Line 2A CBD to Hatfield

Route Options Report

AM Consulting Engineers

Initiated by Prepared by First Review by Final Review by Approved by

Mr. Stephen de Ms Lungile Madlala Mr. Rob Kelly Mr. Marius Marks Ms Lungile Madlala Stadler

______Signature Signature Signature Signature Signature

Table of Contents

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Background ...... 2 1.2 Need for the TRT System ...... 2 1.3 Overall System Network ...... 3

2 Land Use, Station Planning and TRT Integration ...... 5

3 Route Analysis ...... 10 3.1 Patronage ...... 10 3.1.1 Inception Phase Patronage Results ...... 12 3.1.2 Phase 1D – Rainbow Junction to Denneboom ...... 12 3.1.3 Patronage Conclusions ...... 13 3.2 Traffic Impact Assessment ...... 13 3.2.1 Traffic Forecasting Methodology ...... 14 3.2.2 Base Year Traffic Analysis ...... 19 3.2.3 Opening Year Traffic Analysis ...... 23 3.2.4 Overall Operation Performance Comparison ...... 27 3.3 Conclusions of TIA ...... 28 3.4 Operational Costs ...... 29 3.4.1 Route Length ...... 29 3.4.2 Impact on Operating Costs ...... 30 3.4.3 TRT Vehicle Speeds...... 30 3.4.4 TRT Fleet ...... 30 3.4.5 Implementation Cost...... 30 3.4.6 Conclusions to Operational Cost Review ...... 31

4 Environmental Impacts ...... 32

5 Appraisal of Route Options ...... 36 5.1 Demand ...... 36 5.2 Environment ...... 37 5.3 Safety ...... 38

5.4 Cost ...... 38 5.5 Integration, Accessibility and Social Inclusion ...... 39 5.5.1 Integration ...... 39 5.5.2 Accessibility and Social Inclusion ...... 40 5.6 Summary ...... 40

6 Conclusion and Recommendation ...... 41 6.1 Recommendations ...... 41

1 Introduction

1.1 Background The objective of the IRPTN/BRT Project is to design and construct a network of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Lines in the City of Tshwane providing a world class public transport for all of the inhabitants of the City and its suburbs. The City of Tshwane Integrated Transport Plan (SPT) 2006-2011 sets out the goals and objectives for transport in the City over the 5 year timeframe. It sets out the Transport Vision as follows:

“An integrated Transport System that meets the needs of all the people of Tshwane in a sustainable and affordable manner”

The four over-arching transport goals are: • Improve accessibility and mobility provided by the transport system; • Develop a transport system that drives economic growth; • Improve the safety and security of the transport system; and • Development of a transport system that reflects the image of the city.

Further the Plan states that: • Higher priority must be given to public transport over private transport; • Travel demand management measures should be used to discourage private transport; and • Accessibility to public transport should be enhanced for those with disabilities.

The Strategic Public Transport Network (SPTN) identifies a number of objectives designed to achieve these goals and key amongst these is the development of a Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT) which has the potential to address a number of these goals. The proposals include for the delivery of 8 individual BRT routes over the coming years all accessing the Pretoria CBD. In the City of Tshwane the BRT will be known as a Tshwane Rapid Transit (TRT).

1.2 Need for the TRT System The City of Tshwane (CoT) has over the years, like many other metropolitan cities in developing and developed countries, been faced with the challenge of dysfunctional public transport systems and infrastructure which is unreliable, unsafe, inconvenient and unsustainable. The current system is further compounded by the lack of integration of the various modes of public transport operating within the same space. Due to the state of the public transport system, a significant number of the population, estimated at over 60% of the city’s population, depend on the use of private vehicles for regular commuting. The high dependency in the use of private transport, together with the lack of an integrated approach to public transport inevitably results in high transport costs for commuters, significant traffic congestion in the city’s road networks which results in longer journey times. Longer journey times, particularly for travel to work and business trips have significant economic implications due to lost productivity.

The continued improvement and expansion of the Cities roads infrastructure is not a sustainable means of dealing with the above challenges. The approach would further add to the infrastructure costs without any significant benefits to the City and improved condition to the users. This option is also deemed to exacerbate pollution and negatively add to the carbon footprint of the City. The development of the TRT system for the COT within the framework of the Integrated Rapid Public transport Network (IRPTN) and strategy for the city is intended to transform the provision of public transport for the City in a manner that will address the challenges highlighted above earlier in a coordinated approach.

1.3 Overall System Network The approved system network Tshwane Rapid Transit (TRT) system proposed for the City of Tshwane is intended to link the key nodes of Soshanguve in the North-western and Mamelodi in the north eastern with the CBD and key commercial and employment nodes of Hatfield and Menlyn. The approved trunk routes, which have a separate right of way for the articulated TRT buses, includes Line 1, which will connect Sohanguve from Kopanong and the Tshwane CBD, and Line 2 will run between the Tshwane CBD , via Menlyn and terminate in Denneboom in Mamelodi. The implementation of the infrastructure will be done in phases for construction and operations purposes as follows. a) Line 1 i. Line 1A: CBD to Rainbow Junction ii. Line 1B: Rainbow Junction to Akasia iii. Line 1C: Akasia to Kopanong b) Line 2 i. Line 2A: CBD to Hatfield (Inception Phase) ii. Line 2B: Hatfield to Menlyn iii. Line 2C: Menlyn to Denneboom (Mamelodi)

The city has taken a decision to implement Line 2A from the Tshwane CBD to Hatfield as the Inception Phase for the project, with a “Go Live Date” for the commencement of operations in April 2014. The current planning for Line 2A will take the BRT between the CBD and Hatfield via the streets of Skinner, Kotze, Jorissen, Lynwood and University. The suggested alternate route for Line 2A would still travel between the CBD and Hatfield, but would rather use the corridor of Park Street. Line 2 is further proposed to extend to Menlyn, and therefore both of the route options will need to be able to make this extension connection.

Figure 1.1 Alternative TRT Route alignments for Line 2A

Concept designs have been created for both route options so as a comparison could be made. The drawings for the Jorissen Street alignment are attached in Appendix 1, with the Park Street Options available in Appendix 2. This report has been prepared to provide a recommendation as to which is the optimum alignment for the Line 2 from the CBD to Hatfield for both the initial Inception Phase and the following longer phase to Menlyn and beyond.

2 Land Use, Station Planning and TRT Integration

The future growth of the City Tshwane (COT) is an important consideration when assessing the future growth and demand of the TRT System. The Tshwane Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework MSDF and Regional Spatial Development Frameworks RSDF’s provided the insight into the locations of stations as well as the incremental increasing of the size of stations with the rapid growth of investments in particular areas identified. This section summarises the findings of the Land Use and Transportation Integration Planning Report, with the full Report found in Annexure 3 A key aspect of the MSDF was the identification of Hatfield and Menlyn as key Metropolitan Nodes with Tshwane Inner City identified as the Capital Core with particular importance to Line 2A of the Tshwane TRT System. The Tshwane MSDF clearly states that: “The sustainability of the nodal concept is dependent on the connectivity and ease of access from one node to the other. As efficient as a node may be within itself, the node will not be sustainable if the target users cannot access it” A fundamental aspect taken into consideration when identifying the locations for the stations was the integration with existing land uses as well as future spatial planning. The structural form of current land use patterns and planned developments along Jorissen Street or Park Street lends itself to the development of high catchment areas centered on suitable location of stations. Population data as well as forecasted growth along the corridor also promulgated the need to provide access in direct proximity in Sunnyside/Arcadia along Line 2A. Table 2.1 below indicates that the Jorissen Street alignment has a higher current population and will continue to have a higher population into the future based on current growth projections. While the Park Street alignment currently has a larger Formal Worker population, based on current projections the Jorissen Street Alignment will increase at a higher level in the coming years and by 2037 it is projected to be at the same level as the Park Street Alignment. Overall the two routes have a relatively similar catchment population, although the soci-economic profile, and thus car ownership levels may differ somewhat.

Table 2.1 Comparison between Alternatives: Population, Formal Workers, 2010, 2037

2010 2010 - 2037 2037 2010 2010 - 2037 2037 Formal Formal Formal Option Description Population Population Population Workers Workers Workers 1 CBD: PHASE 1 (Paul Kruger to Nelson Mandela) 13 205 8 605 21 810 49 910 10 853 60 763

2 CBD HATFIELD LINK: PHASE 1 (Jorissen-University-Lynnwood-Duxbury) 44 812 33 178 77 990 39 317 44 426 83 743 - Sunnyside/Arcadia 32 140 17 248 49 389 23 363 8 742 32 105 - Hatfield Node 12 672 15 930 28 601 15 953 35 684 51 638 3 CBD HATFIELD LINK: ALTERNATIVE 1 (Park Street-Grosvenor-Duxbury) 39 529 30 734 70 263 41 491 42 143 83 634 - Sunnyside/Arcadia 26 858 14 804 41 662 25 538 6 459 31 996 - Hatfield Node 12 672 15 930 28 601 15 953 35 684 51 638

The preferred Line 2A alignment from CBD-Hatfield traverses through three zones identified in the MSDF namely: • Zone 1:Medium to high density populated residential area of Sunnyside served by Kotze/Jorissen Street; • Zone 2: Institutional core precincts which consists of a number of schools, tertiary institutions sports and recreational facilities; and • Zone 3: Hatfield CBD and public transport intermodal zones such as Gautrain and PRASA.

Figure 2.1 Zone Cores along Line 2A as identified in MSDF 2012

Suitably located stations not only provide access within these zones to the TRT System but also provide access to these zones from outlying areas generating increased movement to these zones due to the integration of station location and land uses. An example of such is the increased accessibility of Loftus Stadium due to the location of the TRT Station on Lynwood Road and Kirkness Road making it easier to travel to and from the stadium via the TRT System. A second example is the location of station adjacent to the Sunnyside Public Swimming Pool. Key considerations when identifying the location of TRT stations related to current Land-uses along the Line 2A alignments are as follows: • provide stations within 500m of medium to high density residential areas particularly in Sunnyside along Jorissen and Kotze Street to promote and enhance NMT access to the stations; • integration of the TRT System with other key public transport modes such as Metro and Gautrain;

• identification of educational institutions such as University of Pretoria, Pretoria Boys High, Vega College, College Campus etc and providing key access to and from the Tshwane TRT System to these institutions; • identification of sports and recreation centres such as Loftus Rugby Stadium, Sunnyside Swimming Pool, Pretoria Tech Boys High Sports Fields etc; • identification of key non-motorized transport NMT desire lines as experienced along sections of Line 2A where huge pedestrian demands exists and providing key linkages to various trip generators; • Identification of existing development opportunities such as the new medium density units being constructed by Mid-City developments on Jorissen Street; and • Identification of commercial and health facilities along Esselen Street and CBD which should be located within a catchment of a TRT Station.

Figure 2.2 indicates the current land use along both the Park Street and Jorissen Street Alignments.

Figure 2.2 Land Uses along the Jorissen and Park Street TRT Alignment Options.

Accessibility

Both route alignments offer the TRT System large catchment areas, thus accessibility in these areas is dependent on suitably positioned TRT stations within these catchments. Zones such as Tshwane CBD, Sunnyside, Hatfield, Menlyn, etc offer high demand areas and thus it is essential to provide adequate and accessible stations within these zones. A Typical TRT Station catchment boundary ranges between 500m – 800m around each station providing linkages from stations to various land uses (schools, hospitals, sports grounds, shopping centres etc) by sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure. Half (approximately 45%) of the forecasted patronage of the TRT System are to be attained via cycling and walking and thus locating stations close to trip attractions such of Loftus Stadium, Sunnyside Swimming Pool, University of Pretoria, Gautrain station etc are essential. The figure below indicates a typical station catchment area with key land uses identified. This figure was prepared using GIS software, with all stations assessed in this manner.

Figure 2.3 Land Use and Tshwane TRT Station Linkage Integration

The TRT system is designed to provide stations at 500m-1000m centers along each corridor and to maximize accessibility to key land uses along each corridor. The EMME demand model outputs, to be discussed later in this report, forecasts future boarding and alighting patronage figures as well as the existing public transport demand along each of the alternative alignments being reviewed here.

Figure 2.4 Retro Tram Station Design Concept

Non-Motorized Transport

No public transport system is sustainable without a Non-Motorized Traffic (NMT) Network plan supplementing the system. As indicated above accessibility and integration are key to the success of the TRT System. Key parameters around the NMT Plan will be the provision of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure within 500-2000m of each station. The NMT network will also provide integration of various land use facilities (malls, schools, hospitals, parks etc), public transport facilities to the TRT System.

Public Transport Integration

The integration of public transport systems are fundamentally essential in providing a public transport system that is coherent, effective, cost effective, and reliable and supporting the growth and development of the City of Tshwane. It is thus essential that the TRT System integrates with Gautrain and PRASA Rail Services which are vital components of an Integrated Rapid Public Transport Network (IRPTN) for the City. The locations of stations thus also took into consideration the interface between rail services and the TRT System.

3 Route Analysis

3.1 Patronage

In order to estimate the difference between the Park Street and Jorissen Street TRT Alignments an EMME modelling exercise has been undertaken of both alignments to estimate the patronage numbers that would use the proposed TRT. The results of this assessment are presented for the first two operational phases of the BRT system, i.e. i. Phase 1a (Inception) of operations which has a trunk route running between the CBD and Hatfield; ii. Phase 1b/c of operations which has a trunk route operating between Akasia and Menlyn with the associated complimentary and feeder routes. The comparison of the two alignments for each phase is operational in nature and is presented in terms of: • Annual passenger numbers; • Annual System Revenue (Fare revenue); • Estimated bus fleet; and • Business Operating Cost (BOC). Moreover, for consistency, the following were kept constant in both simulations: • The BRT fare of R5 + R0.40/km; • The BRT headways of 3 minutes; • The average BRT speed (although this gets adjusted by the EMME model depending on the number of stops); • The station dwell time of 30 seconds.

The Figures below indicate the routing modelled for the Inception Phase Operating Plan:

Figure 3.1 Park Street EMME Model Run for Inception Phase

Figure 3.2 Jorissen Street EMME Model Run for Inception Phase

3.1.1 Inception Phase Patronage Results The Inception phase operates from the CBD to Hatfield and is to be operation in the first half of 2014. This section provides a comparison of the EMME simulation results for the two alignment options. The following table shows the number of annual passenger trips on each alignment. The table also shows the income and costs associated with these demands also.

Table 3.1 Comparison of Jorissen and Park Street Alignment Options – Inception Phase Inception Phase 1a Alignment Annual System Pax Annual System Revenue Fleet Requirement Annual BOC Ops Cost

Park Street 4,699,781 32,833,629 19 14,591,143 Jorissen Street 7,544,025 52,704,098 30 23,421,506 Difference 37.7% 37.7% 37.7% 37.7%

These results indicate that the Jorissen Street Alignment attracts in the region of 38% extra passengers in the AM Peak period in comparison to the Park Street Alignment. This appears to be primarily as a result of its closer proximity to the Sunnyside area, where this alignment is located at the centre of relatively dense development. While this higher demand generates a higher fleet demand and thus operating cost it is more than made up for in higher Annual Revenue’s.

3.1.2 Phase 1D – Rainbow Junction to Denneboom The same analysis has been undertaken for a later Phase of operations, where the BRT will run from Rainbow Junction to Denneboom (estimated to be fully operational 2016/17)

Table 3.2 Comparison of Jorissen and Park Street Alignment Options – Phase D Phase 1d Alignment Annual System Pax Annual System Revenue Fleet Requirement Annual BOC Ops Cost

Park Street 43,401,764 459,215,965 247 153,012,931 Jorissen Street 46,859,499 506,419,183 262 164,123,509 Difference 7.4% 9.3% 5.7% 6.8%

While this includes a much more extensive network, it is clear that the selection of the correct alignment through Sunnyside has a significant impact on the viability of the TRT System. This indicates that the Jorissen Street alignment will carry over 7% more passengers and generate over 9% more fare income compared to the alternative Park Street alignment.

3.1.3 Patronage Conclusions This investigation has shown that from a pure passenger demand perspective:

• The Jorissen Street alignment option creates more TRT passenger demand than the Park Street option; • This higher demand results from the alignment of the TRT services on corridors that better meet passenger needs, i.e. reduced walking distances and thus better passenger origin and destination connectivity; • There are two main alignment issues that increase passenger demand & connectivity in the Jorissen Street option: 1. The better alignment into, through and from Hatfield itself; 2. The alignment through Sunnyside instead of skirting the northern fringe of the suburb.

3.2 Traffic Impact Assessment A Traffic Impact Assessment is a means of assessing the impact of road proposals or other developments on a road network in order to see if remedial measures are required or not. A detailed Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has been undertaken of the Jorissen Street and Park Street BRT Alignments to assess if there is any significant difference between the options in terms of the generation of traffic congestion in the study area. The methodology adopted for this TIA requires two transportation modelling tools to simulate the traffic in the weekday peak hours and hence predict the intersection levels of service with and without the BRT Infrastructure. These are: • The City’s area wide EMME/3 transportation model, that simulates the weekday AM peak hour passenger demand by mode for the car, bus, taxi and commuter rail modes. The base year for this model is 2010, and the model simulates the AM peak hour. The new TRT mode is included in the model for forecasting purposes; The SATURN traffic simulation model developed for the detailed simulation of traffic in the TRT corridors. While not covering the same area of extent as the EMME model, the SATURN model is a wide area model that includes all the main roads in the city, and is able to provide estimates of the effects of roadway capacity constraints when the TRT lanes are introduced. Importantly, the model is able to predict the effects of vehicle diversion. The two routes assessed in this TIA are indicated on the image below and these are: Jorissen Street Alignments: • Nana Sita Street; • Kotze Street; • Jorissen Street; and • University Road.

Park Street Alignments: • Nana Sita Street; • Nelson Mandela Street; and • Park Street.

Figure 3.3 Line 2A Alignment Options.

This section summarises the findings of this TIA, with the full TIA found in Annexure 4.

3.2.1 Traffic Forecasting Methodology The City’s EMME/3 model was developed in 2009/2010, and is an updated version of previous models. It simulates the passenger trips movements for all modes (car, bus, taxi and commuter rail) in the 2010 weekday morning peak hour. The TRT passenger demand data is produced by the EMME/3 model. The model produces weekday morning peak hour estimates of passenger demand across all modes. It also provides other data such as passenger

kilometres by mode, the number of initial boarding’s and the total boarding’s, transfers and alighting at stations. Fare revenue estimates produced by the model are input into the financial analysis models.

The model development process is shown in the following figure.

Figure 3.4 Development Process of 2010 EMME/3 Model

A modal split analysis was conducted to determine the probability for commuters in the City of Tshwane to choose between different modes when a new TRT system is introduced. The existing modes that were considered were bus, train, minibus taxi and car. A revealed/stated preference experiment was conducted in 2010 where the respondents had to make a trade-off between their existing commuting transport mode and a hypothetical TRT system. These surveys were conducted in the central business district of Tshwane and at Mabopane, Menlyn and Rosslyn districts.

Figure 3.5 Structure and Process of Mode Choice Model

For the TIA, the two most important mode choice effects are as follows: i. The effect of the diversion of car users to the TRT system must be taken into account, as this effectively results in a reduction of car demand and the removal of car trips from the road network; ii. The effect of introducing of the TRT infrastructure will in some instances result in a decrease in road capacity for private cars. The effect of this will be to increase congestion levels and trip times, which in turn influences the mode choice by car users; iii. There will be the diversion of car trips from the TRT corridors onto alternative routes, and these effects must be taken into account by the SATURN model.

The following figure shows the flow process of data between the EMME and SATURN models. The important points to note are:

• The use of the EMME 2010 AM peak hour vehicle matrix as the starting point for the estimation of the SATURN 2012 AM peak hour matrix; • The updating of this EMME matrix with the 2012 AM peak hour intersection counts; • The need to take the mode change of passengers from cars to TRT into account into the SATURN model.

Figure 3.6 Data Flow Process between EMME and SATURN Models.

The extent of the study area is indicated in Figure 3.7 below. This indicates that most of the City of Tshwane’s road network is included in this model area with areas around the currently proposed TRT lines (Line 1 to Mabopane and Line 2 to Mamelodi) are coded in great detail where as areas away for the TRT are coded as Buffer Network.

Figure 3.7 Extent of SATURN Model Network

The coding of the simulation intersections along the TRT routing included the following detail:

• The lane geometry between intersections, (i.e. the number of lanes on the links); • The intersection geometry (i.e. number of lanes by turning movement on each approach, the turning lane lengths and turning movement saturation flows); • The intersection control type (i.e. traffic circle, stop, yield, signals, merge); • If signalised, the weekday AM peak hour cycle time, signal plan and green and inter-green times for each stage; • The signal offsets.

The assessment years, for this comparison purposes are as follows:

• Base Year – 2012 • Opening Year – 2014

For this alignment comparison an AM Peak Only assessment has been undertaken. Although it is noted that the impact of the Park Street alignment on the Francis Baard Street corridor (Eastbound route to Motorways) could be significant during the evening peak.

3.2.2 Base Year Traffic Analysis The following figure shows the base year AM peak hour assignment demand flows onto the SATURN network between the CBD and Hatfield. The bandwidth thicknesses are proportional to the traffic flows. For clarity, only the CBD to Hatfield flows are shown in the following series of figures. The flows are colour coded as follows:

• Flows up to 1,000 veh/hour are coded blue; • Flows between 1,000 and 2,000 veh/hour are shown in grey; • Flows 2,000 & 3,000 veh/hour are shown in green and greater than 3,000 in red.

Figures 3.8 and 3.9 indicate the existing traffic flows over the length of the two alignment options. The important highlights from these figures are as follows:

• There are four routes within the overall corridor with westbound (i.e. toward the CBD) traffic flows of approximately 2,000 veh/hour. These are: i. Church Street, carrying between 1,500 and 2,500 veh/hour; ii. Francis Baard Street (one-way eastbound) carries between 2,500 and 1,700 veh/hour; iii. Lynnwood Road that carries up to 2,000 veh/hour; and iv. Charles Street in the south that carries up to 2,000 veh/hour westbound. • Pretorius Street (one-way westbound) carries up to 3,500 veh/hour. • The north-south corridors that carry significant traffic volumes are: i. Nelson Mandela Drive; ii. The one-way pairs of Jeppe and Troy Streets; and iii. Jan Shoba Street which carries volumes in excess of 2,000 veh/hour in both directions.

Of particular concern for this report are the two alignments being assessed here:

• Park Street carries up to 1,100 veh/hour (westbound) as it merges with Francis Baard Street, but volumes of approximately 500 veh/hour in the eastbound direction; and • The Jorissen / Kotze Street corridor carries up to 1,400 veh/hour westbound, and up to 600 veh/hour eastbound.

Figure 3.8 2012 AM Peak Hour Flows between CBD and Hatfield (Veh/Hour)

Figure 3.9 2012 AM Peak Hour Flows between CBD and Hatfield (Veh/Hour)

2012 Junction Assessment A detailed junction capacity assessment was undertaken for both alignments using the 2012 Base Traffic flows. The results of this can be seen in the detailed TIA. The results presented include intersection delays and associated Level of Service (LoS) as per the US Highway Capacity Manual definitions for the intersections along both alignments. In general junctions along both alignments currently have a LoS of C or above, with most having a B and above. Thus most junctions are operating with little or no delay for the current traffic flows. The only exceptions to this is the Park Street/ Leyds Street junction which has two arms operating above the capacity of the junction with perceptible delays being experienced by drivers.

3.2.3 Opening Year Traffic Analysis The Opening Year for the Line 2A is expected to be 2014, therefore a 2014 traffic model has been created for assessment of the Opening Year. This model has been created using appropriate traffic growth factors and allowing for changes in flows due to Modal Shift towards the TRT along this alignment. The important SATURN modelling considerations in regard to the TRT coding are:

• While this report considers the traffic impact of Line 2, both the TRT lines are included in the model. This has been done to ensure that the traffic impacts and effects of both lines are reflected in the results. This network analysis approach for this analysis is critical; • The proposed road closures in the CBD associated with Project Reclaim are taken into account, i.e.: o The two north-south corridors of Lilian Ngoyi and Sisulu Streets between Madiba and Pretorius Streets; o The Church Street east-west corridor between Sisulu Street and du Toit Street; • The inclusion of the TRT exclusive lanes, and the adjustment of the existing lane configurations on the road links and at the intersections; • The removal of right turn traffic lanes at certain intersections to allow for TRT bus movements; • When forecasting, all the phases at all the signalised intersections in the simulation network have been optimised. This is a necessary step to reflect the effects of the Urban Traffic Control (UTC) system that will be introduced. The SATURN algorithm for intersection delay minimisation has been used; • The signal off-sets are also optimised.

The TRT layouts used in the development of the SATURN model are the Preliminary Designs which were available in July 2012.

Figure 3.10 Weekday 2014 AM Peak Hour - Jorissen option (Veh/hour)

Figure 3.11 Weekday 2014 AM Peak Hour - Park Street option (Veh/hour)

The results that are of note with these link flows is as follows:

Table 3.3 Comparison of Traffic Volumes on Both TRT Alignments. (Note that the exact figures change along the alignment and this is only an indication of the changes only).

Park Street Park Street Jorissen Street Jorissen Street (Veh/Hr) (% change from (Veh/Hr) (% change from current) current)

2012 Base 1530 - 2020 -

Jorissen Street TRT 1906 +25% 1583 -27% Alignment

Park Street TRT 793 -52% 2325 +15% Alignment

Of note with these results is that the route where the TRT will run will see a significant reduction in traffic, while the alternative will see a substantial increase in traffic, for example if the Park Street Alignment is chosen, traffic volumes on Jorissen Street will increase by some 15% as a result of the diversion of traffic.

Intersection Capacity In an urban environment it is normally the junction capacities that dictate the overall congestion levels on a road. The SATURN model was used to estimate potential delays to vehicles and a LoS indication for each junction along both alignment options. The results indicate that the junctions on the Jorissen Street Alignment will be operating within acceptable limits, with overall LoS of C or greater and in general the overall junction rating is similar to that without the TRT lanes. A small number of arms have junctions are operating at capacity or slightly exceeding capacity, however delays are not significant, these include:

• Kotze Street / Jeppe Street; • Kotze Street / Troy Street; • Jorissen Street / Johnston Street; and • Jorissen Street / Walton Jameson Street.

Similarly the junctions along the Park Street alignment On the Park Street alignment generally operate with a LoS of C or greater. Closer examination suggests that arms of the following two junctions have arms that are at or slightly exceeding theoretical capacities:

• Park Street / Hamilton Street; and • Park Street / Leyds Street.

Therefore it can be concluded that the both routes can accommodate the proposed TRT routing with remaining traffic congestion being within acceptable limits. This is a result of traffic diverting to alternative routes away from the TRT alignment. Of particular relevance to this alignment assessment is that whichever route alignment is selected traffic on the other route increases significantly, i.e. where the Park Street alignment is selected traffic volumes increase considerably on Jorissen Street, thus increased congestion can be expected on this street, and vise-versa if the other routing is selected.#

3.2.4 Overall Operation Performance Comparison The SATURN summary assignment statistics provide a good comparison of the network wide improvement (or dis-improvement) of the operational performance of the network. This is done by means of comparison of several criteria on the network. These are:

• The over capacity queues: these are the queues generated at intersections as a result of the demand exceeding the supply. The result is estimated by summing all the vehicle delays across the simulation network and is measured in terms of vehicle-hours; • The link cruise travel times: this is the total time spent by vehicles in the network on the links only. It is also measure in vehicle-hours; • The total travel time: is the total time spent by all vehicles in the network on links and at junctions in the modelled period. It is measured in vehicle-hours, and can be used in an economic analysis to determine travel time savings benefits. When expanded to annual benefits from the weekday AM peak hour, the time savings can be substantial and normally make up the bulk of intervention economic benefits; • The total distance travelled is the total distance travelled by vehicles on the network in the modelled period. It is measured in vehicle-kms; • The average network speed is the network averaged vehicle speed during the modelled period. The objective of an intervention would be to maximise this value. It is measured in kph. The following table shows the changes in these criteria for the weekday AM peak hour, comparing the base year criteria with the Jorissen and Park Street alignment options. In both alignment options the criteria improve with the TRT system in place, despite the capacity reductions caused by the TRT infrastructure. The most important factor causing these improvements is the optimisation of the signal green splits and the

optimisation of the offsets. The Jorissen TRT alignment option shows better total travel times and total travel distances. The Park option shows better over capacity queue data. The average network speeds are identical. However the differences in all cases are small. While the SATURN model signal optimisation is difficult to achieve in practice, it is anticipated that the Urban Traffic Control (UTC) system that will be installed in the CBD and along the TRT corridors will significantly contribute to achieving these improvements.

Table 3.4 Network Performance Criteria Comparisons.

Existing 2012 2014 AM Peak Hour 2014 AM Peak Hour Criteria AM Peak Hour with TRT on Jorissen with TRT on Park Over Capacity Queues (Veh-hrs) 62 152 60 929 60 864 Link Cruise Times (Veh-hrs) 41 346 41 339 41 522 Total Travel Times (Veh-hrs) 109 295 107 522 107 685 Total Travel Distance (Veh-km) 3 015 695 3 011 690 3 020 235 Average Speed (kph) 27.60 28.00 28.0

3.3 Conclusions of TIA This TIA for Line 2 TRT alignment option comparison has shown that:

• The current weekday AM peak hour traffic operations in the modelled area are relatively good. The levels of service of those intersections simulated in the SATURN model are all acceptable; • The optimisation of the signal plans and the co-ordination of the signals are currently poor, with a substantial opportunity to improve traffic operations with the UTC system; • The introduction of the TRT lanes reduces the intersection capacities, but this can be mitigated by optimising the traffic signal settings and offsets; • The introduction of the TRT lanes will result in the deterioration of levels of service of some intersections along the TRT alignment. However these deteriorations are within acceptable limits; and • On a network basis, there is the potential for the introduction of the TRT infrastructure to have a minimal impact on the overall network performance. However the implementation of the UTC system is critical for the minimisation of the TRT traffic impact.

Therefore the network based difference between the Jorissen and Park Street alignment options are marginal with little or no difference between the options. However of note is the redistribution of existing traffic off the TRT corridor onto the other corridor, in this case the selection of the Park Street alignment results in a very high traffic flow on Jorissen Street during peak periods.

3.4 Operational Costs This section outlines the difference in operating costs between the Park Street and Jorissen Street TRT Alignment options.

3.4.1 Route Length Operational Costs of running buses is linked to the length of the route the buses will travel, assuming the number of stations is the same. The following indicates the length of the routes for the Inception Phase of this TRT Operations (Deviation Length Only, i.e. Nana Sita Street to Hatfield):

• Park Street Alignment: 4.2km • Jorissen Street Alignment 4.9km

Therefore for the Inception Phase the route via Park Street is approximately 14% shorter, which would result in a saving of 14% in bus operating costs (vehicle running costs) for the 1 to 2 year Inception Phase over this section of the TRT System. For the longer term routing to Menlyn and beyond the travel distances are a little more complex as most of the TRT routes are to follow a more direct line via Lynnwood, therefore the travel distance following the Inception phase and for the remaining period of operation is as follows (distance to Menlyn Shopping Centre):

• Park Street Alignment: 10.5km • Jorissen Street Alignment (via Hatfield): 10.9km • Jorissen Street Alignment (Via Lynnwood): 9.1km

For a typical 3 bus routing between Menlyn and the CBD the distances travelled by the two alternative routes will be as follows:

• Park Street Alignment: 31.5km • Jorissen Street Alignment 29.1km (2 on Lynnwood, one via Hatfield)

Therefore the Jorissen Street (with Hatfield Spur) alignment is approximately 8% shorter than the Park Street Alignment. Thus the vehicle operating costs via this alignment will be lower on the Jorissen Street alignment

3.4.2 Impact on Operating Costs While the operating costs in the Inception Phase will be lower using the Park Street alignment, due to the shorter length of the route, the operating costs will be lower on the Jorissen Street Alignment for the remainder of the TRT’s Design Life (25 years).

3.4.3 TRT Vehicle Speeds In general the two routes have very similar characteristics as a result there will be little difference in the TRT’s operating speeds in the Inception Phase and thus no change in operating costs. For the longer term operation to Menlyn a difference does appear as TRT vehicles passing through Hatfield centre will be held up at numerous junctions and will be operating in a slower speed environment, while TRT vehicles passing along Lynwood Road would be able to maintain optimum speed. While it is acknowledged that 33% of vehicles will enter Hatfield, even with the Jorissen Street Alignment, the majority of vehicles will continue along the Lynwood Alignment. Thus it can be concluded that TRT Vehicles can be operated at optimum efficiency on the Jorissen Street alignment as a result of express vehicles bypassing Hatfield.

3.4.4 TRT Fleet The size of the fleet is proportional to many parameters including route length. Assuming all other parameters were equal along each of the alignment options the route length would result in a higher number of TRT vehicles being required if the Park Street Alignment were selected. Looking at it in a simplistic manner 8% additional vehicles could be required if the Park Street Alignment were selected, however in reality the increased demands on the alternative Jorissen Street alignment increases the Fleet requirement in any case, although the reduced journey times allows the vehicles to be used more efficiently.

3.4.5 Implementation Cost The costs of implementing both route options have been estimated using rates from similar projects constructed in the region. The costs are clearly linked to the length of scheme to be constructed, thus the alignment via Park Street is somewhat lower than the Jorissen Street Alignment. The estimated costs are set out below (excluding contingencies, VAT etc):

• Park Street Alignment: approx. R130 million • Jorissen Street Alignment: approx. R135 million

However as with the operating costs this does not tell the full storey as the trunk line will have to be extended to Lynnwood Road, from the Gautrain Station, soon after the Inception phase becomes operational. While both options require routing through Hatfield to be provided the spur line from the Jorissen Street alignment can have a somewhat lower level of bus priority in comparison to the Park Street Alignment which will have to be full trunk in order to maintain a very high level of priority through the area. Comparing the cost of constructing the two alternatives between Nana Sita Street to Lynnwood Road (at Brooklyn Road), the construction costs are estimated as follows (excluding contingencies, VAT etc):

• Park Street Alignment: approx. R250 million • Jorissen Street Alignment: approx. R300 million

Therefore the CAPEX cost associated with the Jorissen Street alignment are approximately R50 million higher than the Park Street. Although earlier it was shown that the Jorissen Street alignment generates almost R50million extra revenue each year, offsetting this initial additional CAPEX Cost. An important point to note is that the deliverability of the trunk line from the Hatfield Gautrain Station to Lynwood is very problematic with significant engineering challenges to be overcome. Therefore while the initial cost estimate suggests it is somewhat cheaper the deliverability of a full trunk line may well costs significantly more than the estimate as a result of the significant Land Expropriation that would be required.

3.4.6 Conclusions to Operational Cost Review It can be concluded that while the initial CAPEX costs for the Jorissen Street Alignment are higher than the Park Street Alignment, the additional Passenger Revenue generated by this alignment means that this alignment is the most economically appropriate alignment for the City of Tshwane.

4 Environmental Impacts

This section briefly summarizes the potential Environmental Impact of the alternative TRT route alignments. This is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment, but a means of highlighting the differences between the two corridors in order to select the most appropriate route in terms of Environmental Impact. The table below lists typical environmental parameters that are used in an Environmental Impact Assessment and applies them, for comparison purposes, to the two alternative alignments.

Table 4.1 Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the Park Street and Jorissen Street Alignment for the Line 2A TRT

Impact Park Street Alignment Jorissen Street Alignment Difference between Alignments Topography The proposed TRT Line 2 A will, in The proposed TRT Line 2 A will, in Impact on Topography is general, be constructed within general, be constructed within the more or less the same on the existing road reserve and will existing road reserve and will not both routes. not alter the topography of the alter the topography of the road road or existing street alignment. or existing street alignment.

Certain sections of the road may Certain sections of the road may be filled or slightly lowered, but be filled or slightly lowered, but this will not have an impact on this will not have an impact on topography. topography.

The CoT intends to make use of The CoT intends to make use of existing municipal borrow pits for existing municipal borrow pits for the extraction of gravel material. the extraction of gravel material. No new borrow pits are No new borrow pits are envisaged. envisaged.

Climate The aim of the TRT is to reduce The aim of the TRT is to reduce Impact on Climate will be the number of cars and mini-bus the number of cars and mini-bus more or less the same taxi’s on the roads. There should taxi’s on the roads. There should whichever alignment is be a decrease in vehicle exhaust be a decrease in vehicle exhaust chosen; however the emissions and associated gaseous emissions and associated gaseous Jorissen Street alignment emissions as a result. emissions as a result. attracts more patrons and thus may have a marginally more positive Climate impact.

Impact Park Street Alignment Jorissen Street Alignment Difference between Alignments Soils There will be some loss of soils There will be some loss of soils More verges will be lost with within the road reserve in areas within the road reserve in areas the Park Street alignment where the road needs to be where the road needs to be due to the requirement to widened. widened. increase the carriageway width to accommodate the TRT; as a result the Park Street Alignment has a higher negative impact in terms of Soils.

Surface Water The potential for hazardous The potential for hazardous While the overall area of substances, domestic waste and substances, domestic waste and hardstand will be more or eroded soil to end up in eroded soil to end up in less the same whichever surrounding watercourses exists surrounding watercourses exists alignment is chosen, the Park during the construction process. during the construction process. Street alignment requires an increased area of hardstand Additional hardstand areas Additional hardstand areas compared to the current (carriageway, sidewalks etc) (carriageway, sidewalks etc) provision. As a result the surfaces due to the TRT will surfaces due to the TRT will Park Street alignment has a increase surface water run-off. increase surface water run-off. marginally higher negative impact on Surface Water.

Groundwater Unattended spills and leaks of Unattended spills and leaks of There is no apparent hazardous substances could hazardous substances could difference between the two eventually impact on eventually impact on alignments in regard to this groundwater resources and groundwater resources and Impact. aquifers. This could occur during aquifers. This could occur during construction and during the construction and during the operation of the TRT. operation of the TRT.

Flora and Fauna Disturbance and destruction of Disturbance and destruction of Less verge and mature trees vegetation and animal species vegetation and animal species and will have to be removed and habitats during construction habitats during construction during the construction of activities is likely to occur. activities is likely to occur. the TRT on the Jorissen Street in comparison to the A significant number of mature Some existing mature trees will Park Street alignment. trees located along Park Street need to be pruned, and a small (between Troye and Beckett and number will need to be removed again East of Orient Street may to accommodate the proposed need to be removed) will need to TRT. be removed.

The park land around the Pretoria Art museum will be partially impacted by construction of the

Impact Park Street Alignment Jorissen Street Alignment Difference between Alignments TRT on this alignment.

Air Quality Dust generated by earth moving Dust generated by earth moving There is no apparent machinery and vehicle machinery and vehicle difference between the two movements during construction movements during construction alignments in regard to this will occur, with a localised will occur, with a localised Impact. reduction in Air Quality likely for reduction in Air Quality likely for the construction period. the construction period. The introduction of the TRT will The introduction of the TRT will have an overall positive impact have an overall positive impact on on Air Quality due to a modal Air Quality due to a modal shift shift from Car mini-bus taxi’s to from Car mini-bus taxi’s to the the TRT. TRT.

Noise Increase in noise levels due to the Increase in noise levels due to the There is no apparent movement of trucks and movement of trucks and difference between the two machinery during construction. machinery during construction. alignments in regard to this Impact. There is unlikely to be a There is unlikely to be a perceivable noise impact (in perceivable noise impact (in comparison to current traffic comparison to current traffic noise) of the operation of the TRT noise) of the operation of the TRT on this alignment. on this alignment.

Heritage Negligible impact on a single Negligible impact on a number of There is little difference heritage building on this route. heritage buildings on this route. between the two alignments in regard to this impact.

Visual Activities, trucks, machinery and Activities, trucks, machinery and There is no apparent stockpiles will be visible along the stockpiles will be visible along the difference between the two length of the route and length of the route and alignments in regard to this surrounding areas for the surrounding areas for the Impact. duration of construction duration of construction activities. activities. The TRT will require the The TRT will require the construction of a number of construction of a number of Stations along this alignment Stations along this alignment which may be perceived to have a which may be perceived to have a negative impact on the negative impact on the surroundings, however the surroundings, however the stations have been designed to fit stations have been designed to fit into the surroundings and the into the surroundings and the impact should be negligible.

Impact Park Street Alignment Jorissen Street Alignment Difference between Alignments impact should be negligible. Employment opportunities will be Employment opportunities will be Socio-Economic There is no apparent created during the construction created during the construction difference between the two phase of this TRT. phase of this TRT. alignments in regard to this

Impact, although the Improved public transport system Improved public transport system Jorissen Street alignment within the City of Tshwane will within the City of Tshwane will provides improved provide workers and learners provide workers and learners with accessibility to a high density with a reliable and safe transport a reliable and safe transport residential area and thus option to get to and from their option to get to and from their provides improved place of work and education each place of work and education each accessibility for a high day. day. number of existing residents.

This preliminary environmental impact investigation suggests that the Jorissen Street alignment will have a more positive impact on the natural environment compared to the Park Street Alignment option.

5 Appraisal of Route Options

In undertaking an appraisal of the route options, the City of Tshwane has made reference to the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP), Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide (June 2007), which is the principal design manual used globally for the design of BRT Systems. This states that the choice of a route should be prioritised through the following considerations: • Maximise the Number of Beneficiaries of the new BRT System; • Minimise the negative impacts on general traffic; • Minimise operational costs; • Minimise implementation costs; • Minimise environmental impacts; • Minimise political obstacles to implementation; and • Maximise social benefits, especially to lower-income groups.

In the context of these considerations an appraisal has been undertaken of the route options of the Park Street and Jorissen Street Alignments using the following criteria: • Demand • Environment; • Safety; • Cost; • Accessibility and Social Inclusion; and • Integration.

Each of these headings is discussed in turn with the results indicated in Table 5.1 which follows.

5.1 Demand

Demand was discussed in a previous Chapter and it was shown that the Jorissen Street Alignment carries 8% more passengers than the alternative route via Park Street.

5.2 Environment

Details of the Environmental Impacts were detailed in Chapter 3 and are summarised below. The environmental evaluation takes place along a number of dimensions as follows: • Air quality: greenhouse gas and local air quality effects. • Noise and vibration: noise and vibration effects both in the construction and use phases. • Landscape and visual quality: key landscape characteristics affected; effects on key views; impact on landscape character. • Flora and Fauna: potential compliance/conflict with biodiversity objectives; indirect impacts on protected species, designated sites; overall effect on nature conservation resource. • Heritage: overall effect on cultural heritage resource. • Land use: overall impact on land take and property. • Water resources: overall potential significant effects on water resource attributes.

The emphasis in what follows is largely on the impacts in terms of the use phase.

Table 5.1 Environmental Impacts - comparison of alignments Impact Park Street Alignments Jorissen Street Alignments

Air quality General positive impacts on air General positive impacts on air quality due to diversion of travellers quality due to diversion of from Car/Taxi to Bus travellers from Car/Taxi to Bus (+). (+). Noise and Negligible negative impact (-). Negligible negative impact (-). vibration Landscape More severe Impact, as more Some impact, largely using the and visual widening would be required to existing centre lanes of the Street, quality provide a comparable level of Bus however some trees lost around Priority. (-). stations (-).

Flora and Significant impact due to extensive Some negative impact due to loss Fauns loss of non-indigenous trees along of a non-indigenous tree around the corridor (-). stations (-).

Heritage Negligible impact on a number of Negligible impact on a single heritage buildings along this route heritage building on this route (0). (0).

Impact Park Street Alignments Jorissen Street Alignments

Land use Marginally positive as route passes Positive Impacts as route passes close to some schools, hospitals and closer to a number of schools, some higher density residential Sunnyside and results in a higher areas (+). passenger demand (+).

Ranking 2 1

In summary the TRT Route, on either corridor will have a small number of negligible impacts on the environment, but the overall impact of introducing a TRT Route in this area will be positive in terms of the environment. Overall it is the Jorissen Street option being somewhat better as the construction impacts are lower, in addition it has a higher predicted passenger demand, thus potential to introduce a higher modal shift from the private car and Taxi; which has clear positive impacts on the environment.

5.3 Safety

Safety improvements can represent a significant element of the benefits that can be accrued from a TRT investment, as they divert travellers from road travel, via private car or taxi, too much safer BRT travel. It is important to note that the implementation of a TRT system on either of these routes will be developed in accordance with best international practise, with Road Safety Audits undertaken at appropriate stages. This methodology has been shown internationally to result in a positive road safety benefits for the Cities that have introduced similar systems. Therefore there is unlikely to be a difference between the two options in this regard as they are similar lengths and have a similar number of junctions; however both will have a marginally positive overall Safety Impact.

5.4 Cost

A cost estimate based on the pre-tender estimates for Jorissen Street and high-level preliminarily cost estimates were used to make a comparison for both options, with the estimates indicated in Table 5.2 below:

Table 5.2 CAPEX and OPEX Estimate for Route Options Jorissen Route Park Street Route Land and Buildings Acquired Low High Construction Cost Estimate (inception) R 135,000,000 R 130,000,000 Construction Cost Estimate (Phase 1d) R 300,000,000 R 250,000,000 Operating Costs per Annum (Phase 1d) R23,500,000 R14,600,000 Patronage Income R52,700,000 R33,000,000

Ranking 1 2

While the routes are very similar in length, there is a significant difference in the costs of the route, primarily due to the requirement to pass through Hatfield with a full Trunk Service (on the Park Street Alignment). While the shorter length of the Park Street Alignment will result in a lower operating cost for the buses in the Inception Phase, this advantage is lost as a result of the much higher patronage numbers on the Jorissen Street Alignment during this Phase. In the later phases the higher demand along the Jorissen Street alignment results in much higher Patronage Income which makes up for the initial higher CAPEX costs. Therefore the route via Jorissen Street would appear to be the preferred route in terms of the CAPEX and OPEX costs associated with the proposed Line 2 TRT System.

5.5 Integration, Accessibility and Social Inclusion

5.5.1 Integration

The integration impact of a transport project is considered under four headings:

• Transport integration; • Land use integration; • Geographical integration; and, • Integration with other government policies.

In general, both route options meet the requirements of local and national transport policies, however the Jorissen Street Alignment, due to the higher passenger demand that is generated through its closer proximity to Sunnyside and the number of schools, results in marginally better compliance.

5.5.2 Accessibility and Social Inclusion

This refers to the extent to which the BRT route will impact on vulnerable groups and deprived geographic areas. The link will improve the access to employment and education opportunities of all of those who have access to the service, there is little or no difference between the route options in this regard as both have strongly positive impacts in regard to accessibility and social inclusion.

5.6 Summary

The following summarises the results of this qualitative appraisal:

Table 5.3 Cost Estimate for Route Options Jorissen Route Park Street Route Demand 1 2 Environment 1 2 Safety =1 =1 Cost 1 2 Accessibility and Social =1 =1 Inclusion Integration 1 2

Ranking 1 2

The above comparison of the corridor suggests that, on these qualitative grounds, the route via Jorissen Street is the optimum routing for the Line 2A between Tshwane CBD and Menlyn Shopping Mall.

6 Conclusion and Recommendation

The overall conclusion of the assessment of the routing options for Line 2A between the CBD and Hatfield are as follows: • Park Street offers a more direct and shorter route between the CBD of the City of Tshwane and the district centre of Hatfield compared to the Kotze / Jorissen corridor. However, the routing through Hatfield to connect with the planned BRT Line 2B to Menlyn is challenging on both and engineering and public acceptance grounds; • Each corridor appears to offer good opportunities for three segregated BRT stations between the street of Nelson Mandela and Hatfield. The potential Park Street station options are regularly spaced giving good catchment for the populations and land-uses along the corridor. Also, the possible Park Street station closest to the Loftus Versfeld stadium complex seems to have significant space available to create a high capacity facility. However the two proposed stations on the Kotze / Jorissen corridor appear to be better located to serve the dense residential area of Sunnyside; • The Traffic Impact Assessment suggest that both options are viable and the TRT can be accommodated on either corridor, although traffic volumes will increase on the corridor which the TRT does not run on; • The environmental impact of the TRT is marginally more positive on the Jorissen Street alignment, primarily due to the larger loss of verge area, due to carriageway widening, on Park Street; • The Jorissen Street alignment has a significantly higher estimated passenger demand compared to the Park Street Alignment, thus it has a much higher Fare Revenue, increasing the viability of the TRT system as a whole; and • The Park Street alignment has a lower CAPEX costs, although the difficulties of constructing a Trunk Line on the eastern side of Hatfield has the potential to increase these costs significantly. While more expensive the revenue generated by the Jorissen Street alignment makes up for the higher CAPEX in just one year of full operation of the TRT System (from Rainbow to Denneboom).

6.1 Recommendations

Based upon the findings of this assessment, it is recommended that the alignment of BRT Line 2A between the City of Tshwane CBD and Hatfield should be via Kotze Street, Jorissen Street and University Road.

ANNEXURE 1: JORISSEN ALIGNMENT PRELIMINARY/CONCEPT DESIGN DRAWINGS

ANNEXURE 2: PARK STREET ALIGNMENT PRELIMINARY/CONCEPT DESIGN DRAWINGS

ANNEXURE 3: LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION INTEGRATION PLANNING REPORT

ANNEXURE 4: PARK STREET TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY