-i-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains a Traffic Impact Study undertaken for the following development:
The proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4, situated on Portion 64 of the Farm Vlakfontein 238 IQ.
The development is situated along Kagiso Avenue and falls within the area of jurisdiction of the City of Johannesburg.
The proposed township is earmarked for the following land use rights (refer to Annexure A for details): a) Erf 1
Zoning : Business 1 for retail
FAR : 0.6
Erf size : 3.0938ha
GLA : 18 562.8m² b) Erf 2 to 143
Zoning : Res 1
Density : 1 dwelling/erf
Erf size : Average size/erf = 200m² (total "Res" area = 3.2050ha c) Erf 144
Zoning : Public Open Space
The proposed development will generate an additional 215 (AM Peak), 818 (PM Peak) and 1 013 (SAT Peak) peak hour trips. Note: The Friday afternoon and Saturday midday are the worst case scenarios and all calculations in this report are based on the traffic demand generated during these two peak periods.
The main access to the township is from Cremona Drive with a 20m road reserve. In terms of the township layout the individual stands will be served by roads with a minimum reserve width of 13m.
THE SITE
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-ii-
MARITENG INFORMATION PAGE
TITLE OF REPORT:
Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4
DATE : May 2016 STATUS OF REPORT : Revision 0
MARITENG PROJECT NUMBER : 183/95 MARITENG REPORT NUMBER : 183-95-02-tshepisong ext 4
PREPARED BY: Mariteng Management Solutions P.O. Box 8864 VERWOERD PARK 1453 Tel : (082) 854 7358 Fax : (086) 547 8882 E-mail: [email protected]
Name Signature Date
AUTHOR/S OF REPORT : L J du Toit ...... 02-05-2016
TECHNICAL SUPPORT : E Muller : L du Toit
Revision Date Comments No.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-iii-
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY:
PROPOSED TOWNSHIP TSHEPISONG EXTENSION 4
(REVISION 0)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. STUDY METHODOLOGY ...... 1
2. STUDY METHODOLOGY ...... 2
3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 3
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 3
3.2 EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE RIGHTS ...... 3
3.3 APPLICATION ...... 3
3.4 TIME FRAME OF DEVELOPMENT ...... 4
4. STUDY AREA ...... 4
4.1 EXTENT OF STUDY AREA ...... 4
4.2 LATENT LAND-USES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN STUDY AREA ...... 5
4.3 EXISTING ROAD AND STREET NETWORK ...... 5
4.4 INTERSECTIONS EVALUATED ...... 6
5. SCENARIOS...... 6
6. DESIGN PEAK HOURS AND PEAK-HOUR FACTORS ...... 7
6.1 DESIGN PEAK HOURS ...... 7
6.2 PEAK HOUR FACTORS ...... 7
7. GAUTENG TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ACT EVALUATION ...... 7
8. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DEMAND ...... 7
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-iv-
8.1 BASE YEAR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DEMAND ...... 7
8.2 IMPACT OF CHANGES TO ROAD NETWORK PLANNED BY THE ROAD AUTHORITIES ...... 8
8.3 FUTURE YEAR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DUE TO TRAFFIC GROWTH ...... 8
8.4 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES DEMAND DUE TO LATENT LAND USES ...... 8
9. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC ...... 8
9.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 8
9.2 TRIP GENERATION BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 8
9.3 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 10
10. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 11
10.1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION ...... 11
10.2 TRIP ASSIGNMENT...... 11
11. TOTAL TRAFFIC DEMAND ...... 11
12. CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF INTERSECTIONS ...... 12
12.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 12
12.2 MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS ...... 12
12.3 EXISTING INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS ...... 13
12.4 DISPLAY OF CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...... 17
13. TOWNSHIP LAYOUT ASSESSMENT ...... 23
13.1 PROPOSED EXTERNAL ACCESS ROADS ...... 23
13.2 PROPOSED INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK ...... 23
13.3 SPLAY REQUIREMENTS ...... 24
13.4 FUTURE EXTERNAL ROADS ...... 24
14. PROPOSED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS ...... 24
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-v-
14.1 RETAIL SITE ...... 24
14.2 RESIDENTIAL ERVEN ...... 25
15. PUBLIC TRANSPORT & NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS ...... 25
15.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 25
15.2 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 25
15.3 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS ...... 25
15.4 PROPOSED PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 25
15.5 PROPOSED NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 25
16. PROPOSED TAXI FACILITIES ON RETAIL SITE ...... 26
17. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 26
17.1 CONCLUSIONS ...... 26
17.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 27
ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A: EXTRACT FROM TOWNSHIP APPLICATION MEMORANDUM AND TOWNSHIP LAYOUT ANNEXURE B: RISFSA 2009 ROAD HIERARCHY - REGION D ANNEXURE C: TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ANNEXURE D: CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ANNEXURE E: PROPOSED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS AND NON-MOTORIZED PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES - MARITENG PLAN NO.: 183-95-01 ANNEXURE F: CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS - AUTOJ ANNEXURE G: STANDARD SPLAYS - JRA DRAWING NO.: JRA-SD-RD-070 ANNEXURE H: EXTRACT FROM TMH 16 VOLUME 2 - THROAT LENGTH REQUIREMENTS
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Total Number of Development Trips ...... -10- Table 2: Level of Service Results: Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street ...... -18- Table 3: Proposed Road Network Improvements: Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street ...... -18- Table 4: Level of Service Results With Road Improvements: Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street ...... -19- Table 5: Level of Service Results: Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremano Drive...... -20- Table 6: Proposed Road Network Improvements: Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremano Drive ...... -20- Table 7: Level of Service Results With Road Improvements: Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremano Drive ...... -21- Table 8: Level of Service Results: Intersection 3 – Kagiso Avenue & Sandpiper Street ...... -21- Table 9: Level of Service Results: Intersection 4 – Cremano Drive & Road A ...... -22-
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-vi-
Table 10: Level of Service Results: Intersection 5 – Cremano Drive & Road B ...... -22- Table 11: Level of Service Results: Intersection 6 – Cremano Drive & Road C ...... -22- Table 12: Level of Service Results: Intersection 7 – Cremano Drive & Road D ...... -23- Table 13: Level of Service Results: Intersection 8 – Road B & Shopping Centre Access ...... -23-
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Locality Plan Figure 2: Aerial View of Study Area Figure 3: PWV Road Network Figure 4: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Background Traffic Figure 5: Estimated (2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Background Traffic Figure 6: Trip Generation Characteristics - Retail Component Figure 7: Trip Generation Characteristics - Residential Component Figure 8: Total Trip Demand - Retail Plus Residential Figure 9: Estimated (2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - With Development Figure 10: Estimated (2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - With Development
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-1-
1. STUDY METHODOLOGY
This report contains a Traffic Impact Study undertaken for the following development:
The proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4, situated on Portion 64 of the Farm Vlakfontein 238 IQ.
The development is situated along Kagiso Avenue and falls within the area of jurisdiction of the City of Johannesburg.
The details of the town planner involved with the projects/development are:
To Plan Consulting Town Planner
P.O. Box 8364
BIRCHLEIGH
1621
For Attention: Me. C Denner
Tel No.: 083 644 6729
E-mail address: [email protected]
This study was undertaken by traffic engineer:
Mr. Louis du Toit, P.O. Box 8864, Verwoerd Park, 1453
The traffic engineer has the following qualifications for undertaking Traffic Impact Studies:
Registered as a professional engineering technologist (Registration No. 200270072);
Baccalaureus Technologiae – Engineering Civil (Transportation) (1997); and
Experienced in the field of evaluating the traffic impact of developments.
“I Louis du Toit, author if this traffic impact study, hereby certify that I am a professional traffic engineer (ECSA Registration No.: 200270072) and that I have the required experience and training in the field of traffic and transportation engineering, as required by the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), to compile this traffic impact study/statement and I take full responsibility for the content, including all calculations, conclusions and recommendations made therein”.
Signature:......
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-2-
2. STUDY METHODOLOGY
The traffic impact study was executed in accordance with the following guideline documents:
Committee of Transportation Officials (COTO), August 2012, South African Traffic Impact and Site Traffic Assessment Manual (TMH 16 - Volume 1) (Version 1.0).
Department of Transport, 1995, Manual for Traffic Impact Studies .
Committee of Transportation Officials (COTO), September 2012, South African Trip Data Manual (TMH 17 - Version 1.01).
The proposed development will generate more than 150 peak hour trips and the following procedure was followed, in the execution of the study:
The extent of the study was determined by identifying the intersections in the vicinity of the development on which the traffic generated by the development may have a significant impact. The target years and peak scenarios to be analysed were also determined, based on the land-use and extent of the development.
The existing traffic flow patterns were surveyed, where after the functioning of the intersections was analysed. Recommendations were made on the need for road upgrades, without the development.
In the study, future traffic flow conditions were also taken into consideration, namely one target year, i.e. 5 years beyond the base year. Given the existing traffic, volumes and assuming a growth rate, the expected target year were determined, where after the intersections were again analysed and recommendations were made on the future road upgrades required.
The study also assessed the applicant site in terms of the Gauteng Transport Infrastructure Act.
Given the extent of the development and using the applicable trip generation rates, the expected number of trips that will be generated was determined.
The trip distribution of the traffic that will be generated by the proposed development was derived from the existing traffic flow patterns, the location as well as the potential market area of the development in relation to the road network. For ease of reference the proposed development will be referred to as with or proposed development scenario .
Given the trip distribution, the generated traffic was assigned to the road network together with the existing and estimated target year traffic volumes. The functioning of the intersections were again analysed and recommendations were made on the need for additional road upgrading necessary, due to the proposed development.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-3-
As part of the study, the existing public transport infrastructure was also evaluated and where required upgrading to the existing infrastructure was recommended.
The following documentations were also used as part of this study:
Institute of Transportation, 2 nd Edition, Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook .
Akcelik and Associates (Pty) Ltd, 2011, Sidra Version 6.1 .
Dr J Sampson, November 2015, AutoJ .
Transport Research Board, 1994, Highway Capacity Manual .
Committee of Transportation Officials (COTO), August 2012, South African Road Classification and Access Management Manual (TRH 26) (Version 1.0).
Department of Transport, South African Development Community, Road Traffic Signs Manual (SARTSM) Volume 1, Chapter 4 (3 rd Edition) .
Johannesburg Roads Agency SOC Limited (JRA), June 2015, Roads & Stormwater Manual - Volumes 2 - Standard Design Details for Roads & Stormwater Part 1 - Roads) .
City of Johannesburg, Complete Street Design Guideline Manual - Complete Streets .
3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This traffic impact study was undertaken for the proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4.
The location of the proposed township is shown in Figure 1 .
3.2 EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE RIGHTS
The site is currently zoned "Undetermined" and the site is currently improved with a single residential house and associated outbuildings.
3.3 APPLICATION
The town planner for the project, To Plan Consulting Town Planner, submitted a township application for the following land use rights (refer to Annexure A for the township layout):
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-4-
a) Erf 1
Zoning : Business 1 for retail
FAR : 0.6
Erf size : 3.0938ha
GLA : 18 562.8m²
b) Erf 2 to 143
Zoning : Res 1
Density : 1 dwelling/erf
Erf size : Average size/erf = 200m² (total "Res" area = 3.2050ha
c) Erf 144
Zoning : Public Open Space
3.4 TIME FRAME OF DEVELOPMENT
It is anticipated that the full development will be completed within the next 5 years.
4. STUDY AREA
4.1 EXTENT OF STUDY AREA
The study area for this application is shown in Figures 1 and 2 , and is surrounded by the following land uses/roads:
To the north of the property is Geba Street.
To the east of the site is vacant land.
To the south the applicant site abuts the proposed Cremona Drive. Further south of the site is Sandpiper Road.
To the west the applicant site abuts Kagiso Avenue.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-5-
4.2 LATENT LAND-USES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN STUDY AREA
As part of this study no latent rights development could be indentified in the study area that could impact on the findings of the traffic report.
4.3 EXISTING ROAD AND STREET NETWORK
The existing surrounding road network is briefly discussed hereafter, and indicated on Figure 1 and 2 respectively.
Kagiso Avenue is a single lane road running in a north-south direction. Based on the RISFSA 2009 road classification (refer to Annexure B ), Kagiso Avenue is still indicated as an informal settlement road. In terms of the information obtain from Gautrans' road master plan (refer to Figure 3 ), the section of Kagiso Avenue north of Road R41 (Randfontein Road extension) is a Class 3 road. It is therefore assumed that the section of road passing through the study area will also be a Class 3 road. Kagiso Avenue falls under the jurisdiction of Johannesburg Roads Agency.
Sandpiper Road is a single lane road running in a north-south direction. Sandpiper Road ties in with Kagiso Avenue, to the south of the applicant site. Based on the current alignment Sandpiper Road ties in as an extension of Kagiso Avenue, while Kagiso Avenue continues further south as a gravel road forming the secondary link in the road network. Based on the RISFSA 2009 road classification, Sandpiper Road is still shown as an informal settlement road. However, given the alignment of the road and based on the information obtain from Gautrans' road master plan, the road function as a Class 3 road. In terms of the future planning, Sandpiper Road deviates at the point where it currently ties in with Kagiso Avenue, to tie in with an existing east-west link road. The existing east-west link (no street name) ties in with Adcock Street in the east. Sandpiper Road is earmarked as a major east-west link in the road network. Sandpiper Road falls under the jurisdiction of Johannesburg Roads Agency.
Geba Street is a single road running in an east-west direction. The road serves residential erven. Geba Street intersects with Kagiso Avenue, and is a 3-way stop controlled intersection. Geba Street falls under the jurisdiction of Johannesburg Roads Agency.
Cremona Drive is a proposed east-west road in a 20m road reserve. Although not yet constructed, the road master plan for the area already makes provision for the proposed road. Cremona Drive will fall under the jurisdiction of Johannesburg Roads Agency.
Road A is a residential road running in a north-south direction. The road is unsurfaced and falls under the jurisdiction of Johannesburg Roads Agency.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-6-
4.4 INTERSECTIONS EVALUATED
For the purposes of this study, the following existing intersections were analysed (also refer to Figure 1 ):
Intersection 1: Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street - 3-way stop control;
Intersection 2: Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive - Stop control with priority on Kagiso Avenue. (Note: Cremona Drive will replace Prospect Road and all existing traffic was diverted from Prospect to Cremona Drive.) The road is already part of the township located directly south of the applicant site; and
Intersection 3: Kagiso Avenue & Sandpiper Road - Stop control with priority on Kagiso Avenue/Sandpiper Road.
Based on the proposed township layout, the following new intersections were also identified and analysed (refer to Figure 2 for location of roads):
Intersection 4: Cremona Drive & Road A - Stop control with priority on Cremona Drive;
Intersection 5: Cremona Drive & Road B - Stop control with priority on Cremona Drive;
Intersection 6: Cremona Drive & Road C - Stop control with priority on Cremona Drive;
Intersection 7: Cremona Drive & Road D - Stop control with priority on Cremona Drive; and
Intersection 8: Road B & Shopping Centre Access - Stop control with priority on Road B.
The above intersections were selected as it provides the main access to the study area, and the additional development traffic will have the highest impact on these intersections.
5. SCENARIOS
It is expected, that the development will generate more than 150 peak hour trips and the following traffic assessment scenarios were analysed:
Scenario 1: Base year (2016) PM peak background traffic;
Scenario 2: Base year (2016) PM peak with development traffic;
Scenario 3: Target year (2021) PM peak background traffic;
Scenario 4: Target year (2021) PM peak with development traffic;
Scenario 5: Base year (2016) Sat peak background traffic;
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-7-
Scenario 6: Base year (2016) Sat peak with development traffic;
Scenario 7: Target year (2021) Sat peak background traffic; and
Scenario 8: Target year (2021) Sat peak with development traffic.
6. DESIGN PEAK HOURS AND PEAK-HOUR FACTORS
6.1 DESIGN PEAK HOURS
Given the trip generation characteristics of the proposed development, the peak demand is during the weekday afternoon and Saturday peak hours of the adjacent road network. The peak hour for the intersections selected varies and for the purpose of this study, the peak hour for each intersection was selected to represent the worst case scenario. The peak hours selected for this application is as follows:
Weekday afternoon peak hour (selected critical peak for each intersection); and
Saturday midday peak hour (selected critical peak for each intersection).
6.2 PEAK HOUR FACTORS
The following peak hour factors (PHF) were used in the capacity analysis and level-of-service (LOS) calculations:
Base year – peak hour factors obtained from the existing traffic counts.
For the future (2021) horizon, a PHF of 0.95 or LOS E was considered for a signalized controlled intersection. For unsignalized intersections a PHF of 0.85 was used.
7. GAUTENG TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ACT EVALUATION
The application was also evaluated in terms of the Gauteng Transport Infrastructure Act of 2001. Based on the provincial PWV Road Master Plan shown in Figure 3, the applicant site is not affected by any existing or future provincial roads.
8. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DEMAND
8.1 BASE YEAR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DEMAND
Detailed traffic counts were carried out at the intersection, on Friday 26 February 2016 and Saturday 27 February 2016. The peak hour background traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-8-
8.2 IMPACT OF CHANGES TO ROAD NETWORK PLANNED BY THE ROAD AUTHORITIES
No road construction is currently under construction that could affect the findings of this report.
8.3 FUTURE YEAR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC DUE TO TRAFFIC GROWTH
For the purpose of this study, an annual growth rate of 3.0% was considered reasonable for the study area. The growth rate was used to determine the expected future target year through traffic volumes from the base year volumes. Therefore the annual growth rate compounded over 5 years yield an expected increase of 15.9% in the traffic volumes between base year and target year.
Given the existing weekday morning peak hour traffic volumes, refer to Figure 4 , and the projected growth rate, the expected future target year peak hour traffic volumes were calculated – refer to Figure 5 .
8.4 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES DEMAND DUE TO LATENT LAND USES
The applicant site is not affected by latent rights traffic.
9. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The application is for the proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4 for a community shopping centre of 18 562.8m² GLA and 142 "Res 1" erven.
9.2 TRIP GENERATION BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The trip generation rates for the land uses were obtained from the guideline document of the Department of Transport entitled “South African Trip Data Manual” , and can be summarised as follows:
a) Business 1 (Retail) - refer to Annexure C for calculations
Weekday morning peak hour: 1.17 trips/100m² GLA, with a directional split of 65:35 (in:out)
Weekday afternoon peak hour: 6.64 trips/100m² GLA, with a directional split of 50:50 (in:out)
Saturday midday peak hour: 8.78 trips/100m² GLA, with a directional split of 50:50 (in:out)
In terms of the " guideline document", the following the trip generation rate reduction factors can be applied provided, provided the site meet the necessary requirements. These factors are as follows:
Mixed-use development : 10%
Low vehicle ownership : 30%
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-9-
Very low vehicle ownership : 60%
Transit nodes or corridors : 15%
In terms of the manual a combined trip reduction factor can also be applied where a combination of the above factors are applicable to the applicant site. The calculation formula is as follows:
Pc = 1- (1-Pm) * (1-Pv) * (1-Pt)
In which:
• Pc = Combined reduction factor
• Pm = Reduction factor for mixed use development
• Pv = Reduction factor for vehicle ownership
• Pt = Reduction factor for transit nodes or corridors
The site is earmarked for a shopping centre and is located a low vehicle ownership residential area where residents dependents on public transport for daily commuting dependent. Further to this, a taxi rank is also proposed on the site to increase accessibility of the retail component. The retail site is located in an area with a well-established township to the north, and south of the site and a 142 residential erven township proposed direct east of the applicant site. Given the surrounding existing and proposed land uses, it increases the potential of the centre to attract a higher number of non-motorized transport users, reducing the demand for private vehicle usage. Further to this, a well-established taxi route is operating along Kagiso Avenue. In light of this, the combined trip reduction factor was applied. The trip reduction percentages used for each category is as follows:
Pm = 0%
Pv = 30%
Pt = 15%
Thus, as part of this study the following reduction rate was applied:
Combined reduction factor (P c ) : Pc = 1- (1-Pm) * (1-Pv) * (1-Pt) = 40.5%
Pc = 1- (1-0) * (1-0.3) * (1-0.15)
Pc = 40.5%
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-10-
b) Residential erven
Weekday morning peak hour: 1.0 trips/dwelling unit, with a directional split of 25:75 (in:out)
Weekday afternoon peak hour: 1.0 trip/dwelling unit, with a directional split of 70:30 (in:out)
Saturday midday peak hour: 0.50 trip/dwelling unit, with a directional split of 50:50 (in:out)
In terms of the " guideline document", the following the trip generation rate reduction factors can be applied provided, provided the site meet the necessary requirements. These factors are as follows:
Mixed-use development : 10%
Low vehicle ownership : 40%
Very low vehicle ownership : 70%
Transit nodes or corridors : 15%
The site is earmarked for a residential development with low vehicle ownership and the residents will be dependent on public transport for their daily commuting. In light of this the following rate was applied:
Low vehicle ownership : 40%
9.3 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The total trip generation for the development discussed in Section 9.2 is summarised in Table 1 , and the detail calculations are appended in Annexure C.
Table 1: Total Number of Development Trips
DESCRIPTION MORNING PEAK HOUR AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK HOUR
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Retail - 18 562.8m² GLA 84 45 129 366 366 733 485 485 970
142 “Res 1” erven 21 64 85 60 26 85 21 21 43
TOTAL 105 109 215 426 392 818 506 506 1 013
Note: Values in Table 1 calculated in Excel spreadsheet and was rounded up or down, based on the formula used in the spread sheet.
Based on the results the proposed development will generate an additional 215 (AM Peak), 818 (PM Peak) and 1 013 (SAT Peak) peak hour trips. Note: The Friday afternoon and Saturday midday are the worst case scenarios and all calculations in this report are based on the traffic demand generated during these two peak periods.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-11-
10. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
10.1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The most likely direction from which the generated traffic will approach and leave the study area was determined by taking the following in consideration:
The location of the development in relation to main central business districts/residential areas; and
The existing traffic flows on the adjacent road network during the respective peak hours were used as an adaptation of the Analogy Method.
For the purpose of this study, the following distribution was assumed:
a) Retail Component (refer to Figure 6)
Kagiso Avenue - North = 10%
Geba Street - East = 20%
Road A - South = 30%
Sandpiper Road - Southwest = 35%
b) Residential Component (refer to Figure 7)
Kagiso Avenue - North = 22%
Geba Street - East = 43%
Sandpiper Road - Southwest = 35%
10.2 TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Given the trip distributions, the expected development traffic was assigned to the road network. The total development demand (retail plus residential) is shown in Figure 8 .
11. TOTAL TRAFFIC DEMAND
The total traffic demand on the road network was determined by adding the development traffic to the base year and target year background traffic. The details are shown in Figures 9 to 10 for the for the respective traffic flow scenarios.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-12-
12. CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF INTERSECTIONS
12.1 INTRODUCTION
The following methodology was adopted in evaluating the intersections included as part of this study:
Analyse the existing and future background traffic demand, using the existing intersection layout;
Determine the road upgrades required to accommodate the background traffic scenarios.
Analyse the expected base year and future year scenarios, taking the additional development traffic into consideration.
Determine the road upgrades required to accommodate the background traffic and the development trips. It was assumed, as part of this application, that the upgrades required to accommodate the background traffic would be implemented.
In order to determine the required road upgrading, a level-of-service E or worse on any approach at an intersection was accepted at the stage when road upgrading will be implemented.
12.2 MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS
The capacity analysis was done according the method as contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (4-way stop scenario) and SIDRA intersection software program. The operation of an intersection is defined in terms of levels-of-service (LOS).
The LOS for a traffic light controlled intersection is defined in terms of average total vehicle delay (not average stop delay), where delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. However, for an unsignalized intersection the average delay for any particular minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation.
The LOS for an approach values are based on the worst delay for any vehicle movements. The average intersection delay is not a good LOS measure for two-way control intersection, as the major through movements normally have a zero delay. The average intersection LOS is therefore recorded as “NOT APPLICABLE”.
The thresholds for signalized intersection and stop-controlled intersection can be summarised as follows:
Signalized intersections
LOS A describes operations with very low delays, up to 10 sec/vehicle. The LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.
LOS B describes operations with delays greater than 10 sec and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-13-
occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
LOS C describes operations with delays greater than 20 sec and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping.
LOS D describes operations with delays greater than 35 sec and up to 55 sec per vehicle. This level, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume over capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping decline considerable. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
LOS E describes operations with delays greater than 55 sec and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many road agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume over capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
LOS F describes operations with delays in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection.
Unsignalized intersections
LOS A describes operations with very low delays, up to 10 sec per vehicle.
LOS B describes operations with delays greater than 10 sec and up to 15 sec per vehicle.
LOS C describes operations with delays greater than 15 sec and up to 25 sec per vehicle.
LOS D describes operations with delays greater than 25 sec and up to 35 sec per vehicle.
LOS E describes operations with delays greater than 35 sec and up to 50 sec per vehicle.
LOS F describes operations with delays in excess of 50 sec per vehicle.
12.3 EXISTING INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
Sidra 6.1 was used to assess the capacity for each intersection. The conceptual intersection layout for each intersection evaluated as part of this application is illustrated below:
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-14-
a) Intersection 1: Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street
b) Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive
Note: Based on the township layout prepared by the town planner Prospect Road will be closed with the establishment of the township and replaced by Cremona Drive. Thus for the purpose of this study all calculations were done for the Kagiso Avenue/Cremona Drive intersection.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-15-
c) Intersection 3 – Kagiso Avenue & Sandpiper Road
d) Intersection 4 – Cremona Drive & Road A
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-16-
e) Intersection 5 – Cremona Drive & Road B
f) Intersection 6 – Cremona Drive & Road C
g) Intersection 7 – Cremona Drive & Road D
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-17-
h) Intersection 8 – Road B & Shopping Centre Access
12.4 DISPLAY OF CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The following figures should be read in conjunction with the capacity analysis:
Figure 4: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Background Traffic
Figure 5: Estimated (2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Background Traffic
Figure 9: Estimated (2016) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - With Development
Figure 10: Estimated (2021) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - With Development
The results are summarised hereafter, with detailed results appended in Annexure D.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-18-
a) Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street
Table 2: Level of Service Results: Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street
TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND PEAK SCENARIO INTERSECTION APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH
S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L
SC1 0.41 12.1 B 0.74 31.0 D 0.54 8.5 C - - - 0.74 20.6 C
SC2 0.55 13.9 B 0.99 >80 F 0.61 20.2 C - - - 0.99 42.1 E PM SC3 0.48 12.9 B 0.86 46.3 E 063 21.4 C - - - 0.86 27.1 D
SC4 0.48 7.5 A 0.58 8.9 A 0.55 10.5 B - - - 0.58 8.8 A
SC5 0.45 11.8 B 0.44 24.1 C 0.27 12.4 B - - 0.45 14.3 B
SC6 0.62 14.4 B 0.78 46.0 E 0.35 13.0 B - - - 0.78 2105 C SAT SC7 0.50 12.4 B 0.49 25.9 D 0.31 12.8 B - - - 0.50 15.0 C
SC8 0.54 6.6 A 0.32 7.6 A 0.36 8.2 A - - - 0.54 7.2 A Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS) From Table 2 it can be concluded the intersection will operate at LOS E or worst with the additional development assigned to the road network. The road network upgrades required to improve the LOS is discussed in Table 3 .
Table 3: Proposed Road Network Improvements: Intersection 1 - Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street
Description Road Improvement Summary Responsibility Comments
Scenario 2 & 6 Install a traffic circle with an inner diameter of 5.0m and a Developer Sufficient road single circulation lane of 5.0m. reserve available to accommodate upgrade.
The proposed road upgrade is illustrated below, as well as in Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 , appended in Annexure E .
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-19-
Table 4: Level of Service Results With Road Improvements: Intersection 1 – Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street
TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND PEAK SCENARIO INTERSECTION APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH
S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L
PM SC2 0.42 7.3 A 0.50 8.2 A 0.46 8.7 A - - - 0.50 8.0 A
SAT SC6 0.48 6.5 A 0.28 7.4 A 0.31 7.8 A - - - 0.48 7.0 A Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS) It can be concluded that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all traffic flow scenarios.
NOTE: The preferred road improvement was also tested using the modelling program AutoJ. Based on the result (refer to details appended in Annexure F ), the best ICD, at 84%, is a traffic circle. (ICD - Intersection Control Device , the device or method by which the intersection is controlled. ICD's can be priority (stops, yields and roundabouts) or signal controls. Uncontrolled intersections have no ICD.).
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-20-
b) Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive
Table 5: Level of Service Results: Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive
TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND PEAK SCENARIO INTERSECTION APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH
S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L
SC1 0.23 0.3 A 0.06 13.1 B 0.25 0.2 A - - - 0.25 0.6 A
SC2 0.48 6.2 A >1.0 >50 F 0.36 1.6 A - - - >1.0 23.6 C PM SC3 0.27 0.3 A 0.09 15.3 C 0.29 0.2 A - - - 0.29 0.7 A
SC4 0.25 2.3 A 0.83 33.7 D 0.37 1.3 A - - - 0.83 7.4 A
SC5 0.23 0.1 A 0.01 10.5 B 0.12 0.1 A - - - 0.23 0.3 A
SC6 0.38 3.4 A 0.65 18.3 C 0.21 2.4 A - - - 0.65 6.9 A SAT SC7 0.27 0.2 A 0.02 11.1 B 0.14 0.2 A - - - 0.27 0.4 A
SC8 0.26 2.1 A 0.77 25.4 D 0.23 2.2 A - - - 0.77 7.7 A Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS) From Table 5 it can be concluded the intersection will operate at LOS F for the base year "With Development" scenario. The road network upgrades required to improve the LOS is discussed in Table 6 .
Table 6: Proposed Road Network Improvements: Intersection 2 - Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive
Description Road Improvement Summary Responsibility Comments
Scenario 2 & 6 Provide an exclusive right-turn lane (storage length = 45m) on Developer Sufficient road the northbound approach of Kagiso Avenue. reserve available to accommodate Provide an exclusive left-turn lane (storage length = 45m) on upgrade. the westbound approach of Cremona Drive.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-21-
Table 7: Level of Service Results With Road Improvements: Intersection 2 – Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive
TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND PEAK SCENARIO INTERSECTION APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH
S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L
PM SC2 0.22 2.3 A 0.61 20.9 C 0.32 1.4 A - - - 0.61 5.5 A
SAT SC6 0.22 2.2 A 0.61 18.5 C 0.21 2.4 A - - - 0.61 6.5 A Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS) Based on the detail results appended in Annexure D , the right-turn movement on the westbound approach of Cremona Drive will experience LOS F and E, during the target year 2021, even with the proposed road widening proposed.
The intersection was evaluated with a traffic circle control device and based on eth results will operate at acceptable LOS even for the target year 2021. The SIDRA results were compared, using the modelling program AutoJ. Based on the result (refer to details appended in Annexure F ), the best ICD, at 86%, is a traffic circle. Thus as part of the study a traffic circle with an inner diameter of 5.0m and a single circulation lane of 5.0m. The details are shown in Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 , appended in Annexure E . c) Intersection 3 – Kagiso Avenue & Sandpiper Road
Table 8: Level of Service Results: Intersection 3 – Kagiso Avenue & Sandpiper Road
TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND PEAK SCENARIO INTERSECTION APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH
S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L
SC1 0.11 13.5 B - - - 0.28 5.1 A 0.24 5.3 A 0.28 5.7 A
SC2 0.18 19.0 C - - - 0.38 5.1 A 0.33 5.3 A 0.38 5.8 A AM SC3 0.17 15.8 C - - - 0.33 5.2 A 0.27 5.4 A 0.33 5.8 A
SC4 0.30 25.6 D - - - 0.43 5.2 A 0.37 5.3 A 0.43 6.1 A
SC5 0.23 10.5 B - - - 0.15 5.3 A 0.23 5.4 A 0.23 6.5 A
SC6 0.37 15.2 C - - - 0.33 5.4 A 0.33 5.4 A 0.37 6.8 A PM SC7 0.30 11.6 A - - - 0.18 5.4 A 0.27 5.4 A 0.30 6.7 A
SC8 0.50 18.8 C - - - 0.30 5.5 A 0.37 5.4 A 0.50 7.5 A Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS) It can be concluded that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all traffic flow scenarios.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-22-
d) Intersection 4 – Cremona Drive & Road A
Table 9: Level of Service Results: Intersection 4 – Cremona Drive & Road A
TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND PEAK SCENARIO INTERSECTION APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH
S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L
PM SC4 0.28 14.3 B 0.25 1.5 A - - - 0.20 0.2 A 0.28 2.7 A
SAT SC8 0.45 18.1 C 0.30 1.7 A - - - 0.22 0.2 A 0.45 3.6 A Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS) It can be concluded that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all traffic flow scenarios. e) Intersection 5 – Cremona Drive & Road B
Table 10: Level of Service Results: Intersection 5 – Cremona Drive & Road B
TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND PEAK SCENARIO INTERSECTION APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH
S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L
PM SC4 - - - 0.04 1.4 A 0.53 11.5 B 0.27 4.8 A 0.53 7.4 A
SAT SC8 - - - 0.03 3.3 A 0.69 13.4 B 0.31 5.2 A 0.69 9.0 A Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS) It can be concluded that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all traffic flow scenarios. f) Intersection 6 – Cremona Drive & Road C
Table 11: Level of Service Results: Intersection 5 – Cremona Drive & Road C
TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND PEAK SCENARIO INTERSECTION APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH
S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L
PM SC4 - - - 0.02 0.8 A 0.02 8.0 A 0.04 1.7 A 0.04 2.3 A
SAT SC8 - - - 0.02 1.1 A 0.02 7.9 A 0.03 1.5 A 0.03 2.7 A Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS) It can be concluded that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all traffic flow scenarios.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-23-
g) Intersection 7 – Cremona Drive & Road D
Table 12: Level of Service Results: Intersection 7 – Cremona Drive & Road D
TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND PEAK SCENARIO INTERSECTION APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH
S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L
PM SC4 - - - 0.02 1.2 A 0.02 7.9 A 0.03 2.6 A 0.03 3.2 A
SAT SC8 - - - 0.01 1.9 A 0.02 7.8 A 0.02 2.0 A 0.02 3.5 A Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS) It can be concluded that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all traffic flow scenarios.
h) Intersection 8 – Road B & Shopping Centre Access
Table 13: Level of Service Results: Intersection 8 – Road B & Shopping Centre Access
TOTAL AVERAGE VEHICLE DELAY & LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND PEAK SCENARIO INTERSECTION APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH
S D L S D L S D L S D L S D L
PM SC4 0.24 5.2 A - - - 0.02 4.3 A 0.48 10.0 B 0.48 7.5 A
SAT SC8 0.30 5.5 A - - 0.02 5.7 A 0.67 12.5 B 0.67 8.9 A Note: S = Degree of Saturation (v/c); D = Delay (sec/veh); L = Level of service (LOS) It can be concluded that the intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all traffic flow scenarios.
13. TOWNSHIP LAYOUT ASSESSMENT
13.1 PROPOSED EXTERNAL ACCESS ROADS
The main access to the proposed township is from Cremona Drive, which intersects with Kagiso Avenue. The road is planned along the southern property boundary of the township, with a 20.0m road reserve. As part of the investigation and given the higher order function the road will fulfill, a minimum lane width of 3.5m should be provided long the full length of the property. The details are shown in Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 , appended in Annexure E .
13.2 PROPOSED INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK
The proposed township will be served by a network of smaller roads with a minimum of 13.0m road reserve widths. In the absence of registered street names the roads are for ease of reference marked Road B, Road C, Road D, Road E and Road F. The location of each road is shown in Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 ,
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-24-
appended in Annexure E .
With the exception of Road B, Roads C to F will function as residential road and it is recommended that the surfaced width be limited to 5.5m. Road B will carry some heavy vehicles for daily deliveries to the proposed shopping centre site. A minimum road width of 7.0m is therefore recommended for Road B for the full length of the road.
13.3 SPLAY REQUIREMENTS
The splay requirements for the road network is as follows (also refer to JRA Standard, Drawing No.JRA- SD-RD-070 ), appended in Annexure G ):
The splay at the Kagiso Avenue and Cremona Drive intersection to be 15m * 5m.
All remaining township roads should have a minimum splay of 5m*5m.
13.4 FUTURE EXTERNAL ROADS
In terms of the township layout a future road is planned along the eastern boundary of the township. The road will link Cremano Drive with the existing residential area located to the north of the applicant site. It is not necessary to construct this road as part of the approval of this application. However, provision is made in the township layout for a 9.46m road reserve widening in favour of the future road.
14. PROPOSED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS
14.1 RETAIL SITE
At present no site development plan (SDP) is available for the property. In the absence of such details the following minimum access requirements are recommended (also refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 , appended in Annexure E ):
Access from Road B, to be a minimum distance of 65m from Cremona Drive.
No access control proposed at the site entrance. It is expected that a security gate will be provided at the entrance, which will be closed at night for security purposes.
One inbound and one outbound lane.
A minimum lane width of 3.5m was provided for (assumed no raised median along the access road). In the event a raised median island is considered at SDP stage, then one lane should have a minimum lane width of 4.5m.
A minimum throat length of 15m is required. Refer to Table 27 and Table 28, extracted from the TMH 16 (Volume 2), appended in Annexure H .
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-25-
Any structures at the site entrance to have a minimum vertical clearance of 4.2m.
14.2 RESIDENTIAL ERVEN
Each residential erven will have a single access from the adjacent road network. The final position for each residential erven to be confirmed at SDP phase.
15. PUBLIC TRANSPORT & NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS
15.1 INTRODUCTION
In terms of the National Land Transport Transition Act, Act 5 of 2009 (Section 38), it is also necessary to carry out a public transport assessment for all new developments. The assessment need to address aspects such as the additional transport trips that will be generated, the expected traveling pattern of these users, as well as the impact it may have on the existing public transport network.
15.2 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Kagiso Avenue is a well-established taxi route, with no formal taxi lay-bys along this section of Kagiso Avenue. Taxis make unscheduled stops as and when required.
15.3 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS
The proposed development is planned within a residential area where public transport forms an integral part of the resident’s daily commuting requirements. It is also expected the proposed shopping center will generate a substantial number of public transport trips and will also form an important public transport node.
15.4 PROPOSED PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
As indicated, the proposed township is earmarked for a retail and residential component, planned in an area with low vehicle ownership. Thus, as part of the approval of this application, sufficient public transport infrastructure is required to meet the expected demand. The following public transport facilities should be included in the final township layout:
Provide taxi stops along both sides of Kagiso Avenue, downstream of the Cremona Drive intersection. Refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 , appended in Annexure E .
15.5 PROPOSED NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
As part of the study, and in line with the City of Johannesburg - Transportation’s policy the following non- motorized facilities are proposed (also refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 , appended in Annexure E ):
2.0m paved sidewalk along the northern side of Cremona Drive, for the full length of the township boundary;
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-26-
2.0m paved sidewalks along both side of Road B, between Cremano Drive and Road E; and
2.0m paved sidewalks on one side of all remaining township roads.
16. PROPOSED TAXI FACILITIES ON RETAIL SITE
As part of this study, it is assumed that some form of taxi facility will be provided on the property. This could either be in the form of a full taxi rank or allocating some of the parking bays on site for "taxi use only".
The final layout to be addressed at SDP stage of the shopping centre.
17. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
17.1 CONCLUSIONS
The study addresses the impact of the proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4, situated on Portion 64 of the Farm Vlakfontein 238 IQ, on the surrounding road network. The following conclusion can be reached from the study:
i. The applicant site is earmarked for a retail component (18 562.8m² GLA) and 142 "Res 1" erven.
ii. The intersections listed in Section 4.4 , forms part of the study area.
iii. No latent rights were identified in the study area that could affect the findings of this study.
iv. Gauteng Infrastructure Act: The applicant site is not affected by any existing or future provincial roads.
v. The proposed development will generate the following number of trips: The proposed development will generate an additional 215 (AM Peak), 818 (PM Peak) and 1 013 (SAT Peak) peak hour trips. Note: The Friday afternoon and Saturday midday are the worst case scenarios and all calculations in this report are based on the traffic demand generated during these two peak periods.
vi. Proposed road network upgrade – background traffic demand : No external road network improvement is required to accommodate the background traffic demand.
vii. Proposed road network upgrade – development traffic: Based on the analysis, additional road upgrade is required to accommodate the trips generated by the proposed development. The details are discussed in Section 17.2 .
NOTE: The existing Prospect Road will be replaced by the new road, Cremona Drive, shown along the southern side of the township.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-27-
viii. Access arrangements: The main access for the proposed development is from Cremona Drive, as well as several new roads proposed for the township.
ix. Public transport assessments: The area is well served by frequent public transport throughout the day. Additional facilities are recommended to serve the applicant site.
x. Non-motorized public transport assessments: No non-motorized transport facilities are provided in the study area. New facilities are proposed to serve the applicant site.
17.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the traffic impact study, it is recommended that the proposed the proposed Township Tshepisong Extension 4, situated on Portion 64 of the Farm Vlakfontein 238 IQ., be approved for:
The proposed township is earmarked for the following land use rights (refer to Annexure A for details):
a) Erf 1
Zoning : Business 1 for retail
FAR : 0.6
Erf size : 3.0938ha
GLA : 18 562.8m²
b) Erf 2 to 143
Zoning : Res 1
Density : 1 dwelling/erf
Erf size : Average size/erf = 200m² (total "Res" area = 3.2050ha
c) Erf 144
Zoning : Public Open Space
The approval is subject to the following:
i. The construction of the following external road upgrades:
a) Intersection 1: Kagiso Avenue & Geba Street
Convert to a traffic circle with a minimum inner diameter of 5.0m and a single circulation of 5.0m.
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-28-
b) Intersection 2: Kagiso Avenue & Cremona Drive
Convert to a traffic circle with a minimum inner diameter of 5.0m and a single circulation of 5.0m.
ii. Approval of the proposed Cremona Drive (20m road reserve width), and construct a 7.0m road, between Kagiso Avenue and the eastern property boundary of the site. Refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 , appended in Annexure E for details.
iii. Approval of the proposed Road B, Road C, Road D, Road E and Road F, all with a 13m road reserve width.
iv. Construct the proposed Road C, Road D, Road E and Road F, all with a 5.5m wide road surface. Refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 , appended in Annexure E for details.
v. Construct proposed Road B, with a 7.0m wide road surface (will carry delivery vehicles). Refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 , appended in Annexure E for details.
vi. Provide the following splays (refer to JRA Standard, Drawing No.JRA-SD-RD-070 ), appended in Annexure G ):
The splay at the Kagiso Avenue and Cremona Drive intersection to be 15m * 5m.
All remaining township roads should have a minimum splay of 5m*5m. vii. The proposed 9.46m road reserve along the eastern side of the township to be excluded from the approval of the township. It is not necessary to construct the north-south road as part of the approval of this application. viii. The construction of the individual site access arrangements for the "Res 1" erven at Site Development Phase.
ix. At present no site development plan (SDP) is available for the property. In the absence of such details the following minimum access requirements are recommended (also refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183- 95-01 , appended in Annexure E ):
Access from Road B, to be a minimum distance of 65m from Cremona Drive.
No access control proposed at the site entrance. It is expected that a security gate will be provided at the entrance, which will be closed at night for security purposes.3
One inbound and one outbound lane.
A minimum lane width of 3.5m was provided for (assumed no raised median along the access
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-29-
road). In the event a raised median island is considered at SDP stage, then one lane should have a minimum lane width of 4.5m.
A minimum throat length of 15m is required. Refer to Table 27 and Table 28, extracted from the TMH 16 (Volume 2), appended in Annexure H .
Any structures at the site entrance to have a minimum vertical clearance of 4.2m.
x. The following public transport and non-motorized facilities to be included as part of the township (refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 183-95-01 , appended in Annexure E for details):
Provide taxi stops along both sides of Kagiso Avenue, downstream of the Cremona Drive intersection.
2.0m paved sidewalk along the northern side of Cremona Drive, for the full length of the township boundary.
2.0m paved sidewalks along both side of Road B, between Cremano Drive and Road E.
2.0m paved sidewalks on one side of all remaining township roads. xi. Provide some form of public transport on the shopping centre site either in the form of a taxi rank or allocating some of the parking bays on site for "taxi use only".
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
-30-
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: LOCALITY PLAN FIGURE 2: AERIAL VIEW OF STUDY AREA FIGURE 3: PWV ROAD NETWORK FIGURE 4: EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BACKGROUND TRAFFIC FIGURE 5: ESTIMATED (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BACKGROUND TRAFFIC FIGURE 6: TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS - RETAIL COMPONENT FIGURE 7: TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS - RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT FIGURE 8: TOTAL TRIP DEMAND - RETAIL PLUS RESIDENTIAL FIGURE 9: ESTIMATED (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WITH DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 10: ESTIMATED (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WITH DEVELOPMENT
Mariteng Consulting Engineers
ANNEXURE A:
EXTRACT FROM TOWNSHIP APPLICATION MEMORANDUM & TOWNSHIP LAYOUT
MOTIVATING MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR TOWNSHIP ESTABLISHMENT ON PORTION 64 (a portion of Portion 8) OF FARM VLAKFONTEIN No. 238, REGISTRATION DIVISION I.Q. TRANSVAAL
TO BE KNOWN AS
TSHEPISONG EXTENSION 4
TO PLAN Consulting Town Planner P.O. Box 8364 BIRCHLEIGH 1621
Tel No.: 083 644 6729 Fax No.: 086 553 9977
Project No.: TP107 Ref No.: TP107- Memo
Enqueries : Claudette Denner Date: April 2015
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. TOWNSHIP NAME 3 3. PROPERTY PARTICULARS 3 3.1 Local Authority 3.2 Property Description 3.3 Size 3.4 Location 3.5 Servitudes 3.6 Land Uses of Surrounding Properties 3.7 Zoning of Surrounding Properties 4. LEGAL ASPECTS 5 4.1 Registered Owner 4.2 Zoning 4.3 Bondholder’s Consent 4.4 Mineral Rights 4.5 Conditions of Title 5. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS 6 5.1 National Level 5.2 Local Level 6. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6 6.1 Current Land Use 6.2 Topography and Hydrology 6.3 Geology 6.4 Vegetation 6.5 Flood Line 6.6 Environmental 7. PROVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES 8 7.1. Water 7.2. Sewer 7.3. Electricity 7.4. Roads 7.5. Storm water drainage 8. MOTIVATION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION 9 8.1 Design of the township 8.2 Need and Desirability 8.2.1. Housing/Residential 8.2.2. Neighborhood Shopping Center 8.2.3. Public Open Space 9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS 15 9.1. Erf 1 9.2. Erf 2-143 9.3. Erf 144 10. CONCLUSION 17
ANNEXURE A – LOCALITY 18 ANNEXURE B – ZONING 19 ANNEXURE C – LAND USES 20 ANNEXURE D – TOWNSHIP LAYOUT 21
1. INTRODUCTION ToPlan Consulting acts on behalf of the registered owner of Portion 64(a portion of Portion 8) of the Farm Vlakfontein, Antonio Cremona, with the objective to procure rights to develop a township with erven for business (retail) and residential purposes, respectively.
In 2006 a township application was submitted By Kamekho Town and Regional Planners to the Local Authority, of which this property was part of. The proposed township included Portions 63, 64, 21 and 23 of the farm Vlakfontein, and would have been known as Tshepisong Extension 3. Due to several factors, the proposed township application was withdrawn on the 7 th September 2010.
Hence the submission of this application, in terms of Section 96 (1) of the Town Planning and Township Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance 15 of 1986) in order to procure the desired land use rights.
This memorandum deals with the various particulars and the motivation of the application. 2. TOWNSHIP NAME The township name allocated by the City of Johannesburg on the 10 th December 2014 is Tshepisong Extension 4 . 3. PROPERTY PARTICULARS 3.1 Local Authority City of Johannesburg 3.2 Property Description Portion 64 (a portion of Portion 8) of the farm Vlakfontein No. 238, Registration Division I.Q. Transvaal (hereafter referred to as “the property”). 3.3 Size The property measures 8,5653 (eight comma five six five three) hectares in extent, as per the registered deed of transfer. 3.4 Location The property is situated south of Kagiso (Mogale City) and east of Rietvallei (Mogale City). Thus the property is located on the western boundary of the City of Johannesburg, along Kagiso Avenue, south off Randfontein Road (R41). See Annexure A. 3.5 Servitudes Servitudes, which affect the property are as follows: • The registered deed of transfer reserves a servitude as “a roadway of 9,45 meters wide along the eastern boundary in favor of portion 21 of the same farm. • The property is further affected by three servitudes in favor of ESKOM on the northern, western and southern boundaries, each 18m wide. 3.6 Land uses of surrounding properties Kindly refer to Annexure C in this regard. The land uses identified within a 2km radius, are as follows: To the north (Mogale) : residential, spaza shops, community facilities, School (Maponyana Primary), shopping centre (Kagiso), filling station (Shell) To the east : vacant land, residential, community facilities, schools, spaza, Shops, public open spaces To the south : Cheese Factory, informal residential, vacant land, slimes dam To the west (Mogale) : agricultural, water works, residential, schools 3.7 Zoning of surrounding properties The property is surrounded by various zonings within a 2km radius, described as follows (Annexure B): To the north (mogale) : “Residential”; “Community facility” To the east : “Residential”; “Business” Community Facility” To the south : “Undetermined” To the west (mogale) : “Undetermined”; “Residential 1” 4. LEGAL ASPECTS 4.1 Registered owner The property is registered in the name of the ANTONIO CREMONA vide the registered Deed of Transfer known as T18166/1979. 4.2 Zoning In terms of the Roodepoort Town Planning Scheme, 1987 the property is zoned for “Undetermined”.
4.3 Bondholder’s Consent The property is not encumbered by a mortgage bond. The bond was cancelled in November 2007. The relevant Title Deed was endorsed to reflect the cancellation. 4.4 Mineral Rights The mineral rights on the property have been reserved in favour of Wouter Cornelius Justinus Brink registered as N0.152/1927S, dated 26 th February 1927 (condition (1)(a) page 2 said deed of transfer). In terms of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act 28 of 2002), it is no longer a requirement to obtain the consent of the Mineral Rights Holder prior to submission of an application.
The authority of the consent has been vested to the Government, and on circulation of this application to the Department of Mineral and Energy (DME), conditions could be set in this regard. 4.5 Conditions of title The registered deed of transfer lists conditions pertaining to the registered farm. All erven within the proposed township shall be made subject to the conditions of the servitudes and reservation of the minerals, but exclude certain conditions not applicable to erven in a township. 5. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS The site is subject to the following legal and administrative controls: 5.1 National Level On a national level this application is in line with the principles of the Development Facilitation Act (DFA), which has set out a number of principles for land development. The application promotes the following objectives as stipulated in the mentioned Act: • Promote the integration of social, economic, institutional and physical aspects of land development; • Optimizes the use of existing resources including such resources relating to agriculture, land, minerals, bulk infrastructure, roads, transportation and social facilities; • Promote a diverse combination of land uses, also at the level of individual erven or subdivisions of land. 5.2 Local Level The property falls within the jurisdiction of the City of Johannesburg. The Spatial Development Framework places the property within the Administrative Region C, Sub-Area 15. This sub-area is characterized by fragmented lower income residential settlements, informal settlements and large tracts of vacant land. This area falls within the Marginalized Priority Areas in terms of the GMS.
Residential densification and sufficient access routes to public transport is supported, where the necessary amenities are required to sustain the community regarding day-to-day activities.
In terms of the Roodepoort Town Planning Scheme, 1987, the property is currently zoned “Undetermined” (Annexure B). 6. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6.1 Current Land Use The property is currently improved with a single residential house and associated outbuildings. The remainder of the property is undeveloped farmland. These buildings would be demolished, and the rubble removed prior to the development of the property.
A narrow dirt access road off Kagiso Avenue, currently provides access to the Cremona Cheese Factory located on Portion 21 of the farm Vlakfontein 238-IQ, located on the south-eastern boundary of the property. The mentioned dirt road forks off to the informal settlement located on Portion 24 of the same farm. 6.2 Topography and Hydrology The relief of the property is low with an overall cross-fall from the north-east corner to the south- western edge of about 23m with an overall gradient of about 1:3. No major topographic constraints are envisaged on future structures. 6.3 Geology A geo-technical investigation was undertaken by WSM Leshika Consulting (Pty) Ltd and a report compiled in July 2006. The study covered the Portions 21, 23, 63 and 64 of the farm Vlakfontein 238 IQ. For the purpose of the proposed application only Test Pits TP-1 and TP-3 are relevant.
The report shows that the property, Portion 64 of the farm Vlakfontein 238-IQ, falls under Class S1. The material found in these test pits were compressible soil identified as fine-grained soils (clayey silts and sands of low plasticity), sands, sandy and gravelly soils.
The City of JoBurg GIS indicates that the property is underlain by conglomerates which are sedimentary rocks consisting of rounded fragments. This underlain soil does not pose a threat to the proposed development. The recommendations in accordance with the SAICE, 1995 is that after the removal, replacement and compact of the soil, normal construction could proceed.
Dolomite is not identified on the property, however occurs to the south-east there-of. 6.4 Vegetation In a study conducted by BKS for the West Rand District Municipality, the vegetation on the property is identified as Soweto Highveld Grassland. 6.5 Flood Line The property is not affected by any bodies of water and therefore is not affected by any flood line as per Section 144 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998).The current certification thus is still in place (done by Mr. A J de Lange, 2006). However, the final layout plan would be signed off by the professional engineer responsible for the design of civil services and storm water attenuation, as per Johannesburg Water standards. 6.6 Environmental A Record of Decision was issued by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (GDACE) in 2008 for a mixed use development including business, residential, open space and educational on Portion 21, 23, 63 and 64 of the farm Vlakfontein.
The writer acknowledges that this ROD has lapsed due to the authorized activity not commencing within five (5) years of the decision. In terms of NEMA the Environmental application process would have to be re-applied. 7. THE PROVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES Preliminary investigations with regards to the availability of services, including water, sewer, electricity, roads and storm water, will be undertaken and details of these investigations will be incorporated into a Service Scheme Report to be submitted to the relevant Utilities, Agencies and Departments for comments. 7.1. Water The bulk supplier of water in this region is Rand Water. A 324-mm South Roodepoort steel pipeline and a 4,0 metre wide Rand Water servitude by description Deed of Servitude K170/1989 is located on the property’s western boundary, however will not affect the proposed development. Johannesburg Water would provide connection points into current service network or alternatives would be proposed. 7.2. Sewer The property falls within the Driefontein Sewer Works catchment area. It is proposed that the proposed development’s reticulation is a full waterborne system. The sewer pipes would be installed in the road reserves. 7.3. Electricity City Power is the main distributor of electricity for this area. The property is encumbered by ESKOM 22- kVA overhead power lines located on the northern, western and the southern boundary, as will more fully appear on the proposed layout plan. Although connecting to the City Power grid is favourable, a green option of solar panels on the roofs of the houses would alleviate the constraint on the supplier. 7.4. Roads The property gains current access off Kagiso Avenue, which in turn intersects with Randfontein Road (R41) approximately 1500m north from the property. Randfontein Road is an east-west corridor route identified by Mogale City for development. This Class 2 Mobility Spine intersects with a north-west Mobility Spine, known as the R558 (Adcock Street) which currently provides Tshepisong Proper with access. The township would gain access off Kagiso Avenue, a class 3 mobility road on the western boundary, through a 20m wide activity street (class 4). The internal road network would provide 13m wide Class 5 roads, which would remain public, thus on proclamation of this township the roads would be transferred to the City of Johannesburg. 7.5. Storm Water Drainage The design of the road network will promote the affective drainage of rain water, where storm drainage and pipelines is required necessary servitudes would be incorporated. 8. MOTIVATION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION 8.1 Design of the township The proposed township layout attached under Annexure D, refers. The design concept of the proposed township layout was to provide access off Kagiso Avenue
through a 20m wide road (proposed street name: Cremona Drive), also in turn providing access to the current Cremona Cheese Factory on Portion 21 of the farm Vlakfontein. The location of this road has a dual purpose in also providing access to the current informal settlement located on Portion 24 of the farm Vlakfontein, which currently gains access off Kagiso Avenue over the property via a dirt road.
Several 13m wide residential roads (Class 5) give access to the 142 residential erven with a ruling stand size of 200m², as the current target market finds this erf size favourable. An access road on the eastern boundary has been provided to Portion 63 of that farm Vlakfontein for potential future development.
The proposed business erf (“Business 1”) would not gain direct vehicular access off Kagiso Avenue, however ingress to and egress from this erf could be obtained within the proposed township either from the 20m wide collector road (Cremona Drive) and/or the 13m residential road on the proposed ERF 1 eastern boundary. The access points would be finalised and determined by the layout of the Site Development Plan once the erf is sold to the potential developer.
The community is ruled by non-motorized transport (pedestrians) and it is suggested that an acceptable pedestrian access is be provided off Kagiso Avenue to the business erf (ERF 1) whether developed as a shopping centre or alternatively a residential development.
Due to the locality of the ESKOM power lines, an erf has been allocated on the northern boundary as “Public open space”. It is suggested that this erf be utilised as a walk way for the pedestrian traffic travelling by foot from the surrounding area to visit the proposed shopping centre and/or access the taxi route on Kagiso Avenue.
Due to the property’s fall from north to south, the storm water will flow in a similar fashion, thus the street design intends to assist with the flow to storm water drains on the southern boundary along the 20m wide arterial road. Where this not the case underground storm water would be provided to the council’s satisfaction. An attenuation dam should be provided on ERF 1 in this regard. 8.2 Need and Desirability 8.2.1. Housing/Residential With increasing numbers of people working and living in the inner city various organizations are searching for ways to attract people back to the periphery of the city. With the main focus falling on the availability of job opportunities and housing (flats) the periphery has little to offer individuals seeking better paying jobs. Although the Johannesburg inner city provides housing opportunities, not sufficient supply is available for the demand. Further, it is noted that although prominent companies occupy office space within the inner city, satellite offices are constructed within neighboring townships, assisting in the need to connect the inner city with the outskirts of the city.
The western area of Johannesburg, specifically Roodepoort and surrounding areas, have increased development of major shopping centers and office parks in the last 10 years. These developments increased job opportunities in this area and supported the need for the high residential development within this area. However, the focus remained on the middle to high income groups.
The Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (Chapter 2, Section 26) states that “everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing”. Although Government has delivered approximately 2,37 million houses and 687 500 stands between 1994 and 2010 throughout South Africa, the demand for housing still remains high with a backlog of approximately two(2) million houses still required in 2010 The increase of informal settlements around the country contributes to the greater housing demand.
In 2011, Minister Sexwale stated that “The solution to this backlog is not going to be through providing free houses. We can’t sustain what we are doing”. (IHHWC, 2011). President Zuma, addressing the housing crisis stated in 2012 that South Africa “cannot be a welfare state”. The Government is continuing efforts to establish ways to provide social housing to the poor, through subsidies or with the co-operation of the citizens of the country. Through private land owners developing otherwise non-productive farm land still situated in urban areas with residential stands, low to middle income citizens have the opportunity to own land, as per the Constitution (Chapter 2, Section 25).
Tshepisong falls on the outskirts of Johannesburg, with Mogale City bordering on the northern and western boundaries. Excluding agricultural land to the direct west, Mogale City has developed the township Kagiso, which provides low-rise residential properties (privately owned), supported by schools, clinic, community facilities, small shops and a neighborhood shopping center.
Informal settlements are on the increase in the immediate area, with the whole of Portion 24 of the farm Vlakfontein, located on the eastern boundary of the property, encumbered with shacks. The Tshepisong Township is gradually being developing from the eastern side towards the property. Tshepisong Proper provides low-rise residential properties (privately owned), supported by schools, clinic, community facilities and small shops. The development of the remainder of the farm Vlakfontein towards the western boundary of Johannesburg is a necessity, for it is clear from the current Mogale City development and the rising informal settlements in the area that a high demand for residential infrastructure is required.
Thus, the property is located within a growing residential character, providing adequate housing to the lower income groups. The proposed development of the property with 142 residential erven, with a minimum size of 200m², provides potential home owners with the opportunity to own an affordable property within close proximity to Mogale City and Roodepoort. The property is both accessible and ideally located on an active taxi route along Kagiso, thus providing housing in close proximity to transport, adhering to the principles of the DFA and the guidelines of the RSDF 2010/11. 8.2.2. Neighborhood Shopping Center In 2011 Urban Landmark published a study compiled by DEMACON regarding the “Impact of Township Shopping Centers”. Economic development in these areas are identified as “second economy areas” of which retail centers represent critical building blocks of nodal development, serving as catalytic anchors. However, it is recommended that these centers be develop in the right location with sufficient space to develop into a mature mixed use node over time.”
This study shows that since 1994, the development of shopping centers in townships have increased by 45%, and development cost has risen from R10million in 1994 to R700million with the development of Maponya Mall in Soweto. http://www.urbanlandmark.org.za/downloads/retail_in_townships_2011.pdf
The acknowledgements of the above mentioned study is further supported by findings made by Dirk Prinsloo from URBAN STUDIES, a company specializing in the study of shopping center development. Prinsloo identifies three things required for a shopping centre to be successful (1) a good location (2) a big enough population to warrant the development (or at least prospects for growth) and (3) people with enough money to spend.
Over time the South African Council of Shopping Centers (SACSC) has developed a shopping centre hierarchy – detailing the different types of retail centres and the elements that define them. These range from small free standing centres to super regional centres, value centres, speciality centres, hyper centres and lifestyle centres. With reference to this classification the following two criteria has to be met to support a neighborhood shopping center: • Population 2,400 to 5,700 households • Area served 2,0km • Trade Area Strategically located to group of suburbs • Access Requirements Major collector roads • Size of center 5,000m² to 12,000m² • Number of shops 25-50 stores • Median Travel time 4-9 minutes • Function Supermarket, convenience, small specialized stores
The Tshepisong community is currently a rising residential area, supported by various schools and community facilities, as well as small spaza shops providing in the minimum daily requirements of the community. Only two shopping centers where identified within a two-five kilometers radius – one located north of the property within the Mogale City jurisdiction (Kagiso Shopping Centre) and another (Moses Shopping Center) located on Adcock Street (R558) south-east from property; however with the only accessibility thereto from the property via the R41 (Randfontein Road). Both shopping centers are best reached by vehicle.
The property is located between several informal settlements, one on its northern the other on its
southern boundary. To the east of the property a proposed township for residential development (Brink Park Extension 3 and 4) was approved in 2013.
The number of households current and proposed are estimated to be approximately 6,171 households, calculated as follows, excluding informal settlements: • Tshepisong Proper 5,657 residential erven • Brink Park Extensions 3 & 4 104 + 268 = 372 erven • Proposed Tshepisong Extension 4 142 residential erven
The proposed township will provide a neighborhood shopping center on an erf measuring approximately 3,0938 hectare (area includes the ESKOM power lines on the northern and western boundaries), with a gross leasable floor area of approximately 2,500m² to 15,000m². Vehicular access would be provided of the 20m road (class 4) on the southern boundary, as well as off the residential road (class 5) on the eastern boundary, should be approved by the Local Authority. No vehicular access to the shopping center would be allowed off Kagiso Avenue. Therefore, pedestrian access should be provided on the western boundary.
The proposed shopping center would thus cater in the needs of the residents of the proposed 142 residential erven, and also to all existing and potential future residential development around the property. The shopping center would support the non-motorized community providing goods and services within walking distance from their homes. For individuals fortunate enough to travel by private motor car, the shopping center is conveniently accessible from the R41 directly into Kagiso Avenue. 8.2.3. Public Open Space The Spatial Development Framework, 2011 identifies “Open spaces, such as roads, pedestrian paths and linear parks, can provide a network connecting public transportation routes and important community facilities such as libraries, schools and courthouses. Such inter-connected open spaces also enhance ecological diversity by providing habitats for the city’s fauna and flora. A connected system of open spaces can minimize storm water run-off and therefore help to protect the city’s rivers and streams.”
The overhead ESKOM power lines located on the property’s northern, western and southern boundaries creates an ideal opportunity to utilize an otherwise dead space and develop these areas as active open space systems, by providing pedestrian and cycle friendly walk/path ways (northern boundary), as well as roads (southern boundary). These pathways will support the non-motorized community by providing them with direct access to the shopping center and the taxi route along Kagiso Avenue. 9. DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS The following development controls are proposed for the erven General conditions to be laid down on all erven as per the relevant town planning scheme: 9.1. ERF 1 Zoning : “Business 1” Primary Uses : As per Scheme Secondary Uses : As per Scheme No Uses : As per Scheme Height Zone : As per Scheme – Three (3) storeys provided that the height may be increased with the consent of the Council Coverage : As per Scheme - 40% provided that the Council may authorize a reasonable increase in coverage upon approval of a building plan. F.A.R. : As per Scheme – 0,6 provided that the FAR may be increased with the special consent of the Council Density : 40 dwelling units per hectare Building Lines : As per Scheme i) 18m along western boundary ii) 18m along northern boundary iii) 3m along other street boundaries Parking : Effective, paved and demarcated parking together with the necessary manoeuvring space shall be provided in the following ratio’s on the erf to
satisfaction of the Council: (1) 6 parking bays per 100m² gross-leasable retails floor area (2) 4 parking bays per 100m² gross-leasable office floor area (3) 8 parking bays per 100m² gross-leasable medical consulting room floor area (4) 10 parking bays per 100m² nett-leasable restaurant floor area (5) 2 parking bays per 100m² for all other restaurant floor area (6) 1 parking bay per 6 seats for cinemas (7) 1 parking bay per bedroom or suite and 6 parking bays per 100m² gross-leasable public room floor area for hotels (8) 0,75 parking bays per dwelling unit, of which one third shall be covered to the satisfaction of the Council, together with the necessary manoeuvring space shall be provided on the erf to the satisfaction of the Council, provided that the above parking ratio may be relaxed to the satisfaction of the council (9) Parking for all other uses shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Council. Lines of “No Access” : Along Kagiso Avenue up to point as agreed by JRA for access to the township. General Conditions : (1) A Site Development Plan to the satisfaction of the Council shall be submitted for evaluation and be approved prior to submission of building plans. (2) The erf shall be landscaped, preferably by planting of indigenous trees and shrubs, and be maintained to the satisfaction of the Council. (3) Ingress to and egress from erf shall be located, built, paved and maintained to the satisfaction of the Council (JRA) as per the approved SDP (4) A screen wall or fence, of which the height, extent and material shall be to the satisfaction of Council, shall be erected and maintained along the boundaries of the erf, if and when required. (5) On-site storm water attenuation shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Council, if required. 9.2. ERVEN 2- 143 Zoning : “Residential 1” Primary Uses : As per Scheme Secondary Uses : As per Scheme No Uses : As per Scheme Height Zone : As per Scheme – Two (2) storeys provided that the height may be increased with the consent of the Council Coverage : As per Scheme - 60% provided that the Council may authorize a reasonable increase in coverage upon approval of a building plan. F.A.R. : As per Scheme - 1,0 provided that the FAR may be increased with the special consent of the Council Density : As per Scheme – 1 dwelling per erf Building Lines : As per Scheme i) 2m along street boundaries ii) 1m along one of the side boundaries and the rear boundary, provided that a carport may be erected within the side boundary, provided no engineering services are affected Parking : As per Scheme 9.3 ERF 144 Zoning : “Public Open Space” Primary Uses : As per Scheme Secondary Uses : As per Scheme No Uses : As per Scheme Height Zone : As per Scheme – Zero (0) Coverage : As per Scheme F.A.R. : As per Scheme Building Lines : As per Scheme
10. CONCLUSION In a community dependable on non-motorized transport, it is vital to improve the quality of life for these
citizens by promoting the DFA principals. The proposed development will succeed in promoting the integration of social, economic, institutional and physical aspects of land development, optimizing the use of existing resources including such resources relating to bulk infrastructure, roads, transportation and social facilities and by the diverse combination of land uses, also at the level of individual erven or subdivisions of land.
In view of the motivation provided the proposed neighborhood shopping center is a requirement (desirability) for this growing residential community, which currently lacks the necessary facility within walking distance of their homes. Tthe provision of residential erven further relieves the demand on housing so desperately needed in these areas of Johannesburg.
It is the applicant's conclusion that this application is both necessary and desirable from a town planning point of view, and will result in a development which enhances the appearance of the whole area. It is our submission that this application should be approved without amendment.
ANNEXURE B:
2009 RISFSA ROAD HIERARCHY - REGION D
THE SITE
ANNEXURE C:
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
BUSINESS 1 - RETAIL
RESIDENTIAL 1
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC DEMAND
ANNEXURE D:
CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
INTERSECTION 1: KAGISO & GEBA MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC1-2016 PM Background Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC1 - 2016 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (All-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 129 0.0 0.407 12.2 LOS B 1.6 11.2 0.68 1.39 49.5 3 R2 247 0.0 0.407 12.0 LOS B 1.6 11.2 0.68 1.39 49.3 Approach 376 0.0 0.407 12.1 LOS B 1.6 11.2 0.68 1.39 49.4 East: Geba - WB 4 L2 290 0.0 0.735 31.1 LOS D 5.5 38.7 1.00 1.80 39.9 6 R2 87 0.0 0.735 30.6 LOS D 5.5 38.7 1.00 1.80 39.6 Approach 377 0.0 0.735 31.0 LOS D 5.5 38.7 1.00 1.80 39.8 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 164 0.0 0.541 18.7 LOS C 2.7 19.2 0.89 1.49 46.2 8 T1 168 0.0 0.541 18.3 LOS C 2.7 19.2 0.89 1.49 45.9 Approach 332 0.0 0.541 18.5 LOS C 2.7 19.2 0.89 1.49 46.1 All Vehicles 1084 0.0 0.735 20.6 LOS C 5.5 38.7 0.85 1.56 44.7
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC2-2016 PM With dev Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC2 - 2016 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (All-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effectiv e Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 177 0.0 0.547 14.0 LOS B 2.7 18.7 0.73 1.50 48.4 3 R2 340 0.0 0.547 13.8 LOS B 2.7 18.7 0.73 1.50 48.2 Approach 517 0.0 0.547 13.9 LOS B 2.7 18.7 0.73 1.50 48.3 East: Geba - WB 4 L2 400 0.0 0.990 89.7 LOS F 19.3 134.8 1.00 3.39 24.3 6 R2 87 0.0 0.990 89.1 LOS F 19.3 134.8 1.00 3.39 24.2 Approach 487 0.0 0.990 89.6 LOS F 19.3 134.8 1.00 3.39 24.3 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 164 0.0 0.611 20.4 LOS C 3.5 24.4 0.91 1.57 45.2 8 T1 223 0.0 0.611 20.0 LOS C 3.5 24.4 0.91 1.57 45.0 Approach 388 0.0 0.611 20.2 LOS C 3.5 24.4 0.91 1.57 45.1 All Vehicles 1391 0.0 0.990 42.1 LOS E 19.3 134.8 0.88 2.18 35.4
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC2-2016 PM With dev upgr Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC2 - 2016 PM Peak - With dev traffic, with upgrade Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Av erage Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 177 0.0 0.418 5.7 LOS A 3.7 26.1 0.41 0.59 51.9 3 R2 340 0.0 0.418 8.2 LOS A 3.7 26.1 0.41 0.59 51.6 Approach 517 0.0 0.418 7.3 LOS A 3.7 26.1 0.41 0.59 51.7 East: Geba - WB 4 L2 400 0.0 0.498 7.8 LOS A 4.3 30.2 0.68 0.69 51.0 6 R2 87 0.0 0.498 9.7 LOS A 4.3 30.2 0.68 0.69 51.3 Approach 487 0.0 0.498 8.2 LOS A 4.3 30.2 0.68 0.69 51.1 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 164 0.0 0.460 9.0 LOS A 3.4 24.1 0.72 0.75 50.7 8 T1 223 0.0 0.460 8.4 LOS A 3.4 24.1 0.72 0.75 51.3 Approach 388 0.0 0.460 8.7 LOS A 3.4 24.1 0.72 0.75 51.0 All Vehicles 1391 0.0 0.498 8.0 LOS A 4.3 30.2 0.59 0.67 51.3
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC3-2021 PM Background Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC3 - 2021 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (All-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehic les Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 150 0.0 0.475 13.1 LOS B 2.1 14.4 0.71 1.44 49.0 3 R2 289 0.0 0.475 12.8 LOS B 2.1 14.4 0.71 1.44 48.8 Approach 439 0.0 0.475 12.9 LOS B 2.1 14.4 0.71 1.44 48.9 East: Geba - WB 4 L2 339 0.0 0.857 46.4 LOS E 9.4 66.0 1.00 2.26 34.2 6 R2 100 0.0 0.857 45.9 LOS E 9.4 66.0 1.00 2.26 34.0 Approach 439 0.0 0.857 46.3 LOS E 9.4 66.0 1.00 2.26 34.1 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 194 0.0 0.632 21.6 LOS C 3.8 26.4 0.92 1.60 44.5 8 T1 194 0.0 0.632 21.3 LOS C 3.8 26.4 0.92 1.60 44.4 Approach 389 0.0 0.632 21.4 LOS C 3.8 26.4 0.92 1.60 44.4 All Vehicles 1267 0.0 0.857 27.1 LOS D 9.4 66.0 0.88 1.77 41.4
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC4-2021 PM With dev Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic, with 2016 upgrade Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 198 0.0 0.479 5.9 LOS A 4.6 32.5 0.48 0.60 51.7 3 R2 382 0.0 0.479 8.4 LOS A 4.6 32.5 0.48 0.60 51.4 Approach 580 0.0 0.479 7.5 LOS A 4.6 32.5 0.48 0.60 51.5 East: Geba - WB 4 L2 449 0.0 0.581 8.5 LOS A 5.6 39.1 0.77 0.73 50.6 6 R2 100 0.0 0.581 10.4 LOS B 5.6 39.1 0.77 0.73 50.9 Approach 549 0.0 0.581 8.9 LOS A 5.6 39.1 0.77 0.73 50.6 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 194 0.0 0.553 10.8 LOS B 5.0 35.1 0.81 0.85 49.5 8 T1 250 0.0 0.553 10.2 LOS B 5.0 35.1 0.81 0.85 50.0 Approach 444 0.0 0.553 10.5 LOS B 5.0 35.1 0.81 0.85 49.8 All Vehicles 1573 0.0 0.581 8.8 LOS A 5.6 39.1 0.68 0.72 50.7
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC5-2016 Sat Background Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC5 - 2016 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (All-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 294 0.0 0.447 11.9 LOS B 1.8 12.7 0.63 1.43 49.7 3 R2 172 0.0 0.447 11.7 LOS B 1.8 12.7 0.63 1.43 49.5 Approach 465 0.0 0.447 11.8 LOS B 1.8 12.7 0.63 1.43 49.7 East: Geba - WB 4 L2 106 0.0 0.439 24.3 LOS C 2.0 14.0 0.97 1.40 43.1 6 R2 47 0.0 0.439 23.7 LOS C 2.0 14.0 0.97 1.40 42.7 Approach 153 0.0 0.439 24.1 LOS C 2.0 14.0 0.97 1.40 43.0 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 88 0.0 0.272 12.6 LOS B 1.0 6.7 0.72 1.33 49.8 8 T1 116 0.0 0.272 12.3 LOS B 1.0 6.7 0.72 1.33 49.5 Approach 204 0.0 0.272 12.4 LOS B 1.0 6.7 0.72 1.33 49.6 All Vehicles 822 0.0 0.447 14.3 LOS B 2.0 14.0 0.71 1.40 48.3
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC6-2016 Sat With dev Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC6 - 2016 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (All-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 359 0.0 0.621 14.5 LOS B 3.4 24.0 0.71 1.60 48.1 3 R2 302 0.0 0.621 14.3 LOS B 3.4 24.0 0.71 1.60 47.9 Approach 662 0.0 0.621 14.4 LOS B 3.4 24.0 0.71 1.60 48.0 East: Geba - WB 4 L2 237 0.0 0.779 46.1 LOS E 6.5 45.3 1.00 1.89 34.3 6 R2 47 0.0 0.779 45.5 LOS E 6.5 45.3 1.00 1.89 34.1 Approach 284 0.0 0.779 46.0 LOS E 6.5 45.3 1.00 1.89 34.2 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 88 0.0 0.351 13.2 LOS B 1.3 9.4 0.74 1.36 49.4 8 T1 181 0.0 0.351 12.9 LOS B 1.3 9.4 0.74 1.36 49.2 Approach 269 0.0 0.351 13.0 LOS B 1.3 9.4 0.74 1.36 49.3 All Vehicles 1215 0.0 0.779 21.5 LOS C 6.5 45.3 0.78 1.62 44.1
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC6-2016 Sat With dev uppr Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC6 - 2016 Sat Peak - With dev traffic, with upgrade Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 359 0.0 0.478 5.3 LOS A 4.7 32.8 0.31 0.55 52.4 3 R2 302 0.0 0.478 7.8 LOS A 4.7 32.8 0.31 0.55 52.2 Approach 662 0.0 0.478 6.5 LOS A 4.7 32.8 0.31 0.55 52.3 East: Geba - WB 4 L2 237 0.0 0.282 7.1 LOS A 2.0 13.9 0.51 0.63 51.5 6 R2 47 0.0 0.282 8.9 LOS A 2.0 13.9 0.51 0.63 51.8 Approach 284 0.0 0.282 7.4 LOS A 2.0 13.9 0.51 0.63 51.6 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 88 0.0 0.305 8.2 LOS A 2.0 14.1 0.61 0.69 51.3 8 T1 181 0.0 0.305 7.6 LOS A 2.0 14.1 0.61 0.69 51.9 Approach 269 0.0 0.305 7.8 LOS A 2.0 14.1 0.61 0.69 51.7 All Vehicles 1215 0.0 0.478 7.0 LOS A 4.7 32.8 0.42 0.60 52.0
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC7-2021 Sat Background Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC7 - 2021 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (All-Way)
Movement P erformance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 324 0.0 0.498 12.5 LOS B 2.2 15.3 0.65 1.47 49.3 3 R2 194 0.0 0.498 12.3 LOS B 2.2 15.3 0.65 1.47 49.1 Approach 518 0.0 0.498 12.4 LOS B 2.2 15.3 0.65 1.47 49.3 East: Geba - WB 4 L2 118 0.0 0.490 26.1 LOS D 2.4 16.6 0.98 1.44 42.2 6 R2 53 0.0 0.490 25.5 LOS D 2.4 16.6 0.98 1.44 41.9 Approach 171 0.0 0.490 25.9 LOS D 2.4 16.6 0.98 1.44 42.1 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 100 0.0 0.307 13.0 LOS B 1.1 7.8 0.74 1.34 49.6 8 T1 129 0.0 0.307 12.6 LOS B 1.1 7.8 0.74 1.34 49.3 Approach 229 0.0 0.307 12.8 LOS B 1.1 7.8 0.74 1.34 49.4 All Vehicles 918 0.0 0.498 15.0 LOS C 2.4 16.6 0.73 1.43 47.8
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC8-2021 Sat With dev Tshepsiong Ext 4 Kagiso & Geba SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic, with 2016 upgrade Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 405 0.0 0.542 5.5 LOS A 5.9 41.0 0.38 0.55 52.3 3 R2 335 0.0 0.542 8.0 LOS A 5.9 41.0 0.38 0.55 52.0 Approach 740 0.0 0.542 6.6 LOS A 5.9 41.0 0.38 0.55 52.2 East: Geba - WB 4 L2 254 0.0 0.316 7.3 LOS A 2.3 16.1 0.55 0.65 51.4 6 R2 56 0.0 0.316 9.2 LOS A 2.3 16.1 0.55 0.65 51.7 Approach 310 0.0 0.316 7.6 LOS A 2.3 16.1 0.55 0.65 51.4 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 105 0.0 0.360 8.6 LOS A 2.5 17.4 0.66 0.72 51.0 8 T1 201 0.0 0.360 8.0 LOS A 2.5 17.4 0.66 0.72 51.6 Approach 306 0.0 0.360 8.2 LOS A 2.5 17.4 0.66 0.72 51.4 All Vehicles 1356 0.0 0.542 7.2 LOS A 5.9 41.0 0.48 0.61 51.8
INTERSECTION 2: KAGISO & CREMONA
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC1-2016 PM Background Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC1 - 2016 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 431 0.0 0.227 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 59.7 3 R2 9 0.0 0.227 7.9 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 57.6 Approach 440 0.0 0.227 0.3 NA 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 59.7 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 11 0.0 0.061 10.3 LOS B 0.2 1.4 0.59 0.96 49.0 6 R2 19 0.0 0.061 14.7 LOS B 0.2 1.4 0.59 0.96 48.6 Approach 29 0.0 0.061 13.1 LOS B 0.2 1.4 0.59 0.96 48.7 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 12 0.0 0.246 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 58.2 8 T1 472 0.0 0.246 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8 Approach 484 0.0 0.246 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8 All Vehicles 953 0.0 0.246 0.6 NA 0.2 1.4 0.03 0.04 59.3
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC2-2016 PM With dev Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC2 - 2016 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 457 0.0 0.476 3.9 LOS A 4.1 28.7 0.59 0.28 54.5 3 R2 198 0.0 0.476 11.5 LOS B 4.1 28.7 0.59 0.28 52.7 Approach 655 0.0 0.476 6.2 NA 4.1 28.7 0.59 0.28 53.9 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 183 0.0 1.038 87.7 LOS F 23.4 163.9 1.00 2.70 23.0 6 R2 179 0.0 1.038 108.5 LOS F 23.4 163.9 1.00 2.70 22.9 Approach 361 0.0 1.038 98.0 LOS F 23.4 163.9 1.00 2.70 23.0 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 199 0.0 0.360 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 56.9 8 T1 501 0.0 0.360 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 58.4 Approach 700 0.0 0.360 1.6 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 58.0 All Vehicles 1716 0.0 1.038 23.6 NA 23.4 163.9 0.44 0.75 42.9
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC2-2016 PM With dev upgr Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC2 - 2016 PM Peak - With dev traffic, with upgrade Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Perfo rmance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 431 0.0 0.219 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 3 R2 158 0.0 0.174 8.6 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.59 0.79 51.2 Approach 589 0.0 0.219 2.3 NA 0.7 5.1 0.16 0.21 57.3 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 146 0.0 0.171 10.6 LOS B 0.7 4.7 0.52 0.95 50.7 6 R2 143 0.0 0.613 31.3 LOS D 2.8 19.3 0.90 1.15 39.3 Approach 289 0.0 0.613 20.9 LOS C 2.8 19.3 0.71 1.05 44.3 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 159 0.0 0.324 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.15 57.0 8 T1 472 0.0 0.324 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.15 58.6 Approach 631 0.0 0.324 1.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.15 58.2 All Vehicles 1508 0.0 0.613 5.5 NA 2.8 19.3 0.20 0.35 54.6
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC3-2021 PM Background Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC3 - 2021 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 500 0.0 0.266 0.1 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.04 0.01 59.7 3 R2 12 0.0 0.266 8.7 LOS A 0.2 1.2 0.04 0.01 57.5 Approach 512 0.0 0.266 0.3 NA 0.2 1.2 0.04 0.01 59.6 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 12 0.0 0.092 10.9 LOS B 0.3 2.0 0.68 0.98 47.7 6 R2 24 0.0 0.092 17.5 LOS C 0.3 2.0 0.68 0.98 47.3 Approach 35 0.0 0.092 15.3 LOS C 0.3 2.0 0.68 0.98 47.4 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 18 0.0 0.287 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 58.1 8 T1 547 0.0 0.287 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.8 Approach 565 0.0 0.287 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.7 All Vehicles 1112 0.0 0.287 0.7 NA 0.3 2.0 0.04 0.05 59.2
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC4-2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic, with 2016 upgrade Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 500 0.0 0.254 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 59.9 3 R2 160 0.0 0.198 9.3 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.62 0.84 50.7 Approach 660 0.0 0.254 2.3 NA 0.8 5.7 0.15 0.20 57.4 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 147 0.0 0.191 11.3 LOS B 0.7 5.2 0.56 0.98 50.2 6 R2 147 0.0 0.830 56.1 LOS F 4.6 32.5 0.97 1.32 31.0 Approach 294 0.0 0.830 33.7 LOS D 4.6 32.5 0.76 1.15 38.4 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 164 0.0 0.365 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.14 57.1 8 T1 547 0.0 0.365 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.14 58.7 Approach 711 0.0 0.365 1.3 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.14 58.3 All Vehicles 1665 0.0 0.830 7.4 NA 4.6 32.5 0.19 0.34 53.1
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC5-2016 Sat Background Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC5 - 2016 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop . Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 434 0.0 0.225 0.0 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.02 0.01 59.8 3 R2 7 0.0 0.225 6.4 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.02 0.01 57.7 Approach 441 0.0 0.225 0.1 NA 0.1 0.4 0.02 0.01 59.8 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 4 0.0 0.012 8.9 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.41 0.87 50.5 6 R2 5 0.0 0.012 11.7 LOS B 0.0 0.3 0.41 0.87 50.1 Approach 8 0.0 0.012 10.5 LOS B 0.0 0.3 0.41 0.87 50.3 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 6 0.0 0.121 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 58.2 8 T1 233 0.0 0.121 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8 Approach 239 0.0 0.121 0.1 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.01 59.8 All Vehicles 688 0.0 0.225 0.3 NA 0.1 0.4 0.01 0.02 59.7
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC6-2016 Sat With dev Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC6- 2016 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 434 0.0 0.384 1.3 LOS A 2.3 16.3 0.40 0.22 56.8 3 R2 194 0.0 0.384 7.9 LOS A 2.3 16.3 0.40 0.22 54.8 Approach 628 0.0 0.384 3.4 NA 2.3 16.3 0.40 0.22 56.2 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 189 0.0 0.650 13.5 LOS B 4.7 33.1 0.57 1.12 45.8 6 R2 172 0.0 0.650 23.6 LOS C 4.7 33.1 0.57 1.12 45.5 Approach 361 0.0 0.650 18.3 LOS C 4.7 33.1 0.57 1.12 45.6 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 173 0.0 0.210 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 56.2 8 T1 233 0.0 0.210 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 57.7 Approach 406 0.0 0.210 2.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 57.1 All Vehicles 1394 0.0 0.650 6.9 NA 4.7 33.1 0.33 0.46 53.2
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC6-2016 Sat With dev upgr Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC6 - 2016 Sat Peak - With dev traffic, with upgrade Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 434 0.0 0.220 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 60.0 3 R2 194 0.0 0.160 7.1 LOS A 0.7 5.1 0.48 0.67 52.0 Approach 628 0.0 0.220 2.2 NA 0.7 5.1 0.15 0.21 57.3 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 189 0.0 0.166 9.1 LOS A 0.7 4.9 0.36 0.88 51.5 6 R2 172 0.0 0.613 28.8 LOS D 3.3 22.9 0.88 1.17 40.4 Approach 361 0.0 0.613 18.5 LOS C 3.3 22.9 0.61 1.02 45.6 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 173 0.0 0.210 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 56.2 8 T1 233 0.0 0.210 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 57.7 Approach 406 0.0 0.210 2.4 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 57.1 All Vehicles 1394 0.0 0.613 6.5 NA 3.3 22.9 0.22 0.43 53.6
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC7-2021 Sat Background Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC7 - 2021 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 506 0.0 0.266 0.0 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 59.8 3 R2 12 0.0 0.266 6.7 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 57.6 Approach 518 0.0 0.266 0.2 NA 0.1 0.8 0.03 0.01 59.7 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 6 0.0 0.018 9.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.44 0.88 50.2 6 R2 6 0.0 0.018 13.1 LOS B 0.1 0.4 0.44 0.88 49.8 Approach 12 0.0 0.018 11.1 LOS B 0.1 0.4 0.44 0.88 50.0 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 12 0.0 0.144 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 58.1 8 T1 271 0.0 0.144 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.7 Approach 282 0.0 0.144 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 59.7 All Vehicles 812 0.0 0.266 0.4 NA 0.1 0.8 0.02 0.03 59.5
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC8-2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic, with 2016 upgrade Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 506 0.0 0.257 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 59.9 3 R2 198 0.0 0.172 7.4 LOS A 0.8 5.4 0.51 0.70 52.0 Approach 704 0.0 0.257 2.1 NA 0.8 5.4 0.14 0.20 57.5 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 192 0.0 0.175 9.3 LOS A 0.7 5.2 0.39 0.89 51.4 6 R2 173 0.0 0.768 43.2 LOS E 4.7 32.6 0.94 1.29 34.9 Approach 364 0.0 0.768 25.4 LOS D 4.7 32.6 0.65 1.08 42.0 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 178 0.0 0.232 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.24 56.4 8 T1 271 0.0 0.232 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.24 57.9 Approach 448 0.0 0.232 2.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.24 57.3 All Vehicles 1516 0.0 0.768 7.7 NA 4.7 32.6 0.22 0.42 52.7
WITH ROUNDABOUT
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC4-2021 PM With dev - Conversion Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic, with ROUNDABOUT Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 500 0.0 0.585 6.5 LOS A 6.1 42.5 0.64 0.62 51.9 3 R2 160 0.0 0.585 9.0 LOS A 6.1 42.5 0.64 0.62 51.6 Approach 660 0.0 0.585 7.1 LOS A 6.1 42.5 0.64 0.62 51.8 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 147 0.0 0.442 11.1 LOS B 3.3 23.2 0.83 0.90 48.4 6 R2 147 0.0 0.442 13.0 LOS B 3.3 23.2 0.83 0.90 48.7 Approach 294 0.0 0.442 12.0 LOS B 3.3 23.2 0.83 0.90 48.6 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 164 0.0 0.635 7.4 LOS A 6.8 47.4 0.68 0.62 51.4 8 T1 547 0.0 0.635 6.8 LOS A 6.8 47.4 0.68 0.62 51.9 Approach 711 0.0 0.635 6.9 LOS A 6.8 47.4 0.68 0.62 51.8 All Vehicles 1665 0.0 0.635 7.9 LOS A 6.8 47.4 0.69 0.67 51.2
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC8-2021 Sat With dev - Conversion Tshepisong Extension 4 Kagiso & Cremona SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic, with ROUNDABOUT Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Kagiso - NB 2 T1 506 0.0 0.406 6.1 LOS A 3.2 22.6 0.50 0.58 52.5 3 R2 198 0.0 0.223 9.0 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.47 0.67 50.8 Approach 704 0.0 0.406 6.9 LOS A 3.2 22.6 0.50 0.61 52.0 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 192 0.0 0.177 7.3 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.52 0.65 51.5 6 R2 173 0.0 0.171 9.1 LOS A 1.1 7.4 0.52 0.68 50.8 Approach 364 0.0 0.177 8.1 LOS A 1.1 7.9 0.52 0.67 51.1 North: Kagiso - SB 7 L2 178 0.0 0.434 7.4 LOS A 3.4 23.6 0.57 0.64 51.6 8 T1 271 0.0 0.434 6.7 LOS A 3.4 23.6 0.57 0.64 52.2 Approach 448 0.0 0.434 7.0 LOS A 3.4 23.6 0.57 0.64 52.0 All Vehicles 1516 0.0 0.434 7.2 LOS A 3.4 23.6 0.52 0.63 51.8
INTERSECTION 3: KAGISO & SANDPIPER
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC1-2016 PM Background Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC1 - 2016 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h SouthEast: Kagiso - NB 21 L2 19 0.0 0.106 10.4 LOS B 0.3 2.4 0.61 0.98 48.9 23a R1 32 0.0 0.106 15.3 LOS C 0.3 2.4 0.61 0.98 48.6 Approach 51 0.0 0.106 13.5 LOS B 0.3 2.4 0.61 0.98 48.7 North: Kagiso - SB 7a L1 19 0.0 0.283 5.5 LOS A 1.6 11.5 0.14 0.53 53.1 9a R1 475 0.0 0.283 5.1 LOS A 1.6 11.5 0.14 0.53 53.3 Approach 494 0.0 0.283 5.1 NA 1.6 11.5 0.14 0.53 53.3 SouthWest: Sandpiper - EB 30a L1 411 0.0 0.235 5.3 LOS A 0.3 1.9 0.02 0.58 53.2 32 R2 39 0.0 0.235 5.5 LOS A 0.3 1.9 0.02 0.58 53.2 Approach 449 0.0 0.235 5.3 NA 0.3 1.9 0.02 0.58 53.2 All Vehicles 994 0.0 0.283 5.7 NA 1.6 11.5 0.11 0.58 53.0
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC2-2016 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC2 - 2016 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h SouthEast: Kagiso - NB 21 L2 19 0.0 0.176 11.9 LOS B 0.5 3.8 0.77 1.01 45.7 23a R1 32 0.0 0.176 23.2 LOS C 0.5 3.8 0.77 1.01 45.5 Approach 51 0.0 0.176 19.0 LOS C 0.5 3.8 0.77 1.01 45.5 North: Kagiso - SB 7a L1 19 0.0 0.375 5.5 LOS A 2.4 17.1 0.16 0.53 53.1 9a R1 636 0.0 0.375 5.1 LOS A 2.4 17.1 0.16 0.53 53.2 Approach 655 0.0 0.375 5.1 NA 2.4 17.1 0.16 0.53 53.2 SouthWest: Sandpiper - EB 30a L1 587 0.0 0.326 5.3 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.01 0.58 53.2 32 R2 39 0.0 0.326 5.5 LOS A 0.3 2.1 0.01 0.58 53.3 Approach 626 0.0 0.326 5.3 NA 0.3 2.1 0.01 0.58 53.2 All Vehicles 1332 0.0 0.375 5.8 NA 2.4 17.1 0.11 0.57 52.9
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC3-2021 PM Background Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC3 - 2021 PM Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h SouthEast: Kagiso - NB 21 L2 24 0.0 0.170 11.1 LOS B 0.5 3.8 0.70 1.00 47.5 23a R1 41 0.0 0.170 18.5 LOS C 0.5 3.8 0.70 1.00 47.3 Approach 65 0.0 0.170 15.8 LOS C 0.5 3.8 0.70 1.00 47.4 North: Kagiso - SB 7a L1 24 0.0 0.332 5.5 LOS A 2.0 14.3 0.17 0.53 53.0 9a R1 553 0.0 0.332 5.2 LOS A 2.0 14.3 0.17 0.53 53.2 Approach 576 0.0 0.332 5.2 NA 2.0 14.3 0.17 0.53 53.2 SouthWest: Sandpiper - EB 30a L1 476 0.0 0.274 5.3 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.02 0.58 53.2 32 R2 47 0.0 0.274 5.6 LOS A 0.3 2.4 0.02 0.58 53.2 Approach 524 0.0 0.274 5.4 NA 0.3 2.4 0.02 0.58 53.2 All Vehicles 1165 0.0 0.332 5.8 NA 2.0 14.3 0.13 0.58 52.8
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC4-2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h SouthEast: Kagiso - NB 21 L2 24 0.0 0.300 14.9 LOS B 1.0 6.9 0.85 1.04 42.3 23a R1 41 0.0 0.300 31.8 LOS D 1.0 6.9 0.85 1.04 42.1 Approach 65 0.0 0.300 25.6 LOS D 1.0 6.9 0.85 1.04 42.2 North: Kagiso - SB 7a L1 24 0.0 0.425 5.5 LOS A 2.9 20.5 0.19 0.53 53.0 9a R1 714 0.0 0.425 5.2 LOS A 2.9 20.5 0.19 0.53 53.2 Approach 738 0.0 0.425 5.2 NA 2.9 20.5 0.19 0.53 53.2 SouthWest: Sandpiper - EB 30a L1 653 0.0 0.365 5.3 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.02 0.58 53.2 32 R2 47 0.0 0.365 5.6 LOS A 0.4 2.7 0.02 0.58 53.2 Approach 700 0.0 0.365 5.3 NA 0.4 2.7 0.02 0.58 53.2 All Vehicles 1502 0.0 0.425 6.1 NA 2.9 20.5 0.14 0.57 52.6
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC5-2016 Sat Background Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC5 - 2016 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h SouthEast: Kagiso - NB 21 L2 108 0.0 0.230 9.0 LOS A 0.9 6.2 0.40 0.94 50.6 23a R1 76 0.0 0.230 12.6 LOS B 0.9 6.2 0.40 0.94 50.3 Approach 184 0.0 0.230 10.5 LOS B 0.9 6.2 0.40 0.94 50.5 North: Kagiso - SB 7a L1 43 0.0 0.149 5.6 LOS A 0.8 5.3 0.22 0.53 52.9 9a R1 210 0.0 0.149 5.3 LOS A 0.8 5.3 0.22 0.53 53.0 Approach 253 0.0 0.149 5.3 NA 0.8 5.3 0.22 0.53 53.0 SouthWest: Sandpiper - EB 30a L1 335 0.0 0.230 5.4 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.07 0.56 53.0 32 R2 97 0.0 0.230 5.6 LOS A 0.6 4.5 0.07 0.56 53.1 Approach 432 0.0 0.230 5.4 NA 0.6 4.5 0.07 0.56 53.0 All Vehicles 868 0.0 0.230 6.5 NA 0.9 6.2 0.18 0.63 52.5
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC6-2016 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC6 - 2016 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h SouthEast: Kagiso - NB 21 L2 108 0.0 0.365 11.3 LOS B 1.6 11.2 0.61 1.04 47.8 23a R1 76 0.0 0.365 20.7 LOS C 1.6 11.2 0.61 1.04 47.5 Approach 184 0.0 0.365 15.2 LOS C 1.6 11.2 0.61 1.04 47.7 North: Kagiso - SB 7a L1 43 0.0 0.266 5.7 LOS A 1.5 10.5 0.24 0.53 52.8 9a R1 404 0.0 0.266 5.3 LOS A 1.5 10.5 0.24 0.53 53.0 Approach 447 0.0 0.266 5.4 NA 1.5 10.5 0.24 0.53 53.0 SouthWest: Sandpiper - EB 30a L1 531 0.0 0.332 5.4 LOS A 0.8 5.3 0.05 0.56 53.1 32 R2 97 0.0 0.332 5.6 LOS A 0.8 5.3 0.05 0.56 53.1 Approach 627 0.0 0.332 5.4 NA 0.8 5.3 0.05 0.56 53.1 All Vehicles 1258 0.0 0.365 6.8 NA 1.6 11.2 0.20 0.62 52.2
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC7-2021 Sat Background Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC7 - 2021 Sat Peak - Background traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h SouthEast: Kagiso - NB 21 L2 126 0.0 0.301 9.5 LOS A 1.3 8.9 0.46 0.96 49.9 23a R1 88 0.0 0.301 14.7 LOS B 1.3 8.9 0.46 0.96 49.6 Approach 214 0.0 0.301 11.6 LOS B 1.3 8.9 0.46 0.96 49.8 North: Kagiso - SB 7a L1 49 0.0 0.177 5.7 LOS A 0.9 6.5 0.25 0.53 52.8 9a R1 247 0.0 0.177 5.4 LOS A 0.9 6.5 0.25 0.53 53.0 Approach 297 0.0 0.177 5.4 NA 0.9 6.5 0.25 0.53 52.9 SouthWest: Sandpiper - EB 30a L1 390 0.0 0.270 5.4 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.08 0.55 53.0 32 R2 115 0.0 0.270 5.7 LOS A 0.8 5.7 0.08 0.55 53.1 Approach 505 0.0 0.270 5.4 NA 0.8 5.7 0.08 0.55 53.0 All Vehicles 1016 0.0 0.301 6.7 NA 1.3 8.9 0.21 0.63 52.3
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC8-2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Kagiso & Sandpiper SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h SouthEast: Kagiso - NB 21 L2 126 0.0 0.501 13.5 LOS B 2.5 17.2 0.70 1.12 45.7 23a R1 88 0.0 0.501 26.5 LOS D 2.5 17.2 0.70 1.12 45.5 Approach 214 0.0 0.501 18.8 LOS C 2.5 17.2 0.70 1.12 45.6 North: Kagiso - SB 7a L1 49 0.0 0.297 5.8 LOS A 1.7 12.0 0.27 0.54 52.7 9a R1 442 0.0 0.297 5.4 LOS A 1.7 12.0 0.27 0.54 52.9 Approach 491 0.0 0.297 5.5 NA 1.7 12.0 0.27 0.54 52.9 SouthWest: Sandpiper - EB 30a L1 586 0.0 0.372 5.4 LOS A 0.9 6.6 0.07 0.56 53.0 32 R2 115 0.0 0.372 5.7 LOS A 0.9 6.6 0.07 0.56 53.1 Approach 701 0.0 0.372 5.4 NA 0.9 6.6 0.07 0.56 53.1 All Vehicles 1407 0.0 0.501 7.5 NA 2.5 17.2 0.24 0.64 51.7
INTERSECTION 4: CREMONA & ROAD A
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC4-2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road A SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Road A - NB 1 L2 6 0.0 0.283 10.3 LOS B 1.1 7.5 0.66 1.03 48.3 3 R2 129 0.0 0.283 14.4 LOS B 1.1 7.5 0.66 1.03 47.9 Approach 135 0.0 0.283 14.3 LOS B 1.1 7.5 0.66 1.03 47.9 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 129 0.0 0.245 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.16 56.9 5 T1 346 0.0 0.245 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.16 58.5 Approach 475 0.0 0.245 1.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.16 58.1 West: Cremona - EB 11 T1 381 0.0 0.199 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.01 59.8 12 R2 6 0.0 0.199 7.8 LOS A 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.01 57.6 Approach 387 0.0 0.199 0.2 NA 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.01 59.8 All Vehicles 998 0.0 0.283 2.7 NA 1.1 7.5 0.10 0.22 57.1
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC8-2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road A SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Road A - NB 1 L2 6 0.0 0.446 12.2 LOS B 1.9 13.4 0.77 1.09 46.1 3 R2 171 0.0 0.446 18.3 LOS C 1.9 13.4 0.77 1.09 45.7 Approach 176 0.0 0.446 18.1 LOS C 1.9 13.4 0.77 1.09 45.8 East: Cremona - WB 4 L2 171 0.0 0.298 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 56.8 5 T1 407 0.0 0.298 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 58.4 Approach 578 0.0 0.298 1.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 57.9 West: Cremona - EB 11 T1 420 0.0 0.219 0.1 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.02 0.01 59.8 12 R2 6 0.0 0.219 8.6 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.02 0.01 57.6 Approach 426 0.0 0.219 0.2 NA 0.1 0.6 0.02 0.01 59.8 All Vehicles 1180 0.0 0.446 3.6 NA 1.9 13.4 0.12 0.25 56.3
INTERSECTION 5: CREMONA & ROAD B MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC4 - 2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road B SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Av erage v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h East: Cremona - WB 5 T1 54 0.0 0.035 0.5 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.08 58.6 6 R2 8 0.0 0.035 7.5 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.08 56.5 Approach 62 0.0 0.035 1.4 NA 0.1 0.6 0.17 0.08 58.3 North: Road B - SB 7 L2 8 0.0 0.528 9.5 LOS A 3.5 24.8 0.54 1.05 50.0 9 R2 421 0.0 0.528 11.5 LOS B 3.5 24.8 0.54 1.05 49.6 Approach 429 0.0 0.528 11.5 LOS B 3.5 24.8 0.54 1.05 49.6 West: Cremona - EB 10 L2 439 0.0 0.270 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 54.2 11 T1 72 0.0 0.270 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 55.6 Approach 511 0.0 0.270 4.8 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 54.4 All Vehicles 1002 0.0 0.528 7.4 NA 3.5 24.8 0.24 0.71 52.4
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC8 - 2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road B SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop . Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h East: Cremona - WB 5 T1 27 0.0 0.026 1.4 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.37 0.20 56.9 6 R2 12 0.0 0.026 7.9 LOS A 0.1 0.8 0.37 0.20 54.9 Approach 39 0.0 0.026 3.3 NA 0.1 0.8 0.37 0.20 56.3 North: Road B - SB 7 L2 12 0.0 0.692 10.6 LOS B 6.7 47.2 0.61 1.14 48.8 9 R2 551 0.0 0.692 13.5 LOS B 6.7 47.2 0.61 1.14 48.4 Approach 562 0.0 0.692 13.4 LOS B 6.7 47.2 0.61 1.14 48.4 West: Cremona - EB 10 L2 552 0.0 0.314 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 53.9 11 T1 39 0.0 0.314 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 55.2 Approach 591 0.0 0.314 5.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 54.0 All Vehicles 1192 0.0 0.692 9.0 NA 6.7 47.2 0.30 0.81 51.2
INTERSECTION 6: CREMONA & ROAD C MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC4 - 2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road C SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h East: Cremona - WB 5 T1 38 0.0 0.023 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.05 0.08 59.1 6 R2 6 0.0 0.023 5.7 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.05 0.08 56.9 Approach 44 0.0 0.023 0.8 NA 0.0 0.2 0.05 0.08 58.8 North: Road C - SB 7 L2 6 0.0 0.017 8.2 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.16 0.90 51.9 9 R2 13 0.0 0.017 8.0 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.16 0.90 51.5 Approach 19 0.0 0.017 8.0 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.16 0.90 51.6 West: Cremona - EB 10 L2 25 0.0 0.041 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 56.8 11 T1 55 0.0 0.041 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 58.3 Approach 80 0.0 0.041 1.7 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.18 57.9 All Vehicles 142 0.0 0.041 2.3 NA 0.1 0.4 0.04 0.25 57.2
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC8 - 2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road C SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h East: Cremona - WB 5 T1 25 0.0 0.016 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.11 58.8 6 R2 6 0.0 0.016 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.11 56.7 Approach 31 0.0 0.016 1.1 NA 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.11 58.3 North: Road C - SB 7 L2 6 0.0 0.017 8.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.13 0.91 52.0 9 R2 14 0.0 0.017 7.8 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.13 0.91 51.5 Approach 20 0.0 0.017 7.9 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.13 0.91 51.7 West: Cremona - EB 10 L2 14 0.0 0.026 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 57.0 11 T1 36 0.0 0.026 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 58.5 Approach 51 0.0 0.026 1.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.17 58.1 All Vehicles 101 0.0 0.026 2.7 NA 0.1 0.4 0.04 0.30 56.8
INTERSECTION 7: CREMONA & ROAD D MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC4 - 2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road D SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h East: Cremona - WB 5 T1 24 0.0 0.015 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.12 58.7 6 R2 6 0.0 0.015 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.12 56.6 Approach 29 0.0 0.015 1.2 NA 0.0 0.2 0.06 0.12 58.3 North: Road D - SB 7 L2 6 0.0 0.017 8.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.12 0.92 52.0 9 R2 14 0.0 0.017 7.8 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.12 0.92 51.5 Approach 20 0.0 0.017 7.9 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.12 0.92 51.7 West: Cremona - EB 10 L2 26 0.0 0.029 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.28 56.0 11 T1 29 0.0 0.029 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.28 57.5 Approach 55 0.0 0.029 2.6 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.28 56.8 All Vehicles 105 0.0 0.029 3.2 NA 0.1 0.4 0.04 0.36 56.1
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC8 - 2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Cremona & Road D SC8 - 2021 Sat Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h East: Cremona - WB 5 T1 12 0.0 0.009 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.07 0.19 58.0 6 R2 6 0.0 0.009 5.6 LOS A 0.0 0.2 0.07 0.19 55.9 Approach 18 0.0 0.009 1.9 NA 0.0 0.2 0.07 0.19 57.3 North: Road D - SB 7 L2 6 0.0 0.016 8.1 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.93 52.0 9 R2 13 0.0 0.016 7.7 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.93 51.5 Approach 19 0.0 0.016 7.8 LOS A 0.1 0.4 0.10 0.93 51.7 West: Cremona - EB 10 L2 13 0.0 0.019 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.21 56.6 11 T1 24 0.0 0.019 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.21 58.1 Approach 36 0.0 0.019 2.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.21 57.6 All Vehicles 73 0.0 0.019 3.5 NA 0.1 0.4 0.04 0.39 55.9
INTERSECTION 8: ROAD B & SHOPPING CENTRE ACCESS MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC4 - 2021 PM With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Road B & Shopping Centre Access SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effe ctive Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Road B - NB 1 L2 419 0.0 0.240 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 53.9 2 T1 28 0.0 0.240 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 55.2 Approach 447 0.0 0.240 5.2 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.54 54.0 North: Road B - SB 8 T1 12 0.0 0.017 1.3 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.33 55.8 9 R2 13 0.0 0.017 7.0 LOS A 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.33 53.9 Approach 25 0.0 0.017 4.3 NA 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.33 54.8 West: Shopping Centre Acces - EB 10 L2 13 0.0 0.477 8.8 LOS A 3.0 20.8 0.40 0.96 50.8 12 R2 418 0.0 0.477 10.1 LOS B 3.0 20.8 0.40 0.96 50.3 Approach 431 0.0 0.477 10.0 LOS B 3.0 20.8 0.40 0.96 50.3 All Vehicles 902 0.0 0.477 7.5 NA 3.0 20.8 0.20 0.74 52.2
MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: SC8 - 2021 Sat With dev Tshepisong Ext 4 Road B & Shopping Centre Access SC4 - 2021 PM Peak - With dev traffic Stop (Two-Way)
Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID ODMo Demand Flows Deg. Satn Average Level of 95% Back of Queue Prop. Effective Average v Total HV Delay Service Vehicles Distance Queued Stop Rate Speed veh/h % v/c sec veh m per veh km/h South: Road B - NB 1 L2 553 0.0 0.303 5.5 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.57 53.7 2 T1 11 0.0 0.303 0.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.57 55.0 Approach 564 0.0 0.303 5.5 NA 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.57 53.7 North: Road B - SB 8 T1 9 0.0 0.023 2.1 LOS A 0.1 0.7 0.51 0.44 54.8 9 R2 18 0.0 0.023 7.7 LOS A 0.1 0.7 0.51 0.44 52.9 Approach 27 0.0 0.023 5.7 NA 0.1 0.7 0.51 0.44 53.5 West: Shopping Centre Acces - EB 10 L2 18 0.0 0.668 10.1 LOS B 6.4 45.1 0.39 1.05 49.1 12 R2 553 0.0 0.668 12.6 LOS B 6.4 45.1 0.39 1.05 48.7 Approach 571 0.0 0.668 12.5 LOS B 6.4 45.1 0.39 1.05 48.7 All Vehicles 1161 0.0 0.668 8.9 NA 6.4 45.1 0.21 0.80 51.1
ANNEXURE E:
PROPOSED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS & NON-MOTORIZED PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES - MARITENG PLAN NO.: 183-95-01
ANNEXURE F:
CAPACITY RESULTS FROM AUTOJ
INTERSECTION 1: KAGISO & GEBA
INTERSECTION 2: KAGISO & CREMONA
ANNEXURE G:
STANDARD SPLAYS - JRA DRAWING NO.: JRA-SD-RD-070
ANNEXURE G:
EXTRACT FROM TMH 16 VOLUME 2 - THROAT LENGTH REQUIREMENTS