9 moreland road, coburg amendment c160 to the · senior traffic engineer. i have experience and...

1‐9 Moreland Road, Coburg – Amendment C160 to the Moreland Planning Scheme

Proposed Rezoning of Land from Industrial 3 Zone to Mixed‐Use Zone and Commercial 2 Zone

Date of Hearing: 7th November, 2016

Date of Statement: 24th October, 2016 Date of Inspections: 6th October, 2016

Prepared For the Applicant: H & I Nominees Pty Ltd Instructed By: Planning & Property Partners Pty Ltd

STATEMENT TO PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA FOR AMENDMENT TO C160 TO THE MORELAND

PLANNING SCHEME BY CHARMAINE DUNSTAN, TRAFFIC ENGINEER

Traffic Engineering Assessement 1‐9 Moreland Road, Coburg – Amendment C160 to the Moreland Planning Scheme

21648R#1

Traffic Engineering Assessment

Proposed Rezoning of Land from Industrial 3 Zone to Mixed‐Use Zone and Commercial 2 Zone at 1‐9 Moreland Road, Coburg – Amendment C160 to the Moreland Planning Scheme

Document Control

Issue No. Type Date Prepared By Approved By

1 Draft 24/10/2016 C. Dunstan/

J. Place C. Dunstan

2 Final 25/10/2016 C. Dunstan/

J. Place C. Dunstan

Traffix Template Version 1.0 – May, 2015

Our Reference: 21648R#1

COPYRIGHT: The ideas and material contained in this document are the property of Traffix Group (Traffix Group Pty Ltd – ABN 32 100 481 570, Traffix

Survey Pty Ltd – ABN 57 120 461 510, Traffix Design Pty Ltd – ABN 41 060 899 443). Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the

written permission of Traffix Group constitutes an infringement of copyright.

LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Traffix Group’s client, and is subject to and issued in connection

with the provisions of the agreement between Traffix Group and its client. Traffix Group accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in

respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.


21648R#1 Page i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

2 Statement of Witness ............................................................................................................ 1

2.1 Qualifications and Experience ...................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Project Team ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.3 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 2

2.3.1 Key Tasks ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.3.2 Experiments .................................................................................................................................. 3

2.3.3 Reference Documents ................................................................................................................... 3

3 Amendment C160 .................................................................................................................. 4

4 Development Potential of the Subject Site ............................................................................. 5

5 Submissions ........................................................................................................................... 7

6 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 12

6.1 Subject Site ................................................................................................................................. 12

6.2 Road Network ............................................................................................................................. 15

6.2.1 Road Safety Review ..................................................................................................................... 16

6.3 Existing Parking Conditions ......................................................................................................... 19

6.4 Existing Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................... 20

6.5 Sustainable Transport Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 22

6.5.1 Public Transport .......................................................................................................................... 22

6.5.2 Bicycle Infrastructure and Walking ............................................................................................. 23

6.6 Key Demographic Data ............................................................................................................... 24

6.6.1 Resident Car Ownership ............................................................................................................. 24

6.6.2 Journey to Work Data ................................................................................................................. 24

7 Traffic Engineering Assessments .......................................................................................... 25

7.1 Traffic Generation ....................................................................................................................... 25

7.2 Traffic Distribution ...................................................................................................................... 26

7.3 Traffic Impact .............................................................................................................................. 28

7.4 Road Hierarchy ............................................................................................................................ 30

8 Moreland Road Moore Street Connection ............................................................................ 32

9 Consideration of DDO25 Requirements ................................................................................ 33

10 Response to Submissions ..................................................................................................... 34

11 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 37


21648R#1 Page ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Parking Survey Area ................................................................................................................ 3

Figure 2: Amendment C160 Proposed Land Use Zones ......................................................................... 4

Figure 3: 1‐9 Moreland Road Concept Plan – Access and Circulation ................................................... 6

Figure 4: Locality Plan ........................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5: Aerial Photograph of Subject Site ......................................................................................... 13

Figure 6: Land Use Zoning Map ............................................................................................................ 14

Figure 7: Moreland Road – view east ................................................................................................... 15

Figure 8: Moreland Road – view west .................................................................................................. 15

Figure 9: Moore Street view east (at Campbell Reserve) .................................................................... 16

Figure 10: Moore Street view west (at Campbell Reserve) ................................................................. 16

Figure 11: Road Safety Review Area .................................................................................................... 16

Figure 12: Parking Survey Area ............................................................................................................ 19

Figure 13: Profile of On‐Street Parking Demand – Entire Survey Area ................................................ 20

Figure 14: Tube Counter Locations ...................................................................................................... 21

Figure 15: Public Transport Map .......................................................................................................... 22

Figure 16: Moreland City Council TravelSmart Map ............................................................................ 23

Figure 17: Predicted Development Traffic Distribution ....................................................................... 28

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Traffic Engineering Related Third Party Submissions .......................................... 7

Table 2: Casualty crash history (1st January, 2011 and 31st December, 2015) ..................................... 17

Table 3: Summary of Traffic Characteristics ......................................................................................... 21

Table 4: Summary of Public Transport Services ................................................................................... 22

Table 5: Car Ownership Data: 2011 Census, Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for Flat/Unit/Apt. 24

Table 6: Journey to Work Data: 2011 Census ..................................................................................... 24

Table 7: Predicted Traffic Generation for Planning Purposes – Residential ........................................ 25

Table 8: Predicted Traffic Generation for Planning Purposes – Commercial ....................................... 25

Table 9: Traffic Distribution and Volumes – Proposed Development .................................................. 27

Table 10: SIDRA Output – Moreland Road/Major Site Access .............................................................. 29

Table 11: Clause 56.06‐8 – Table C1 Design of Roads and Neighbourhood Streets ............................. 30


21648R#1 Page iii

Table 12: Consideration of DDO25 Access & Movement Requirements .............................................. 33

Table 13: Response to Submissions ...................................................................................................... 34

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Practice Note – PNVCAT2 Expert Evidence

Appendix B: Parking Survey Results

Appendix C: SIDRA Output

Traffic Engineering Assessment 1‐9 Moreland Road, Coburg – Amendment C160 to the Moreland Planning Scheme

21648R#1 Page 1

1 Introduction

I have been retained by H & I Nominees Pty Ltd (the proponent) to undertake a traffic engineering

assessment for the proposed Amendment C160 of the Moreland Planning Scheme, affecting the land

located at 1‐9 Moreland Road, which rezones the land from Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) to Mixed‐Use Zone

(MUZ) and Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z) to facilitate commercial and residential development at the

subject site.

Amendment C160 includes the following:

Rezone the site from Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) to part Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z) and part Mixed Use

Zone (MUZ).

Introduce a new Design and Development Overlay (DD025) to the site. DD025 applies built form

requirements including mandatory building heights ranging from 4 to 6 storeys across the site.

Modify the extent of the Heritage Overlay (HO) to apply to the office building fronting Moreland

Road.

Apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the precinct to ensure potential contamination

issues are addressed.

While no specific indicative development concepts have been prepared for the subject site at this

stage, it is understood that the scale of development is likely to include in the order of:

300 apartments, and

4,000‐4,500m² of commercial floor area.

My assessment has adopted this potential development yield.

I have visited the site, undertaken surveys, made various assessments, perused relevant

documentation and plans.

2 Statement of Witness

2.1 Qualifications and Experience

My name is Charmaine Chalmers Dunstan. I am a Director of Traffix Group Pty Ltd practicing from

Suite 8, 431 Burke Road, Glen Iris.

My qualifications and membership of professional associations are as follows:‐

Bachelor of Civil Engineering (honours), Monash University, Clayton

Masters of Traffic, Monash University

Masters of Transport (current), Monash University

Member, Engineers Australia (IEAUST)

Fellow, Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association


21648R#1 Page 2

I have over 20 years experience as a Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning consultant with Traffix

Group Pty Ltd and formerly Turnbull Fenner Pty Ltd. My experience also includes a number of local

government appointments which involved acting in the role of Council’s Transport Co‐ordinator or

Senior Traffic Engineer.

I have experience and expertise in traffic management, road safety planning and engineering, parking

management and strategy development, and development impact assessment of a range of land‐use

developments.

A copy of my CV is attached at Appendix A.

2.2 Project Team

Jodie Place (Associate, Traffix Group) assisted with site inspections, supervision of parking and traffic

surveys and the preparation of this report.

Experienced survey staff members and technical officers employed by Traffix Group assisted with the

surveys detailed in this report.

2.3 Scope of Work

This report provides an assessment of the traffic engineering impacts of rezoning the former Spicers

Paper Mill site for residential and commercial purposes. The report considers the indicative

development proposal, which contemplates a potential development comprising:

300 apartments, and

4,000‐4,500m² of commercial floor area.

The assessment reviews the parking and traffic engineering impacts of the rezoning and potential

development of the subject site.

2.3.1 Key Tasks

Based on the available information, the scope of my engagement has included the following tasks:

inspection of the site and surrounding environs,

review of Amendment documentation,

review of Council policies and other relevant documents,

review of traffic and potential parking generation impacts of the proposal,

collection and analysis of traffic and parking data,

review of casualty road crash statistics,

review of indicative access arrangements,

review of third party submissions, and

preparation and giving of Expert Evidence in accordance with Planning Panels Victoria Guideline

No. 2 – Guide to Expert Evidence.


21648R#1 Page 3

2.3.2 Experiments

Inspections of the site and surrounding area have been undertaken as part of my evidence.

Automatic tube counts were undertaken in Moreland Road (immediately west of the site) and Moore

Street (at Holmes Road) for the 7‐day period between 7th and 13th October 2016.

A number of parking occupancy surveys were also conducted of the surrounding area as follows:

12pm, 1pm, 7pm & 8pm – Friday 14th October, 2016, and

12pm, 1pm, 7pm & 8pm – Saturday 15th October, 2016.

The surveyed area included on‐street parking within Moreland Road (up to approximately 400m

walking distance of the site) and Moore Street (refer to Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: Parking Survey Area

2.3.3 Reference Documents

I have reviewed the following documents as part of my assessment:

Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C160 documentation,

relevant sections of the Moreland Planning Scheme,

Plans prepared by Urbis dated 27th May 2015,

Traffic assessment prepared by Ratio dated June 2015,

Draft schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (undated),

Moreland City Council Urban Presentation prepared by Architecton dated 5th June 2015,

Rezoning report prepared by Urbis dated June 2015,

Various submissions from third parties and referral authorities,

Council meeting minutes dated 9th December 2015 and 14th September 2016,

relevant traffic data, and

other relevant traffic study reports.

Reproduced with permission of Melways Publishing Pty Ltd

Survey Area Survey Area


21648R#1 Page 4

3 Amendment C160

Amendment C160 of the Moreland Planning Scheme relates to a site specific amendment of the

Moreland Bay Planning Scheme in order to facilitate mixed use development at 1‐9 Moreland Road,

Coburg (former Spicers Paper Mill).

Amendment C160 proposes to:

Rezone the site from Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) to part Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z) and part Mixed Use

Zone (MUZ).

Introduce a new Design and Development Overlay (DD025) to the site. DD025 applies built form

requirements including mandatory building heights ranging from 4 to 6 storeys across the site.

Modify the extent of the Heritage Overlay (HO) to apply to the office building fronting Moreland

Road.

Apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the precinct to ensure potential contamination

issues are addressed.

Figure 2 below shows the extent of the proposed zones.

Figure 2: Amendment C160 Proposed Land Use Zones


21648R#1 Page 5

4 Development Potential of the Subject Site

This report considers the indicative development proposal, which contemplates a potential

development comprising:

300 apartments, and

4,000‐4,500m² of commercial floor area (likely to be a mix of retail, food and drink, office, etc.).

This development yield forms the basis of the traffic engineering assessment.

The specifics of any mixed use/residential development of the site would be subject to a separate town

planning application following the rezoning of the land.

Throughout the process vehicle access to the site has been proposed at various locations with varying

arrangements. From my understanding, the rezoning package material contemplates vehicle access

to the future development as follows:

Moreland Road

Primary Access – south‐west corner of the site to Moreland Road, facilitating simultaneous entry

and exit movements.

o This intersection may ultimately be signalised as part of any future development.

Secondary Access – south‐east corner of the site to Moreland Road, facilitating simultaneous

entry and exit movements.

Moore Street

Moore Street – one or possibly two access points which would predominantly facilitate access to

residential development at the northern end of the site, and which may or may not provide a

minor/non‐direct connection (for site‐generated traffic only), between Moreland Road and

Moore Street.

Further discussion and opinion of the vehicle access points and connectivity through the site is

provided within this statement.

Bicycle and pedestrian linkages are proposed through the site.

The internal road network will be designed as public roads and are likely to accommodate some level

of kerbside car parking for the short‐term users of the precinct.

Design and Development Overlay (DDO25) specifies the following in relation to ‘Circulation and Access’

(as advertised):

The design and siting of any new development on the site not associated with its existing industrial

use should increase permeability through the site and surrounding area, generally consistent with

the circulation and access network shown in Figure 1: Concept Plan.

Public roads and laneways must be designed and constructed in accordance with Moreland City

Council standards and make appropriate provision for two‐way vehicular traffic, safe pedestrian

access for all, bicycles and street tree planting in accordance with Figures 2, 3 and 4.


21648R#1 Page 6

Primary vehicle access to the site must be from Moreland Road. Signalised access should consider

the opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Moreland Road.

Vehicle access to the site from Moore Street should be limited to access buildings in the northern

part of the site only and avoid creating opportunity for through traffic to use the site as an

alternative route to avoid the Moreland Road / Nicholson Street intersection. Through‐pedestrian

and bicycle traffic should be facilitated.

A copy of Figure 1 from DDO25, which identifies vehicle access, links and pedestrian/bicycle routes

through the site is provided at Figure 3.

Figure 3: 1‐9 Moreland Road Concept Plan – Access and Circulation


21648R#1 Page 7

5 Submissions

The Council Meeting Minutes dated 14th September 2016 state the following:

In December 2015 Council resolved to seek the Minister’s authorisation to prepare the Amendment

and following receipt of authorisation, to publicly exhibit the amendment (DED 104/15).

A total of 16 submissions were received following public exhibition. The submissions were

generally supportive of the proposed rezoning but concerns were raised with regard to:

Building height in relation to Moore Street, Campbell Reserve and the Merri cReek corridor.

Car parking and traffic impacts on Moore Street.

The proposed reduction in the extent of the Heritage Overlay.

The implementation of landscaping for the site.

The implementation of Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) measures.

In response to submissions, Council Officers proposed modifications to the planning controls (DDO25),

although none of the changes related to car parking or traffic.

The submissions were summarised in Attachment 2 of Council’s Meeting Minutes dated 14th

September 2016, along with the Council Officer’s response to each issue. The traffic engineering

related issues and Council Officer responses are reproduced in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Traffic Engineering Related Third Party Submissions

No. Summary of Submission Council Officer Response

1 Council should construct a pedestrian and cycling path under Moreland Road to improve access and safety.

Pedestrian and cycle movements through the site linking Moore Street to Nicholson Street will allow for cyclists to bypass the busy Nicholson Street/Moreland Road intersection. There is an existing bike and pedestrian underpass under the bridge that avoids the need to cross Moreland Road.

2

Car park access to the development should be via Moreland Road only.

During construction, Moreland Road, not Moore Street, should be used by the builders to access the site.

The car park should provide enough visitor parks that visitors don’t need to park on Moore Street.

Rubbish collection for the development should only take place on Moreland Road.

Concern with tram capacity – is this considered in the amendment?

Primary vehicle access will be provided from Moreland Road including a second access point to a basement car park. Some vehicle access to the Moore Street townhouses is considered appropriate.

Given the scale of development it is anticipated a Construction Management Plan would include measures to minimise the impact of construction vehicles arriving on site and ensure access is provided via Moreland Road.

See Standard Response 4. The site is considered large enough to accommodate visitor car parking on site.

A condition of any approval will require the submission of a waste management plan. The application will be required to submit a waste management plan detailing the means by which garbage and recyclables will be stored on the site and the time and frequency of collection and location of the collection point.


21648R#1 Page 8


State Planning Policy supports an increase in development and land use activity in proximity to transport corridors and activity centres. The availability and frequency of public transport is delivered by the State Government. Council has been strongly advocating for improvement to public transport services.

3

Height controls are too high – concerned with … traffic caused by potential increase in residents if buildings are higher than 3 storeys.

Moore Street should remain a ‘no through road’ as parking and traffic is already an issue especially when sports activities occur nearby.

Council should construct a pedestrian and cycling path under Moreland Road to improve access and safety.

Rubbish collection and vehicle access only on Moreland Road.

Place ‘slow down’ features on Moore Street.

Construction of Moore Street footpath should not impede on Campbell Reserve.

Vehicle access to the site from Moore Street is limited to access townhouses in the northern part of the site and will avoid creating through traffic to use the site. Moreland Road will provide primary vehicle access to the site. This approach is supported in principle by Council’s Strategic Transport Unit and VicRoads.

Pedestrian and cycle movements through the site linking Moore Street to Nicholson Street will allow for cyclists to bypass the busy Nicholson Street/Moreland Road intersection. There is an existing bike and pedestrian underpass under the bridge that avoids the need to cross Moreland Road.

A condition of any approval will require the submission of a waste management plan. The applicant will be required to submit a waste management plan detailing the means by which garbage and recyclables will be stored on the site and the time and frequency of collection and location of the collection point.

Further traffic management interventions along Moore Street are considered beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Any upgrade to Moore Street including provision of a new footpath will connect the eastern part of the site to the Merri Creek. It is not proposed to impact Campbell Reserve.

4

Support traffic routing which places Moreland Road as the sole access point for vehicles. Do not support any additional traffic accessing the site from Moore Street given the existing conditions along Moore Street.

Support pedestrian and bike links through the site.

Support noted. Vehicle access to the site from Moore Street is limited to access buildings in the northern part of the site and avoiding creating through traffic to use the site. Moreland Road will provide primary vehicular access to the site. This approach is supported in principle by Council’s Strategic Transport Unit and VicRoads.

5

Amendment will cause increased traffic on Moore Street and is concerned for pedestrian safety. All traffic must enter Moreland Road. Avoid through traffic to Moore Street.

Increased population will cause further overcrowding on the 1 and 8 tram route.

Provide visitor parking on the site.

See Standard Response 2.

State Planning Policy supports an increase in development and land use activity in proximity to transport corridors and activity centres. The availability and frequency of public transport is delivered by the State Government. Council has been strongly advocating for improvement to public transport services.


21648R#1 Page 9


Access only from Moreland Road during construction.

Rubbish collection only from Moreland Road.

Ensure footpath and bike connections.

(Construction, rubbish collection and footpath/bike connection issues – Council responses as per previously listed in this table).

6 Support for the principle of the Amendment (no traffic engineering related issues raised).

NA

7

There is often congestion on Moore Street and all vehicle entry to the site should be from Moreland Road.

Avoid making Moore Street a ‘through road’.

Development should have adequate parking allowance for residents and visitors as Moore Street cannot support additional parking.

Suggests that on street parking be restricted to permit holders only or have a detection system to more efficiently monitor the 2 hour parking area.

Rubbish should be collected from Moreland Road or the internal road network.

All construction traffic should be from Moreland Road due to the width of Moore Street.


Through traffic from Moore Street is restricted to pedestrians and cycles only.

(Construction, rubbish collection and footpath/bike connection issues – Council responses as per previously listed in this table).

8

Traffic will increase dur to any development above 6 storeys.

There is very limited capacity for more parking on Moore Street.

No through traffic to Moore Street.


Rubbish collection only from Moreland Road as there is difficulty as is.

Concern for safety at the intersection between Nicholson Street and Moore Street if traffic increases. Traffic lights should be considered for the intersection.

Concern that the proposed development will further burden tram routes that are at capacity during peak times.


Through traffic from Moore Street is restricted to pedestrians and cycles only.

(Request for pedestrian and cycling path under Moreland Road not supported – Council response as per previously listed in this table).

(Rubbish collection and tram route capacity issues – Council responses as per previously listed in this table).

It is acknowledged that development will generate some additional vehicle movements on the local road network. However, it is not conserved that such additional movements would necessarily conflict substantially with existing traffic. Traffic count data does not support the requirement for traffic lights to be provided at the intersection between Moore Street and Nicholson Street.

9 Supportive, no traffic engineering related issues raised.

NA

10

No through traffic to Moore Street. No entries by car on Moore Street.

There is very limited capacity for more parking on Moore Street – have experienced

See standard response 2.



21648R#1 Page 10


occasions where a bus couldn’t enter the street and had to reverse back onto Nicholson Street – could imagine that emergency vehicles could face the same problems.


Rubbish collection and vehicle access on only Moreland Road.

The footpath should not infringe on Campbell Reserve. The construction of the footpath would narrow Moore Street.

Traffic Engineering Report must be independent that reflects multiple times and is unlike laughable traffic reports in the past.

Access to the site during construction only from Moreland Road.

Car parking in the site must provide for residents and visitors.

Concern that the proposed development will further burden tram routes that are at capacity during peak times.

Any upgrade to Moore Street including provision of a new footpath will connect the eastern part of the site to the Merri Creek, It is not proposed to impact Campbell Reserve.

The traffic engineering report is to be prepared to the satisfaction of Council.

(Rubbish collection, construction management and tram route capacity issues – Council responses as per previously listed in this table).

11

Vehicle access from Moreland Road only.

Vehicle access to the site from Moore Street should be limited to access buildings in the northern part of the site.

No through traffic to Moore Street.


12 No traffic engineering issues raised. NA

13

Connectivity between the Merri Creek and Campbell Reserve should be built into the proposal.

There is opportunity to connect the Merri Creek trail with a bridge under Moreland Road.

All traffic movements must occur on the Moreland Road side of the property.

The DDO includes provisions that require pedestrian links from an extended Moore Street and from within the site to the Merri Creek.



14

In regards to the pedestrian/bike link shown in Figure 1 (DDO25) MCMC would prefer if the path on the west side of the creek remains as an informal path and the path on the east side continues to be more formalised. This is value by locals on foot as the west side path is a less busy and less congested alternative.

Officers recommend that clarity is provided that the links to the Merri Creek are pedestrian only and not for cyclists.

15 No traffic engineering issues raised. NA


21648R#1 Page 11


16 PTV has no submission to make against the amendment as exhibited.

Submission noted.

Council’s “Standard Response 2” is as follows:

Whilst it is acknowledged that the development will generate some additional vehicle movements

on the local road network, it is not considered that such additional movements would necessarily be

concentrated or conflict substantially with existing traffic. Furthermore some residents may choose

to walk, cycle or use public transport which is available within a short walking distance of the site.

A Traffic Engineering report will be required to accompany a future planning application. The traffic

report will be prepared to the satisfaction of Council’s traffic engineer and VicRoads. The report will

need to confirm the suitability of traffic and access arrangements for each stage of development,

having regard to the relevant requirements including:

Public roads and laneways must be designed and constructed in accordance with Moreland City

Council standards and make appropriate provision for vehicular traffic where appropriate, safe

pedestrian access for all, bicycles and street tree planting.

Primary vehicle access to the site must be from Moreland Road.

Vehicle access to the site from Moore Street limited to access buildings in the northern part of

the site only.

No through traffic to use the site as an alternative route to avoid the Moreland Road/Nicholson

Street intersection.

Through‐pedestrian and bicycle traffic should be facilitated.

Future signalisation of Moreland Road which can contribute towards improved pedestrian and

cycle movement.

Future use and development will be required to provide car parking within any new development

and will need to comply with the requirements of Clause 52.06. It is acknowledged that some visitor

overflow parking may occur but this is likely to be provided via allocated parking areas on‐site. This

property is well located close to a Neighbourhood Centre where alternative modes of access to the

site exist. The nature of the use is such that many of the customers can commute to the premises

via public transport, walking or cycling.

In relation to the subject land specific reference is made to:

The potential for basement car parking to accommodate on‐site car parking.

The potential for on‐street short stay visitor car parking within the internal street network.

The traffic engineering related issues raised by submitters are addressed in the body of my evidence.


21648R#1 Page 12

6 Existing Conditions

6.1 Subject Site

The subject site is bounded by Moreland Road to the south, Moore Street to the north, Merri Creek to

the east and Campbell Reserve to the west, in Coburg.

The site has a frontage to Moreland Road of approximately 126m (including a small strip in front of the

Campbell Reserve) and to Moore Street of approximately 23m. A locality plan and aerial photograph

of the site are presented at Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively.

The site is irregular in shape, with a total site area of 1.595ha.

The site is currently occupied by ‘Bambis’, a retail/warehouse tenancy.

Vehicle access is provided as follows:

Moreland Road – south‐west corner to a loading dock.

Moreland Road – south‐east corner to a car park, which accommodates in the order of 140 car

spaces.

Moore Street – north‐west corner to a garage door.

Moore Street – north east corner at the end of the road, which is gated and provided vehicle

access to the at‐grade car park to Moreland Road (secondary access).

The site is zoned Industrial 3 Zone (INZ3) under the Moreland Planning Scheme, as presented in the

land zoning map at Figure 6. Land zoning within the immediate vicinity of the site is a mixture of

residential, industrial and commercial.

Significant non‐residential land uses in the nearby area include:

Merri Creek and Merri Creek Trail, located immediately east of the site,

Campbell Reserve and Moreland City Soccer Club, located immediately west of the site,

Commercial Shopping Strip, located along Holmes Street immediately south of Moreland Road,

Fatah Mosque, located at the corner of Moore Street and Holmes Street, approximately 300m

west of the site, and

Brunswick Private Hospital, located on the south side of Moreland Road, approximately 600m

west of the site.


21648R#1 Page 13

Figure 4: Locality Plan

Figure 5: Aerial Photograph of Subject Site

Reproduced with Permission of Melway Publishing Pty Ltd

Subject Site

Source: Nearmap

Subject Site


21648R#1 Page 14

Figure 6: Land Use Zoning Map

Source: Planning Schemes Online

Subject Site


21648R#1 Page 15

6.2 Road Network

Moreland Road is a VicRoads Arterial Road and Road Zone Category 1 under the Moreland Planning

Scheme and is aligned in an east‐west direction between Merri Creek in the east (where it continues

as Normanby Avenue) and Pascoe Vale Road in the west.

In the vicinity of the site, Moreland Road has a carriageway width of approximately 14.2m, which

accommodates one traffic and one bicycle lane in each direction. Kerbside parking is permitted along

both sides of Moreland Road.

Parking along Moreland Road in the vicinity of the site, includes short‐term time based restrictions

(1/2P and 2P) along the north side and unrestricted parking on the south side.

A posted speed limit of 60km/h applies to Moreland Road.

Moore Street is an ‘access road’ managed by Council and is aligned in an east‐west direction between

Beaumonde Street1 to the east and Sydney Road to the west.

In the vicinity of the site, Moore Street has a carriageway width of approximately 10.6m, which

accommodates one through traffic lane in each direction. West of Campbell Reserve, the carriageway

of Moore Street varies between 6.6 metres and 7 metres (approx.). Kerbside parking is permitted

along both sides of Moore Street. However where the carriageway is less than 7 metres wide, parking

cannot be accommodated on both sides of the street whilst maintaining a minimum 3 metre wide clear

carriageway width for through traffic, and accordingly the parking restrictions should be reviewed.

Existing parking along Moore Street includes a mix of short‐term (2P) and unrestricted parking.

The default urban speed limit of 50km/h applies to Moore Street.

Photographs of the nearby road network are provided at Figure 7 to Figure 10.

Figure 7: Moreland Road – view east Figure 8: Moreland Road – view west

1 Beaumonde Street is private/gated, and does not provide a through connection between Moore Street and Glengyle Street.

Accordingly, Moore Street currently operates as a “No Through Road” east of Nicholson Street.


21648R#1 Page 16

Figure 9: Moore Street view east (at Campbell Reserve)

Figure 10: Moore Street view west (at Campbell Reserve)

6.2.1 Road Safety Review

A review of the State Road Accident Records (CrashStats) has been undertaken in the vicinity of the

site for the past 5 years of available data (01/01/2011 to 31/12/2015)2. It is noted that the last 6

months of data may be incomplete.

Figure 11: Road Safety Review Area

The review indicates that there have been 16 casualty crashes reported within the review area, with a

summary provided at Table 2.

2 Casualty crash data is contained in the VicRoads’ CrashStats Internet Database and includes all reported casualty crashes (i.e. injury crashes),

which are classified into Fatal Injury, Serious Injury and Other Injury (i.e. minor injury) crashes. Property damage only or non‐injury crashes are not included in the database.


Subject Site Review Area

10 1

Legend

1 No. of Intersection Casualty Crashes

1 No. of Mid‐Block Casualty Crashes

1

1 1 11


21648R#1 Page 17

A total of 10 of the 16 casualty crashes were recorded at the Holmes Street/Nicholson Street/Moreland

Road (all VicRoads arterial roads) signalised intersection. This is due to the high exposure of traffic and

should be monitored by VicRoads (as required).

Table 2: Casualty crash history (1st January, 2011 and 31st December, 2015)

Location Date Time Severity Type

(DCA code) Type of Accident

Intersection of Nicholson Street and Moore Street

Fri 15/11/2014

17:55 SI 113 Right Near

(Intersections Only)

Intersection of Moreland Road and Holmes Street / Nicholson Street

Thur 19/01/2012

15:52 SI 140 U Turn

Thur 29/11/2012

23:30 OI 108 (P) Pedestrian Struck Walking To/From or

Boarding/Alighting Vehicle

Wed 12/12/2012

16:15 SI 171 Left Off Carriageway into

Object/Parked Vehicle

Tue 08/01/2013

08:55 OI 100 (P) Pedestrian Near Side

(Pedestrian Hit By Vehicle From Right)

Mon 06/05/2013

22:00 OI 121 Right Through

Sun 04/08/2013

06:45 OI 160 Vehicle Collides With Vehicle Parked

on Left of Road

Mon 19/08/2013

07:08 SI 121 Right Through

Sat 28/09/2013

12:20 OI 100 (P) Pedestrian Near Side


Thur 01/05/2014

10:10 F 100 (P) Pedestrian Near Side


Thur 20/11/2014

19:15 OI 121 Right Through

Intersection of Moreland Road and Sturrock Street

Sat 14/12/2013

13:00 OI 174 Out of Control on Carriageway

Moreland Road (27m east of Sturrock Street)

Wed 22/01/2015

11:40 OI 130 Rear End

(Vehicles in Same Lane)


21648R#1 Page 18

Location Date Time Severity Type

(DCA code) Type of Accident

Intersection of Moreland Road and Lanark Street

Thur 02/06/2011

18:00 OI 132 Right Rear

Moreland Road (32m west of Lincoln Street)

Thu 10/10/2014



Moreland Road (38m east of Lanark Street)

Fri 07/03/2014



LEGEND:

OI: Other Injury SI: Serious Injury F: Fatality

(B): Bicyclist (M): Motorcyclist (P): Pedestrian

(C): Bus/Coach (RT): Rigid Truck (ST): Semi‐trailer

The crashes near the proposed vehicle access points do not outline a particular crash pattern.

I am satisfied that the scale of development facilitated by the proposed rezoning, inclusive of vehicle

access locations, is appropriate and will not cause any safety implications or issues.


21648R#1 Page 19

6.3 Existing Parking Conditions

It is noted that the proposed development is generally expected to be self‐reliant in terms of

accommodating the car parking demands generated, on‐site, however it is still relevant to undertake

car parking surveys, particularly with respect to identifying demands along the site’s frontage.

A series of parking occupancy surveys have been conducted by Traffix Group at various times to

establish a parking profile for the area. The surveys were conducted at the following times:

12pm, 1pm, 7pm & 8pm on Friday 14th October, 2016, and

12pm, 1pm, 7pm & 8pm on Saturday 15th October, 2016.

The survey times encompass the peak times associated with residents and visitors (evenings and

weekends) and the peak times associated with the nearby commercial uses (business hours). The

surveyed area is presented at Figure 12.

The detailed results of the parking surveys are provided at Appendix B.

Figure 12: Parking Survey Area

A total of 124‐131 publicly accessible3 on‐street car spaces are available within the overall survey area,

with parking generally a mix between short‐term and unrestricted spaces.

A profile of the on‐street parking demands for the overall survey area is provided at Figure 13.

3 Parking survey summaries only include publicly accessible on‐street parking spaces only i.e. excludes capacity and demands associated ‘No

Stopping’ areas. during relevant enforcement periods. As a result, the capacity of the survey area varies over different survey times.


Survey Area Subject Site


21648R#1 Page 20

Figure 13: Profile of On‐Street Parking Demand – Entire Survey Area

The results of the surveys identified low demand for on‐street parking in the vicinity of the site. The

minimum number of vacant spaces was recorded at 7pm on Friday 14th October, 2016 when a total of

77 vacant spaces were recorded within the area (39% occupancy).

Over all survey times the number of vacancies varied from 77‐88 car spaces.

In terms of the site’s frontages the following was observed:

Moreland Road – of the 9 spaces along the site’s frontage only 1‐2 cars were observed to be

parked at all times (minimum 7 vacancies).

Moore Street – generally 1‐2 parked cars were observed along the site’s frontage.

6.4 Existing Traffic Conditions

Automatic traffic tube counts were conducted at the following locations:

Moreland Road – immediately west of the site access to the loading dock.

Moore Street – near the Holmes Street intersection.

A map of these approximate locations is shown in Figure 14.

These counters recorded a 7‐day (i.e. 1 week) hourly traffic volume profile, between Friday 7th October

2016 and Thursday 13th October, 2016.


21648R#1 Page 21

Figure 14: Tube Counter Locations

The results of these surveys are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of Traffic Characteristics

Traffic Characteristic

Moreland Road Moore Street(1)

East bound

West bound

Two‐way East bound

West bound

Two‐way

Daily Traffic Volumes

24 Hour Weekday Avg. (Veh.) 7,238 8,075 15,314 326 318 644

24 Hour Saturday (Veh.) 7,073 7,656 14,729 360 375 735

24 Hour Sunday (Veh.) 5,786 6,308 12,094 339 292 631

% Commercial Vehicles (all data) 7.6% 5.4% 6.4% 2.0% 5.4% 3.7%

Recorded AM Peak Hour 11am‐12pm 8‐9am 8‐9am 9‐10am 8‐9am 8‐9am

AM Peak Hour Volume (Vehicles) 542 798 1,312 26 43 59

Recorded PM Peak Hour 5‐6pm 4‐5pm 5‐6pm 6‐7pm 2‐3pm 6‐7pm

PM Peak Hour Volume (Vehicles) 643 645 1,245 50 36 72

Vehicle Speeds

Speed limit Signposted 60km/h Default Urban 50km/h

85th Percentile Speed (km/h) 60.3 57.2 58.9 27.2 25.6 26.4

Mean Speed (km/h) 53.1 49.7 51.3 21.1 19.5 20.3

Note (1): The traffic count was conducted immediately to the east of Nicholson Street, and accordingly incorporated traffic generated by the substantial 8‐storey mixed‐use development located at 14‐20 Nicholson Street, which is accessed via Moore Street. Traffic volumes in Moore Street to the east of the access point for 14‐20 Nicholson Street would be significantly lower.

Tube Counter

Reproduced with Permission of Melways Publishing Pty Ltd

Subject Site


21648R#1 Page 22

6.5 Sustainable Transport Infrastructure

6.5.1 Public Transport

The site is well served by public transport services with bus and tram services within walking distance

of the site. The available public transport services within proximity of the site are shown in Figure 15

and a summary is provided at Table 4.

Figure 15: Public Transport Map

Table 4: Summary of Public Transport Services

Service Between Via

Moreland Road – past the subject site

Bus Route 510 Essendon & Ivanhoe Brunswick, Northcote & Thornbury

Bus Route 955 (Night Bus) City & Mernda Brunswick, Ivanhoe, Bundoora, Mill

Park & South Morang

Nicholson Street – 300m west of the subject site

Tram Route 1 East Coburg & South Melbourne Beach Brunswick, Carlton & CBD

Tram Route 8 Moreland & Toorak Brunswick, Carlton & CBD

Source: Public Transport Victoria, ptv.vic.gov.au

Subject Site


21648R#1 Page 23

6.5.2 Bicycle Infrastructure and Walking

The site is well served by bicycle infrastructure with on‐road bicycle lanes and informal bicycle routes

surrounding the site, as shown in the excerpt from the Moreland City Council TravelSmart Map shown

in Figure 16. The Merri Creek Trail is located adjacent to the subject site and the Upfield Bike Path is

located 1.5km west of the site.

The subject site scores 73 out of a possible 100 using the ‘Walk Score’, which is a measure of how easy

it is to access everyday services by walking. This score classifies the site as ‘very walkable’ and indicates

that daily errands do not require a car4.

There is a local neighbourhood activity centre located on Nicholson Street and Holmes Street around

the Moreland Road intersection, and the site is also located nearby the Sydney Road Activity Centre.

These Activity Centres provide access to a range of everyday services within comfortable walking

distance of the site such as supermarkets, banks, specialty shops and medical centres.

Accordingly, the site has access to many nearby destinations within the nearby Activity Centres that

are readily accessible via a short bicycle ride or walk rather than via private car.

Figure 16: Moreland City Council TravelSmart Map

4 Source: https://www.walkscore.com/score/488‐victoria‐st‐richmond‐vic‐australia

Source: moreland.vic.gov.au

Subject Site


21648R#1 Page 24

6.6 Key Demographic Data

6.6.1 Resident Car Ownership

A review of ABS car ownership statistics for various dwelling sizes within the City of Moreland and

Coburg State Suburb recorded in the 2011 Census highlights the following statistics (Table 5).

These statistics relate to the whole of the municipality or Postcode and also include owner occupied

dwellings, rental properties, public housing, etc.

As expected, this data shows lower car ownership rates for smaller households (less than 1 car per

dwelling for 1 bedroom apartments and bed‐sit or studio apartments) as well as less than 2 spaces for

3‐bedroom apartments.

Table 5: Car Ownership Data: 2011 Census, Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for Flat/Unit/Apt.

Type of Dwelling Average car ownership per dwelling

City of Moreland Coburg

Bed‐sits 0.3 insufficient sample

1 bedroom 0.7 0.7

2 bedroom 1.0 1.0

3 bedroom 1.4 1.2

4 bedroom 1.8 insufficient sample

6.6.2 Journey to Work Data

The 2011 Census also provides ‘Journey to Work’ data by residential location. The following table

details the Journey to Work characteristics of residents living within the suburb of Coburg, compared

to the Moreland LGA and Melbourne metropolitan area.

The Moreland and Coburg data is generally lower compared to the Melbourne metropolitan area in

terms of car, with higher usage of cycling and public transport usage. Walking as a mode of travel to

work is lower in Coburg and the Moreland LGA compared the Melbourne metropolitan area.

Importantly, this data suggests that residents of this locality are likely to have lower than usual car

ownership or car usage patterns, due to the site’s proximity to public transport services.

Table 6: Journey to Work Data: 2011 Census

% mode of travel for ‘journey to work’ trip

Live within Moreland LGA

Live within Coburg

Live within Melbourne Statistical Division

Car as driver 49.2% 47.7% 61.2%

Public Transport 22.7% 24% 13.7%

Walking 2.3% 2.3% 2.9%

Cycling 4.9% 5.1% 1.3%

Other Mode (car passenger, motorcycle, taxi etc.) 6.4% 6.2% 6.1%

Other (did not work, worked from home, not stated, etc.) 14.5% 14.8% 14.8%


21648R#1 Page 25

7 Traffic Engineering Assessments

7.1 Traffic Generation

Residential

The ultimate dwelling sizes and numbers are unknown, however for assessment purposes the

following traffic generation rates are considered suitable:

Daily rate: 5 trips per apartment per day

Peak hour rate: 0.5 trips per apartment per hour (typically 8‐9am & 5‐6pm)

The above rates are consistent with traffic generation rates adopted for similar developments within

the Moreland LGA and suitable for medium to higher density developments in middle to outer

suburban areas.

The predicted level of peak hour and daily traffic generation based on 300 dwellings (generally

apartments) is set out in the following table.

Table 7: Predicted Traffic Generation for Planning Purposes – Residential

No. of Dwelling Peak Hour Traffic Generation Rate

(trips/dwelling/hour)

Peak Hour Traffic Generation

(vehicles/hour)

Daily Traffic Generation Rate

(trips/dwelling/day)

Daily Traffic Generation

(vehicles/day)

300 dwellings 0.5 150 5 1,500

Commercial

The ultimate mix and size of commercial land uses is unknown at this stage, however generally it would

be expected to include small retail/shop/food and drink premises/restaurants and offices of varying

sizes.

Conservatively, the table below outlines traffic generation rates of 3 different uses and then averages

them. It would be expected that the majority of commercial floor area would be in the form of office

(which has the lowest rate) and accordingly this assessment is highly conservative.

Table 8: Predicted Traffic Generation for Planning Purposes – Commercial

Component Size/No. Daily Traffic

Generation Rate (1) Daily Traffic

Peak Hour Traffic

Generation Rate (1)

Peak Hour

Traffic

Shop

TOTAL

4,500m2

50 vte per 100m2 2,250 vte per day 5 vte per 100m2 225 vte per hr

Office 10 vte per 100m2 450 vte per day 2 vte per 100m2 90 vte per hr

Restaurant 60 vte per 100m2 2,700 vte per day 5 vte per 100m2 300 vte per hr

Commercial Average 1,800 vte per day 195 vte per hr

Notes: (1) Source RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, 2002.


21648R#1 Page 26

Accordingly, for planning assessment purposes, the development is estimated to generate the

following level of traffic:

Residential

o 1,500 daily vehicle trip ends (vehicle movements)

o 150 peak hour vehicle trip ends (vehicle movements)

Commercial



Total



It is noted that the peak hour traffic generation is conservative as the varying uses are not expected to

have peak demands that occur over the same periods.

7.2 Traffic Distribution

The predicted traffic distribution is based on the site’s proximity to the nearby intersections, arterial

roads, CBD as well as the location of nearby Activity Centres.

The following traffic distribution is based on the following assumptions:

Vehicle Access Locations

10% of vehicles arrive/depart to Moore Street5.

90% of vehicles arrive/depart to Moreland Road.

Residential Traffic

80% of residential traffic departs and 20% departs during the AM peak period, and

30% of residential traffic departs and 70% departs during the PM peak period.

Commercial Traffic

20% of commercial traffic departs and 80% departs during the AM peak period, and

80% of commercial traffic departs and 20% departs during the PM peak period.

Directional Distribution

of the 90% of Traffic between the site and Moreland Road:

5 The commercial component of the development comprises 57% of the total traffic generation for the site. The

commercial component of the development will be oriented towards Moreland Road and all of the commercial traffic will access the site via Moreland Road. Only residential traffic will access Moore Street. The adopted rate of 10% of the total site‐generated traffic corresponds to 23% of the residential traffic generated by the site accessing the site via Moore Street.


21648R#1 Page 27

o 30% traffic to/from the east (i.e. 27% of total traffic to/from Moreland Road (east)

o 70% traffic to/from the west (i.e. 63% of total traffic to/from Moreland Road (west)

of the 10% of Traffic between the site and Moore Street:

o 30% traffic to/from the north (i.e. 3% of total traffic to/from Moore Street (north)

o 70% traffic to/from the south (i.e. 7% of total traffic to/from Moore Street (south)

The following table sets out the directional distribution of traffic and associated volumes based on the

traffic generation and distribution assumptions outlined above.

The following assessment is based on a total of 345 movements in the peak hours (150 associated with

residents and 195 associated with staff and customers).

Table 9: Traffic Distribution and Volumes – Proposed Development

Direction Moore Street Moreland Road

AM PM AM PM

Left In 2 vph 7 vph 125 vph 84 vph

Right In 5 vph 17 vph 54 vph 36 vph

Left Out 19 vph 7 vph 39 vph 57 vph

Right Out 8 vph 3 vph 92 vph 133 vph

TOTAL 34 vph 34 vph 310 vph 310 vph


21648R#1 Page 28

Figure 17 diagrammatically details the predicted traffic distribution for traffic generated for the

development.

Figure 17: Predicted Development Traffic Distribution

7.3 Traffic Impact

In undertaking the traffic impact assessments, the following is noted:

There are two existing access points to Moreland Road.

Parking is not permitted directly opposite the site’s existing eastern entrance to Moreland Road,

and the carriageway width is sufficient that westbound through traffic can pass vehicles propped

waiting to turn right into the site.

North

LEGEND

Traffic Volumes

AM commuter (PM commuter)

Peak Periods

AM: 8:00am‐9:00am

PM: 5:00pm‐6:00pm

MOORE STREET

92 (133)

39 (57)

SUBJECT SITE

28 (10)

54 (36)

7 (24)

MORELAND ROAD

125 (84)

8 (3)

19 (7)

2 (7)

5 (17)


21648R#1 Page 29

Currently parking is permitted opposite the site’s existing western access point to Moreland Road.

Having regard to the access and movement concept plan, it is likely that there will continue to be

two access points provided to the site from Moreland Road, and accordingly right turning vehicles

will be able to exit from both access points using the same gap in the traffic flow.

There are nearby traffic signals in both directions creating gaps in the through traffic on Moreland

Road, facilitating vehicles turning out of the development site.

For the purpose of undertaking a conservative analysis, it is assumed that two‐thirds of the traffic

accessing the site via Moreland Road will do so via a single access point, at a location where

through traffic on Moreland Road can pass right‐turning traffic.

I have undertaken an assessment of the operation of the Moreland Road/Major Site Access

intersection under post development conditions during the AM and PM road network peak hours using

SIDRA Intersection analysis software.

The key outputs of SIDRA are Degree of Saturation (DOS), Average Delay and 95th Percentile Queue.

For unsignalised intersections a DOS of up to 0.80 is considered to be good operating conditions, with

values above 0.95 considered to be poor operating conditions. Beyond a DOS of 1.00, queues and

delays increase disproportionately.

Table 10 below summarises the SIDRA output under existing and post development conditions for the

intersection during the road network peak hours. Full SIDRA output is attached at Appendix C.

Table 10: SIDRA Output – Moreland Road/Major Site Access

Approach Degree of Saturation Average Delay (sec) 95th Percentile Queue

AM PM AM PM AM PM

Moreland Road (E) 0.436 0.338 0.4 sec 0.4 sec 1.3 metres 0.9 metres

Site Access (N) 0.183 0.244 11.9 sec 11.8 sec 4.4 metres 6.4 metres

Moreland Road (W) 0.349 0.393 0.8 sec 0.5 sec 0.0 metres 0.0 metres

Table 10 indicates that the major site access intersection with Moreland Road will operate well within

acceptable limits with a DOS of only 0.436 and minimal delays and queues on all approaches.

I note that the actual queues and delays may be less than indicated in Table 10, as the SIDRA analysis

conservatively assumed random arrivals, rather than bunched flow which is likely to occur due to the

presence of nearby signalised intersections, which will create gaps for turning vehicles.

Importantly, I note that the SIDRA analysis suggests that a signalised main access point is not required

from a traffic capacity perspective based on the anticipated level of development.

With regard to the Nicholson Street/Moore Street intersection, I note that the site‐generated traffic

entering and exiting via this intersection will be significantly less than the site‐generated traffic utilising

the Moreland Road site access point, and Nicholson Street is configured with two traffic lanes in each

direction, allowing through traffic flow to pass right‐turning traffic.

In addition, nearby signalised intersections (including the Moreland Road/Nicholson Street signals)

create gaps for turning traffic, and there is existing “KEEP CLEAR” line‐marking for southbound traffic


21648R#1 Page 30

flow on Nicholson Street at Moore Street, allowing vehicles to turn right into and out of Moore Street

during queued conditions.

Based on the preceding assessments, I am satisfied that there is adequate capacity on the surrounding

road network to accommodate the level of traffic likely to be generated by the future development of

the subject site facilitated by Amendment C160 without any adverse impacts.

7.4 Road Hierarchy

The current plans, while not detailed, indicate that the internal road network will include a series of

public roads, which would be designed as Access Streets, Access Places and Access Lanes generally in

accordance with the Clause 56 requirements for public roads.

The main connection to Moreland Road on its function and expected traffic volumes would be

classified as an ‘Access Street – Level 2’ under Clause 56.06‐8 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Other roads will generally be designed as Access Lane/Place, facilitating access to individual buildings

on‐site car parking.

The new access roads carriageway, pedestrian provisions, and kerbside parking provisions should

satisfy the requirements specified in Table C1 of Clause 56.06‐8 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

These roads are defined as follows:

Access Lane – A side or rear lane principally providing access to parking on lots with smaller street

frontage.

Access Place – A minor street providing local residential access with shared traffic, pedestrian and

recreation use, but with pedestrian priority.

Access Street – Level 1/2 – A street providing local residential access where traffic is subservient,

speed and volume are low and pedestrian and bicycle movements are facilitated.

Table 11: Clause 56.06‐8 – Table C1 Design of Roads and Neighbourhood Streets

Key Design Requirements

Component Access Lane Access Place Access Street – Level 1

Traffic volume 300vpd 300vpd to 1,000vpd 1,000vpd to 2,000vpd

Target speed 10kph 15kph 15kph

Carriageway width &

parking provision within

street reservation

5.5m wide with no

parking spaces to

be provided

Appropriately

Signed

5.5m wide with 1 hard standing

verge parking space per 2 lots, or

5.5m wide with parking on

carriageway‐ one side ‐

Appropriately signed.

5.5m wide with 1 hard standing

verge parking space per 2 lots.


21648R#1 Page 31

Key Design Requirements

Component Access Lane Access Place Access Street – Level 1

Verge width No Verge Required

7.5m minimum total width. For

services provide a minimum of

3.5m on one side and a minimum

of 2.5m on the other

4m minimum each side

Kerbing ‐

Semi‐mountable rollover or flush

and swale or other water

sensitive urban design treatment

area.

Semi‐mountable rollover or

flush and swale or other water

sensitive urban design

treatment area.

Footpath provision

None

Carriageway

designed as a

shared zone and

appropriately

signed

Not required if serving 5

dwellings or less and the

carriageway is designed as a

shared zone and appropriately

signed, or

1.5m wide footpath offset a

minimum distance of 1m from

the kerb.

1.5m wide footpath. Footpaths

should be widened to 2.0m in

the vicinity of a school, shop or

other activity centre

Be offset a minimum distance

of 1m from the kerb.

Cycle path provision None None

Carriageway designed as a

shared zone and appropriately

signed

Moore Street is configured with a varying carriageway width which is 6.6 metres wide (approx.) at its

narrowest section, widening to more than 10 metres at the subject site frontage. The verge width

does not meet Clause 56.06 requirements, however the carriageway width meets the requirements

for a Level 1 Access Street.

The existing traffic volume varies, with a weekday average of 644 vpd, but with a higher Saturday

volume of 735 vpd (potentially impacted by vehicles accessing the Campbell Reserve and soccer field).

My traffic distribution assessments indicate a potential increase in peak hour traffic on Moore Street

of 34 vph, corresponding to a daily traffic increase of 340 vpd based on a typical peak‐to‐daily ratio of

10%, which is low in real numbers.

Accordingly the future two‐way daily traffic volume on Moore Street could potentially be in the order

of 984 vpd (weekday average). This volume is unlikely to be exceeded on a Saturday, noting that

residential traffic generation is typically lower on a Saturday. Furthermore, this conservatively

assumes that there was no existing traffic generated by the subject site at the time of the traffic count,

and that all site‐generated traffic will be “new” traffic.

A future two‐way daily traffic volume of 984 vpd remains well within the environmental capacity of a

Level 1 Access Street as defined at Clause 56.06 of the Planning Scheme, and accordingly I am satisfied

that it would not be unreasonable for minor access point(s) to be provided on Moore Street.

I agree that Moore Street is constrained between Nicholson Street and the western boundary of

Campbell Reserve, and accordingly it would not be appropriate to use Moore Street as a major or only

access point to the site.


21648R#1 Page 32

8 Moreland Road Moore Street Connection

Various iterations of the concept plan have included internal roads connecting Moreland Road to

Moore Street.

Council has expressed concern with regard to the potential for rat‐running to occur if a direct

connection was to be provided between Moore Street and Moreland Road through the site, with

drivers seeking to avoid the Moreland Road/Nicholson Street intersection.

A number of submitters have also raised concern with vehicular access to the site from Moore Street,

citing traffic and parking issues.

DDO25 includes a requirement that … “vehicle access to the site from Moore Street should be limited

to access buildings in the northern part of the site only and avoid creating opportunity for through

traffic to use the site as an alternative route to avoid the Moreland Road / Nicholson Street intersection.

Through‐pedestrian and bicycle traffic should be facilitated”.

There are two aspects to a potential connection between Moreland Road and Moore Street that need

to be considered:

1. Permeability through the site. All future users of the site ideally should be able to arrive and

depart the site in either direction so that there is no one movement/travel direction that

unreasonably impacts on the surrounding road network.

2. Through traffic movements (rat‐running) – through traffic (i.e. trips that do not directly access

the site) could potentially utilise a new connection through the site in order to avoid nearby

traffic congestion (in this case at the Nicholson Street/Moreland Road intersection). The use

of the site as a through traffic connection is not supported by Council, and is reflected in the

wording of the DDO25 requirements.

The provisions of DDO25 do not prevent a connection between Moreland Road and Moore Street from

being established, subject to any connection avoiding creating an opportunity for through traffic to

use the route to avoid the Moreland Road/Nicholson Street intersection.

I am confident that there are measures which could be implemented to meet this requirement, whilst

still maintaining a vehicular connection through the site, such as the alignment of the potential

connection (convoluted/loop‐type connection), pavement treatments, traffic management devices,

etc.

These issues can be addressed at the permit application stage.


21648R#1 Page 33

9 Consideration of DDO25 Requirements

The “access and movement” DDO25 requirements are addressed in Table 12 below.

Table 12: Consideration of DDO25 Access & Movement Requirements

Requirement Comment

The design and siting of any new development on the site not associated with its existing industrial use should increase permeability through the site and surrounding area, generally consistent with the circulation and access network shown in Figure 1: Concept Plan.

I am satisfied that this is an appropriate requirement, and I note that the wording does not preclude a vehicular access to Moore Street.

While Figure 1 does not specifically show an access point, DDO25 requires future development to be “generally consistent”, which allows scope to vary the layout, provided it meets the intent of Figure 1.

Public roads and laneways must be designed and constructed in accordance with Moreland City Council standards and make appropriate provision for two‐way vehicular traffic where appropriate, safe pedestrian access for all, bicycles and street tree planting.

I agree that it would be appropriate to design public roads and laneways in accordance with Moreland City Council standards. Private roadways and driveways would be privately maintained and could be narrower, subject to appropriate accessibility for waste collection, etc. This would be addressed at the permit application stage.

Primary vehicle access to the site must be from Moreland Road. Signalised access should consider the opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Moreland Road.

Having regard to the constraints on Moore Street, I agree that primary vehicle access should be from Moreland Road.

I note that the SIDRA analysis suggests that signals are unlikely to be required at the Moreland Road main access (subject to detailed traffic assessments to be undertaken at Planning Application stage once the actual development yield is known), and that pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Moreland Road is already facilitated by way of an underpass at Merri Creek.

However, it would appear that the wording of this requirement seeks to ensure that any signalised access considers opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle access, but does not require that the access be signalised. Accordingly, I agree that the requirement is appropriate.

Vehicle access to the site from Moore Street should be limited to access buildings in the northern part of the site only and avoid creating opportunity for through traffic to use the site as an alternative route to avoid the Moreland Road / Nicholson Street intersection. Through‐pedestrian and bicycle traffic should be facilitated.

I agree that it is important to facilitate improved permeability through the site for active transport (pedestrian/cycle links).

As previously noted, I am satisfied that it would be possible to achieve a development which avoids creating opportunity for through traffic (rat‐running) whilst still providing a minor vehicular connection internally within the site which allows site‐generated traffic to utilise the most efficient access point (to minimise the impact of site‐generated traffic on the Moreland Road/Nicholson Street intersection).

Accordingly, I am satisfied that this DDO25 requirement is appropriate.


21648R#1 Page 34

10 Response to Submissions

The following table sets out my response to the key traffic engineering issues raised by submitters.

Table 13: Response to Submissions

Issue Response


There is an existing bike and pedestrian underpass under the Merri Creek bridge that avoids the need to cross Moreland Road.

DDO25 also requires that if the main access to the site is signalised, opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Moreland Road be considered.

Car park access to the development should be via Moreland Road only.

DDO25 allows for primary vehicle access will be provided from Moreland Road, with some minor (residential) vehicle access to Moore Street. Council is supportive of this approach.

I note that any additional traffic in Moore Street generated by the site would be minimal, and residential in nature, and I am satisfied that this is appropriate having regard to the existing traffic volumes in Moore Street and the capacity of the road as a Level 1 Local Access Street (as defined at Clause 56.06‐8 of the Planning Scheme).

Accordingly I do not agree that all access should be restricted to Moreland Road only.

During construction, Moreland Road, not Moore Street, should be used by the builders to access the site.

Council has indicated that any future planning permit issued for the site would include a requirement for a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and accordingly the matter of construction access location and times would be satisfactorily addressed at that time.

The car park should provide enough visitor parks that visitors don’t need to park on Moore Street.

Car parking provision would be appropriately addressed at such time that a planning application for the site is submitted. Notably, any development on the site would be required to comply with the requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme to the satisfaction of Council, or provide adequate justification to support a reduction/waiver.

I agree that it would not be appropriate for a development of this scale to be reliant on parking in Moore Street other than on the site’s frontage.

Rubbish collection for the development should only take place on Moreland Road.

Waste collection will be addressed at the planning application stage by way of a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of Council.


21648R#1 Page 35

Issue Response

Concern with tram capacity.

I agree with Council’s response to this issue, as follows:

“State Planning Policy supports an increase in development and land use activity in proximity to transport corridors and activity centres. The availability and frequency of public transport is delivered by the State Government”.

Importantly, public transport services are planned in response to demand. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to limit development based on the capacity of existing public transport services, instead, the capacity/frequency of public transport services would be increased to meet the demand, with any changes to existing services being the responsibility of the State Government.

Height controls are too high – concerned with … traffic caused by potential increase in residents if buildings are higher than 3 storeys.

My traffic assessments have been based on a potential yield which takes into account the proposed height controls, and the SIDRA assessments demonstrate that there is adequate capacity for the road network to accommodate the level of traffic likely to be generated by the future development of the site as envisaged by Amendment C160.

In addition, DDO25 will ensure that traffic increases in Moore Street are low, and in keeping with the “local access” classification of this street.

Accordingly, from a traffic engineering perspective, the height controls are acceptable in my opinion.

Moore Street should remain a ‘no through road’ as parking and traffic is already an issue especially when sports activities occur nearby.

Existing parking conditions in Moore Street were surveyed on a typical weekday and on a typical Saturday. The peak was observed to occur on Friday 14th October 2016 at 7:00pm, with 42 cars parked and 17 vacant spaces (71% occupancy). The Saturday observations had a lower occupancy rate.

Parking for Campbell Reserve is provided within the reserve, and is accessed via Moore Street.

While traffic count surveys indicated that traffic was higher on a Saturday than the weekday average, it was still well within the acceptable range for a Level 1 Local Access Street.

The development of the site is not anticipated to contribute to any existing (or perceived) parking issues, as the site is large enough to be self‐sufficient in its parking requirements. This will be addressed in detail at the planning application stage.

The DDO25 requirements will ensure that Moore Street continues to operate as a “no through road”.

It appears that there may not be adequate signage to indicate the “no through road” status currently, and accordingly it would be appropriate for Council to install a sign visible from Nicholson Street for southbound traffic, to discourage traffic entering this street.

Place ‘slow down’ features on Moore Street. I agree with Council that … “further traffic management interventions along Moore Street are considered beyond the scope of the Amendment”.


21648R#1 Page 36

Issue Response

In addition, I note that Moore Street is only 270 metres long and is a “no through road”, and the site inspections do not indicate a current speeding issue.

There is often congestion on Moore Street and all vehicle entry to the site should be from Moreland Road.

Congestion on Moore Street would assist in reducing the likelihood of vehicles using this route as a potential rat‐run.

There is some capacity for additional residential traffic to take access from Moore Street, and accordingly I disagree that vehicle entry should be restricted to Moreland Road only.

Suggests that on street parking be restricted to permit holders only or have a detection system to more efficiently monitor the 2 hour parking area.

Parking restrictions (or changes to parking restrictions) are outside of the scope of the Amendment. However I note that it is intended that the site be self‐sufficient in meeting its parking requirements (both resident/staff and visitor/customer parking demands), and accordingly if Council was of a mind to introduce changes to the parking restrictions in Moore Street, this would not adversely impact on the site’s ability to be developed as envisaged by Amendment C160.

There is very limited capacity for more parking on Moore Street.

Parking surveys indicate that there is a moderate demand for parking on Moore Street currently. However it is not intended that the site rely on any on‐street parking in Moore Street, and accordingly existing parking demands in Moore Street do not impact on the capacity of the site to be rezoned to facilitate residential and commercial development.

Concern for safety at the intersection between Nicholson Street and Moore Street if traffic increases. Traffic lights should be considered for the intersection.

Moore Street is too close to the Nicholson Street/Moore Street intersection to be signalised.

Primary access to the site will be directly via Moreland Road.

Traffic increases on Moore Street will be low in real numbers, and within the environmental capacity of the street.


21648R#1 Page 37

11 Conclusions

Having undertaken a detailed traffic engineering assessment for the proposed rezoning of land from

Industrial 3 Zone to Mixed‐Use Zone and Commercial 2 Zone at 1 ‐9 Moreland Road in Coburg, I am of

the opinion that:

a) vehicular access to the site should be permitted to both Moreland Road and Moore Street, with

Moreland Road serving as the primary access,

b) pedestrian and cycle connections should be facilitated through the site,

c) car parking provision (short and long term) will be contained on site and can be addressed at the

Permit Application stage and there is no reason to suggest that the proposed rezoning would

result in an increased parking demand in Moore Street,

d) waste collection can be suitably managed by a Waste Management Plan as a condition of Permit,

e) construction access can be suitably managed by a Construction Management Plan as a condition

of Permit,

f) tram capacity constraints should be addressed via the State Government and are not a reasonable

ground to limit development,

g) traffic management and parking restriction interventions along Moore Street are beyond the

scope of the Amendment,

h) there is scope to provide a vehicular connection through the site between Moore Street and

Moreland Road subject to any connection avoiding creating an opportunity for through traffic to

use the route to avoid the Moreland Road/Nicholson Street intersection,

i) the level of traffic generated within Moore Street as a result of the development of the site will

be low, generally residential in nature, and can be accommodated on the surrounding road

network,

j) there is adequate capacity within Moreland Road to accommodate the level of traffic anticipated

to be generated by the re‐development of the subject site in accordance with the provisions of

the proposed DDO25,

k) there is unlikely to be a need for signals at the site’s main entrance to Moreland Road,

l) the proposed “access and movement” requirements set out in DDO25 are appropriate and will

ensure that the redevelopment of the site appropriately responds to the site’s context,

m) there are no traffic engineering reasons why the site located at 1 – 9 Moreland Road in Coburg

should not be rezoned to Mixed‐Use Zone and Commercial 2 Zone.

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of

significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

CHARMAINE CHALMERS DUNSTAN

B.E. (Civil) Hons., Masters of Traffic, M.IEAust., M.V.P.E.L.A

VCAT Reference Number: 1‐9 Moreland Road, Coburg – Amendment C160 to the Moreland Planning Scheme

21648R#1

Appendix A: Practice Note – PNVCAT2

Expert Evidence


21648R#1

STATEMENT OF WITNESS

Name

Charmaine Chalmers Dunstan

Position

Director, Traffix Group

Address

Suite 8, 431 Burke Road

Glen Iris 3146

Qualifications and Experience

My qualifications and membership of professional associations are as follows:‐

Bachelor of Civil Engineering (honours), Monash University, Clayton

Masters of Traffic, Monash University

Masters of Transport (current), Monash University

Member, Engineers Australia

Fellow, Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association

I have over 20 years’ experience as a Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning consultant with Traffix

Group Pty Ltd and formerly Turnbull Fenner Pty Ltd. My experience also includes a number of local

government appointments which involved acting in the role of Council’s Transport Co‐ordinator or

Senior Traffic Engineer. These appointments include the City of Moreland, City of Whittlesea and the

City of Darebin.

Area of Expertise

I have experience and expertise in traffic management, road safety planning and engineering, parking

management and strategy development, and development impact assessment of a range of land‐use

developments.

Disclosure of Interests

I disclose that I have no private relationship with the permit applicant. Traffix Group has worked with

other companies involved in this application.

These relationships have not impacted on my ability to provide impartial Expert Evidence to the

Tribunal.

Engagement and Scope of Report

I was retained by H & I Nominees Pty Ltd to provide expert evidence in relation to Amendment C160

to the Moreland Planning Scheme which seeks to rezone the former Spicers Paper Mills site at 1‐9

Moreland Road, Coburg from Industrial 3 Zone to Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and Commercial 2 Zone (C2Z),

and introduce Design & Development Overlay 25 (DDO25).


21648R#1

The scope of my engagement in relation to the Application for Review has included the following tasks:

inspection of the site and surrounding environs,

review of Amendment documentation,

review of Council policies and other relevant documents,

review of traffic and potential parking generation impacts of the proposal,

collection and analysis of traffic and parking data,

review of casualty road crash statistics,

review of indicative access arrangements,

review of third party submissions, and

preparation and giving of Expert Evidence in accordance with Planning Panels Victoria Guideline

No. 2 – Guide to Expert Evidence.

I have reviewed the following documents as part of my assessment:

Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C160 documentation,

relevant sections of the Moreland Planning Scheme,

Plans prepared by Urbis dated 27th May 2015,

Traffic assessment prepared by Ratio dated June 2015,

Draft schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (undated),

Moreland City Council Urban Presentation prepared by Architecton dated 5th June 2015,

Rezoning reports prepared by Urbis dated June 2015 and February 2016,

Various submissions from third parties and referral authorities,

Council meeting minutes dated 9th December 2015 and 14th September 2016,

relevant traffic data, and

other relevant traffic study reports

Facts and Assumptions

As detailed in evidence.

Reference Documents

As detailed above and in evidence.

Experiments

I have visited the site to observe traffic and parking activity within the nearby area.

A series of spot parking occupancy surveys have been conducted by Traffix Group. The surveys were

conducted between:

12pm, 1pm, 7pm & 8pm on Friday 14th October, 2016, and

12pm, 1pm, 7pm & 8pm on Saturday 15th October, 2016.

Automatic tube counts were undertaken in Moreland Road (immediately west of the site) and Moore

Street (at Holmes Road) for the 7‐day period between 7th and 13th October 2016.


21648R#1

Summary of Opinions

Refer to evidence.

Provisional Opinions

Not applicable.

Other members of Traffix Group involved in the preparation of Evidence

Jodie Place (Associate) assisted with the site inspection, design review, parking surveys and

preparation of this report.

Experienced survey staff members and technical officers employed by Traffix Group assisted with the

parking surveys detailed in this report.

Report Completeness

Final report.


21648R#1

Appendix B: Parking Survey Results

1-9 moreland Road, CoburgRef: 21648Parking Surveys

Supervised By: David Beaton / Fiona Banh

Surveyed By: Tian Miao Survey Dates & Times: See below

12pm 1pm 7pm 8pm 12pm 1pm 7pm 8pm

ON-STREET CARPARKING

MORELAND ROAD

North Side

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bus Zone - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Loading Zone 15 min 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, 8am-1pm Sat

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1/2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, 8am-1pm Sat 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, 8am-1pm Sat 11 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0


Bus Zone - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Along Subject Site (1-9 Moreland Rd)


Subject Site to Bridge No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South Side

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bus Zone 6am-8pm Mon-Sat 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unrestricted 6 5 5 2 2 5 4 2 2

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Bus Zone 6am-8pm Mon-Sat 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capacity 65 - 72 65 65 67 72 65 67 67 72

Total Number of Cars Parked 12 15 7 8 12 12 8 7

Total Number of Vacant Spaces 53 50 60 64 53 55 59 65

Percentage Occupancy 18% 23% 10% 11% 18% 18% 12% 10%

MORELAND ROAD

Lincoln Street to Bridge

Saturday 15th October, 2016CapacityMin - Max

RestrictionLocationFriday 14th October, 2016

Holmes Road to Reserve

Holmes Road to Sturrock Street

Along Reserve

Sturrock Street to Lanark Street

Lanark Street to Lincoln Street

Nb/Sb - Northern/Southern Property BoundaryEb/Wb - Eastern/Western Property BoundaryMid pt - Mid pointROW - Right of Way Prepared by Traffix Group Pty Ltd Page 1 of 2

1-9 moreland Road, CoburgRef: 21648Parking Surveys

Supervised By: David Beaton / Fiona Banh

Surveyed By: Tian Miao Survey Dates & Times: See below

12pm 1pm 7pm 8pm 12pm 1pm 7pm 8pm

Saturday 15th October, 2016CapacityMin - Max

RestrictionLocationFriday 14th October, 2016

MOORE STREET

North Side

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2P 6am-Midnight 13 4 7 8 5 6 7 5 6

Unrestricted 12 4 3 9 8 7 7 9 9

No Stopping - 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

South Side

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unrestricted 12 8 5 9 7 7 6 8 8

Unrestricted 20 14 13 14 14 12 13 11 12

Unrestricted (Site) 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capacity 59 - 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59




SUMMARY => ON-STREET CARPARKING

Car Parking Supply 124 - 131 124 124 126 131 124 126 126 131




LEGEND:

Not available to

the general

No Stopping/

Other No Parking

Holmes Street to End

Holmes Street to End

Note: Public parking includes spaces that are available to the general public and excludes 'No Stopping' areas during the relevant enforcement periods

MOORE STREET

Suitable

Nb/Sb - Northern/Southern Property BoundaryEb/Wb - Eastern/Western Property BoundaryMid pt - Mid pointROW - Right of Way Prepared by Traffix Group Pty Ltd Page 2 of 2


21648R#1

Appendix C: SIDRA Output

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: Moreland Road Access - AM Peak

AM PeakGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)

Movement Performance - VehiclesDemand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov

ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

AverageSpeed Total HV Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hEast: Moreland Road (E)

5 T1 818 6.0 0.436 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 59.9

6 R2 38 3.0 0.045 8.6 LOS A 0.2 1.3 0.58 0.74 50.7

Approach 856 5.9 0.436 0.4 NA 0.2 1.3 0.03 0.03 59.4

North: Site Access (N)

7 L2 27 3.0 0.183 8.2 LOS A 0.6 4.4 0.71 0.87 48.9

9 R2 64 3.0 0.183 13.5 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.71 0.87 48.5

Approach 92 3.0 0.183 11.9 LOS B 0.6 4.4 0.71 0.87 48.6

West: Moreland Road (W)

10 L2 88 3.0 0.349 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 57.4

11 T1 563 6.0 0.349 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 59.2

Approach 652 5.6 0.349 0.8 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.08 58.9

All Vehicles 1599 5.6 0.436 1.2 NA 0.6 4.4 0.05 0.10 58.5

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: TRAFFIX GROUP PTY LTD | Processed: Tuesday, 25 October 2016 4:20:52 PMProject: \\Tfxsrv01\group\Synergy\Projects\GRP2\GRP21648\07-Analysis\SIDRA\21648 SIDRA.sip6

MOVEMENT SUMMARYSite: Moreland Road Access - PM Peak

PM PeakGiveway / Yield (Two-Way)

Movement Performance - VehiclesDemand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov

ID ODMov

Deg.Satn

AverageDelay

Level ofService

Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

AverageSpeed Total HV Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/hEast: Moreland Road (E)

5 T1 634 6.0 0.338 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 59.9

6 R2 25 3.0 0.035 9.3 LOS A 0.1 0.9 0.61 0.76 50.2

Approach 659 5.9 0.338 0.4 NA 0.1 0.9 0.02 0.03 59.5

North: Site Access (N)

7 L2 40 3.0 0.244 9.6 LOS A 0.9 6.4 0.72 0.91 49.0

9 R2 94 3.0 0.244 12.7 LOS B 0.9 6.4 0.72 0.91 48.6

Approach 134 3.0 0.244 11.8 LOS B 0.9 6.4 0.72 0.91 48.7

West: Moreland Road (W)

10 L2 59 3.0 0.393 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 57.7

11 T1 677 6.0 0.393 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 59.4

Approach 736 5.8 0.393 0.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 59.3

All Vehicles 1528 5.6 0.393 1.4 NA 0.9 6.4 0.07 0.12 58.3

Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay per movementMinor Road Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all vehicle movements.NA: Intersection LOS and Major Road Approach LOS values are Not Applicable for two-way sign control since the average delay is not a good LOS measure due to zero delays associated with major road movements.SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.comOrganisation: TRAFFIX GROUP PTY LTD | Processed: Tuesday, 25 October 2016 4:20:49 PMProject: \\Tfxsrv01\group\Synergy\Projects\GRP2\GRP21648\07-Analysis\SIDRA\21648 SIDRA.sip6