appendix l traffic impact assessment · 2019. 10. 2. · and transportation study, namely, the...

APPENDIX L

Traffic Impact Assessment

LANELE OIL TERMINAL 1 (Lot 1) Ambrose Park, Bayhead, Durban

Traffic Impact Assessment September 2019

Tel +27(0)31 266 2600

Fax +27(0)31 266 2616

ILISO Building,

Derby Downs Office Park,

11 Derby Place, Westville

VERIFICATION SHEET

Project Description Proposed Petroleum Fuel Storage & Handling Terminal, Ambrose Park, Bayhead

Municipal Area eThekwini Metro Municipality

Application type Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment

Type of Report Traffic Impact Study

Declaration

The undersigned has been appointed as the registered professional for

this Traffic Impact Assessment and has applied due diligence to the

content of this report and endeavoured to ensure that the TIA is free of

technical errors and takes full responsibility for its contents.

I also undertake to attend any forum where the TIA is in dispute to report

on matters that relate to the TIA. I understand and agree that the

municipality shall not be liable to compensate me in this regard.

Signed

Full name

Relevant academic qualification

ECSA Professional registration

Date 09 September 2019

LANELE OIL TERMINAL 1 (Lot 1), AMBROSE PARK CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

This document is confidential and proprietary to NAKO SYSTRA and should not be disclosed in whole or in part to any third party, contractors or agents without the express written authorization. It should not be duplicated in whole or in part, for any other purpose other than the valuation of this report and shall be returned upon request. DISCLAIMER NAKO ILISO assumes no responsibility for any errors that may appear in this document. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. COPYRIGHT All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized copying is strictly prohibited

PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY

THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS SA (PTY) LTD NAKO Systra (Pty) Ltd.

71 Nanyuki Road, Sunninghill Johannesburg 2191

11 Derby Downs Place Derby Downs Office Park Westville 3630

Tel: +27 (0)11 208 1535 Fax: +27 (0)11 236 1125

Tel: 27 (0) 31 266 2600 Cell: 079 507 0937

Contact Person: Mr Joshua Visser Contact Person: Seniel Pillay

Email: [email protected] Email: : [email protected]

LANELE OIL TERMINAL 1 (LOT 1)

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

IDENTIFICATION TABLE

Project LANELE OIL TERMINAL 1 (LOT 1)

Study Traffic Impact Study

Type of Document Traffic Impact Assessment

Date 09/09/2019

File name 0000000 ‐25‐T001‐R‐GC‐Lanele Oil Terminal_rev00

APPROVAL

V Name Date of issue Modifications

1

Production Gordon CHETTY

09/09/2019 Check Carlos ESTEVES

Establishment of liability for the entity

Seniel PILLAY

2

Production

Check

Establishment of liability for the entity

TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST ETA Ref. No: …………………………… Date of Application:………………………. Development Address: Portion of Rem ERF 10019 Durban & Portion of King Royal Flats No 16576 Development Description: Proposed Petroleum Fuel Storage & Handling Terminal, Ambrose Park, Bayhead Traffic Professional: NAKO SYSTRA (Pty) Ltd

Content Yes No N/A Comment

1. Traffic impact assessment cover

2. Letter signed by ECSA registered professional

3. Development Particulars

3.1. Development description and reference name

3.2. Location plan

3.3. Land use rights existing and applied, including type and extent of rights, list of land uses under proposed zoning including town planning controls

4. Study area

4.1 Study area plan or map indicated

5. Background information

5.1. Listed information – transport facilities and planning

5.2. Relevant information provided by municipality e.g. Framework plans, road classification, traffic models, etc.

5.3. Schematic diagram/s See Report

6. Site investigation

6.1. Documented and photographic record (e.g. road conditions, geometrics, operations, transport facilities, etc)

7.Traffic Demand Estimation

7.1. Carried out for worst case trip demand land use under the proposed change in land use or extent as stipulated in the town planning application

7.2. Assessment years

7.3 Assessment hours

7.4. Traffic counts not more than 2 years old – date and time

7.5. Traffic growth rates

7.6. Trip generation rates

7.7. Modal split

8. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment

8.1. Manual trip distribution and assignment

8.2. Simulation software used for trip distribution and assignment – software files must be provided

Manual

8.3. Supporting information documented for traffic distribution and assignment

Manual

8.4. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment diagrams

9. Total traffic demand – all aspects including diagrams 10. Demand side mitigation See Report

11. Proposed improvements

11.1. New roads or widening or intersection improvements – TRL drawing and fatal flaw implementation screening checklist

See Report

11.2. Traffic signals must meet ETA’s Urban Traffic Control warrant and requirements. In addition, a roundabout assessment comparison must be carried out

See Report

11.3. Traffic management plans See Report

12. Traffic Impact Assessment Scenarios

12.1. Assessment based on worst case land use scenario

12.2. Design year horizon assessment

12.2.1. “Without” proposed mitigating measures (with and without development)

See Report

12.2.2. “With” proposed mitigating measures (with and without development

See Report

12.3. Planning year horizon assessment

12.3.1. “With” proposed mitigating measures See Report

13. Site Impact Assessment (if applicable)

14. Transport requirements and cost

14.1. Any changes to transport master planning

14.2. Transport / Road services cost contribution

14.3. Improvement costs estimates or municipal tariff as applicable

14.4. Recommendations

14.5. Traffic Road Layout Plans

14.6. Eng. Drawings, Cost estimate, Financial guarantees, and Undertakings for new or existing road improvements

15. Recommendations

15.1. The change in land use for which approval is required.

15.2. Proposed type and location of all erf accesses.

15.3. The improvements, changes and mitigation measures that are required, subject thereto that these improvements or measures may be amended in subsequent investigations.

None required

15.4. Elements of the transport / road network master plan that should be implemented in support of the development.

15.5 Traffic management measures aimed at protecting residential or other sensitive areas.

16. Appendix

16.1. Relevant Traffic Impact Assessment Correspondence. e.g. Traffic Counts, analysis details, maps, plans, etc

Date: Signature Name: Professional registration details:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. DEVELOPMENT PARTICULARS ..................................................................................................1

1.1 Background Information ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Proposed Development ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2.2 Operations ............................................................................................................................ 2

1.2.3 Objective ........................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Site Location ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.5 Access Management ................................................................................................................. 3

2. STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................4

3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................................................................................5

3.1 Listed information - Transportation Facilities and Planning ....................................................... 5

3.1.1 Transportation Facilities .................................................................................................... 5

3.1.2 Planning ............................................................................................................................ 5

4. OTHER PLANNING AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................................5

5 TRAFFIC DEMAND ESTIMATION .................................................................................................6

5.1 Worst case land use trip demand .............................................................................................. 6

5.2 Assessment years ..................................................................................................................... 6

5.3 Assessment hours .................................................................................................................... 6

5.4 Background traffic demand estimation ...................................................................................... 6

5.4.1 Traffic counts ..................................................................................................................... 6

5.4.2 Traffic growth .................................................................................................................... 7

5.5 Modal Split ................................................................................................................................ 8

6. TRIP GENERATION ......................................................................................................................8

7. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ....................................................................................9

7.1 Trip types .................................................................................................................................. 9

7.2 Manual Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment ....................................................................... 9

7.3 Pass-by, diverted and transferred trips ...................................................................................... 9

7.4 Simulation software: Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment ................................................... 9

7.5 Supporting documentation: Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment ........................................ 9

7.6 Diagrams: Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment .................................................................. 9

8. CAPACITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 11

8.1 Analysis Information: Total Traffic volumes ............................................................................. 11

8.2 Measure of effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 12

8.3 Intersection analysis: Background Traffic ................................................................................ 12

8.5 Road Link Capacity Assessment ............................................................................................. 14

9. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................... 14

9.1 New roads / widening / intersection improvements ................................................................. 14

9.2 Traffic signals .......................................................................................................................... 14

9.3 Traffic management plans ....................................................................................................... 14

10. TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS ........................................................................ 15

10.1 Worst case land use scenario ................................................................................................. 15

10.2 Design year horizon assessment ............................................................................................ 15

10.2.1 “Without” proposed mitigating measures ......................................................................... 15

10.2.2 “With” proposed mitigating measures .............................................................................. 15

10.3 Planning year horizon ............................................................................................................. 15

10.3.1 “With” proposed mitigating measures .............................................................................. 15

11. SITE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................... 16

11.1 Access to Development .......................................................................................................... 16

11.2 Parking .................................................................................................................................... 16

12. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 17

12.1 Proposed development ........................................................................................................... 17

12.2 Traffic impact assessment ...................................................................................................... 17

12.3 Road Link Capacity ................................................................................................................. 17

12.4 Access .................................................................................................................................... 17

12.5 Parking .................................................................................................................................... 18

13. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 18

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Road characteristics 5

Table 2: Trip Generation 8

Table 3: Level of Service Definitions 12

Table 4: 2019 & 2024 Background Traffic Analysis 12

Table 5: 2019 & 2024 Background with Development Traffic Analysis Results 13

Table 6: Road Link Capacity Assessment: Total Traffic 14

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of the Development Site 3

Figure 2: Proposed Access arrangement 3

Figure 3: Extent of study area 4

Figure 4: 2017 Weekday AM, PM Peak Hour Volume 6



Figure 7: Proposed Development Distribution – AM, PM Peak Hour 10

Figure 8: Proposed Development Generated Traffic Assignment – AM, PM Peak Hour 10

Figure 9: 2019 Total traffic volumes - AM, PM Peak Hour 11

Figure 10: 2024 Total traffic volumes - AM, PM Peak Hour 11

Figure 11: Existing intersection layout 13

APPENDICES Appendix A Traffic Count Data

Appendix B SIDRA Output Files

Appendix C Conceptual Development Plan

Proposed Lanele Oil Terminal (Lot 1) Development, Ambrose Park, eThekwini Municipality P a g e | 1 Traffic Impact Assessment

1. DEVELOPMENT PARTICULARS

1.1 Background Information In terms of the National Environmental Management Act, NEMA, (Act 107 of 1998), ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions SA (Pty) Ltd on behalf of the Lanele Group is required to obtain environmental authorisation from the Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, EDTEA, for which a full Environment Impact Assessment is required. ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions SA (Pty) Ltd has appointed Golder Associates as the independent Environmental Practitioner to undertake the EIA, who have in-turn appointed NAKO Systra (Pty) Ltd to undertake the Specialist Traffic and Transportation Study, namely, the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), which is the focus of this report. 1.2 Proposed Development

1.2.1 Overview

This TIA considered the development of the Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1), which will be developed in phases over the first few years to reach a total liquid fuel storage capacity of 225 000 m3.

All phases of the proposed development form part of the EIA process, thus, this traffic study was conducted on the full development.

A summary of the proposed development is given in the Tables below.

Storage Tanks

Product Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel

95 Unleaded Petrol Jet Fuel Marine Gas Oil Blend

Component

Phase 1 –

Cumulative Total 4 x 25 000 m3 2 x 15 000 m3 1 x 15 000 m3 3 x 20 000 m3 1 x 10 000 m3

Phase 2 –

Cumulative Total

4 x 25 000 m3

1 x 10 000 m3 2 x 15 000 m3 1 x 15 000 m3 3 x 20 000 m3 1 x 10 000 m3

Export – Road Loading

Product Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel 95 Unleaded Petrol Jet Fuel

Phase 1 –

Cumulative Total 4 points 2 points 2 points

Phase 2 –

Cumulative Total 7 points 2 points 2 points


1.2.2 Operations

The proposed development is only viable provided the primary distribution of the products will be via the Transnet Multi Pipeline via common user infrastructure.

The proposed development will operate on a single shift, 8-hour day, 5 day working day having 21 working days per month.

Based on the information provided, the anticipated skilled work force to the proposed development is envisaged to be twenty persons.

The proposed development will be serviced by heavy vehicles with the frequency detailed in the Table below:

Road Gantry Req Unit Total ULP93 ULP95 LRP93 LRP95 D500 LSD ULSD IP Jet-A1 HFO

Trucks per hour No. 7 - 1 - - - - 5 - 1 -

Trucks per day No. 52 0 7 0 0 0 0 38 0 7 0

1.2.3 Objective

The objectives were to assess the impact of the proposed development on the existing transport system and if necessary to evolve appropriate mitigating measures that would be required to meet the anticipated traffic demand, under various scenarios.

1.3 Site Location The development site is located at Ambrose Park within the Port of Durban with access to be taken off Street 121792.

The development will be situated on Portion of Rem ERF 10019 Durban & Portion of King Royal Flats No 16576 on a site area of some 7.1 ha which is located within the eThekwini Municipal area.

Figure 1 shows the location of the development site.


Figure 1: Location of the Development Site

1.4 Land Use

Current and Proposed Rights Currently, the development site is undeveloped land and is zoned Harbour as per the Durban Town Planning Scheme.

The proposed development aligns itself to its current zoning as per the Town Planning Scheme controls.

1.5 Access Management

The proposed development will take access off two access points along Street 121792 as shown at Figure 2.

Figure 2: Proposed Access arrangement


1.6 Latent development

The Ambrose Park development is anticipated to consist of four proposed bulk liquid fuel storage facilities that includes the application site under consideration in this traffic study.

The other three proposed bulk liquid fuel storage facilities would include the following:

NOOA Facility – 321 trucks (96 PCU’s) in the peak hour The other two sites were assumed to have similar operations to that of the proposed Lanele

Storage Facility. 1 – extracted from the NOOA Petroleum Ambrose Park TIA

2. STUDY AREA In general, the scope of traffic studies are limited to intersections (and road networks) that will be affected significantly, due to the development-generated traffic. It is common cause that the traffic impacts of new developments are concentrated on the immediate transportation network with these impacts dissipating further away from the development as more access opportunities become available and traffic disperses onto the broader road network.

Consequently, the following roads were deemed to be most impacted upon by the proposed development:

I. Bayhead Road II. Langeberg Road

III. Street 121792 The extent of the study area is illustrated at Figure 3.

Figure 3: Extent of study area


3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 Listed information - Transportation Facilities and Planning

3.1.1 Transportation Facilities

According to the RIFSA classification of the road network, the study area constitutes of Class 3 and 5 roads.

Table 1 lists the roads relevant to this traffic study with its key transport information.

Table 1: Road characteristics

Name of Road Class Owner No. of

Lanes Road Width (m) Public Transport Road Condition

Bayhead Road Cl 3 eThekwini Four lane,

two way 3.5 wide lane width Kerb side drop-off PT service Fair

Langeberg Road Cl 3 eThekwini Four lane,

two way 3.5 wide lane width No Fair

Street 121792 Cl 5 eThekwini Two lane,

two way 9.0 wide road way No Fair

Intersections: The Bayhead Road with Langeberg Road and Street 121792 intersection is signalised.

3.1.2 Planning

“The eThekwini Transport Authority is in the early stages of conceptualising options for a second access to the Port with a possible extension of Langeberg Road, as discussed at the 2017 ETA seminar Enhancing the Durban-Gauteng Corridor – the timeframe for this proposal is unknown at this stage. No information was made available by the eThekwini Municipality with regards to any planned upgrades to transport facilities that would be likely to be implemented in the area during the time horizon for which this traffic assessment has been undertaken.”

4. OTHER PLANNING AUTHORITIES The traffic impact of the proposed development is limited only to the eThekwini Municipal area and therefore, no other planning authorities are affected as a result of the proposed development.


5 TRAFFIC DEMAND ESTIMATION 5.1 Worst case land use trip demand The proposed Petroleum Fuel Storage & Handling Terminal development would produce the worst case trip demand.

5.2 Assessment years

In terms of the eThekwini Transport Authority’s TIA Guidelines, any development generating trips up to 1 000 peak hour trips will require a 5-year horizon to be assessed.

5.3 Assessment hours The proposed development is anticipated to generate trips mainly during the Weekday morning and afternoon peak periods.

5.4 Background traffic demand estimation

In order to determine the likely traffic impact that the proposed development would have on the road network, it was necessary to ascertain the current traffic performance of the road system within the study area.

5.4.1 Traffic counts

Manual traffic counts conducted on Tuesday, 07th November 2017 were obtained from Bala Survey and Research, for the Weekday morning and afternoon peak periods at the intersection identified within the study area. The traffic count data is given in Appendix B.

The traffic counts were used to determine the current level of traffic operations at the affected intersection in the study area and are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: 2017 Weekday AM, PM Peak Hour Volume


5.4.2 Traffic growth A background traffic growth rate of 2% was utilised for the purposes of this TIA, which is in alignment to the growth rates applied by the eThekwini Transport Authority.

Accordingly, the 2017 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hour background traffic counts were escalated at this rate of 2% to determine the 2019 and 2024 peak hour background traffic counts. The 2019 and 2024 background traffic counts are shown at Figures 5 and 6, respectively.




5.5 Modal Split It is assumed that the majority of the trips generated by the proposed development would use private transport although a negligible number of trips would use public and non-motorised transport. 6. TRIP GENERATION The document “Manual for Traffic Impact Assessments and Site Traffic Assessment, Version 0.1, October 2015” (herein referred to as the Manual) published by the eThekwini Transport Authority (ETA) is silent for a petrochemical industrial land use such as a new liquid bulk fuel tank farm.

Based on the information provided, the proposed development would be serviced by 7 heavy vehicles in an hour and having a skilled staff compliment of 20 workers.

Using a passenger car unit (PCU) factor of 3, thus, the 7 heavy vehicles are equated to 21 PCU’s (used 22 PCU’s in the analysis).

The following assumptions were made to determine a worst-case traffic loading scenario:

I. All skilled staff would travel by private vehicle to / from the proposed development. II. A conservative vehicle occupancy of 1 was used.

III. All skilled staff would enter and exit the development site in the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively.

IV. The heavy vehicles would enter / exit the development site in the same peak hour with a 50% in : 50% out split.

The expected trip generation characteristics are given in Table 2.

Table 2: Trip Generation

Land Use No AM PM Fuel Storage & Handling In Out In Out Proposed Development Heavy vehicles (in PCU’s) 22 11 11 11 11

Skilled staff 20 20 0 0 20

TOTAL 42 31 11 11 31 Latent Development NOOA Facility

Heavy vehicles (in PCU’s) 96 48 48 48 48


Other 2 Facilities

Heavy vehicles (in PCU’s) 44 22 22 22 22


TOTAL 301 163 118 118 163

AMBROSE PARK DEVELOPMENT 343 194 129 129 194

% SPLIT 100% 57% 43% 43% 57%


Based on Table 2, the proposed development is expected to generate a total of 42 new (primary) trips on the immediate surrounding road network during the Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively.

7. TRIP DISTRIBUTION and ASSIGNMENT 7.1 Trip types

All trips generated by the proposed development was treated as primary trips.

7.2 Manual Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment

In order to determine the traffic impact of the proposed development on the surrounding road network, the generated trips were distributed onto the existing road network.

The gravity model was undertaken to determine the trips distribution of the proposed development. Consequently, as result of the location of the proposed development site on the road network, the traffic generated by the proposed development was distributed based on the distribution pattern as of the 2019 background traffic flows.

7.3 Pass-by, diverted and transferred trips

Not applicable in this Traffic Impact Assessment.

7.4 Simulation software: Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment Not applicable in this Traffic Impact Assessment.

7.5 Supporting documentation: Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment Not applicable in this Traffic Impact Assessment.

7.6 Diagrams: Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment The detailed Weekday morning and afternoon peak hour trip distribution percentages for the proposed development are shown in Figure 7.


Figure 7: Proposed Development Distribution – AM, PM Peak Hour

Figure 8: Proposed Development Generated Traffic Assignment – AM, PM Peak Hour


8. CAPACITY ANALYSIS 8.1 Analysis Information: Total Traffic volumes The intersection within the study area was analysed for the various scenarios.

The proposed development generated traffic was combined with the 2019 and 2024 background traffic volumes for the Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours.

The results of the 2019 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours Total traffic volumes are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: 2019 Total traffic volumes - AM, PM Peak Hour

The results of the 2024 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours Total traffic volumes are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: 2024 Total traffic volumes - AM, PM Peak Hour


8.2 Measure of effectiveness

The aaSIDRA Intersection 7.0 software was used to analyse the intersections within the study area. The traffic performance of the intersection analysed was based on the Level of Service (LOS) concept. Level of Service (LOS) can be defined as a measure of congestion and delay at an intersection, with LOS A being the best (free-flow, no congestion) and LOS F being the worst (breakdown conditions with very high delays).

Table 3 defines the Level of Service as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream as defined in terms of delay experienced in seconds.

Table 3: Level of Service Definitions

Level of Service Signalised Intersections

Stopped Delay (seconds)

Un-Signalised Intersections Total Delay (seconds)

A < 10 < 10 B > 10 and < 20 > 10 and < 15 C > 20 and < 35 > 15 and < 25 D > 35 and < 55 > 25 and < 35 E > 55 and < 80 > 35 and < 50 F > 80 > 50

8.3 Intersection analysis: Background Traffic

Intersection analysis was performed using aaSidra computer software in order to determine the Volume / Capacity (v/c), Delay in Seconds and Level of Service (LOS) at the affected intersection within the study area. The aaSidra output data is given in Appendix C.

The summary of the capacity analysis results for Background traffic in the 2019 and 2024 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: 2019 & 2024 Background Traffic Analysis

V/C Delay (s) LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS

South 0.023 11.5 B 0.022 12.6 B 0.027 11.9 B 0.625 12.1 B

East 0.225 7.8 A 0.243 19.5 B 0.250 7.9 A 0.268 19.7 B

North 0.257 33.9 C 0.250 18.3 B 0.281 32.6 C 0.278 18.6 B

West 0.255 7.4 A 0.249 19.0 B 0.284 7.5 A 0.274 19.3 B

Overall 0.257 11.3 B 0.250 18.7 B 0.284 11.2 B 0.278 19.0 B

Bayhead Road / Langeberg Road / Street 121792 - Background Traffic

Approach AM PM

2019 2024AM PM


The existing geometric layout of the intersection within the study area is given in Figure 11.

Intersection Appraisal

Bayhead Road / Langerberg Road / Street 121792

Intersection

The intersection would operate satisfactorily with no approach worse than LOS B during both the 2019 and 2024 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours.

Figure 11: Existing intersection layout

8.4 Intersection Analysis: Total Traffic The summary of the capacity analysis results for the Total Development traffic loading in the 2019 and 2024 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: 2019 & 2024 Background with Development Traffic Analysis Results

Appraisal The analysis results in Table 5 show that after the development generated traffic has been added to the Background traffic in 2019 and 2024 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, the development generated traffic will have no significant impact on the surrounding road network.

The intersections analysed in the study area are anticipated to operate satisfactorily with no approach worse than LOS C during both the 2019 and 2024 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours with negligible increases in delays and there will still be spare road capacity available.

V/C Delay (s) LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS

South 0.093 11.6 B 0.142 10.6 B 0.100 11.6 B 0.147 10.8 B

East 0.234 8.9 A 0.267 22.5 C 0.255 8.7 A 0.295 22.9 C

North 0.296 32.9 C 0.297 20.6 C 0.284 33.0 C 0.302 18.1 B

West 0.298 9.3 A 0.273 22.7 C 0.288 8.6 A 0.301 23.0 C

Overall 0.298 12.6 B 0.297 20.1 C 0.288 11.9 B 0.302 19.8 B

Bayhead Road / Langeberg Road / Street 121792 - Background + Development Traffic

Approach2019 2024

AM PM AM PM


8.5 Road Link Capacity Assessment A road link capacity assessment was undertaken using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) – Exhibit 23-3 to calculate the road link capacity along Bayhead Road, Langeberg Road and Street 121792 using an average passenger-car speed of 40 km/h during the peak hours.

Table 6 summarises the road link capacity assessment (two-way vehicle capacity per hour) for the Background + development generated traffic in the Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours.

Table 6: Road Link Capacity Assessment: Total Traffic

Name of Road Class

Lane Width

(m)

No. of Lanes

Link Capacity (2-way)

Worst Link Volumes

(both directions) Road widening

reqd. (min width)

Potential Link

Capacity 2019 2024

Bayhead Road Cl 3 3.5 wide 4 3 200

1 978 AM

1 737 PM

2 148 AM

1 882 PM - -

Langeberg Road Cl 3 3.5

wide 4 3 200 668 AM

764 PM

730 AM

831 PM - -

Street 121792 Cl 5 4.5 wide 2 1 600

401 AM

430 PM

407 AM

439 PM - -

From Table 6, the roads within the study area are anticipated to accommodate the development generated traffic during the 2019 and 2024 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours to achieve a road link capacity of at least a LOS D.

9. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Section 8 substantiates that the intersection analysed will continue to operate satisfactorily during both the Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, with negligible increase in delays even after the development generated traffic is added to the 2019 and 2024 background traffic.

9.1 New roads / widening / intersection improvements No upgrades to the roads or existing intersections are required as a result of this proposed development.

9.2 Traffic signals No signals are required as a result of this proposed development.

9.3 Traffic management plans No traffic management plans are required as a result of this proposed development.


10. TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS 10.1 Worst case land use scenario The traffic assessment analysis was based on an EIA application which would establish a worst case land use to develop a Fuel and Storage Handling Terminal having a storage capacity of 225 000 m3.

10.2 Design year horizon assessment

10.2.1 “Without” proposed mitigating measures This Report assessed the need for mitigating measures, in the design year horizon (2019), with development; see Section 8 – Capacity Analysis.

The analysis showed that no proposed mitigating measures would be required.

10.2.2 “With” proposed mitigating measures

This Report assessed whether the proposed mitigating measures would be effective in addressing the impacts of the development, in the design year horizon (2019), with development; see Section 8 – Capacity Analysis.


10.3 Planning year horizon

10.3.1 “With” proposed mitigating measures This Report assessed the planning year horizon (2024), with the purpose of establishing whether it would be physically possible to accommodate the proposed development on the road network within the study area; see Section 8 – Capacity Analysis.



11. SITE IMPACT ASSESSMENT The Site Development Plan had not been finalised at the time of writing this Report, however, a detailed Conceptual Layout is given in Appendix C. The internal arrangements of the Site Development with the parking, access locations, and access configuration are under development.

11.1 Access to Development Two accesses off Street 121792 are proposed to serve the proposed development.

The following conditions are to be adhered to on submission of the Building Plan application:

The accesses to the development site would be a priority controlled intersection, with priority given to Street 121792.

A free-entry access is proposed to the property during the operational hours of the development site.

The Accesses will have a minimum width of 6.0 metres. The accesses will be designed in accordance with the eThekwini Transport Authority’s

standards and specifications.

The minimum shoulder sight distance for a Stop Condition access point on a road with a design speed of 40 km/h is approximately 50.0 metres. Thus, the line of sight of 50.0 metres must be maintained at the Access points of the development site, in both directions.

11.2 Parking Based on the information provided, the proposed development would be serviced by 7 heavy vehicles in an hour and having a skilled staff compliment of 20 workers.

Consequently, as a worst case scenario, the following are to be provided:

Twenty parking bays would need to be provided to accommodate the staff, and

Seven WB 50 loading bays having 17.0m x 4.0m would need to be provided within the curtilage of the site

All parking facilities, accesses and driveways are to be designed and dimensioned in accordance with the schedule of guidelines for off-street parking as per the eThekwini Town Planning Scheme.

Due to the nature of the products being transported, the following will be required at building plan submission stage:

Operational route plan; Hazard and chemical route permit/ similar supporting document.


12. CONCLUSION Based on the traffic study, the following are concluded: 12.1 Proposed development

The development will be situated on Portion of Rem ERF 10019 Durban & Portion of King Royal Flats No 16576, having a site area of some 7.1 ha, within the eThekwini Municipal area.

The proposed Fuel Storage and Handling Terminal development would provide an ultimate

storage facility of 225 000 m3.

The proposed development would generate 42 vehicle trips during the Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively, with a directional split of 31 in / 11 out in the morning and reversed in the afternoon peak hours.

12.2 Traffic impact assessment

The intersection of Bayhead Road with Langeberg Rod and Street 121792 was analysed within the study area.

The intersection analyses showed that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development would be able to be accommodated within the existing transportation facilities, with no approach worse than LOS B during both the 2019 and 2024 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours.

12.3 Road Link Capacity

The road link capacity assessment revealed that the development generated traffic will have a negligible road link capacity impact on Bayhead Road, Langeberg Road and Street 121792 during the 2019 and 2024 Weekday morning and afternoon peak hours to achieve at least a LOS D on these roads

12.4 Access

Two accesses off Street 121792 are proposed to serve the proposed development.

The accesses to the development site would be a priority controlled intersection, with priority given to Street 121792.

A free-entry access is proposed to the property during the operational hours of the

development site.

The Accesses will have a minimum width of 6.0 metres.

The accesses will be designed in accordance with the eThekwini Transport Authority’s standards and specifications.


The minimum shoulder sight distance for a Stop Condition access point on a road with a design speed of 40 km/h is approximately 50.0 metres. Thus, the line of sight of 50.0 metres must be maintained at the Access points of the development site, in both directions.

12.5 Parking

Based on the information provided, the proposed development would be serviced by 7 heavy vehicles in an hour and having a skilled staff compliment of 20 workers.

Consequently, as a worst case scenario, the following are to be provided:

Twenty parking bays would need to be provided to accommodate the staff, and

Seven WB 50 loading bays having 17.0m x 4.0m would need to be provided within the curtilage of the site

All parking facilities, accesses and driveways are to be designed and dimensioned in accordance with the schedule of guidelines for off-street parking as per the eThekwini Town Planning Scheme.

Due to the nature of the products being transported, the following will be required at building plan submission stage:

Operational route plan; Hazard and chemical route permit/ similar supporting document.

13. RECOMMENDATIONS Since the proposed Fuel Storage and Handling Terminal, to be situated on a portion of the Portion of

Rem ERF 10019 Durban & Portion of King Royal Flats No 16576 located within the port of Natal, to

establish a storage facility of 225 000 m3 is expected to have a negligible impact on the road network

within the Bayhead area and particularly on Street 121792, consequently, it is therefore, recommended

that the EIA application be approved from a traffic and transportation engineering point of view.

Proposed Lanele Oil Terminal (Lot 1) Development, Ambrose Park, eThekwini Municipality Traffic Impact Assessment

Appendix A

TRAFFIC COUNTS


CLIENT:

SITE: INTERSECTION OF BAYHEAD ROAD AND LANGERBERG ROAD

DATE: PEAK HOUR COUNT ON TUESDAY 07 NOVEMBER 2017UNITS: CLASSIFIED

AM PEAK

APPROACH FROM TOTAL NAME

MOVEMENT ALL TIME C T H B TOTAL C T H B TOTAL C T H B TOTAL MOVEMENTS

06:00 - 06:15 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 2 2 22 2306:15 - 06:30 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 23 2 13 1 39 4306:30 - 06:45 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 11 0 30 8 49 5306:45 - 07:00 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 10 2 34 3 49 5207:00 - 07:15 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 8 0 31 0 39 4407:15 - 07:30 6 0 3 0 9 2 0 1 0 3 14 2 35 1 52 6407:30 - 07:45 6 1 1 0 8 1 0 1 0 2 16 2 40 0 58 6807:45 - 08:00 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 30 1 36 3708:00 - 08:15 3 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 25 0 33 3908:15 - 08:30 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 41 0 62 6608:30 - 08:45 5 0 3 0 8 0 0 2 0 2 6 1 45 0 52 6208:45 - 09:00 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 2 0 2 13 0 41 0 54 60

TOTAL 36 1 17 0 54 3 0 9 0 12 152 10 367 16 545 611

PM PEAK



15:00 - 15:15 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 20 0 35 3915:15 - 15:30 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 22 0 27 0 49 5315:30 - 15:45 5 0 3 0 8 2 0 1 0 3 33 0 31 0 64 7515:45 - 16:00 1 0 10 0 11 2 0 0 0 2 35 0 37 1 73 8616:00 - 16:15 6 0 2 0 8 1 0 0 0 1 36 0 32 1 69 7816:15 - 16:30 2 0 5 0 7 0 0 1 0 1 28 0 45 0 73 8116:30 - 16:45 14 0 4 0 18 1 0 0 0 1 67 0 47 5 119 13816:45 - 17:00 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 38 1 36 0 75 8217:00 - 17:15 10 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 41 2 70 8217:15 - 17:30 5 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 17 0 27 1 45 5217:30 - 17:45 4 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 46 0 58 6417:45 - 18:00 6 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 15 0 32 40

TOTAL 65 0 31 0 96 7 0 4 1 12 347 1 404 10 762 870

NORTHLANGERBERG ROAD

LEFT TURN STRAIGHT RIGHT TURN

TRAFFIC SURVEY

NORTHLANGERBERG ROAD



CLIENT:



AM PEAK



06:00 - 06:15 4 0 4 0 8 3 0 3 0 6 5 0 2 0 7 2106:15 - 06:30 4 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 806:30 - 06:45 1 0 2 0 3 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 706:45 - 07:00 3 0 4 0 7 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1007:00 - 07:15 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 507:15 - 07:30 2 0 3 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 607:30 - 07:45 2 0 3 0 5 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 15 0 16 2307:45 - 08:00 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 308:00 - 08:15 1 0 8 0 9 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1208:15 - 08:30 1 0 3 0 4 2 0 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 3 1108:30 - 08:45 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 508:45 - 09:00 1 0 5 0 6 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9

TOTAL 20 0 40 0 60 12 0 11 0 23 12 0 25 0 37 120

PM PEAK



15:00 - 15:15 3 0 7 0 10 6 0 6 0 12 4 0 3 0 7 2915:15 - 15:30 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 715:30 - 15:45 2 0 2 0 4 1 0 5 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 1115:45 - 16:00 1 0 5 0 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1216:00 - 16:15 1 0 3 0 4 1 0 5 0 6 2 0 4 0 6 1616:15 - 16:30 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 916:30 - 16:45 1 0 5 0 6 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 816:45 - 17:00 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 417:00 - 17:15 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 717:15 - 17:30 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 317:30 - 17:45 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 817:45 - 18:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 4

TOTAL 9 0 36 1 46 11 0 38 1 50 10 0 12 0 22 118

SOUTHUNKNOWN ROAD


TRAFFIC SURVEY

SOUTHUNKNOWN ROAD



CLIENT:



AM PEAK



06:00 - 06:15 0 0 1 0 1 14 0 1 0 15 2 0 0 0 2 1806:15 - 06:30 0 0 0 0 0 41 1 2 0 44 1 0 0 1 2 4606:30 - 06:45 1 0 0 0 1 133 1 9 1 144 22 0 0 0 22 16706:45 - 07:00 4 0 0 0 4 122 4 7 0 133 18 0 0 1 19 15607:00 - 07:15 0 0 0 0 0 139 1 8 0 148 12 0 0 0 12 16007:15 - 07:30 2 0 0 0 2 104 1 11 0 116 15 0 1 0 16 13407:30 - 07:45 0 0 2 0 2 94 0 26 0 120 15 0 2 0 17 13907:45 - 08:00 1 0 0 0 1 55 2 12 0 69 15 0 2 0 17 8708:00 - 08:15 1 0 0 0 1 34 1 8 0 43 13 0 3 0 16 6008:15 - 08:30 2 0 4 0 6 36 0 18 0 54 5 0 2 0 7 6708:30 - 08:45 0 0 2 0 2 27 0 20 0 47 4 0 0 0 4 5308:45 - 09:00 0 0 1 0 1 24 0 25 1 50 1 0 2 0 3 54

TOTAL 11 0 10 0 21 823 11 147 2 983 123 0 12 2 137 1141

PM PEAK



15:00 - 15:15 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 8 0 30 4 0 6 0 10 4015:15 - 15:30 1 0 0 0 1 36 0 13 1 50 2 0 0 0 2 5315:30 - 15:45 1 0 3 0 4 48 1 18 2 69 4 0 2 1 7 8015:45 - 16:00 1 0 0 0 1 61 0 32 3 96 8 0 3 1 12 10916:00 - 16:15 0 0 2 0 2 108 1 33 1 143 3 0 1 0 4 14916:15 - 16:30 1 0 2 0 3 45 0 26 0 71 1 0 1 0 2 7616:30 - 16:45 1 0 2 0 3 66 1 27 0 94 3 0 2 0 5 10216:45 - 17:00 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 11 0 33 1 0 1 0 2 3517:00 - 17:15 1 0 0 0 1 20 0 16 0 36 7 0 1 0 8 4517:15 - 17:30 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 26 0 39 1 0 0 0 1 4017:30 - 17:45 1 0 0 0 1 22 0 32 0 54 5 0 3 0 8 6317:45 - 18:00 0 0 1 0 1 8 0 13 0 21 1 0 1 0 2 24

TOTAL 7 0 10 0 17 471 3 255 7 736 40 0 21 2 63 816

EASTBAYHEAD ROAD


TRAFFIC SURVEY

EASTBAYHEAD ROAD



CLIENT:



AM PEAK



06:00 - 06:15 44 1 4 1 50 34 0 4 0 38 1 0 0 0 1 8906:15 - 06:30 51 1 10 2 64 34 1 9 0 44 2 0 2 0 4 11206:30 - 06:45 75 3 18 2 98 94 3 16 3 116 5 0 0 0 5 21906:45 - 07:00 55 1 35 1 92 81 0 24 0 105 2 0 3 0 5 20207:00 - 07:15 38 2 13 0 53 62 0 18 1 81 1 0 3 0 4 13807:15 - 07:30 27 1 20 1 49 80 0 24 0 104 0 0 2 0 2 15507:30 - 07:45 59 1 41 0 101 63 0 33 0 96 0 0 2 0 2 19907:45 - 08:00 31 0 18 1 50 36 0 16 0 52 0 0 4 0 4 10608:00 - 08:15 33 1 29 0 63 45 0 29 0 74 0 0 2 0 2 13908:15 - 08:30 19 1 31 0 51 26 0 26 0 52 0 0 5 0 5 10808:30 - 08:45 13 0 21 0 34 23 0 19 0 42 3 0 5 0 8 8408:45 - 09:00 19 0 37 0 56 25 0 28 0 53 2 0 2 0 4 113

TOTAL 464 12 277 8 761 603 4 246 4 857 16 0 30 0 46 1664

PM PEAK



15:00 - 15:15 9 0 19 0 28 12 0 10 0 22 0 0 1 0 1 5115:15 - 15:30 8 0 58 0 66 15 0 26 0 41 0 0 4 0 4 11115:30 - 15:45 7 0 63 0 70 36 0 52 0 88 0 0 15 0 15 17315:45 - 16:00 6 0 45 2 53 42 1 26 0 69 0 0 4 0 4 12616:00 - 16:15 8 0 34 0 42 55 0 26 0 81 1 0 3 0 4 12716:15 - 16:30 5 0 22 2 29 16 0 7 0 23 2 0 2 0 4 5616:30 - 16:45 13 0 48 2 63 58 0 23 0 81 1 0 12 0 13 15716:45 - 17:00 10 0 22 0 32 22 0 18 1 41 4 0 3 0 7 8017:00 - 17:15 10 0 43 0 53 53 0 27 0 80 0 0 2 0 2 13517:15 - 17:30 5 0 21 0 26 29 0 17 0 46 0 0 4 0 4 7617:30 - 17:45 19 4 26 3 52 50 1 32 0 83 4 0 6 0 10 14517:45 - 18:00 13 1 9 0 23 35 2 5 0 42 1 0 2 0 3 68

TOTAL 113 5 410 9 537 423 4 269 1 697 13 0 58 0 71 1305

WESTBAYHEAD ROAD


TRAFFIC SURVEY

WESTBAYHEAD ROAD



Appendix B SIDRA OUTPUT FILES


Site: 2019 AM Bayhead Road / Langeberg Rd / Street 121792 Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 120 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Degree of Saturation) Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo

v Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average

Delay Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Prop. Queued

Effective Stop Rate

Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance

veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h

South: Street 121792 S 1 L2 21 0.0 0.023 1.1 LOS A 0.2 1.1 0.19 0.14 53.4 2 T1 5 0.0 0.011 34.6 LOS C 0.2 1.6 0.78 0.52 38.4 3 R2 4 0.0 0.010 34.6 LOS C 0.2 1.3 0.78 0.52 35.9 Approach 31 0.0 0.023 11.5 LOS B 0.2 1.6 0.38 0.26 47.1 East: Bayhead Road E 4 L2 7 0.0 0.006 6.4 LOS A 0.1 1.0 0.34 0.23 49.0 5 T1 593 0.0 0.225 7.5 LOS A 7.0 48.9 0.41 0.36 53.4 6 R2 76 0.0 0.145 10.2 LOS B 2.0 14.1 0.45 0.37 46.8 Approach 676 0.0 0.225 7.8 LOS A 7.0 48.9 0.41 0.36 52.5 North: Langeberg Rd N 7 L2 20 0.0 0.017 0.6 LOS A 0.1 1.0 0.13 0.10 53.8 8 T1 6 0.0 0.257 37.0 LOS D 5.1 35.9 0.85 0.68 35.5 9 R2 207 0.0 0.257 37.0 LOS D 5.1 35.9 0.85 0.68 35.1 Approach 234 0.0 0.257 33.9 LOS C 5.1 35.9 0.79 0.63 36.2 West: Bayhead Road W 10 L2 320 0.0 0.255 7.7 LOS A 7.7 54.2 0.42 0.37 48.2 11 T1 444 0.0 0.169 7.2 LOS A 5.0 34.9 0.39 0.33 53.7 12 R2 18 0.0 0.029 8.6 LOS A 0.4 2.9 0.40 0.30 47.8 Approach 782 0.0 0.255 7.4 LOS A 7.7 54.2 0.40 0.35 51.1 All Vehicles 1722 0.0 0.257 11.3 LOS B 7.7 54.2 0.46 0.39 48.8

Site: 2019 PM Bayhead Road / Langeberg Rd / Street 121792 Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 120 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Degree of Saturation) Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo




Effective Stop Rate



South: Street 121792 S 1 L2 21 0.0 0.022 5.7 LOS A 0.4 2.8 0.41 0.31 50.3 2 T1 21 0.0 0.022 17.5 LOS B 0.6 4.5 0.57 0.41 46.5 3 R2 7 0.0 0.010 18.2 LOS B 0.2 1.7 0.57 0.40 42.7 Approach 49 0.0 0.022 12.6 LOS B 0.6 4.5 0.50 0.37 47.4 East: Bayhead Road E 4 L2 9 0.0 0.011 17.2 LOS B 0.3 2.1 0.55 0.39 42.8 5 T1 442 0.0 0.243 19.4 LOS B 7.9 55.4 0.64 0.54 45.6 6 R2 25 0.0 0.056 22.1 LOS C 0.9 6.4 0.64 0.48 40.6 Approach 477 0.0 0.243 19.5 LOS B 7.9 55.4 0.64 0.53 45.2 North: Langeberg Rd N 7 L2 48 0.0 0.036 0.6 LOS A 0.3 2.2 0.13 0.10 53.8 8 T1 5 0.0 0.250 20.6 LOS C 6.9 48.1 0.66 0.55 42.1 9 R2 365 0.0 0.250 20.6 LOS C 6.9 48.1 0.66 0.55 41.6 Approach 419 0.0 0.250 18.3 LOS B 6.9 48.1 0.60 0.50 42.7 West: Bayhead Road W 10 L2 216 0.0 0.249 19.4 LOS B 7.8 54.4 0.64 0.54 41.7 11 T1 278 0.0 0.153 18.4 LOS B 4.7 33.1 0.61 0.50 46.1 12 R2 27 0.0 0.058 22.2 LOS C 1.0 7.0 0.64 0.49 40.6 Approach 521 0.0 0.249 19.0 LOS B 7.8 54.4 0.62 0.52 43.9 All Vehicles 1466 0.0 0.250 18.7 LOS B 7.9 55.4 0.62 0.51 44.1


Site: 2024 AM Bayhead Road / Langeberg Rd / Street 121792 Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 115 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Degree of Saturation) Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo




Effective Stop Rate



South: Street 121792 S 1 L2 23 0.0 0.027 1.3 LOS A 0.2 1.3 0.21 0.16 53.3 2 T1 6 0.0 0.013 33.0 LOS C 0.3 1.9 0.78 0.53 39.0 3 R2 5 0.0 0.013 33.0 LOS C 0.2 1.6 0.78 0.52 36.4 Approach 35 0.0 0.027 11.9 LOS B 0.3 1.9 0.40 0.28 46.9 East: Bayhead Road E 4 L2 8 0.0 0.007 6.3 LOS A 0.2 1.1 0.34 0.24 49.1 5 T1 654 0.0 0.250 7.6 LOS A 7.7 53.6 0.43 0.37 53.4 6 R2 83 0.0 0.175 10.4 LOS B 2.2 15.5 0.47 0.39 46.7 Approach 745 0.0 0.250 7.9 LOS A 7.7 53.6 0.43 0.37 52.5 North: Langeberg Rd N 7 L2 22 0.0 0.020 0.6 LOS A 0.2 1.1 0.14 0.10 53.7 8 T1 7 0.0 0.281 35.6 LOS D 5.5 38.3 0.86 0.69 36.0 9 R2 228 0.0 0.281 35.6 LOS D 5.5 38.3 0.86 0.69 35.6 Approach 258 0.0 0.281 32.6 LOS C 5.5 38.3 0.79 0.64 36.6 West: Bayhead Road W 10 L2 353 0.0 0.284 7.8 LOS A 8.5 59.6 0.44 0.38 48.1 11 T1 491 0.0 0.188 7.2 LOS A 5.4 38.1 0.40 0.35 53.7 12 R2 19 0.0 0.033 9.0 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.42 0.31 47.6 Approach 862 0.0 0.284 7.5 LOS A 8.5 59.6 0.42 0.36 51.1 All Vehicles 1900 0.0 0.284 11.2 LOS B 8.5 59.6 0.47 0.40 48.9

Site: 2024 PM Bayhead Road / Langeberg Rd / Street 121792 Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 120 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Degree of Saturation) Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo




Effective Stop Rate



South: Street 121792 S 1 L2 23 0.0 0.025 4.3 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.37 0.28 51.2 2 T1 23 0.0 0.025 17.8 LOS B 0.7 5.1 0.57 0.42 46.4 3 R2 8 0.0 0.011 18.2 LOS B 0.3 1.9 0.57 0.40 42.7 Approach 55 0.0 0.025 12.1 LOS B 0.7 5.1 0.49 0.36 47.7 East: Bayhead Road E 4 L2 11 0.0 0.012 17.2 LOS B 0.3 2.3 0.56 0.39 42.8 5 T1 488 0.0 0.268 19.6 LOS B 8.9 62.2 0.65 0.55 45.4 6 R2 27 0.0 0.064 22.8 LOS C 1.0 7.1 0.65 0.50 40.3 Approach 526 0.0 0.268 19.7 LOS B 8.9 62.2 0.65 0.55 45.1 North: Langeberg Rd N 7 L2 54 0.0 0.040 0.7 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.14 0.11 53.7 8 T1 6 0.0 0.278 20.9 LOS C 7.7 54.2 0.67 0.57 42.0 9 R2 404 0.0 0.278 20.9 LOS C 7.7 54.2 0.67 0.57 41.4 Approach 464 0.0 0.278 18.6 LOS B 7.7 54.2 0.61 0.51 42.6 West: Bayhead Road W 10 L2 238 0.0 0.274 19.7 LOS B 8.7 60.9 0.65 0.55 41.6 11 T1 307 0.0 0.169 18.6 LOS B 5.3 36.9 0.61 0.51 46.0 12 R2 31 0.0 0.069 22.9 LOS C 1.1 7.9 0.65 0.50 40.3 Approach 576 0.0 0.274 19.3 LOS B 8.7 60.9 0.63 0.53 43.8 All Vehicles 1621 0.0 0.278 19.0 LOS B 8.9 62.2 0.62 0.52 44.0


Site: 101 [2019 AM+Dev]

Bayhead Road / Langeberg Rd / Street 121792 Signals - Fixed Time Isolated Cycle Time = 120 seconds (Optimum Cycle Time - Minimum Degree of Saturation) Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

OD Mov

Demand Flows Deg. Satn

Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Street 121792 S 1 L2 85 0.0 0.093 1.7 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.23 0.18 53.0 2 T1 20 0.0 0.038 32.6 LOS C 0.9 6.0 0.77 0.56 39.2 3 R2 19 0.0 0.047 34.2 LOS C 0.8 5.9 0.79 0.57 36.0 Approach 124 0.0 0.093 11.6 LOS B 0.9 6.0 0.40 0.30 46.9

East: Bayhead Road E 4 L2 73 0.0 0.060 7.7 LOS A 1.6 11.2 0.38 0.31 48.2 5 T1 593 0.0 0.234 8.7 LOS A 7.5 52.3 0.44 0.38 52.5 6 R2 76 0.0 0.152 11.5 LOS B 2.1 14.9 0.48 0.40 46.1 Approach 741 0.0 0.234 8.9 LOS A 7.5 52.3 0.44 0.38 51.3

North: Langeberg Rd N 7 L2 20 0.0 0.017 0.6 LOS A 0.1 1.0 0.14 0.10 53.7 8 T1 61 0.0 0.296 35.3 LOS D 6.5 45.5 0.84 0.69 36.9 9 R2 207 0.0 0.296 35.3 LOS D 6.5 45.5 0.84 0.69 35.9 Approach 288 0.0 0.296 32.9 LOS C 6.5 45.5 0.79 0.65 37.0

West: Bayhead Road W 10 L2 320 0.0 0.265 9.0 LOS A 8.3 58.1 0.45 0.40 47.4 11 T1 444 0.0 0.175 8.3 LOS A 5.3 37.4 0.42 0.36 52.8 12 R2 165 0.0 0.298 12.4 LOS B 5.1 35.7 0.53 0.45 45.6 Approach 929 0.0 0.298 9.3 LOS A 8.3 58.1 0.45 0.39 49.5

All Vehicles 2083 0.0 0.298 12.6 LOS B 8.3 58.1 0.49 0.41 47.7

Site: 101 [2019 PM+Dev]


OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Street 121792 S 1 L2 133 0.0 0.142 2.5 LOS A 1.4 9.6 0.28 0.23 52.4 2 T1 133 0.0 0.138 16.7 LOS B 4.3 30.0 0.58 0.47 47.2 3 R2 51 0.0 0.062 16.0 LOS B 1.6 11.0 0.55 0.43 43.8 Approach 316 0.0 0.142 10.6 LOS B 4.3 30.0 0.45 0.36 48.6

East: Bayhead Road E 4 L2 32 0.0 0.040 20.2 LOS C 1.1 7.6 0.61 0.46 41.4 5 T1 442 0.0 0.267 22.5 LOS C 8.5 59.7 0.69 0.58 43.9 6 R2 25 0.0 0.063 26.0 LOS C 1.0 7.0 0.69 0.52 39.0 Approach 499 0.0 0.267 22.5 LOS C 8.5 59.7 0.68 0.57 43.4

North: Langeberg Rd N 7 L2 48 0.0 0.037 0.7 LOS A 0.3 2.3 0.14 0.11 53.7 8 T1 16 0.0 0.297 22.9 LOS C 7.6 53.1 0.70 0.59 41.2 9 R2 365 0.0 0.297 23.2 LOS C 7.6 53.1 0.70 0.59 40.4 Approach 429 0.0 0.297 20.6 LOS C 7.6 53.1 0.64 0.54 41.6

West: Bayhead Road W 10 L2 216 0.0 0.273 22.6 LOS C 8.4 58.5 0.69 0.58 40.3 11 T1 278 0.0 0.168 21.4 LOS C 5.1 35.6 0.65 0.54 44.4 12 R2 88 0.0 0.215 27.0 LOS C 3.7 25.7 0.73 0.60 38.6 Approach 582 0.0 0.273 22.7 LOS C 8.4 58.5 0.68 0.56 41.9

All Vehicles 1826 0.0 0.297 20.1 LOS C 8.5 59.7 0.63 0.53 43.3


Site: 101 [2024 AM+Dev]


OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Street 121792 S 1 L2 87 0.0 0.100 1.9 LOS A 0.8 5.6 0.24 0.19 52.8 2 T1 20 0.0 0.040 33.4 LOS C 0.9 6.1 0.78 0.56 38.9 3 R2 19 0.0 0.044 33.4 LOS C 0.8 5.8 0.78 0.56 36.3 Approach 126 0.0 0.100 11.6 LOS B 0.9 6.1 0.40 0.31 47.0

East: Bayhead Road E 4 L2 74 0.0 0.060 7.3 LOS A 1.6 11.2 0.37 0.30 48.4 5 T1 654 0.0 0.255 8.5 LOS A 8.2 57.6 0.44 0.38 52.7 6 R2 83 0.0 0.179 11.8 LOS B 2.4 16.8 0.49 0.41 45.9 Approach 811 0.0 0.255 8.7 LOS A 8.2 57.6 0.44 0.38 51.5

North: Langeberg Rd N 7 L2 22 0.0 0.020 0.6 LOS A 0.2 1.1 0.14 0.11 53.7 8 T1 17 0.0 0.284 35.9 LOS D 5.9 41.1 0.84 0.68 36.1 9 R2 228 0.0 0.284 35.9 LOS D 5.9 41.1 0.84 0.68 35.5 Approach 267 0.0 0.284 33.0 LOS C 5.9 41.1 0.79 0.64 36.6

West: Bayhead Road W 10 L2 353 0.0 0.288 8.7 LOS A 9.2 64.1 0.45 0.40 47.5 11 T1 491 0.0 0.191 8.1 LOS A 5.9 41.0 0.42 0.36 53.0 12 R2 92 0.0 0.175 11.3 LOS B 2.6 18.0 0.48 0.40 46.2 Approach 935 0.0 0.288 8.6 LOS A 9.2 64.1 0.44 0.38 50.1


Site: 101 [2024 PM+Dev]


OD Mov


Average Delay

Level of Service


Effective Stop Rate


veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Street 121792 S 1 L2 135 0.0 0.147 2.8 LOS A 1.5 10.2 0.30 0.25 52.1 2 T1 135 0.0 0.141 16.7 LOS B 4.4 30.5 0.58 0.47 47.2 3 R2 52 0.0 0.063 16.0 LOS B 1.6 11.2 0.55 0.43 43.8 Approach 321 0.0 0.147 10.8 LOS B 4.4 30.5 0.46 0.37 48.5

East: Bayhead Road E 4 L2 33 0.0 0.041 20.2 LOS C 1.1 7.9 0.61 0.46 41.4 5 T1 488 0.0 0.295 22.8 LOS C 9.6 67.0 0.70 0.59 43.7 6 R2 27 0.0 0.072 26.7 LOS C 1.1 7.7 0.70 0.53 38.7 Approach 548 0.0 0.295 22.9 LOS C 9.6 67.0 0.69 0.58 43.3

North: Langeberg Rd N 7 L2 54 0.0 0.042 0.7 LOS A 0.4 2.6 0.15 0.11 53.7 8 T1 17 0.0 0.302 20.1 LOS C 7.9 55.6 0.66 0.56 42.5 9 R2 404 0.0 0.302 20.3 LOS C 7.9 55.6 0.67 0.57 41.7 Approach 475 0.0 0.302 18.1 LOS B 7.9 55.6 0.61 0.52 42.9

West: Bayhead Road W 10 L2 238 0.0 0.301 22.9 LOS C 9.4 65.6 0.70 0.60 40.1 11 T1 307 0.0 0.185 21.6 LOS C 5.7 39.7 0.66 0.55 44.3 12 R2 92 0.0 0.237 27.9 LOS C 3.9 27.3 0.75 0.61 38.2 Approach 637 0.0 0.301 23.0 LOS C 9.4 65.6 0.69 0.57 41.7



Appendix C CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN


Appendix D Specialist CV

Gordon CHETTY

Profession:

Transportation Technologist

Current Position:

Senior Technologist

Year with Firm/Entity:

8 Years

No of Years’ Experience:

30 Years

Nationality:

South African

Date of Birth:

20/04/1970

Specialisation:

Transportation Engineering

Traffic Engineering

NAME GORDON CHETTY

POSITION SENIOR TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGIST

KEY EXPERIENCE

Gordon Chetty is a Traffic and Transportation Senior Technologist with over 20

years’ experience in project management, transportation planning, traffic

engineering and design of roads and public transport schemes.

His key experience includes: Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning,

focussing on Traffic Impact Assessments, Traffic Modelling, Development and

Evaluation of Road Improvement Schemes, Public Transport and Multi Modal

Transport Planning and Transport Policy formulation.

In addition, off late he has also conducted several key transportation projects,

including the Transport Master Plan for the Setsoto Local Municipality, Non-

Motorised Transport Policy for the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality and

lead Traffic Engineer on the City of Cape Town Airport Precinct Informal

Settlement Upgrade Projects.

EDUCATION

BTech (Civil Engineering), University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2002

EMPLOYMENT RECORD

2011 – Current NAKO SYSTRA Senior Technologist

1999 – 2011 eThekwini Municipality Technician / Technologist /

Senior Technologist

Gordon CHETTY

APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE (last 10 years):

• Ntshongweni Mall of the West (2019)

Position Held: Senior Technologist

Client: Fundamentum Asset Management

Activities Performed: Traffic Impact Assessment incl. inter alia traffic modelling, road network

planning

• Kimberley Nursing College (2019)


Client: Department of Health of the Northern Cape Province

Activities Performed: Traffic Impact Assessment

• CoCT Airport Precinct Informal Settlement Upgrade Projects (2017- current)


Client: Department of Human Settlement of Western Province


planning.

• Bhisho Office Park Traffic Study (2018)


Client: Department of Public Works – Eastern Cape


planning.

• WEWE Driefontien (2017 - 2018)


Client: KDC Projects & Developments


planning.

• Setsoto Roads Masterplan (2016 – 2017)


Client: Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Activities Performed: Compiled the Roads Masterplan for the Setsoto Local Municipality.

• N2 North Mixed Use Development Traffic Study (2015)


Client: Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality


planning.

• Florence Nightingale Precinct Plan Traffic Study (2014)


Client: eThekwini Municipality

Activities Performed: Traffic study incl. inter alia traffic modelling.

Gordon CHETTY

LANGUAGES

WRITE SPEAK READ

English Excellent Excellent Excellent

Afrikaans Basic Basic Basic

DECLARATION:

I, the undersigned, certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, this CV correctly describes myself,

my qualifications, and my experience, and I am available to undertake the assignment in case of an award.

I understand that any misstatement or misrepresentation described herein may lead to my

disqualification or dismissal by the Employer.

2019-09-20

Date: ____

(Signature of Staff Member)

Full Name of Staff Member: Gordon CHETTY


Appendix E

Specialist Declaration


Department of Economic Development, Tourism & Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-

Natal

Details of the Specialist and Declaration of Interest

01 July 2016

Page 1 of 2

DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST

(For official use only)

File Reference Number: DC/

NEAS Reference Number:

Date Received:

Application for an environmental authorisation in terms of section 24(2) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) or for a waste management licence in terms of section 20(b) of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008).,

PROJECT TITLE

Application for EA, AEL and GA for the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) Project at Ambrose Park, in Bayhead, Durban

Specialist: Nako Systra (Pty) Ltd

Contact person: Gordon Chetty

Postal address: P.O. Box 686, Gillitts

Postal code: 3603 Cell: 081 248 0895

Telephone: 031 266 2600 Fax: 031 266 2616

E-mail: [email protected]

Professional affiliation(s) (if any)

Project Consultant: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd

Contact person: Natalie Kohler

Postal address: P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House

Postal code: 1685 Cell: 079 316 0920

Telephone: 011 254 4800 Fax:

E-mail: [email protected]


Department of Economic Development, Tourism & Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-

Natal

Details of the Specialist and Declaration of Interest

01 July 2016

Page 2 of 2

4.2 The specialist appointed in terms of the Regulations_

I, Gordon Chetty, declare that -- General declaration:

• I act as the independent specialist in this application;

• do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) in the undertaking of the proposed activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014;

• I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;

• I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;

• I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;

• I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation;

• I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

• I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;

• all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and

• I am aware that a person is guilty of an offence in terms of Regulation 48 (1) of the EIA Regulations, 2014, if that person provides incorrect or misleading information. A person who is convicted of an offence in terms of sub-regulation 48(1) (a)-(e) is liable to the penalties as contemplated in section 49B(1) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998).

Signature of the specialist: Nako Sytra (Pty) Ltd

Name of company (if applicable): 10 September 2019

Date:

appendix l traffic impact assessment · 2019. 10. 2. · and transportation study, namely, the...

Documents