signals, Roundabout

Give Way and Stop Signs

A less than 14 Good operation Good operation

B 15 to 28 Good with acceptable delays

and spare capacity Acceptable delays and spare

capacity

C 29 to 42 Satisfactory Satisfactory but accident study

required

D 43 to 56 Operating near capacity Near capacity and accident study

required

E 57 to 70

At capacity; at signals incidents will cause excessive delays. Roundabouts require other

control mode

At capacity and requires other control mode

F More than 70 Unsatisfactory and requires

additional capacity. Unsatisfactory and requires other control mode or major treatment.

A summary of the modelled results are provided in Table 2 for the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM)

peak hours. Reference should also be made to the SIDRA outputs provided in Appendix D, which

provide detailed results for individual lanes and approaches.


Table 2: Existing Intersection Performance –SIDRA Network

Intersection Control Type Period Intersection Degree of Saturation (DOS)

Average Delay (AVD)

Level of Service (LOS)

Longueville Road / River Road West

Signals

AM 0.739 19.0 B

PM 0.665 20.9 B

Longueville Road / Kenneth Street / Northwood Road

Signals

AM 0.686 8.8 A

PM 0.902 20.8 B

Northwood Road / River Road Priority*

AM 1.018 135.5 F

PM 0.833 185.0 F

* Note: For ‘T’ junctions, the results shown are for the movement with the highest delay in accordance with RMS Guidelines, while for signals the average delay across all approached is adopted.

The results in Table 2 reveal that the intersections of Longueville Road / River Road West and

Longueville Road / Kenneth Street / Northwood Road operate with an overall Level of Service of B or

greater, defined to be good with acceptable delays, with spare capacity available.

These two signalised intersections have been assessed as a network model under SIDRA. For these

combined layouts, the software does not permit user given phase times when a variable phase is present

(the northwest pedestrian signal phase across River Road West). As such, a program functionality has

been relied upon to automatically determine phase times for each intersection with a Phasing Summary

for each scenario presented in Appendix D. These phase times have been verified against site specific

models for each intersection, based on actual timings, for which the results were found to be consistent.

In all modelling undertaken, a site measured cycle time of 108 seconds has been adopted for both AM

and PM scenarios.

The intersection of Northwood Road / River Road operates very well overall, but with a Level of Service

of F for the worst performing approach, which is for motorists seeking to turn right from Northwood Road

into River Road. This is common for local side roads on approach to busy arterial roads and reflects

RMS priority to maintain efficient travel along the main road network. While the delays during both AM

and PM peak periods therefore exceed desirable delays, this does not necessarily indicate a need for

an intersection upgrade for exiting traffic.


5.5 Public Transport

The existing public transport network operating in the locality is shown in Figure 7. It is evident that the

site is situated directly adjacent to bus stops that are serviced by Route 261 operating between

Chatswood in the north and the Sydney central business district to the southeast. Bus stops on

Longueville Road, within 200 metres walking distance of the site, are also serviced by Routes 253 and

254, which operate between Riverview and the Sydney central business district and McMahons Point

Wharf, respectively.

It is noteworthy that during weekdays, services for these routes begin around 6:30am and end around

10:00pm. Whilst weekend services do not extend to these times, any increases in patronage associated

with future development of the site should warrant consideration to increase the duration and frequency

of services. In any case, early morning and late night services operate on all days of the week from the

Lane Cove Interchange on Epping Road, approximately 1.3 kilometres. An arrangement to shuttle users

of the site to this interchange would be feasible for large and organised development operating with

fixed roster time, such as a residential aged care facility.

Nonetheless, the site is considered to have good access to public transport and is ideally located to take

advantage of future public transport improvements.


Figure 7: Public Transport


5.6 Existing Development on the Site

The existing development on the site provides a base case against which any future development

proposal can be assessed. This includes development potential under existing controls as well as

development potential under this Planning Proposal. Both of these scenarios are assessed in

subsequent sections.

With regard to the existing base case scenario, the site comprises several properties which include the

following:

Two (2) dwelling houses;

A service station (approximately 1,558m2 in site area) that accommodates;

Several fuel bowsers;

A convenience store (approximately 160m2 gross floor area); and

A mechanical repairs workshop.

A two storey semi-detached building containing:

A ground floor retail tenancy (approximately 98.6m2 gross floor area);

A first floor Pilates Studio (approximately 98.6m2 gross floor area)

A two storey semi-detached building containing:

A ground floor retail tenancy (approximately 107.4m2 gross floor area);

A first floor residential apartment;

A single ground level (with a lower ground level) building containing 316.3m2 gross floor area of

retail space; and

A two storey (with a lower ground level) building containing:

A ground floor veterinary clinic (approximately 154m2 gross floor area);

A ‘in-house’ lower ground floor pet grooming parlour (approximately 76m2 gross floor area);

and

Two (2) first floor residential apartments.


5.6.1 Current Parking Demand

The Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 requires parking for the approved uses of the site to be

provided in accordance with the rates shown listed in Table 3. Whilst the rates are applicable for new

development only, they have been applied to the existing developments on-site for a comparison of

parking demands under the Planning Proposal.

Table 3: Car Parking Rates

Type Number / GFA Parking Rate Spaces Required

Residential Dwelling House

Houses 2 1 space per dwelling 2

Shop Top Housing

Dwellings 3 1 space per dwelling 3

Shop 522.6m2 1 space per 40m2 13

Service Stations

Holding Bays - Minimum 4 holding bays 4

Employees 2* 1 space per 2 employees 1

Retail 160m2 1 space per 25m2 6

Vehicle Repair Station

Holding Bays - Minimum 4 holding bays 4


Gymnasium

Customers 98.6m2 3 spaces per 100m2 3


Veterinary Hospital

Customers - 1 space per veterinarian 2

Veterinarian 2* 1 space per veterinarian 2


Total 44

*Estimates


It can be seen from Table 3 that the approved developments on-site are estimated to generate a parking

demand for 44 spaces under Council’s current planning controls. Site inspections reveal that parking

on-site is not formalised, however this provision is generally accommodated on-site.

Site inspections also reveal there is no provision for accessible car parking on-site for the currently

approved developments. In addition, most buildings are accessed at street level from parking located

at the rear of the buildings, where the site has steep gradients.

5.6.2 Servicing and Waste Facilities

Whilst the service station development can accommodate large refuelling trucks, the remaining

developments are unable to safely accommodate large trucks due to a combination of the site gradients

and limited geometry. Furthermore, the single flow widths of two of these accesses compounds difficulty

for service vehicles to enter and exit the site without affecting amenity for users of these developments.

A degree of reliance for on-street parking for waste and service vehicles presently occurs.

5.6.3 Existing Site Access

As mentioned above, the existing site is characterised by multiple driveway crossings directly onto

Longueville Road / Northwood Road, all of which are in close proximity to the existing traffic signals at

Kenneth Street. These driveways provide single movement width (both for entry and exit) only. They

are relatively unsafe and involve significant conflicts with arterial through movements, while also

presenting difficulties for pedestrian movement along the site frontage. These deficiencies are

overcome under the Planning Proposal as discussed in the following sections.

5.6.4 Existing Site Traffic Generation

Residential Dwelling House

The RMS Technical Direction TDT 2013/04a, which supplements the Guide to Traffic Generating

Developments provides updated traffic generation rates for low density residential dwellings based on

surveys conducted in Sydney during 2010. It recommends an hourly trip generation rate of 0.95 vehicle

trips per dwelling during the AM peak period and 0.99 vehicle trips per dwelling during the PM peak

period. Application of these rates to the existing two dwelling houses on-site results in the following

traffic generation:


2 vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak period (0 in, 2 out)*; and

2 vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak period (2 in, 0 out)*.

* Assumes an 80:20 traffic split.

Service Station (Refuelling and Workshop)

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments provides traffic generation rates for service station

developments, which it defines to be inclusive of refuelling, retail and workshop uses. It recommends

an hourly trip generation rate equivalent to 4 vehicle trips per 100m2 of site area (with a separate rate

for convenience stores applied further below). It is noted however, that these trips are drawn

fundamentally from ‘through’ traffic already on the road network (i.e. ‘linked’ trips), and thus the actual

trips destined to the existing service station on-site would be considerably lower. Nonetheless, noting

the high southbound (city bound) traffic volumes established in surveys for Northwood Road, the AM

peak period trip generation rate is assumed to be equivalent to 75% of the PM peak period rate.

In the context of estimating the local trip generation, such as for nearby residents refuelling and

customers of the mechanical repairs workshop, a reduction factor of 80% has been adopted.

Accordingly, application of the above rates and reduction factor to the existing service vehicle station

on-site, with a site area of 1,558m2, results in the following traffic generation:



* Assumes a 60:40 traffic split.

Service Station (Convenience Store)

The RMS rates for service stations also includes a component for convenience stores, whereby the

guide recommends an hourly trip generation rate of 30 vehicle trips per 100m2 gross floor area during

the PM peak period. Similar to the above, an 80% reduction factor has also been adopted to account

for local traffic only. When also assuming the AM peak period trip generation to be 75% of the PM peak


period rate, the existing convenience store containing 160m2 gross floor area is estimated to generate

the following traffic:




Gymnasium

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments also provides traffic generation rates for

gymnasiums which is defined to include fitness studios. It recommends an hourly trip generation rate

of 9 vehicle trips per 100m2 gross floor area during the PM peak period for gymnasiums situated in

metropolitan sub-regional areas. The AM peak period generation has been assumed to be a third of

the PM peak period rate. Application of these rates to the 98.6m2 gross floor area Pilates Studio results

in the following traffic generated:




Neighbourhood Retail

The RMS guide also provides traffic generation rates for secondary retail stores, defined to be those

stores that tend not to be the primary attractors to a centre. It recommends an hourly trip generation

rate of 4.6 vehicle trips per 100m2 gross leasable floor area, occurring during the PM peak period on

Thursdays. The AM peak period rate has been assumed to be third of the PM peak period rate to

account mainly for staff arrivals, whilst it is also assumed that gross leasable floor area is equivalent to

gross floor area. Application of the above rates to the combined 522.3m2 gross floor area of approved

retail space results in the following traffic generation:


24 vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak period (12 in, 12 out)#.



# Assumes a 50:50 traffic split.

Veterinary Hospital

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments provides traffic generation rates for medical centres

situated within shopping centres, which is considered the most applicable use for the existing veterinary

on-site, estimated to have a gross floor area of approximately 230m2. For this use, it recommends an

hourly peak period trip generation rate of 2.2 vehicle trips per 100m2 gross leasable floor area, occurring

only during the PM peak period on Thursdays. In assuming a third of the PM peak period rate to

represent staff arrivals during the AM peak period, the existing veterinary hospital has been assessed

to generate the following traffic:





Combined Traffic Generation

Having regard for the above trip generation for each development, the approved traffic generation of the

site is estimated to be:

33 vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak period (20 in, 13 out); and

64 vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak period (32 in, 32 out).

It is emphasised that this level of traffic generation has historically occurred on the local road network,

notwithstanding that the site is not presently fully occupied. Again, this represents a base case level of

traffic generation against which future development scenarios may be assessed.


6. Permissible Development under Current Planning Controls

6.1 Description of Potential Development under Current Controls

A development permissible under current planning controls, incorporating the highlighted uses in

Section 3.2, has been envisaged with the following composition:

A four storey mixed use development containing:

185m2 gross floor area of retail space;

8 residential apartments that are 70m2, each assumed to contain two bedrooms; and

A three storey mixed use development containing:

1,200m2 gross floor area of retail space;

A medical centre containing 1,200m2 gross floor area; and

17 residential apartments that are 70m2, each assumed to contain two bedrooms.

6.2 Car Parking Demand

The Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 requires parking for the selected permissible uses of

the site to be provided in accordance with the rates shown listed in Table 4.




Shop Top Housing

Dwellings 25 1 space per dwelling 25

Shop

Tenancy 1,385m2 1 space per 40m2 35

Medical Centre

Visitors 15 1 space per 3 rooms 5

Professionals 15* 1 space per professional 15


Total 88

*Estimates

It can be seen from Table 4 that this development is estimated to generate a parking demand for 88

spaces, which is substantially greater than the demand of 44 spaces generated by the existing

developments on-site.

6.3 Servicing and Waste Facilities

It is noted that as the subject site is split into two zones, the potential for separated developments under

existing controls is more likely. The consolidated ‘in principle’ agreement for a single entry and single

exit access is thus not a guaranteed outcome, to which each development may have to accommodate

separate on-site service and waste provisions to Council’s satisfaction.

6.4 Trip Generation

The traffic generation that would arise under the adopted concept development associated with the

current zonings and controls would include the following components:

6.4.1 Medium Density Residential

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments provides traffic generation rates for medium density

residential developments which it defines as containing between 2 and 20 dwellings. It recommends for


apartments containing up to two bedrooms, an hourly trip rate of between 0.4-0.5 vehicle trips per

dwelling during the AM and PM peak periods. Application of the upper limit of this range (each apartment

is assumed to contain two bedrooms) to the 25 apartments results in the following traffic generation:




6.4.2 Neighbourhood Retail

The RMS guide also provides traffic generation rates for secondary retail stores, defined to be those

stores that tend not to be the primary attractors to a centre. It recommends an hourly trip generation

rate of 4.6 vehicle trips per 100m2 gross leasable floor area, occurring during the PM peak period on

Thursdays. The AM peak period rate has been assumed to be third of the PM peak period rate to

account mainly for staff arrivals, whilst it is also assumed that gross leasable floor area is equivalent to

gross floor area. Application of the above rates to the combined 1,385m2 gross floor area of retail space

results in the following traffic generation:





6.4.3 Medical Centre

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments provides traffic generation rates for medical centres

situated within shopping centres. For this use, it recommends an hourly peak period trip generation rate

of 2.2 vehicle trips per 100m2 gross leasable floor area, occurring only during the PM peak period on

Thursdays. In assuming a third of the PM peak period rate to represent staff arrivals during the AM

peak period, the 1,200m2 gross floor area medical centre is estimated to generate the following traffic:






6.4.4 Combined Traffic Generation

Having regard for the above trip generation for each development, the traffic generation arising from this

permissible development is estimated to be:




7. Development under Planning Proposal

7.1 Description of Development Concept

To assess the impacts directly attributable to the PP, the applicant has envisaged a development

concept that would comprise of a mixed use development containing a residential aged care facility and

be of scale that would comply with the proposed maximum controls set under the LEP. Such a

development would accommodate the following uses and approximate areas or provisions:

A residential care facility for aged persons containing 130 beds (with a limit of 20 employees);

A veterinary hospital containing 760m2 gross floor area (with a limit of five staff); and

685m2 gross floor area of combined retail and café space.

7.2 Parking Demand

7.2.1 Council Controls

The parking requirements for the adopted development concept has been assessed with respect to the

Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2009 (DCP) and State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing

for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (Seniors Housing SEPP), as summarised in Table 5. The

DCP does not contain guidance on parking for residential aged care centres and instead rates have

been adopted for this use from the Seniors Housing SEPP, to which it is stated that a consent authority

must not refuse consent to a development application on parking related grounds if the minimum

provision is satisfied under this policy.




Residential Care Facility (Aged)1,3

Beds 130 1 space for every 10 beds 13

Employees 20 1 space per 2 employees 10

Veterinary Hospital2,4

Veterinarians 3 1 space per veterinarian 3

Employees 2 1 space per 2 employees 1

Customers - 1 space per veterinarian 2

Retail (Shops and Café)2,4

Tenancy 685m2 1 space per 40m2 17

Totals 46

1 Parking rates adopted from Seniors Housing SEPP and are minimum rates. 2 Parking rates adopted from DCP. 3 Car parking analysis excludes ambulance parking requirements. 4 Parking spaces rounded up to the nearest whole number in accordance with DCP.

It can be seen from Table 5 that to comply with the DCP and the Seniors Housing SEPP, such a

development must provide a minimum of 46 parking spaces, noting that the calculated parking

provisions for the veterinary hospital, retail and café components are exact requirements in accordance

with the DCP. However, these requirements are treated cumulatively for each use and does not

consider:

Any shared use of parking, such as visitors to the aged care facility using retail parking at peak

visiting times.

Any reduction in parking for the neighbourhood retail use due to the significant local catchment (with

many people walking) as well as patronage from the aged care facility itself.

Staff rosters, which are expected to reduce the number of staff on site at any one time.

The site constraints, which are characterised by difficult vehicular access and challenging

topography; and

The consideration of sustainable planning outcomes based on reduced car travel and support for

non-travel modes, which may be dealt with under a Green Travel Plan.


In supplementing the last point made above, a parking survey has also been undertaken of an aged

care facility, operated by the applicant, in Northbridge. The count took place on a typical weekday

morning (Tuesday 11 October 2016) between 6:30am and 8:15am, which oversees a roster change

with morning shifts experiencing the most staff rostered. During this timeframe, a maximum of 21

parking spaces out of a total of 41 spaces were recorded as occupied. This indicates that the reliance

on private car usage is low having regard for the operational characteristics of the aged care homes run

by the applicant.

It is therefore recommended that consideration be given to permitting a lower parking provision than

nominally required under the DCP during a subsequent development application stage if approval for a

development containing residential aged care uses is sought. Nonetheless, this assessment serves to

demonstrate that the site is considered to be of a sufficient size to accommodate all parking demands

generated by future development envisaged under this Planning Proposal.

7.2.2 Comparison

It is evident that future development which draws directly on the controls sought under this PP is likely

to generate a similar parking demand compared to the existing developments on-site, and will be

substantially less than what could be generated by a permissible development under current planning

proposals.

It is also emphasised that the consolidation of site accesses into a single signalised entry access and

downstream exit access will improve safety and accessibility to the site, especially as the existing

accesses on-site are deficient, with single width roadways relied upon for both entry and exit

movements.

7.2.3 Accessible Parking

Whist the DCP does not stipulate accessible parking requirements for residential care facilities, it is

encouraged that compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) is achieved where relevant.

Under the BCA, a residential care facility which caters to aged persons is classified as a Class 9c

building. However no accessible parking rates are prescribed for this type of building. It is thus

envisaged that the applicant propose a suitable provision of accessible parking during a subsequent

development application phase, having regard for the operation of a future development.


Veterinary hospitals, retail and café uses have identical requirements under the DCP for accessible

parking. For each component, a single accessible parking space must be provided for every 20 car

parking spaces for each component, with a minimum for one accessible space. Having regard for the

individual car parking provisions for the veterinary hospital, retail tenancy and café tenancy, three (3)

parking spaces will need to be designed as accessible spaces to comply with the DCP. A final

accessible parking provision may be confirmed during a subsequent development application phase

and it is recommended that these spaces be designed in accordance with AS2890.6 (2009).

7.2.4 Motorcycle Parking

The DCP requires a single motorcycle parking space to be provided per 15 car spaces for all types of

development. This equates to a requirement for four (4) motorcycle parking spaces in the case of the

development concept. A final motorcycle parking provision may be confirmed during a subsequent

development application phase and it is recommended that the spaces be designed in accordance with

AS2890.1 (2004).

7.2.5 Bicycle Facilities

The DCP stipulates bicycle parking rates for various uses, and where no rates are published for a

specific use, Council will consider a provision based on merit taking into consideration similar uses as

well as those contained in the NSW Guidelines for Walking and Cycling. Accordingly, the bicycle parking

requirements for the development concept has been assessed for each individual use, as summarised

in Table 6.

Table 6: Bicycle Parking Rates


Residential Care Facility (Aged or Disabled Self-Contained Housing)1

Residents

130 3-5% of the number of units

4 - 7

Visitors 4 - 7

Veterinary Hospital2

Employees 5 1 space per 5 professionals 1

Customers 756.57m2 1 rack plus 1 rack per

200m2 GFA 5

Retail (Shop and Cafe)2


Employees

685m2

1 space per 50m2 14

Customers 2 racks plus 1 rack per 200m2 over 200m2 GFA

5

Totals 33 – 39

1 Parking rates adopted from NSW Guidelines for Walking and Cycling 2 Parking rates adopted from DCP.

It can be seen from Table 2 that the development concept will generate a requirement for 33 and 39

bicycle parking spaces to be provided under the DCP. It is noteworthy however, that the bicycle parking

provision for residents should take into account their age and mobility, and in this regard there is the

possibility that bicycle parking would only be necessary for staff – in which case a provision of between

29 and 32 bicycle parking spaces would be considered more appropriate. Nonetheless a final bicycle

parking provision may be confirmed during a subsequent development application phase, and it is

recommended that the facilities be designed in accordance with AS2890.3 (2015) for each user class

as appropriate.

7.3 Servicing

The DCP stipulates that parking areas shall be provided and designed to allow for access and loading

by Council’s waste collection contractor. It is considered that a subsequent development application

phase would be an appropriate time to determine a suitable service vehicle provision, having regard for

the loading requirements of the future development that approval is sought for.

Nonetheless, it is relevant to highlight that the maximum height controls sought in the PP will allow for

a ground floor height of 4.5 metres. This would permit a vehicle of all heights covered under AS2890.2

(2002) and ensure that all anticipated service vehicles and Council’s waste collection vehicle will be able

to access the site and enter internal loading bays and waste collection points. This would be a significant

improvement over what has been assessed for the current conditions of the site and provide a benefit

to the public in terms of safety and amenity.


7.4 Trip Generation

7.4.1 Residential Care Facility

RMS Guidelines

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments provides traffic generation rates for housing for

aged and disabled persons. It recommends an hourly trip rate of between 0.1 and 0.2 vehicle trips per

hour during the PM peak period. It is understood that the residential care facility envisaged in the

indicative development is to cater for aged persons requiring a high level of care. Thus in assuming that

residents will have limited mobility, adopting the lower range of the above rate for both the AM and PM

peak periods results in the following traffic generation for this 130 bed component:




Survey Based Assessment

During the Community Consultation, the subject of trip generation were raised by residents, to which

clarification was sought regarding the source of these rates. To reaffirm that the RMS trip rate selected

for residential aged care facilities is appropriate, TRAFFIX agreed to commission surveys at Pathways

Sailors Bay, a residential aged care facility in Northbridge which is operated by the applicant.

The facility accommodates 120 beds, which is of a similar scale, and has the operational characteristics

that are anticipated to be adopted for a future residential aged care facility on the subject site. This

includes a similar timetable for rostering for a morning shift, afternoon shift and night shift. It is

understood from the applicant that the morning shift has the highest number of staff, where it is expected

that the changeover during the morning period would constitute the busiest period in terms of traffic

movements.

With the above in mind, TRAFFIX undertook on-site surveys on Tuesday 11 October 2016 between

6:45am and 8:15am to determine the parking level occupancy and traffic generation during the morning

rostered changeover. It was observed that at any one time, only 21 of 41 total parking spaces were


occupied, which represents an approximate 50% vacancy rate. Of particular relevance between 7:15am

and 8:15am, which coincides with the regular network peak in Lane Cove, only 9 vehicle trips were

recorded for the Northbridge development.

These results are consistent with our previous experience relating to aged care homes and that the

selection of the lower end of the rates under the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments is

considered suitable. A comparable traffic generation for a future aged care development at the subject

site is therefore anticipated in light of the likelihood of similar operating characteristics and proximity to

public transport services.

7.4.2 Veterinary Hospital

In adopting the same rates used to estimate the traffic generation for the existing veterinary hospital on-

site, the 760m2 gross floor area veterinary hospital is expected to generate the following traffic:





7.4.3 Retail

In adopting the same rates used to estimate the traffic generation for the existing retail space on-site,

the 685m2 gross floor area of retail and café space is expected to generate the following traffic:






7.4.4 Combined Traffic Generation

When accounting for the volumes estimated for each use, the areas and provisions envisaged for the

development concept will generate the following traffic:



7.4.5 Net Traffic Generation

The above volumes are not considered to be a net increase over approved conditions. When accounting

for the assessment for the approved developments on-site, the following change in net traffic would

arise from the site:

-4 vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak period (1 in, -5 out); and

-2 vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak period (-2 in, 0 out).

These net traffic volumes are relevant when assessing the performance of the proposed site access at

the intersection of Longueville Road, Northwood Road and Kenneth Street.


7.5 Traffic Impacts

7.5.1 Trip Distributions

For modelling the traffic impacts of the existing, permissible and proposed access arrangements at the

intersection of Longueville Road, Northwood Road and Kenneth Street, trip distributions will need to be

assumed for the above volumes and applied across the road network. Whilst it is emphasised that the

overall net traffic generated under the development concept C is less than the currently approved and

permissible developments on-site assessed, the majority of distributed volumes will be attributed to the

consolidation of the existing five accesses into a single entry and exit access.

It is noteworthy that none of the abovementioned uses have trip generating characteristics that are

substantially linked between place of residence and place of employment, the only instances being a

relatively low proportion of staff travelling to and from work. Analysis of the road hierarchy is therefore

considered the most reliable approach to assigning a split of development traffic volumes.

Longueville Road, River Road and River Road West connect the site with key regional destinations,

leading to Chatswood, St Leonards and the City of Ryde local government area respectively. When

acknowledging that River Road also provides the shortest route to the Sydney central business district,

the development volumes have been distributed as follows:

40% of vehicle trips originating from and destined to River Road;

25% of vehicle trips originating from and destined to River Road West;

25% of vehicle trips originating from and destined to Longueville Road;

5% of vehicle trips originating from and destined to Kenneth Street; and

5% of vehicle trips originating from and destined to Northwood Road, south of River Road.

An equivalent assumption for the splits of traffic generated by the approved developments on-site is also

made, in order to properly distribute the net traffic volumes that would be brought on by the development

concept.


Having regard for these percentage distributions, the net traffic volumes generated over approved and

permissible conditions, and after accounting for consolidated accesses, has been split according to the

diagrammatic representation shown in Figure 8, for both AM and PM peak periods.

Figure 8: Distributed Volumes

7.5.2 Peak Period Intersection Performances

The performance of the nominated critical intersections under existing conditions and with the distributed

volumes of the development concept has been modelled using SIDRA Intersection 7.0. A summary of

the results, which adopt baseline traffic volumes from the traffic surveys described in Section 3, is

presented in Table 7. Reference should also be made to the detailed SIDRA outputs presented in

Appendix D.

River Road

No

rthw

oo

d R

oad

Ke

nn

eth

Street

Lon

gue

ville Ro

ad

AM: -1PM: -1

AM: -1

AM: +6PM: +10

AM: +16PM: +22

AM: -2PM: -1

40% Traffic(St Leonards /North Sydney / Sydney CBD)

5% Traffic(Local)

25% Traffic(Ryde / Western Sydney)

25% Traffic(Lane Cove /Chatswood)

AM: -9PM: -12

AM: -6PM: -10

5% Traffic(Local)

AM: +1


Table 7: Intersection Performance

Intersection Control

Type Scenario Period

Intersection Degree of Saturation

Average Delay (s) Level of Service

(LoS)


Signals

Existing

AM 0.739 19.0 B

PM 0.665 20.9 B

Future

AM 0.736 19.0 B

PM 0.669 20.9 B

Longueville Road / Kenneth Street /

Northwood Road / Site Access

(Future Only)

Signals

Existing

AM 0.686 8.8 A

PM 0.902 20.8 B

Future

AM 0.682 8.7 A

PM 0.902 20.7 B

Northwood Road / River Road

Priority*

Existing AM 1.018 135.5 F

PM 0.833 185.0 F

Future AM 1.018 135.5 F

PM 0.833 185.0 F

* Note: For ‘T’ junctions, the results shown are for the movement with the highest delay in accordance with RMS Guidelines, while for signals the average delay across all approached is adopted.

The results of the software modelling demonstrate that the two signalised intersections will continue to

perform with overall delays that are indiscernible from existing conditions. This is notwithstanding that

both intersection achieve a Level of Service of B, and are thereby deemed under RMS guidelines to

operate with acceptable delays with spare capacity.

Nonetheless, the purpose of this modelling exercise is to demonstrate that an additional site access leg

could be accommodated without substantial changes to the operation of these two signalised

intersections, which are noted to be coordinated. As with modelling the existing scenario, the same

program function in SIDRA has been used to automatically determine phase times for each intersection,

where it is noteworthy that no additional phases have been introduced for the new site access leg.


These phase times are summarised in Table 8 and correspond to the measured cycle time of 108

seconds, whereby an illustration of each phase is provided in the TCS plans prepared by RMS and

copied in Appendix E.

Table 8: Phasing Summary

Intersection Control

Type Scenario Period Phase A (s) Phase B (s) Phase C (s)


Signals

Existing

AM 79 10 19

PM 47 42 19

Future

AM 79 10 19

PM 47 42 19

Longueville Road / Kenneth Street /

Northwood Road / Site Access

(Future Only)

Signals

Existing

AM 67 19 22

PM 68 18 22

Future

AM 67 19 22

PM 68 18 22

It can be seen from Table 7 that the program determined phase times have been uniquely set for each

intersection and time period, however no change has occurred in relation to the existing and future

scenarios. That is, no changes in the phase times have arisen from the redistribution of development

traffic and introduction of a site access at the Kenneth Street intersection.

While these results present an ideal outcome for the Roads and Maritime Services, who manage the

classified route of Northwood Road – Longueville Road – River Road West, the potential site access

will also have insignificant impacts for amenity of local streets as well as pedestrians. As evidenced by

the specific movement performances on the Kenneth Street approach, delays for left turn and right turn

movements will not be affected by the volumes of traffic anticipated to travel straight into the site access

leg.

Pedestrians on the eastern side of Longueville Road / Northwood Road would need to be controlled

with a signalised crossing at the new site access leg. In this regard, the movement performance for this


crossing would not exceed a delay of 13 seconds (a LoS of B), which is considered a minor trade-off for

the enhanced safety that would be provided with signals. A detailed assessment of pedestrian flows

during a subsequent development application phase would provide final confirmation for a suitable

design for this crossing to ensure acceptable waiting times, whilst allowing for site traffic to enter the

access, particularly those turning left on an unfiltered signal.

Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the intersection of Northwood Road and River Road has not been

subjected to net additional volumes, for which it is expected that any development with greater traffic

generating potential would have an increased reliance on. This is notwithstanding that the intersection

rates very well overall, but with a Level of Service of F for the worst performing approach, that is for

motorists seeking to turn right from Northwood Road into River Road. This is however common for local

side roads on approach to busy arterial roads and reflects RMS priority to maintain efficient travel along

the main road network. While the delays during both AM and PM peak periods exceed desirable delays,

this does necessarily not indicate a need for an intersection upgrade for exiting traffic, although it is

expected that any future development application would take into account the performance of this

intersection given its utilisation.

7.5.3 Traffic Impacts

It is emphasised that traffic volumes for the development concept, which draws on the controls sought

in the PP, are nearly half that when compared to the proposal that would be permissible under the

current controls and even less than generated under the existing development on the site. The very

minor increase in morning peak delays is attributable to the consolidation of site accesses, which is

likely to be an inevitability for any future development on-site. This is easily outweighed by eliminating

safety concerns associated with the existing accesses, as currently two crossovers are single lane for

both directions and cannot accommodate queuing on-site. Most importantly, the performance of the

intersection of Northwood Road and River Road, which has exceeded capacity, will not change should

the development concept be operational.

Finally, when considering the impact on residential amenity, by the location of the site (on a RMS

managed road with high traffic volumes), left turn exit movements on Northwood Road are a

commonality for both existing and future developments. Given that no signalised intersection is situated

south of the site for at least a kilometre, northbound traffic heading to River Road West and Longueville

Road are assumed to divert through the local section of Northwood Road, through Arabella Street and

Woodford Street before re-entering Longueville Road / Northwood Road via Kenneth Street. As the

proposed future entry access will be signposted as No Right Turn, an identical route would be used by


motorists originating from River Road, with the only exception being a through movement at the Kenneth

Street intersection.

It is therefore emphasised that the net traffic volumes arising from the development concept over

approved and permissible conditions will not generate any additional movements on the above

described route, based on the assigned distributions. Therefore, there will be no additional traffic on

Northwood Road (local alignment), Arabella Street and Woodford Road.

With respect to permissible development on-site, it is anticipated that the site would be capable of

accommodating land uses of a scale that could generate greater traffic generating potential than the

existing development on-site and indeed, the assessed concept development. While this would be

largely independent of the proposed changes sought under the Planning Proposal, the following impacts

would be anticipated and need to be assessed:

Potential changes to the cycle time of the two network intersections of River Road West / Longueville

Road and Longueville Road / Northwood Road / Kenneth Street / Site Access

Quantification of any increased delays to the intersection of Northwood Road and River Road,

including for right turn movements.

Review of the environmental amenity limits published by the RMS for local and collector roads,

particularly for Arabella Street, Woodford Road and Kenneth Street.

Pedestrian survey data to assess any delays for pedestrians at the proposed site access or impacts

on delays for entering traffic. It is observed that the signalised crossing at River Road West is

actuated and as such, pedestrian flows would improve SIDRA results by determining whether the

‘C’ phase could be variable.


8. Road Safety Audit

A Road Safety Audit of the potential access arrangements has been conducted by an independent

consultant, DC Traffic Engineering, and is copied in Appendix F. This audit was commissioned in

response to Gateway requirements and carried out accordance with the framework under Transport for

New South Wales. Audits are structured to provide:

Findings, which are highlighted road safety issues raised by the auditor. A project manager may

respond by either accepting or rejecting each finding, in order to ‘close’ out the audit. For instance,

this might be taking a corrective action, or assessing the likelihood of a risk eventuating.

A Checklist, which is a more comprehensive set of short questions that do not require a formal

response. This is of more importance for the designer to prompt consideration for all relevant road

safety aspects.

The subject Road Safety Audit is for a feasibility design of the proposed intersection treatment, to which

the auditor has emphasised that findings would serve as “prompts for consideration” in the refinement

of the design to a concept design and then to detailed design. A high level comment to each finding

and checklist is presented below, noting that the audit would be intended to be closed out during a later

development application stage. In this regard, pedestrian surveys will also be undertaken during the

concept design phase to ensure a balanced outcome for all intersection users.

8.1 Findings

Finding 1: Pedestrian crossing at signalised site entry access

It is acknowledged that the eastern site leg will require a signalised

crossing to facilitate safe passage of pedestrians. A consolidated

entry and exit access is considered a safe outcome, especially in

contrast to the five (and deficient) driveways which collectively

accommodate the same volumes of traffic than the assessed

scenario. The issue would therefore relate to amenity and wait

times for pedestrians.


A signalised pedestrian crossing has been incorporated within the

software modelling with no left turn controls (i.e. southbound

vehicles can turn into the site anytime on an unfiltered signal).

While these results demonstrate that pedestrian and cyclists wait

times (for a ‘green’ man) would be within acceptable limits, a

pedestrian survey should be undertaken during a subsequent

concept design phase to determine whether additional priority

should be afforded.

Finding 2: Centreline of Northwood Road at proposed site exit access

A physical median to prevent right turn movements would be an

expected requirement of the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS),

who manage this section of Northwood Road. It is anticipated that

a concept and detailed design would incorporate any elements

requested from the RMS, for which it is considered that more

extensive signage would be appropriate for developments with a

higher turnover of public visitors (e.g. shopping centres).

Finding 3: Southbound traffic approaching proposed site entry access

These findings relate to building design elements, and any future

development application should take note of the sight distance and

queuing requirements of the off-street parking standard AS2890.1

(2004). Pedestrian safety can be further enhanced by separation

of entry points to the building.

Finding 4: Footpath on Northwood Road at proposed site exit access

While the exact location of the egress driveway would be

determined at a later development application stage, it is

considered an optimal outcome to locate this as far downstream

from the Kenneth Street intersection. This would allow for

consistent gaps during the phase where the pedestrian crossing

turns green on Northwood Road. Clearways operate on the

eastern kerbside lane of Northwood Road during both AM and PM

peak periods, allowing for clear visibility aside from uncommon and


brief instances when buses will stop (Route 261 has a 15 minute

frequency during peak periods).

Finding 5: Kenneth Street approach to signalised intersection

This is noted, and discussions with the RMS can subsequently

confirm in the detailed design phase whether the pavement

markings are clear and unambiguous.

Finding 6: Shared path on eastern side of Northwood Road

This is noted, and surveys to obtain pedestrian data would also

include a count for cyclist data to determine if this is a commonly

used route. A decision to enhance bicycle amenity could be made

thereafter.

Finding 7: Existing streetlighting pole at proposed site entry access

This is noted and a detailed design phase would assess whether

the timber street light pole would be in accordance with RMS

guidelines on traffic signals.

8.2 Checklist

A brief comment on each checklist point is provided in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Checklist Comment

No. Issue Comment

1.1(1) Scope of Project; function;

traffic mix

The project aims to allow for a consolidated signalised site access that operates with minimal effect for all other vehicles on the arterial and road network, as well as for pedestrians.

1.1(2) Type and degree of access to property and developments

Sightlines will be assessed having regard for all requirements of the off-street parking standard AS2890.1 (2004).


1.1(3) Major generators of traffic The site is considered to be far enough from major traffic generators and will be designed to integrate with existing signalised intersections.

1.1 (4) Staging requirements It is anticipated that the signal design will be conditioned for any new development of this scale and would be implemented in a single stage.

1.1 (5) Future works

The design is not considered to introduce any constraints to potential upgrades on Northwood Road. Software modelling results indicate no need for upgrades to signalised intersections.

1.1 (6) Wider network effects A discussion is provided in this Traffic Impact Assessment report.

1.2 (1) Route Choice The RMS will be consulted to design a suitable pavement arrow design for the straight movement into the site from Kenneth Street.

1.2 (2) Impact of continuity with the

existing network Software modelling indicates the site access will be well integrated with signalised intersections.

1.2 (3) Broad design standards The principle elements of the signalised intersections have been incorporated in the software model for the feasibility phase.

1.2 (4) Design Speed

These design requirements will be instrumental in designing the site accesses during a subsequent development application, and will influence:

Gradients (e.g. ramps)

Orientation to frontage road

Building design and landscaping

The entry access will be assessed in accordance with the sight distance requirements published in Austroads guidelines for signalised intersections, while the sight distance requirements for the exit access will be assessed in accordance for unsignalised intersections.

1.2 (5) Design volume and traffic

characteristics

Software modelling has taken into account road volumes and distributions, with service parameters indicating overall spare capacity at signalised intersections.

1.3 (1) Number and type of

intersections

It is emphasised that the intersection of Northwood Road, Longueville Road and Kenneth Street is an existing signalised intersection, where many of the listed considerations would be applicable to the design of a new intersection. Nonetheless, as discussed in the response to each findings, design aspects that are able to be influenced will be


examined during the concept and detailed design phases.

1.4 (1) Safety aspects All applicable sight obstructing elements will be identified and resolved during the concept and detailed design phases.

1.5 (1) Safety aspects not already

deal with

The introduction of a signalised crossing for a consolidated access is expected to enhance pedestrian safety. Impacts on amenity for pedestrians and cyclists will be assessed during a subsequent concept and detailed design phase from surveys undertaken to establish volumes and desire lines.


Conclusions

In summary:

An accompanying Planning Proposal seeks approval to include residential aged care facilities as a

permissible use for the subject site. This would be in addition to, but not limited to, retail, café and

veterinary hospital uses which are already permissible under the Lane Cove Local Environmental

Plan 2009. In addition, the PP seeks to establish a maximum height and floor space ratio.

A development concept that would be compliant with the proposed controls has been envisaged by

the applicant for the purpose of assessing the impacts of the Planning Proposal. Indicatively, this

development would contain a residential care facility for aged persons containing approximately 130

beds, a 760m2 gross floor area veterinary hospital and 685m2 gross floor area of retail/café space.

‘In principle’ support has also been given by the Roads and Maritime Services for a signalised entry

only site access at the intersection of Longueville Road, Northwood Street and Kenneth Street. This

is expected to significantly improve safety along the site frontage through the removal of all existing

(unsafe) driveways and reduce delays to through traffic.

The parking requirements for this Scenario has been assessed with respect to the Lane Cove

Development Control Plan 2009 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or

People with a Disability) 2004 and compared to the existing development on the site and to a

permissible development having regard to the current planning controls

A provision of 46 parking spaces would satisfy the requirements of both these policies and the site

is of a suitable size to accommodate this demand. Nonetheless a final provision may be confirmed

during a subsequent development application stage, and should take note of efficiencies gained with

proximity to public transport and operating characteristics of a potential aged care development, if

proposed. It is noteworthy that this parking demand is almost equivalent to what has been assessed

for the existing developments on-site under Council’s current planning controls.

Concerns relating the performance of the intersection of Northwood Road and River Road, as well

as the residential amenity on Arabella Street and Woodford Street have been considered and

addressed. Noting the sensitivity of the local road network to additional traffic volumes, a low traffic

generating (traffic neutral) outcome has been adopted.


The traffic generation arising from the development Scenario has been assessed as a net decrease

over and above existing traffic conditions to be -4 vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak period

and -2 vehicle trips during the PM peak period. Intersection modelling reveals that there will be very

minimal delays within the surrounding road network, attributed only to the consolidation of site

accesses, which is considered to be an inevitability of any future full scale development.

An assessment has also been made to compare the traffic generating potential of the development

Scenario with a high potential development that would be permissible under current planning

controls. Application of RMS guideline rates indicate that this development would, during the PM

peak period, generate an additional 41 vehicle trips per hour over what has been estimated for the

development Scenario applicable to the Planning Proposal (and an additional 14 vehicle trips per

hour during the AM peak period). This demonstrates that on a floor space basis, residential aged

care uses are one of the lowest traffic generating uses, which is especially of benefit having regard

to the location of the site.

A Road Safety Audit has been commissioned independently, as per Gateway requirements, for a

feasibility phase review of the proposed site access arrangements. The findings of this audit were

principally centred on pedestrian safety with the report noting that ‘findings would therefore serve as

prompts for consideration in the refinement of the design to concept design and then to detailed

design’. In response, a consolidated signalised entry access is expected to provide significantly

enhanced safety for pedestrians over existing conditions (with five separate and deficient

driveways), while software modelling indicates that pedestrian wait times at the signal will be

acceptable. This audit can be formally closed out during a subsequent development application

phase, with the design of accesses taking into consideration these findings as well as the outcome

of pedestrian surveys.

In light of the above, it is considered that the Planning Proposal to include residential aged care facilities

as a permissible use will not intensity future development on-site and is considered supportable on traffic

planning grounds.

16.326r01v6 TRAFFIX 4-18 Northwood Road Northwood - Traffic Impact Assessment (Planning Proposal).docx 47

Appendix A

RMS Correspondence

16.326r01v6 TRAFFIX 4-18 Northwood Road Northwood - Traffic Impact Assessment (Planning Proposal).docx 48

Appendix B

Photographic Record

View looking south on Longueville Road with subject site on left-hand side of photograph.

View looking north on Northwood Road with subject site on right-hand side of photograph.

View looking north on Longueville Road at the intersection of River Road West.

View looking north on Kenneth Street towards the intersection of Longueville Road and Northwood Road.

View looking south at the intersection of Kenneth Street, Longueville Road and Northwood Road, with subject site straight ahead.

View looking north on Northwood Road towards intersection with River Road.

Appendix C

Surveys (2012 & 2016)

R.O.A.R. DATA : Traffix

Reliable, Original & Authentic Results : 6165 LANE COVE Northwood Rd

Ph.88196847, Mob.0418-239019 : Tuesday 2nd August 2016 2016

All Vehicles All Vehicles

Time Per L T R L T R TOTAL Time Per L T R L T R TOTAL

0700 - 0715 26 244 3 57 114 39 483 1600 - 1615 9 99 2 37 209 53 409

0715 - 0730 32 310 3 36 110 56 547 1615 - 1630 18 114 0 62 267 63 524

0730 - 0745 23 329 2 47 148 62 611 1630 - 1645 16 121 1 62 236 55 491

0745 - 0800 30 338 0 44 192 70 674 1645 - 1700 17 134 3 57 250 64 525

0800 - 0815 39 309 0 45 200 88 681 1700 - 1715 19 167 1 65 274 67 593

0815 - 0830 47 321 1 54 172 65 660 1715 - 1730 13 150 2 55 297 71 588

0830 - 0845 45 316 2 61 137 71 632 1730 - 1745 15 149 2 61 258 65 550

0845 - 0900 35 319 1 69 139 68 631 1745 - 1800 15 135 1 58 261 60 530

Period End 277 2486 12 413 1212 519 4919 Period End 122 1069 12 457 2052 498 4210

Peak Per L T R L T R TOTAL Peak Per L T R L T R TOTAL

0700 - 0800 111 1221 8 184 564 227 2315 1600 - 1700 60 468 6 218 962 235 1949

0715 - 0815 124 1286 5 172 650 276 2513 1615 - 1715 70 536 5 246 1027 249 2133

0730 - 0830 139 1297 3 190 712 285 2626 1630 - 1730 65 572 7 239 1057 257 2197

0745 - 0845 161 1284 3 204 701 294 2647 1645 - 1745 64 600 8 238 1079 267 2256

0800 - 0900 166 1265 4 229 648 292 2604 1700 - 1800 62 601 6 239 1090 263 2261

PEAK HR 124 1286 5 172 650 276 2513 PEAK HOUR 62 601 6 239 1090 263 2261

N177 245

400 325

5 172 6 239

Copyright ROAR DATA

1410 1458 663 840

124 276 62 263

1286 650 601 1090

655 926 1096 1353

Northwood RdRiver Rd W Northwood Rd

Longueville Rd

0715 - 0815 1700 - 1800PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR

Longueville Northwood WEST NORTH

River Rd W Longueville Northwood River Rd WEAST WEST

NORTH EAST

Longueville Northwood

NORTH EAST

River Rd W Longueville Northwood River Rd WWEST NORTH EAST

Longueville Rd

Client

Job No/Name

Day/Date

WEST

River Rd W

R.O.A.R DATA : Traffix



N

1224 1731 2064 2550

River Rd W Northwood Rd

Northwood Rd River Rd W

469

2763 2899 1191 1526

796 620

425

Longueville Rd Longueville Rd

AMPM

TOTAL VOLUMES

FOR COUNT

PERIODS

Job No/Name

Day/Date

Client

R.O.A.R DATA : Traffix



AM PM

Client

Job No/Name

Day/Date

River Rd Wst / Longueville Rd / Northwood Rd

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Nu

mb

er

of

Veh

icle

s

Time Period

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Nu

mb

er

of

Veh

icle

s

Time Period

Appendix D

SIDRA Intersection Outputs

SITE LAYOUT

Site: 01 [01 Northwood Rd - Kenneth St FU - AM]

Northwood Road & Kenneth StreetScenario: Existing + Development (Future)Period: AMSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated

SITE LAYOUT

Site: 01 [01 Northwood Rd - Kenneth St FU - PM]

Northwood Road & Kenneth StreetScenario: Existing + Future (Development)Period: PMSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated

SITE LAYOUT

Site: 101 [03 Longueville Rd - River Rd W EX - AM]

Longueville Rd & River Road WestScenario: ExistingPeriod: AMSignals - Fixed Time Isolated

SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: TRAFFIX PTY LTD | Created: Monday, 16 October 2017 9:49:12 PMProject: T:\Synergy\Projects\16\16.326\Modelling\16.326m01v7 TRAFFIX Northwood - Zero Impact.sip7

SITE LAYOUT

Site: 101 [03 Longueville Rd - River Rd W FU - AM]

Longueville Rd & River Road WestScenario: Existing + Development (Future)Period: AMSignals - Fixed Time Isolated

SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: TRAFFIX PTY LTD | Created: Monday, 16 October 2017 9:50:11 PMProject: T:\Synergy\Projects\16\16.326\Modelling\16.326m01v7 TRAFFIX Northwood - Zero Impact.sip7

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 101 [03 Longueville Rd - River Rd W EX - AM] Network: N101 [01 AM EX]

Longueville Rd & River Road WestScenario: ExistingPeriod: AMSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 108 seconds (Network Cycle Time - User-Given)

Movement Performance - Vehicles

Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back of QueueMovID

ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

AverageSpeed Total HV Total HV Vehicles Distance

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

1a L1 684 5.0 684 5.0 0.476 3.7 LOS A 3.6 26.4 0.11 0.55 56.0

3a R1 291 5.0 291 5.0 0.739 57.4 LOS E 7.8 57.1 1.00 0.86 34.0

Approach 975 5.0 975 5.0 0.739 19.7 LOS B 7.8 57.1 0.38 0.64 47.1

NorthEast: Longueville Road

24a L1 181 5.0 181 5.0 0.230 42.9 LOS D 4.0 29.1 0.87 0.76 38.3

Approach 181 5.0 181 5.0 0.230 42.9 LOS D 4.0 29.1 0.87 0.76 38.3

NorthWest: River Road West

27 L2 131 5.0 131 5.0 0.594 17.5 LOS B 20.4 149.2 0.58 0.78 53.8

29a R1 1354 5.0 1354 5.0 0.594 15.5 LOS B 20.9 152.2 0.59 0.77 50.1

Approach 1484 5.0 1484 5.0 0.594 15.6 LOS B 20.9 152.2 0.59 0.77 50.7

All Vehicles 2640 5.0 2640 5.0 0.739 19.0 LOS B 20.9 152.2 0.53 0.72 48.4

Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (RTA NSW). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Network tab).

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movement.

Intersection 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.

Largest change in Average Back of Queue or Degree of Saturation for any lane during the last three iterations: 55.7 %

Number of Iterations: 10 (maximum specified: 10)

Movement Performance - Pedestrians

Average Back of QueueMovID Description

DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop RatePedestrian Distance

ped/h sec ped m per ped

P6 NorthEast Full Crossing 53 9.4 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.42 0.42

P7 NorthWest Full Crossing 53 48.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95

All Pedestrians 105 28.8 LOS C 0.68 0.68

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.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: TRAFFIX PTY LTD | Processed: Monday, 16 October 2017 8:32:43 PMProject: T:\Synergy\Projects\16\16.326\Modelling\16.326m01v7 TRAFFIX Northwood - Zero Impact.sip7

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01 [01 Northwood Rd - Kenneth St EX - AM] Network: N101 [01 AM EX]

Northwood Road & Kenneth StreetScenario: ExistingPeriod: AMSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 108 seconds (Network Cycle Time - User-Given)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


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

1a L1 193 5.0 193 5.0 0.322 33.2 LOS C 7.7 55.9 0.80 0.76 13.0

3b R3 160 5.0 160 5.0 0.686 55.3 LOS D 8.5 61.9 1.00 0.85 16.7

Approach 353 5.0 353 5.0 0.686 43.2 LOS D 8.5 61.9 0.89 0.80 15.3

SouthEast: Northwood Rd (south)

21b L3 13 5.0 13 5.0 0.508 15.4 LOS B 11.2 82.0 0.43 0.39 36.2

22 T1 798 5.0 798 5.0 0.508 10.0 LOS A 11.2 82.0 0.43 0.39 31.5

Approach 811 5.0 811 5.0 0.508 10.1 LOS A 11.2 82.0 0.43 0.39 31.6

NorthWest: Northwood Rd (north)

28 T1 1526 5.0 1526 5.0 0.546 0.5 LOS A 1.7 12.4 0.05 0.04 48.8

29a R1 117 5.0 117 5.0 0.230 3.3 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.06 0.44 40.3

Approach 1643 5.0 1643 5.0 0.546 0.7 LOS A 1.7 12.4 0.05 0.07 48.2

All Vehicles 2806 5.0 2806 5.0 0.686 8.8 LOS A 11.2 82.0 0.26 0.25 34.0











DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued



P1 South Full Crossing 53 13.5 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.50 0.50

P5 SouthEast Full Crossing 53 48.3 LOS E 0.2 0.2 0.95 0.95

All Pedestrians 105 30.9 LOS D 0.72 0.72





MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01 [01 Northwood Rd - Kenneth St FU - AM] Network: N101 [02 AM FU]

Northwood Road & Kenneth StreetScenario: Existing + Development (Future)Period: AMSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 108 seconds (Network Cycle Time - User-Given)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1a L1 191 5.1 191 5.1 0.318 33.2 LOS C 7.6 55.2 0.80 0.76 13.0

3a R1 6 0.0 6 0.0 0.682 53.3 LOS D 8.5 61.8 1.00 0.84 24.4

3b R3 154 5.2 154 5.2 0.682 55.2 LOS D 8.5 61.8 1.00 0.84 16.8

Approach 351 5.0 351 5.0 0.682 43.2 LOS D 8.5 61.8 0.89 0.80 15.5


21b L3 13 5.0 13 5.0 0.508 15.4 LOS B 11.2 82.0 0.43 0.39 36.2

22 T1 798 5.0 798 5.0 0.508 10.0 LOS A 11.2 82.0 0.43 0.39 31.5

Approach 811 5.0 811 5.0 0.508 10.1 LOS A 11.2 82.0 0.43 0.39 31.6


27 L2 18 0.0 18 0.0 0.549 3.7 LOS A 1.7 12.5 0.05 0.06 55.2

28 T1 1518 5.0 1518 5.0 0.549 0.5 LOS A 1.7 12.6 0.05 0.05 48.7

29a R1 117 5.0 117 5.0 0.230 3.3 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.06 0.44 40.3

Approach 1653 5.0 1653 5.0 0.549 0.7 LOS A 1.7 12.6 0.05 0.08 48.3

All Vehicles 2814 5.0 2814 5.0 0.682 8.7 LOS A 11.2 82.0 0.26 0.26 34.2











DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued





P6 NorthEast Full Crossing 53 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.45 0.45






MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 101 [03 Longueville Rd - River Rd W FU - AM] Network: N101 [02 AM FU]

Longueville Rd & River Road WestScenario: Existing + Development (Future)Period: AMSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 108 seconds (Network Cycle Time - User-Given)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1a L1 683 5.0 683 5.0 0.476 3.7 LOS A 3.6 26.1 0.11 0.55 56.0

3a R1 289 5.0 289 5.0 0.736 57.3 LOS E 7.8 57.1 1.00 0.86 34.0

Approach 973 5.0 973 5.0 0.736 19.7 LOS B 7.8 57.1 0.37 0.64 47.1


24a L1 181 5.0 181 5.0 0.230 42.9 LOS D 4.0 29.1 0.87 0.76 38.3

Approach 181 5.0 181 5.0 0.230 42.9 LOS D 4.0 29.1 0.87 0.76 38.3


27 L2 131 5.0 131 5.0 0.595 17.5 LOS B 20.5 149.4 0.58 0.78 53.8

29a R1 1355 5.0 1355 5.0 0.595 15.5 LOS B 20.9 152.4 0.59 0.77 50.1

Approach 1485 5.0 1485 5.0 0.595 15.6 LOS B 20.9 152.4 0.59 0.77 50.7












DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued



P6 NorthEast Full Crossing 53 9.4 LOS A 0.1 0.1 0.42 0.42







MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 101 [03 Longueville Rd - River Rd W EX - PM] Network: N101 [03 PM EX]

Longueville Rd & River Road WestScenario: ExistingPeriod: PMSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 108 seconds (Network Cycle Time - User-Given)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1a L1 1147 5.0 1147 5.0 0.665 8.8 LOS A 7.8 57.1 0.24 0.60 52.8

3a R1 277 5.0 277 5.0 0.665 35.9 LOS C 7.8 57.1 0.97 0.87 40.3

Approach 1424 5.0 1424 5.0 0.665 14.1 LOS A 7.8 57.1 0.38 0.65 49.9


24a L1 252 5.0 252 5.0 0.177 19.9 LOS B 4.7 34.0 0.57 0.71 47.5

Approach 252 5.0 252 5.0 0.177 19.9 LOS B 4.7 34.0 0.57 0.71 47.5


27 L2 65 5.0 65 5.0 0.658 36.0 LOS C 19.8 144.5 0.88 0.86 48.6

29a R1 633 5.0 633 5.0 0.658 35.2 LOS C 19.8 144.5 0.88 0.85 41.5

Approach 698 5.0 698 5.0 0.658 35.2 LOS C 19.8 144.5 0.88 0.85 42.5












DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued



P6 NorthEast Full Crossing 53 27.5 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.71 0.71







MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01 [01 Northwood Rd - Kenneth St EX - PM] Network: N101 [03 PM EX]

Northwood Road & Kenneth StreetScenario: ExistingPeriod: PMSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 108 seconds (Network Cycle Time - User-Given)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1a L1 169 5.0 169 5.0 0.291 33.6 LOS C 6.7 49.1 0.80 0.75 12.9

3b R3 92 5.0 92 5.0 0.393 51.7 LOS D 4.5 33.0 0.95 0.78 17.5

Approach 261 5.0 261 5.0 0.393 39.9 LOS C 6.7 49.1 0.85 0.76 15.2


21b L3 23 5.0 23 5.0 0.902 28.1 LOS B 45.5 331.9 0.82 0.84 27.3

22 T1 1439 5.0 1439 5.0 0.902 26.4 LOS B 45.5 331.9 0.82 0.88 19.8

Approach 1462 5.0 1462 5.0 0.902 26.4 LOS B 45.5 331.9 0.82 0.88 19.9


28 T1 767 5.0 767 5.0 0.274 0.4 LOS A 0.5 3.9 0.03 0.03 49.1

29a R1 192 5.0 192 5.0 0.643 33.7 LOS C 7.8 57.1 0.85 0.93 14.9

Approach 959 5.0 959 5.0 0.643 7.0 LOS A 7.8 57.1 0.19 0.21 36.3












DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued










MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 01 [01 Northwood Rd - Kenneth St FU - PM] Network: N101 [04 PM FU]

Northwood Road & Kenneth StreetScenario: Existing + Future (Development)Period: PMSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 108 seconds (Network Cycle Time - User-Given)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1a L1 168 5.0 168 5.0 0.290 33.6 LOS C 6.7 48.8 0.80 0.75 12.9

3a R1 11 0.0 11 0.0 0.386 49.8 LOS D 4.5 32.9 0.95 0.78 25.4

3b R3 81 5.6 81 5.6 0.386 51.7 LOS D 4.5 32.9 0.95 0.78 17.6

Approach 260 5.0 260 5.0 0.386 39.9 LOS C 6.7 48.8 0.85 0.76 15.7


21b L3 23 5.0 23 5.0 0.902 28.1 LOS B 45.5 331.9 0.82 0.84 27.3

22 T1 1439 5.0 1439 5.0 0.902 26.4 LOS B 45.5 331.9 0.82 0.88 19.8

Approach 1462 5.0 1462 5.0 0.902 26.4 LOS B 45.5 331.9 0.82 0.88 19.9


27 L2 24 0.0 24 0.0 0.279 3.6 LOS A 0.6 4.0 0.03 0.07 55.2

28 T1 755 5.1 755 5.1 0.279 0.4 LOS A 0.6 4.0 0.03 0.05 48.8

29a R1 192 5.0 192 5.0 0.643 33.7 LOS C 7.8 57.1 0.85 0.93 14.9

Approach 971 4.9 971 4.9 0.643 7.0 LOS A 7.8 57.1 0.19 0.22 36.7












DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued





P6 NorthEast Full Crossing 53 10.7 LOS B 0.1 0.1 0.45 0.45






MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 101 [03 Longueville Rd - River Rd W FU - PM] Network: N101 [04 PM FU]

Longueville Rd & River Road WestScenario: Existing + Development (Future)Period: PMSignals - Fixed Time Coordinated Cycle Time = 108 seconds (Network Cycle Time - User-Given)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1a L1 1152 5.0 1152 5.0 0.669 8.8 LOS A 7.8 57.1 0.24 0.60 52.9

3a R1 281 4.9 281 4.9 0.669 35.9 LOS C 7.8 57.1 0.97 0.87 40.3

Approach 1433 5.0 1433 5.0 0.669 14.1 LOS A 7.8 57.1 0.39 0.65 49.9


24a L1 252 5.0 252 5.0 0.177 19.9 LOS B 4.7 34.0 0.57 0.71 47.5

Approach 252 5.0 252 5.0 0.177 19.9 LOS B 4.7 34.0 0.57 0.71 47.5


27 L2 65 5.0 65 5.0 0.657 36.1 LOS C 19.8 144.6 0.88 0.86 48.6

29a R1 633 5.0 633 5.0 0.657 35.2 LOS C 19.8 144.6 0.88 0.85 41.4

Approach 698 5.0 698 5.0 0.657 35.3 LOS C 19.8 144.6 0.88 0.85 42.5












DemandFlow

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued



P6 NorthEast Full Crossing 53 27.5 LOS C 0.1 0.1 0.71 0.71







SITE LAYOUT

Site: 02 [02 Northwood Rd - River Rd EX - AM]

Northwood Road & River RoadScenario: ExistingPeriod: AMGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)

SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2016 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: TRAFFIX | Created: Thursday, 8 September 2016 6:09:21 PMProject: T:\Synergy\Projects\16\16.326\Modelling\16.326m01v4 TRAFFIX Northwood.sip7

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 02 [02 Northwood Rd - River Rd EX - AM] Network: N101 [01 AM EX]

Northwood Road & River RoadScenario: ExistingPeriod: AMGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate


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

1 L2 97 5.0 97 5.0 0.156 10.6 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.73 0.83 18.1

3 R2 92 5.0 92 5.0 1.018 135.5 LOS F 6.2 45.0 1.00 1.60 11.9

Approach 188 5.0 188 5.0 1.018 71.3 LOS F 6.2 45.0 0.86 1.20 12.5

East: River Road (east)

4 L2 66 5.0 66 5.0 0.209 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.10 54.4

5 T1 721 5.0 721 5.0 0.209 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 59.1

Approach 787 5.0 787 5.0 0.209 0.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 58.7

West: Northwood Road (west)

11 T1 1718 5.0 1718 5.0 0.491 0.6 LOS A 1.6 11.8 0.08 0.02 58.7

12 R2 40 5.0 40 5.0 0.491 15.7 LOS B 1.6 11.8 0.18 0.03 47.7

Approach 1758 5.0 1758 5.0 0.491 1.0 NA 1.6 11.8 0.08 0.02 58.6

All Vehicles 2734 5.0 2734 5.0 1.018 5.7 NA 6.2 45.0 0.11 0.11 52.0



Minor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.




SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 | Copyright © 2000-2016 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: TRAFFIX | Processed: Thursday, 8 September 2016 5:14:47 PMProject: T:\Synergy\Projects\16\16.326\Modelling\16.326m01v4 TRAFFIX Northwood.sip7

MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 02 [02 Northwood Rd - River Rd EX - PM] Network: N101 [03 PM EX]

Northwood Road & River RoadScenario: ExistingPeriod: PMGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 58 5.0 58 5.0 0.827 106.3 LOS F 2.4 17.2 0.95 1.24 2.7

3 R2 37 5.0 37 5.0 0.833 185.0 LOS F 2.9 21.0 0.99 1.15 9.3

Approach 95 5.0 95 5.0 0.833 136.9 LOS F 2.9 21.0 0.97 1.20 6.4


4 L2 118 5.0 118 5.0 0.553 5.8 LOS A 2.8 20.2 0.00 0.12 53.9

5 T1 1399 5.0 1399 5.0 0.553 0.1 LOS A 2.8 20.2 0.00 0.04 59.0

Approach 1517 5.0 1517 5.0 0.553 0.6 NA 2.8 20.2 0.00 0.05 58.5


11 T1 767 5.0 767 5.0 0.406 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 59.9

12 R2 76 5.0 76 5.0 0.598 49.4 LOS D 1.9 14.0 0.96 1.07 15.6

Approach 843 5.0 843 5.0 0.598 4.5 NA 1.9 14.0 0.09 0.10 53.9

All Vehicles 2455 5.0 2455 5.0 0.833 7.2 NA 2.9 21.0 0.07 0.11 49.3









MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 02 [02 Northwood Rd - River Rd FU - AM] Network: N101 [02 AM FU]

Northwood Road & River RoadScenario: Existing + Development (Future)Period: AMGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 97 5.0 97 5.0 0.157 10.6 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.73 0.83 18.1

3 R2 92 5.0 92 5.0 1.018 134.3 LOS F 6.1 44.6 1.00 1.59 12.0

Approach 188 5.0 188 5.0 1.018 70.7 LOS F 6.1 44.6 0.86 1.20 12.6


4 L2 75 4.4 75 4.4 0.212 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.11 54.2

5 T1 721 5.0 721 5.0 0.212 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 59.1

Approach 796 4.9 796 4.9 0.212 0.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06 58.5


11 T1 1722 5.0 1722 5.0 0.507 0.9 LOS A 2.3 16.5 0.11 0.02 58.3

12 R2 57 3.5 57 3.5 0.507 15.7 LOS B 2.3 16.5 0.25 0.05 46.0

Approach 1779 4.9 1779 4.9 0.507 1.4 NA 2.3 16.5 0.11 0.02 58.1

All Vehicles 2763 4.9 2763 4.9 1.018 5.9 NA 6.1 44.6 0.13 0.11 51.8









MOVEMENT SUMMARY

Site: 02 [02 Northwood Rd - River Rd FU - PM] Network: N101 [04 PM FU]

Northwood Road & River RoadScenario: Existing + Development (Future)Period: PMGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)



ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate



1 L2 58 5.0 58 5.0 0.832 108.5 LOS F 2.4 17.5 0.95 1.24 2.6

3 R2 37 5.0 37 5.0 0.887 215.7 LOS F 3.3 23.8 1.00 1.19 8.1

Approach 95 5.0 95 5.0 0.887 150.2 LOS F 3.3 23.8 0.97 1.22 5.9


4 L2 124 4.7 124 4.7 0.555 5.8 LOS A 2.8 20.2 0.00 0.13 53.8

5 T1 1399 5.0 1399 5.0 0.555 0.1 LOS A 2.8 20.2 0.00 0.04 59.0

Approach 1523 5.0 1523 5.0 0.555 0.6 NA 2.8 20.2 0.00 0.05 58.5


11 T1 779 4.9 779 4.9 0.412 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 59.9

12 R2 93 4.1 93 4.1 0.730 59.0 LOS E 2.6 19.0 0.97 1.13 13.8

Approach 872 4.8 872 4.8 0.730 6.3 NA 2.6 19.0 0.10 0.12 51.8

All Vehicles 2489 4.9 2489 4.9 0.887 8.3 NA 3.3 23.8 0.07 0.12 48.0









Appendix E

TCS Plans

Appendix F

Road Safety Audit

Traffix

4-16 Northwood Road and 274 Longueville Road, Lane Cove

Feasibility design road safety audit

4-16 Northwood Road and 274 Longueville Road, Lane Cove-Feasibility design road safety audit

DC Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd –ABN 50 148 960 632 trf-proj-0015-01 fd rsa lane cove rev 2

DC Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd

ABN 50 148 960 632

www.dctrafficengineering.com.au

Traffix

4-16 Northwood Road and 274 Longueville Road, Lane Cove

Feasibility design road safety audit

Authors Damien Chee

-

Report No TRF-PROJ-0015-01 FD RSA LANE COVE REV 2

Date 11/10/2017

This report has been prepared for Traffix.


DC Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd –ABN 50 148 960 632 Page i trf-proj-0015-01 fd rsa lane cove rev 2

-

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project and audit details ....................................................................... 1

1.2 Responding to the audit report ............................................................. 3

1.3 Previous audits ..................................................................................... 3

2 Safety audit findings ............................................................................. 4

3 Concluding statement ......................................................................... 11

Appendices

Appendix A

Road Safety Audit Checklist


DC Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd –ABN 50 148 960 632 Page 1 trf-proj-0015-01 fd rsa lane cove rev 2

1 Introduction

1.1 Project and audit details Details of the audit have been summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Details of the road safety audit.

Audited project Proposed changes to the signalised intersection of Northwood Road/ Kenneth Street. This is in response to a proposal to re-develop the combined land parcel covered by 274 Longueville Road and properties 4-16 Northwood Road.

Client/ contact Kedar Ballurkar

Senior Engineer

Traffix

Ph: (02) 8324 8700 / 0488 070 119

E: [email protected]

Audit type Feasibility design road safety audit.

Purpose To consider potential road safety implications of the proposed access/ egress arrangements to this development and the proposed changes to the Northwood Road/ Kenneth Street intersection. As there is no formal design available, this road safety audit was based on the starting concept shown in Figure 1. The lack of finer details meant that the proposal was reviewed at a high-level. The road safety findings would therefore serve as “prompts for consideration” in the refinement of the design to concept design and then to detailed design.

Background A planning proposal (PP) has been submitted for the re-development of the combined land parcel covered by 274 Longueville Road and properties 4-16 Northwood Road at Lane Cove. The development will consist of (i) a residential care facility for aged persons containing 130 beds and 20 employees, (ii) a veterinary hospital containing 760 square metres of gross floor area and five employees, and (iii) 685 square metres of gross floor area for retail and restaurant purposes.

At the pre-submission, consultation stage, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) gave in-principle agreement to the following modifications to the intersection of Northwood Road/ Kenneth Street:

▪ Construction of a fourth and eastern leg to the Northwood Road/ Kenneth Street intersection to allow for inbound movements to the new site. This leg would be integrated with the traffic signal control such that it forms a formal road departure from the intersection, and not merely a driveway stemming off the road.

▪ The new eastern departure providing access to the site would be restricted to (i) southbound left-turn movements from Northwood Road (this includes the extension of the southbound through movement from Longueville Road as well as the eastbound right-turn movement from River Road West), and (ii) northbound through movement from Kenneth Street. The northbound right-turn from Northwood Road into the site would be prohibited.

▪ The egress driveway from the site will be further east and will emerge into Northwood Road. This will be restricted to left-out only with all other movements banned.

Figure 1 shows these proposed changes.

RMS stipulated the need for a road safety audit of the proposed changes described above. Given that there is no formal design for these changes, this is considered a feasibility stage road safety audit.

mailto:[email protected]


Page 2 DC Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd –ABN 50 148 960 632

trf-proj-0015-01 fd rsa lane cove rev 2

Scope of project/ audit

As stated above, there is no formal design for these access/ egress changes and the modifications to the Northwood Road/ Kenneth Street intersection. As such, the following assumptions were made:

▪ The inbound access to the proposed development would be a formal roadway and not merely a driveway stemming off Northwood Road. As a formal roadway, it would be under the overall traffic signal control of the Northwood Road/ Kenneth Street intersection, which is currently traffic signal controlled.

▪ The inbound access would be a single lane departing from the intersection. There would be no approach lanes feeding traffic to the intersection from this leg.

▪ The traffic signal-control affecting the inbound leg would be time-separation between inbound traffic and pedestrians on the eastern footpath that would be crossing this leg. There are no other conflicting traffic movements since this is a one-way, inbound-only leg.

▪ The existing two approach lanes in Kenneth Street would be modified such that lane 1 remains an exclusive left-turn lane. Lane 2 (currently a shared left-right lane) would be converted to a left-through-right lane. The inbound movement from Kenneth Street to the development would run concurrently with the right-turn movement which is currently controlled by full circle signal aspects. The pedestrian movement across the new eastern leg (access to the development) would be on “red man” display when the eastbound through-right movement from Kenneth Street receives a green full circle display.

These assumptions are based on typical methods of designing/ addressing such access/ egress issues.

Audit team details

Damien Chee, level 3 (lead) road safety auditor - Registration number: RSA-02-0094.

Linda Chee, level 2 road safety auditor –Registration number RSA-02-1069.

Audit methodology

The audit was undertaken using the following methodology:

▪ Formal review of the starting concept on 10/10/2017.

▪ Supporting site inspection carried out on 10/10/2017.

▪ The road safety audit findings have been documented in this report in accordance with the NSW Centre for Road Safety’s Guidelines for Road Safety Audit Practices (2011).

▪ This report includes completed road safety audit checklist as sourced from the Austroads Guide to Road Safety Part 6: Road Safety Audit.

Material supplied See scope of project/ audit.

Meeting and assessment details

Formal review of starting concept on 10/10/2017.

Supporting site inspection carried out on 10/10/2017.

Figure 1 The starting concept for the access/ egress arrangements to the proposed development.



1.2 Responding to the audit report

Road safety audits provide the opportunity to highlight potential road safety problems and have

them formally considered by the project manager in conjunction with all other project

considerations.

The responsibility for the project rests with the project manager, not with the auditor. The project

manager is under no obligation to accept the audit findings. Also, it is not the role of the auditor

to agree to, or approve the project manager’s responses to the audit.

1.3 Previous audits

There were no previous road safety audit reports issued to the audit team which were of direct

relevance to this project.



c:\users\damien\desktop\projects\traffix\lane cove\trf-proj-0015-01 fd rsa lane cove rev 2.docx

2 Safety audit findings The road safety audit findings are documented in Table 2.

Table 2 Road safety audit findings.

Ref Location Road safety audit finding Priority

1 Pedestrian (and bicycle) crossing on the eastern side of the Northwood Road/ Kenneth Road intersection.

The access road to the new development will be provided as a new eastern departure leg from the Northwood Road/ Kenneth Street intersection. As such, a signalised pedestrian crossing would be needed across this new departure leg. As described in items 4 and 6, a signalised bicycle crossing may also be needed since the eastern footpath is in fact, a designated shared path.

The design team should consider measures to safeguard these crossing pedestrians and cyclists from southbound left-turning vehicles. This is because the pedestrian/bicycle crossing movement would typically run in the same phase as the southbound through movement (which by default would also allow the southbound left-turn movement). Some safeguard measures are described below:

▪ Full left-turn control: This would involve provision of red, amber and green left-turn arrow aspects on the primary (approach left-hand side) and tertiary (departure left-hand side) signals. These three-aspect left-turn signals would provide full left-turn control allowing crossing pedestrians and cyclists to be protected under a red left-turn arrow display. Whilst this would be the best form of time-separation, it may compromise traffic efficiency since southbound through traffic could be penalised if they were queued behind a left-turning vehicle held on a red arrow.

▪ Partial left-turn control: This could involve use of a red left-turn arrow aspect with no other left-turn arrow aspects. The southbound left-turning vehicle would be held on red for an initial period to allow the pedestrians and cyclists to commence the crossing. Once this has happened, the red arrow would turn off and left-turning traffic would be able to filter through the pedestrian movement. This method only partially time-separates the two conflicting movements although may have less delays for southbound through traffic.

▪ No left-turn controls: This method offers the least protection for pedestrians and cyclists crossing this leg. The crossing movement would coincide with the full green circle aspect for the southbound direction. Left-turning vehicles would filter through the pedestrian/bicycle crossing movement.

High

Left: The new eastern departure leg from the intersection will require

a pedestrian (and possibly a separated bicycle crossing). The design

team should consider measures to safeguard crossing pedestrians/

cyclists from left-turning vehicles.


DC Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd –ABN 50 148 960 632 Page 5 c:\users\damien\desktop\projects\traffix\lane cove\trf-proj-0015-01 fd rsa lane cove rev 2.docx


2 Centreline of Northwood Road at the proposed site egress.

As there is no design available at present, the audit team were uncertain as to what forms of control (if any) will be used to prevent right-turns into or out of the site egress driveway. Some issues for consideration in the development of the design include:

▪ A raised median should be considered to physically inhibit right-turns into and out of the site egress driveway. Whilst this is an egress-only driveway, it may be necessary to physically inhibit the northbound right-turn entry movement as some unfamiliar users may not be aware that access/egress to/from the site is a one-way clockwise circulation arrangement. Also, some familiar drivers may deliberately attempt to use the egress driveway to access the site, since there would be no right-turn permitted from Northwood Road to the site access road further north.

▪ An R2-6 NO RIGHT-TURN sign should be provided for northbound traffic to make it clear that there are no right turns permitted into the egress driveway (to avoid the head-on crash conflict with egressing drivers).

▪ An R2-6 NO LEFT-TURN sign should be provided for southbound traffic as well as an R2-2 ONE WAY sign with the arrow facing outwards towards Northwood Road. This is to prohibit the left-turn entry to the egress driveway which would also present head-on crash conflicts with egressing vehicles.

Above: Looking north on Northwood Road towards the proposed site egress driveway. The design will need to consider measures for prohibiting and physically inhibiting right-turns into and out of the driveway.

High





3 Southbound traffic stream on Northwood Road in approach to the proposed site access road.

Northwood Road contains a horizontal curve at its intersection with Kenneth Street. The proposed eastern departure leg opposite Kenneth Street (which will provide access to the site) will be located on the inside of this horizontal curve. The existing property line is set back approximately 3.5m from the eastern kerbline of Northwood Road. Assuming that the new development will also be bound by the same property setback rules, there is a risk of restricted sight lines from southbound drivers to the new departure leg. That is, southbound drivers may not have clear visibility to vehicles/ objects in the site access road. These may include stopped or parked vehicles, or slow-moving vehicles, or pedestrians. The audit team raises the following issues to prompt consideration:

▪ Will there be any features in the access road that will require vehicles to slow down or stop? Eg. swipe card access, boom gates, roller doors? Such stopped or slow moving vehicles may be exposed to rear-end impacts by unsuspecting southbound drivers turning left into the access road.

▪ Will there be any servicing needs in the access road (eg. meter boxes, electrical substations, garbage bins) which would require vehicles to turn into this access and stop. Such vehicles could also be exposed to rear-end impacts.

▪ Will there be any pedestrian access or walkways along the access road? Pedestrians may be hidden from the view of southbound drivers turning left into the site.

Above: Northwood Road contains a horizontal curve at the point where the new intersection departure (new access road) will be located. The new site access road will be located at the yellow star.

Medium




4 Eastern footpath (shared path) of Northwood Road.

The proposed development will involve an egress driveway emerging onto Northwood Road to the southeast of the Kenneth Street intersection. As such, there may be higher volume vehicle movements from the site to Northwood Road at this location. The audit team notes that there are existing footpath functions as well as road-to-kerb access functions at this location which will need to be considered in the design of the future site egress. These include:

▪ There is an existing shared path designation on the eastern footpath (circled in yellow below). This means that pedestrians and cyclists would frequently use this path for northbound-southbound travel. The design will need to ensure that there are clear sight lines from egressing drivers to pedestrians and cyclists approaching the driveway-footpath interface from either direction. The sight triangles should account for the likely approach speeds of cyclists which would presumably result in wider sight triangles compared with a pedestrian-only footpath (which is limited to low-walk speeds and jogging speeds).

▪ There is an existing bus stop on this kerbline (white arrow). If this is retained, any stopped buses may block the egress driveway. Alternatively, the stopped bus may block visibility from the egressing driver to other southbound traffic on Northwood Road. This could lead to poor gap acceptance.

▪ The bus stop would also attract pedestrian activity such as waiting pedestrians or pedestrians moving to or from stopped buses. This may increase the risk of vehicle-pedestrian crashes involving egressing vehicles from the site.

▪ There is an Australia Post mailbox along this kerb (yellow arrow) which would require frequent kerb access by postal vehicles when collecting mail. This may also obstruct the egress driveway as well.

Above: Looking southbound along Northwood Road showing existing footpath and road-to-kerb access functions.

Medium





5 Kenneth Street in its approach to Northwood Road.

Kenneth Street approaches Northwood Road on a skewed angle and then presents a sudden curve in the immediate approach which creates a perpendicular junction angle (see below). Due to the skewed alignment of the approach, the left-turn movement to Northwood Road (towards River Road West and Longueville Road) actually appears to be a straight movement when viewed from further upstream, before the driver has reached the sudden horizontal curve. At present, there is little ambiguity since there are only two turn options presented – (i) a left-turn movement which the driver would understand would clearly be into Northwood Road North heading towards River Road West and Longueville Road or (ii) a right-turn movement into Northwood Road South which leads to North Sydney. However, following the addition of the eastern departure leg (new site access road), lane 2 of the Kenneth Street approach will contain left-straight-right pavement arrows. The straight through arrow (reproduced in the insert below) may be misinterpreted as the left-turn movement to Northwood Road North. This is due to the misleading approach angle relative to the angle of Northwood Road.

It may be necessary to rotate the pavement arrows slightly to better match the relative angles to when the driver has reached the hold line (after negotiating the sudden horizontal curve in the immediate approach to Northwood Road.

Above: Under existing conditions, there is little ambiguity regarding the meaning of the turn pavement arrows in Kenneth Street as there are only two turn options available. However, with the addition of the third option (straight through movement to the new eastern departure) the straight through pavement arrow (see insert) may be misinterpreted as the left-turn to Northwood Road North.

Medium




6 Eastern footpath of Northwood Road.

The audit team notes that the eastern footpath of Northwood Road is designated as a shared path. Furthermore, southbound cyclists on Longueville Road-Northwood Road are encouraged to leave the road traffic lanes and use this shared path (see photo below). The audit team raises the following concerns which should be considered in the development of the design:

▪ The signalised pedestrian crossing of the new departure leg providing access to the development (to be located opposite the Kenneth Street leg) would need to cater for cyclists as well. That is, a signalised bicycle crossing may be required adjacent to the pedestrian crossing and signs may be needed to advise each shared path user group to separate to their respective crossings. The crossing would need to be wide enough to allow both shared path user groups to cross (including movements in both direction) without impacting or blocking each other.

▪ Handrails or other holding devices may be needed so that cyclists can remain stable without toppling, when waiting for the signals to cross the road.

▪ Alternatively, signs or other measures may be needed to advise cyclists to dismount and use the crossing as a pedestrian. However, such measures usually experience a high degree of non-compliance with cyclists continuing to ride across the crossing.

Above: Looking southbound along Longueville Road towards the intersection with River Road West. Cyclists are encouraged to leave the road traffic lanes and enter the shared path on the eastern side of the road. The extension of Longueville Road to the south of the intersection is Northwood Road.

Low





7 Existing streetlighting pole and primary signal pole at the Northwood Road northern approach to its intersection with Kenneth Street.

There is an existing timber streetlighting pole adjacent to the hold line of Northwood Road in the northern approach to its intersection with Kenneth Street. The pole also acts as the primary signal post for the southbound direction and the secondary signal post for the northbound direction. The new eastern departure (site access road) will be positioned to the immediate south of this pole. As such, this pole may pose as an obstruction to entering vehicles. This is particularly the case for southbound left-turning vehicles whose swept path may not sufficiently clear the pole or the signals mounted to this pole. Such nuisance impacts could render the streetlight and/or traffic signals inoperable.

Above: Looking southbound along Northwood Road towards the existing streetlighting pole and the primary signals mounted to it.

Low



3 Concluding statement

DC Traffic Engineering has undertaken a feasibility stage road safety audit of this project

in accordance with the methodology outlined in Section 1 of this report.

Issues identified have been noted in this report for the Project Manager to review,

assess, and where appropriate, make the necessary recommendations to improve

safety.

Damien Chee

Audit Team Leader

DC Traffic Engineering Pty Ltd




Appendix A

Road Safety Audit Checklist



Issue Comment

1.1 General topics

1 Scope of project; function; traffic mix

▪ What is the intended function of the scheme? (comment)

▪ Is the design consistent with the function of the road? (eg. does it avoid

mixed function, mixing incompatible traffic activities, potential confusion

to drivers?)

▪ Will the proposed scheme/redesign adequately cater for:

▪ Cars?

▪ Motorcyclists?

▪ Pedal cyclists?

▪ Pedestrians?

▪ Heavy vehicles?

▪ Buses?

▪ Is the expected mix of traffic adequately catered for?

▪ Will the proposed scheme tie-in or be consistent with adjacent roads,

land forms and traffic management?

The project aims to modify the

Northwood Road/ Kenneth Street

intersection to allow access to a new

development on the eastern side of

Northwood Road.

2 Type and degree of access to property and developments:

▪ Is the degree of access control consistent with the road's function and

with other sections of the road?

▪ Will sight distances be satisfactory:

▪ At intersections?

▪ At property accesses?

▪ Is the design speed (or the likely vehicle speeds) compatible with the

number and type of intersections/property accesses present?

▪ Does the width of the right of way satisfy access requirements?

Sight lines from the egress driveway

to the shared path need to be

resolved.

Sight lines from the southbound lanes

of Northwood Road to the site access

road need to be addressed.

3 Major generators of traffic

▪ Are all major generators of traffic (including housing or shopping

centres) far enough away to avoid unsafe influences on the form of the

design?

▪ Have existing or alternative accesses been arranged to ensure existing

suburbs/areas are not cut off by the development of the

scheme/works?

▪ Are the accesses for significant traffic generators far enough away from

intersections for safety?

▪ Is sight distance to and from accesses to significant traffic generators

adequate?

▪ Will the proposed scheme tie-in or be consistent with adjacent roads,

land forms and traffic management?

See above notes regarding sight

lines.

4 Staging requirements

▪ Will this design be implemented in one stage only?

▪ If the design is to be implemented in more than one stage, has safety

been given a high priority in transitions:

▪ Between stages?

▪ To existing roads?

Unknown.




Issue Comment

▪ Will the work avoid problems with safety standards elsewhere during

construction?

5 Future works

▪ Will the route be free of compromises in safety if there is to be:

▪ Future widening?

▪ The addition of a complete second carriageway?

▪ Later realignments?

▪ Major geometric changes at intersections?

▪ Linear extensions of the scheme?

Unknown.

6 Wider network effects

▪ Have any harmful safety effects of this scheme upon the surrounding

road network been identified?

▪ Have they been adequately dealt with?

Yes.

1.2 Design issues (general)

1 Route choice

▪ Are all aspects associated with the location of the route and/or its

alignment safe?

▪ If the route follows existing roads what are the effects of this?

(comment)

▪ If the route is in "green fields" (undeveloped corridor), is the alignment

safe? Could it be safer? (comment)

▪ Does the scheme fit in with the physical constraints of the landscape?

▪ Does the scheme take account of major network considerations?

An additional turning movement/

option from Kenneth Street will be

available (straight through movement

into the site access road). There are

issues regarding potential confusion

with the pavement arrows due to the

skewed alignment of Kenneth Street

in approach to Northwood Road.

2 Impact of continuity with the existing network

▪ Are all sections/transitions where the proposed road scheme connects

with the existing network free of potential problems?

Yes.

3 Broad design standards

▪ Have the appropriate design standards been used (having regard to the

scope of the project and its function in relation to the traffic mix)?

▪ Does the geometric plan and profile meet design guidelines?

▪ Has the appropriate design vehicle and check vehicle been used?

Yes.

4 Design speed

▪ Has the appropriate design speed been selected with regard to:

▪ Horizontal and vertical alignment?

▪ Visibility?

▪ Merging?

▪ Weaving?

▪ Decelerating or accelerating traffic at intersections?

▪ Is sight distance generally satisfactory at:

▪ Intersections? (if not, what implications?)

▪ Entry and exit ramps?

▪ Property entrances?

▪ Emergency vehicle access points?

There is no design available at

present. This audit was based on a

starting concept.



Issue Comment

▪ Can any sudden change in the speed regime or posted speed limit be

safely accommodated?

▪ Is the designated speed limit, if any, on the proposed road appropriate?

▪ Is the designated or intended speed limit consistent with the design

speed?

5 Design volume and traffic characteristics

▪ Is the design appropriate with regard to the design volume and traffic

characteristics (including the effects of unusual proportions of heavy

vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, or side friction effects)?

▪ Will the scheme safely cope with unforeseen or large increases in

traffic volume?

▪ Will the scheme safely cope with unforeseen changes in the traffic

characteristics?

Yes.

1.3 Intersections

1 Number and type of intersections

▪ Are all aspects of intersections (eg. spacing, type, layout, etc.)

appropriate with respect to:

▪ The broad concept of the project?

▪ The function of this road and intersecting roads?

▪ The traffic mix on this road and intersecting roads?

▪ Types which are consistent within the scheme, and consistent with

adjacent sections?

▪ Is the frequency of intersections appropriate (neither too high or too

low):

▪ For safe access?

▪ To avoid impacts on the surrounding network?

▪ For emergency vehicle access?

▪ Have all physical, visibility or traffic management constraints which

would influence the choice or spacing of intersections been

considered? (comment needed)

▪ Has the vertical and/or horizontal alignment been taken into account

with regard to the style or spacing of intersections?

▪ Are all of the proposed intersections necessary or essential?

▪ Can any unnecessary intersections be removed / can access be

achieved more safely by changes on the surrounding road network?

▪ Will the angle of the intersecting roads and the sight lines be adequate

for the safety of all road users?

▪ Is the movement of vulnerable road users safely catered for at all

intersections?

▪ Is the movement of heavy vehicles safely catered for at all

intersections?

No. Several relevant issues raised in

Tables 3 and 4.

1.4 Environmental constraints




Issue Comment

1 Safety aspects

▪ Is the surrounding terrain free of physical or vegetation defects which

could affect the safety of the scheme? (eg. heavy planting, forestry,

deep cuttings, steep or rocky bluffs which constrain the design).

▪ Have effects like wind, mist, ice, fog, sun angles at sunrise and sunset

been given adequate consideration?

▪ Do the gradients, curves and general design approaches fit in with the

likely weather or environmental aspects of the terrain? (eg. fog prone

areas)

▪ Has safety been considered in the location of environmental features

(eg. noise fences)?

▪ Does the scheme deal adequately with potential animal conflicts? (eg.

kangaroos, wombats, cattle, etc.)

▪ Will the scheme perform safely at night when it is wet, or there is fog?

▪ Are visual distractions (eg. scenic vistas) adequately dealt with (eg. by

providing areas for people to stop safely)?

▪ Has the issue of unstable country been considered (eg. mine

subsidence)?

Potential sight obstructing elements

were identified and will need to be

resolved at the subsequent design

stage.

1.5 Any other matters

1 Safety aspects not already dealt with

▪ Has the possibility of flooding been adequately dealt with?

▪ Have any railway level crossings been identified and are they treated

adequately?

▪ Is any movement of stock safely accommodated?

▪ Have other distractions (eg. low flying aircraft, advertising, etc.) been

adequately dealt with?

▪ Has the need for laybys or parking (eg. for tourist routes, trucks, picnic

or rest areas) been considered?

▪ Has the potential of the location to attract roadside stalls been

considered?

▪ Will there be special events? Have any consequent unusual or

hazardous conditions been considered?

▪ Have all classes of pedestrians that could be seriously affected by the

proposal been catered for? (eg. school children, elderly, etc.)?

▪ Have any safety or accident problems on the existing network been

addressed? (Not carried over to the new scheme)

▪ Has the issue of providing lighting for the design been considered?

▪ Has the need for drivers to stop been considered (eg. generally, rest

areas, truck parking, enforcement)?

▪ Any other matter which may have a bearing on safety?

Issues identified with respects to

safety of pedestrians and cyclists on

the eastern shared path of Northwood

Road.

traffic impact assessment€¦ · 16.326r01v10 traffix 4-18 northwood road northwood - traffic...

Documents