conradie better living model exemplar project

CONRADIE BETTER LIVING MODEL EXEMPLAR PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FINAL
CONFIDENTIAL JULY 2016
Project no: 20527 Date: July 2016
– WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff The Pavilion, 1st Floor, Corner Portswood & Beach Roads, Waterfront, Cape Town, 8001, South Africa
Tel: +27 (21) 481 8700 Fax: +27 (21) 481 8799 www.wspgroup.com www.pbworld.com
CONRADIE BETTER LIVING MODEL EXEMPLAR PROJECT Traffic Impact Assessment
Conradie Better Living Model Exemplar Project WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 20527
June 2016 Confidential
Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3
Remarks Ver 1.0 (Draft) Ver 1.2 (Draft) Ver 1.3 (Final)
Date April 2016 April 2016 6 July 2016
Prepared by Christo Bredenhann Pr Eng
Christo Bredenhann Pr Eng
Christo Bredenhann Pr Eng
Project number 20527.R 20527.R 20527.R
Report number 20527 _TIA _Ver 1.0 20527 _TIA _Ver 1.2 20527 _TIA _Ver 1.3
File reference
Z:\20000 - 20999\20527 - Conradie Game Changer Project\3. Civils\11 - Reports\02 - Transport\05 - TIA
Digitally signed by Bredenhann, Christo Reason: I am the author of this document Date: 2016.07.07 11:59:26 +02'00'
Riley, Patrick 2016.07.12 09:24:40 +02'00'
ii
P R O D U C T I O N T E A M CLIENT
Western Cape Provincial Government
Project Director Patrick Riley Pr. Tech Eng
SUBCONSULTANTS
Wilfred Crous: EMME 4 Transportation modelling
iii
Conradie Better Living Model Exemplar Project WSP Project No 20527
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd (WSP) has been appointed as part of a Transaction Advisory Team by the Provincial Government of the Western Cape (PGWC) to undertake a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) of the proposed Conradie Better Living Model Exemplar Project (BLMEP). The purpose of this report is to consider the traffic impact that the proposed land-use rights will have on the surrounding road network, and to propose mitigating measures to address these impacts.
The Western Cape Provincial Cabinet has identified the Conradie Integrated Better Living Model Game Changer intervention. The “Integrated Better Living” Model seeks to efficiently design, fund and develop the former Conradie Hospital site with residentially led, integrated and affordable development with the intention of establishing key replicable levers to unlock state property.
The proposed Conradie BLMEP will be situated on a 22 ha site, Erf 112657 located between the suburbs of Pinelands, Thornton and Maitland. The site is approximately 9,0 km east of the Cape Town CBD. It is located between the Elsies Kraal River canal to the south-east, the Central railway line to the west and Forest Drive Extension to the north.
The trip generation and capacity analysis of this TIA was based on the land-use mix as contained in the Development Framework, dated December 2015, namely:
o Grant funded housing 1,723 dwelling units
o Open-market housing 1,880 dwelling units
· Total residential 3,603 dwelling units
· Offices 14,680m² GLA
· Education 2 x public schools with 770 learners each
· Other Sports field, community facilities/hall, public open space, other.
The land-use mix was subsequently revised to incorporate the results of the various impact assessments. The revision land-use listed below will result in a lower trip generation for the development, primarily due to the total number of grant funded and open market housing units that has changed. The trip generation in this TIA is therefore conservative.
· Offices 14,714 m² GLA
· Retail & service industry 9,588 m² GLA
iv
· Education 2 x public schools with 770 learners each
· Other Hall, admin office, sports hall, public open space.
A phased development is proposed, however the exact implementation period per phase, and ultimate number of phases is not known. The developer will determine the phasing. The TIA considered the following phasing:
· Phase 1: 2018 - 2019
· Phase 2 2020 - 2021
· Phase 3 2022 – 2025
The extent of the study area and the scope of the TIA were confirmed by the City of Cape Town, Transport for Cape Town (TCT). All the affected intersections in the vicinity of the site were analysed, namely:
· Forest Drive extension/Mupine local access
· Forest Drive extension/Anfield Village local access
· Forest Drive Extension/Mutual Road
· Mutual Road/Jan Smuts Drive
· Jan Smuts Drive/Forest Drive
· Odin Drive/Thor Circle/Albatross Way
· Jakes Gerwel Drive (M7)/Denneboom Avenue: (western off-ramp terminal)
· Jakes Gerwel Drive (M7)/Denneboom Avenue: (eastern off-ramp terminal)
· Denneboom Avenue/Sipres Avenue
· Voortrekker Road /18th Avenue
v
· Future internal roundabout
There are no known latent developments in the study area with development rights in-place that will have an impact on the road network. The proposed Old Mutual Mupine residential development along Forest Drive Extension will be located directly north of the site. The future of this development is not confirmed and its potential latent traffic was not considered.
The development is well located however access to the major road network is constrained due to the Elsies River canal, railway lines and the Maitland cemetery. The road network in the vicinity of the site is severely constrained, and has been for many years as detailed in the 2006 GIBB TIA. The weekday AM peak is the most critical period.
Access to the major road network will be improved with the proposed Odin Road Extension from Viking Way to Voortrekker Road. The conceptual design of this link has been undertaken by GIBB. An Emme 4 transport model was utilised to inform the phased implementation and capacity of the Odin Road Extension. The model was also utilised to determine the expected back-ground traffic redistribution and its effect on the local intersections. The capacity analysis of the new and affected intersections were undertaken to incorporate the ultimate trip redistribution. The model found that a phased implementation of the Odin Road Extension will be sufficient to support the phased development. Phase 1 is the construction of the link over the canal to provide access to Viking Way, and is required for the first phase of the development. The Phase 3 development will require the remaining link to Voortrekker Road. A Class 4 local distributor traversing the site will be required from the new Odin Road Extension to Forest Drive Extension for Phase 1 off the development.
Local access to the site will be via 2 accesses off Forest Drive Extension and an access off Odin Road Extension over the canal. An NMT access will also be provided to Thor Circle. Access spacing along Forest Drive Extension will be sub-standard for signalised intersections, however a progression analysis confirms that sufficient progression of over 30% will be possible during the weekday AM peak. This is subject to the final intersection signal timing plans. Note that the TIA proposes signalisation of the eastern access off Forest Drive Extension and a priority controlled intersection opposite the Mupine access. This intersection will require signalisation in future if the Mupine development proceeds.
The Conradie BLMEP will be a Transit Oriented Development. Although the site will not have a rail station at its centre, however the bulk of the development will be located within an 800 m radius of the Mutual Station and this radius of the Thornton Station. The Conradie BLMEP site will be served by Metrorail’s Central Line, Northern line and Boland (Paarl) and Northern (Strand) Business Express services via Mutual Station. The station provides direct access to the majority of Metrorail’s’ destinations, as it is a junction station located on multiple lines. It is the second busiest station in the Western Cape Town Station. As per the CITP (2014 mini review), Long-term strategy C of TCT is to provide public transport services to 80% of Cape Town’s residents within 500 m. The Conradie BLMEP will be located directly adjacent to Forest Drive Extension, a current and future public transport route, and all residents will be within 500 m of this service. The urban design layout was informed by TOD principles and will provide and promote Non-motorised transport facilities and usage, as well as reduced parking provision.
vi
A future IRT feeder route is planned along Forest Drive Extension, and its potential stops adjacent to the site will provide additional public transit opportunities in close proximity to the Conradie BLMEP development. Two future IRT trunk services will be located along Jan Smuts Drive, and will be accessible either directly from the site or via the feeder service that will operate along Forest Drive Extension. The development of the Conradie BLMEP may see the establishment of additional bus or IRT routes to and from or via the site. The provision of a public transport stops and a facility within the site will be considered by the developer in-line with TCT policies.
The proposed parking provision for the site is lower than the current CoCT zoning scheme specifications. A departure for reduced parking provision will be applied for as part of the Rezoning application. The reduced parking is motivated in terms of a Transit Oriented Development, proximity to rail and bus transport, as well as the social housing component of the development. Shared parking between the residential and non-residential land-uses is possible due to the urban design of the development. The on-street parking provision along the new internal road network will form part of the total parking supply. A total of 2001 parking bays can be provided, 1490 off-street bays and 511 on- street bays. The following parking provision ratios are proposed:
· Grant funded housing 0.25 bays / dwelling unit
· Open-market housing 0.75 bays / dwelling unit
· Offices 4 bays / 100 m² GLA of which 90% is shared parking
· Retail/ service industry 4 bays / 100 m² GLA of which 90% is shared parking
Parking management will be required as part of the developer responsibilities and future management of the Conradie BLMEP to ensure the preservation of the NMT focussed urban design focus of the site as well as to ensure unhindered access and mobility to and from the site. This will include paid parking for on-street and off-street bays and management of the shared parking bays. The reduced parking ratios of less than 1 bay per dwelling unit will also mean that no residential units may be allocated with a dedicated bay.
Trip generation rates and trip reduction factors were determined as per TMH17 specifications. The comparative trip generation of social housing developments, and the Emme 4 transport model trip generation rates are in-line with the expected total trip generation of the development. The full Phase 3 development is expected to generate a total of 1315, 1702 and 1218 veh trips during the weekday AM, PM and Saturday AM peak periods. The expected trip distribution and assignment of the phased development was informed by the Emme 4 Gravity model, which considers network congestion, city wide origin destination per macro zone and trip lengths.
Capacity analysis was undertaken to determine the major road infrastructure and intersection upgrades that will be required. The following upgrades, per phase, will be required:
Phase 1 & 2
· Access 1 off Forest Drive Extension (revised geometry)
· Access 2 off Forest Drive Extension (revised geometry, new south approach leg, signalised)
vii
· Class 4 route traversing the site, including access roundabout and intersection with Odin Road Extension.
· Internal access road to new Orthotics & Prosthetics Clinic (OPC) access
· Odin Road Extension / Thor Circle / Albatross Way (upgraded, signalised)
· Internal roads including adjacent linear NMT infrastructure to serve new erven/blocks
Phase 3
· Completion of Odin Road Extension to Voortrekker Road (upgraded, signalised)
· Odin Road Extension / Voortrekker Road intersection (new, signalised)
· Odin Road Extension / Class 4 road (signalised)
· Internal roads including adjacent linear NMT infrastructure to serve new erven/blocks
In conclusion, the proposed local and major road infrastructure upgrades for the Conradie BLMEP will mostly mitigate the traffic impact of the development. The existing weekday peak congestion at the affected intersection can however not be fully resolved.
It is recommended that the findings and recommendations of the Emme 4 Transportation detailed in this report be approved.
It is recommended that this TIA be approved by the City of Cape Town.
It is recommended that the Odin Road Extension conceptual design and transportation report, undertaken by Gibb, be accepted.
viii
Confidential June 2016
1.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 SCOPE ........................................................................................................... 1
1.6 APPROVAL OF SUBMISSIONS ..................................................................... 6
2 LIAISON & DATA COLLECTION .................................................7
2.1 LIAISON ......................................................................................................... 7
3 SITE LOCATION & SURROUNDING ROAD NETWORK ..........12
3.1 SITE LOCATION........................................................................................... 12
3.3 SURROUNDING ROAD NETWORK ............................................................. 14
3.4 ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION ...................................................... 16
4 SITE ACCESS, PARKING & INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK ....17
4.1 SITE ACCESS .............................................................................................. 17
PRIMARY ACCESS OFF FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION ............................... 17 ACCESS FROM FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION VIA NEW CLASS 4 ROAD .. 19 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 25 ACCESS VIA ODIN ROAD EXTENSION ....................................................... 25 ACCESS 4 – ROUNDABOUT ON INTERNAL CLASS 4 ROUTE ................... 27 ACCESS 5 – THOR CIRCLE ......................................................................... 27 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 28
4.2 PARKING PROVISION ................................................................................. 28 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 28 REDUCED PARKING PROVISION MOTIVATION ......................................... 29
ix
COMPARATIVE PARKING PROVISION ....................................................... 30 SHARED PARKING ...................................................................................... 31 PARKING MANAGEMENT & PAID PARKING ............................................... 31 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 32
4.3 INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK ...................................................................... 33
5 TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS, PUBLIC & NON- MOTORISED TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT..............................36
5.1 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT ............................... 36
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 36 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 37
5.2 PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 38 BUS SERVICES ............................................................................................ 38 INTEGRATED RAPID TRANSIT (MYCITI)..................................................... 40 FUTURE GABS AND MYCITI SERVICES INTEGRATION ............................ 42 TAXI SERVICES ........................................................................................... 42 EXISTING RAIL SERVICES .......................................................................... 43 FUTURE RAIL NETWORK ............................................................................ 44 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 46 FUTURE RAIL SERVICES ............................................................................ 47
5.3 NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORT (NMT) ...................................................... 47
COCT NMT PLANNING ................................................................................ 48 PROPOSED CONRADIE BLMEP NMT PROVISION ..................................... 49
6 ODIN & AERODROME ROAD EXTENSION ..............................51
6.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 51
6.2 EMME 4 TRANSPORTATION MODEL ......................................................... 51
MODEL UPDATE - SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................... 51 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 52 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ......................................................................................... 52 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 53
6.3 ODIN & AERODROME ROAD EXTENSION STUDY .................................... 53
CONCEPTUAL TRANSPORT PLANNING STUDY - SCOPE OF WORK ....... 53 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - SCOPE OF WORK ............................................... 54 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 54 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED ROAD .................................. 54 PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ........................................................................................ 55 DESIGN ELEMENTS AND CROSS SECTIONS......................................................... 57
x
7.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOWS ........................................................................ 60
7.2 LATENT TRAFFIC ........................................................................................ 61
7.3 DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION .......................................................... 61
GENERAL ..................................................................................................... 61 APARTMENTS AND FLATS .......................................................................... 61 OFFICES ...................................................................................................... 62 RETAIL / SHOPPING CENTRE ..................................................................... 62 FACILITIES (OTHER LAND-USES, SPORTS, CLINICS, ETC.) ..................... 62 EDUCATION ................................................................................................. 62
7.4 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ............................................................................ 63 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS (MUD).......................................................... 63 LOW VEHICLE OWNERSHIP (LVO) & VERY LOW VEHICLE OWNERSHIP (VLVO) ................................................................................... 63 TRANSIT NODE OR CORRIDORS ............................................................... 63 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 63
7.5 PEAK HOURS CONSIDERED ...................................................................... 64
7.6 FREIGHT TRANSPORT................................................................................ 64
7.7 TRIP SUMMARY........................................................................................... 65
RESIDENTIAL ............................................................................................... 69 COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ........................................................................ 70
7.10 TRAFFIC GROWTH RATE ........................................................................... 71
7.11 MODE SPLIT ................................................................................................ 73
EMME 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION ...................................................................... 73 TRIP REDISTRIBUTION ............................................................................... 76
8 TRAFFIC IMPACT & CAPACITY ANALYSES ...........................79
8.1 SCENARIOS ................................................................................................. 79
FOREST DRIVE EXT. / CONRADIE ACCESS 1 / MUPINE ACCESS ............ 80
xi
FOREST DRIVE EXT. / CONRADIE ACCESS 2 / ANFIELD VILLAGE ACCESS ....................................................................................................... 81 FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION / MUTUAL ROAD........................................... 82 MUTUAL ROAD / JAN SMUTS DRIVE .......................................................... 82 JAN SMUTS DRIVE / FOREST DRIVE.......................................................... 83 ODIN DRIVE / THOR CIRCLE / ALBATROSS WAY ...................................... 83 ODIN DRIVE / VIKING WAY .......................................................................... 83 ODIN DRIVE / GUNNER’S CIRCLE .............................................................. 84 VIKING WAY / SIPRES AVENUE .................................................................. 84 SIPRES AVENUE / GUNNER’S CIRCLE ....................................................... 85 VIKING WAY / JAKES GERWEL DRIVE (M7) ............................................... 86 JAKES GERWEL DRIVE (M7) / DENNEBOOM AVENUE (WEST)................. 86 JAKES GERWEL DRIVE (M7) / DENNEBOOM AVENUE (EAST) ................. 87 DENNEBOOM AVENUE / SIPRES AVENUE................................................. 87 JAKES GERWEL DRIVE (M7) / VOORTREKKER ROAD .............................. 87 VOORTREKKER ROAD / 18TH AVENUE ..................................................... 88 VOORTREKKER ROAD / ODIN ROAD EXTENSION .................................... 89 ODIN ROAD EXTENSION / CONRADIE LOCAL ACCESS ROAD ................. 89 ACCESS ROUNDABOUT ............................................................................. 90
8.4 PHASED INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK REQUIREMENTS ......................... 90
9 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES & COST APPORTIONMENT .......92
9.1 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ......................................................................... 92
T A B L E S TABLE 1-1 CONRADIE BLMEP LAND-USE SUMMARY ..................................4 TABLE 4-1 FOREST DRIVE ACCESS COMPARISON ................................... 21 TABLE 4-2 PROGRESSION COMPARISON .................................................. 22 TABLE 4-3 CONRADIE BLMEP MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING
REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 29 TABLE 4-4 COMPARATIVE SOCIAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ............... 30 TABLE 4-5 SOCIAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PARKING SURVEY
RESULTS (2015) ......................................................................... 31 TABLE 4-6 PROPOSED CONRADIE BLMEP PARKING PROVISION ............ 32 TABLE 4-7 INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK...................................................... 33 TABLE 6-1 REQUIRED ACCESS SPACING FOR ODIN DRIVE AND ODIN
DRIVE EXT. ................................................................................. 55 TABLE 6-2 ODIN ROAD EXTENSION DESIGN ELEMENTS .......................... 57 TABLE 7-1 DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION: PHASE 1 ......................... 66 TABLE 7-2 DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION: PHASE 1 + PHASE 2 ...... 67 TABLE 7-3 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION: PHASE 1 + PHASE
2 + PHASE 3 ................................................................................ 68 TABLE 7-4 EXPECTED PEAK HOUR DEVELOPMENT TRIPS PER PHASE
(VEH/HR) ..................................................................................... 69 TABLE 7-5 EMME 4 RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION............................... 70 TABLE 7-6 EMME 4 RETAIL & COMMERCIAL TRIP GENERATION ............. 71 TABLE 7-7 TYPICAL TRAFFIC GROWTH RATES ......................................... 71 TABLE 7-8 TRAFFIC GROWTH AT SELECTED ADJACENT INTERSECTIONS72 TABLE 7-9 CONRADIE PROPORTIONAL DESTINATION WEIGHT PER
EMME MODEL MACRO ZONE .................................................... 75 TABLE 7-10 EQUILIBRIUM SHIFT TRAFFIC VOLUMES - AM PEAK ............... 76
xiii
F I G U R E S FIGURE 1-1 CONRADIE PROPOSED PHASING ...............................................5 FIGURE 2-1 COCT ROAD NETWORK MASTERPLAN ......................................9 FIGURE 3-1 LOCATION OF THE SITE ............................................................ 12 FIGURE 3-2 AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SITE ..................................................... 13 FIGURE 3-3 PROCLAIMED PROVINCIAL ROAD NETWORK (2005) ............... 16 FIGURE 4-1 EXISTING ACCESS TO CONRADIE AND MUPINE ..................... 18 FIGURE 4-2 PROPOSED ACCESS 1 VIA FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION ........ 19 FIGURE 4-3 EXISTING ACCESS TO ANFIELD VILLAGE AND CLINIC ........... 20 FIGURE 4-4 APPROXIMATE ACCESS SPACING ON FOREST DRIVE
EXTENSION ................................................................................ 22 FIGURE 4-5 PROGRESSION ANALYSIS: FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION –
OPTION 1 .................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 4-6 PROGRESSION ANALYSIS: FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION –
OPTION 2 .................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 4-7 PROPOSED ACCESS OFF FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION
OPPOSITE ANFIELD VILLAGE.................................................... 25 FIGURE 4-8 PROPOSED ACCESS 3 VIA ODIN ROAD EXTENSION (PHASE
1/2/3) ........................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 4-9 PROPOSED ACCESS 4 VIA CLASS 4 ROUTE ............................ 27 FIGURE 4-10 CURRENT COCT PUBLIC TRANSPORT AREAS (PT1 & PT2) .... 28 FIGURE 4-11 CLASS 4 MOBILITY ROUTE - CROSS SECTION ........................ 34 FIGURE 4-12 INTERNAL ROADS - CROSS SECTION ...................................... 35 FIGURE 5-1 CONRADIE BLMEP IN RELATION TO MUTUAL AND THORNTON
STATIONS ................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 5-2 COCT EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES (BUS & TAXI)38 FIGURE 5-3 COCT FORMAL PT STOPS ......................................................... 39 FIGURE 5-4 PT STOPS ALONG FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION ...................... 40 FIGURE 5-5 COCT IRPTN PROPOSED IRT TRUNK AND FEEDER ROUTES 41 FIGURE 5-6 PRASA LOCAL METRORAIL NETWORK – DIAGRAMMATICAL . 43 FIGURE 5-7 NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR RAILWAY LINK .............................. 45 FIGURE 5-8 OPTION 1D FUTURE RAIL LINK ................................................. 46 FIGURE 5-9 NMT INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION48 FIGURE 5-10 COCT NMT NETWORK PLAN ..................................................... 49 FIGURE 6-1 ODIN RD EXTENSION PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND CROSS
SECTION LOCATIONS ................................................................ 56 FIGURE 6-2 SECTION 1 CROSS-SECTION - EXISTING ODIN ROAD (NO ON-
STREET PARKING) ..................................................................... 58 FIGURE 6-3 SECTION 2 CROSS-SECTION – EXISTING ODIN ROAD (ON-
STREET PARKING PRESENT).................................................... 58 FIGURE 6-4 SECTION 3 CROSS-SECTION - JEWISH CEMETERY ................ 59 FIGURE 6-5 SECTION 4 CROSS-SECTION - MAITLAND CEMETERY ........... 59 FIGURE 7-1 AGGREGATED DESTINATION DESIRE LINES FROM CONRADIE
BLMEP ......................................................................................... 74 FIGURE 7-2 FULL CONRADIE DEVELOPMENT – ROAD NETWORK
VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIOS ..................................................... 77
FIGURE 8-1 PROPOSED PHASE 1 INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK & EXTERNAL ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ...................................... 91
FIGURE 10-1 ACCESS 1 OFF FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION ............................ 98 FIGURE 10-2 ACCESS 2 OFF FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION ...... 98
FIGURE 10-3 INTERNAL ROUNDABOUT.......................................................... 99 FIGURE 10-4 ODIN ROAD EXTENSION / THOR CIRCLE / ALBATROSS WAY . 99 FIGURE 10-5 ODIN ROAD EXTENSION / VOORTREKKER ROAD ................. 100
FIGURE 10-6 CLASS 4 ACCESS ROUTE OFF ODIN ROAD EXTENSION .............................................................................. 101
A P P E N D I C E S APPENDIX A MINUTES OF TCT MEETINGS
APPENDIX A-1 MINUTES OF MEETING HELD WITH TCT, 13/10/2015 APPENDIX A-2 MINUTES OF MEETING HELD WITH TCT, 08/12/2015 APPENDIX A-3 MINUTES OF MEETING HELD WITH TCT, 15/01/2016 APPENDIX A-4 MINUTES OF MEETING HELD WITH TCT, 18/03/2016
APPENDIX B URBAN DESIGN LAYOUT APPENDIX C AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF INTERSECTIONS APPENDIX D STUDY AREA APPENDIX E TRANSPORT MODEL REPORT & RESULTS APPENDIX F TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS APPENDIX G TRAFFIC VOLUME FIGURES APPENDIX H EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRIES (SIDRA) APPENDIX I CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS (SIDRA) APPENDIX J PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRIES (SIDRA) APPENDIX K COCT DEVELOPMENT CHARGE DRAFT CALCULATIONS APPENDIX L ODIN/AERODROME ROAD EXTENSION CONCEPTUA LDESIGN
APPENDIX L-1 PROPOSED ALIGNMENT & SERVICES APPENDIX L-2 PROPOSED CROSS SECTIONS
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd (WSP) has been appointed as part of a Transaction Advisory Team by the Provincial Government of the Western Cape (PGWC) to undertake a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) of the proposed Conradie Better Living Model Exemplar Project (BLMEP).
The Western Cape Provincial Cabinet has identified the Conradie Integrated Better Living Model Game Changer intervention. The “Integrated Better Living” Model seeks to efficiently design, fund and develop the former Conradie Hospital site with residentially led, integrated and affordable development with the intention of establishing key replicable levers to unlock state property.
This report assesses the transport and traffic related impact of the Conradie BLMEP, with an urban design layout contained in the report: Conradie Better Living Model Scoping Report, dated April 2016.
The purpose of this report is to consider the traffic impact that the proposed land-use rights will have on the surrounding road network, and to propose mitigating measures to address these impacts.
1.2 SCOPE
1.2.1 Traffic Impact Assessment
The WSP project brief entails undertaking a TIA of the ultimate development, including liaison with the relevant line department of the City of Cape Town, namely Transport for Cape Town (TCT).
The Scope of the TIA was confirmed by TCT officials in meetings held on 13 October 2015, 8 December 2015 and 15 January 2016. The scope is in-line with the requirements of the relevant National Standards, namely the South African Committee of Transport Officials (COTO), TMH 16, Volume 1 & 2, South African Traffic Impact and Site Traffic Assessment Manual, Version 1.0, August 2012. The COTO TMH17 South African Trip Data Manual, Version 1.01 of September 2013 was used as basis to determine the trip generation of the development.
The minutes of the relevant meetings are included in Appendix A.
2
1.2.2 Odin/Aerodrome Road Extension study & Transportation Modelling
Refer to Chapter 6 for the details of these 2 studies, undertaken by separate sub-consultants in support of this TIA.
1.3 PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS
1.3.1 Previous Submissions
A TIA was undertaken by the then Arcus GIBB for the previously proposed Central Park Development that was to be located on the Conradie site. The TIA, title “Central Park Development Traffic Impact Assessment, Report No. J26242A”, dated December 2006; was submitted to the City of Cape Town in 2006. The Central Park development was subsequently cancelled and the TIA was not approved.
The GIBB TIA identified that a portion of the proposed Odin/Aerodrome Road Extension and a local distributor over the site will be required for the Central Park development. GIBB undertook a study on behalf of the CoCT to determine the conceptual alignment of the proposed Aerodrome Road Extension, titled “Aerodrome Road Conceptual Design, Conceptual Transport Planning Study, Preliminary Assessment, Report No. J26242”, dated November 2007.
The study identified 3 route options and Option 3 was subsequently accepted by CoCT. The route alignment of the Odin/Aerodrome Road Extension and a local distributor over the Conradie site is shown on the CoCT's Public Right of Way Metropolitan Road Network, Plan No. RD 1-1, dated August 2013. Also refer to Section 2.3.1
The Conradie BLMEP TIA is therefore the first TIA submission for the Conradie BLMEP development.
1.3.2 Approvals received
The Central Park project was cancelled and the GIBB TIA was never formally approved.
1.4 EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT The Conradie BLMEP will be a residentially-led high density development, refer to the urban design layout attached in Appendix B. The land-uses that will be applied for per development phase in the rezoning application are listed in Table 1-1. The TIA considers the mitigating measures required per phase and for the ultimate development, to accommodate the expected traffic impact on the surrounding road network.
It is intended to rezone the site to sub-divisional area in terms of the City of Cape Town Planning Bylaw of 2015. The future developer will then submit SDP’s and sub-divisional plans for each portion of the development.
3
For the purposes of the capacity analysis the following was considered in the traffic study:
· Residential (Total) 3,603 dwelling units
· Offices 14,680 m2 GLA
· Retail 10,192 m2 GLA
· Other (Community hall, schools, etc.) 5,066 m2
o Schools +/- 1 540 learners (2 schools)
The trip generation and capacity analysis was based on the above land-use mix, as per the Development Framework of December 2015. The revised land-use mix, detailed below, will result in a slightly lower trip generation for the Conradie BLMEP, primarily due to the total number of grant funded and open market housing units that has changed. The trip generation in this TIA is therefore conservative.
The land-use was nominally revised subsequent to the various impact assessments that were undertaken. The Development Framework and the Rezoning application dated July 2016 now contain the following land-use mix:
· Offices 14,714 m² GLA
· Retail & service industry 9,588 m² GLA
· Education 4,148 m² GLA
2 x schools with 770 learners each
· Other 2,763 m² GLA
Hall, admin office, sports hall, public open space.
4
SUMMARY
R es
id en
tia l1
(A ve
si ze
:4 5
m 2 )
R es
id en
tia l2
(A ve
si ze
:5 8
m 2 )
R es
id en
tia l3
(A ve
.s iz
e: 80
m 2 )
To ta
lR es
id en
tia lU
ni ts
Fa ci
lit ie
s (2
x Sc
ho ol
Unit of measure m2 No. of units m2
Phase 1 65 025 89 760 76 969 496 142 71 708 111 390 56 1 265 1 904 4 148 5 840 11 892
Phase 2 20 750 44 100 37 485 207 59 30 295 86 302 43 726 0 0 0 0
Phase 3 80 350 115 980 99 129 561 160 80 801 162 569 82 1 614 2 244 5 440 8 874 16 558
Public Open Space (Excl. roads
53 875 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 220 000 249 840 213 584 1 264 361 181 1805 359 1260 181 3 605 4 148 9 588 14 714 28 450
5
1.5 PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT It is proposed to develop the Conradie BLMEP in 3 phases, with Phase 1 construction programmed to start no later than 1 April 2018. Refer to Figure 1-1 for the proposed phasing of the site. The estimated roll-out period is not known, however the following was assumed for the purposes of the TIA:
· Phase 1: 2018 - 2019
· Phase 2 2020 - 2021
· Phase 3 2022 – 2025
Figure 1-1 Conradie Proposed phasing Source: ARG
A revised phasing approach may be considered, based on an 80% and subsequent 20% land release scenario, pending the outcome of further discussions between the Client and the City of Cape Town. This relates to the implementation timeframe of the Odin Road Extension to Voortrekker Road in support of the development.
6
The City could potentially approve a single phased development with the release of 80% of the bulk of the site for construction, and the balance (20%) on condition that the Odin Road Extension to Voortrekker Road is in place.
1.6 APPROVAL OF SUBMISSIONS
This report will be subject to approval from the relevant roads authorities, and will be submitted to the following authorities as part of the rezoning process:
· City of Cape Town - Transport for Cape Town: Transport Impact Assessment & Development Control.
· City of Cape Town - Transport for Cape Town: Infrastructure Management & Investment.
· Department of Transport and Public Works: Western Cape Government.
7
2 LIAISON & DATA COLLECTION
2.1 LIAISON Various discussions were held with Transport for Cape Town and City of Cape Town Land- use management officials. Refer to Section 1.2.1 for the full record of liaison.
2.2 SITE VISITS
Various site visits were conducted from September 2015 to February 2016, and the following was confirmed:
· Layouts of Intersections considered in the study.
· Intersection control for relevant intersections.
· Presence of existing public transport and non-motorised transport facilities.
· Appropriateness of recommended site accesses.
A set of aerial photos is included in Appendix C depicting the affected intersections. Detailed traffic counts were undertaken at all the affected intersections, refer to Section 7.
2.3 ROAD NETWORK & MASTER PLANNING
2.3.1 Municipal planning
The City of Cape Town’s existing and planned metropolitan road network map shows 3 future road sections that will have an impact on the Conradie BLMEP site. Refer to Figure 2-1 for an extract of the planned road network map, Plan No. RD-1.1, dated August 2013.
Frans Conradie Drive Extension The CoCT plans to extend Frans Conradie Drive (M25) westwards from Jakes Gerwel (M7) to the Sable Road interchange with National Road N1. This future extension will have a wide scale network effect, including improved network accessibility to the Conradie BLMEP, when the remaining portion of the proposed Aerodrome Road (from Voortrekker Road to Frans Conradie Road Extension) is constructed.
The time-frame for the implementation of these links are unknown, and is dependent on numerous factors, including funding and access to the future Wingfield Development.
Forest Drive Extension
A further extension of Forest Drive Extension is planned from its current intersection with Plane Avenue, following an east-west alignment on the Heldersig Road alignment, to a crossing under Vanguard Drive (M7) adjacent to the Northern railway line. The route then
8
follows a north-south alignment adjacent and east of Vanguard Drive to the intersection with Denneboom Avenue at the Grand West Casino entrance. The road reserve for this link has not been established.
Odin & Aerodrome Road Extension Odin Drive is a short road section from a signalised intersection with Viking Way terminating in a cul-de-sac directly adjacent to the Elsies River canal. It is classified as a Class 3 Secondary Arterial. A future extension of the route is planned as a Class 3 Secondary arterial, along the following basic alignment:
· Continue from current cul-de-sac termination of Odin Road.
· Bridge crossing over the Elsies River canal.
· Follow an east-west alignment over the Jewish Cemetery.
· Turn northwards and follow a north-south alignment along Rooikrans Road.
· A single bridge crossing over Forest Drive Extension, between to separate building of the First on Forest Residential complex and the railway lines. Note that no access will be possible to Forest Drive Extension. A reserve has been registered over the residential complex.
· Continue along an existing internal access road on a north-south alignment over the Maitland Cemetery.
· At-grade intersection with Voortrekker Road at an existing intersection.
· Continue northwards over the Wingfield site. The alignment over the site has not been formally accepted, as various environmental and land-claim issues exist on the property.
· From there it is planned as the future Aerodrome Road Extension linking to a future westward extension of Frans Conradie Drive and, ultimately, to the N1 Freeway at the Sable Road interchange.
The road reserves for the future Odin Drive extension and Aerodrome Road Extension has not been established, except for a short section from the current end of Odin Road to the Elsies Kraal River canal and over the First on Forest residential complex.
Local access road A future, Class 4 Local Distributor is shown traversing the site on an east-west alignment from a point located on the future Odin Road extension north-west of the canal, to Forest Drive Extension at or near the existing access to the site.
The road reserve for this link has not been established, and will be required as part of the internal road network of the Conradie BLMEP.
9
Figure 2-1 CoCT road network masterplan Source: City of Cape Town
Conradie BLMEP
The following CoCT upgrades are planned to the local road network in future:
Jan Smuts Drive The section of Jan Smuts Drive from Sunrise Circle eastwards is a single carriageway with 1 lane per direction. It is proposed to upgrade this 600m section to a dual carriageway with 2 lanes per direction.
The section of Jan Smuts Drive south of the Viking Way interchange to north of the N2 freeway interchange is a single carriageway with 1 lane per direction. It is proposed to upgrade this 2,0 km section to a dual carriageway with 2 lanes per direction.
The future upgrade will be determined by traffic demand needs and funding availability.
Jakes Gerwel Drive (M7) Jakes Gerwel Drive is planned as a Class 1 Freeway between the N1 and N2 freeway interchanges. All major existing accesses will become grade separated. The future upgrade will be determined by traffic demand needs and funding availability.
Viking Way The section of Viking Way between the Odin Road and Sipres intersections is a single carriageway with 1 lane per direction. It is proposed to upgrade this 1,0 km section to a dual carriageway with 2 lanes per direction. The future upgrade will be determined by traffic demand needs and funding availability.
2.3.2 Planned Provincial and National Roads
There are no planned provincial or national roads in the vicinity of the site or the greater study area.
2.3.3 Latent Developments
The only known latent development in the vicinity of the site that may have an impact on the local road network is the proposed Mupine residential development. The development will be located on a portion of Erf 4211, located to the north of the site along Forest Drive Extension, with access off Forest Drive Extension.
This development has not been approved by the City of Cape Town, and the TIA undertaken by Royal HaskoningDHV (Draft, dated 23 June 2015), has not been formally submitted to TCT. A brief overview of the TIA confirms the following with regards to the proposed Mupine development, regarding the development:
· The proposed development is targeting 800 residential units, of which 50% will be Social housing and 50% Gap housing.
· The developer is a Social Housing Institute (SHI) with support funding from Old Mutual with an arrangement to provide accommodation for Old Mutual employees.
11
· A previous development attempt on the site targeted 515 middle income residential units. This was however abandoned due to the impact of increased traffic congestion on the adjacent already congested road network.
· The TIA motivates for a PT2 zoning and propose to provide less parking per residential unit and therefore be far less reliant on private transport.
· Reference is made to 2 other social and gap housing developments within Cape Town, also located close to public transport hubs, namely Steenvillas in Steenberg and Drommedaris in Brooklyn. Despite the provision of 0.57 parking bays per residential unit, the actual take-up of available parking at these developments is approximately 0.24 bays per unit.
· The TIA suggests that limited road infrastructure upgrades will be required, except the signalization of the Forest Drive Extension access intersection, and a footbridge link to Mutual station.
· The TIA proposes a parking provision rate of 0.5 bays/dwelling unit for gap housing, and 0.3 bays /dwelling unit for social housing.
· The TIA motivates for Travel Demand Management (TDM) to be implemented which will include:
o PT2 parking allocations independent of the residential units.
o Rental only option of the available parking bays.
o Inclusion of NMT routes for pedestrians and cyclists on Forest Drive.
o Provision of retail and amenities close to the development.
o Provision of bicycle lock-up facilities and ablutions and shower facilities.
o Scheduled lifts clubs.
o Upgrade lighting and encourage active street and shop fronts.
It should be noted that the proposed signalised access off Forest Drive Extension to the Mupine development will impact the future access to the Conradie BLMEP site, this is discussed in more detail in Section 8 - Capacity analysis.
The Mupine Development was not considered further with regards to latent right, as its development horizon is unknown and the rezoning and development rights has not been applied for or approved.
12
3.1 SITE LOCATION
The site is Erf 112657, located between the suburbs of Pinelands, Thornton and Maitland, approximately 9,0 km east of the Cape Town CBD. It is located between the Elsies Kraal River canal to the south-east, the Central railway line to the west and Forest Drive Extension to the north. Refer to Figure 3.1 for the Locality plan and Figure 3.2 for an aerial photograph of the site.
Figure 3-1 Location of the site Source: GoogleMaps
Conradie BLMEP
Figure 3-2 Aerial image of the site Source: City of Cape Town
3.2 DETERMINATION OF THE STUDY AREA
The study area was determined with the following COTO TMH 16 Volume 1 recommendations:
· “Class 4 and 5 roads in the vicinity of the development up to the first Class 1 to 3 roads that can be reached by the Class 4 and 5 road network from the development, up to and including the first connection(s) on the Class 1 to 3 roads.
· The elements shall be restricted to those within a maximum distance of 1.5km from the accesses to the site, measured along the shortest routes to the accesses, provided that there is at least one intersection within this distance. Where there is no such intersection, the distance will be extended to include at least one intersection.’’
TMH 16 also states that judgement should be used in selecting the intersections considered and therefore specific elements like extent of the development were also considered. A larger development will by its nature require a wider study area to be considered while for a smaller development the opposite will be true. The study area and affected intersections of this TIA is shown in Appendix D, and takes the above principles into account. The Scope of the study was also confirmed by TCT, refer to Section 1.2.1.
Conradie BLMEP
3.3 SURROUNDING ROAD NETWORK The following roads are impacted by the proposed development and are detailed below:
Forest Drive Extension
· It is a proclaimed Provincial Main Road, No. 180, refer to Figure 3.3.
· It is classified as a Class 3 Secondary Arterial and it is a public transport route (bus and taxi).
· It is a 2-lane single carriageway road with 3.2 m wide lanes with an 18 m wide road reserve.
· A surfaced sidewalk is located on the northern side of the road, and painted bicycle lanes of approximately 1.0 m wide is located along both road edges.
Odin Drive · It is classified as a Class 3 Secondary Arterial.
· Odin Drive is a short section of road from a signalised intersection with Viking Way, terminating in a cul-de-sac adjacent and south of the canal.
· It is a 2-lane single carriageway road with 3.2 m wide lanes, with a 20 m wide road reserve.
Thor Circle · It is classified as a Class 4 local distributor/collector.
· Thor Circle forms a circular route from a 4-way stop controlled intersection with Odin Drive and Albatross Extension through the industrial area of Viking Park.
· It is a 2-lane single carriageway road with 3.2 m wide lanes with a 16 m wide road reserve.
Viking Way (M16)
· It is a proclaimed Provincial Main Road, No. 119, refer to Figure 3.3
· It is classified as a Class 2/3 Expressway, and is a public transport route (bus and taxi).
· It is a 4-lane dual carriageway road in the vicinity with Odin Drive, with 3.2 m wide lanes and a 90 m wide road reserve.
· A surfaced sidewalk is located on the northern side of the road, and painted bicycle lanes of approximately 1.0 m wide is located along both road edges.
Jan Smuts Drive (M17)
15
· It is classified as a Class 2 Primary Arterial and is a public transport route (bus and taxi).
· It is a 4-lane dual carriageway road, with 4.0 m wide lanes and a 40 m wide road reserve.
Mutual Road · It is a proclaimed Provincial Main Road, No. 180, refer to Figure 3.3
· It is classified as a Class 5 local access road and is a public transport route (bus and taxi).
· It is a short (150 m) road between Jan Smuts Drive and Mutual station.
· It is a 2-lane single carriageway road with 3.0 m wide lanes with a 12 m wide road reserve.
Voortrekker Road (R102)
· It is classified as a Class 3 Secondary Arterial and is a public transport route (bus and taxi).
· It is a 4-lane single carriageway road, with 3.0 m wide lanes and a 20 m wide road reserve.
· A surfaced sidewalk is located on the southern side of the road.
16
Figure 3-3 Proclaimed Provincial road network (2005) Source: PGWC
3.4 ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION The condition of the road network in the study was not technically assessed, as it falls outside the scope of this study. The external roads are generally in a moderate to good condition.
The internal roads are in a poor condition, with no road signs, road markings, street lighting or surfaced sidewalks present. The extent and condition of services (storm water, etc.) has also not been determined.
Conradie BLMEP
4.1 SITE ACCESS
Access spacing was determined to be in-line with the Western Cape Government’s Road Access Guidelines (RAG) of 2002, as well as the COTO SA Road Classification and Access Management Manual, dated August 2012. In terms of RAG, the Conradie BLMEP is regarded as “Urban” with the proposed density in excess of 100,000 m²/ha. Forest Drive Extension is classified as a Class 3 Arterial, however due to the lower density development to the north of it, RAG classifies it as a Class 3 Distributor (Suburban).
Vehicle and NMT access to the Conradie BLMEP is proposed as follows:
PRIMARY ACCESS OFF FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION
A primary access will be located off Forest Drive Extension at the existing exit only road from the site. The access will be signalised, refer to the capacity analysis in Chapter 8 and Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2.
The access will be located directly opposite the Mupine access to form a standard 4-leg intersection. The Mupine access will have to be relocated approximately 10 m westwards to allow this. The Conradie access cannot be located elsewhere due to the heritage buildings located between the current entrance and exit roads. The heritage buildings must be retained, and the walls adjacent to exit may have to be rebuilt due to their heritage value. The existing entrance only road onto the site will be utilised as an NMT-only access.
Access 1 will be located approximately 510 m from the Forest Drive/Mutual Road signalised intersection. RAG recommends an access spacing of 540 m for signalised intersections on a District Suburban Distributor. COTO recommends an access spacing of 600m (+/- 20%) between urban signals on a Class 3 route, therefore a minimum of 480 m. Access 1, when signalised in future, will therefore adhere to COTO Standards, but will fall outside RAG guidelines.
It is hereby motivated that the sub-standard access spacing from the Mutual Road intersection to Access 1 should be considered favourably by CoCT, as this access should be retained given the internal road layout of the development and heritage buildings. The internal road layout will also be largely retained due to their Heritage value. Access 1 cannot be located further east along Forest Drive Extension, as the sub-standard spacing between Access 1 and Access 2 will be worsened.
18
Signalisation of this intersection will only be required when the Mupine Development is implemented.
Figure 4-1 Existing access to Conradie and Mupine Image source: City of Cape Town
Heritage building
Mupine access
ACCESS FROM FOREST DRIVE EXTENSION VIA NEW CLASS 4 ROAD
A second intersection is proposed on Forest Drive Extension. This intersection is required as the northern termination of the CoCT proposed Class 4 route between Forest Drive Extension and the future Odin Road extension over the canal. The access will be a standard 4-leg signalised intersection, refer to the capacity analysis in Chapter 8.
Secondary accesses are proposed off this new Class 4 route via left-in left-out accesses and a roundabout. Refer to the urban design layout in Appendix B and Figure 4-3.
20
Figure 4-3 Existing access to Anfield Village and Clinic Image source: City of Cape Town
There are 2 possible locations for this access intersection, briefly compared below. Refer to Table 4-1 and Figure 4-3.
1. Directly opposite the main access to the Anfield Village residential development.
2. Directly opposite the secondary access to the Anfield Village residential development.
Main access
Anfield Village
Secondary access
21
Opposite Anfield Village main entrance
Option No. 2 Opposite Anfield Village
secondary entrance
ADVANTAGE No alteration to Anfield Village primary access required
DISADVANTAGE Anfield Village primary access to be relocated to secondary access
ADVANTAGE Spacing to Access 1 +/- 265m: improved progression along Forest Drive Ext.
DISADVANTAGE Spacing to Access 1 +/- 200 m, poorer progression
ADVANTAGE No separate land parcel created
DISADVANTAGE Land parcel created between Class 4 & Orthotic Clinic – may be useable as a public transport facility.
The access spacing between Access 1 and Access 2 will be approximately 200 m. Although this access spacing is sub-standard for signalised intersections along a Class 3 road, the rationalisation of accesses (the Clinic), will decrease the number of access points off Forest Drive Extension, thereby improving the mobility function of the road.
The COCT proposed that the existing access off Forest Drive Extension to the adjacent Orthotic and Prosthetic Clinic (OPC) be closed in order to rationalise the number of accesses off Forest Drive Extension. Access to the clinic will be provided via the Conradie site’s internal road network. The CoCT should consider converting the secondary access to Anfield Village to a left-in left-out (LILO) access by constructing a median island along Forest Drive Extension as part of the intersection upgrade. This will further improve the mobility function of the road. This proposal should be considered as a separate matter between client, CoCT and the owners of Anfield Village.
22
Figure 4-4 Approximate access spacing on Forest Drive Extension Image source: City of Cape Town
The relocation of the Anfield Village main access may not be achievable and will have a cost implication. Option 1 is therefore favoured although it will result in decreased progression of through traffic along Forest Drive Extension. A high-level progression analysis was therefore undertaken to test the 2-way mobility of the route given the access options. Refer to Table 4.2 and Figure 4.4 and 4.5.
Table 4-2 Progression comparison
OPPOSITE ANFIELD VILLAGE MAIN ENTRANCE
OPPOSITE ANFIELD VILLAGE SECONDARY ENTRANCE
WEST TO EAST PROGRESSION (% OF MAXIMUM POSSIBLE) 34% 46%
EAST TO WEST PROGRESSION (% OF MAXIMUM POSSIBLE) 44% 44%
Mupine access
Figure 4-5 Progression analysis: Forest Drive Extension – Option 1 Software source: AutoSync (Dr John Sampson)
24
Figure 4-6 Progression analysis: Forest Drive Extension – Option 2 Software source: AutoSync (Dr John Sampson)
25
Summary
Signalisation of the western access will only be required when the Mupine development is implemented. Acceptable progression will be achievable for both intersection spacing options when signalisation is implemented.
Option 1 is regarded as the most feasible location for the new Forest Drive Extension and Class 4 road intersection, given the various factors (access spacing, Anfield Village access relocation & land-use). Refer to Figure 4-7 for a conceptual layout of the intersection.
Figure 4-7 Proposed Access off Forest Drive Extension opposite Anfield Village
ACCESS VIA ODIN ROAD EXTENSION
An access intersection of the new Class 4 Local Distributor via the Conradie site and Odin Road Extension is proposed. Refer to Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6. This intersection will provide access to Viking Way via Odin Drive over the canal. The access will be signalised and located 530 m from the Odin Road/Thor Circle intersection. The southbound access spacing is therefore acceptable. The access spacing to the future Aerodrome Road/Voortrekker Road intersection will be over 1000 m, and is therefore acceptable.
26
It should be noted that a short section of Odin Road Extension over the canal to the local access road is required for Phase 1 of the Conradie BLMEP development, and the remaining portion to Voortrekker Road will only be required for Phase 3. It is recommended that the ultimate geometry be constructed, and not an interim geometry for Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Refer to the capacity analysis in Chapter 8 and Figure 4-8.
Figure 4-8 Proposed Access 3 via Odin Road Extension (Phase 1/2/3)
27
ACCESS 4 – ROUNDABOUT ON INTERNAL CLASS 4 ROUTE
A roundabout is proposed along the internal Class 4 route, to provide a new access to the adjacent Orthotic clinic and to the internal road network of the Conradie BLMEP. Refer to Figure 4-9.
Figure 4-9 Proposed Access 4 via Class 4 route
ACCESS 5 – THOR CIRCLE
An NMT access is proposed to Thor Circle and onto Odin Road and Viking Way via a pedestrian bridge over the realigned canal.
28
SUMMARY
The proposed geometries of the primary internal and external access intersections are discussed in more detail in Chapter 8: Capacity analysis. The spacing, location and geometries of the accesses to the future internal erven must be assessed when these individual erven are developed.
4.2 PARKING PROVISION
BACKGROUND
The Conradie BLMEP will apply for a parking departure from the current City of Cape Town Zoning Scheme Regulations (CTZS) of November 2012. The site does not currently fall within a PT1 or PT2 zone, as per the latest designated PT1/PT2 area map, refer to Figure 4.10.
·
The CoCT stated that they will normally allow 0.5 parking bays per dwelling unit for social or low cost housing units, and 1.0 parking bays (residents and visitors) for other dwelling units (flats). Refer to Table 4-3 for the parking requirements of the Conradie BLMEP as per these requirements.
Legend
SUMMARY
4 bay / 100 m² GLA
0.5 per dwelling unit
0.75 per dwelling unit + 0.25 per dwelling unit for visitors
Phase 1 209 376 262 108 378 54 1386
Phase 2 0 0 126 70 247 35 478
Phase 3 198 211 474 197 692 99 1872
Total 408 587 861 375 1316 189 3737
*Exact Retail, Office & service industry mix to be confirmed.
Table 4-3 shows that approximately 3,737 off-street parking bays will be required, and the majority (73,4%) is for the residential component of the development.
REDUCED PARKING PROVISION MOTIVATION
A parking reduction is proposed and hereby motivated for, in-line with TOD principles and the reduced trip generation rates used to calculate the development’s vehicle trip generation. Also refer to Chapter 5 (TOD’s) and Chapter 7 (Trip generation). The following is noted regarding the land-use mix of the Conradie BLMEP:
· Approximately 48% of the residential units (1723 units) will be Grant Funded with an average size of 43 m², aimed at the low income market. These residential units will therefore have Very Low Vehicle Ownership (VLVO), as defined in TMH17.
· The balance of the residential units (1880 units) will have an average size of 45 m² to 80 m², and will be open market units. These units will be aimed at the lower to middle income residential market, and is also expected to be characterised by reduced vehicle ownership - Low Vehicle Ownership, (LVO).
· On-street parking will be provided along the bulk of the new internal road network. The on-street parking can accommodate a large proportion of the parking requirements of the development, including pick-up and drop-off areas for public transport (mini-bus taxis), loading zones, etc. The estimated number of on-street parking bays that will be created is 511 bays, subject to the final detail design of the internal road network. Due to the isolated location of the development, the on-street parking bays will only be utilised by the residents and visitors of the Conradie BLMEP, and will not be not for general public parking. The on-street parking provision should therefore be considered as part of the total parking requirements of the development.
30
· The Education and Other land-uses were not considered in the parking provision calculations, as trips to these will primarily be NMT and will be generated within the development. Some parking provision for the educational facilities will be accommodated within the mixed-use zones, as it is proposed that the 2 schools are incorporated in the building layouts and not as conventional stand-alone facilities.
· The provision of basement parking is not a feasible option on the site. The high water table on-site will require extensive mitigating measures for basement construction, and it is therefore too expensive to construct. Multi-level parkades are also not a feasible option due their cost in relation to the proposed low to middle income mixed- use nature of the development.
· It is proposed to provide at-grade surface parking within each development erf. A high-level assessment indicates that a total of 1490 off-street bays can be provided.
· Combined trip generation reduction factors per land use will be used, refer to Section 7.4, as the development will be within walking distance from a major transit node (Mutual Stations), the development will be mixed-use and the residential land-uses will all low or very low vehicle ownership, as define in TMH17.
· The NMT link to Mutual Station is sufficient, however it is recommended to improve it and to provide an additional link from the development’s north-western corner directly onto Forest Drive Extension. NMT access is not currently possible at this location due to the level of the Forest Drive Extension road over railway bridge.
COMPARATIVE PARKING PROVISION In support of the proposed reduction in parking provision, comparative social housing developments in Cape Town were assessed from previous studies. A parking assessment was undertaken by Africon on behalf of Jac Snyman Architects, in support of reduced parking provision for the proposed New Community Residential Units (CRU’s) to be located in Langa, Cape Town.
The report studied the following developments, refer to Table 4.4.
Table 4-4 Comparative social housing developments
D EV
EL O
PM EN
T TY
ED
Social rental Joe Slovo 1 Off Bhunga Avenue, Langa 2005 705 0.50 Informal only
Social rental Drommedaris Koeberg Road, Brooklyn 2010 219 1.25 226
Social rental Steen Villas Military Road, Steenberg 2009 450 0.55 248
The parking survey results are listed in Table 4.5. The report states that the surveys were undertaken after hours during weekday evenings to ensure maximum normal occupancy.
31
Table 4-5 Social housing development parking survey results (2015) N
A M
Joe Slovo 1 705 Informal only 0.50 121 0.17 34%
Drommedaris 219 226 1.25 78 0.28 22.4%
Steen Villas 450 248 0.55 106 0.24 43.6%
The above actual parking ratios indicate that the parking provision at all the surveyed developments is excessive.
It is therefore argued that a parking reduction should be supported for the social housing component of the Conradie BLMEP, as the comparative parking surveys support this.
SHARED PARKING The land-use mix and distribution within the Conradie BLMEP lends itself to shared parking. Refer to the urban design layout.
The majority of the erven will be mixed-use with retail and office/service land-uses on the ground and lower levels and residential units on the upper levels. The off-street parking and adjacent on-street parking can therefore be shared, where the resident will utilise the parking during the evenings and weekends, and the commercial land-uses can utilise the parking during normal business hours.
It is proposed that 90% of the retail and office parking requirements can be shared with the residential bays, therefore 10% of the non-residential parking bay requirements will be provided.
PARKING MANAGEMENT & PAID PARKING Parking management will form an integral part of the management of the Conradie BLMEP. Some general parking requirements are listed below. All parking management must adhere to the City of Cape Town’s Parking By-law of 2010.
Paid parking will be an essential component of the parking management system. This must extend to off-street and on-street parking. The City will therefore have to regulate the internal on-street parking to avoid spillover problems that could result if residents use on-street parking to avoid paying for off-street parking.
The provision of less than a single bay per dwelling unit, depending on dwelling type, also means that no dwelling unit will be able to be allocated with a specific parking bay.
32
SUMMARY
It is proposed to reduce the residential parking provision in-line with the expected trip generation reduction as per TMH17, and comparative social housing developments. It is further recommended to utilise conventional parking provision rates for retail and office land- uses. Refer to Table 4-6 for the proposed parking provision of the Conradie BLMEP.
The 25% reduction in parking for the open market residential units (non-social housing) is in– line with the proposed reduced trip generation of these units; given the TOD status, mixed- use of the development and the proximity to public transport.
On-going parking demand reduction will form part of the responsibilities of the development’s owners and management, and this will be stipulated in the procurement contract of the developer. It will therefore be in their best interest to manage the parking in such a way that the parking reduction is achieved and sustained for all phases of the development.
Table 4-6 Proposed Conradie BLMEP parking provision
SUMMARY
Factors 4 bay / 100 m² GLA
4 bay / 100 m² GLA 0.25 / DU* 0.75 / DU* 0.75 / DU* 0.75 / DU*
Phase 1 166 234 177 83 292 42 994
Phase 2 0 0 74 64 226 33 397
Phase 3 218 355 200 121 426 61 1382
Total** 384 589 451 269 945 136 2774
Minus Shared parking bays (90% of non-residential) 875
Total parking bays required 1899
Total off- street parking bays provided 1490
Total on-street parking bays provided 511
Total parking bays provided 2001
Total surplus parking provided 102 * DU: Dwelling unit ** On & off-street parking bays
33
4.3 INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK The Conradie BLMEP will consist of a formal internal road network to provide access to the adjacent road network, mobility through the site where applicable, and access to the individual erven. NMT only routes will also be provided.
Refer to Table 4.7 for a summary of the characteristics of the proposed internal roads, and Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12 for the cross-sections.
Table 4-7 Internal road network R
O A
D R
ES ER
VE W
ID TH
carriage way, divided
carriage way, undivided
34
Figure 4-11 Class 4 mobility route - cross section Source: ARG Designs
35
36
5.1 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
A Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a mixed-use residential and commercial development designed to maximize access to public transport, and may incorporate features to encourage transit ridership, primarily through Transport Demand Management (TDM).
The City of Cape Town has identified 107 potential catalytic projects (TODs), of which 27 have been scored and ranked, based on their infrastructure requirements and constraints. The Conradie BLMEP site is such a potential TOD. The scoring categories are described as follows:
· Severe: no development possible without substantial augmentation to municipal services.
· Moderate: initial development phases possible but subsequent phases will require augmentation to municipal services.
· None: no augmentation required.
The CoCT has ranked the Conradie BLMEP as potential TOD at number 10, based on the following scores achieved:
· Transport: Roads & Public Transport Constraints – Severe
· Electricity constraints – None
· Water constraints – Moderate
· Waste water constraints – Moderate
· Storm water constraints – Severe
· Solid waste constraints – Moderate
From the above CoCT scoring it is clear that transportation is a severe constraint in the potential development of the Conradie BLMEP as a TOD. The storm water constraint of the site has been addressed and resolved separately, and is not detailed here.
37
Although the Conradie BLMEP development will not have a transit (rail) station at its centre, the bulk of the development will be located within an 800 m radius of the Mutual Station, and just outside said radius of the Thornton Station. Refer to Figure 5-1. It should also be noted that a future IRT feeder route is planned along Forest Drive Extension, and its potential stops adjacent to the site will provide additional public transit opportunities in close proximity to the Conradie BLMEP development, also refer to Section 5.3. Note that more than 80% of the development will also be within 500 of Forest Drive Extension, a current GABS and future MyCiTi feeder route. This is in-line with the CoCT IPTN 2032 Network Plan requirements.
Figure 5-1 Conradie BLMEP in relation to Mutual and Thornton Stations Image source: City of Cape Town
SUMMARY The Conradie BLMEP is therefore regarded as a TOD. The land-use mix, typologies and extent of the development as detailed in the urban design layout was informed by TOD principles with regards to transit access, parking provision, trip generation and NMT provision.
38
5.2 PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT
In support of the TOD design principles detailed above, and in terms of the National Land Transport Transition Act (NLTTA) 22 of 2000, section 29, it is a requirement that an assessment of public transport and non-motorised transport be included in a traffic impact assessment.
Refer to Figure 5.2 for an extract of the City of Cape Towns’ Existing Public Transport Services map, Plan No. PT2-1.1, dated August 2013. The various public transport services are detailed below.
Figure 5-2 CoCT Existing Public Transport Services (Bus & taxi) Source: City of Cape Town
BUS SERVICES Golden Arrow Bus Services (GABS) provides regular services along Forest Drive Extension adjacent to the site. Bus services also operate on Viking Way, Jan Smuts Drive, Forest Drive,
Voortrekker Road and Gunner's Circle. Detailed route maps of the local services are not available from GABS. Refer to Figure 5-2 indicating the approved bus routes.
39
Public Transport (PT) stops are located along Forest Drive Extension near the existing access, as shown in Figure 5-4.
Summary
The development of the Conradie BLMEP may see the establishment of additional bus routes to and from and/or via the site. The provision of public transport stops and a mulita-modal facility within the site will be considered at site development stage, as per the requirements of TCT.
Furthermore, as per the CITP (2014 mini review), Long-term strategy C of TCT is to provide public transport services to 80% of Cape Town’s residents within 500 m. The Conradie BLMEP will be located directly adjacent to Forest Drive Extension, a public transport route, and all residents will be within 500 m of this service. The development will therefore be in-line with this strategy.
Figure 5-3 CoCT Formal PT Stops Source: City of Cape Town
Legend
Figure 5-4 PT Stops along Forest Drive Extension Source: Google Streetview
INTEGRATED RAPID TRANSIT (MYCITI) The City of Cape Town’s Integrated Rapid Transit System (IRT) will be introduced in the vicinity of the study area. Refer to Figure 5-5 for an extract of the approved CoCT Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN) for 2032.
The following trunk routes and support feeder routes are planned:
· Trunk Route T17: Khayelitsha – Klipfontein – Epping – Maitland - Century City
Route description: Khayelitsha Station, Steve Biko Dr, Mew Way, Jeff Masemola Rd, New Eisleben Rd, Klipfontein Rd, Borcherds Quarry Rd, Robert Sobukwe Rd, Valhalla Drive, Nigeria Way (a new road south of Epping Industrial), Jan Smuts Drive, Prestige Drive extension (viaduct over rail lines), new busway along the side of N1 into Sable Rd, Ratanga Rd, Century Blvd, Century Ave, Montague Ave, Koeberg Rd, Omuramba Rd, Omuramba Station.
· Trunk Route T15: Strandfontein - Pelikan Park – Athlone – Pinelands – Maitland - CBD
Route description: Spine Rd terminus, Strandfontien Rd, Jan Smuts Dr, Prestige Dr extension, new viaduct over rail lines, link to MyCiTi Phase 1A busway along south side of N1, Civic Station.
Feeder routes: The CoCT Preferred IPTN Alternative map, dated May 2014, shows a future IRT feeder route along Forest Drive Extension, via Mutual Road and Jan Smuts Drive to Forest Drive through Pinelands. This high-level map is of poor resolution, and the feeder routes were redrawn and are shown on Figure 5-5. It should be noted that these are high- level route alignments and they may change in future.
41
Figure 5-5 COCT IRPTN proposed IRT trunk and feeder routes Redrawn from City of Cape Town source
Summary and impact Both the trunk routes will be located along Jan Smuts Drive, directly adjacent to the Conradie site. The position of the median trunk stations for the services is not known at this stage. However, the development of Conradie could influence the future planning as to trunk and feeder station locations, with potential pedestrian access over the railway lines to a trunk station. If a trunk station is not feasible within walking distance of the Conradie BLMEP, the proposed feeder route along Forest Drive Extension will provide access to the trunk system. There may also be scope to revise the feeder route along Forest Drive Extension to partially traverse the Conradie BLMEP site.
Due to the medium to long-term implementation period of the future IRT trunk services it is not possible to assess what impact the services will have on the site. The frequency, station and stop locations are unknown at this stage. However, the development of the Conradie BLMEP could see the implementation of these routes be revised or accelerated. The 2 trunk services and their support feeder routes will provide an additional quality public transport alternative to the future residents of the Conradie BLMEP.
Site
Legend
42
FUTURE GABS AND MYCITI SERVICES INTEGRATION The following extract is from the CoCT’s Comprehensive Integrated Transport Plan of 2013 - 2018, Mini Review 2014:
“The City of Cape Town, the Western Cape Government, and Golden Arrow Bus Services have signed two memorandums of understanding (MOUs) on working together to establish a world-class, integrated transport system for the benefit of residents and visitors to the city and the broader metro region.
TCT will lead this transformation process, of which affordability and cost competitiveness form an integral part. As outlined in the first MOU, the City, under the auspices of TCT, will work with the Western Cape Government through the Department of Transport and Public Works (DoTPW), which will provide advice, guidance and support, as well as performing a key oversight role to facilitate the smooth transition.
The second MOU is between the City, the DoTPW and Golden Arrow Bus Services (GABS), and serves as a departure point for the imminent integration of the GABS and MyCiTi bus services to establish one integrated bus service with unified branding, one timetable and scheduling system linked to the integrated public transport network, one performance management system and finally, one integrated ticketing and fare management system. The MOU acknowledges GABS as a significant role player, being the largest scheduled bus operator in the city, and which has been integral to the provision of public transport to the residents of Cape Town since 1861 as a private sector operator and 1997 when it was officially contracted to provide bus transport services for commuters on scheduled routes in the city.
GABS will be contracted as a scheduled bus service operator and, as such, will be a key role player supporting TCT in this transformation process inherent with the CITP. The objectives of the two MOUs are to ensure a smooth and seamless transition process, to lay the foundations of a good working relationship between the different role players, and to establish the basis for an adequately resourced and expanding road-based scheduled public transport service which continually improves and delivers on the growing demand for public transport across Cape Town.”
Summary In summary, the future integration of GABS and MyCiTi services as a single public transport provider should improve road based public transport service to the residents and tenants of the Conradie BLMEP. The current and planned bus services will operate along Forest Drive Extension, and may also be expanded to the future Odin Road Extension and local access road traversing the site.
TAXI SERVICES Various formal taxi routes exist through the study area, along Forest Drive Extension, Forest Drive, Jan Smuts Drive, Voortrekker Road, Gunners Circle, Victory Avenue and Ringwood Drive.
The CoCT Mutual Station Transport Interchange facility is loca

conradie better living model exemplar project

Documents